High Guard: Fix or reimagine?

[Otto Harkaman]

Here is a copy of the cyberboad gamebox I had been working on

zipped file of Cyberboard gamebox

Cyberboard software homepage
http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/

 

[Tobias]

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.

The engineering intricacies are of secondary importance to me, especially since this is a typical "two geeks, three opinions" area. Nor do I have any intention to topple the basic assumptions of the TU or the look of its iconic designs. HG fails for me because it is not a good game system on three levels:
a) It's not elegant or easily playable.
b) It does not offer much in the way of tactics.
c) It does not evoke a "feel" of space combat.

The 100 dton hardpoint rule, for example, does not particularly bother me. Sure it's arbitrary, but this is a game after all. Traveller is a hard-ish Space Opera, not Rocket Science: The RPG.

 

[Tobias]

I've given this some thought at work today and tried to think of way to keep a new system somewhat compatible with HG designs. Mainly I would boil down the weapon values to three:
- Spinal mount type and factor (condensed to around A-F factors.)
- Number of bay missiles (reinterpreted as freaking huge missiles.)
- Secondary weapon factor (everything else, including turret-mounted missiles, lumped together into a single factor, with weapons contributing points mainly according to their EP consumption.)
No multiple batteries.

I'd also reinterpret fusion and PA turrets as heavier types of laser turrets.

 

[Dragoner]

The engineering intricacies are of secondary importance to me, especially since this is a typical "two geeks, three opinions" area. Nor do I have any intention to topple the basic assumptions of the TU or the look of its iconic designs. HG fails for me because it is not a good game system on three levels:
a) It's not elegant or easily playable.
b) It does not offer much in the way of tactics.
c) It does not evoke a "feel" of space combat.

The 100 dton hardpoint rule, for example, does not particularly bother me. Sure it's arbitrary, but this is a game after all. Traveller is a hard-ish Space Opera, not Rocket Science: The RPG.

I love CT, warts and all, this would be my song to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jdcOXDl-bA

I'm not in favor of reinventing the wheel and one sure thing I have learned is that no good deed goes unpunished, which is surely what would happen with rewriting HG. I had many happy days in my youth playing hybrid Book 2 (simplified vector mostly) High Guard rules.

IMTU now, which I'm calling Frontier Traveller or maybe Traveller 1323 or maybe Frontier 1323, which takes place on the Spinward frontier, it is also moving into TL 16. Which means that much like early fission was first used in a weaponized form, so is anti-matter now, used in missiles, which hit like letter code PA spinals, which in turn make fighters have greater punch. The advent of series I k code AI, ships are effectively data linked, giving the all ships the same computer rating of the command/data link vessel. Most military vessels worth their salt carry Black Globe force fields, which algorithmic interrupter programs allow them to fire through without negative DM's (much like the advent of interrupter gears on ww1 aircraft) as well as to be able to sense imminent failure and shut off. Meson screens also go to letter code A, B and C; increasing their effectiveness extrapolated from the screen table. The age of dreadnaughts is largely over, but great processor power of AI's also allow ship's to carry one major spinal per 100k tons (limited by agility rating).

This is just a beginning, there will also be anti-matter particle accelerators and disintegrator spinals (based off of node/anti-node damper technology). Though with most stuff, I try to first to find a reason for it before I change something, for example: maneuver drive is hydrogen fuel MPDT ion thruster propulsion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster ) and Jump drive is a False Vacuum Nucleation Event ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum ).

Some things are hard to fix though, logically, given enough space, a faster ship will be able to either run dow or outrun an opposing ship, so much movement would always eventually lead to the same condition. Which makes for some assessment of how certain engagements would work, Pirates would most likely have fast, armored ships and much like today, probably just capture ships and crew for ransom (just deliver that cool mega credit to ali baba bank on thanber and we'll let them go). So really it becomes all an exercise in what's plausible, feasible and fun; in any sort of mix that works for your game.

 

[Otto Harkaman]

I am a going to say it and everyone is going to hate me but here it goes.

I had many happy days in my youth playing hybrid Book 2 (simplified vector mostly) High Guard rules.

Did you really actually play it? Play against someone else?

I don't think anyone actually plays this game. Everyone seems to be masturbating with their pocket calculator making endless ships that no one actually uses. You can find thousands of ships that people have made endless lists of but I have never actually seen a game displayed where they are played.

When I tried to figure out if this game is playable its obvious not. There is an elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.

 

[Dragoner]

Yes, and for a High Guard only game, usually people are running a TCS tournament. High Guard isn't so bad if you are running just a few ships, it is when one has a ton of ships it really gets ridiculous. Notice that many of the complaints against HG are from TCS people.

I was just reading 1st edition High Guard, there is actually quite a bit different from the 2nd edition.

 

[Vlenizatl]

I'm kind of on the fence here, I use the character generation without much problem and I used HG to design the ships. But then I convert those designs to Power Projection Fleet for use in battle.

I was kind of surprised to not see PP: Fleet listed as a possible solution.

 

[travlar]

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

I don't know... Wouldn't you be able to point more guns in one direction with a different shape? The sphere points them equally in each direction, but it's not good for focusing fire, and it has less total surface area, too. Also, you'd have to have sufficient power, too.

 

[travlar]

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.

Well, I guess this might be off-topic, but I'm rather curious as to what all you're referring to. I haven't noticed anything like that, but then again, it isn't a subject I know a lot about, and I haven't actually read the most recent update to it, either.

 

[Tobias]

I'm kind of on the fence here, I use the character generation without much problem and I used HG to design the ships. But then I convert those designs to Power Projection Fleet for use in battle.

I was kind of surprised to not see PP: Fleet listed as a possible solution.

Seeing how I did play a small part in PP:F's design, I'm naturally considering it as an inspiration, but it's not my ideal. On the one hand, it is too complicated still, with the hundreds of batteries remaining. Massed fire tables help, but still a Tigress or Idlev class is not really playable.
On the other hand, it lacks some granularity due to the 1d6-based system. A single six-sided die thrown for a compiled hit/penetration roll does not offer much of a range of results. I might still use it for some parts of the game design.

 

[McPerth]

If it works for you, that is all that counts.

Off course, when one plays its own TU what he (and his players) enjoy and works for them is what 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;

True, but this 2-3% is the most selective, so, if you don't want wanton destruction, it is needed. If all you want is to transfer as much energy as you can as efficiently as you can, nukes would dominate today's RW battlefieds. Even so most of the combat troops are infantry (which, as you said, will only inflict about 2-3% of enemy's losses), not artillery (the main losses producer), due to the selectivity those 2-3% represents, and the collateral damage it avoids.

And even the curent US doctrine, as seems to be pointed by the reform the budget constrains force too, seems to point to more specialized troops (special forces) and less brute firepower.

Off course, how (if at all) of this reasoning may be transferred to space combat is anyone's guess. Collateral damage will not be a concern in space battles (or at least quite reduced), and most of 'excess' energy won't obliterate cities, but be just lost.

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.

Fully agreed here, as long as those ships could go in convoys. For merchants going alone on high threat zones, some weaponry could be in order (as most age of sail ships in the Spanish Main).

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.

Probably right, and so ECM and counter ECM will be one of the most vital parts (featured on HG/MT with the importance of computer rating).

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.

IIRC I read somewhere (sorry, I can't remember exact refference) that this was an attempt to feature what was latter (in TNE and T4) reflected as area limits.

Some way must be to limit weaponry per size (I think we all agree a 200 kdton would be able to muster more weaponry than a 20 kdton cruiser), and this is a simple way to do it (albeit 'unrealistic'). As I'm a believer of the old proverb keep it simple and it won't break, I accept it.

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.

I've always seen streamlining not only as exterior shape, but also as bracing the hull (and interiors) to sustain gravity, and I agree with you that gravity, not atmosphere would be the main limitation to landing ships.

I also laughed when I read somewhere (sorry, no exact reference again) about MT streamlining that an airframe craft would glide. I guess it wouldn't any more than todays RW airplanes.

 

[Dragoner]

I don't know... Wouldn't you be able to point more guns in one direction with a different shape? The sphere points them equally in each direction, but it's not good for focusing fire, and it has less total surface area, too. Also, you'd have to have sufficient power, too.

Yes, there would be batteries bearing, but the batteries bearing on another moving object would remain stable as the batteries occluded, would be replaced by batteries coming into the clear. Another bonus would be less of a need to maneuver to bring batteries to bear. Yes, the powerplant's EP's would need to be calculated for the weapons. This is just from an engineering standpoint, personally I like the aesthetic of Traveller ships as they are.

Well, I guess this might be off-topic, but I'm rather curious as to what all you're referring to. I haven't noticed anything like that, but then again, it isn't a subject I know a lot about, and I haven't actually read the most recent update to it, either.

Over-Clocking of the Powerplant specifically, it isn't something that would be done, especially if it would lead to powerplant failure, which could be considered to be a catastrophic event. How it would be done if the Jump drive needs more power (and how IMTU how I always have figured it to be done) is to give the Jump drive it's own powerplant; thus if the J drive fails it would not disable the whole ship.

 

[McPerth]

IMHO, the main failure about HG combat system is that it is featured to confront relatively small numbers of ships per side, so every ship is featured in combat (no matter its size). The problem comes when fleets begin to grow (to the hundreds/thousands of ships per side).

Again IMHO that would be as trying to feature mass ground combat with a system where every infantryman, gun or vehicle was featured. It will become just a statistical number-crunching exercise, instead of a game, or to a game where hundreds of dice rolls should be made every turn, making it unplayable, and leading to results quite equal than the statistical number-crunching exercise I told (the larger the numbers, the closer they come to statistics)

 

[dean]

Troops are the only component of warfare that can hold ground. You can obliterate something, if that's your objective, but it's of little use to anyone then.

Wars are generally fought to some political objective, and ground troops are really the only way to achieve that kind of goal.

Problem is, troops are easy to kill with HE. Artillery has historically been cheap, powerful, and since WW I, plentiful. However, has we have seen in Viet Nam, and the recent middle east conflicts, this low-intensity, guerrilla warfare will grind down a nation's political will to continue the battles. The side with the most artillery is no longer a guaranteed winner.

I think the presence of Battle Dress and to a limited degree Advanced Combat Armor, mitigates even further the Artillery Superiority Paradigm, in a Traveller sense. When individual troopers are all but impervious to anything except a direct hit, artillery will be less important than it has been in the 20th century.

 

[McPerth]

Troops are the only component of warfare that can hold ground. You can obliterate something, if that's your objective, but it's of little use to anyone then.

Wars are generally fought to some political objective, and ground troops are really the only way to achieve that kind of goal.

Problem is, troops are easy to kill with HE. Artillery has historically been cheap, powerful, and since WW I, plentiful. However, has we have seen in Viet Nam, and the recent middle east conflicts, this low-intensity, guerrilla warfare will grind down a nation's political will to continue the battles. The side with the most artillery is no longer a guaranteed winner.

I think the presence of Battle Dress and to a limited degree Advanced Combat Armor, mitigates even further the Artillery Superiority Paradigm, in a Traveller sense. When individual troopers are all but impervious to anything except a direct hit, artillery will be less important than it has been in the 20th century.

The fact (IMHO again) is that for every measure there would emerge a counter-measure, and so we have no real idea about how space combat could be.

Off course energy transfeence would be the way to damage enemy (as dragoneer says), but energy interception/avoiding measures would try to avoid damage (either armor, screens, agility, etc.), and so the measure/counter-measure wheel will keep rolling, perhaps ad infinitum.

So, again IMHO, what we need is a system that is both playable and with believable (I don't dare to say realistic any more) results, so the game could keep rolling on.

EDIT: off course, war is done for political reasons (war is politics, by other means, as Clausewitz said), but battle is not. Most of those combat systems are not done for was, but for battles, and so the war objectives are less important, as to combat system is concerned, being featured only in 'special rules' that reflect them (e.g. no nukes allowed; enemy shipwrecked personnel must be recovered, no quarter is in effect, etc.). Campaign games may have a broader aspect, though.

 

[Dragoner]

True, but this 2-3% is the most selective, so, if you don't want wanton destruction, it is needed. If all you want is to transfer as much energy as you can as efficiently as you can, nukes would dominate today's RW battlefieds. Even so most of the combat troops are infantry (which, as you said, will only inflict about 2-3% of enemy's losses), not artillery (the main losses producer), due to the selectivity those 2-3% represents, and the collateral damage it avoids.

And even the curent US doctrine, as seems to be pointed by the reform the budget constrains force too, seems to point to more specialized troops (special forces) and less brute firepower.

Off course, how (if at all) of this reasoning may be transferred to space combat is anyone's guess. Collateral damage will not be a concern in space battles (or at least quite reduced), and most of 'excess' energy won't obliterate cities, but be just lost.

Collateral damge is a funny term, it used to be a desirable effect, now it has become a synonym for civillian casualties (which is bad). Artillery is still the king of battle, and yes, today's wars are more police actions rather than industrial slugfests, but still one sees the use of artillery and tac air support (another way to deliver high explosives). The use of small arms is often not much more selective, especially when what you are firing at is a tiny dot of another human being in the distance, it is just less likely to cause casualties. Both sides are still using HE to cause casualties, just trying to be more precise in delivery. Nuclear weapons have both radioactive and political fallout, which is the reason they aren't used; similar to why a virus is just not tailored to kill off the enemy population, which would be the high tech solution today. Science has been called an amputated octopus, with various branches unexplored due to moral or philosophical reasons, war is the same, with it's own number of huge Convetions and Rules of Engagement.

Fully agreed here, as long as those ships could go in convoys. For merchants going alone on high threat zones, some weaponry could be in order (as most age of sail ships in the Spanish Main).

Though on the Spanish Main and say Saharan Caravans, or even Medieval Europe, merchants would band together and pay mercenaries to escort them. In it's own way, a perfect Travelleresque situation, ripe for adventure. Economically, as long as the Escort ship isn't lost (say a Gazelle), it is quite sound, once somebody starts losing a lot of money, then larger forces like the Imperial Navy would be expected to be involved.

 

[Dragoner]

Troops are the only component of warfare that can hold ground. You can obliterate something, if that's your objective, but it's of little use to anyone then.

Wars are generally fought to some political objective, and ground troops are really the only way to achieve that kind of goal.

Problem is, troops are easy to kill with HE. Artillery has historically been cheap, powerful, and since WW I, plentiful. However, has we have seen in Viet Nam, and the recent middle east conflicts, this low-intensity, guerrilla warfare will grind down a nation's political will to continue the battles. The side with the most artillery is no longer a guaranteed winner.

I think the presence of Battle Dress and to a limited degree Advanced Combat Armor, mitigates even further the Artillery Superiority Paradigm, in a Traveller sense. When individual troopers are all but impervious to anything except a direct hit, artillery will be less important than it has been in the 20th century.

Or, like it is today, that artillery fires are so fierce and accurate, that the only way to survive for infantry and vehicles is to be armored. Especially if one has limited forces like in Traveller, versus mass armies like ww2, where casualties were shrugged off. I do agree that the infantry is still the queen of battle, needed to hold ground; artillery is just the king, it just changes it's face, to something like ortillery with crowbars from space or so.

 

[McPerth]

Collateral damge is a funny term, it used to be a desirable effect, now it has become a synonym for civillian casualties (which is bad).

True. I tried to use the term collateral damage on a broader sense in my quote, so incluiding any non-wanted destruction (as would be ressources you want to capture).

By the way, the true synonym of collateral damages is civilian casualties provoked by our troops. When you talk about the ones produced by the enemy, the term is still civilian losses (or masacre, or mass murder) .

Though on the Spanish Main and say Saharan Caravans, or even Medieval Europe, merchants would band together and pay mercenaries to escort them. In it's own way, a perfect Travelleresque situation, ripe for adventure. Economically, as long as the Escort ship isn't lost (say a Gazelle), it is quite sound, once somebody starts losing a lot of money, then larger forces like the Imperial Navy would be expected to be involved.

Or the civilian traffic avoids the zone and the pirates must move away to, or face starvation...

 

[Dragoner]

Or the civilian traffic avoids the zone and the pirates must move away to, or face starvation...

The pirates would follow the merchant traffic, no? Not unlike lions follow migrating herds upon the Serengetti. So the escorts would find employment security for a long time I would think, once things stabilized like in core sectors, then there wouldn't need to be anything more than cursory patrols and the main issue would become smuggling one could suppose.

 

[McPerth]

The pirates would follow the merchant traffic, no? Not unlike lions follow migrating herds upon the Serengetti. So the escorts would find employment security for a long time I would think, once things stabilized like in core sectors, then there wouldn't need to be anything more than cursory patrols and the main issue would become smuggling one could suppose.

Agreed.

Historically, AFAIK, when piracy has became too much a problem, the result has usually been either major forces came into play and pirates eliminated (at least as a menace, not always phisically), or shipping has avoided the zones and pirates have followed them to other places, where things started again.