Updating CT HG2

[mike wightman]

Now that T5 and MgT HG2e have introduced a new drive paradigm to the 3I setting I thought it may be an idea to see how to shoehorn the new drive parameters into CT HG2.

It turns out it was easier than I thought for the m-drive

drive no. 9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1
hull %...17..15.13.11..9...7...5...3...1

For the power plant I have two conflicting ideas - multiply pp EP output sent to the m-drive by 1.5 or just do away with power plant fuel so that you can build a bigger power plant.

 

[mike wightman]

I was going to edit the original post rather than add to a thread no one has commented upon - but it appears the editing rights I once had (I could edit every post I have ever made) have been removed.

Anyway, the next issue is agility - allowing it to go up to 9 breaks the combat system, so it has to cap at 6.

Again there are a couple of ideas floating about in me old noggin - either a flat cap imposition or divide 'agility 0-9' by 1.5 to get 'agility 0-6'

[Something I am toying with for my personal HG interpretation is to be able to spend agility on the 0-9 scale as abstract movement points (something I have used before in a house ruled HG). Allocate them for changing range, 'flanking' maneuvers or as a defensive DM. With up to 9 points to spend I can make up costs for the various options.]

 

[flykiller]

it appears the editing rights I once had (I could edit every post I have ever made) have been removed.

yeah, apparently so many people have gotten mad and deleted all their posts that the mods have restricted this feature. you can still edit them if you get permission from a mod.

 

[aramis]

I was going to edit the original post rather than add to a thread no one has commented upon - but it appears the editing rights I once had (I could edit every post I have ever made) have been removed.

No one but staff has had that ability in over 6 years.

 

[mike wightman]

I did - you can check the editing history of some of my posts, it was probably a holdover from when I was the sole admin on these boards.

It's very useful to be able to correct the typos and spelling mistakes in my old posts as I spot them.

 

[whartung]

I did - you can check the editing history of some of my posts, it was probably a holdover from when I was the sole admin on these boards.

It's very useful to be able to correct the typos and spelling mistakes in my old posts as I spot them.

The editing window is specifically short, I believe. Few minutes, maybe an hour or two.

They put the lock in because of the vandalism of some people after the fact. Most incredible thing I'd ever seen.

 

[infojunky]

It turns out it was easier than I thought for the m-drive

drive no. 9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1
hull %...17..15.13.11..9...7...5...3...1

You just hit on one of the set of numbers that don't make sense.... In that the 1g drives are magic, if you look at it from the progression.

drive no. 9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1
hull %...20..17..15.13.11..9...7...5...3

is what I were going to update the charts...

For the power plant I have two conflicting ideas - multiply pp EP output sent to the m-drive by 1.5 or just do away with power plant fuel so that you can build a bigger power plant.

I'm not sure there needs to be a change....

 

[kilemall]

IMTU I just always went with the 3% per G on up, 1+G per TL past 9, and otherwise let the biological limits of gravitic compensators and power plant sizes limit speeds.

 

[infojunky]

IMTU I just always went with the 3% per G on up, 1+G per TL past 9, and otherwise let the biological limits of gravitic compensators and power plant sizes limit speeds.

That ain't bad either...

 

[mike wightman]

You just hit on one of the set of numbers that don't make sense.... In that the 1g drives are magic, if you look at it from the progression.

They are all magic
Start at one and add two for each additional m-rating 1+2(g-1).

drive no. 9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1
hull %...20..17..15.13.11..9...7...5...3

is what I were going to update the charts...

Which is start at three and add two except the sudden jump of 3 at the end of your progression.

Trouble with that is you can no longer build the Imperial fleet as detailed in S9 - you will have to completely redesign those ships.

People are already building lots of stuff over at the Mongoose boards, the default m-drive is now 9 for capital ships.

I'm not sure there needs to be a change....

If you don't tweak power plant output in some way you can not power your drive using the power plants built into the S9 ships - again it is to maintain the capabilities while updating to the new drive paradigm.

 

[kilemall]

People are already building lots of stuff over at the Mongoose boards, the default m-drive is now 9 for capital ships.

Real sorry to hear that. Should be a painful trade off.

 

[infojunky]

They are all magic
Start at one and add two for each additional m-rating 1+2(g-1).

Which is start at three and add two except the sudden jump of 3 at the end of your progression.

Oops, that should have been 19....

Trouble with that is you can no longer build the Imperial fleet as detailed in S9 - you will have to completely redesign those ships.

1st point, where they redesigned with the change from the 79 to 81 edition?

I don't see a reason to unless one is rewriting them from performance specs. up.

People are already building lots of stuff over at the Mongoose boards, the default m-drive is now 9 for capital ships.

Gonna have to plead the last I saw of Mongoose's ship rules was the playtest doc. I do know that the 9g potential was available for small craft in their 1st edition.

If you don't tweak power plant output in some way you can not power your drive using the power plants built into the S9 ships - again it is to maintain the capabilities while updating to the new drive paradigm.

Ah, I get it now, I think. You want to rewrite CT S09 ships with the new 9g maximum. Is that correct? If so I still don't see a need to rewrite power plants as they are already don't have a performance cap.

 

[mike wightman]

Oops, that should have been 19....

No worries

1st point, where they redesigned with the change from the 79 to 81 edition?

Nearly all of them were only designed according to HG2e rules, the exceptions being the LBB2 designs ported across, the hybrid/redesigned/broken stuff like the Gazelle and the Kinunir and then there is the AHL that got a full design under HG1 and HG2

I don't see a reason to unless one is rewriting them from performance specs. up.

I want to try and keep the S9 fleet but updated to the more modern drive paradigm, but maintain the HG2e USP and design sequence as much as possible.

Gonna have to plead the last I saw of Mongoose's ship rules was the playtest doc. I do know that the 9g potential was available for small craft in their 1st edition.

The folks over there now install reaction drives on top of the gravitic maneuver drive - some designs can be 15g+

Ah, I get it now, I think. You want to rewrite CT S09 ships with the new 9g maximum. Is that correct? If so I still don't see a need to rewrite power plants as they are already don't have a performance cap.

That's right, but I don't know if agility should be allowed to go up to 9 since it breaks the combat system hence the quandary about power plant size and or output.

 

[atpollard]

Real sorry to hear that. Should be a painful trade off.

Agreed.
There is a reason that a Race Car does 200 MPH and a HUMVEE does not.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

People are already building lots of stuff over at the Mongoose boards, the default m-drive is now 9 for capital ships.

Both M-Drives and power plants (&fuel) are much smaller in MgT2.

At TL15 M-9 + Power + fuel is only ~13% of the ship. Cheap enough to be a no-brainer.

 

[mike wightman]

A similar situation exits in T5.

Since MgT and T5 are 'new canon' and will effectively retcon S:9 I wanted to see if I could preserve as much of CT HG2e as I could while updating to the current state of play.

 

[infojunky]

That's right, but I don't know if agility should be allowed to go up to 9 since it breaks the combat system hence the quandary about power plant size and or output.

That was my thought structurally in terms of game mechanics.

I just took a quick glance at T5 in terms of power plants, I find that power plants are again limited by Tech Level with TL 15 having a plant maximum of 8.

As there isn't a version of High Guard for T5 one can only infer limits from there.

According to the Playtest Doc from Mongoose Power plants are built in terms of Power points.

So the question how much change do you want to introduce.

Note Maneuver drives in MgT are 1% per drive number with 9g being achieved at TL13.

 

[McPerth]

Anyway, the next issue is agility - allowing it to go up to 9 breaks the combat system, so it has to cap at 6.

Again there are a couple of ideas floating about in me old noggin - either a flat cap imposition or divide 'agility 0-9' by 1.5 to get 'agility 0-6'

I guess this last part would be a must, if you want to keep agility caped at 6 but MDs up to 9G, as when playing HG2 combat system the rating of the MD is only a cap for Agility, having no other use.

I guess higher MDs could have other uses in operational game (e.g. when moving from one planet to another inside a system), but that's out of the scope of HG2 rules...

 

[infojunky]

I guess this last part would be a must, if you want to keep agility caped at 6 but MDs up to 9G, as when playing HG2 combat system the rating of the MD is only a cap for Agility, having no other use.

I guess higher MDs could have other uses in operational game (e.g. when moving from one planet to another inside a system), but that's out of the scope of HG2 rules...

Or you could add agility to the Computer score and use the two as a larger comparative DM....

 

[mike wightman]

Just realised that the TL of the drives changes too.

In CT HG2e:
TL7 2g
TL8 5g
TL9 6g

In T5/MgT HG2e:
TL 9 1g
TL10 3g
TL11 5g
TL12 7g
TL13 9g

I would have edited my first post.