MGT Only: Just Suppose: High Guard Second Edition

[MongooseMatt]

Hi chaps,

Been a fair bit of talk about High Guard here recently.

Just suppose, for a moment, we were to do with High Guard what we have recently done to Mercenary (a complete revision). What would you like to see added/changed/deleted?

 

[atpollard]

One integrated design system (including Drive Progression) from the smallest small craft to the largest capital ship.

 

[Condottiere]

That would be simpler, than trying to figure out a way to reconcile it.

If you tagged the Alphabet drives as off-the-shelf commercial versions, which would be somehow cheaper than custom made machinery.

 

[McPerth]

My first ideas:

Things I like (when comparing with CT:HG):

1. The "progresive branch changes" in CharGen
2. The improvements in weapons as TL rises
3. The simplification in spinals profiting from the imprevoements with TL
4. The barrage system in capital ship combat, that avoids so many rolls that force people to ressort to statistical results

Things I don't like:

1. The Discipline skill
2. The lack of some way to limit energy weapons (as EP did in CT/HG)
3. (Once again) the inverse relation on Maneuver and Jump drives when comparing them with the CB (in CB the JD is larger than the MD, in HG the MD is larger than the JD).

Things to think about:

1. The relatively uselessness of the missiles (see this post)
2. The high number of bays allowed (up to x 6 in respect to CCT:HG)

Also many things need to be clarified:

1. Relation among armor TL and hull TL
2. Usability or not of Prototech or Retrotech to ship computers (this would also affect CB ship rules)

More details in this thread.

Surely more to come as I think more in deep about it...

 

[robject]

Don McKinney may have a laundry list of thoughts and possibilities...

 

[mike wightman]

Put repulsers back in.

Find all the ship design rules hidden away in other books and include them.

A TL chart for letter drive availability.

 

[rancke]

A TL chart for letter drive availability.

Better yet (much better), an explicit link between tech level and maximum jump capacity. (If you don't have that already).



Hans

 

[mike wightman]

They already have that.

 

[BillDowns]

I would like to see TL make improvements in machinery. Like every TL increment either reduces the size or fuel consumption, or increases performance. A TL9 Jump Drive A should be bigger, cost more, and use more fuel than a TL10 Jump Drive A.

Ditto on computers and weapons.

 

[rancke]

They already have that.

Thank you, that's a relief.


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

1. The lack of some way to limit energy weapons (as EP did in CT/HG)

A TL chart for letter drive availability.

If you introduce EPs, one of the things that is popular in the T5 ruleset is the ability to "gang" multiple drives of the same type together (e.g. 3 Type-A M-Drives, which are functionally equivalent to 1 Type-C M-Drive). EPs can be used to compare performance.

Several people on this board like this feature of T5 enough to retro-fit the idea back into their CT rules. It might be workable for MgT as well.

Things to think about:

1. The relatively uselessness of the missiles (see this post)

Seconded. Basic missiles are currently far too underpowered. In CT: Book2, they did 1-6 times the damage of a BLaser, and 0.5-3 times the damage of a PLaser.

As originally conceived in CT: Book2, Missiles were an entirely offensive weapon (highest damage potential), Sandcasters were an entirely defensive weapon (against lasers only), and Lasers had both offensive an defensive capabilities (against missiles). The reason for the classic "Mixed Triple Turret" was that you had all options available in a single turret.

As it currently stands, there is no good reason in MgT to equip a ship with basic missiles, as the laser will always out-class them. (In fact, all weapons will always out-class them).

Put repulsers back in.

Find all the ship design rules hidden away in other books and include them.

I would like to see TL make improvements in machinery. Like every TL increment either reduces the size or fuel consumption, or increases performance. A TL9 Jump Drive A should be bigger, cost more, and use more fuel than a TL10 Jump Drive A.

Ditto on computers and weapons.

Seconded again on both of these ideas.

 

[McPerth]

I would like to see TL make improvements in machinery. Like every TL increment either reduces the size or fuel consumption, or increases performance. A TL9 Jump Drive A should be bigger, cost more, and use more fuel than a TL10 Jump Drive A.

Ditto on computers and weapons.

AFAIK nowhere in the tables in page 53 (reductions in size for higer TL) precludes using them on the crives in CB (the letter rating ones), if you know what TL are they.

So, if a Jump Drive A is TL 9 and 10 tons and costs MCr 10, at TL 12 (TL+3) if can be only 7.5 tons, at a cost of MCr 20.

 

[mike wightman]

Which is why I said we need to know the TL of the letter drives, MgT forgot to include a TL table like the one in CT.

You can make some really interesting designs if the TL progression effects from HG can apply to the letter drives.

Oh, and the small craft letter drives need fixing so they don't outperform ship scale letter drives (otherwise 100t scout ships would be better with small craft letter drives then regular manoeuvre drives IIRC).

 

[Garyius2003]

As far as character enlistments, drop the rolls to enter the branches.

A character with characteristic 9 (+1) has a 75 percent chance of entering the crewman branch of the 3I. That same level (+1) has only a 50 percent chance of getting into a good basic branch (flight, gunnery).

The really good branches require a string of good rank rolls, PLUS a roll so unlikely as to be impossible. Figuring a plus one DM, there is a 7 to 15 percent chance of entering the branch.

I would drop the crewman branch one (to 3I 6+), and do the same for the good basic branches. I would drop the really good branches three. The continuing minus one rolls for terms would control for easy 6 term PCs.

 

[Condottiere]

With the exception of Grav Drives, are you sure that Smallcraft Reactionary Drives outperform the Adventure class ones?

 

[bobh]

(modular) up-armoring

allow for the fact that vessels can have their armor removed and replaced later in their operational lives (it makes sense to me that the basic hull with no armor could simply be assumed to account for armoring mounts in their initial construction so it can be added at a later date)

capital ships have sections which can be armored separately, this would also allow them to take advantage of quick repairs at primitive ports on a section by section basis

logistically it makes me happy to think that i don't have to order the construction of a new cruiser to take advantage of advances in metallurgy

 

[Galadrion]

Okay, in rough order of importance:

( 1 ) A unified ship design system, capable of handling small craft, spaceships, and starships, preferably open-ended. (I'd like to see the capability of designing some really big ships - Death stars, Orbital Weapon Platforms, maybe Culture-style habitation ships.)

( 2 ) A consolidation of all of the available ship equipment.

( 3 ) And this one is a personal wish, not something I would regard as critical: ship-scale weapon design. For a battleship or dreadnought, why not a kiloton weapon bay?

 

[pendragonman]

A design paradigm for space stations, both orbital and deep space beyond the "it's just a ship without maneuver and jump".

 

[GypsyComet]

Which is why I said we need to know the TL of the letter drives, MgT forgot to include a TL table like the one in CT.

You can make some really interesting designs if the TL progression effects from HG can apply to the letter drives.

I think two things are being asked for. One of them does not apply, IMO, while the other does.

There should be no TL progression through the Letter Drives. Drive A and Drive Z, and all between them, are the same TL. The control on performance comes with TL through the Computer and the Jump software. Just because you have enough drive to do a Jump-2 doesn't mean your computer can convince it to do so.

The second thing is the actual TL of the Letter Drives, so that TL scaling can be applied. Yes, this needs to be stated in High Guard. Leave those shenanigans out of the Core book.

 

[aramis]

I think two things are being asked for. One of them does not apply, IMO, while the other does.

There should be no TL progression through the Letter Drives. Drive A and Drive Z, and all between them, are the same TL. The control on performance comes with TL through the Computer and the Jump software. Just because you have enough drive to do a Jump-2 doesn't mean your computer can convince it to do so.

The second thing is the actual TL of the Letter Drives, so that TL scaling can be applied. Yes, this needs to be stated in High Guard. Leave those shenanigans out of the Core book.

The letter drives in Mongoose are not TL restricted. The performance of the jump drive is limited in the corebook (on the TL table in th front, rather than in the design section); the HG section on variations by TL is convoluted, but starts out with the same TL7-9 base for Maneuver drives, TL 9-15 for Jump Drives, and TL11 for PP.