To vector, or not to vector...

[Matt123]

I didn't say it was only for straight acceleration...but that was why you snipped that part since you wanted to cherry pick to try to make your point. What I said was,

"This has always struck me as not very realistic unless you figure that with the distances involved, and the time involved in a turn, agility really amounts to how fast can a ship accelerate in a straight line, and it allows it to make very small movements quickly. Small enough to be probably inconsequential relative to the size of the ship and the distance it travels, but enough to make it harder to hit at the large distances involved especially when firing weapons like meson guns and computing the detonation point inside the ship for maximum effect (as also reflected in the configuration modifiers for hitting with one of these weapons)."

Ok, lets talk grammer. Your sentance consists of two ideas. The first that "Agility really amounts to how fast can a ship accelerate in a straight line...".

The second that "it allows it to make very small movements quickly."

The second idea does not build on the first, it is portrayed as an additional benefit over and above Agilities supposed contribution to straight line acceleration.

I have issues with both ideas, but chose to highlight only the first as IMHO it was the one most blatently incorrect, whilst my thoughts on the second amounted to only nit-picking (& were deleted before I posted).

So please feel free to elaborate on how Agility replaces the MD when accelerating in a straight line.

 

[sabredog]

Because in HG agility is used as a catch-all number for factoring both the ability to dodge (-DM for defense) and to determine the speed of the ship relative to closing distance and when escaping. Both functions are determined by the M-drive rating and by the energy points available for use by the M-drive. Also, since agility cannot be greater than the M-drive clearly the M-drive is the limiting factor around which all matters of agility turn.

As for grammar I guess you didn't see the comma and the word and. I used it again in the above sentence as well. I won't get into a debate on the use of those two items lest it turn into a foolish debate with you over something that has nothing to do with the thread. If you have been reduced to claiming not to understand how two things can be linked together in a single sentence in order to try to dispute the greater concept that the sentence clearly explains I think the debate over that concept is over.

 

[Whipsnade]

Because in HG agility is used as a catch-all number for factoring both the ability to dodge (-DM for defense)...

Sabredog,

Not exactly. Agility is explicitly stated as the ability to make violent maneuvers and take evasive action while engaging hostile targets. It's something a bit more than simple dodging. A large ship cannot bring more weapons to bear if it has large agility rating, so rolling doesn't seem to be all there is to agility either.

... to determine the speed of the ship relative to closing distance...

Possibly. There is an agility modifier used during the Initiative Determination step and the winner of that step picks the round's range, but the agility of all the ships in each side's fleet are compared. Again, agility seems to be modeling something more than darting, weaving, and dodging.

... and when escaping.

Again, not exactly. Break-off attempts are determined by comparing agility ratings, but ships in the reserve get a bonus to their agility rating.

Both functions are determined by the M-drive rating...

No. Agility is merely capped by the current maneuver drive rating and then not always.

... and by the energy points available for use by the M-drive.

Again, no. Agility is determined by factoring the number of "extra" EPs available versus the size of the ship in question. The maneuver drive rating simply caps the result.

Also, since agility cannot be greater than the M-drive clearly the M-drive is the limiting factor around which all matters of agility turn.

And again, no. Ships in the reserve receive a bonus to their agility rating which can raise that rating beyond their current maneuver drive rating. Agility thus is modeling something more than just energy dumped into the maneuver drive.

The Hobby has been fruitlessly debating "agility" for about as long as HG2 has been around. My take on the question is that agility is a game artifact, a catch-all used to quickly model a wide variety of aspects and that people are examining the concept too closely. In this agility resembles the "defense" ratings of battleships or tanks in wargames.

Game designers take a real battleship, examine it's armor thickness, armor distribution, speed, handling, torpedo bulges, damage control systems, and hundreds of other things, throw all that in a blender, and pour out a single number which is supposed to model it's 'defense" rating. Agility is much like that. GDW boiled down all the myriad things involved with a ship's ability to create, shape, and abandon vectors, while also protecting it's crew and equipment from those "violent maneuvers" and "evasive actions", into a simple formula and a single number.

It's deliberately vague and that makes it rather hard to understand. The concept works well enough, however, and that is all that counts.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Matt123]

I'll add to Bills observations that Agilty also requires a very large dedicated power source to provide the extra EP's. Whatever the system is that uses that power, it needs a lot of it.

However as Bill states, the jury is out & we are left with picking our own favourite interpretation.

On attemting to define Agility according to rules use, that too is fraught with difficulty.

A large ship cannot bring more weapons to bear if it has large agility rating, so rolling doesn't seem to be all there is to agility either.

Hmm, not quite. If this was the case, it implies a ship cannot change facing whilst taking violent evasive action. A better interpretation is that no matter how much a ship rolls, the same % of weapons are 'bearing'. Even this needs a little poetic licence tho' when it comes to the rules for losing weapons.

All this pales into insignificance when you start wondering how a wedge shaped (eg Star Destroyer style) ship optimised for forward firepower loses any weapons to the batteries bearing rule. Unless you consider that the ship in combat will be rolling during evasive maneuvres and rarely able to bring all batteries to bear. But this too is a stretch.

Possibly. There is an agility modifier used during the Initiative Determination step and the winner of that step picks the round's range, but the agility of all the ships in each side's fleet are compared. Again, agility seems to be modeling something more than darting, weaving, and dodging.

This and the break-off rule tend to imply Agility = thrust, yet the MD generates g thrust without any agility required. Indeed having the best agility you can, cannot increase your thrust beyond what your MD is rated for. Yet thrust is the most obvious...

Raising the question, is Agility or MD a better metric for these two situations, or as Bill puts it, does it represent something else.

Again, not exactly. Break-off attempts are determined by comparing agility ratings, but ships in the reserve get a bonus to their agility rating.

Including ships without any agility. Arguably tho' the bonus does not actually boost either agility or MD both of which are capped. Instead distance appears to be the factor being represented.

Again, no. Agility is determined by factoring the number of "extra" EPs available versus the size of the ship in question. The maneuver drive rating simply caps the result.

Additionally the MD does not require any EP's to generate thrust, merely a PP equal to the MD rating. Dumping EP's into the MD will not increase thrust.

So we have thrust capping the result, indicating agility uses EP's to enable the MD to play a role in violent evasive manuevre. With lesser agility reducing the MD's role. IMHO this supports either the Maneouvre Jets theory or the Grav Compensators theory. But the Agility = thrust or speed theory is a bust.

The Hobby has been fruitlessly debating "agility" for about as long as HG2 has been around. ...snip...

It's deliberately vague and that makes it rather hard to understand. The concept works well enough, however, and that is all that counts.

I obviously take a narrower view than Bill, but agree with his final sentiments.

 

[Whipsnade]

Hmm, not quite. If this was the case, it implies a ship cannot change facing whilst taking violent evasive action. A better interpretation is that no matter how much a ship rolls, the same % of weapons are 'bearing'. Even this needs a little poetic licence tho' when it comes to the rules for losing weapons.

Matt,

Exactly.

If agility were merely an ability to "spin", it would figure into the "Batteries Bearing" equation IF GDW also wanted to further burden the rules the were writing.

All this pales into insignificance when you start wondering how a wedge shaped (eg Star Destroyer style) ship optimised for forward firepower loses any weapons to the batteries bearing rule.

Again, exactly. Configuration could and should figure into the "Batteries Bearing" equation, but would the new equation be worth the bother? Turret battery assignments shouldn't be set in stone either, but are the myriad rule changes flexible batteries assignments require worth their use in a game? Or would they slow the game more than they're worth?

This and the break-off rule tend to imply Agility = thrust, yet the MD generates g thrust without any agility required. Indeed having the best agility you can, cannot increase your thrust beyond what your MD is rated for. Yet thrust is the most obvious...

Yes, thrust is the most obvious part of agility but it's not the only part of agility.

Military pilots speak of "energy states" when discussing dogfighting and other combat maneuvers. Those energy states involve the amount of thrust the engines provide but they also include things like g-stresses, abilities to change facings, and lots of other stuff.

That's my take on agility. It's a kind of "energy state" number for Traveller starships which involves m-drives, puff ports, inertial dampers, facing, relative positions, and a host of other factors. The game needed to address all those issues in some manner, so agility ratings were devised.

Those agility ratings are not prefect but they work well enough. More importantly, they work fast enough and they trigger design choices just as real world concerns about aircraft energy states do.

Agility is a game artifact. Trying to understand it at a deeper level than that is fruitless.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Matt123]

If agility were merely an ability to "spin", it would figure into the "Batteries Bearing" equation IF GDW also wanted to further burden the rules the were writing.

Regardless of spin rate, or lack of it, the same % of batteries would be bearing over time. But that aside, your main point is that its an abstraction, a 'design for effect' rule.

Military pilots speak of "energy states" when discussing dogfighting and other combat manoeuvres. Those energy states involve the amount of thrust the engines provide but they also include things like g-stresses, abilities to change facings, and lots of other stuff.

Energy state is more typically thrust, momentum, height and air friction (from memory & fuel state fits in there somewhere). Giving the pilot choices at any particular moment on how to use or increase accumulated energy. Energy is bled off or gained through choices. Light the afterburners & gain speed and/or height, costing endurance. Diving releases stored energy giving speed, costing height Turns add to air friction and cost speed & height unless thrust is added to compensate costing endurance instead.

The same equations are simpler in space combat, endurance, height and friction are not significant factors and the MD's can and likely are on max output most (if not all) of the time. Turning doesn't automatically slow momentum. Instead turning within the front arc will continue to increase momentum. Whilst turning within the back arc will decrease momentum. A pattern of violent evasive manoeuvre from the En perspective, can be performed at max thrust and still generate significant thrust toward or away from the En. Especially at the closing/parallel vectors assumed of HG combats (vs the high speed pass).

In a nut shell, I'm not sure energy state is a good analogy either.

So we are left with the observation that agility uses the MD.

• MD's in Traveller thrust in one direction only (give or take a little)

• Agility uses a lot of EP's to enable use of the MD, involving ship attitude change to enable MD thrust in new directions.

• EP's are scaled to match ship mass. The larger the ship, the more EP's are needed to generate the same attitude change rate.

• Manoeuvre jets can be assumed in all vessels for docking manoeuvres and attitude change. Faster changes require bigger jets / more energy.

• Any change in attitude will result in g forces at the extremities of the vessel. Faster changes result in more extreme g's.

The main driver is to explain the high cost in EP's, something has to be using them. My logic is that manoeuvre jets and lateral grav compensators are the short term high energy use components. Taking high energy to change attitude fast (& stop the high speed spin fast) and enable the lateral grav compensators to adjust to maintain a safe working environment.

IMHO its the HG time scale that nullifies most of this. If I'm correct, and I accept its unlikely anyone will agree with me (been here before...

) any attitude changes, particular fast ones enabling near instant changes in thrust direction is well under the 20 minute time scale.

Even in vector or hex combat, a time scale of perhaps a minute or two would be needed to accurately reflect fast attitude changes. And space combat at that time scale doesn't push my buttons. But although my math isn't up to it, it would be interesting to see how fast you can spin various length ships without exceeding 6g at the extremes. If the game reflected it, it might have made the sphere (Tigress) the shape of choice for very large vessels.

Those agility ratings are not prefect but they work well enough. More importantly, they work fast enough and they trigger design choices just as real world concerns about aircraft energy states do.

Agility is a game artifact. Trying to understand it at a deeper level than that is fruitless.

Ahhh, your a stick in the mud Bill. We know there would have been an underlying logic & its interesting to speculate. Having said that, I agree that a deeper understanding of agility is not a requirement for playing the game and agility does prompt design choices that 'feel' appropriate. So whilst I agree completely with your sentiment, I still haven't tired of the discussion.

Indeed this thread has made me adapt my 'grav compensators' theory to also include considering the significant energy required for the jets to spin a large mass at speed and then stop the high speed spin. The more efficient the spin, the more efficient the use of the MD & the bigger the circle of possible positions the target ship may be occupying.

 

[Whipsnade]

Ahhh, your a stick in the mud Bill.

Matt123,

True, very true. I am an old poop.

We know there would have been an underlying logic & its interesting to speculate. Having said that, I agree that a deeper understanding of agility is not a requirement for playing the game and agility does prompt design choices that 'feel' appropriate. So whilst I agree completely with your sentiment, I still haven't tired of the discussion.

I haven't tired of this thread or any discussion of agility.

Saying that, I also recognize there is a sort of game design "uncertainty principle". That is to say there's a point where the possibility of definite knowledge stops.

Indeed this thread has made me adapt my 'grav compensators' theory...

The need for lots of energy being dumped into grav compensators and other such equipment have long been a part of MTU's explanation regarding agility, especially when we remember that agility is said to be "violent maneuvers" and "evasive action".


Regards,
Bill

 

[Enoff]

Oh this is a long thread, haven't read it all through yet.

I have been messing around trying to actually conduct a space battle
Thank goodness for virtual boards because it quickly seems that you run out of space.

Cyberboard box using Brilliant Lances graphics
http://www.lexweb.us/mayday_interface.jpg

 

[whartung]

The key component to "jinking" of any form is going to be positioning the M-Drive. With the basic assumption that, regardless of drive type (M-Drive, Heplar), that "thrust comes from the back", if you want to apply 4G to jinking, you're going to be pitching and yawing that thruster to and fro in order to get that jinking. The SPEED of that jinking is dependent on your yaw/pitch rate (not your M Drive rating), as that determines how fast the thruster can be reoriented.

The more time you spend doing aggressive maneuvers, the less time you can spend accelerating in a specific direction (as by definition, you're not jinking during that acceleration time along your vector). It also implies that whatever jinking you are doing will cost you TWICE as you will, in theory, have to "undo" any off vector inputs to get you back "on course".

It would be a fair mechanic I think that any amount of thrust you wish to use for "evasive" maneuvers can not be used for overall vector change (I believe a rule set does exactly this, it may well be in Brilliant Lances).

BL also had a rule basically limiting how you could face the ship. At one end, if you are accelerating/decelerating the entire turn (i.e. you have a 1G drive, and you burn 1G Turn of thrust), you can not change your overall facing away from the acceleration. I believe if you had any remainder capacity in the drive (i.e. 1G burn on a 2G capable drive), then you had time to change your facing how ever you like. Arguably, that only works if the burn is done in the "first half" of the turn, coasting for the rest, vs the other way around. But I don't believe BL went in to that much detail, plus I don't think it really had an "opportunity" fire phase so to speak.

But, simply put if you're burning thrust to change vector, your ship is facing away from the burn. This would affect fixed weapons (notably spinals mounts), but not those placed along the hull, as that can be rotated in to position even while burning. Obviously if they have limited arcs (i.e. they can shoot to the side, but not forward or rear) then the ship facing affects them as well.

Regarding "energy state" the fighter pilots use, that simply does not exist in space, or if it does, it's very little.

Much of space combat happens away from the influence of gravity wells, at least the heavy influence. Basically no one wants to have to fight the gravity well as well as the bad guy.

In fighter aircraft, momentum and speed affects turn rate. That's not the case in space combat. All you have is that happy little flame on your tail. Fast, slow, stopped, going, turning costs you the same -- thrust opposite the new vector. Obviously there are higher state of energy if you're in a gravity well, but frankly if you're that close, the weapons make range pointless anyway.

I personally do not "believe" in "agility" in space combat. I don't feel "jinking" has any value against lightspeed weapons, nor "near hit" nuclear weapons.

It can upset someone trying to board you, but that's about it.

 

[far-trader]

Not having followed the discussion I shall now attempt to state the obvious, previously covered by someone no doubt, culminating in stuffing my foot deep into my mouth... <faint applause>

There is an agility modifier used during the Initiative Determination step and the winner of that step picks the round's range, but the agility of all the ships in each side's fleet are compared. Again, agility seems to be modeling something more than darting, weaving, and dodging.

Perhaps a tactical presentation of the ship and/or fleet to best prevent targeting locks and strikes? So the limitation is that of the lowest agility of the fleet? Not so much a dodge or maneuver as you note, but grouping elements to cover each other with each ship reducing its own signature to the best of its ability.

<ta-da>

<crickets chirp>

Gumphu!

<bows and falls from standing on one leg>

(yeah, I'm in a bit of a silly mood, time for sleep )

 

[far-trader]

...

• Agility uses a lot of EP's to enable use of the MD, involving ship attitude change to enable MD thrust in new directions.

Not forgetting that Emergency Agility uses no EPs of course. Need to factor that into the thoughts here. Somehow :smirk:

 

[Gatsby]

I, peraps, found this topic a little early in the morning and will try not to sound like a complete doof.


OK. Here goes:


Book 2: Scale = 1 mm = 100 km. Turn is 16 minutes.Detection Ranges= commercial=1/2 light second (~150,000 km); military = 2 light seconds (~600,000 km).

MayDay= 1 hex = 1 light second Turn is 100 minutes.

In both those scales, there would be a sensor time lag for any target at range. Basically, the farther away, the more out of date your sensor readings are.

I see agility as based upon this bit of info. The more you can change your position, the wider range of guesswork needs to be done. Lasers can be sweeping (or have a firing sheaf) and missiles are good cause they can get their own targeting (thus better at long range - they have time to acquire), but agility is really dodging....not being where the old sensor data says.

 

[Whipsnade]

Not forgetting that Emergency Agility uses no EPs of course. Need to factor that into the thoughts here. Somehow :smirk:

Dan,

Emergency Agility does use EPs because you can't use any weapons that require EPs after you declare you're using Emergency Agility for the round.

What Emergency Agility doesn't require is that you calculate the EPs needed. That makes it a much more simpler - not simplistic - rule to use and, IMHO, points very strongly to Emergency Agility being a "grab bag" of sorts.

Just as how that single defense rating on a battleship counter in a wargame quickly models "armor thickness, armor distribution, speed, handling, torpedo bulges, damage control systems, and hundreds of other things", Agility and Emergency Agility quickly models "a ship's ability to create, shape, and abandon vectors, while also protecting it's crew and equipment from those "violent maneuvers" and "evasive actions"," and a hundred other things too.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

In both those scales, there would be a sensor time lag for any target at range. Basically, the farther away, the more out of date your sensor readings are.
I see agility as based upon this bit of info.

Gatsby,

In a word; No.

First, Agility and Emergency Agility do not exist in either LBB:2 or Mayday so using those games to "explain" Agility and Emergency Agility is something we call in my business a "gross conceptual error".

Second, if Agility and Emergency Agility were wholly or even partially tied to range issues, it follows that a ship would receive a bonus to it's Agility/Emergency Agility rating depending on range. HG2 has two range bands, Short and Long, but there is no bonus to Agility or Emergency Agility at Long range despite Long range band being the equivalent of 6 to 15 Mayday hexes.

Agility and Emergency Agility are "grab bag" factors. They're a quick, somewhat clunky, way to model a host of issues associated with space combat. Their beauty lies in their subtle and streamlined nature as they force tactical and design choices without overly hindering play. However, because they are "grab bag" factors, they can only be analyzed to a certain extent. If we focus slowly on dodging, for example, we lose sight of vector creation and inertial dampening. Agility and Emergency Agility must be examined as a whole instead of as a collection of components.


Regards,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

Dan,

Emergency Agility does use EPs because you can't use any weapons that require EPs after you declare you're using Emergency Agility for the round.

I have to disagree. Not that Emergency Agility doesn't use EPs but that they are a different sourced EPs.

Classic example is a missile boat with no surplus Power Plant EPs for agility. It can use Emergency Agility (no energy weapons, can still fire all missiles and any sand defenses) and gain the same benefits of a ship with dedicated surplus Power Plant EPs. In this way Emergency Agility DOES NOT use/require EPs in the normal sense. And it begs the question, if the missile boat can have Emergency Agility for free then why the penalty for energy weapons? Why can't the laser boat get its Emergency Agility from the same magical place that the missile boat does and still fire all lasers?

But then I think the Emergency Agility rule is badly broken. And I dislike Agility rules entirely for space combat.

Sure you can counter it's all an abstraction and not meant to be thought too deeply but countless words of debate seem to suggest most want it otherwise

 

[Whipsnade]

But then I think the Emergency Agility rule is badly broken. And I dislike Agility rules entirely for space combat.

Dan,

Let's separate Agility from Emergency Agility.

I believe Agility models a wide variety of factors in a single "grab bag" of sorts and because of that I can live with it. Agility also helps provide some semblance of movement in a wargame which has none.

As for Emergency Agility, it's been a broken rule since it was written in 1979. When HG2 specifically excluded computers from the systems which could not be powered when using Emergency Agility, the idea behind to rule was lost. If Emergency Agility required a ship to take EPs from all systems that use them, then the "Munchkin Missile Boat" and other designs would not work. My "fix" for Emergency Agility, and one I've used since the early 1980s, was to include computer EPs in the equation. In this manner, Emergency Agility was only used in emergency situations.

I should also point out that in last year's High Guard Clarification draft, Don McKinney fixed the Emergency Agility rule by limiting weapon fire to sandcasters only. Thanks to Don's clarification, the Emergency Agility rule now matches it's original intent.


Regards,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

Not to belabour the side topic too much...

Dan,

Let's separate Agility from Emergency Agility.

Love to (especially in a keep Agility drop Emergency Agility separation )

I believe Agility models a wide variety of factors in a single "grab bag" of sorts and because of that I can live with it. Agility also helps provide some semblance of movement in a wargame which has none.

Agreed.

As for Emergency Agility, it's been a broken rule since it was written in 1979. When HG2 specifically excluded computers from the systems which could not be powered when using Emergency Agility...

Not just computers though, with their paltry few to a dozen EPs (I can easily forgive that) but also excluded were Screens, which can use a lot of EPs. Up to 90EPs for a F9 Nuke Damper, and as much as 9000EP for a F9 Meson Screen (on 500Kton) or more.

I should also point out that in last year's High Guard Clarification draft, Don McKinney fixed the Emergency Agility rule by limiting weapon fire to sandcasters only. Thanks to Don's clarification, the Emergency Agility rule now matches it's original intent.

I missed that. A poor fix, no better than the original rule, imo. Worse in some ways. As for truer to the intent, maybe, I can't say the original intent is at all clear. My take on the original intent has always been it is a (equivalent) dodge/parry desperation tactic. It should only be allowed if no other action than fleeing is undertaken (which sorta rings a bell re: TCS rules on it but I could be thinking a house rule instead). And by no other action I mean no screens, no weapons, no point defense anti-missile fire, no sandcasters, nothing. Just (in HG) breaking off by acceleration. That would seem to be the original intent (from HG pg 39: "This tactic is especially useful when breaking off by acceleration.") imo. Rather than Don's fix, that is what I'd suggest: "Emergency Agility is only usable for Breaking Off by Acceleration and no other actions, defensive or offensive, may be taken." So much simpler and munchkin proof *

* Just to clarify, I still don't like the Emergency Agility rule and its something (Agility) for nothing (0EPs) approach - The only real fix is delete all references to it.

 

[Whipsnade]

... but also excluded were Screens...

Dan,

Only black globes are excluded. So, no dampers, no meson screens.

A poor fix, no better than the original rule, imo.

Definitely much closer to the intent and far better than the original because it prevents Emergency Agility from being used an offensive tactic. However, Emergency Agility can still be "abused" to create "Artful Dodgers" who then shield the Reserve from their place in the Line. Still, the clarification is simple to implement, simple to understand, and clears up a major problem with a minor rule.

My take on the original intent has always been it is a (equivalent) dodge/parry desperation tactic. It should only be allowed if no other action than fleeing is undertaken (which sorta rings a bell re: TCS rules on it but I could be thinking a house rule instead).

Desperation is the key, I agree. In the case of the original's Everything But Computer EPs, desperation wasn't part of the equation and munchkin designs/tactics were the result. In the case of the clarification's Only Sandcasters, desperation is part of the equation and only a specific semi-munchkin "Artful Dodger" tactic now works. In the Computer EPs Included house rule, desperation is almost the entire equation and the decision to use Emergency Agility can be remarkably dangerous.

And by no other action I mean no screens, no weapons, no point defense anti-missile fire, no sandcasters, nothing. Just (in HG) breaking off by acceleration.

Adding computers to the EP list achieves that, mostly, but at one remove. While you can still launch missiles or use sandcasters, you've just lost the more important computer differential battle so such fire may very well be wasted. In fact, what you lost in computer DMs may not be made up in agility DMs.

That's the problem with the Computer EPs Included fix.

That would seem to be the original intent (from HG pg 39: "This tactic is especially useful when breaking off by acceleration.") imo. Rather than Don's fix, that is what I'd suggest: "Emergency Agility is only usable for Breaking Off by Acceleration and no other actions, defensive or offensive, may be taken." So much simpler and munchkin proof

I only one, very small, mini-munchkin tactical choice and no munchkin design choices. In fact, Don's clarification is much closer to the original intent. Emergency Agility is meant to help you "Break Off by Acceleration" and not meant to leave you a sitting duck. You just don't break off from the Reserve, you can also break off from the Line where the enemy can shoot at you. My Computer EPs Included rule means your attempts to use purely defensive sandcasters are heavily penalized and your No Weapons At All rule means no defenses are possible at all.

Don's Sandcasters Only rule, on the other hand, allows ships some small chance art defense and, if that allows the mini-munchkin tactic I already mentioned, I can definitely live with it.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

Small problem, Bill... later editions establish Sandcasters DO draw power... considerably more power than missiles... to operate.

Therefore Emergency Agility allowing sand is, in fact, more abusive than missiles being allowed.

 

[sabredog]

Small problem, Bill... later editions establish Sandcasters DO draw power... considerably more power than missiles... to operate.

Therefore Emergency Agility allowing sand is, in fact, more abusive than missiles being allowed.

Not true in HG/CT - sandcasters and missile batteries require no power to fire. Later editions should held as a totality unto themselves and not injected into CT/HG. Just because it says "Traveller" in MegaTraveller doesn't mean the rules are compatible.