Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > In My Traveller Universe

In My Traveller Universe Detail what parts of Traveller you do (or don't) use in your campaign.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old April 21st, 2019, 05:45 PM
kilemall kilemall is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,739
Gallery : 0
kilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wightman View Post
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.
__________________
YUMV- Your Universe May Vary.
YOMD- Your Opinion May Differ.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old April 21st, 2019, 08:28 PM
Carlobrand Carlobrand is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,604
Gallery : 1
Visit Carlobrand's Blog
Carlobrand Respected CitizenCarlobrand Respected CitizenCarlobrand Respected CitizenCarlobrand Respected CitizenCarlobrand Respected CitizenCarlobrand Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilemall View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilemall View Post
...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.
__________________
Disclaimer
Comments made are for the purpose of offering alternative campaign settings for consideration. The writer acknowledges that Traveller is intended to emulate certain common science fiction tropes and that, in the course of emulating those tropes and providing a better playing experience, some liberties must be taken with science. No statement by the writer should be interpreted as constituting a criticism of the game on that basis ... except for that bit about Virus. Dude, really?!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old April 21st, 2019, 09:49 PM
kilemall kilemall is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 4,739
Gallery : 0
kilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizenkilemall Respected Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlobrand View Post
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.


Quote:
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.
__________________
YUMV- Your Universe May Vary.
YOMD- Your Opinion May Differ.

Last edited by kilemall; April 21st, 2019 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
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
High Guard > TL 15 skyth Classic Traveller 4 April 5th, 2009 07:28 PM
HIGH GUARD ... I need it really? rsitalyct Classic Traveller 11 December 8th, 2008 12:01 PM
High Guard 3 robject Classic Traveller 521 July 3rd, 2007 08:31 AM
High Guard & FF&S de_mentor161 T4 - Marc Miller's Traveller 15 March 6th, 2004 04:07 PM
High Guard 1 mike wightman The Fleet 5 October 5th, 2003 04:07 AM

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 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.