BCS Assumptions

[mike wightman]

Interesting vote so far:
BCS will involve some abstractions - perhaps people are happy with attack factors for spine, bay secondaries, missile salvos and point defence (see later); defences could include configuration, armour screen and point defence.
BBs should be worth the investment - I still can not see how this can be true at every TL, but if people want it then capitals need screens that can mitigate meson guns, armour can take care of the rest
BR vs BB - this is another TL dependant thing. At the mid TLs BR/tender squadrons bring many more spinals per credit to the engagement, and individual riders are going to be maximum armour, maximum screen.
Turrets are for PD - this makes a lot of sense.
+2TL are a strong advantage - also sensible.
Layered defence - take care with this, you want to avoid more rolls than necessary; perhaps combine relevant defences into one factor vs the attack?
Tactical movement rules - would a range band based system be enough or are we looking at full on vector movement?

 

[jec10]

Interesting vote so far:

Tactical movement rules - would a range band based system be enough or are we looking at full on vector movement?

Please, please, please don't turn it into a dice rolling contest (that means, yes to tactical movement, no to range bands or such abstractions).

 

[mike wightman]

What I mean by range bands are the CT Starter Edition and MgT systems, no the three range bands of HG2

 

[aramis]

Which was not part of the design brief at the time, or was it? It is an justification that I have seen recently, but not at the time. So at the time T20 was written Hunter was trying to model Striker effects in space?
Of which there is much fanon but little actual canon.

As myself and others noted, due to the peculiarities of the 3E system and the way T20 implemented them, a bay meson gun could kill just about any ship. That most certainly is not getting it right. Which is why we had all those discussions to fix the rules, and I don't recall you using the 'emulating Striker' justification at the time.

That said I think T20 made some good changes to HG2 that could be backported to HG2 - meson screens acting as armour and reducing hits has long been a suggested improvement. Hull SI as a damage track was also very useful.

It certainly was part of my thinking when TESTING T20's HG.

 

[mike wightman]

And yet it was never mentioned when we discussed T20 meson bays being broken. No matter, fixes were found.

Thank you for the retrospective insight.

 

[whartung]

It made them match the striker listed effects. That is getting it right, and making it match the description of the weapon and its superiority in the setting texts.

As myself and others noted, due to the peculiarities of the 3E system and the way T20 implemented them, a bay meson gun could kill just about any ship.

I appreciate how overpowered this makes the meson gun, but as described, the meson gun "destroys everything" within it's radius. Just wrecks it. Kills everyone, ruins all of the machinery. And the field guns are small compared to what's mounted on the ships. Having a 100 meter sphere of your ship "destroyed" is going to have an impact.

Now you can hand wave the affect of a screen in light of that, but, unprotected, a meson gun hit is major owie. Using the different task system, the measure of success can be used to determine just how centered that hit was on your ship. Were you on the edge of the bubble, or did it light off in the core of the ship. It's one reason why ship configuration affect meson guns.

People are people, tanks are armored just like ships are, yet meson guns wrecked those just as well. And it's not some atmosphere effect that manages this, not something special that's lacking in space to make them so powerful. So, there's nothing magical about being in space that should reduce their affect.

Again, not to say they're not very powerful. But if they work as describe on the ground, they'll do the same in space, and I'm simply looking for consistency. Make them one shot killers, or nerf them in to the ground. Just make them consistent.

 

[mike wightman]

Nukes have a greater effect on a battlefield than in space, there is every reason to think that a meson blast is going to have a similar enhanced effect when directed at solid ground/air rather than the vacuum of space.
Ever notice what the HG2 hull configurations that get the best mods against meson guns have in common? Long and thin or dispersed structures are hardest for meson guns to affect, while stubby configurations are the ones most likely to be affected. This implies that the meson 'sphere' of effect doesn't necessarily detonate within the target vessel, probably due to the decay of the meson beam being a statistical spread.

 

[robject]

The components are scattered about instead of clumped in one big juicy target location, right?

Doesn't that mean fighter clouds could be modeled with a "super dispersed" configuration?

 

[mike wightman]

Fighters would never be close enough for more than one of them to be in the meson sphere of effect. It is highly unlikely that individual fighters within a squadron would be within 1000km of each other - the closer they are the more likely they are to hit each other as they maneuver/evade...
https://eldraeverse.com/2014/04/27/non-standard-starship-scuffles/

 

[robject]

Sounds like meson guns need a "spray" setting. Kill those Gnats.

 

[aramis]

Sounds like meson guns need a "spray" setting. Kill those Gnats.

A "diffuse focus," perhaps?

If we combine that with a fighter squadron rule that keeps them close enough for a diffuse focus meson hit to matter, then it's a sensible mix. (Justify it with keeping the data-link for a squadron with low enough lag to not ruin targeting...)

 

[McPerth]

I still think the first and foremost question remains before answering any of the questions in the poll: what are you looking for?

If a RPG ship combat system (e.g. CT:LBB2 or MgT:CB):

Then the most important fact should be the players' actions, Most detail must go to their positions in the ship and their use of their skills.

Ship damage should also be quite detailed, as it will affect their latter adventuring or the money they'll need to repair it (assuming, off course, they end the combat with their ship still functional).

If a tactical starship combat wargame (e.g. 2300AD Star Cruiser):

Here is where most of the questions make sense. With a handfull ships per side, you can use tactical movement, and the details about primary/secondary weapons, layered defenses, etc. make sense too.

Damage could also be quite detailed, with ships being presented with a LBB5 USP or other systesm descriptions (MT/T4/TNW/MgT all give those descriptions more deailed than the single-line USP), and damage on each system of each ship can be tracked.

If a grand tactical (or outright strategical) fleet battle resolution system (e,g, to a point, CT:LBB5 or MgT:HG though even they both can be a little too detailed for this.):

Then things must be quite more abstract. Adding all offensive and defensive systems in a few factors make more sense here. Tactical maneuvering may be quite a headache (to say the least), so range bands may be more useful.

Damage should be more abstract, as in damaged categories, outright hits (that can modify other factors or dice rolls), etc., as you cannot track the detailed damages on full fleets without too much bokkeping to make the game fun (or computer assistence). EDIT: an adaptation of AHL or Striker (2d6 + pen - armor= either nothing, light or serious wound or killed) might also serve END EDIT...

So, again, what are you looking for?

 

[mike wightman]

I always thought one of the things lacking in HG ws the ability to convert ship USPs to the counter values used in the board games such as Imperium, Dark Nebula, Invasion:Earth and Fifth Frontier War.

I took a stab at this many years ago, and also cobbled together rules for just designing the squadron chits themselves.

You make a very valid point that the actual nature of the game must be decided upon, and the level of detail adjusted to make that iteration playable.

Conversion between the detail levels would be a holy grail so that the BCS rules could be used for individual ship duels - highly detailed - through to fleet vs fleet engaements - much more abstraction for playability.

 

[whartung]

Nukes have a greater effect on a battlefield than in space, there is every reason to think that a meson blast is going to have a similar enhanced effect when directed at solid ground/air rather than the vacuum of space.

As I recall, Strike has rules for nukes - and they're not the same for Meson blasts. There's no larger explosive effect, no broadcast of radiation. None of that is mentioned. Simply everything in the radius of the blast is destroyed, and, if I recall properly, the ground is now considered "rough".

Ever notice what the HG2 hull configurations that get the best mods against meson guns have in common? Long and thin or dispersed structures are hardest for meson guns to affect, while stubby configurations are the ones most likely to be affected. This implies that the meson 'sphere' of effect doesn't necessarily detonate within the target vessel, probably due to the decay of the meson beam being a statistical spread.

The hulls with the best mods against meson guns are the hulls with the least amount of cross section within a sphere -- which is why sphere shaped hulls are spectacularly bad.

 

[mike wightman]

As I recall, Strike has rules for nukes - and they're not the same for Meson blasts. There's no larger explosive effect, no broadcast of radiation. None of that is mentioned. Simply everything in the radius of the blast is destroyed, and, if I recall properly, the ground is now considered "rough".

You misunderstand my point.

Nukes used in the atmoshphere and on the ground are a lot more destructive than a space based explosion - unless it is in contact with the ship hull or even inside it. In a similar way the energy from a meson blast on a ground target could be a lot more destructive than in space.

The meson rules in Striker are a simplification for their effects on a planetary battlefield.

Different games with different outcomes (and very different scales) and all that.

 

[robject]

So, again, what are you looking for?

In this discussion, I'm looking for opinions. Your questions are valid, though... but let me answer them in the "High Guard 5" discussion.

 

[aramis]

You misunderstand my point.

Nukes used in the atmoshphere and on the ground are a lot more destructive than a space based explosion - unless it is in contact with the ship hull or even inside it. In a similar way the energy from a meson blast on a ground target could be a lot more destructive than in space.

The meson rules in Striker are a simplification for their effects on a planetary battlefield.

Different games with different outcomes (and very different scales) and all that.

The flavor text description matches the Striker results. It does NOT match the CT Bk 5 results.

 

[whartung]

You misunderstand my point.

Nukes used in the atmoshphere and on the ground are a lot more destructive than a space based explosion - unless it is in contact with the ship hull or even inside it. In a similar way the energy from a meson blast on a ground target could be a lot more destructive than in space.

But there is a physical reason why nukes behave the way they do in an atmosphere. There's a reason Particle Accelerators DON'T work well in an atmosphere. But there's no reference that suggests that meson blast behave any differently in or out of an atmosphere.

A meson gun makes a gazillion super energized particles decay, suddenly, pretty much anywhere is wants. All of these particles explode in heat and gamma rays.

Are they energetic enough to provide convert a volume of air in to a shockwave? Dunno. Apparently not enough to mandate a note in Striker. Could the superheated air volume have an exacerbated effect over the particles alone? Sure, I reckon. But this comes down to the density of the meson field within the volume. How much of the target site is decaying mesons vs air molecules absorbing the heat and energy from those mesons?

If that were the case, then perhaps there would be a note about meson blasts hitting pressurized ships. A meson blast hitting a pressurized ship would perhaps be more powerful as the mesons ignite the air volume in the space. But we don't have any evidence of that either. But it's a fair assumption. All of that air is suddenly super heated, raising pressure up dramatically.

Or we accept that meson blasts have all of the energy and heat and radiation of a nuclear detonation, but without the actual detonation part, without the large explosive chain reaction used to created the excited particles. Rather everything in the radius of a meson blast behaves as if it's right next door to an actual nuclear blast, without all the excitement of the shockwave and other physical affects. Just the energy.

And that power just flat out wrecks things. Everything.

 

[mike wightman]

The flavor text description matches the Striker results. It does NOT match the CT Bk 5 results.

Which flavour text? I don't recall anywhere in canon where a single bay meson gun mission kills a ship.

 

[kilemall]

But there is a physical reason why nukes behave the way they do in an atmosphere. There's a reason Particle Accelerators DON'T work well in an atmosphere. But there's no reference that suggests that meson blast behave any differently in or out of an atmosphere.

A meson gun makes a gazillion super energized particles decay, suddenly, pretty much anywhere is wants. All of these particles explode in heat and gamma rays.

Are they energetic enough to provide convert a volume of air in to a shockwave? Dunno. Apparently not enough to mandate a note in Striker. Could the superheated air volume have an exacerbated effect over the particles alone? Sure, I reckon. But this comes down to the density of the meson field within the volume. How much of the target site is decaying mesons vs air molecules absorbing the heat and energy from those mesons?

If that were the case, then perhaps there would be a note about meson blasts hitting pressurized ships. A meson blast hitting a pressurized ship would perhaps be more powerful as the mesons ignite the air volume in the space. But we don't have any evidence of that either. But it's a fair assumption. All of that air is suddenly super heated, raising pressure up dramatically.

Or we accept that meson blasts have all of the energy and heat and radiation of a nuclear detonation, but without the actual detonation part, without the large explosive chain reaction used to created the excited particles. Rather everything in the radius of a meson blast behaves as if it's right next door to an actual nuclear blast, without all the excitement of the shockwave and other physical affects. Just the energy.

And that power just flat out wrecks things. Everything.

The way I'm trending with meson guns, it's literally muons catalyzing a fusion explosion by hitting a critical amount of ship/planet target atoms.

That's why emptier hulls are harder to 'hit', and why it's always internal explosions.