High Guard: Fix or reimagine?

[Tobias]

I have slowly come to the conclusion that the only part of High Guard without major problems is the character generation. The combat system is a particular mess. The ship design system is not too bad in principle, but has several points which irk me.

So what to do?
1. Write a new combat system, plus a few addons to the design system as to maintain compatibility with existing designs.
2. Rewrite the whole design&combat part from scratch and convert or redesign all existing canon ships.

 

[aramis]

I have slowly come to the conclusion that the only part of High Guard without major problems is the character generation. The combat system is a particular mess. The ship design system is not too bad in principle, but has several points which irk me.

So what to do?
1. Write a new combat system, plus a few addons to the design system as to maintain compatibility with existing designs.
2. Rewrite the whole design&combat part from scratch and convert or redesign all existing canon ships.

Mongoose and I both fall in camp 2... I'm not a fan of MHG, either. But I'm a small ship universe guy, and they aren't

 

[Tobias]

Mongoose and I both fall in camp 2... I'm not a fan of MHG, either. But I'm a small ship universe guy, and they aren't

I've taken a look at MgT's treatment, although not an in-depth one. My impression was that it was horrible. IIRC they dragged the clunky concepts of Bk2 design into capital ships and small craft, they had a giant list of weapons some of which were not very Traveller-like and the whole thing had a truly atrocious layout - especially the ship data sheets. Never really took a look at the combat system, though.

If I were to redesign the whole thing, my priorities would be:
- General level of design complexity as in HG2.
- Medium ship universe. 20kt Battleships, 3kt Light Cruisers. Much larger civilian ships if desired.
- Simplification of weapon and defense types. (Probably down to lasers, spinal mounts and missiles. We had this to some degree in TNE.)
- Higher prices for military grade equipment.
- Performance and price differentiation by TL. Higher TL stuff would be more expensive, but better.
- Combat system with Mayday-like movement. Simplified combat firing procedure. A ship's relevant combat values should all fit on a counter if possible. (Say, spinal mount factor, laser factor, missile factor, screen factor, armor factor, thrust, size code.) A cross of Imperium and HG1 in complexity, with some Battle Rider thrown in for good measure.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

You might want to look at how GDW Invasion Earth handles space combat. Its a lot like Imperium.

Couple years ago some of us tried to piece together all the LBB2 and Missile Supplement stuff together, we found lots of vague notions that didn't really cobble together. I even started to build a playing board to handle all the information, computer programs running, pilot and gunner skills, thrust vector etc. Its about as complex as some of the old boardgame combat flight simulator games.

Traveller starship combat board

I wish I could find information on how they extrapolated the information on the squadron counters for Fifth Frontier War and Invasion earth from High Guard.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I have slowly come to the conclusion that the only part of High Guard without major problems is the character generation.

I thought the character generation system had extreme issues.

In HG 2e, you can go to one school/program after another, never learn a thing (due to bad rolls, of all things), and still receive promotions or decorations for that term, and continue onward with your career as if nothing happened. I don't know, but if I was a school commander, and my school taught 6 areas (Gunnery School), but there was only a 33.33% chance of a student actually learning anything in each of those areas (i.e. a 66.66% chance of learning nothing), I would not be satisfied, nor would my superiors, and I assume the students would be pretty unhappy, as well. (I assure anyone that it is entirely possible to roll lower than 5+ on 1D6 for all six areas, more than once, thus having many students learn nothing at all.)

From a character building standpoint, I want to build the character I want. If I want an engineer, then those are the skills I want. If I want to build a pilot, then those are the skills I want. In HG character creation, I get a random mish-mash of skills whose only real difference from Book 1/Supplement 4 is that it is likely I'll get a tiny handful of extra skill points.

Of course, I acquired Book 7 very far along during the Classic Traveller period, and didn't like it much when I did, so I didn't read it thoroughly. It's internal character creation system looked like book 4 and 5, but was considerably modified to deliver far fewer skill points, rendering it no better than Book 1/Supplement 4. The trade system left me uninterested at the time. I never saw the INT-based limit on total skill points, which would be pointed out to me in the early 2000s by kindly but more knowledgeable Traveller fans. It was quite a shock. I opened my age-old Traveller Deluxe box and pulled out a stack of old five and six-term HG 2e characters I had rolled up in the 1980s, and as I looked down the list of skills versus the INT scores, and I realized that every single one of those characters violated the Johnny-come-lately Book 7 skill point limit. To this day, I continue to feel that wasn't a "real" rule, to be best ignored.

In HG 2e, you can, if you succeed in one of the pre-enlistment options...

... go to the Naval Academy and have a 50% chance, each, to learn only 3 skills. You could get through this, often, with no skills learned.

... go to college for four years and learn absolutely no skills at all (I do not see any skills offered in the description). You do get an increase of EDU by 1D6 - 2, but in CT, it was your skills that mattered, not your stats; and this still provided a 33.33% chance of getting no EDU increase, anyway.

... go to Medical School, but from here, you are guaranteed 4 skill points, including 3 in Medical; and possibly two more skill points. The other pre-enlistment options were just play-schools, then.

Yeah, the HG 2e character generation system left a lot to be desired.

 

[skyth]

I haven't done anything about it, but I've often mentioned using Spacemaster for ship combat, but HG for building the ships.

 

[mike wightman]

I've often thought about going back to the original combat rules in High Guard 1st edition and trying to improve them rather than the wholesale re-imaging we got with the 2nd edition.

The first edition appear to be an attempt to rate ships almost to one level below the combat values we see on the chits in I:E, Imperium, Dark Nebula and FFW.

The big complaint I have with HG2 combat is the ridiculous number of dice rolls required - even using statistical resolution requires a lot more maths than should be applied to a squadron level engagement.

My vision would be the turret weapons could be combined to give a turret factor, the bay weapons would give a bay weapon factor, the spinal would give a spinal factor.

Defensively you would have ecm, sand, counter missile fire all rolled into a defensive factor versus turret and bay weapons, screens would defend against nukes and mesons, while armour would soak damage.

Fighters would be grouped into squadrons and give a fighter factor and I would have a much more involved movement system than HG's (too abstract - I want to move stuff around the table).

 

[Tobias]

I've often thought about going back to the original combat rules in High Guard 1st edition and trying to improve them rather than the wholesale re-imaging we got with the 2nd edition.

The first edition appear to be an attempt to rate ships almost to one level below the combat values we see on the chits in I:E, Imperium, Dark Nebula and FFW.

The big complaint I have with HG2 combat is the ridiculous number of dice rolls required - even using statistical resolution requires a lot more maths than should be applied to a squadron level engagement.

My vision would be the turret weapons could be combined to give a turret factor, the bay weapons would give a bay weapon factor, the spinal would give a spinal factor.

Defensively you would have ecm, sand, counter missile fire all rolled into a defensive factor versus turret and bay weapons, screens would defend against nukes and mesons, while armour would soak damage.

Fighters would be grouped into squadrons and give a fighter factor and I would have a much more involved movement system than HG's (too abstract - I want to move stuff around the table).

Yes, this is exactly the level of abstraction and detail I'd like to have. If I opted for option 1: Keep the HG design system more or less as is, but revamp combat, I'd definitely look to HG1 for inspiration.

 

[Dragoner]

I have slowly come to the conclusion that the only part of High Guard without major problems is the character generation. The combat system is a particular mess. The ship design system is not too bad in principle, but has several points which irk me.

So what to do?
1. Write a new combat system, plus a few addons to the design system as to maintain compatibility with existing designs.
2. Rewrite the whole design&combat part from scratch and convert or redesign all existing canon ships.

Don't like the abstraction of the abstraction? How far are you willing to go? The whole design of starships is fillied with odd rules, such as why the one turret per 100 dtons? Why can't a 100 dton ship have a spinal laser? Space combat like all other combat is merely physics. T5 would be the place to fix all of this, but no, it doesn't, it adds even worse silliness, misusing definitions and making reactors chernobyl standard, against proper engineering principles. Oh well, sad old Traveller, you have let people make a mockery of you.

I have always used a mix of simplified Bk2 and HG2 for it's tables, high guard itself is just dice rolling madness. I had a friend who did the stats while he was in a statitics class, he found what the likelihood of what ship winning would be. We also found the whole nibbled to death by hamsters as well with missile ships.

 

[McPerth]

Don't like the abstraction of the abstraction? How far are you willing to go? The whole design of starships is fillied with odd rules, such as why the one turret per 100 dtons? Why can't a 100 dton ship have a spinal laser?

You forget one of my favorite questions (already fixed in MT and MGT, not so sure about other versions): Why you cannot mount PA bays if you have a PA spinal (for what is worth, same can be said about other classes of weaponry).

Space combat like all other combat is merely physics. T5 would be the place to fix all of this, but no, it doesn't, it adds even worse silliness, misusing definitions and making reactors chernobyl standard, against proper engineering principles. Oh well, sad old Traveller, you have let people make a mockery of you.

I have always used a mix of simplified Bk2 and HG2 for it's tables, high guard itself is just dice rolling madness. I had a friend who did the stats while he was in a statitics class, he found what the likelihood of what ship winning would be. We also found the whole nibbled to death by hamsters as well with missile ships.

As I have no access to striker, the mass combat I used in CT (and in MT, when I needed to) was the abstract system from Bk4:mercenary. Quick and simple. That's what I miss for mass space combat. Just compare forces, roll one die, modify it, and you have the battle result.

Off course I'll be treated as an heretic for this, saying that is not the same if you have BBs, CAs or just fighters, but same happens in land combat, if you pitch an armored battalion against a infantry regiment, the fact that one is armored and the other infantry is not feature, but it still works when what you need is a quick resolution.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

I would go totally radical and start from the absolute beginning. Its all broken and really no fun to play, who actually plays it?

I think we should develop a whole new system (but based on the spirit of CT) as a CotI project. Following the rules of maybe a software development project with a white paper defining and outlining our goals. Some people would have to be delegated as project managers etc. Isn't that what CERN developed the internet for?

The CT universe is based on the d6 so that would be one major factor in my opinion. It would also be a 2d universe (for simplicity as Marc Miller said in some interview I read).

It has to be actually playable, not an abstraction of an abstracted abstraction.

:frankie:

 

[Dragoner]

You forget one of my favorite questions (already fixed in MT and MGT, not so sure about other versions): Why you cannot mount PA bays if you have a PA spinal (for what is worth, same can be said about other classes of weaponry).



As I have no access to striker, the mass combat I used in CT (and in MT, when I needed to) was the abstract system from Bk4:mercenary. Quick and simple. That's what I miss for mass space combat. Just compare forces, roll one die, modify it, and you have the battle result.

Off course I'll be treated as an heretic for this, saying that is not the same if you have BBs, CAs or just fighters, but same happens in land combat, if you pitch an armored battalion against a infantry regiment, the fact that one is armored and the other infantry is not feature, but it still works when what you need is a quick resolution.

If it works for you, that is all that counts. I never cared for Striker, the Panther design they did as an example was wrong for the most part and how many things were modelled, such as armor, was wrong as well. Wafare is science and like evey other science has it's principles, violate them at your own peril. Battle is basically physics and the US Army did a large multi-volume study of ww2 which showed some very important statistics, such as that small arms only cause 2-3% of casualties, most casualties are caused by high explosives, which remains true today, just with IED's and not howitzers; basic physics, how much energy one can transfer to a target is how likely one is to cause casualties. Space combat is not likely to be any different, except for a few hard and fast rules; merchants are unlikely to be armed because of almost no ability to fend off a military ship. So the money is better spent on an actual military escort, than to arm merchantmen. Speed would be a big determiner of battle as well, as the best defence would be to run away from an attacker or the ability to run down a target. Weapons would all be computerized for their fire solutions, if of any duty at all, a Gunner's only task would be to hit the fire button as a target was identified. Even this might be a crucial delay and once in fire mode, ships would fire automatically on any threat ship not identified by a friendly transponder. Fire Control Systems in ships would also be linked as to identify the biggest threats and compute solutions to coordinate fires as to eliminate those first collectively.

As per bays, yes, and why can bays only be put on ships greater than or equal to 1000 tons? Bays also take up 10 hardpoint spaces; all of this is very arbitrary, without much sound engineering design behind it. Military ships would probably be a sphere, blistering with turrets, the limitation only being surface area, some sort of spinal or bay weapon even on the smallest. Even streamlining is an odd concept, a Type S would fall like a rock without it's drives, just like any modern jet aircraft. A Broadsword should be able to enter any atmosphere, the main limitation would be airspeed; about the only ships not able to land on a planet should be dispersed structure types, and that because of the gravity well and not atmosphere. Oh well, it is what it is.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

Military ships would probably be a sphere, blistering with turrets, the limitation only being surface area

wouldn't this be truer to the origins of the Traveller Universe? (I am thinking of H. Beam Piper's Space Viking, I forget if the ship in "Mote in the God's Eye" was a sphere, Niven & Pournelle).

Never understood why you needed streamlining with anti-gravity.

 

[Dragoner]

wouldn't this be truer to the origins of the Traveller Universe? (I am thinking of H. Beam Piper's Space Viking, I forget if the ship in "Mote in the God's Eye" was a sphere, Niven & Pournelle).

Never understood why you needed streamlining with anti-gravity.

Yes, Piper's Space Viking was a huge influence on Traveller, you also see Sphere ships in other sci-fi like Germany's Perry Rhodan. There is sound design principles as to why it would be that way as well, it just is rather boring if every ship is a sphere.

The only place you need streamlining for is fuel skimming from a Gas Giant, which is rather dubious, but ok. That has other presumptions about starships, like a super rugged construction, but then we see some adventure with low TL jet fighters shooting down Ramparts....o:

 

[McPerth]

wouldn't this be truer to the origins of the Traveller Universe? (I am thinking of H. Beam Piper's Space Viking, I forget if the ship in "Mote in the God's Eye" was a sphere, Niven & Pournelle).

Yes, in Mote in the God's Eye ships are spheres to better fit on the force shields field. IIRC they also talk about most cities being also circular for the same reason, impling that the cities may also be protected by them (unlike in Traveller with the Black Globe).

 

[Bob Weaver]

Never understood why you needed streamlining with anti-gravity.

Because even using contragravity for propulsion you still have atmospheric friction to deal with. Unstreamlined bits tend to snap or worse burn off even at moderate velocities.

Cheers,

Bob W.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

I guess it would be too much to throw out all the ships that had become cannon that aren't spheres. I guess I would just stay with the spirit of the art work.

I guess that would be another basic (I am a totally non-scientific type so bear with me) is how volume and weight is designated.

For example, Yeah I would like to mount some heavy fixed lasers in my scout besides the turret. I never understood also why sandcasters have to be mounted in a turret (thinking of smoke projectors on modern tanks).

Again the d6 would be carried to J6, M6, powerplants, etc. since they are so part of the OTU.

Thanks enjoying the conversation on this thread

 

[aramis]

wouldn't this be truer to the origins of the Traveller Universe? (I am thinking of H. Beam Piper's Space Viking, I forget if the ship in "Mote in the God's Eye" was a sphere, Niven & Pournelle).

The MacArthur was partially a sphere... but a sphere with a nose, and that nose had a conning tower...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbirdcd/sets/72157612377307739/

Never understood why you needed streamlining with anti-gravity.

Because, if you can fly to/from orbit cheaply, you don't need shuttles nor teleporters to make landings.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

The MacArthur

Oh cool Aramis! Never knew what it looked like, thanks!

 

[Otto Harkaman]

A big problem we noticed when going through the missile supplement was how impossible it was really to hit something more than a couple hexes away. You had to shoot them right down the throat of the enemy.

here is the old thread
CT Starships & Mayday

From Special Supplement 3 Missiles

"Propulsion systems are defined by two numbers, commonly separated by a capitol G. The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make." SS3 pg. 3

"For example, a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burning fuel to achieve 1G once. A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G once. A 3G12 system can accelerate to a maximum of 3G in one turn, and has fuel to allow reaching 3G to for four turns. This same missile could accelerate at 1G for 12 turns, or 2G for 6 turns." SS3 pg. 3

"Limited burn missiles may be launched at less than maximum acceleration, but that acceleration may not be increased or decreased as the missile moves. Its course change potential is one-half the difference between its maximum G rating and its current G rating with fractions rounded down." SS3 pg. 4

"It may alter its course by its course change potential in each turn. Fuel for course changes is expended at 2 burns for 1G of change." SS3 pg. 4

"Example: a 6G12 continuous burn missile could be launched at 4G and would have the ability to change course at 1G (using 2 burns of fuel to do so) it could be launched at 1G and would have the ability to change course at 2G (using 4 burns to do so)" SS3 pg. 4

I think I was integrating all this information on my missile chart when I got a little distracted on this project. Here is the screen shot of the missile chart, turn sequence chart with the background being the main map zoomed out.


Chart has missile Id, target, fuel burned, launch G rating, current thrust vector and current G, then information about the missile configuration plus the controlling ship.

Ha scary this was almost two years ago!

It just started to seem impossible to really track more than one or two missiles at a time.