• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Abstract combat thoughts

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
See, this is wher I think High Guard breaks down.

Spinals kill capital ships, and escort class ships, and fighters.

Bays kill fighters, if they hit.

Turret weapons kill fighters, if they hit.

One class of super weapon, the rest are pretty useless.
Useless against ships of the line, designed to take punishment. I think that's okay. Weapon classes based on purpose is okay.

Your cruisers can take down dreadnoughts. So there are two ship classes operating at that level. But cruisers can't survive in the front line.

I think there's a decent mix of weapons and ship classes to make combat planning strategically important, and combat action tactically pleasing.
 
Example 3
A single Scout/Courier. Probably 0-0-0, same as a Free/Far Trader.

A single Mercenary Cruiser. Probably 1-0-0 -- approximately the same as a Gazelle, an Oberlindes 1000t liner, or a Kinunir.

Note that the above examples serve to describe the limits of the system. If you're dealing with single ships, then you're in the realm of Book 2 or High Guard combat rules.
 
Example 4
Gazelle groupings.
2: 2-0-0.
3: 3-0-0.
4: 4-0-0. (Al Morai has a patrol group of 4 Gazelles)
6: 4-0-1.
8: 4-0-2.

Kinunir groupings:
2: 2-0-0.
3: 3-0-0.
4: 4-0-1.
5: 4-0-2.
6: 4-0-3.
7: 4-0-4.
8: 4-0-5.

Two Kinunirs and Four Gazelles: 4-0-2.
 
Limits

The upper limits, then, would be eight large vessels with at least eight Factor-9 batteries, which would set the highest rating as 8-0-8 or thereabouts. Assuming MCr400 per point, and assuming Jump-4 squadrons, that yields a theoretical price ceiling of BCr8.

The lower limits probably ought to be at least a 2 for ATT or DEF. If these tiny squadrons are jumpless system defense units, then their cost may start around MCr800.
 
Vague Pricing

Well, then, on to another facet of strategic systems -- pricing.

So, taking a squadron of Kokirraks as a basis, I see a Jump-4 8-0-8 is a bit over BCr1000. Assuming a 1-for-1 trade of all values, then the generic cost is BCr50 per point.

Cruiser squadrons appear to cost half of that, BCr25 per point.

Battle rider squadrons appear to cost BCr12.5 per point.

Trying this out against Oz's table, we get

(note: Jump numbers are off)

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ship
Class JMP ATT BOM DEF BCr
Gionetti CL 4 5 1 5 375
Arakoine CS 4 6 5 5 500
Ghalalk CA 4 2 2 6 350
Azh Hi Ltng FI 4 2 2 2 250
Atlantic CR 4 6 1 7 450
Skimkish LC 4 0 7 2 325
Wind SC 4 3 6 7 500

Tigress BB 4 8 10 8 1500
Plankwell BB 4 8 0 7 950
Kokirrak BB 4 8 0 8 1000

Nolikian BR 4 6 0 4 125 </pre>[/QUOTE]For minor squadrons, I note the Two Kinunirs and Four Gazelles (J4 4-0-2) costs about MCr4120, or somewhere around MCr412 per point.
 
Hey Oz, the 154th's stats are actually 6-2-8, right? Do your rules need more tweaking? Perhaps dropping the minimum "one point" hull to 20,000 tons? Or 15,000 tons? Or 10,000 tons? OR... every hull that packs a spinal gun... or something else?
 
The numbers I calculated (in the table you quoted) are based on the HG ship stats, not the 5FW counters for squadrons. I was pointing out that the ships (as provided in Supp.9 and elsewhere) don't really match up with the counters of 5FW.

I expect that the 5FW counters were created to give a variety of units for the player to command, without much thought as to what squadrons were composed of what ships.

I like Sigg's idea of creating a new version of 5FW, with a combat system that is intended to show the differences in the sizes of weapons (spinal, bay, turret) against the sizes of targets (capital ships, escorts, fighters).

Tack on a simple tactical maneuver system (with a "battleboard," maybe?) and we could have a neat little game.
 
Should range play a part in a simple system?

What if the abstract range of a spinal weapon was its EP/20 for meson guns and EP/10 for PAWs? (numbers can be fiddled around with of course ;) )

This would give the heavier spinals - and bigger ships - an advantage over the J and Ns, which may help to explain why ships other than battle riders get built at TL15.

Which reminds me - what's to stop the Imperium building 19,000 ton ships, built to battlerider specs, which includes a jump 6 drive (but only enough fuel for jump 1).
It then has drop tanks installed for fuel, which it keeps on most of the time during peacetime and while maneuvering strategically.

Using drop tanks in this way an Imperial pocket battleship could be built at about 70,000-tons...
 
I think range should certainly have a part. A fast fleet with lots of missile bays should have an advantage to exploit over a slow fleet without so many missiles (at least until the missile supply runs out, anyway).
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:

Which reminds me - what's to stop the Imperium building 19,000 ton ships, built to battlerider specs, which includes a jump 6 drive (but only enough fuel for jump 1).
It then has drop tanks installed for fuel, which it keeps on most of the time during peacetime and while maneuvering strategically.

Using drop tanks in this way an Imperial pocket battleship could be built at about 70,000-tons...
So the only real difference is the extra volume for the jump drive (and power plant?). A battlerider that can dispatch itself 6 parsecs.

You'd need a tender to carry and refuel the drop tanks, yes?
 
Yep, you could have a whole fleet of drop tank carriers, tankers/refueling ships, ordnance transports etc. etc.

The rider is already going to have a big enough power plant for a jump 6 drive, so providing you can find that 7% of the hull for the drive, and 10% for an emergency jump 1, I can't see why the Imperium didn't re-equip to this model...

aside from cost, that is ;)
 
That's where we need Oz' HG-to-5FW rules. Makes a rough but easy first-pass test of new designs.
 
I have really been thinking about Sigg's idea for a new combat system, based on weapon power vs. ship sizes. First let me mention some personal quibbles about HG (these are things I'd like to see changed if we went for a new ship design/combat system).

1. High armor factors are too easy for smaller ships to attain, because HG bases armor solely on tons of armor, and not on area covered. A 10-dton fighter with 10% of it's volume devoted to armor is not going to have the same armor thickness as a 100,000 dton ship (of the same hull configuration) that has the same 10% of volume as armor. I think GT, especially GT:IW has the right approach here.

2. Missile usage must be taken into account, especially if we are going to have a tactical movement system. Doing this simply won't be easy, but without it missiles are over-powerful.

3. Fighters must be dealt with in large formations, at least wings of 100 fighters when at a "fleet" scale. Otherwise they will take too d*mn much time. Perhaps at the "fleet" scale fighters could be treated as "reuseable missiles" that get "launched" at a target, conduct an attack, and then (the survivors) recover aboard their carriers?

4. Meson spinal mounts are too powerful and make large warships cost-ineffective. I still think the best fix for this is to steal the "meson armor" rule from TNE/FF&S and have meson screens act as armor equal to their rating against meson fire. This will keep meson guns as the "ship killers," they just won't be instant ship killers.

5. Remember damage control! In a world where spinal meson guns are not "One-Shot-Zot" weapons, the larger crews of big ships gives them remarkable endurance in combat. This should be shown by a higher Defense rating than might seem indicated from just their raw size.

I would think that in a system like Sigg suggests, ships would be rated into classes by size and defenses.

Light ships - ships that can be killed or crippled by a weapon of factor-4 or less (basically a single triple TL-13 beam laser turret).

Protected ships - ships that can be killed or crippled by a factor-9 nuclear missile bay.

Armored ships - ships that can be killed or crippled by a large spinal particle accelerator.

Shielded ships - ships that can be killed or crippled only by a large spinal meson gun.

For ships of less than 1000 dtons, divide their HG armor by 5 (rounding down) then add that to the HG hull size code. If the result is 3 or less, the ship is a "Light" ship. Otherwise the ship is a "Protected" ship.

A ship is a "Shielded" ship if it has a meson screen rating of 4 or better and its HG hull size code plus its meson screen rating is equal or larger than the size code of the largest spinal meson gun available at that TL. The ship must also qualify as an "Armored" ship.

A ship is an "Armored" ship if its HG hull size plus half its HG armor rating (rounded down) is equal or greater to the largest spinal particle accelerator available at the ship's TL, and the ship must not qualify as a "Shielded" ship.

Any ship not qualifying as a "Light," "Armored," or "Shielded" ship is a "Protected" ship.

Weapons are classified as "Turret," "Bay," "Spinal PA," or "Spinal Meson Gun". "Turrets" are all turret weapons and all non-missile bay weapons. "Bay" weapons are missile bays. "Spinal PA" and "Spinal Meson Gun" weapons are just that. Missile bays are assumed to always fire nuclear missiles, missile turrets are assumed to always fire conventional HE missiles.

"Turret" weapons have the shortest ranges and will often hurt/kill a "Light" target, they have a good chance to lightly damage a "Protected" target, and are almost completely useless against "Armored" or "Shielded" targets without special tactics (like a "Visual Range Attack" rule).

"Bay" weapons have the longest range and immolate "Light" targets (they can get several "Light" targets with one shot), usually hurt/kill a "Protected" target, and can do some damage to an "Armored" or "Shielded" target if enough "Bay" weapons are concentrated on one such target at one time.

"Spinal PAs" are the next longest range weapon but have trouble hitting "Light" targets however they kill large numbers of them if they do hit, they vaporize "Protected" targets, and do light damage to "Armored" or "Shielded" targets.

With the second-shortest range, "Spinal Meson Gun" weapons have even more trouble hitting "Light" targets (but can still kill many with a lucky shot), disintegrate most "Protected" targets, kill/cripple "Armored" targets, and are the only weapons (without special tactics) that can seriously damage "Shielded" targets.

How does that sound?
 
Some nice ideas there Oz, especially dividing the armour of small ships by some factor.

How about:

determine armour factor as normal, but then for the USP value consider the size of the hull:

100-tons or less divide by 5
1000-tons or less divide by 4
10,000-tons or less divide by 3
100,000-tons or less divide by 2

round all fractions down.

Again, all numbers subject to change.
 
At the risk of complicating a simple system, I think I'd like to have several attack factors:

spinal (subscript p or m)
bay
turret
missile (subscript no. of turns of fire)

and defensively you could have:
armour
screens
point defence

Is this all too much info. for one counter?
 
It seems to go beyond counters -- sounds partway in between counters and High Guard: a truncated USP, in effect.
 
All of the weapons categories I described (turret, bay, spinal PA, spinal meson) would have to have some numerical value assigned to them, based on either the number of weapons of that type (turret, bay) or the USP code of the weapon (spinals).

But classifying ships as "Light, Protected, Armored, Shielded" combines hull size, armor, and passive defenses all in one.

"Turret" weapons should be allowed to act as point defense against incoming missiles and fighter swarms. This would give designers a reason to put turrets on ships.
 
How would you designate a 70,000-ton cruiser with USP-9 meson screen but only USP factor 3 armour?

Turret weapons could be a separate rating, neither attack or defence. The player could decide how to split his turret factor from turn to turn...
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
How would you designate a 70,000-ton cruiser with USP-9 meson screen but only USP factor 3 armour?
It would work out as "Protected" since it's vulnerable to nuclear missiles. The logic here is that an enemy would not bother to use meson guns on this target (it is well protected against them) since it is so much easier to kill it with nukes.
Turret weapons could be a separate rating, neither attack or defence. The player could decide how to split his turret factor from turn to turn...
This is what I had in mind, yes. The "turret" weapons rating can be used for offense or defense (against "Bay" weapons and fighters) as the owner sees fit.
 
Back
Top