Proto-High Guard

[mike wightman]

It may have been on the other thread

basically you introduce multiple batteries to HG1 so you can fire at more targets at the reduced factor the rules state
my variant would be to re-combine into a higher factor

 

[robject]

Ah gotcha, yes.

 

[kilemall]

oof.

table-top it, referee a game between two gamers, before doing any further work. I think you'll find it's not what you expect.

You only switch to the 10,000 km 10 hex mode when you are at that range, default is the 100,000 km one. Given the lethality, you are likely to only have one side switching back, you will have their exit velocity on switching back, and know which hex they are moving into.

In most cases I would expect to be reffing it with NPC opponents, so I don't know that I am terribly bothering with two autonomous players anyway.

And, it's not ready for such a test- can't make command decisions when you don't know what weapon is going to do what against X ship design yet.

 

[robject]

Multiple resolutions sounds like a useful idea. You could represent a system-wide view, and also represent a "local" view.

Might also be managed with a "battle board" for planetary ranges, and a "Mayday" board for operational ranges.

 

[flykiller]

I don't know that I am terribly bothering with two autonomous players anyway

because they will show you where the break-points are, what you missed, and all the bugs.

And, it's not ready for such a test- can't make command decisions when you don't know what weapon is going to do what against X ship design yet.

then do it with notional weapons/armor, see what you get. it's part of the design process. if there's one thing worse than designing a system by yourself, it's designing a system to near-completion before testing it.

Multiple resolutions sounds like a useful idea.

oh it's loads of theoretical fun. refereeing it, however, is another matter altogether.

 

[kilemall]

Multiple resolutions sounds like a useful idea. You could represent a system-wide view, and also represent a "local" view.

Might also be managed with a "battle board" for planetary ranges, and a "Mayday" board for operational ranges.

Hmmm, had not considered a planetary range.

On the Mayday one, that's what the million km hex is for. I went with that instead of LS because I anticipate a LOT of recon, especially with the passive range approach advantage baked into the sensor rules, having a reasonably sized map means a bigger scale, and I want to retain a 10:1 'zoom/expand' for simplicity.

People wonder what a Mod/1 fighter does on a TL15 ship, deep recon to find the enemy and not be surprised would be a big one, along with patrol, and not letting the big ship get too close to sub-100000 km.

Planet range? Guess I would go with 1000km hexes and 100 second phasing still, puts a nice big planet on the map and that time/distance/accel ratio allows for G rating to matter immediately on the moves on map.

 

[aramis]

People wonder what a Mod/1 fighter does on a TL15 ship, deep recon to find the enemy and not be surprised would be a big one, along with patrol, and not letting the big ship get too close to sub-100000 km.

Given newtonian limits, a fighter is unlikely to be able to affect any efforts to avoid intercept of capital by capital, other than potentially by suiciding into the oncoming.

The ability to avoid an intercept is almost negligible, unless you are not on a closing course AND have higher thrust than the opposing ship.

 

[kilemall]

Good general advice Fly, but I really don't know that it's useful to just throw the HG damage tables in as is, even with no armor mucking up the intended effect.

Did I mention I was throwing away the to-hit tables? There are design battle tradeoff/economic interrelationships built into those that matter in the base game, I have to recreate them in a ranged manner and preferably to a damage one as well, so really a tough one. That's not a bolt-on, that's core.

I'm not getting into any of the power allocation/action aspects, that's 3/4 done, but it's critical to the 100 second fight your ship credo, and a lot of that depends on how missiles resolve and overall vee when ships are switching between agility, accel, and power to weapons.

This thing isn't ready to fight, but I do know what the general outcomes are. Just some real gut checks about how important differing armor schemes and high detail damage is to me, and how far off to stray from the core resolution tables.

I am still very interested in threads like this, to deal with the 'buckets o' dice' issue if nothing else, the TCS resolution table is just an admission that there is a basic play-ability design flaw, so there is advantage in getting down to some playable shooting without giving up all those HG2 toys.

 

[kilemall]

Given newtonian limits, a fighter is unlikely to be able to affect any efforts to avoid intercept of capital by capital, other than potentially by suiciding into the oncoming.

The ability to avoid an intercept is almost negligible, unless you are not on a closing course AND have higher thrust than the opposing ship.

Huh?

Oh, my bad phrasing.

What I mean is not literally stop the threat but rather detect the oncoming ship in time to allow avoiding maneuver and not risk fast sub-100K critical hit destruction.

Remember, those spinals go up in battery value too, so they can start unloading critical destruction close up, and the BIG spinals and BIG ships that can take it are again A Thing.

Most of this just doesn't really pop out when you are operating with abstract range bands. Put it on the table like a naval mini and you can start getting some real nuance back into the design.

 

[mike wightman]

Given newtonian limits, a fighter is unlikely to be able to affect any efforts to avoid intercept of capital by capital, other than potentially by suiciding into the oncoming.

The ability to avoid an intercept is almost negligible, unless you are not on a closing course AND have higher thrust than the opposing ship.

You have to take a look at the MgT HG2 dogfighting rules - throw Newton out of the window and enjoy cinematic fighter vs capital.

 

[kilemall]

You have to take a look at the MgT HG2 dogfighting rules - throw Newton out of the window and enjoy cinematic fighter vs capital.

With the oncoming advent of Star Citizen, cinematic fighter battle is what a lot of expectations will trend to re: space opera combat.

 

[mike wightman]

I'll stick with St. Newton...

 

[flykiller]

Good general advice

could you play-test it here on the board?

 

[kilemall]

could you play-test it here on the board?

Eh? Like I said, in a fluid state regarding maneuver.

I very much want an economic design tradeoff like the original, but with range built into the equation.

I want ship drivers to want to be at optimal engagement bands for maneuver decisions and that means a dance before closing, but the hammering of spinal weapons puts a premium on time and at a certain point there is 'good enough'.

So we can do a certain amount of 'fleet maneuvers', but the payoff interactions really need to be more nuanced then current default resolution, deal with outlier cases and honor the TL progression of the core design. Not to mention my monkeying with battery strengths both sub-100K AND missile vee.

That ain't casual and greatly affects validity checks.

So core battery vs. armor vs. to-hit, and then maybe.

 

[kilemall]

Now then to the OP's goals- my idea is that we blow up into detail, so we know what we are 'simulating', and THEN we can boil it down to more manageable numbers.

So for instance if we know what a High Guard missile battery shot really is, on a missile by missile maneuver, seeker, closing and PD basis, then we can boil it down to a meaningful process with appropriate simplified resolution.

I want the minute detail at the drama resolution scale to allow players to do clever things, but most of the time the background ships blowing up as a simplified couple of rolls works for me. So I do want to end up with something like what you are striving for, even if I wouldn't apply it to the whole battle.

 

[flykiller]

could you play-test it here on the board?

Eh? Like I said, in a fluid state regarding maneuver.

well, yeah. that's why I asked.

 

[Whipsnade]

Eh? Like I said, in a fluid state regarding maneuver.

No actual movement system yet, but maneuver is important in your rules? Okay.

I want ship drivers to want to be at optimal engagement bands for maneuver decisions...

But you have no movement system yet. You can fiddle the weapon ranges and damage results all you want. Bake this into that, fold that into this, and none of it will matter. If you want meaningful maneuvering which makes ranges important you need a movement system, oddly enough.

Remember, this all began when you claimed "In my implementation though, they DO have big range differences." You can talk about big range differences all you want, but how do ships move between them?

... my idea is that we blow up into detail, so we know what we are 'simulating', and THEN we can boil it down to more manageable numbers.

Well, one thing you'll be simulating that nearly all versions agree upon is vector movement.

As for all the rest, you're going to have to choose just what version you want to simulate. Each version has aspects that are more "fiction" than "science" and none can seamlessly fit with the other. Each choice you make is going to preclude the others while also driving your design.

Your idea about shifting between "fleet maneuver" and "drama resolution" scales means that your rules - when they start to settle down - won't work well at either scale. You need to pick a scale and stick to it. Successful games and successful designers pick one scale and stick to it. When they do include another scale it's at a "quick and dirty" level. That level may work very well, but it doesn't have the detail or focus of the design scale.

Check out GMT's GWAS series among others for some ideas regarding scale in naval games.

As for EP allotment by turn, do you really want to start walking down SFB's path?

This thing isn't ready to fight, but I do know what the general outcomes are.

It isn't ready to fight, that's true. However, you also don't know what the general outcomes are yet because you don't yet have enough of a system to actually analyze. You have a grab bag of "outcomes" you want the design to produce, but you don't yet have any of the systems which might create those "outcomes".

Thanks to Pat Flores at The Citadel, I've been lucky enough to be involved in various play-tests since the late 70s. No game survives unchanged after being play-tested. You won't know what your rules will produce until those rules are in the hands and minds of other players. You "know" what the rules are "supposed" to produce. They'll use the rules as written to produce something you'll be surprised to see.

Concentrate on one system, something like one type of movement or combat involving one type of weapon, get that to a "beta" level, and post it here for comments. There are enough of us grognards here to help parse it for you. More hands and minds may help solve some problems for you.

Good luck.

 

[flykiller]

I've been lucky enough to be involved in various play-tests since the late 70s.

I was wondering if you had any comment on my hex-map or vector games? no great effort asked if you're not already familiar with them, just wondering.

 

[Whipsnade]

I was wondering if you had any comment on my hex-map or vector games? no great effort asked if you're not already familiar with them, just wondering.

Missed those while I was away, Fly. Let me read 'em both and mull 'em over.

Good to see that you and your opponent are actually using codified rules instead of talking in generalities. There's no thesis, antithesis, and synthesis unless you write stuff down.

 

[kilemall]

Heh.

Fly says test right now, screw the interactions.

Whip says gotta have a whole system.

I wonder which I should follow.

Whip I have maneuver completely sussed out on it's own, but the part that's not done yet is the interactions with damage and armor and maybe I want to go back and mess with it to get the full ranged effect to ensure real choice between full accel, agility and weapons, with again no one perfect solution set.

So further along then you are taking my comment at, but I recognize there is a LOT of nuance to get an organic flowing battle system ratcheted onto the extant HG. It's a symphony, not a drum solo, and maneuver may
change based on other interactions.

Right now it's Mayday, 100,000 km hex 1000s scale, with proportionate moves divided by 10 if I need to enable a shot in one of the 10 phases and possibly different endpoints if in the meantime the M-drive is reduced or agility/power is used instead.

But that's a working model, not a write it down and test point.

I'm not worried about the scale switch, to me pretty cut and dry since its a simple x10 vee to go onto the sub-100k hex, divide back again on exit (assuming a consistent 100s phasing at that point). If it's 1000s turns going to 100s phasing don't even have to do that.

Having played everything from the Bond games to Seekrieg to the old TFG game and others in the dim misty past, I am quite aware of scale. This is more like a Harpoon time/space zoom in the computer game- which I contributed scenario ideas to directly, from the friend I pointed to go work for them.

Yes I do want to go down the SFB path, that's key to a fighting the ship feel. Have to have action limitations and choices, that's the logical subsystem to do it in. Not a problem for my group, for reasons documented in other threads and no need to rehash here.

I think I have already proven with things like the QND Medical system that I'm as capable as anyone else here of coming up with elegant functional solutions, and express them clearly and concisely. This will be on the same level.

That QND system was something I threw together as a side note to a post I'll be doing on the Striker wound system. From conception to the full set you read, something like 72 hours. It was magnitudes easier to do that then HG2 simplified AND maneuver.

So have a little faith and a little less ready to tear into a partially done system attempting to do the Holy Grail of Traveller space combat.

Other folks have already seen the value in the bits I've already shared which should give you an idea of the direction of my thinking and how it can end up being a very different, dynamic game.

I'll continue to post for them and just have to live with your disappointment and critique.

Fly, if I don't have a FULL system written down in finished form Whip may experience a capacitor detonation event, you may have to wait a bit.