High Guard

[hunter]

Ok, the plan is to use High Guard as the core ship design system for T20. There have been a couple of mentions in other posts on 'fixes' that some think need to be made to the HG rules.

I'm not promising any changes, but if you think some part of the system needs to be changed, let us know by replying to this thread and telling us what and why.

We will consider what we receive and of course put across to Marc anything we think is appropriate. Understand, Traveller is Marc's game and he has final approval or disapproval on changes such as this.

Hunter

[DrSkull]

I'd stick to cosmetic changes if by doing so you can keep trans-system useablity.

For instance, while I see much to commend the 5% per jump number for jump fuel "fix" some people advocate, I would much rather be able to use a CT ship (or books of ships for that matter)as written in T20 than to have the fix made. It seems to me that that would be desireable if you are planning to put out products that are simultaneously useable for CT and T20.

A cosmetic change I wouldn't mind would be calling the ships' "computer" the "electronics suite" or the "control/sensor system" just to avoid having to explain why Far Future Computers are so huge.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

[hunter]

Just so. We don't want to make any changes that causes incompatibility with ships in previous works.

Hunter

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Ok, the plan is to use High Guard as the core ship design system for T20. There have been a couple of mentions in other posts on 'fixes' that some think need to be made to the HG rules.

Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;snip&gt;

As I suggested in another thread, explanatory text for the ship size limitations by computer would be in order. I also think incorporating the ship design by percentage method from TCS might be a good idea.

David Shayne

[Gaming Glen]

Add sensors and simple rules for use, including specific skills. Sensor suites don't have to be as complex as MT's, but PCs will be wanting their ship to either hide from other ships or look for other ships that are hiding. Star Trek had plenty of instances of "hiding" the ship, whether in gravity wells, atmosphere, magnetosphere, etc (I won't comment on how "real" this was, it is ST-science *cough* after all). PCs will probably be doing a lot of covert ops or outright piracy and stealth is important for this.

Glen

[William]

I'd like to see three things:
1) Integrate all the TCS additional rules. They add quite a bit in a completely compatable way.
2) As suggested above, rename the computer to Electronic Suite or some such and describe it as including the computers, sensors, commo, ecm, eccm, and anyother electronics that the ship needs. Higher the number, the more capable all these functions are and fib simply is a way to say it's got redundancy built in - not that it's necessarily fiber optic based (perhaps long ago they were and the name stuck.) bis would likewise be improved in the commo or sensors areas?
3) Simple skills or feats would also need to be added to reflect these gagets. Probably on the order of Tracking in d&d3, nothing to complex.

[evilpheemy]

I like the idea of replacing the old computer with the "electronics suite" as described earlier. I wouldn't want to make starship combat too complex, since the focus of the game should remain on the PCs and not their ship. Ship to ship combat should be as fast if not faster than personal combat, to better keep the game from devolving into a boardgame.

EvilPheemy

[aramis]

Include mayday-style movement rules for as an option, so that we have more than "Close" and "Far"... plus the TCS mods.

I would love to see the reincorporation of the MT "Jump Fuel is 5x the J Drive volume". This does, however, smack heavily of MT. (It was the one MAJOR MT change to the setting.) Or at least a side note on this particular option.

------------------
-aramis
=============================================
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

[DonM]

Clarify certain confusion points about the existing rules:

1) The computer/ship size question. There are two ways to read the table, and HG players appear to be divided evenly on how to read it.

2) Applying damage to ships batteries that are reduced to a single weapon (ie, is the single weapon reduced like it would be had it been the only weapon in the battery prior to taking damage, or is it eliminated like all the other weapons in the battery, by a single weapon-1 damage).

3) Use both the TCS modifications, and the JTAS #14 (I think that's right, but I don't have it here in the office to confirm) rules on fighter squadrons. There were also some alternate rules on handling crew hits in JTAS, that might be worthy of using.

4) On the CT-Starships list, a fine person whose name escapes me posted conversions of the added MT high-tech materials back to CT. If you could use those, it would be VERY cool.

5) Playtest! We've got a bunch of people on the CT-Starships list, and I know we'd love to help you out with this....


DonM.

[Takei]

As far as computers go, you could always just scrap a seperate computer and say it's part of the bridge tonnage. Books 2 & 5 both say that the bridge tonnnage accounts for avionics, sensors and comms, so why not the flight computers? Sensors/fire control could be rated by TL and Civilian or Military for game purposes, and existing designs wouldn't be greatly effected tonnage or cost wise.

Cheers

Paul Bendall