Trillion Credit Squadron
- Thread starter Random Goblin
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
As an aside, I've always felt that the bay weapons in HG are a trifle ineffective.
Has anyone tried house ruling that bay weapons ignore the +6 DM on the damage tables, or reducing the +6 to a lower number?
Has anyone tried house ruling that bay weapons ignore the +6 DM on the damage tables, or reducing the +6 to a lower number?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
As an aside, I've always felt that the bay weapons in HG are a trifle ineffective.
Has anyone tried house ruling that bay weapons ignore the +6 DM on the damage tables, or reducing the +6 to a lower number?
Has anyone tried house ruling that bay weapons ignore the +6 DM on the damage tables, or reducing the +6 to a lower number?
</font>[/QUOTE]At TL14 I get an M-gun at 19 kdt which is better than even at any Meson Screen for that TL.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
What I wouldn't mind trying would be a smaller TCS battle/campaign where we did experiment a bit with agreed-upon house rules, in order to see how things go.
Sigg and I spent a fair amount of time debating on some possible changes, but while I did some wargaming of the changes, there's no substitute for actually playing out a few battles with a living foe to really check out any new ideas.
Sigg and I spent a fair amount of time debating on some possible changes, but while I did some wargaming of the changes, there's no substitute for actually playing out a few battles with a living foe to really check out any new ideas.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
What I wouldn't mind trying would be a smaller TCS battle/campaign where we did experiment a bit with agreed-upon house rules, in order to see how things go.
Sigg and I spent a fair amount of time debating on some possible changes, but while I did some wargaming of the changes, there's no substitute for actually playing out a few battles with a living foe to really check out any new ideas.
Sigg and I spent a fair amount of time debating on some possible changes, but while I did some wargaming of the changes, there's no substitute for actually playing out a few battles with a living foe to really check out any new ideas.
I've never realy played HG in anger. I was in a TCS campaign once, but never got close to anybody. I think the Refs are the ones that have all the fun in email TCS campaigns, but anyway.
I recall a gazillion years ago, there was a blurb in some article somewhere (and as I recall, it wasn't even a gaming related article) where someone had used a computer and essentially taken the HG book and modeled the system to come up with the "perfect fleet".
Then I see Henry mention his Hull, 1/2 PP, 1/3 Spinal mount or 1 missle bay and AG 6 benchmark, and the 19999 Dton hulls, etc.
And what I see is a system that appears to have a lot of options and flexibility, but in reality doesn't. It seems that for any given tech level, there are essentially a very few "perfect" designs, with the only real discriminator being, perhaps, hulls size, and even then it's probably 1 design per order of magnitude of hull size.
So, that tells me that any HG campaign pretty much can NOT focus on the ships, but rather the infrastructure supporting the fleets. The planets, the systems, etc.
Then the game basically becomes a fleet action with few tactical options. Since HG combat has no real manuever component, all of the menuevering is done at the fleet level.
And if THAT's the case, the perhaps we should just head over to that other forum and play FFW.
Does that sound right to anybody or do you think I'm completely off base here?
Maybe fleet composition has more effect than I think, but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.
I don't know if Battle Rider was any better in this sense or not, but at least BR had maneuver as part of the combat.
Of course lining the ships up and hit the big red FIRE button is particularly well suited to an email campaign because the fleet orders and common sense can dictate most of the battle. Specifically while an incompetent player could do poorly in a battle, an average player probably won't do any worse than an expert player since most of the tactics are in the design of the fleet, not how it's played and deployed.
That means that a referee can pretty well solitaire a battle "fairly" while following broad player guidelines vs having to drag out friends and fight detailed battles.
Anyway, I'm blathering. But does this make any sense? Does anyone else fell this way about HG as a combat system?
I recall a gazillion years ago, there was a blurb in some article somewhere (and as I recall, it wasn't even a gaming related article) where someone had used a computer and essentially taken the HG book and modeled the system to come up with the "perfect fleet".
Then I see Henry mention his Hull, 1/2 PP, 1/3 Spinal mount or 1 missle bay and AG 6 benchmark, and the 19999 Dton hulls, etc.
And what I see is a system that appears to have a lot of options and flexibility, but in reality doesn't. It seems that for any given tech level, there are essentially a very few "perfect" designs, with the only real discriminator being, perhaps, hulls size, and even then it's probably 1 design per order of magnitude of hull size.
So, that tells me that any HG campaign pretty much can NOT focus on the ships, but rather the infrastructure supporting the fleets. The planets, the systems, etc.
Then the game basically becomes a fleet action with few tactical options. Since HG combat has no real manuever component, all of the menuevering is done at the fleet level.
And if THAT's the case, the perhaps we should just head over to that other forum and play FFW.
Does that sound right to anybody or do you think I'm completely off base here?
Maybe fleet composition has more effect than I think, but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.
I don't know if Battle Rider was any better in this sense or not, but at least BR had maneuver as part of the combat.
Of course lining the ships up and hit the big red FIRE button is particularly well suited to an email campaign because the fleet orders and common sense can dictate most of the battle. Specifically while an incompetent player could do poorly in a battle, an average player probably won't do any worse than an expert player since most of the tactics are in the design of the fleet, not how it's played and deployed.
That means that a referee can pretty well solitaire a battle "fairly" while following broad player guidelines vs having to drag out friends and fight detailed battles.
Anyway, I'm blathering. But does this make any sense? Does anyone else fell this way about HG as a combat system?
I've never realy played HG in anger. I was in a TCS campaign once, but never got close to anybody. I think the Refs are the ones that have all the fun in email TCS campaigns, but anyway.
I recall a gazillion years ago, there was a blurb in some article somewhere (and as I recall, it wasn't even a gaming related article) where someone had used a computer and essentially taken the HG book and modeled the system to come up with the "perfect fleet".
Then I see Henry mention his Hull, 1/2 PP, 1/3 Spinal mount or 1 missle bay and AG 6 benchmark, and the 19999 Dton hulls, etc.
And what I see is a system that appears to have a lot of options and flexibility, but in reality doesn't. It seems that for any given tech level, there are essentially a very few "perfect" designs, with the only real discriminator being, perhaps, hulls size, and even then it's probably 1 design per order of magnitude of hull size.
So, that tells me that any HG campaign pretty much can NOT focus on the ships, but rather the infrastructure supporting the fleets. The planets, the systems, etc.
Then the game basically becomes a fleet action with few tactical options. Since HG combat has no real manuever component, all of the menuevering is done at the fleet level.
And if THAT's the case, the perhaps we should just head over to that other forum and play FFW.
Does that sound right to anybody or do you think I'm completely off base here?
Maybe fleet composition has more effect than I think, but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.
I don't know if Battle Rider was any better in this sense or not, but at least BR had maneuver as part of the combat.
Of course lining the ships up and hit the big red FIRE button is particularly well suited to an email campaign because the fleet orders and common sense can dictate most of the battle. Specifically while an incompetent player could do poorly in a battle, an average player probably won't do any worse than an expert player since most of the tactics are in the design of the fleet, not how it's played and deployed.
That means that a referee can pretty well solitaire a battle "fairly" while following broad player guidelines vs having to drag out friends and fight detailed battles.
Anyway, I'm blathering. But does this make any sense? Does anyone else fell this way about HG as a combat system?
I recall a gazillion years ago, there was a blurb in some article somewhere (and as I recall, it wasn't even a gaming related article) where someone had used a computer and essentially taken the HG book and modeled the system to come up with the "perfect fleet".
Then I see Henry mention his Hull, 1/2 PP, 1/3 Spinal mount or 1 missle bay and AG 6 benchmark, and the 19999 Dton hulls, etc.
And what I see is a system that appears to have a lot of options and flexibility, but in reality doesn't. It seems that for any given tech level, there are essentially a very few "perfect" designs, with the only real discriminator being, perhaps, hulls size, and even then it's probably 1 design per order of magnitude of hull size.
So, that tells me that any HG campaign pretty much can NOT focus on the ships, but rather the infrastructure supporting the fleets. The planets, the systems, etc.
Then the game basically becomes a fleet action with few tactical options. Since HG combat has no real manuever component, all of the menuevering is done at the fleet level.
And if THAT's the case, the perhaps we should just head over to that other forum and play FFW.
Does that sound right to anybody or do you think I'm completely off base here?
Maybe fleet composition has more effect than I think, but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.
I don't know if Battle Rider was any better in this sense or not, but at least BR had maneuver as part of the combat.
Of course lining the ships up and hit the big red FIRE button is particularly well suited to an email campaign because the fleet orders and common sense can dictate most of the battle. Specifically while an incompetent player could do poorly in a battle, an average player probably won't do any worse than an expert player since most of the tactics are in the design of the fleet, not how it's played and deployed.
That means that a referee can pretty well solitaire a battle "fairly" while following broad player guidelines vs having to drag out friends and fight detailed battles.
Anyway, I'm blathering. But does this make any sense? Does anyone else fell this way about HG as a combat system?
Similar threads
