Mongoose High Guard

[Jeffr0]

I like HG so far, some vagaries and typos, meh, seems to be the rule these days from the industry at large, and not as bad as other things I have owned over the years.

That's a deal breaker for me.

<Angry rant about production standards across Traveller lines deleted. Again.>

 

[Jeffr0]

Does this thing really do anything for you that CT's Highguard and Brilliant Lances don't do?

CT Highguard is the defacto standard. Brilliant lances is a 'real' game with many realism and 'common sense' type issues addressed-- it was also meant to be played in tournaments featuring one-on-one battles between player designed ships. (The more I look at BL, the more impressed I am.)

Has Mongoose really done anything to seriously challenge CT HG's supremacy? I don't think GT really tried. T20 had its proponents....

I want to hear from people that actually play starship battles.... Has anyone done this yet with MGT?

 

[Klaus]

The superiority of MHG over CTHG?

Most significantly, space fighters are now highly viable military craft and en masse will pose a significant problem for the line of battle.

Excellent chargen suplements for those wishing to play a naval game, or just an ex-navy character, and of course great for npcs.

Deckplans for battleships...

Lots of new kit to stick on board any kind of ship, and modifications dependent on tech level.

I've not tested the new space combat system, but the Barrage rules are simpler and more scaleable than the old battery system, and old HG combat was rather broken itself.

Yup, there are flaws. Seems I have a first printing, but the lack of a TOC and those p.XX references aren't a major problem. However, there seems to be a disagreement with TMB as to whether fixed mounts require 1dton for fire control, and this gets carried over into the fighter designs in the book. Also, it seems to me that there might be an omitted sentence regarding weapon power vs armour in the barrage rules; hard to tell, but they do make you note down a number that is then never used mechanically whatsoever.

But it is nowhere near as garbled as parts of Mercenary were. In all, a highly useful product for those interested in naval campaigns and designing ships big and small, and of interest to any "fellow Traveller".

 

[aramis]

Jeffr0:

While I share your gripes about Mongoose's production standards (and the apparent lack thereof), measuring with the two yardsticks you have is not really a good idea.

CTHG was never about PC's. It was always "something other" than suitable for use with PC's.

BL, on the other hand, is TNE, and doesn't play using the same assumptions of the universe, and to be honest, was more work than SFB, and most agree SFB is too much work.

So, for many, it's not going to be hard to beat either.

 

[Theophilus]

Ughhhhh.....
I was going to bring up the pdf preview, but
Adobe Reader chokes on it.

So, the style is closer to the LLB2 version of ship construction. Pick a hull size and cram in chunks till it's full. I kinda liked the original High Guard design sequence. Figure out what I want, total up the percentages, cram stuff in left over space. convenient!

Of course TNE was more designer oriented, even if they did drop Repulsors and Energy weapons from the design sequence.

Anyway. I'll probably not buy the MGT books, I just like the High Guard/Fighting Ships stuff. How well will it integrate with previous versions of Traveller?

 

[Jeffr0]

As far as the general Starship Combat Game "Crisis" vis-a-vis Traveller... I think this might be the answer:

http://www.adastragames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1465&start=0

Check out the movement card and the list of weapon traits. Looks like some sort of Generic Universal Tactical Game Generator with an emphasis on playability above everything else-- optimized for small fleet battles.

There are rumors of impending Traveller support as well.

Note: this is something that makes Winchell Chung salivate. (Is that really *the* Winchell Chung over there...?)

 

[Supplement Four]

CTHG was never about PC's. It was always "something other" than suitable for use with PC's.

I strongly disagree.o:

What is CT's High Guard other than a quick, abstract system for detailing large space engaements.

The entire system is abstracted except for attack throws. Even range is abstract.

So, in play, what you can have is a situation where...

...the PCs jump into the Aramanx system. Sternmetal has been investing heavily into the world politics by bringing economic and military aid to one of the world's smaller countries. The country is now intimidating its neighbors, and via Sternmetal's aid, possibly going to start a war of exampansion. The country's dictator is a puppet of Sternmetal, and the megacorp is interested in the world's natural resources--so, they've invested themselves in the local politics in order to gain control.

But, Aramanx is in the Aramis subsector--a sector where another megacorp, Tukera, is also engaged in spreading its influence. And, Tukera is not about to have Sternmetal snooping around in what Tukera considers its playground.

Enter the PC's.

Their tramp freighter jumps into the Aramanx system, aware of the local politics, to find two fleets in-system: Tukera and Sternmetal.

The PC's dock at the highport, and just as they reach the bar, combat ignites out in the system between the Tukera and Sternmetal fleets.

You see, one of the major uses of the High Guard space combat system is to quickly and abstractly determine who wins the space encounter, and then get back to the role playing at hand.

It's no different than the abstract ground combat system in Mercenary--they do the same job.

The GMs has two forces fighting over here. Maybe the PCs are part of the fight (in which case, their skills may influence the outcome, per the HG rules), and maybe they aren't.

The fight takes place, and the results are described by the GM.

Note that the PCs, in their tramp freighter, can also be used, with the GM switching back and forth between Book 2 space combat with the PC's ship, and then using High Guard to determine what's happening overall.

High Guard is, in fact, just another tool in the rpg bag that a GM has in order to tell his stories.

 

[aramis]

Resolving the fleet battle isn't Roleplaying. Its simulation of background events, at least most of the time.

CTHG is specifically for big fleet ships. Adventure Class ships are below it's useful resolution. It's neither fast nor dramatic at that end, and it is painfully abstract.

Then again, only four ship combat systems have really felt like Roleplaying was involved: FASA STRPG 1E, Gorilla Games' Battlestations!, WEG's Star Wars RPG.... and draft 3.2 of MGT. Everything else felt like either abstract number crunching, or board games. Now I like board games, when not too detailed.

But CTHG didn't feel like roleplay nor a board game. For adventure class ships, it was pretty lame.

 

[Jeffr0]

Traveller is more than just an RPG. It's a loose coalition of games all set in the same universe.

A sci-fi universe has to have a space ship design system.

Once you have the designs, you have to be able to do something with them.

Fighting and Trade are good things.

If you're going to have fights... it'd be nice to handle tactical, fleet actions, and strategic levels.

 

[Supplement Four]

Resolving the fleet battle isn't Roleplaying. Its simulation of background events, at least most of the time.

CTHG is specifically for big fleet ships. Adventure Class ships are below it's useful resolution. It's neither fast nor dramatic at that end, and it is painfully abstract.

Yessir, that is correct. CT HG isn't really useful for roleplaying unless the players are Admirals commanding fleets.

But, CT HG is a tool in the GM's bag just as having a mass combat system is a tool in the GM's bag. It's a quick, easy, abstract way to play out mass fleet battles. It won't take you all night, and many details are glossed over in abstraction.

But, it dang sure is a tool for the GM to use while playing an rpg game session.

The example I gave above is a clear instance where HG would be helpful. Or, also as I said above, one could focus on rpging inside the ship, using Book 2 space combat, and use HG to see how the entire encounter is going.

Years ago, I played a session that way. I played two Book 2 (actually, I used Range Band movement from Starter Traveller) combat rounds to one HG combat round. Every third round, I'd play a round of HG and report what the players saw on their sensors.

This was a hell of a game. It was a dire situation, and through some excellent role playing (and ship captaining), the players pulled out the scenarios as victors...but, their side lost the HG encounter.

Basically, they won the fight but lost the war.

It wasn't pre-planned. I rolled dice for the HG encounters (even let the players play their ally captial ships), but the bad guys took the day.

And, the PC's, in their small, 400 ton ship, had to make for splits-ville quite quickly as the big guns came gunning for them once the capitals were lost.

As the game progressed, it was like following a PT boat at Pearl Harbor. The PT might have shot down a few zeros, but there were capital ships exploding all around.

So, I stand my ground: HG can be very useful and very playable in a typical rpg game session. In fact, I speculate (and it might be hard to ever know for sure) that HG was designed for just this purpose--as a mass combat-like system to support rpg game sessions.

Why do I think that?

Well, it's too abstract to be meant as a game by itself (ironic, though, that's how its come to be viewed), and it does look a lot like a mass combat system for space.

 

[Jeffr0]

That's definitely the spirit with which Fifth Frontier War was meant to be taken:

Play this game a little at a time and use it to provide a sort of coherent uncertainty as a backdrop.

(And then there's the marvelous absurdity of Trillion Credit Squadron being sold as an *adventure*!)

 

[Supplement Four]

(And then there's the marvelous absurdity of Trillion Credit Squadron being sold as an *adventure*!)

Well, it is, by GDW standards. Remember, GDW is from the school of we-give-you-a-basic-idea-and-you-take-the-ball-and-run-with-it, the type of "adventure" writing that was popular in the early days of the hobby.

So, TCS gave you some rules for designing fleets.

You could detail your entire subsector--know every ship in the fleet.

1. You'd use Book 6 to create your worlds if not using an "official" sector like the Spinward Marches.

2. You'd use TCS to budget fleets for those worlds.

3. You'd use High Guard to create those fleets (and to do combat with them, if needed).

4. Then, you'd use the rest of Traveller (Trade rules and such) to stomp around in your playground.

(5. And, there were non-GDW products, like DGP's Grand Census and Grand Survey to add even more detail to the worlds you create!)



Not so much anymore, but back in the day, I knew GMs that wouldn't use adventures. They'd have no idea how or what they were going to play. They'd just start using the Traveller rules to create a subsector and let their imagination take over.

The details they generated would sprout their own adventures--in a sense, the universe would write itself.



After you detailed the worlds in your subsector (a lot of work, but many GMs, like myself, really dig this sort of thing), you'd know a lot about them. Politics. Interactions. Hot spots and Amber Zones.

Take one of the GDW adventure "ideas", and, boom, you've got yourself a hell of a game--tailored to the GM's tastes (and hopefully his players').

Traveller, at least in the early days, was about giving you the tools to design your own universe.

God, I love it.

 

[Icosahedron]

Not so much anymore, but back in the day, I knew GMs that wouldn't use adventures. They'd have no idea how or what they were going to play. They'd just start using the Traveller rules to create a subsector and let their imagination take over.

The details they generated would sprout their own adventures--in a sense, the universe would write itself.



After you detailed the worlds in your subsector (a lot of work, but many GMs, like myself, really dig this sort of thing), you'd know a lot about them. Politics. Interactions. Hot spots and Amber Zones.

Take one of the GDW adventure "ideas", and, boom, you've got yourself a hell of a game--tailored to the GM's tastes (and hopefully his players').

Traveller, at least in the early days, was about giving you the tools to design your own universe.

God, I love it.

Been there, done that, still doing it! I love it too.
I use TNE Pocket Empires as an even bigger and more abstract background than CTHG. This lets me plan where whole fleets are going, with an entire war as backdrop.

 

[Jamus]

You see, one of the major uses of the High Guard space combat system is to quickly and abstractly determine who wins the space encounter, and then get back to the role playing at hand.

Or you could as GM just choose which side will win based on where you are trying to take the story. Why use rules to arbitrate when we have our imagination?

 

[mike wightman]

TCS is one of my all time favourite Traveller adventures...

wonder why

 

[Supplement Four]

Or you could as GM just choose which side will win based on where you are trying to take the story. Why use rules to arbitrate when we have our imagination?

Because, for, many times that's boring. I like the "unknowns" when I GM. Most times, I will set up a situation for the players, without any thought to how they're going to get out of it, and just play from there.

As GM, that's "fun".

When I did the fight above I described above, neither me nor the players knew how the fleet battle would turn out (just like not knowing what will happen in combat with PC's). That lent itself to a certain "unknown" quality in the game. It added to the excitement.

It's not that I don't use preordained encounters. I do. But, I tend to let the dice decide many things in a game as we go, creating the story as we go.

I do it for the excitement. For the fun.

 

[Jamus]

fun is whats most important. I dont find CTHG or MERC to be fun. I dont care for overly abstract rules or number crunching. to each their own.

 

[Supplement Four]

fun is whats most important. I dont find CTHG or MERC to be fun. I dont care for overly abstract rules or number crunching. to each their own.

I don't use it all the time, either.

I think the key is for the players to have an investment in the fight. They need to be pulling for one side to win--instead of not-caring at all who wins.

For example, in the fight I described, the players had ties with Tukera. Sternmetal turned up with a fleet around Aramanx (story point--pre-ordained and not diced) as a show of force--to let Tukera know that they're there to stay.

The players knew about the problems between the two mega-corps, and I'm sure they expected to get into some gun combat with Sternmetal bad guys at some point. When they exited jump at Aramanx, it was a huge surprise for them to see the Sternmetal fleet.

See, they were invested in the game--in the story. They had an uneasy alliance with Tukera, but it was their alliance.

As the player's ship approached the Aramanx High Port, scanners showed multiple jump signatures. It was the Tukera fleet jumping into the system.

Well, this put a lot of tension in the game. If there was going to be a space fight, they probably wanted to get out of there. The players wanted to jump right there and then, but they needed to refuel.

So, they made dock at the High Port, set up services for the ship, and went to the bar--where the announcement was made about the emergency conditions.

If Tukera won, it would mean a lot more work for the PCs. The Sternmetal fleet would be gone, and Tukera would press to root the megacorp tentacles off the world. This is the type of thing the players had been higher to do for Tukera in the past (Tukera playing dirty).

But, if Tukera lost the fight, the campaign might take an entire different direction--they'd have no fighting ships left in the subsector.

So, the fight between Tukera and Sternmetal was quite dramatic.

I let the players play the Tukera ships, while I played Sternmetal.

Every third round, we'd play a High Guard combat round, followed by two rounds of Book 2 space combat.

Originally the crew was making to exit the system, but communication with the Tukera vessel convinced them to support the Tukera fighters.

So, I had the player's ship and some fighters fighting some Sternmetal fighters using Book 2 combat.

The players had a vested interest in Tukera winning the day, not only for the reasons I listed, but also because they may be in real danger if the Sternmetal fleet came gunning for them.

They kept an eye on the progress of the fight, and as it started to look like Tukera was going to lose, they began moving away from the combat.

Sternmetal fired a few shots, but they had no real opportunity to get the PCs.

And, off the PCs went, to an uncertain future, their "side" having just felt a damaging blow.

 

[SgtHulka]

Interesting idea...

That sounds like it would make a great High Guard/Mayday hybrid wargaming scenario, too. I don't have my rules with me and it's been a while since I've referenced them...how did you come up with the two Book 2 turns per High Guard turn?

 

[Supplement Four]

That sounds like it would make a great High Guard/Mayday hybrid wargaming scenario, too. I don't have my rules with me and it's been a while since I've referenced them...how did you come up with the two Book 2 turns per High Guard turn?

I think you're good with a 1:1 ratio or a 1:2 ratio.

Book 2 uses 1000 second turns, which is just over 16 minutes (I usually round to 15 min).

High Guard uses 20 min turns.

So, either a 1:2 or a 1:1 ratio is good.

I went with the 1:2 (one round of HG followed by two rounds of Book 2) just to keep the action centered on the PCs. It would have been "more correct" to go with the 1:1, but it just didn't feel right.

The "pace" of the game seemed to feel better by spending more time with the PCs and then checking on what's happening with the HG battle.

So...to answer your question...

I went with my gut.