Unbreaking High Guard

[kilemall]

Originally Posted by mike wightman

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...

I tried the range band thing for my unbreaking version which I put up for comment, but really I'm going Newtonian because of the kinetic damage effects of missile impact, which greatly affects maneuvering.



I'm less worried about all the tracking because I anticipate most ships will operate in globular blobs in order to screen damaged/critical support ships plus mutual PD support. So most fleets are going to probably operate in just 2-3 globes plus strike fighters and scouting elements.

[Carlobrand]

Originally Posted by kilemall

I tried the range band thing for my unbreaking version which I put up for comment, but really I'm going Newtonian because of the kinetic damage effects of missile impact, which greatly affects maneuvering. ...

Kinetic effects are tricky since any target is going to do its level best to put a sharply angled face to an inbound missile to minimize the impact, rather than take it on the flat. Those same kinetic effects mean a pursuer is at a disadvantage. If a fleet can hold the kinetic effect to something acceptable by taking hits at a sharp angle, there won't be much maneuver - they'd want to stay at their preferred range to favor their spinals. They'll also be willing to pursue when needed. If it's significant, they'll have trouble staying in spinal range 'cause they'll be doing circles running from inbounds and then circling back for an attack, and nobody's going to pursue an opponent with lethal missiles falling downhill. Question then becomes: can the opposing fleets hold kinetic effects down to something that allows them to behave more or less like we expect?

I'm playing with a bit where the damage bonus is based on how successful the to-hit roll was. Presumably, the better the hit, the better the angle of impact.

Originally Posted by kilemall

...I'm less worried about all the tracking because I anticipate most ships will operate in globular blobs in order to screen damaged/critical support ships plus mutual PD support. So most fleets are going to probably operate in just 2-3 globes plus strike fighters and scouting elements.

Why split your force? Why put your support ships at risk? We don't have any rules that make it worthwhile to take a ship in flank or rear.

[kilemall]

Originally Posted by Carlobrand

Kinetic effects are tricky since any target is going to do its level best to put a sharply angled face to an inbound missile to minimize the impact, rather than take it on the flat. Those same kinetic effects mean a pursuer is at a disadvantage. If a fleet can hold the kinetic effect to something acceptable by taking hits at a sharp angle, there won't be much maneuver - they'd want to stay at their preferred range to favor their spinals. They'll also be willing to pursue when needed. If it's significant, they'll have trouble staying in spinal range 'cause they'll be doing circles running from inbounds and then circling back for an attack, and nobody's going to pursue an opponent with lethal missiles falling downhill. Question then becomes: can the opposing fleets hold kinetic effects down to something that allows them to behave more or less like we expect?

I'm less worried about the angle bits as I'm assuming the missile design is less direct impact ala the missile supplement and more missile turns it's entire body into a kinetic debris field with extra boost from the warhead for heavy leading penetrators getting a last second multi-G boost. In that situation my assumption is the field is aimed at a center mass point and sloped effects are not that big (but the rule does allow for less kinetic damage in that case). The maximum benefit is if the target is able to evade intercept at all through radical course change or outrunning the missile.

Why split your force? Why put your support ships at risk? We don't have any rules that make it worthwhile to take a ship in flank or rear.

Several reasons.


* You might want to box in a force so they can't readily escape.

* You might want to force a wider 'globe' to protect the screened ships and therefore thinner EW at any given point. This would be particularly important against BR or CV or AO or TR formations.

* You might have one set of heavy spinal ships that are using greater range and penetration to be the anvil, and a fast moving kinetic missile fleet/fighter group to be the hammer, making runs at the target fleet to 'punch above their weight', or at least face an unpleasant choice as to maneuver to allow damage from one but not both types of attack formations.

* You might need to have at least two formations to catch and damage a defending fleet that is using close orbit at a moon or planet to avoid fire.


* In my conception of Maneuver HG range affects penetration and damage as well as to hit, and so different mixes of ships may be more optimal at different ranges relative to an opponent's design and formation maneuver.