Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   In My Traveller Universe (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Unbreaking High Guard (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=39972)

Carlobrand April 20th, 2019 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 600923)
...My solution is to treat nukes as factor A+ weapons so they don't get the +6DM on the damage table, but continue to get their -6DM.

They also get a number of hits equal to their factor.

I like that. Gives them a nice punch while not being too overwhelming for capital ships. Makes them behave like nukes when they hit something unarmored. If you're doing any kind of size-based armor adjustment, you almost have to have capital ships 'cause smaller craft are getting hit hard by the nukes, but the capital ships below TL14 are still finding nukes a significant factor. I presume rolls less than 2 equal 2.

Regarding armor, if the aim is to create a situation where the armor factor represents roughly the same armor thickness, I ran numbers based on the volume of a sphere and the volume of a sphere 1/2 meter smaller and then 1 meter smaller, and I hit pretty close with a 1/2/4/8/16 bit, which is to say whatever your starting point is, the L-P needs twice the percentage of the Q+, the B-K need four times as much, and so forth. I was thinking I'd set the Q+ to require 1/4* the indicated %, the L-P 1/2* the indicated %, the B-K 1* the indicated %, the 1-A 2* the indicated *%, the 0 4* the indicated %. Definitely makes fighters vulnerable, especially if you play with the "agility only applies to spinal mounts" bit.

(Still debating whether agility should apply to missiles.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 600928)
<These are house rules for clarity.>

I have three lines for weapon USP.

Top line is for spinals and nuke bays,
second line is for bay weapons
third is for turrets.

Bays don't get the +6DM on the damage table either, this makes bay weapons a bit more dangerous than a turret battery of equivalent factor.

I like this. Also thought instead about giving bay weapons a bonus equal to their factor. Means they get more powerful as the armor gets more powerful with increasing tech levels, which is usually the way the contest between armor and weaponry goes. Also considered some sort of bonus for the particle accelerator barbette/turret, given its power consumption - maybe a -3 (i.e. a net +3 DM after the penalty).

Means you've got to up-power the particle accelerator spinal. I thought maybe give them a -1 damage bonus per 100 EP. That gives them some serious teeth, not as nasty as a meson but, given they're more likely to score a hit and don't have to deal with a meson screen or configuration, they're serious contenders, especially as cruiser weapons.

A lot depends on what you're doing about the armor because, if you play around with armor adjustment by any of the methods discussed, you get pretty heavily armored battlewagons.

aramis April 20th, 2019 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 600928)
<These are house rules for clarity.>

I have three lines for weapon USP.

Top line is for spinals and nuke bays,
second line is for bay weapons
third is for turrets.

Bays don't get the +6DM on the damage table either, this makes bay weapons a bit more dangerous than a turret battery of equivalent factor.

That's canon in MT and T20 versions.

Carlobrand April 20th, 2019 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 600979)
That's canon in MT ...

Did I miss a supplement or an erratum? MT inverted the table and then gave bonuses only to the spinals and nukes, which as near as I can tell gave the same results as High Guard's table with the penalties to weapons of factor 9 or less.

AnotherDilbert April 21st, 2019 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlobrand (Post 600986)
Did I miss a supplement or an erratum? MT inverted the table and then gave bonuses only to the spinals and nukes, which as near as I can tell gave the same results as High Guard's table with the penalties to weapons of factor 9 or less.

No, you are correct. In MT only spinals and nukes get DM +6, not bays even if they are factor-A.

McPerth April 21st, 2019 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlobrand (Post 600986)
Did I miss a supplement or an erratum? MT inverted the table and then gave bonuses only to the spinals and nukes, which as near as I can tell gave the same results as High Guard's table with the penalties to weapons of factor 9 or less.

In fact, I guess Aramis means that what is canon in MT is the fact you can have spinals, bays and turrets of the same weapon in diferent lines (in fact ,the only weapon you can have all three is PA, but you can have Spinal and bay MG in the same ship, or Fusion bays and turrets in the same ship, just to give some examples).

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnotherDilbert (Post 600990)
No, you are correct. In MT only spinals and nukes get DM +6, not bays even if they are factor-A.

I'm afraid you're wrong here. The damage tables DMs (RM, page 94) says:

Quote:

If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less, apply a DM of -6
So, it's not being a bay or a Spinal what gives this DM, but being factor 9-. If you have a bay with factor A+ (e.g. TL16 100 dton meson bay), or even if you have a turrets battery with a factor A+ (only posible with 30 TL16 blasers), you don't have the DM.

What is only given to spinals, no matter the factor of any bay, is the multiple damage rolls.

mike wightman April 21st, 2019 06:59 AM

Note you can get high TL factor A missile bays too, which get both the bonus for being a nuke and a bonus for being factor A...

this is pretty much what inspired my house rules, grant bays the bonus regardless of factor and they become more effective than a battery of turret weapons of equivalent factor.

The disadvantage I gave them is they are affected by target agility.

So IMTU HG80

spinals - affected by target agility
bays - affected by target agility but get the bonus on the damage table (nukes being the special case already discussed)
turrets - unaffected by target agility.

AnotherDilbert April 21st, 2019 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McPerth (Post 600991)
I'm afraid you're wrong here. The damage tables DMs (RM, page 94) says:
Quote:

If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less, apply a DM of -6

This sentence has an erratum:
Quote:

Page 94, left column, DMs for Ship Damage Tables, second entry (correction): Replace “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less...” with “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of A or more, apply a DM of +6.”
This seems to be corrected in late printings, like my printed copy of the RM:
https://i.imgur.com/bkrcbwW.jpg

Yet the scans I have shows:
https://i.imgur.com/rrWERAP.png

Is my computer pranking me?

mike wightman April 21st, 2019 11:17 AM

Depends on which version you have electronically...

AnotherDilbert April 21st, 2019 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 600998)
Depends on which version you have electronically...

MT CD-ROM Issues (Aug 2010)?

mike wightman April 21st, 2019 03:26 PM

The other thing you need to 'unbreak High Guard' is a tactical movement system, not as detailed as Newtonian (although it has it be compatible) but allowing for some maneuvering. High Guard 79 had more rules for this than High Guard 80 - my own house rules use range bands...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.