High Guard, not perfect, but good enough

[Uncle Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph:
Exactly!
But I liked you doing favors for Naval Intellegence. Remember the "Black Globe generator drills"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You also liked us to save the Empire, earn knighthoods, and retire as Sector Governers. My character wanted to get drunk and lie in the sun.

Uh, early on we played the Kinunir adventure and we "salvaged" a couple of missiles with specialwarheads and took careful measurements of the black globe generator. To really irritate Navy officers at a frontier starport, we built a mockup of the Kinunir's Black Globe Generator. We sounded a klaxon horn, announced, "Black Globe Generator Drill! Black Globe Generator Drill!" over the loudspeaker. When the shore patrol arrived we said, "Its a joke. We got the idea from a Conspiracy newsletter. Are you saying there really is a Black Globe Generator? Hey guys, listen to this!"

They hated us.

 

[aramis]

When I went to MT, I kept HG around for a reason: by changing HG JFuel to 5*(Jn +1) percent, I got MT space combat compatable designs in 1/2 the time. I felt MT was about right over all for complexity for roleplaying purposes... but I would have liked a slightly easier method for controls. (just how much surface area would they have, anyway?

)



------------------
-aramis
========================================
Smith & Wesson:
The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[jalberti]

I actually like MT starship design. The only time I found it complex was when I was designing ships greater than 100,000 tons. But since PC's do not typically use ships that large, I did not see it as an issue.

I have nothing against High Guard, but I do personally favor MT ships and designs for some of the details they provide.

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jalberti:
I actually like MT starship design. The only time I found it complex was when I was designing ships greater than 100,000 tons. But since PC's do not typically use ships that large, I did not see it as an issue.

I have nothing against High Guard, but I do personally favor MT ships and designs for some of the details they provide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The control point system was clumsy, IMHO.
But I love the JFuel = 5x JDrive size, rather than JFuel = 10% x Jn. Yes, a blatant MTism. But easily adaptable to HG.

And, since MT basically blended CT, Striker, and integrated all the Bks 0-7 (but not 8: Robots, which came out after MT), the HG designs were compatable enouugh to use "as is" in my MT games as a baseline for threat vessels.

But, by the same token, you can't rate a HG ship with 2 different sized parrallel spinal ___'s, where the blanks are the same type of weapon. (I liked 1 C & 2 A mesons, myself...)


------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[Takei]

I have to add another agreeing voice to this thread. A couple of years ago I re-discovered Books 2 & 5 after wandering in the MT/TNE/T4/GT wilderness. There are good points to all of these systems, but most are OTT for use in a regular Traveller game.
I carry a rucksack most places I go and in a notebook I've got two A4 sheets, the design sheets for Book 2 & HG. Not many other systems you could do that with!

Changes I'd make?
1/ T4 Electronics Packages replacing bridges & computers.
2/ Reduce the space armour takes up.

Paul Bendall

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takei:

Changes I'd make?
1/ T4 Electronics Packages replacing bridges & computers.
2/ Reduce the space armour takes up.

Paul Bendall<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny thing: biggest nitpick I have with MT ship design is that, unlike HG, armor takes NO space... even though the multiplier from the armor value table is cm of steel equivalence.

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[Murph]

Thats true. All you needed for High Guard was a calculator, and the books. Everything else was there in the books. MT you almost HAD to have a computer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takei:
I have to add another agreeing voice to this thread. A couple of years ago I re-discovered Books 2 & 5 after wandering in the MT/TNE/T4/GT wilderness. There are good points to all of these systems, but most are OTT for use in a regular Traveller game.
I carry a rucksack most places I go and in a notebook I've got two A4 sheets, the design sheets for Book 2 & HG. Not many other systems you could do that with!

Changes I'd make?
1/ T4 Electronics Packages replacing bridges & computers.
2/ Reduce the space armour takes up.

Paul Bendall<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Vargas]

Respectfully Murph, I used a computer and still couldn't get the system to work all that well! I'll stick with CT2/HG thanks!

 

[Gaming Glen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vargas:
Respectfully Murph, I used a computer and still couldn't get the system to work all that well! I'll stick with CT2/HG thanks!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wrote a computer program to design MT ships. It wasn't all that hard, just took time.

 

[aramis]

I routinely crank out MT designs in 2 hours with nought but a calculator, paper, and the Ref's manual.

I use excell (No pre-done spreadsheets, either), to crank out harder MT designs in 2-3 hours; these are things like pregravitic starcraft, etc.

It still takes me a calculator to to HG designs, but I can do it in 30 minutes for "Small Fleet Elements" in a pinch (SFE = 5-10 KTd)

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[Murph]

You are a better gearhead than I. I need the computer just to keep the stupid kiloliters straight. High Guard was much easier.

Simple DOES NOT equal stupid.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aramis:
I routinely crank out MT designs in 2 hours with nought but a calculator, paper, and the Ref's manual.

I use excell (No pre-done spreadsheets, either), to crank out harder MT designs in 2-3 hours; these are things like pregravitic starcraft, etc.

It still takes me a calculator to to HG designs, but I can do it in 30 minutes for "Small Fleet Elements" in a pinch (SFE = 5-10 KTd)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[aramis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph:
You are a better gearhead than I.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truth be told, yes, I am a gearhead. But by no means a major gearhead. Some simplifications for the mechanically challenged using MT:
1: Use 4 col or 5 col accountants tabular paper.
2: Round (up) to nearest dekaliter (Dl)(10l) (0.01Kl) and kilowatt (Kw) (0.001MW).
3: do all LS calcs based upon whole ship's volume
4: Avoid FF&S (1 or 2)... they add far more complexity for less gain than MT did.
5: prefigure set combinations (ForEx: BLS, XLS, Inertial Comp, and BEnv go on all spacecraft of TL 10+, so have them prefigured into a single entry.)
6: Install MD, Weapons, and computers before bothering with PP.
7: Figure CP costs with 10*TL*MCR (Same formula, but reworked to be easier)
8: If you don't need costs, just weapons loadout, maneuver, and jump ratings, use HG but with the MT JFuel (5xJDrive tonnage)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I need the computer just to keep the stupid kiloliters straight. High Guard was much easier.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have trouble with 4 digit figures instead of 3? The only advantage of HG was integer math. At the cost of the added details of sensor kits.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Simple DOES NOT equal stupid.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. But Simple also doesn't provide some of the details my players and I want. HG lacks sensor options. It is obvious that HG's computers really do include sensor kits.

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

 

[StrikerFan]

I'll have to say that if I were designing the T5 starship/vehicle design system, I'd base it on MT's. Enough detail to be interesting and for PC customization, not as carried away in detail as TNE. I do admit, though, that it's a bit difficult to build an OPTIMIZED design using the MT system and just pencil and paper. My main changes would be to remove arbitrary limits (6G drives, for instance).
For that example, simply make each level of manuever drive need a similar level of inertial compensators lest the crew feel the Gs. Ie, if a fighter has a manuever drive (of whatever sort) capable of pushing it at 15 G's, then the crewed spaces (at a minimum) would need 15G-capable inertial compensators or the crew would be affected by the non-compensated G's.

StrikerFan

 

[hardlec]

According to Dunnigan, any rule applied equally to all sides is "fair." Sometimes it is not possible to be exact, and some abstraction is necessary.
I first played High Guard in the '70s and the technology seemed good to me then. It is now a tech level later, and things have changed, but High Guard remains a system that can be used to create a fair Starship and do it in several venues. It is possible to use High Guard to create ships for GR Andromeda, B5, or Honor Harrington, none of which existed when High Guard was written. I'm not satified to say High Guard is good enough. It's bloody excellent.

 

[Shadow Bear]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hardlec:
According to Dunnigan, any rule applied equally to all sides is "fair." Sometimes it is not possible to be exact, and some abstraction is necessary.
I first played High Guard in the '70s and the technology seemed good to me then. It is now a tech level later, and things have changed, but High Guard remains a system that can be used to create a fair Starship and do it in several venues. It is possible to use High Guard to create ships for GR Andromeda, B5, or Honor Harrington, none of which existed when High Guard was written. I'm not satified to say High Guard is good enough. It's bloody excellent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree!!! Stick with the HG ship design system. I have used HG and MT and prefer the HG by a large margin.

 

[StrikerFan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hardlec:
According to Dunnigan, any rule applied equally to all sides is "fair." Sometimes it is not possible to be exact, and some abstraction is necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said the limits were `unfair', I simply said that my recommendation would be to remove them. Let the size and energy requirements for the system and it's supports be the limitations on the designer, rather than purely arbitrary limits. Tech-level imposed limits (max J-6 at TL-15 for instance) are better, but other arbitrary limits should be unnecessary.

StrikerFan

 

[FIIKLFO]

Amen! I cringe whenever I see an Ancient ship with j6 and m6!

We're already dealing with Hyperdrive, Contra-Gravity drives, Inertial Compensators, and REACTIONLESS drives! Let tech level take care of such issues. Only the spread of the Ancients would be seriously affected anyway!

 

[Murph]

Once more with feeling. High Guard is still far better than MT/TNE/FFS IMHO. ALso using High Guard, I could design Striker level vehicles that weighed less than a 10th of what the Striker weights would be. A 20 ton ships boat at 40 armor, and a massive laser cannon.

 

[Murph]

Once again, with all of its little problems, High Guard was a relatively elegant system for designing vessels. Buch better than the original Book 2 system IMHO.

 

[gardclan]

I was fortunate enough to have a set of LBBs while growing up, but didn't manage to come back to Traveller until late in my tour with the US Army (And then, it was with somebody else's books). Imagine my shock when I found out that there were more than 3 books, and ships COULD be bigger than 5000 tons!

By the time I got back around to buying the books, TNE was pretty much the only option I had. My memories of Traveller were rather fond, but vague... so I bought into the system. Lock, stock, and barrel.

As a result of this sordid tale, I managed to completely miss out on MT in all of its apparent splendor. My design experience was FFS(1), CT/HG, and T4; in that order.

Being an engineer by trade, it never bothered me to do my FFS calcs by scratch pad and calculator, and I can't remember a design ever taking more than 2 hours to produce. I thought the system was fairly elegant... until I re-discovered HG.

Now, I happen to like detail in my designs. And I don't mind some tedium in the design process... but the comparison was rather shocking. Once I got over the "reduced resolution of detail" in HG, I have come to very much appreciate the system.

Especially considering that those two hour designs in FFS(1) could be done in HG in about 20 minutes.

As for T4... well... I found it to be a rather poor attempt to bridge the gap between the two systems. A valiant effort... but still broken.

The system would definitely need to be updated. The things that always bothered me were the non-degrading armor, and the shockingly high volume of missiles needed to make an attack viable. The computer system issue was always resolved in my games by re-labeling it the "ECS (Electronics, Computer and Sensor) Package."

These points are relatively minor, and are all fixable.

Most of my players are quite intelligent... but they are not physicists and engineers (except for two of us). They don't understand vector based movement very well, protracted engagements bore them, and they don't particularly care for techno-babble. What they tend to want is a good role-playing experience and an intelligently run.

Any good referee can give it to them using either system. It just happens to be a bit easier with HG than it is with TNE. T4 is rather broken IMHO. I bought the books, and they make very good bookends for the rest of my Traveller library.

If I were to update the system, I would revamp the missile rules with BIGGER missiles in bays, re-work the computer and fire control rules, change the way armor works, and go to a task resolution system instead of tables, and perhaps retool the jump drives.

The big snag with the whole design process is that it needs to integrate seamlessly with the starship combat system. For this reason, I am very keen to see how T20 handles the whole thing.