High Guard or LBB2?

[Golan2072]

Which CT ship system do you use, and why?

 

[mike wightman]

I use all of the above when I'm playing about.

When running a game the rules I keep coming back to are LBB2 for ship design - although with quite a few bits and pieces from elsewhere thown in.

For ship combat I use a modified version of the Starter Traveller version for most rpg purposes, but for tactical battles involving a few ships per side then I go with Mayday - but modified again with a few bits and pieces.

 

[Piper]

LBB 2 for design, mostly for simplicity and scale.
A Free Trader still looks like a (tiny) cargo ship next to a 3-kiloton bulk carrier. It starts looking like a bicycle messenger next to a 300-kilotonner.

LBB 2 and Mayday for combat because I like the missile rules and because planets should matter.

 

[jrients]

I use LBB2 with the Starter Traveller combat system with range bands.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

HG every time. Bk2 is simply too limited.

 

[The Oz]

I'm with Sigg: I use both, depending on what I'm doing. I like the extra stuff with HG, but I prefer a small-ship universe, at least for the PCs.

 

[Jame]

Book 2, simply because it's simpler and more understandable than HG. There are certain things to import, i.e. larger ships at lower TLs (the TL 9, 5K ton ship I keep raving about) and armor, plus the smaller computers, but that's it. I suppose I could make a rule allowing faster sublight engines if they're doubled up...

For ship combat I like the T4 rules.

 

[Golan2072]

I simply use a house rule in which HG drive TLs (by performance/number) are in place rather than the LBB3 ones (by drive letter), so I could have TL9 5Kdton ships but not TL9 (actually TL12 due to computer limitations) Jump-6 ships. I also graft armor and heavier weapons, but the core design is LBB2, not HG.

 

[mike wightman]

Jame, tha maximum size for a TL9 ship in High Guard is 4999t. It's limited by computer size

 

[Jame]

Yeah, that means it has one less turret!

It's kind of a toss-up for me, 'cause HG allows more ship types but LBB2 is simpler.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Jame:
It's kind of a toss-up for me, 'cause HG allows more ship types but LBB2 is simpler.

Why?

I don't get it. How is it easier to design a small ship with LBB2 than with HG? How?

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Jame]

Less math involved, no EPs, fewer items and (in the version I have) all on two pages. Although the version I have is Starter Traveller...

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Jame:
Less math involved, no EPs, fewer items and (in the version I have) all on two pages. Although the version I have is Starter Traveller...

Two pages? You can easily fit all relevant HG info on 1/2 page. Heck, you can memorize all relevant HG info. I can design a HG ship in my head, something that I can't claim - due to the reliance on tables - for LBB2.
Even if I - heaven forbid - would play in a "small-ship-universe" I would still use HG2. It is simpler actually, is internally consistant and much more flexible.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[parmasson]

“Two pages? You can easily fit all relevant HG info on 1/2 page.”

I think he means that all the shipbuilding rules fit on two pages. It is simple, almost too simple. But if you are not interested in a lot of gearheading it works quite nicely. I would not claim it is better just easy.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
I think he means that all the shipbuilding rules fit on two pages. It is simple, almost too simple. But if you are not interested in a lot of gearheading it works quite nicely. I would not claim it is better just easy.

I know he means that it's simpler. I argue that it isn't. What Book2 accomplishes, namely small ships without armor and with only lasers, missiles, and sand, HG accomplishes with considerably less data. You could fit the entire rules for this on less than two pages - as they did in AM1.
As far as I'm concerned, Book2's reliance on closed component tables without much of a rhyme or reason precludes it from being an easy, flexible system. It is overly clunky and limited. It is just not elegant.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, Ipicked Other as I use both - then pick which system I like better for a particular design.

Tobias! You manage to keep EVERYTHING from HG design in your head! Remind me to never do math in public with you around...

 

[Tobias]

Not everything, but everything I need to design small ships.
It's just a few drive percentages, which logically progress, the fixed tonnages for Staterooms, low berths, and weapons, and the computer tonnages and EPs.
LBB2 has a lot more single items to memorize, especially if you consider computer programs.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[fredofmars]

I put down High Guard, because I do the majority of my work with that, but I do use both systems for ship creation.

My combat activities have been almost exclusively HG though.

 

[Golan2072]

I'm slowly leaning towards High Guardm probably with a different combat system for smaller ships (MT? modified MT? Mayday/LBB2?) as opposed to bigger ones and few house rules (fighter squadrons each functioning as a "ship" with one "battery" using their combined weaponsm "piloted" by the Squad Leader with the rest serving as "gunners"; a few added components such as hydroponics, solar cells, processing bays, mass-drivers and workshops; a few more rule clarifications). This would make for a Battleship (WW1) paradigm rather than a Carrier (late WW2 and the Cold war), but I might go for it.

 

[Theo D Lite]

I'm afraid I'm a High Guard Die Hard. Never really bothered with the LBB2 design sequence or LBB2 combat.