Proto-High Guard 5, take three

[pendragonman]

ZhoBerka reviewed Cepheus Engine and posited that it is Proto Traveller.

http://zho.berka.com/

1) How close is it really to Traveller? Is it close enough for required legal rights payments?

2) Does it fulfill the Proto needs?

 

[robject]

It's essentially Mongoose Traveller, which is a Modified Classic. Right?

 

[pendragonman]

That is what Zho says, yes. What is unknown is if the writer has a license, or whether the writer needs one.

I only know what Zho wrote, haven't looked at it myself yet.

 

[cuTTer]

ZhoBerka reviewed Cepheus Engine and posited that it is Proto Traveller.

http://zho.berka.com/

1) How close is it really to Traveller? Is it close enough for required legal rights payments?

2) Does it fulfill the Proto needs?

Interesting, I must look into it.

 

[robject]

That is what Zho says, yes. What is unknown is if the writer has a license, or whether the writer needs one.

I only know what Zho wrote, haven't looked at it myself yet.

Well he's using the Mongoose SRD, so no license needed (I assume).

 

[flykiller]

I don't want hit points

had an idea this morning.

2d6. 2=critical system component destroyed, drydock repair required. 3=crew killed, system non-functional until crew replaced. 4-12, system damaged, reduce performance by one factor. on subsequent rolls, if identical location hit (same die roll) again then no effect, if new location hit then additional factor reduction.

roll once for each hit (however defined and achieved) on the system.

scaling achieved by adding 1+ to lesser factor attacks and 1- to larger factor attacks.

requires some bookkeeping ....

 

[robject]

It does require bookkeeping, but the "level of damage" effect is nice. (T5 has a level of damage metaphor as well, so in a way it's an organic concept).

 

[David Johansen]

A few thoughts on fighter borne anti-shipping missiles / capital ship missiles from Starfire.

Fighters are probably longer ranged and lower acceleration. Used to engage from beyond effective big gun range. Big missiles need to be able to sprint or they'll get shot down. In Traveller this is very justifiable due to gravitic maneuver drives. The fighter's got an M-drive and the missile has a high yield HePlar rocket. The fighter's profile is larger but its signature is smaller. Once you light off an anti-shipping missile everyone can see it. So, fighters act as long range delivery systems with interceptors being the primary countermeasure. There's probably a lot of effort put into making interceptors indistinguishable from attack fighters. Big guns are better used on other capital ships. I'm thinking sand casters might be a reasonable defense against hyper velocity anti-shipping missiles as well, but at the cost of restricting your own arc of fire.

Just how bad would an anti shipping hit be? Well, naval vessels sink and space ships don't. Compartmentalized hulls and redundant systems would indicate that a single hit, while bad, probably isn't a one hit one kill attack. Sure there's nukes but there's also nuclear dampers.

There's probably a cost issue too, energy weapons don't expend munitions and fighters aren't cheap. There's a point where it's just not worth building a fancier missile. Detonation pumped missiles are just one more good reason to intercept incoming fighters. Missile spreads are probably best countered with a shotgun style point defense gun. Fill the area with high velocity high density projectiles.

 

[robject]

I still think the first and foremost question remains before answering any of the questions in the poll: what are you looking for?

Here's what I am working on this week.

I am working on damage which is more abstract than High Guard -- i.e. handles critical hits only and sticks to Marc's ideas (e.g. about the durability of battleships) -- but still deals with individual battleships in squadron strength and composition, and could also be used to resolve combat between smaller ships and smaller numbers of ships.

I am therefore working away from High Guard levels of damage detail, and perhaps toward Battle Rider levels of damage detail. Every week or so I take out BR and refresh my memory about what I like and what I dislike about its damage model. Every day I think about this I think about High Guard's damage model. Yesterday I reread TCS' mass fire rules.


There are two other aspects that I am considering. No, three.

(1) Design. Rather High Guardian with a dose of TCS. Overridden by Marc in the spines category. Once I know how Attacks and Movement work, design will fall into place. Drives, of course, are already in place.
(2) Movement. Unsure, but I have Operational Combat on my mind, and wonder where I'm going to go with it. I also started thinking about tactical traps and Napoleonics wargaming. These are not in my wheelhouse. Once I know how attacks work, Movement will be easier to tune.
(3) Attacks. Rather High Guardian with a dose of TCS. Once I know how damage works, Attacks will be easy to tune.


Notice that three of the four concerns are leaning heavily on High Guard. Hence the fake name "High Guard 5".

However, my Job Number One is to decide how damage works. On that all things appear to hang together.

I use you, the reading public, as a sounding board, idea generator, and store of cautionary tales, among other things.

 

[flykiller]

my Job Number One is to decide how damage works.

should be easy. what do you want it to do? just a vague number? distinguish between power plant and maneuver drive and hull and bridge? enough detail to allow pc's to engage in engineering alignment and damage control?

in my in-system game "ships" had a number of attack dice and defense dice. damage was defined as attack roll greater than defense roll and applied directly to "hit points" until expended and then to randomly chosen ship systems. nice and fast but vague. do you want something that vague, or something more targeted, or something detailed?

 

[robject]

More detail than Fifth Frontier War, to be sure. Marc's rules for building spines is non-trivial.

I have lately been thinking about two methods:

(1) A UWP for ships. Not a USP, where components are represented by factor, but rather a ship UWP: an abstraction of some bits of the USP. The problem is that weapon type tends to be important (hence, a USP). How do you abstract offense and defense but keep distinctives? Codes?

(2) Ship crits represented by a UPP, each of which contains specific components. A crit in a section affects all components there and reduces the UPP. When one section reaches 0, all components there are inoperable. And, probably, different sized ships have a different number of characteristics in their UPP!

For example, a battleship's Near-Critical hit Ship Profile is: Bridge, Spine, Troops, Defenses, Hangar, and Drives. Each has a rating of (say) 5, with the last hit in each section also representing fuel tankage.

(Seems unwise to put all your defenses in one place, doesn't it?)


If a battleship really only has 5 near-crits per section, then damage is typically in single and double points, with the potential for strafe damage (also in single points) as well. This might dilute the RANGE of spine damage - if a HG2 T spine hits a Size A ship, it's going to do umpteen critical hits, right? That ship is toast, right? In order for that to work here, the HG5 equivalent spine might make two strafing attacks, while the 1 kiloton ship (that's Size A, right?) would only have 1 characteristic in its near-Critical hit Ship Profile, and perhaps only a rating of 1 or 2.

 

[kilemall]

However, my Job Number One is to decide how damage works. On that all things appear to hang together.

I use you, the reading public, as a sounding board, idea generator, and store of cautionary tales, among other things.

That's where I am at with the M:HG project.

If your problem set is including maneuver of some sort, I can get into some specifics of what I am hashing through.

If you are wanting more Imperium resolution in the abstract, maybe not.

 

[McPerth]

I use you, the reading public, as a sounding board, idea generator, and store of cautionary tales, among other things.

Then I'll dare to answer you, in a generic mode, as I don't know T5

Here's what I am working on this week.

I am working on damage which is more abstract than High Guard -- i.e. handles critical hits only and sticks to Marc's ideas (e.g. about the durability of battleships) -- but still deals with individual battleships in squadron strength and composition, and could also be used to resolve combat between smaller ships and smaller numbers of ships.

I am therefore working away from High Guard levels of damage detail, and perhaps toward Battle Rider levels of damage detail. Every week or so I take out BR and refresh my memory about what I like and what I dislike about its damage model. Every day I think about this I think about High Guard's damage model. Yesterday I reread TCS' mass fire rules.

So I understand you want a full fleet battle system, where detail is secondary to playability and reduced bokkepping...

There are two other aspects that I am considering. No, three.

(1) Design. Rather High Guardian with a dose of TCS. Overridden by Marc in the spines category. Once I know how Attacks and Movement work, design will fall into place. Drives, of course, are already in place.
(2) Movement. Unsure, but I have Operational Combat on my mind, and wonder where I'm going to go with it. I also started thinking about tactical traps and Napoleonics wargaming. These are not in my wheelhouse. Once I know how attacks work, Movement will be easier to tune.
(3) Attacks. Rather High Guardian with a dose of TCS. Once I know how damage works, Attacks will be easy to tune.


Notice that three of the four concerns are leaning heavily on High Guard. Hence the fake name "High Guard 5".

As for the movement, when you talk about operational one do you mean intra-system movement out of battle range?

However, my Job Number One is to decide how damage works. On that all things appear to hang together.

As I hinted you in the thread where you took my question you quoted, I was wondering in AHL system could be more or less adopted to it.

To do it, you should convert the USP (or ship description) to a handful factors (only the combat ones are given here, movement is left aside):

1. A general To hit modifier, that would represent Fire Control, crew quality, etc.
2. A general defense to avoid be hit, that would represent agility, ECM, etc.
3. A main weapon (spinal), as in AHL the weapon is shown (example M(J) to represent a J rated MG, P(N) to represent an N Rated PA, etc. Alternatively, the factor could be directly the penetration capacity followed by M or P according if it is MG or PA. Of course this would be 0 to non spinal equiped ships.
4. Secondaries. this might be either a factor, (as melee is in AHL), mostly to be used against fighters and non capital ships or as a leter (representing its main kind of secondaries) and a multiplier (to be used against fighters)
5. An armor factor, representing armor and point defense
6. An anti meson factor, representing meson screens and config.

Then combat (at least for main weapons) would be just as AHL:

• roll to hit, modified by distance and points 1 and 2
• If hit, roll for damamge. each main weapon should have a penetration factor and it would modify the roll, as will either point 5 or 6, depending on if fire was MG or PA.
• The able would give you a result that could be superficial damage (no effect), light damage (affecting the ratings), heavy damage (out of combat, but reparable, either in the battle or after it) and destroyed.

A ship could have a limit on light damages it can sustain before being heavy damaged (based on size).

Secondaries will work likewise, but their results would just be superficial (no effect), stun (temporary modifier), or light damage.

When firing seccondaries against fighters, points 1 and 2 still would modify the roll, and the tables hould show a multiplier (that could be 0 or fractional, or even given in dice) for the Secondary factor (or multiplier) to show how many fighters are taken out of commission (e.g. if the multiplier is given in dice, and the ship has a secondary multiplier of 4, a multiplier of 2 would mena 2d6x4 fighters out of commission.

Fighters would fire as secondaries, but with its rating (or number of attacks) depending on its numbers in the squadron/wing

This way, you reduce the ship's firing to a few rolls and need only 3-4 tables (main weapons fire, secondaries against ships, secondaries against fighters, and, if you use main weapon description instead o factors, equivalence, as in AHL). I also guess the conversion from USP (or ship description) to those factors would not be difficult.

I talk abstractly about rolls, not entering on if it should be 2d6 (as in AHL again), several dice, or whatever it's decided.

Hope that helps. Nedless to say, feel freee to ignore it if it doesn't...

 

[robject]

McP, thanks for that. So you are adapting the personal combat system of AHL to ships? Interesting!

So I understand you want a full fleet battle system, where detail is secondary to playability and reduced bokkepping...

I'd call it "less simulationist". Speed of play wins over detail, but I want to faithfully represent Traveller's range of offenses and defenses.

So as a whole something AHL-like would work. Since I'm focusing on damage, that's what I'll analyze.

Since ships have quite a number of secondaries, and the compressed USP only represents one value for secondary damage, then the secondaries themselves would still have to be listed in order to show their values. Thus the USP starts to look like a UPP, and the secondaries start to look like a skills list. In short, the USP only notes damage to ship systems.

This also frees the UPP-USP to focus on near-critical hits, regardless of how big the maneuver drive is, or how many secondaries there are, and so on. A larger number of near-crits represents a more formidable target. All this before armor or actives.

Thus I see the weapon factors as separate from the USP. So the to-hit or to-block numbers are recorded with their types. The spine would have one characteristic in the USP, and all secondaries would have one characteristic. Armor might have a characteristic, or it might be noted with each system and therefore could be damaged in one system but not the others.

That leads me to a ship-card with components listed by system, and a UPP line at the top representing operational state.

SB-E-CTH

1.Spine           Rating    2b.Defenses   Rating       
----------------- ------    ------------- ------
Meson Gun         12        Meson screen  9
                            Dampers       9
2.Batteries       Rating    and so on 
----------------- ------    and so on
Laser bays
Meson mains
PA bays 
Ortillery bays
and so on
and so on

Or

Cool Battleship (SB-E-CTH) xxx ktons xxx RU
1. Meson Spine-12
2. Laser-9, Meson main-9, PA-9, Ortillery-9, Inducer-9.
   Meson screen-9, Damper-9, Scrambler-9, Jammer-9.
3. Maneuver-6, Jump-4.
4. C&C-7
5. Troop Level-5
6. (Hangars and cargo et al listed)

Armor goes in there somewhere.

A ship design does not take crew quality or leadership into account. But a particular ship, used in a particular scenario, would have those as well.

 

[robject]

Note that there's one more possible factor that can nuance the damage mechanic, and that's squadron formation.

 

[McPerth]

McP, thanks for that. So you are adapting the personal combat system of AHL to ships? Interesting!

(...)

So as a whole something AHL-like would work. Since I'm focusing on damage, that's what I'll analyze..

Yes, personal combat. It's the only kind that AHL has. For what I've read, striker adapted it to vehicles, but I don't have it.

I'm glad you find it at least interesting.

I'd call it "less simulationist". Speed of play wins over detail, but I want to faithfully represent Traveller's range of offenses and defenses.

(...)

Since ships have quite a number of secondaries, and the compressed USP only represents one value for secondary damage, then the secondaries themselves would still have to be listed in order to show their values. Thus the USP starts to look like a UPP, and the secondaries start to look like a skills list. In short, the USP only notes damage to ship systems.

This also frees the UPP-USP to focus on near-critical hits, regardless of how big the maneuver drive is, or how many secondaries there are, and so on. A larger number of near-crits represents a more formidable target. All this before armor or actives.

Thus I see the weapon factors as separate from the USP. So the to-hit or to-block numbers are recorded with their types. The spine would have one characteristic in the USP, and all secondaries would have one characteristic. Armor might have a characteristic, or it might be noted with each system and therefore could be damaged in one system but not the others.

That leads me to a ship-card with components listed by system, and a UPP line at the top representing operational state.

SB-E-CTH

1.Spine           Rating    2b.Defenses   Rating       
----------------- ------    ------------- ------
Meson Gun         12        Meson screen  9
                            Dampers       9
2.Batteries       Rating    and so on 
----------------- ------    and so on
Laser bays
Meson mains
PA bays 
Ortillery bays
and so on
and so on

Or

Cool Battleship (SB-E-CTH) xxx ktons xxx RU
1. Meson Spine-12
2. Laser-9, Meson main-9, PA-9, Ortillery-9, Inducer-9.
   Meson screen-9, Damper-9, Scrambler-9, Jammer-9.
3. Maneuver-6, Jump-4.
4. C&C-7
5. Troop Level-5
6. (Hangars and cargo et al listed)

Armor goes in there somewhere.

A ship design does not take crew quality or leadership into account. But a particular ship, used in a particular scenario, would have those as well.

I guess we have a diferent view of seccondaries. Maybe that's because I'm thinking on CT:HG/MT terms where they may work diferently than in T5...

Again thinking on CT:HG terms, the main secondaries are missiles (and maybe meson bays, if you have power enough, against ships without meson screens), the rest of them are only used for point defense (incluiding anti-fighter) duty. Its true value is in numbers, as there are many of them.

That allows you to either focus them on an enemy capital ship or to disperse them against several smaller targets (as fighters or "hamsters").

That's why I suggested a value and a multiplier. Each multiplier would represent a number of such bays (what is thought as enough to really be effective. E.g. if you think 10 missile bays are needed to really be effective about half the time against a Capital Ship, then the multiplier would be its bearing bays /10)

• Against capital ships, they would add up to give their attack value, but are not expected to seriously damage them.
• Against fighters (and other ships attacking in groups), they could "disperse fire", and the attack roll, modified by the secondaries value and targets defenses, would give a multiplier to be used on the secondaries one to give as reuslt how many of them are put out of combat (in game efects, killed).
• Against smaller ships, they could attack several of them (e.g. as many as the multiplier) as against Capital Ships, but only with its value, as the multiplier is used to disperse fire.

That does not mean only one secondaries factor must be used. You may have several of them if you like (e.g. Missiles and Meson Bays), but that would add to the bookkeping.

ANd see that many of the secondaries (off course sandcasters and repulsors, but often lasers and even high energy ones too) are more used defensively than ofensively, so they would be featured into the defense factor instead of being in the secondaries listing.

 

[flykiller]

Speed of play wins over detail, but I want to faithfully represent Traveller's range of offenses and defenses ...

... and ship configurations? what you are attempting doesn't seem theoretically possible. seeking speed necessarily entails disregarding a very large number of "details", while seeking to include traveller's "range" necessarily entails including a very large number of "details".

Armor goes in there somewhere.

(laugh)

instead of a unitary system may I suggest bifurcation - plain old hg2 for big fleet battles, and some kind of detailed simulation for limited pc-level engagements.

 

[robject]

I guess we have a diferent view of seccondaries.

Not necessarily: I like your suggestion about many or most (though not all) defenses being in diffuse point defense clusters all over the ship:

Again thinking on CT:HG terms, the main secondaries are missiles (and maybe meson bays, if you have power enough, against ships without meson screens), the rest of them are only used for point defense (incluiding anti-fighter) duty. Its true value is in numbers, as there are many of them.

That allows you to either focus them on an enemy capital ship or to disperse them against several smaller targets (as fighters or "hamsters").

That's why I suggested a value and a multiplier. Each multiplier would represent a number of such bays (what is thought as enough to really be effective. E.g. if you think 10 missile bays are needed to really be effective about half the time against a Capital Ship, then the multiplier would be its bearing bays /10)

• Against capital ships, they would add up to give their attack value, but are not expected to seriously damage them.
• Against fighters (and other ships attacking in groups), they could "disperse fire", and the attack roll, modified by the secondaries value and targets defenses, would give a multiplier to be used on the secondaries one to give as reuslt how many of them are put out of combat (in game efects, killed).
• Against smaller ships, they could attack several of them (e.g. as many as the multiplier) as against Capital Ships, but only with its value, as the multiplier is used to disperse fire.

 

[robject]

... and ship configurations? what you are attempting doesn't seem theoretically possible.

Creativity thrives on those sorts of problems.

Damage can be simplified without simplifying ship design, ship movement, and ship attack tasks. Does it speed up combat? That's something I'm going to test. And iterate over.

I'm doing my best not to think about anything other than damage at the moment.

 

[McPerth]

instead of a unitary system may I suggest bifurcation - plain old hg2 for big fleet battles, and some kind of detailed simulation for limited pc-level engagements.

Well, all my suggestion is about this grand tactical (fleet vs fleet) combat. Single ship duels should be more detailed, and PCs ships even more (and character skills and take precedence over tables).

I'm doing my best not to think about anything other than damage at the moment.

But you cannot think on damage without thinking on combat in general (and so on how it is delivered), And this is what I'm trying to suggest. In my previous post I suggested just 5 levels of damage status:

• Undamaged
• "Stun": just temporary modifiers. Would represent more diverted efforts than true damage (damage control parties fixing minor damages, secondaries dedicated exclusively to defense, etc).
• Light Damages: the ship has negative modifiers. Cummulative if more tan once, up to a number (depending on size) where they become Heavy Damage.
• Heavy Damage: ship no longer operational until repaired. If heavyly damaged again (or enough light damages to count as such): Destroyed
• Destroyed: not even repairable.

Of course, difference among Heavy damaged and Destroyed are only for after battle effects (if a campaign is played) or for victory points if used in wargame.