High Guard without Spinal Weapons

[marginaleye]

An open-ended question and/or thought-experiment:

Suppose one were playing a game of Trillion Credit Squadron in which neither you, nor your opponent, were permitted to design ships with spinal weapons. What would you do?

I don't have a lot of experience with the Book 5: High Guard combat rules, but I strongly suspect that banning spinal weapons would have really drastic, far-reaching, effects upon the way warships are designed and deployed. I'm asking this because I've been toying with the idea of making some changes to the starship design rules for my (very) non-canonical Traveller universe which would, purely as a side-effect, make spinal weapons all but impossible (without, however, necessarily making very large warships impossible, too).

Any help would be appreciated.

I'm also thinking about dropping meson guns (and meson screens as well, of course), but I think asking for help with two heresies in one post would be a bit greedy...

 

[Anthony]

You'd wind up with vast numbers of factor-9 missile bays with nuclear missiles. That's a viable design even with spinal mounts in the game.

 

[flykiller]

I don't have a lot of experience with the Book 5: High Guard combat rules, but I strongly suspect that banning spinal weapons would have really drastic, far-reaching, effects upon the way warships are designed and deployed.

some of us have studied HG2 extensively. I think I'm one of 'em.

without spinal guns, relying on nuclear weapons alone (as all other remaining weapons become largely irrelevant), it is very difficult to force any military decision at all. even at lower tech levels with absent or minimal nuclear damper screens, obtaining a kill or a cripple on any ship is hard to impossible unless the ship is incompetently designed or operated.

as a background for an RPG (like, say, traveller) HG2 is ok, but as a wargame HG2 is quite limited even with spinal mounts.

 

[mike wightman]

If you want to go without spinal mounts then try also getting rid of the damage table +6 modifier for weapons of factor 9 or less. Or, for added complication (and a house rule varient I've used in the past), keep the +6 modifier but also subtract the weapon factor from the damage table roll (and yes, nuclear missiles get their -6 still). I've also allowed nuclear missiles to inflict 1 hit per weapon factor, to more closely match the effect of nuclear missiles in Book 2 combat.

As Anthony says, the factor 9 missile bay becomes the weapon of choise, but don't neglect particle accelerator bays. Their extra radiation hits can also help to strip weapons off the enemy, plus they don't have to penetrate any defensive systems.

 

[The Oz]

Without spinal mounts (especially spinal meson guns) HG combat becomes a slow attrition contest that is decided by the weight of fire being produced, which is itself dependent on the size of the ships in the combat. FWIW, it would closely resemble the naval combat of the Honor Harrington universe, before the introduction of LACs or missile pods in that universe.

If you want to make things go a little faster in resolving HG combat (and give things a bit more variety) Sigg's suggestions about altering how the combat tables are used have much merit.

Since missile bays will become the weapon of choice, I'd also consider some kind of ammunition rules/missile magazine rules to force designers to consider just how long their ships can keep shooting all those missiles.

 

[marginaleye]

If you want to go without spinal mounts then try also getting rid of the damage table +6 modifier for weapons of factor 9 or less. Or, for added complication (and a house rule varient I've used in the past), keep the +6 modifier but also subtract the weapon factor from the damage table roll (and yes, nuclear missiles get their -6 still). I've also allowed nuclear missiles to inflict 1 hit per weapon factor, to more closely match the effect of nuclear missiles in Book 2 combat.

I really like this idea. Am I correct in thinking that these changes to the damage allocation rules will also make Book 5: High Guard more viable for resolving combat between very small starships (e.g. the kind that players characters are likely to operate and encounter)?

In an environment in which nuclear missiles and (non-spinal) particle accelerators are the principal "ship-killing" weapons, lots of heavy armor will be imperative (esp. in a world without meson guns). Would adding plenty of laser batteries, as a defense against missiles, be a sensible precaution, too, or would it be better to rely on armor alone, and use the hardpoints for yet more of those missile bays?

Nuclear dampers have always seemed absurdly cheap to me, considering the amount of protection they provide (one damper defends a warship of any size against any number of incoming nuclear missiles -- quite a bargain!). I wonder what would happen if one were to eliminate meson guns and meson screens, and then use the canonical meson screen volume/price/energy requirement figures for nuclear dampers (e.g. a factor 4 nuclear damper would cost MCr40, require 16 dtons, and consume 400 energy points for protecting a 50k dton ship).

On the other hand, it occurs to me that if a nuclear damper works by creating a very large spherical "no nuclear explosion zone" around the warship it protects (measured in kilometers, perhaps), then both the size of the warship itself and the number of incoming missiles becomes irrelevant, so perhaps the canonical figures should be retained, even in "no spinal weapons, no meson guns" variant universe.

Actually, I kind of like the idea of long grinding battles of attrition, with a certain narrow uniformity of starship design (if nothing else, it underlines the idea that war is a distinctly unhealthy activity, and not even a particularly glamorous one -- something that the player characters should not want to be involved in!

)

 

[The Oz]

If I were making a "no spinals" universe I'd want:

</font>

• turret missiles to be used in the anti-missile role, more accurate than beam weapons.</font>
• some kind of "escort" rule so that small ships can protect larger ships from incoming missiles.</font>
• fighter squadron rules so that fighters could be more effective.</font>
• magazine rules so you can run out of missiles/fighter ordnance/sand.</font>

Can anyone think of anything else (besides Sigg's excellent idea about how to use the damage tables)?

 

[mike wightman]

I really like this idea. Am I correct in thinking that these changes to the damage allocation rules will also make Book 5: High Guard more viable for resolving combat between very small starships (e.g. the kind that players characters are likely to operate and encounter)?

Yep. I originally used these rules to make small ship combat a bit more intersting using High Guard.

In an environment in which nuclear missiles and (non-spinal) particle accelerators are the principal "ship-killing" weapons, lots of heavy armor will be imperative (esp. in a world without meson guns). Would adding plenty of laser batteries, as a defense against missiles, be a sensible precaution, too, or would it be better to rely on armor alone, and use the hardpoints for yet more of those missile bays?

Now that's a good question. As a rule of thumb it's always better to max out the USP with all the weapon turrets you can fit, after your missile bays and PAWS. Armour usually trades off with drive performance/agility.
When fitting armour consdider what AR you will need to avoid automatic criticals from factor 9 weapons (not a problem for ships over 1000t) and to avoid interior explosions and crew radiation hits. Using the subtract weapon factor varient that means an AV of 8 for non-nuclear weapons or an AV of 14 versus nuclear weapons.
Fit as much as you can.

Nuclear dampers have always seemed absurdly cheap to me, considering the amount of protection they provide (one damper defends a warship of any size against any number of incoming nuclear missiles -- quite a bargain!). I wonder what would happen if one were to eliminate meson guns and meson screens, and then use the canonical meson screen volume/price/energy requirement figures for nuclear dampers (e.g. a factor 4 nuclear damper would cost MCr40, require 16 dtons, and consume 400 energy points for protecting a 50k dton ship).

Here's another suggestion. Keep the volume and prices of the nuclear dampers as is. Use the meson screen EP requirement.
BUT, one damper only affects ONE incoming missile battery. You want to stop more, install more nuclear dampers. On the USP just note the number of nuclear dampers as if they are weapon batteries themselves.

Going back to nuclear missiles I should add that when I wrote "I've also allowed nuclear missiles to inflict 1 hit per weapon factor" that's one surface hit and one radiation hit per factor, but they are reduced in number by armour (just like spinal mounts) to a minimum of one hit. I also treat nuclear missiles as spinal weapons for automatic criticals, factor 1 is the equivalent of A up to 9 being J (target size and armour reduce these just like in the rules).

By the way, what TL and size range do you have in mind for this (VNC)TU of yours? Sounds interesting.

 

[mike wightman]

I've just been reading 1st edition high guard again. There are a couple of missile rules that never made it to second edition.

1. At short range missiles get a +2 bonus to penetrate repulsors, representing the reduced time the repulsor has to affect the missiles.

2. High Intensity Missile Fire - ship fires all ready missiles (you can only do this once!) and gains a +4 bonus to hit and to penetrate defences.

You may also want to consider using a crew-n damage result from MegaTraveller which says the vessel can still fight until it takes over half caualties.
I've adapted this to a crew factor 3 can take 1 crew hit and still function, as can a crew factor 2 ship.
In the event of losing crew and being unable to fire I also allow Ship's Troops to act as emergency gunners, but you lose your Ship's Troops in doing so. They can go back to being Troops again, decide at the beginning of the combat round, but you've lost your guns for the round.
Another crew hit takes out the Ship's Troops as well (note your Ship's Troops number has to be equal or greater than the number of gunners carried - determined at ship design or analysis of existing ships).

 

[Anthony]

Hm..

Buffered planetoid hull with 14 points of normal armor (49% of hull taken up, total armor factor 20) and a factor-3 meson screen.

Totally impervious to non-spinal mounts. 22+ on the damage charts is no damage, so even nuclear missiles have no effect; a factor-9 meson gun needs to roll 13+ on 2d to penetrate a factor-3 meson screen, so that's hopeless too.

Of course, if you get rid of the +6 modifier for non-spinal weapons, that ship can be damaged.

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
2. High Intensity Missile Fire - ship fires all ready missiles (you can only do this once!) and gains a +4 bonus to hit and to penetrate defences.

We put High Intensity missile fire into Power Projection (gives a +2 on the CRT). Very useful for a desperation tactic. i think that it was originally in Imperium.

 

[mike wightman]

You've just discovered the "armoured rock"
A spinal PAWS is no use against it, either, provided that the rock is 8000t or larger. By the way the AV20 costs 50% of the hull, 35% for buffered planetoid and 14+1% for AV14.

Don't forget that relative computer size provides a modifier to penetration, so a meson bay may not be entirely useless (against higher factor screens it will be though ).

I would definately use a damage resolution varient in the Universe you are suggesting in order to prevent boredom during ship combat. I would also use the "nuclear missiles have spinal mount like effects" rules I mentioned earlier. Gives the fighters and escort ships something to do

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
You've just discovered the "armoured rock"
A spinal PAWS is no use against it, either, provided that the rock is 8000t or larger. By the way the AV20 costs 50% of the hull, 35% for buffered planetoid and 14+1% for AV14.

Q. Can AV exceed TL? Does the planetoid hull give you a +6 bonus above this. HG2 itself steps aound this...

A. This is clarified in TCS and yes it can and does...

Ouch.

Pondering on the example you give, Power Projection would handle it slightly differently.

Factor 20 armour = Armour 4

assuming a factor S or T spinal:

PA spinal hits with base 7D6 damage. Loses highest 4D6 rolls reducing damage to a maximum of 3D6. 3 point advantage doesn't trigger automatic armour reduction. Spinal Mount Threshold check would then be made with a check number of 6 (unless the 3D6 tips the damage over a row end, where it would be usual check number less one and a catastrophic check).

Meson Spinal hits with base 7D6 damage, which isn't reduced. The defending rock's armour is still only 3 points less than the spinal rating so isn't suto reduced. Threshold check is made on a 5 or 6 (or a check number -2).

In both cases the damage (10.5 boxes AVG PA or 24.5 AVG) isn't a hell of a lot against a big capital ship. However, the 8000 dT example would have 16 boxes total, tripping thresholds at 4/8/12. As a result, the Meson Spinal would most likely destroy the rock outright from shear damage.

The PA spinal would force a catastrophic check with a check number of 3 or above to fail (ie ~66% chance of failing, with the next check immediately after failing on a 83% chance resulting in the destruction of the ship). If these were passed, the ship will on average have lost 66% of it's systems anyway, including armour.

Conclusion - PP is more violent

and the breakpoints that you can munch are a little different.

 

[mike wightman]

I just got my copy yesterday and so far I'm very impressed with it. I'd noticed that it is more violent, which is a plus

I like tha optional rules (vector movement for missiles and fighters, etc), they allow you to scale the complexity, and the campaign rules are excellent

I've already started writing house rules for it based on my High Guard house rules for nuclear missiles (treating the contact ones as "spinal mounts"), sensors, and electronic warfare.
The latter two are quite easy because they are simple modifications of the various computer rules you have presented, with a couple of extras.
Well done sir, a great game and add on to Traveller.

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The latter two are quite easy because they are simple modifications of the various computer rules you have presented, with a couple of extras.

If you want to email me some details, I can put them on the PP website.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Well done sir, a great game and add on to Traveller.

Blush.

Thanks!

Dom

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Well done sir, a great game and add on to Traveller.

Second the motion!!!