Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > The Fleet

The Fleet Ship designs, strategies, and tactics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 25th, 2014, 04:10 AM
Tobias Tobias is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Posts: 795
Gallery : 5
Tobias Citizen
Default [HG revamp] What I have so far

Okay, so as I announced in the other thread, I'm going to elaborate a bit on my design goals for my HG2 revamp and on what I have so far.

First of all, my goals. I've always like the scale and concept of HG2's design system, and I've liked what the combat system of HG1 in particular attempted to achieve, but I found the execution and the way in which the game fits into the fictional Traveller universe rather lacking. After years of trying out this and that, I've identified four major points to improve in a possible re-imagining of HG2.
  • Simplify combat resolution. HG2's hundreds of batteries per ship are a nightmare to resolve by rolling. And if I'm going to use statistics and averaging, I can just as well apply them during the design phase.
  • Remove artificialties and counter-intuitive idiosyncracies. The USP-padding weapons, the 19,990-ton-"must avoid that DM+1" ship, the impossibility of small warships ever doing something about each other, etc.
  • Increase tactical choice. In HG2, almost all choices were made during the design phase. I'd like that to shift to the game itself. To that end, at least some maneuvering or positioning rules, abstract or simulationist, are going to be needed.
  • Mesh better with the universe as described. Dreadnoughts should be at least somewhat sensible ships to build. System defense boats deployed en masse should be a viable defense. Vargr corsair cruisers should be a threat in numbers, not something that a single Imperial monitor will effortlessly mow down by the hundreds. High TL ships should cost more than low TL ships. Robots should be useable to crew ships etc. etc.
In addition, I'm also keen to remove some things I've always found to be pretty silly, such as sandcasters, and add some things I've always felt to be missing, such as better maneuver drives for higher TL. However, I'd be interested in ideas on how to keep these concepts in their original form as optional rules.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for some ideas I've already had. These are basically my concept notes in a (somewhat) organized fashion. I've written some elaborations on some of them, but these are still in the "scribbled down" stage.

Ship Design
  • Military maneuver drives receive a performance bonus, making maneuver drives up to factor 9 possible.
  • Simplify weapons down to spinal mounts (either PA or meson, as usual), secondary beam weapons (PA, lasers, energy weapons rolled into one) and missiles. There will be a single factor for each of these three weapon types (like in HG1) – no multiple batteries.
    Sandcasters, repulsors, bay energy weapons are all going to be eliminated. I may keep PA and meson gun bays in some fashion, haven't decided yet.
  • Missiles are going to be 1-dton capital ship missiles. A bay (50 ton only, 100-ton missile bays going to be dropped) will hold 10 launchers with a total of 50 missiles. Smaller ships will have the option of mounting single missiles (1dton) or launchers with 5 missiles (5 dtons) in place of a turret hardpoint.
  • Spinal mount factors will be condensed to the A-F range.
  • Overall ship prices are modified by TL and by the distinction between civilian and military ships.
  • Effective Hull (armor) value is going to be influenced by the ship's size and possibly by its configuration. Haven't quite decided on how to do this yet.
  • An extended range of streamlining options, similar to MT.
  • Probably going to give power plants unlimited endurance, but introduce maneuvering fuel (transforming drives from reactionless gravi-magic thingamotrons to not-quite-reactionless-but-unbelievably efficient gravi-magic thingamotrons.) Reasons being that a) I find power plants which run out of juice every 4 weeks to be a bit daft and b) I find maneuver drives which can accelerate to any velocity without limitation to be a bit abusive as well as daft.
  • Add support for partially or fully (*Hiver waves in the background*) robotized ship crews.
  • This is a pure change of fluff text which can be ignored, but IMTU I use "tonnage" as a measure of mass, not volume, one dton being 10 metric tons. In the actual rules, I'll keep "tonnage" ambiguous.

Combat
  • Attack tables will be completely revised and rebalanced. Among other things, to allow for meaningful combat between smaller ships.
  • Attack tables will be condensed to require at most two 2d6 rolls to hit and penetrate, plus damage rolls.
  • Armor and meson screens are both going to be treated as defenses to be penetrated.
  • The ship's configuration will have an influence on to hit rolls (especially for meson guns) as well as on damage resistance (like in HG1.)
  • The extreme influence of the computer factor will be migitated somewhat.
  • Damage tables will be redesigned.
  • Shielding other ships from missile attacks will be possible.

Fleets
  • Ships below cruiser size can be organized into squadrons, forming a single beam weapon battery. This will also give fighters a role, at least as screening forces.
  • Crew quality rules are going to be completely redesigned, and will include uses for skills other than Pilot, Fleet Tactics and Ship Tactics.

Open questions
  • Should the computer be eliminated as a distinct design category? If so, a TL 15 ship would automatically have TL 15 fire control, and there would just be the distinction between military and civilian ships (expressed by something like a +2/-2 DM.) This would also obviate the need to incorporate TL modifiers into the actual beam weapon factors.
  • Should I use an abstract battle line movement or a simple vector movement system? This is also strongly related to the next questions:
  • Should I use armor facings or a single armor factor? The former option would offer an elegant way of incorporating size efficiency for armor: Ships would distribute a multiple of their HG armor factor among (probably 4) armor facings, and the multiplier would be higher for larger ships.
  • For an abstract movement system, in which ways could I introduce more tactical decision making? I've thought about using an extended range band system, as suggested in the previous thread, and also about things like flanking maneuvers. Should I maybe use flank and center positions as well as front line and reserve?
  • For a grid movement system, which disincentives could I use to stop all ships of one side being cluttered together in a single square? I've encountered this problem in previous versions. One idea would to make missiles affect multiple targets (saturating an area with kinetic kill swarms or multi-megaton nukes) if they are in the same square or possibly even in adjacent squares (i.e. kinetic kill projectiles could also affect the square "behind" the target.)
  • While armor facings could still be used in an abstract movement system, it would feel a bit forced. Or wouldn't it?
  • Should the increased efficiency for large ships also affect meson screens?
  • Should I gear the size rules to give 500,000+ ton ships, such as the Tigress, a special status?
  • Keep PA and meson bays as „mini-spinals“ for smaller ships?
  • What about the scale? I've thought about one turn being either 30 minutes (with a 50,000 km scale for a square grid) or one hour (with a 100,000 km scale.) If I use maneuver fuel, it may become a tactical consideration.
  • Ditch the USP or not? By "ditching" I mean removing the data string in favor of a text block format such as in Sup9, or MT.

Things I already excluded
  • Small maneuver drives, big jump drives. Sorry, LBB2 lovers. LBB2 compatibility is not a concern, and small maneuver drives do not make sense to me from a game viewpoint either (they massively change the balance between riders and ships, for one) so this ain't happening.
  • Highter TLs than 15. I don't need them IMTU, I don't think they are needed in the OTU, and it would be extra work. But higher TL components should be easy to extrapolate from MT.
  • 3D movement. Tried it, came to the conclusion that it adds too much complexity for very little extra tactical depth. Since one of my ideas for the square grid was that people could play with pencils on simple graph paper, it's out. May come back in if someone has a genius idea on how to implement it in a simple fashion not requiring tedious book-keeping or extra playing equipment.
__________________
"The heart of real science fiction is stories about people and ideas." - Gene Roddenberry
Reply With Quote

Welcome!
To see more of this thread, please login or register.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[HG revamp] What would you prefer? Tobias The Fleet 16 April 25th, 2014 02:36 AM
Revamp of ships' computers JAFARR The Fleet 99 June 25th, 2007 04:43 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.