Last edited:
The Compleat Battleship
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
I never saw it that way. I always understood HG to be an abstraction, and that the distances involved were fairly great: that the reserve was out of weapons range as long as the line was capable of resisting. YMMV.
What if your 2nd line IS in range and you still have a "1st line"? At that point it makes no sense.
There is no second line in High Guard combat: there's the line, and there's the reserve. You can shoot at whatever's in the line; the reserve can't be shot at as long as there's anything in the line that can shoot back.
By my interpretation, anything within firing range is, by definition, in the line. If your "second line" is within range, it's in the line:the distinction doesn't exist. Likewise, by my interpretation, anything in the combat that is outside firing range is in the reserve.
If there's nobody in the line that can shoot, there's nothing to prevent the enemy from getting within firing range of the reserve.
No, there's nothing in the design rules that pins it to that rule. Also, there is NOTHING preventing closing with a reserve just because some ships in the line can fire. This isn't Flatland.
I don't think that it is, either. I also don't think that the line and reserve sit still. The line is whatever maneuvers to stay between the opposing line and the reserve; the reserve maneuvers to keep the line between it and the opposing line.
Far between.
As I understand, the tender may launch its riders and stay in reserve, but the raiders stay also in reserve that round. I guess the escorts are in the squadreon just to cover for this lapse of time.
In a way it is. Like I said, the rules are an abstraction; change the rules, change the ships, change the OTU. It is what it is.
Throw it all away and start from scratch, sorry, but with so many conflicting systems, strange rules and unintended consequences, it is the best solution.
T5 is the place to do it.
IMO of course.
If you insist.
I think it would be good to setup the situation we are trying to model, I've done quite a bit of combat design with equipment, battles and campaigns for ww2, but that is easier because there is a lot of detailed information. Also I have seen how realism and game play often don't mix, too much realism (and complexity) such as with Advanced Squad Leader can make game play clumsy.
What about adapting one of the board game systems, like FFW or Imperium?
What about adapting one of the board game systems, like FFW or Imperium?
Heh, I'm just being difficult, I agree with your position just not your reading of the letter.
To breakthrough requires an action from the offensive player, it must have rendered its opposing ships incapable of firing. It covers the situation where a damaged ship is thrown forward, but not a ship that cannot ever be rendered incapable of firing. As is the case with an unarmed ship. You cannot take any action to render an unarmed ship incapable of firing, ergo as an attacker you cannot break through.
Its not an exploit I've ever seen used, cause I believe we all would universally deride the guy for tying it. But the logic from the letter of the rules is fairly inescapable. I can't remember if Don has errata'ed it out or not.
If one just wanted to fix the HG Battleship issue, lessening the effect of Meson Guns would do a lot of it. Say make a Meson Screen past 9; such as A-k, with a simple weight/cost/pp progression requirement (all at TL 15):
A:50/70/2.0
B:60/80/2.2
etc.
Any value above 9, is used to subtract from the Meson Gun letter value: for example an A screen reduces a T gun to a S value.
Another way would be that armor could have an energized matrix that reduces Meson Gun effectiveness in a similar manner. For example, energized matrix armor cost one pp per value, but in turn lessen the effectiveness of Meson Guns by it's value, in order to not make this too effective of a defence, it might have to start at the letter values above 9, and only good for say 9 points maximum. Maybe each of the screen and energized armor could be used together with only a 6 place maximum on each, for a total reduction of 12 places (the Meson Gun still having to penetrate the 9 value Meson Screen). Add to this the multiple spinals of one per 100kt ship displacement and Battleships become powerful threats, not too powerful, but reasonably so.
A:50/70/2.0
B:60/80/2.2
etc.
Any value above 9, is used to subtract from the Meson Gun letter value: for example an A screen reduces a T gun to a S value.
Another way would be that armor could have an energized matrix that reduces Meson Gun effectiveness in a similar manner. For example, energized matrix armor cost one pp per value, but in turn lessen the effectiveness of Meson Guns by it's value, in order to not make this too effective of a defence, it might have to start at the letter values above 9, and only good for say 9 points maximum. Maybe each of the screen and energized armor could be used together with only a 6 place maximum on each, for a total reduction of 12 places (the Meson Gun still having to penetrate the 9 value Meson Screen). Add to this the multiple spinals of one per 100kt ship displacement and Battleships become powerful threats, not too powerful, but reasonably so.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Nothing in the design rules no.
But the combat rules do prevent it.
So it is flatland - if you want game that realistically models vector movement in 3d and includes weapon ranges etc. HG isn't it.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I had a thread a long time ago aimed at working out how to convert HG designs to the combat values on the FFW/I:E counters.
Add movement around a system rules and you have quite a good squadron/fleet wargame.
I think that was the point. HG isn't realistic because it ignores the realities of movement in space.
Unless both sides cooperates by coming to a dead stop relative to each other, two fleets moving towards one another will interpenetrate and then start to separate. Anything in the reserve at first approach will eventually come into range of the enemy front line.
Hans
You could keep the basics, Jump & M Drives, Meson Guns, etc.; but figure the big battles then backwards engineer it to the smaller ships. But big battles are better played in a simpler form, 2400 fighters of a Tigress Batron is dice rolling madness.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
We should compare our systems, Mike. I bet they are pretty close.
Similar threads
