High Guard rules questions

[GypsyComet]

As Bill points out, it is important to remember that HG is a fleet combat engine that accepts a significant amount of approximation and abstract thought to address large ships and large fleets in playable fashion. This is why it disappoints so badly when applied to small ships under roleplaying conditions, as was done in MT.

 

[Commander Truestar]

Just an IMTU side note...

The one thing I have "issues with", and I emphasize MY issues is the "fairness" requirement. IMTU, when I have battles large enough to invoke HG rules I offer several damage application methods.
1) When the players behind both fleets have expressed no opinion on a ship, it's damage is randomized...not selected by "the firing player". I choose this because a Ship Captain will used various ship attitudes to allow the captain to use their vessel to best possible effect. Add to that the lack of control on the vectors of responding enemy vessels and you get clumps of hits, not universally equal "carpeting" of all vulnerable areas.

2) Where a specific target is specified, I increase the likelihood of hitting that target or systems around it BUT, I also make the attack more difficult and defensive attacks(IE. attacks made by the "targeted" craft vs one of the targeting" craft) somewhat easier because those targeting craft are angling for a specific fire vector and making themselves easier to predict.

3)This one is the hardest to deal with as it is very subjective but..
When a vessel is hit, I like to try to align hits according to the proper silhouette for that ship. So if a vessel receives 2 Weapon-2 hits and has three batteries, I look at the silhouette of the ship and only allow those visible batteries to be hit(and randomly hit unless the incoming damage is specifically targeted)

I find that this allows for significantly more role playing decisions, though Bill is right. HG make a great war game

Marc

 

[tbeard1999]

As Bill points out, it is important to remember that HG is a fleet combat engine that accepts a significant amount of approximation and abstract thought to address large ships and large fleets in playable fashion. This is why it disappoints so badly when applied to small ships under roleplaying conditions, as was done in MT.

That's interesting. I've used HG as the starship combat module for my Traveller campaigns since 1982 and haven't had any problems with it.

In my experience, the main playability issues with High Guard come with its treatment of armor. And as my earlier posts indicate, I think that this problem can be solved rather easily.

I would've also like to have seen an official rule allowing fighters to be handled as squadrons in large battles. But there are several optional systems that allow that, so it isn't much of a problem.

And the advent of die rolling programs has made the large number of die rolls no longer much of a problem (as did the somewhat-unweildy statistical management system of Trillion Credit Squadron). I think HG is an amazingly elegant system.

 

[Whipsnade]

That's interesting. I've used HG as the starship combat module for my Traveller campaigns since 1982 and haven't had any problems with it.

Tbeard1999,

I used it too and with similar success. However, I think that the successful use of HG2 as a combat system by a GM depends on his players' expectations. My RPG players were wargamers first and primarily. They didn't live and die over skill rolls and they didn't expect every skill to be used in every situation either. Folks who are primarily RPG players will have different expectations.

Cramming Traveller RPG skills into the Traveller HG2 wargame can be terribly unbalancing if the GM fails to handle things correctly. Look at the gunnery skill for example.

Simply adding it "undiluted" to a To-Hit or To-Pen roll is akin to a computer upgrade and even two skill levels is quite a DM for a 2D6 system. If the PCs have suitable skills, then the NPCs they're facing will have suitable skills too and To-Hit/Pen attempts on both side become that much closer to automatic.

I used a few different methods for integrating RPG skills into HG2. My success in doing depended solely on my players' expectations however.

I think HG is an amazingly elegant system.

I'll strongly ditto that.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard1999,

I used it too and with similar success. However, I think that the successful use of HG2 as a combat system by a GM depends on his players' expectations. My RPG players were wargamers first and primarily. They didn't live and die over skill rolls and they didn't expect every skill to be used in every situation either. Folks who are primarily RPG players will have different expectations.

Yeah, mine are wargamers as well.

Cramming Traveller RPG skills into the Traveller HG2 wargame can be terribly unbalancing if the GM fails to handle things correctly. Look at the gunnery skill for example.

Agreed. However, I didn't mind giving the players skill roll modifiers since they were usually up against military craft. They could use the help...

But realistically, you're right. Military ships (which are the default HG combatants) would have trained personnel operating the ships' weapons; probably gunner-2 on average. So the HG system (IMHO) assumes relatively competent gunners already.

 

[dccarles]

*** - It is the presence of this and several other mechanisms in HG2 that make me scratch my head when people say the game lacks enough "important" decisions. I believe it is HG2's relative lack of roleplaying decisions that blind folks to the game's many wargaming decisions.

First, it's not a real decision if there's no advantage to not doing it that way.
Second, in the course of a large battle, these 'decisions' will even out.

High Guard's problem with its combat system is that there are very few actual decisions involved; most of them have obvious answers. I've never seen a game of High Guard that turned on a player's decisions in combat. (I'm sure it could happen, but only if the player was very inexperienced or foolish.)

But it works fine in combination with the ship design system and Trillion Credit Squadron. On its own, it's pretty much a dice-rolling snoozefest.

--Devin

 

[Jeffr0]

Name one Traveller ship design, combat, and campaign rules set that is half as playable, useful, and edited as CT High Guard second edition.

More starships have been designed, played, and destroyed under High Guard than any other Traveller rules set... and probably more than any system of its kind.

Respect it.

 

[rancke]

Name one Traveller ship design, combat, and campaign rules set that is half as playable, useful, and edited as CT High Guard second edition.

QSDS1.5.

For the ship design part, anyway. I can't speak about the combat and campaign rules, since I don't think there are any.

More starships have been designed, played, and destroyed under High Guard than any other Traveller rules set... and probably more than any system of its kind.

Respect it.

Oh, I respect it. I've designed a lot of HG/2nd ships in my day. I just don't think 'respect' means you have to close your eyes to its flaws.


Hans

 

[Jeffr0]

T4?

With combat rules that didn't make any sense... that required errata that was never published and only exists in a few odd PDF's buried in dark corners of the internet?

I wasted hours on that game and never got it to work... and still needed several clarifications on various rules.

 

[Jeffr0]

Oh, I respect it. I've designed a lot of HG/2nd ships in my day. I just don't think 'respect' means you have to close your eyes to its flaws.

I say to you again, Hans:

What you view as flaws, I see as premises.

 

[Jeffr0]

High Guard's problem with its combat system is that there are very few actual decisions involved; most of them have obvious answers. I've never seen a game of High Guard that turned on a player's decisions in combat. (I'm sure it could happen, but only if the player was very inexperienced or foolish.)
--Devin

The decisions do not have such obvious answers when you do not know the exact stats of your opposing fleet-- that's even with just ship tonnage, agility, battery types/ratings *used*, die rolls and their effects, and the exact damage results being public. A strong/effective design will tend to win anyway, though... but that uncertainty gives another turn or two for the underdog to score some lucky hits. Limited tactical intelligence is fun.