High Guard and computers

[Masconi]

In the High Guard combat rules (2nd ed. 1980), a "to-hit" modifier is mentioned for all weapon attacks: "+ relative computer size".

Most people seem to interpret this as a differential between the computer types of the firer/target, but this is not stated in the rules.

So I looked through the rules again and I found the definition of the term "relative computer size".

It is on page 28: "Model number is the RELATIVE SIZE of the computer, and corresponds to the computer model numbers given in Book 2".

This definition of the term "relative computer size" seems to clearly imply, that the modifier used on the to-hit roll is simply the addition of the computers model number.

There is no mention of a "differential" of some sort.

What do you think?

Masconi

 

[far-trader]

I would have to say "relative to what?" With the obvious answer being "relative to the opponent's computer."

The intent seems pretty clearly to simply apply a DM equal to the difference between the computer on each side.

That's backed up by HG 1st edition which explains it a bit clearer:

"In all cases, apply a DM equal to the difference between the attacking and defending ship's computers. For example, firing computer model 7 and target computer model 4; apply a DM of +3. If target computer is model 6 and firing computer model 1, apply a DM of -5"

2nd edition for whatever reason decided to drop some notes, like that above. As well as some other apparently good rules imo.

That bit on page 28 seems poorly worded imo.

 

[samuelvss]

The intent seems pretty clearly to simply apply a DM equal to the difference between the computer on each side.

...

That bit on page 28 seems poorly worded imo.

I agree.

I think that the only intent of the LBB2 reference is just that /fib and /bis designations are ignored.

You really have to destroy the meaning of "relative" in both places to get to Masconi's meaning. Is it a possible meaning? Yes: clearly it is both possible and the worst by a long shot.

 

[Whipsnade]

In the High Guard combat rules (2nd ed. 1980), a "to-hit" modifier is mentioned for all weapon attacks: "+ relative computer size".

Masconi,

Yup, that's the rule.

Most people seem to interpret this as a differential between the computer types of the firer/target, but this is not stated in the rules.

It's not stated explicitly in the rules, but it is implied by the use of the term "relative".

So I looked through the rules again and I found the definition of the term "relative computer size". It is on page 28: "Model number is the RELATIVE SIZE of the computer, and corresponds to the computer model numbers given in Book 2".

Exactly. You use the computer numbers found in LBB:2 to determine the computers' relative size to one another. The rule on page 28 shows people that they need to drop the "fib" and "bis" designators and use only the numbers.

This definition of the term "relative computer size" seems to clearly imply, that the modifier used on the to-hit roll is simply the addition of the computers model number.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The use of the term "relative" implies that the two computers are contrasted. You judge one computer relative to the other.

You've also completely ignored the explicit depiction in the rules of the relative computer To-Hit modifier as either a positive or negative number. Seeing as you cannot have negative computer rating to produce a negative modifier, the fact that the computer modifier is produced by contrasting the opposing computers is obvious.

There is no mention of a "differential" of some sort.

The use of a differential is implied when the term "relative" is used.

What do you think?

First: That English is an altogether sloppy language and the words used in it can be notoriously imprecise to non-native speakers.

Second: Your "Add the computer rating to the To-Hit roll" idea makes a mockery of the 2D6 system HG2 uses. In most To-Hit attempts once computer ratings reached 5 or 6, hits would almost become automatic. The 2D6 system isn't "big" enough to handle such huge modifiers.

Third: The fact that HG2 still works as a wargame is partially due to it's combat mechanisms. HG2 has been played for nearly thirty years now. If it were as broken as you suggest or if its designers at GDW were as you stupid as suggest, it wouldn't have lasted that long.

A lot of people have been looking at this game for a long time now. You aren't going to find something all those people haven't found over all that time.


Regards,
Bill

 

[dccarles]

Third: The fact that HG2 still works as a wargame is partially due to it's combat mechanisms. HG2 has been played for nearly thirty years now. If it were as broken as you suggest or if its designers at GDW were as you stupid as suggest, it wouldn't have lasted that long.

A lot of people have been looking at this game for a long time now. You aren't going to find something all those people haven't found over all that time.

I'd say the space combat portion of High Guard fails as a wargame. There are very few meaningful decisions one can make in combat. By 'meaningful' I mean 'decisions that matter and there isn't one obvious superior solution.' There's also a lot of rolling and mechanical crunchwork. In short, it's all fire and (almost) no maneuver.

Before I am baked alive in the core of a fusion plant for my heresy, allow me to explain: I think the ship design system portion of High Guard makes it as a game. The combat system serves as a system for evaluating the quality of one's designs. In the design process, there are spongloads of meaningful decisions to make. Everything costs something; you have to decide how each system will contribute to your ship and how your ship will contribute to your fleet.

It's the design system, I believe, that is High Guard's crowning triumph.

--Devin

 

[Whipsnade]

I'd say the space combat portion of High Guard fails as a wargame. There are very few meaningful decisions one can make in combat. By 'meaningful' I mean 'decisions that matter and there isn't one obvious superior solution.' There's also a lot of rolling and mechanical crunchwork. In short, it's all fire and (almost) no maneuver.

Devin,

You'll be surprised, but I happen to agree with your assessment of HG2 as a wargame...

... up to a point.

HG2 is a very poor choice when used for "player scale" combat - that is, when used for combat involving small ships, involving small numbers of ships, and/or combat in which player-charecter skill levels matter. "Tactical" is another word that can be used to describe "player scale" combat and we need to remember that HG2 isn't a tactical level wargame at all. HG2 is an operational level wargame and that's another kettle of fish entirely.

Expecting that there be spongeloads(1) of "player scale" or "tactical level" decisions in an operational level wargame is a bit of conceptual error.

(Wargames roughly fall into three catagotries; tactical, operational, and strategic. The boundaries of those catagories tend to bleed into each other. Also, games that operate on one level usually have aspects from another; i.e. operational games with tactical "flourishes".)

From an operational standpoint and IMHO, HG2 is a successful wargame. It allowed me to handle large numbers of large ships with spongeloads of weapons in a fairly quick manner. I didn't need to move formations around a map and the statistical resolution of all the various rolls was obvious even before TCS mentioned it. I can't emphasize the "large numbers of ships/weapons" aspect more strongly; play Starfleet Battles or Starfire with a dozen battlewagons on a side and see how long a single turn takes.

I also found there were enough tactical "flourishes" in HG2's operational framework to add to gameplay without slowing the game down. Decisions about "pig piling" and the defensive use of weapons(2) are about as meaningful as you can get while still keeping the game flowing.

We also need to remember that GDW was operating under size constraints when it put together HG2. Due to various "dead tree" printing restrictions, those LLBs could only be so big and in HG2 GDW had to find room for advanced naval chargen, large ship construction across multiple tech levels, and a wargame. They created an operational level wargame due to the speed of play concerns I mentioned above (big numbers/ships/weapons) and further abstracted it due to size concerns. If you factor in the constraints GDW was under, I'm sure you'll appreciate HG2 at least a little bit more.

One final note; I strongly agree with you that the ship design system is the best part of the entire HG2 book.


Regards,
Bill


1 - That is one of my new favorite words! Thank you!

2 - "Pig piling" comes about because of the Ugo-Igo nature of weapons fire in the game. When your opponent presents a ship as a target, you must announce all the batteries on all the ships you'll fire at it. Because you only get partial information about the damage you've done, you can easily assign batteries to fire at a mission-killed vessel and thus "waste" them.

The choices about defensive fire are equally vital. If a ship is down in the firing "queue", you cannot use all of its batteries offensively because you don't yet know what weapons your opponent will target it with. With batteries "frozen" like this, you might not be able to use them offensively at all.

 

[BillDowns]

I agree with Devin's assessment of High Guard as a wargame. I do like the character development rules and construction rules (mostly), but I do not care for the combat rules. Where HG falls down, IMO, is in the use of smallcraft, and multi-ship batteries, and the overall emphasis upon huge - not just big, but HUGE - starships.

And, Bill, I am curious what you mean by "operational wargame". I've been wargaming for well over 30 years and haven't heard that term. Please explain, with an example or two.

 

[tbeard1999]

I agree with Devin's assessment of High Guard as a wargame. I do like the character development rules and construction rules (mostly), but I do not care for the combat rules. Where HG falls down, IMO, is in the use of smallcraft, and multi-ship batteries, and the overall emphasis upon huge - not just big, but HUGE - starships.

And, Bill, I am curious what you mean by "operational wargame". I've been wargaming for well over 30 years and haven't heard that term. Please explain, with an example or two.

I think he's talking about playability. Not to put words in his mouth, but his comparison of HG with Star Fleet Battles strongly implies this.

FWIW, and in my experience, "operational level" wargames are generally games in which a counter represents a battalion-brigade.

 

[Whipsnade]

And, Bill, I am curious what you mean by "operational wargame". I've been wargaming for well over 30 years and haven't heard that term. Please explain, with an example or two.

Bill,

Tbeard correctly deciphered the ways I was using the term "operational" in my meandering post. It refers to both the speed of play and the size of the units involved.

Operational is often also referred to as "grand tactical" if that helps. The boundaries between the three levels of gaming are also blurry and "flourishes" from one level often are part of a game that mostly operates on another.

As for examples, hmmm....

ASL is tactical obviously, as is Panzerblitz. Afrika Korp is operational, while The Russian Campaign and Third Reich are strategic. GDW's Phaseline Smash is an operational game. The superb series of ACW games from AH that included Stonewall Jackson's Way are opertional.

As a game's level "increases" from tactical through operational to strategic, the size of the formations involved generally. Equally importantly, the effect of movement or maneuver on combat generally decreases. That last bit is what places HG2 firmly in the opertional camp.

HG2 doesn't even have a map and ships only move between two "holding boxes". While HG2 combat does involve tactical units; i.e. ships, they aren't really used in a tactical manner. While there are tactical flourishes in the game, your decisions are nearly wholly operational. You decide when your group of ships should close with the enemy, when they should open range as a group, how their fire should be concentrated as a group, and so forth. You aren't worried about whether SCN CruRon 54 is flanking IN BatRon 312.

One final note; I brought up SFB and SF as examples of tactical games that turn into glacially playing yawn fests once the numbers of ships reach a certain point or once they attempt to become operational level gmes. Using statistical resolution for HG2's various rolls - something the game seemed to be designed for from the first - allows me handle large numbers of huge ships relatively quickly. There are no similiar mechanisms for SFB and SF. Fighting a battle in either of those two games with large numbers of large ships is an exercise in futility.


Regards,
Bill

 

[BillDowns]

I know the "grand tactical" and have also heard "small (unit)" and "large (unit)" tacticals, but hadn't heard "operational" before.

I do know what you mean about SFB and SF getting bogged down after a few ships. But then, they are "small unit tactical"

Ironclads was a fine game that didn't get too bogged down with multiple ships. And I still like the mechanics of War at Sea and Victory in the Pacific for a more "operational" feel.

 

[Whipsnade]

Ironclads was a fine game that didn't get too bogged down with multiple ships.

Bill,

Too true about Ironclads. Love both it and the expansion set, but add just one small fort or a bluewater frigate to a scenario and it's an all-nighter. Roll to hit, roll to penetrate, roll for damage, and repeat over and over and over...

I took a "college course afloat" on Basic programming during one deployment in the early 80s. My final exam was a program naturally and I wrote a utility on a KayPro-II CP/M machine that handled the firing, penetration, and damage routines for Ironclads. Got a 4.0 for the course.

And I still like the mechanics of War at Sea and Victory in the Pacific for a more "operational" feel.

They're excellent examples of operational level gaming. You've got some individual ship counters, some generic group counters, move units to cause battles, don't maneuver tactically during battle, etc.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Matt123]

Whilst I don't disagree with Whipsnades view, IMHO HG2 sits more firmly in the Strategic camp.

Strategy encompasses Ship & Fleet building, budgets, Fleet formation, Deployment & Comms. The bit missing from HG2 is the context that provides most of this, for which guidlines are given in TCS with its sample campaign. The 'pick up' game that is the TCS tourney is IMO a bastardisation of the Strategy game and whilst fun, shows up the flaws you get when trying to use a Strategic combat resolution system as a tactical game.

To further clarify, HG2 in its introduction states "The force that rules the space between stars controls both transportation and communication, and as a result, controls all intercourse between worlds. The instrument of such control is the Navy."

The Navy in its Strategic sense isn't about the battle in that system (the tactical battle engages around the gas giant/s & inabited planet/s), its about control of the system which in a Strategic game requires a straightforward & plausible answer that encompasses other strategic considerations (comms, designs, budgets, deployments, etc). In the Strategic sense you do not need to control the local government, so long as you control the surrounding space they inhabit - hence the glossing over of ground combat in HG/TCS and the potential adventure for PC's in light comms vessels refueling at Gas Giants in 'conquered' systems.

When battling for several hundred systems, getting bogged down in the tactical game for each is first tedious, secondly un-realistic as you as a player arn't there to make the tactical decisions. The HG2 combat resolution (note I don't feel it is a 'game' in its own right) provides enough detail to generate plausible results and the decisions it does require can be covered by standing orders in a strategy game (assuming sufficient player experience).

All food for thought.
Cheers