• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Now THAT makes a difference ...

So after 30 years of designing and fighting HG ships and squadrons around the rules as they are written, I have finally acquired a copy of TCS.

So now I know that the - target agility modifier is supposed to apply to ALL weapons, and not just meson and particle acceperators.

Itr kinda makes a difference that, doesn't it?

And it certainly gives fighters a meaning in life.

Hmmm ... I'm gonna have to do a LOT of rethinking here :oo:
 
Wow. You just got TCS?

What I enjoyed most from TCS was the method to project a single planet's fleet budget, as broken as it is...
 
Wow. You just got TCS?

Yeah.

When I was younger I played Traveller and other RPGs with my brother - but he declared himself entirely satisfied with Book 2 spaceship combat, and so refused to learn HG rules.

Never really seemed much point in getting TCS when I had nobody to play with ...
 
Yeah.

When I was younger I played Traveller and other RPGs with my brother - but he declared himself entirely satisfied with Book 2 spaceship combat, and so refused to learn HG rules.

Never really seemed much point in getting TCS when I had nobody to play with ...

I agree with your brother.
 
Ha ha ... I HAVE been playing against myself.

But just HG rules as printed ... it never occurred to me that TCS would have a correction which completely tilted the balance of the game.

Still ... it's given me an excuse for going right back to the drawing board and designing new fleets absolutely from scratch.

And it's great being able to give destroyers a fleet role rather than just a patrol / escort role. Early 20th century destroyers were "torpedo-boat destroyers" and that was their role ... to destroy the torpedo boats before they could get at the capital ships with their torpedos. Well, same principle applies and I'm busily putting the finishing touches to a TL15 fighter destroyer which will keep the fighters from hamstering away at the capital ships.

Yeah ... I like the new balance of the rules :)
 
... Well, same principle applies and I'm busily putting the finishing touches to a TL15 fighter destroyer which will keep the fighters from hamstering away at the capital ships.

Yeah ... I like the new balance of the rules :)

Your TL15 capital ships are troubled by fighters??
 
Your TL15 capital ships are troubled by fighters??

You can't build a TL capital ship that can't have its weaponry nibbled away by a myriad of pulse lasers. Even if it's got armout-15 so only one hit in 36 actually does any damage, they still wear its weaponry down eventually ...
 
Ha ha ... I HAVE been playing against myself.

But just HG rules as printed ... it never occurred to me that TCS would have a correction which completely tilted the balance of the game.

Still ... it's given me an excuse for going right back to the drawing board and designing new fleets absolutely from scratch.

And it's great being able to give destroyers a fleet role rather than just a patrol / escort role. Early 20th century destroyers were "torpedo-boat destroyers" and that was their role ... to destroy the torpedo boats before they could get at the capital ships with their torpedos. Well, same principle applies and I'm busily putting the finishing touches to a TL15 fighter destroyer which will keep the fighters from hamstering away at the capital ships.

Yeah ... I like the new balance of the rules :)

So what you are basically saying is that you are no longer role-playing, you are wargaming on the order of Star Fleet Battles or GDW's Imperium, just on a more detailed level.
 
Traveller has always been of wider appeal than just the rpg crowd.

Much of it was designed so that solo gaming is possible, there are war-game elements (Striker, LBB4 mass combat system, High Guard) and boardgamess.
 
So after 30 years of designing and fighting HG ships and squadrons around the rules as they are written, I have finally acquired a copy of TCS.

So now I know that the - target agility modifier is supposed to apply to ALL weapons, and not just meson and particle acceperators.

Itr kinda makes a difference that, doesn't it?

And it certainly gives fighters a meaning in life.

Hmmm ... I'm gonna have to do a LOT of rethinking here :oo:
It was included in later printings, so you must have an early copy of High Guard.

So all this time you have only been using agility as a DM for spinals?
 
Last edited:
So what you are basically saying is that you are no longer role-playing, you are wargaming on the order of Star Fleet Battles or GDW's Imperium, just on a more detailed level.

To keep myself entertained until I find some RP partners to get back into RP, yeah, that's about it.

And Mike ... yes, I have! Not just spinals, though ... ALL particle accelerators and mesons, including those in bays and turrets and barbettes. It didn't strike me as particularly incongruous, given that you have to shift the whole ship to adjust the aim of a spinal, but not a turret (although that's not necessarily right, is it? You use magnetic field deflection for fine adjustments to alter the line of fire of a particle accelerator ... not entirely sure what you do with mesons. And I never really thought through the bays and particle accelerator turrets and barbettes, and why it should apply to them). The game is perfectly playable like that ... it just changes the dynamics of starship combat and the balance of advantage, that's all.

The copyright date on my copy of HG is 1980 ...
 
Last edited:
There will be a print run number on the designer/credits page.


Is that the line of numbers running from 1 to 15, directly below the copyright statement?

(On my second edition books 1 - 3 it runs from 1 - 16 and on my book 0 it runs from 1 - 9; but on my first edition LBBs and my Mercenary, they don't have it at all. Does this mean that these are from the original print run??)
 
You can't build a TL capital ship that can't have its weaponry nibbled away by a myriad of pulse lasers. Even if it's got armout-15 so only one hit in 36 actually does any damage, they still wear its weaponry down eventually ...

Here's the thing:

1: Typical Dn at that level runs MCr 120 thou to 140 thou. Given a DN with good agility (a must in my book, given the lethality of meson spinals), a fighter needs both a bridge and at least a Computer-8 to have a 1/36 chance of hitting the Dn; a bridge and Computer-9 about triples the odds. The resulting fighter costs in the neighborhood of MCr160 to 180 and comes in around 80-ish tons. Credit for credit, you end up fighting the 200 Kt Dn with 700 to 800 fighters, aggregate 60 Kt. It's the dang computer - they cost a ridiculous amount, and the fighter player ends up spending a whole lot on a lot of computers. If the DN is heavily armored and has a decent array of sandcasters, the 700-to 800 fighters might get 5 or 10 shots per turn past the sandcasters, of which 1/36 does any damage. They're losing 2-3 fighters per turn to put one hit on the DN about every 3 or 4 turns.

2: I don't fight single battle. Wars aren't fought in a single battle. I fight campaigns. And in a campaign, the Dns can eat fighters, then break off and go home when the enemy Dns take the line. The Dn spends 1 to 4 weeks in repair, the fighter player spends 32 weeks building replacements - and he spends much more than I do. After one or two victories, the enemy finds himself with too few fighters to penetrate the sandscreens unless he concentrates to overwhelm particular star systems - and that gets into grand strategy, where both sides are doing their best to battle with advantage instead of at even odds.

3: I don't screen with fighters. I screen with escorts. For the price of 7 or 8 of those fighters, I can build an agile size A escort that the fighters can barely hit - and the escorts are about ten times as likely to hit fighters with their F9 missile bay. At TL15, they can be pretty heavily armored, so they tend to stand up well when the enemy Dn's take the line. So, where you'd field 700-800 fighters per Dn, I can field about 100 little 1800-dTon escorts per Dn, and they don't take crits every time a F-9 missile hits them. Vulnerable to the spinal, but a very difficult target. And, between their F-9 missile bay and a couple of pulse lasers of their own, they're almost as good at harvesting weapon hits as the fighters - and they're more likely to be able to limp home for repair after the exercise, and I don't end up with a stalemate where two lines of fighters can't hit each other. Moreover, because the escorts stand well in the line, I can run with battleriders if I choose and be able to screen their recovery by the tenders.

So, my TL15 Dns aren't troubled by fighters. Lower tech DNs, that gets a might harder.
 
Very interesting, Carlo.

Your point 3, especially, is pratically identical to the fleet design conclusions I have come to, including the selection of 1.8KT as the optimum hull size for the fleet destroyer (as opposed to 2.3KT for the fighter destroyer ...)
 
Is that the line of numbers running from 1 to 15, directly below the copyright statement?

(On my second edition books 1 - 3 it runs from 1 - 16 and on my book 0 it runs from 1 - 9; but on my first edition LBBs and my Mercenary, they don't have it at all. Does this mean that these are from the original print run??)
That's the one. No number means it is an illegal copy...

kidding, it's a first edition probably ;)
 
Here's the thing:

1: Typical Dn at that level runs MCr 120 thou to 140 thou. Given a DN with good agility (a must in my book, given the lethality of meson spinals), a fighter needs both a bridge and at least a Computer-8 to have a 1/36 chance of hitting the Dn; a bridge and Computer-9 about triples the odds. The resulting fighter costs in the neighborhood of MCr160 to 180 and comes in around 80-ish tons. Credit for credit, you end up fighting the 200 Kt Dn with 700 to 800 fighters, aggregate 60 Kt. It's the dang computer - they cost a ridiculous amount, and the fighter player ends up spending a whole lot on a lot of computers. If the DN is heavily armored and has a decent array of sandcasters, the 700-to 800 fighters might get 5 or 10 shots per turn past the sandcasters, of which 1/36 does any damage. They're losing 2-3 fighters per turn to put one hit on the DN about every 3 or 4 turns.

2: I don't fight single battle. Wars aren't fought in a single battle. I fight campaigns. And in a campaign, the Dns can eat fighters, then break off and go home when the enemy Dns take the line. The Dn spends 1 to 4 weeks in repair, the fighter player spends 32 weeks building replacements - and he spends much more than I do. After one or two victories, the enemy finds himself with too few fighters to penetrate the sandscreens unless he concentrates to overwhelm particular star systems - and that gets into grand strategy, where both sides are doing their best to battle with advantage instead of at even odds.

3: I don't screen with fighters. I screen with escorts. For the price of 7 or 8 of those fighters, I can build an agile size A escort that the fighters can barely hit - and the escorts are about ten times as likely to hit fighters with their F9 missile bay. At TL15, they can be pretty heavily armored, so they tend to stand up well when the enemy Dn's take the line. So, where you'd field 700-800 fighters per Dn, I can field about 100 little 1800-dTon escorts per Dn, and they don't take crits every time a F-9 missile hits them. Vulnerable to the spinal, but a very difficult target. And, between their F-9 missile bay and a couple of pulse lasers of their own, they're almost as good at harvesting weapon hits as the fighters - and they're more likely to be able to limp home for repair after the exercise, and I don't end up with a stalemate where two lines of fighters can't hit each other. Moreover, because the escorts stand well in the line, I can run with battleriders if I choose and be able to screen their recovery by the tenders.

So, my TL15 Dns aren't troubled by fighters. Lower tech DNs, that gets a might harder.
I agree with Amber - this should by stickied so that every time the discussion comes up about which ship beats which ship (usually a TL15 1 vs 1 engagement) the armchair admiral is reminded that ships do not fight in isolation.
 
Back
Top