New Highguard Equipment and/or Tournament Restrictions

[Jeffr0]

New High Guard Equipment and/or Tournament Restrictions

So far High Guard is my favorite Traveller ship system. It is reasonably complete... and it is possible to *do* something with the ships when you have finished designing them. Later systems appear to me to be content with the view that ship design is primarily a world-building type exercise for generating unplayable background information.

I am skeptical of extensive houserules to fixed perceived weaknesses in the system: I'm not interested in achieving a GURPS-level sophistication in unplayable design rules. The lack of consistent (and coherent) revision on the publishers part means that there is no consensus as to what the "right" answer to Traveller naval battles should be. Highguard 2e is simply the most consistent/evolved/playable version of Traveller naval warfare that we have.

So... what's the minimum for what you'd do to "fix" any perceived weaknesses in highguard? There's two ways to propose a patch:

1) Specify a new piece of equipment (Mcr, tonnage, etc.) that allows a particularly annoying rule to be "bent" a little.

2) Specify a "ground rule" for BCS/TCS tournaments that eliminates an unrealistic or "munchkiny" design strategy.

You could play with either of these sorts of options and still be playing "official" High Guard!


Here are my proposals for some new equipment:

1) The Muraarkek fire control system. This piece of equipment allows a Carrier to combine the missiles of its fighter squadrons into batteries... and to take control of the fighter missile fire... using the Carrier's computer rating (at a penalty maybe) instead of the fighters' computer ratings.

2) The Shakererrari fire control system. This piece of equipent allows a Ship to reorganize its batteries into a new array. It can fire them as one "big" shot or as several "small" shots or whatever. When the ship is designed, the architect specifies two seperate battery arrangements. At the start of each turn, the captain declares which of the two arrangements he is using for that turn.

Somebody else proposed somewhere a limitation on armor purchases-- especially for small craft. That would be good as a specific "ground rule" for a BCS/TCS tournament.

 

[pendragonman]

Similar to your above Muraarkek fire control system, but different:

I use a "Command Fighter" variant of each fighter type that is larger and contains the electronic warfare elements (bigger computer) necessary (with a dedicated EW crew member) that allow the squadron to volley fire all of their missiles simultaneously in one battery at a higher computer rating. So not only do you get the higher fire factor from one mass battery fire but a computer boost. This is strictly an anti ship function and cannot be used against other small craft so dogfights can still happen with any squadron member engaged in dogfighting not able to pickle off his missiles with the group.

Didn't ramble too much, did I?

 

[Jeffr0]

I don't see any reason that the Command fighter couldn't use the same system.

It would take a passive fire control penalty, though-- if he went "active", then enemy ships would simply target him first and ignore the other fighters.... If all of the fighters are on "passive", then the enemy couldn't tell the difference as long as the ships were all the same size and have the same energy profile...

 

[samuelvss]

It could be essentially any ship; you need to buy the extra computer, and that ship becomes a target. This would allow/encourage AWACS/type ships, with some redundancy built in, and even "command fighters" that could come online, as the battle developed, that might have less computer capability than the larger ships but more than the fighter.

I think to justify this, it would need to be a big computer, 7 or higher.

 

[Jeffr0]

Maybe a minimum computer size at each Tech Level...

And then slap on a specific "software cost"

(?)

Other than that it just takes a dedicated computer and a gunner/technician.

But the computer can ONLY fire one volley of missiles that turn-- that's it.

 

[far-trader]

Both concepts were touched on in a "more programs" thread a while back here on COTI iirc. In that variation they were simply programs that cost money and took up space. So you needed more budget and bigger computers, rather than any specific hardware.

I've also toyed with the idea of salvo fire and torpedos.

Salvo fire example: A single missile launcher with a USP-1 could fire it's 3 ready missiles one at a time for three turns of fire, the usual way. Or it could fire a single salvo of all three missiles in one turn for a USP-2 (the same as 3 missile launchers firing one shot each). A successful hit and penetration results in 1-3 missiles getting through. It's an attempt to throw more munitions quickly, gaining an edge by overwhemling the defenses in a concentrated attack, and possibly doing a lot more damage.

Torpedo fire example: A single missile launcher with a USP-1 could swap out it's normal loadout of 3 standard ready missiles for a loadout of 1 ready torpedo. The USP remains the same (USP-1 in this case) but if the torpedo gets through it does 3 missile hits (of 1D6 damage rolls each). This is no more effective than a missile attack at hitting or penetrating defenses but if it does get through it does a lot more damage in one attack.