• 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.

Proto-High Guard

Small comparison problem - bays don't have more reach than turrets, and Spinals don't either, if using HG.

Indeed.

In my implementation though, they DO have big range differences.

The Batteries Bearing (which is handwaved* away in TNE and T4 by rotation on centerline) forces the big ships to split fire. They always need two targets to make full use of their weapons.

In my implementation all batteries can bear, what counts is how much weapon people want to expose by what they have rolled towards incoming enemy fire.

In a 40 ton or so fighter, we can get a Model 9, a triple laser for a factor 4 battery, and agility 2.5, with just over a week's endurance, and factor F armor... it's GOT a chance against a TL 15 capship... the peak globe is 4, peak sand is 9, computers match... not great odds... a squadron of 12 expects to hit about once per turn. And about half die in a turn IF the target has defenses. And they're MCr250 each. And most warships don't actually have sand 9...

<Shrug> Targetlink, the 40 ton fighter is the AWACS leader and is supporting smaller fighters.
 
In my implementation though, they DO have big range differences.


Who cares?

The topic here is proto-High Guard and not your system. A system, I should add, we only get teasing glimpses of.

I'd love to discuss your system because I think we share some of the same thinking on sensors and targeting. I'd also love you to actually post some rules and start a serious thread discussing your system. And I'd really love you to quit all the fan dancing and show us the damn thing.

Who knows? Some day my wishes may come true. Until then, however, stop teasing us.
 
Eh, if people would actually engage when I ask I would have before now.

Right now since I got past the sensor and ranging business, settled power to range to phasing, now I'm stuck on exactly this point, weapons to damage to armor to HG1 playability while maintaining HG2 economics, design diversity and tech progression. It's not finished to where I can readily lay out the whole thing, but parts are usable now.

I will pop up with solutions like that Targetlink one for fighters as appropriate in my view.

My suggestions may not resonate for you, but it may someone else, if I do not comment the idea may not trigger or germinate something better with someone else that solves their issue, or all our interests.

And I give you fair notice that I will comment as I please and not stop at your command despite any discomfort or annoyance you may be experiencing- as long as I stick to the rules and am reasonably within the subject matter.

If you are the OP or the forum is something like OTU, that is a different kettle of pentapods.
 
In my implementation though, they DO have big range differences.

1) what is your depiction environment?
2) what are the range differences? e.g. missiles vs lasers?

I'm stuck on exactly this point, weapons to damage to armor to HG1 playability while maintaining HG2 economics, design diversity and tech progression.

writing rules to achieve a pre-determined result within pre-determined constraints is tough, and appears to be impossible at least frequently. try writing coherent rules and just accept where they lead.
 
writing rules to achieve a pre-determined result within pre-determined constraints is tough, and appears to be impossible at least frequently. try writing coherent rules and just accept where they lead.

So true.
 
1) what is your depiction environment?

I'm not sure what this phrase is asking, at all.

I think it means that I am depicting a battlespace of 1-15 million km, with large scale maneuver for optimal vector at anticipated engagement ranges to 3.2 million km extreme, more normally 1 million or less, and probably mostly around a planetary population, resource or base.

2) what are the range differences? e.g. missiles vs lasers?

That isn't totally settled, as missiles can drift and engage later (but therefore also be dodged and miss entirely). Remember I am coming at this as wanting to both HG abstract it AND do it with ship movement, so 2-5 range bands won't cut it.

I'm also looking to make missiles average out to be faster then represented in SS3 tables. This is mostly so you don't fire missiles and are still tracking their movement 5000 game seconds later, although 15G + missiles also please my aesthetic moreso. HG bay missiles can make that happen with higher propellant to warhead/sensor ratios.

Lasers would work out to something like 400-500,000 km extreme range singly, max battery 1.4 million km (but that's against a relatively unarmored target without sand or countermeasures). Maybe longer with gross computer model advantage.

writing rules to achieve a pre-determined result within pre-determined constraints is tough, and appears to be impossible at least frequently. try writing coherent rules and just accept where they lead.

Hmm, but the HG value proposition is that core TL/design progression, so if you write that out might as well just do a whole game from scratch and not call it HG.

One major simplifier is I am ditching the tables, entirely. The ratio of effects will be more or less still baked in, but it won't be a 1:1 and a lot of lookup time would be gone.
 
1) what is your depiction environment?
I'm not sure what this phrase is asking, at all.

heh ....

range bands? battlemat? 2d pixel-by-pixel bitmap? real-time 3d computer generated graphical zoom in/out? abstract xy coord? abstract xyz coord? something else? and time step - 10 seconds? 100 seconds? 1000 seconds? event queue? once you answer all that then quite a few rules and game mechanics are decided for you.

anticipated engagement ranges to 3.2 million km extreme, more normally 1 million or less

normally at 3.3 ls? even a 15g missile will require an hour to traverse that distance.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of being heretical you could look to 'better' versions of Traveller ship combat.
Brilliant Lances and Battle Rider are both very good games, and weapons in those games do indeed have more range breakpoints than HG 1 or 2.
There needs to be an intermediate range built into HG IMHO
 
Eh, if people would actually engage when I ask I would have before now.


Rob's various threads prove that enough grognards post here. Perhaps if you posted something other than teases someone might respond?

My suggestions may not resonate for you...

I don't care if they resonate or if I agree with them. All I want is something which makes me think about Done to Deathtm topics in new ways.

And I give you fair notice that I will comment as I please and not stop at your command...

Dial back the umbrage. You post little but teases, you post little but "humble brags" about how your unseen rules fixed the problem under discussion, and someone is going to call you on it. I didn't "command" you to stop posting, I merely called you on your teasing.

Post or stop teasing. Your rules have differing weapon ranges? Your rules have a role for fighters at high TLs? Your rules have meaningful movement? Your rules have sensors rules beyond some catch-all computer rating? Show us and answer some questions.

It's really that simple.


writing rules to achieve a pre-determined result within pre-determined constraints is tough, and appears to be impossible at least frequently. try writing coherent rules and just accept where they lead.

If only GDW had done that with their own rules. Our picture of OTU navies would be radically different.

As it stands now, we've got to suggest various unseen and missing rules to make the OTU's descriptions match HG2's rules. :(
 
heh ....

range bands? battlemat? 2d pixel-by-pixel bitmap? real-time 3d computer generated graphical zoom in/out? abstract xy coord? abstract xyz coord? something else? and time step - 10 seconds? 100 seconds? 1000 seconds? event queue? once you answer all that then quite a few rules and game mechanics are decided for you.

Mayday movement, hexmap with 100,000 km hexes and alternative 10,000km and 1m km hexes for close or operational maneuver, 1000-second turns in 10 100-second power/move/roll/fire phases, no range bands other then a definition of short for energy weapons/meson gun probability.


normally at 3.3 ls? even a 15g missile will require an hour to traverse that distance.
Yep, which is why I may have to go more with an auto-hit but chance of outmaneuver in either Mayday movement or a to hit roll to simulate same without Mayday.

There is a lot of 'it depends' with missiles at that range.

But flipside, missiles get a damage boost from higher relative impact, increased missile factor (but not increase to hit chances). Under those circumstances longer burns are possibly advantageous.

May have to speed them up too, go back to SS3 and do some design studies with the larger missiles.

Missile use may also be a shorter range thing, to tie up lasers on PD rather then offensive use.

That extreme range is a spinal weapon at the very edge of it's lightspeed envelope, spreading fire around in a maximum to hit pattern and having minimal damage levels, enough to blow up a fighter or damage a small ACS, but nothing serious outside that point. And come to think of it I think my max sensor range is 2.6 million km, and on average TL12-13 quite a bit less.
 
Last edited:
Rob's various threads prove that enough grognards post here. Perhaps if you posted something other than teases someone might respond?

I did, an entire discussion on ranges of which sensors are a defining feature, and a quick experiment to show the nuanced ranges I had in mind. What I got is a lot of 'it's all pointless futility', a TNE suggestion, and not much usable material. Kind of put me off going into posting at the half-baked point.

It's still right there, feel free to jump in.


I don't care if they resonate or if I agree with them. All I want is something which makes me think about Done to Deathtm topics in new ways.

Great. I haven't been here for all these years so likely I haven't read the done to death stuff, I think in some cases I have reinvented the wheel and others I've come up with something interesting, but I don't know until I post it and get feedback which it is.

A more useful post is 'this thread went into it in detail 8 years ago, <link posted>' and I can be informed, rather then getting the curmudgeon treatment.


Dial back the umbrage. You post little but teases, you post little but "humble brags" about how your unseen rules fixed the problem under discussion, and someone is going to call you on it. I didn't "command" you to stop posting, I merely called you on your teasing.

You did not say I am not amused or annoyed or whatever, you told me to stop posting that sort of post. Are you a secret mod? OP? This forum not about ships? No? Then you don't have the right.

Post or stop teasing. Your rules have differing weapon ranges? Your rules have a role for fighters at high TLs? Your rules have meaningful movement? Your rules have sensors rules beyond some catch-all computer rating? Show us and answer some questions.

I've been posting chunks of it all over the place, when it was firm enough that it was in a usable state and translatable outside of my intended system. Parts of it are not there, for the reasons I stated above, but even with design intent that may be something people can use and run with in a different way then I intend to.

So the rest can read and decide if they find 'fan dancing' rules of use, and you can continue to find it not useful.

I got asked specific questions by Flykiller and I'm answering them as far as I can within the current state of them and answering critiques, possibly learning something. That's how I expect most of these threads to go.

It's really that simple.
 
100,000 km hexes and alternative 10,000km and 1m km hexes for close or operational maneuver

ouch. dual resolutions is a real pain in the butt, and concurrent resolutions is even worse, especially at the boundaries (both the hex and the resolution) and as vectors diverge. the computer game red storm rising allowed this very nicely with its zoom in/out feature, but you're using a tabletop method. I remember some d&d dungeon battlemat maps that were meant to be laid down like track as the adventure party progressed into the dungeon - would you have something similar, laying down battle space as it is occupied? or would you say that the battle is confined to a certain hex and anything outside of it is - I dunno, 'outer system'?

1000-second turns in 10 100-second power/move/roll/fire phases

what is the function of the 1000 second turns?

spreading fire around in a maximum to hit pattern and having minimal damage levels

ah, exactly my reasoning too. and it may be applied to lasers as well.

May have to speed them up too

sounds like mission creep. "I want missiles ... 15g ... no, 20g ... 30g would work better ... otherwise the battle may be over before the missiles reach the enemy ...." (look up the wwii japanese torpedo "long lance").
 
ouch. dual resolutions is a real pain in the butt, and concurrent resolutions is even worse, especially at the boundaries (both the hex and the resolution) and as vectors diverge. the computer game red storm rising allowed this very nicely with its zoom in/out feature, but you're using a tabletop method. I remember some d&d dungeon battlemat maps that were meant to be laid down like track as the adventure party progressed into the dungeon - would you have something similar, laying down battle space as it is occupied? or would you say that the battle is confined to a certain hex and anything outside of it is - I dunno, 'outer system'?

I would expect the 10,000 km hex one to be when things are getting close and hairy, and only a few of those occurring, or on final run into boarding.

It would be only 10 hexes across to handle one 100,000 km hex, no more. So a side bit on the main map out of the way of the rest of the ship counters, or if it happened enough maybe a minimap.

In most cases where both ships are still capable of firing, after a round or two of sub-100,000km shots, one of them won't be.

That's because I am upping the attack factor of the battery by 1 for every 10,000 km below 100,000 km.

So at 90,000km a battery 5 becomes 6, at 70,000 km it becomes an 8, at 50,000 km it becomes an A.

Yes, that's right, the itty bitty batteries that are annoying masses of fuel/weapons attrition become spinal in power at point blank range.

With full critical hit impacts to ACS-sized ships.

Ya. Maneuver matters. Along with a hair-raising 'how long do I hold fire' element.

what is the function of the 1000 second turns?

Bookkeeping for most ship maneuver/fire that is not of direct concern to the players, easier to do their move and firing like a classic HG turn- one move, set their defensive and sensor strategies, resolve fire and damage, without getting into the detail.

In an average player character encounter all ships would be being fought at the 100 second phasing, but that would be the 2-3 main ships plus small craft level. In big battle it would be the main combatants the players have targeted and who targeted them.

1000 seconds also good for 'no action yet' ship movement and detection setting up the encounter, or just maneuver.

1000 seconds is also the time baseline for weapons and jump charging, I am not saying every weapon has to be on that slow a charging cycle as command drama requires 'all power to lasers' moments, but overall the relationship of power plant to system is based on the classic 1 EP produced to 1 EP needed at all systems using EP to 1000 seconds.

ah, exactly my reasoning too. and it may be applied to lasers as well.

Reducing potential damage, so it's a tactical tradeoff based on range, target ship armor/agility/countermeasures/sand/lockon situation- sometimes you may have to not improve the to-hit in order to do effective damage.

Which is where I am at right now, considering different armor schemes, resolution of such, whether to tie bay weapons into battleship-type multiple gun turrets or otherwise coordinated fire, etc. etc. etc.


sounds like mission creep. "I want missiles ... 15g ... no, 20g ... 30g would work better ... otherwise the battle may be over before the missiles reach the enemy ...." (look up the wwii japanese torpedo "long lance").

The time to hit thing looms large once you are moving the mice around on the hexmap.

I'm sure the original designers sat down with SS3 rules and thought about what that meant with 1000 missiles in flight as mini movement, missiles in fact may be the ur-reason they went with abstract maneuver and hit resolution, along with scale and game subject focus.

I, being stubborn and a bit daft, am determined to make it work anyway.

Incidentally though, if one gifts missiles with a long range velocity multiplier punch, it makes it suicide for fleets to just hang in orbit around a planet. They HAVE to move out of such a small target box.
 
Kilemall, not intending to derail anything here but I am reminded of the old Avalon Hill boardgame Luftwaffe. Strategic-level WWII US bombing of Germany campaign. Large cities fit inside a single hex.

A good American strategy was to stack your bombers for as long as possible (for stronger, combined defense against fighters) then have the stack 'explode' into smaller groups that only had a hex or two left to travel to their targets. Great for clusters of small to mid-size cities with relatively lighter AA defenses.

Wondering can your long-range missile do something similar? You've mentioned fleet formations that matter, it would be a lot of fun watching a salvo of 8-10 missiles break up at medium range and start targeting 4 or 5 different ships... Perhaps a given formation is more or less vulnerable to such a tactic.

The tech assumptions support it IMO but it may be too granular for what you're going for.

BTW, increasing attack factor with decreasing range is a very cool idea.
 
A long time ago I went through LBB2 77 edition and 81 edition and cherry picked the bits I wanted to use.
To this I have added over the years house rules for various things (sensor rules based on Star Cruiser; heavy turrets, barbettes and bays; armour and screens; a CIC for warships).

I have come up with more rule variants than I can count for High Guard 2, but there is one approach I have never tried.

Fix HG1 (the weapon factor rules need sorting and I think Aramis has come up with a good idea), cherry pick from HG2 and get drop tanks right. After that start thinking about the best rule variants that can be added as options to tailor to fit peoples' 'verses.
 
Back
Top