[CT] High Guard optional rules for use with TCS Campaign

[Omnivore]

Hello, first time poster, long time (79 onwards) Traveller fanatic

I'm working on a project that requires a solid set of CT High Guard rules used with a TCS Campaign and.. well as I'm sure most everyone is long aware there's a few less than solid items that need addressing. I've searched the net and forums, reread the sources and now have a work in progress that merges most of my concerns.

Hopefully some of you who read this will be interested enough to download this High Guard mod4.pdf file and kind enough to comment here on any thoughts you might have concerning it.

Updated with latest changes.

 

[Travellerspud]

they look good at first read - I will have to play a few examples....I particularly like the changes to planetoids and the additions of missions to fighters (close attack/flank attack!)

 

[Omnivore]

Thanks, I wish I could take credit for coming up with the fighter mission idea, but that goes to Stefan Jones and was published in JTAS #14. His missions were a bit different and I may have gone a bit overboard on the bonuses, but its pretty much a spin on an old idea.

It won't surprise me if I need to back off some of the changes a bit to get things to balance out but I figured it was better to start off aggressively.

 

[Matt123]

Excellent stuff

*** I've finished my post and figured I'd add a bit to start, hopefully to mitigate the length of this post which might otherwise come across as negative. I like what you have written and I'm picking you have posted this to get some constructed feedback rather than a blow by blow praising. Touch wood what I'm posting helps!

Cheers
Matt

--//--

As I read, a few quick notes to strengthen your rules;

I.A.iv Planetoid charges. I seem to recall reading somewhere the option of extra tunneling of a Buffered Planetoid, or any Planetoid not fully developed. Its conceivable drives could be added in later (not a refit, a continuation of a paused construction) . Suggest adding the note "...which will not ever contain..."

I.D.i.f Turret missile launchers contain... I have just read that Nuc missile storage occupies 5x the volume of HE. In my mind I'm thinking your typical ship may have Nucs in ready storage for years making it the functional equivalent of a "shipping space", leading me to wonder if this has been considered. I suggest making it explicit that the turret contains 3 HE or Nuc missiles in ready storage. (meaning you are assuming the ready storage is shielded, or whatever ).

ditto for bay missiles (given they have been broken down to individual missile launchers with 3 rounds in ready storage)

*** I'm liking what I'm reading

I.D.v Crew requirements are halved... Might be a little "aggressive". This implies 1 gunner could operate two batteries of factor 9 turret missiles (and implies the replaced gunners job was to reload manually those 60 missile launchers in combat) and that it only takes 1 gunner to operate a missile bay (while you still need 2 for a fusion gun bay with no reloading needed)

II.C.ii Missile Barrage attack... The effect of this in the game is to give missile armed ships an overwhelming alpha strike effect, for as long as the missile magazines hold out. By firing 3 times per missile battery each turn, you are guaranteed to overwhelm any active defenses. This will likely result in fleets of 19,900 ton "disposable" 1g missile planetoids with the best computers, 19 missile bays and very large magazines.

It also begs the question why not allow other weapon systems that do not need reloads (energy, laser, PA & Meson) to also fire 3 times or more in a turn.

II.C.III.b Fuel Tanks Shattered. To keep it in line with OTU, I would make it as suggested after say TL11. The imagery of the Terran Federation defeating the Vilani with these new fangled Meson Guns is diminished significantly if their effectiveness is reduced. After TL11 though it is plausible advances in fuel tank storage technology would generate effects similar to those you are suggesting.

II.D.i Breakthrough step. Typically, it is not the sub 100tn ship that is the problem, it is the sub 2000tn armor 21 rock (immune to nearly all fire) holding off the fleet whilst the rest of the fleet "shelters". Remembering that sub 100tn ships will receive 9 criticals from a factor9 weapon hit. Some proposed "solutions" I have seen have focused on ships in the line holding back a simple ratio of enemy ships (eg: ship for 10 ships, or ship for 10x tonnage).

E. Ordinance reloading. Needs some rewording. You have and I expect are assuming nearly all combat ships will have magazines. But not all will have "missile magazines" (that include auto reloaders). As it stands the wording implies you have 3 rounds in ready storage and a "missile magazine" or not. Meaning if no magazine is carried, after 3 rounds the ships must withdraw to be reloaded.

I suggest (I.D.iii Missile Magazines) breaking missile magazines into "magazines" and "auto-magazines" (or whatever lables you like). The first being basically dedicated cargo space, the second being missile magazines as you describe them (with autoloaders etc).

II.F.ii.b Crash start... ...receives 1d6 damage. PP however is reduced to 0 and then takes 2 turns to get up to "normal" (assume 1?) Powered Down State. I can kinda figure what you are wanting, but it needs rewording to make it more explicit.

II.H.i ...same performance characteristics... I suggest adding that the computer modifier is also the same. Agility only affects defense die rolls, Computer affects both attack & defense. It aids significantly in game admin if the squadron as a whole has the same total game modifiers. (& the relevant att/def combat modifiers are Range, Size, Agility & Computer)

II.H.iv.b Point defense... Allowing the fighters to use the defended ships computer will lead to building specialised fighters with cheap or no computers, 1g drives, no agility and 3 missile launchers (which will combine to factor 9) (*** hmmm, you haven't allowed missiles to be used in this role, points still valid though, just add a 3EP PP as well)

In effect you will see really cheap "bolt on" point defenses with a class of sitting duck "fighters" firing in batteries and defending agility 6 BB's.

II.H.iv.e Fighter Screen... not sure if the screen should get, in effect close range modifiers (dogfighting?) when the attacker doesn't in return. It kinda draws the image of the attackers passively watching the intercept and not responding until well after the screen is withdrawing. Suggest making it a dogfight (nice imagery ), if the attackers wish to respond rather than pursue the original mission, make combat simultaneous and give both sides the close range modifiers.

Which brings to mind, you may be able to adapt an existing role to allow for fighter escorts, helping the "bombers" get through while the "fighters" engage the screen.

If the intercept fails, I suggest the interceptors get the choice of a short or long range attack, effectively attacking at the best range for their primary weapon.

 

[Omnivore]

Thanks Matt, this is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for.

I.A.iv Planetoid charges. I seem to recall reading somewhere the option of extra tunneling of a Buffered Planetoid, or any Planetoid not fully developed. Its conceivable drives could be added in later (not a refit, a continuation of a paused construction) . Suggest adding the note "...which will not ever contain..."

Agreed, implementing change.

I.D.i.f Turret missile launchers contain... I have just read that Nuc missile storage occupies 5x the volume of HE. In my mind I'm thinking your typical ship may have Nucs in ready storage for years making it the functional equivalent of a "shipping space", leading me to wonder if this has been considered. I suggest making it explicit that the turret contains 3 HE or Nuc missiles in ready storage. (meaning you are assuming the ready storage is shielded, or whatever ).

ditto for bay missiles (given they have been broken down to individual missile launchers with 3 rounds in ready storage)

Right, I'm assuming the launcher ready storage is shielded and I'll change that to explicitly state it.

I.D.v Crew requirements are halved... Might be a little "aggressive". This implies 1 gunner could operate two batteries of factor 9 turret missiles (and implies the replaced gunners job was to reload manually those 60 missile launchers in combat) and that it only takes 1 gunner to operate a missile bay (while you still need 2 for a fusion gun bay with no reloading needed)

In examining this one I dropped the ball, completely forgetting about the lowered gunnery crew requirements in HG. Reexamining I'm led to the conclusion that HG already implicitly includes autoloading mechanisms for missile and sandcaster launchers since, in the worst case (100DT bays) two crewmembers in radiation armor would otherwise somehow be moving 12.5 tons of missiles in less than 20 minutes and still have time left over to plot and launch missiles.

II.C.ii Missile Barrage attack... The effect of this in the game is to give missile armed ships an overwhelming alpha strike effect, for as long as the missile magazines hold out. By firing 3 times per missile battery each turn, you are guaranteed to overwhelm any active defenses. This will likely result in fleets of 19,900 ton "disposable" 1g missile planetoids with the best computers, 19 missile bays and very large magazines.

It also begs the question why not allow other weapon systems that do not need reloads (energy, laser, PA & Meson) to also fire 3 times or more in a turn.

I've always assumed that the rate of fire for non-missile weapons was due to targeting, that is, beam weapons are always firing at their maximum safe rate of fire and the combat system is abstracting away the individual shots into a single attack over a time period of one turn. With missile weapons it is a matter of guidance and comm link bandwidth since it is obvious from other contexts that the launchers are physically capable of launching at a higher rate of fire.

The more I reflect on this the more I come to believe the best way to implement barrage fire would be as DM's on hit and penetration determination die rolls, +2 to each would seem reasonable. Introducing the idea of fratricide and overlapping areas of damage would give one rather than two additional hits on the appropriate table(s).

Considering the implication of built in autoloading launchers as discovered in crew requirement analysis above, a turn of barrage fire would be followed by a turn of reloading. This pause is necessary to allow the autoloaders to 'catch up' as they are designed for throughput at the normal rate of fire.

However, reexamining with all this in mind and considering the abstract nature of HG combat, it may well be that this barrage fire mechanism is already built in to the system. Adopting this view would require that ordnance consumption be tripled as each launcher would be assumed to be firing off its full ready rack with each attack.

II.C.III.b Fuel Tanks Shattered. To keep it in line with OTU, I would make it as suggested after say TL11. The imagery of the Terran Federation defeating the Vilani with these new fangled Meson Guns is diminished significantly if their effectiveness is reduced. After TL11 though it is plausible advances in fuel tank storage technology would generate effects similar to those you are suggesting.

While I agree in principle, at some point we're getting too deep in level of detail for the abstract combat system. Since the Vilani did not have meson screens, the effective power of the meson gun isn't reduced too much by this change. What bothers me about the Fuel Tanks Shattered item is that it is actually a mission kill, more powerful than some critical hit table results.

II.D.i Breakthrough step. Typically, it is not the sub 100tn ship that is the problem, it is the sub 2000tn armor 21 rock (immune to nearly all fire) holding off the fleet whilst the rest of the fleet "shelters". Remembering that sub 100tn ships will receive 9 criticals from a factor9 weapon hit. Some proposed "solutions" I have seen have focused on ships in the line holding back a simple ratio of enemy ships (eg: ship for 10 ships, or ship for 10x tonnage).

Acknowledged, I'm addressing the armor 21 rock from another angle but wanted to make sure I didn't leave a loophole allowing a simple replacement of armored rocks with high agility/computer rating small craft squadrons.

On the gripping hand , I've always viewed the line/reserve distinction as being one of range. The reason you couldn't simply fire upon the reserve was that it was out of range for beam weapons and missiles would be subjected to double counter (point defense by line as they passed through in addition to point defense by reserve). This would imply a fuel issue with missiles as well since to avoid being sitting ducks for the point defenses of the line they would have to undergo the terminal evasion sequence twice. There would also likely be targeting issues involved as ECM by line would make it more difficult to target reserve.

One possible approach I haven't seen suggested elsewhere would be to allow missile fire both at and by ships in the reserve, only ruling out attacks by reserve upon reserve. In these attacks, the effective computer rating of the attacker would be halved, and attacks by line upon reserve could be opposed by the active point defenses of ships in the line. I'll have to give this one more thought.

II.F.ii.b Crash start... ...receives 1d6 damage. PP however is reduced to 0 and then takes 2 turns to get up to "normal" (assume 1?) Powered Down State. I can kinda figure what you are wanting, but it needs rewording to make it more explicit.

II.H.i ...same performance characteristics... I suggest adding that the computer modifier is also the same. Agility only affects defense die rolls, Computer affects both attack & defense. It aids significantly in game admin if the squadron as a whole has the same total game modifiers. (& the relevant att/def combat modifiers are Range, Size, Agility & Computer)

Both points noted and I'll make hopefully relevant changes.

II.H.iv.b Point defense... Allowing the fighters to use the defended ships computer will lead to building specialised fighters with cheap or no computers, 1g drives, no agility and 3 missile launchers (which will combine to factor 9) (*** hmmm, you haven't allowed missiles to be used in this role, points still valid though, just add a 3EP PP as well)

In effect you will see really cheap "bolt on" point defenses with a class of sitting duck "fighters" firing in batteries and defending agility 6 BB's.

Ah yes, I missed that one. I'll drop the ability to use the defended ship's computer. I would like to add some synergy bonus there as obviously the defended ship and defending squadrons will be operating in close cooperation but I don't see any simple and straightforward way to do that.

II.H.iv.e Fighter Screen... not sure if the screen should get, in effect close range modifiers (dogfighting?) when the attacker doesn't in return. It kinda draws the image of the attackers passively watching the intercept and not responding until well after the screen is withdrawing. Suggest making it a dogfight (nice imagery ), if the attackers wish to respond rather than pursue the original mission, make combat simultaneous and give both sides the close range modifiers.

Which brings to mind, you may be able to adapt an existing role to allow for fighter escorts, helping the "bombers" get through while the "fighters" engage the screen.

If the intercept fails, I suggest the interceptors get the choice of a short or long range attack, effectively attacking at the best range for their primary weapon.

I like these ideas, one constraint that I've probably already violated to a point though is keeping the entire system relatively simple and abstract. I'll have to rethink the fighter missions a bit with all the above in mind.

Thanks for your interest and input

 

[Omnivore]

Update at version 0.4

The current work in progress is at version 0.4 now, High Guard mod4.pdf.

The issues I've identified with HG '80 are as follows:
1) The cheap nigh-invulnerable planetoid battlerider
2) Crew codes (again.. still..)
3) Ordnance
4) Armor values for smaller vessels
5) Barbarian horde ineffectiveness at higher tech levels
6) Prevention of breakthrough by exploiting systemic flaws
7) External mounts for smaller vessels
8) The role of sandcasters
9) Overwhelming superiority of meson guns

All of the above issues, to one degree or another, cause canon design theory for fleets, ships, and small craft to be ridiculous in actual play. I'm attempting the following approach to address the issues in the linked work in progress pdf file:

1) Back in the late '70's and earlier, the asteroid belt was commonly thought to be full of riches, in the past 30 years we've found naught but disappointment with each new related scientific discovery. I won't rehash the discussions I've read on this matter elsewhere but they do serve to raise one approach to solving issue #1. However, rightly or wrongly, the idea of planetoid hulled warships is embedded in canon so a solution must tread carefully.

In a discussion elsewhere on these forums I read a number of suggestions and decided to adopt many of them and add in an idea of my own, namely:

• There is no such thing as a standard planetoid hull design, each planetoid is different not only in shape but in composition and defects. Thus each such ship constructed incurs architect fees, an additional four weeks of construction time, and absolutely no class or volume discounts.
• There is no support in canon for planetoid battleriders, although there is mention of relocation of a planetoid monitor using a battlerider tender. This implies that planetoids are difficult to safely attach to such a tender and the process of moving them requires significant time - days instead of minutes.
• While TCS tells us explicitly that the added value of inherent planetoid armor does not count towards armor limits, there is plenty of reason to believe that it would require more volume and mass to add armor to a planetoid than normal. Not only are they irregular shapes, but also likely require additional structural reinforcement to support the armor and distribute the anticipated stresses involved in combat and maneuver.

2) The original HG crew code was logarithmic - a power series. However it had too large of a grain. The canon solution, adopting the JTAS#14 solution, is a linear solution and has been noted to have too small of a grain. Of the various solutions proposed, I liked Dean's the best but at the upper end of the scale it becomes linear and perhaps too fine grained. In the process of looking at this issue however, I noticed that while the original power of 10 solution in HG was a bad fit, a power of 3 solution fit pretty close to the first half of Dean's solution.

3) Ordnance; imagine my surprise when I found magazines missing from my replacement copy of HG. I've seen a number of good solutions, both here and elsewhere, but they didn't take all of my concerns into account. I've always been a big fan of Striker and there I found three pieces of information: the warhead sizes for turret and bay missiles, the number of launchers per bay, and the two different methods of shipping nuclear warheads.

Following up on that information and rechecking LBB2 and SS3, I decided to make the bay launchers a larger copy of the turret launchers. So far so good, but in the process of automating the loading process, Matt123 spotted a flaw - when I halved the gunnery crew to reflect the automation, there weren't enough crewmen left to fire the batteries! Having calculated the mass of a bay missile at 250kg, I was then left with trying to imagine in the absence of autoloading, two guys in radiation suits trying to move 12.5 metric tons of missiles in twenty minutes under combat conditions and still have time to plot targets, and then turn right around and do it again.

My conclusion is that autoloading is already presumed to be built in to both HG warship missile launchers and whatever cargo area is set aside for magazines. This, then, raised another question - the magazine type launchers installed are quite capable of firing at Striker combat speeds, fast enough that a battery launch over HG engagement distances could easily allow for 'intensive fire'. (If I recall correctly there was something like that in HG '79).

However, having already added the intensive fire option in an earlier revision, Matt123 in his response above noted that it would always be used and invariably overwhelm the defenses. So, reasoning one step further, assuming the launchers are capable of firing at a higher rate of speed and that auto loading is built in to the launchers and magazines, the normal missile attack sequence in HG must *already* assume that ROF in the combat tables.

Yeah I know, a fancy bit of circular reasoning, but bear with me a bit. To make bookkeeping simpler, I created the idea of a 'unit of ordnance' for turrets and bays containing sufficient munitions (3 assuming the above) for one turn's fire. The magazine design supplied with the mod has the capacity per DT given in units of ordnance (or turns of fire per launcher) for both standard and nuclear turret and bay missiles and for sandcasters as well.

4) Surface area vs volume raises its ugly head. I've seen the solutions in later works and I once had a starship design system based on Striker that took that into consideration but when using any such system I find myself *really* missing the simplicity of the HG approach.

Reexamining the issue and reading a few different solutions in various posts, I decided that the important case to solve was the armor value for smaller vessels (and a related external ordnance issue I'll discuss below). For large vessels it's a bit easier to handwave the problem away (reinforced internal structure, etc). The simplest solution I could find was to simply limit the armor value to half the sum of technological level and size code.

5) Barbarian horde strategy has always been a favorite option of mine in some games, but with HG, it just doesn't work at all. As in, not that its not cost effective, but that it just doesn't work. Along with that, canonical gunships and fighters die in droves to properly designed large high tech craft without even scratching the paint. I've seen various solutions suggested for this and my first instinct was to adopt a combination of squadron barrage fire and squadron missions (ala JTAS #14), but not only was I adding complexity, I couldn't answer the question one poster raised in another thread. Namely, "If fighters, why not for gunships, if gunships, why not for destroyers,..."

The best solution I could find was one I read in a post I wish I'd saved a link to so I could attribute it to its author. I call my version of it "Close Attack", a Pre-combat Decision Step option that can be chosen in certain circumstances that gives bonuses to hit and penetration to both sides.

6) Breakthrough is a great concept in the abstract but there's too many exploitable edge cases. It is simply too easy to hold the line with ships that really pose no threat at all to the enemy. Trying to prevent all the edge cases by outlawing them... well seems pointless and heavy handed. Instead I decided to add another Pre-combat Decision Step: "Flank Attack" which under certain circumstances allows a missile only attack (with negative DM's) on the reserve even if 'Breakthrough' is not achieved.

7) Surface area vs volume revisited, this time in the context of small craft weapon mounts. I've always assumed that missile weapons at least were externally mounted on small craft. When I came up with the ordnance solution, I noted that a loaded standard turret missile magazine launcher and ready storage was similar in mass and volume to a larger number of loaded launch rails. Stretching that out a bit, I've allowed small craft missile launchers to hold three times the number of missiles as their turret mount brethrens and added the option for small craft to engage in triple fire, exhausting their entire payload in one attack.

8) Sandcasters - The laser experts seem to be in agreement that the idea of sandcasters as a defense against lasers just doesn't work. Worse, the schizophrenic role assigned to sandcasters means that they don't get optimized for the case where they do - the anti-missile role. So I've turned sandcasters into giant missile seeking RAM grenade launchers that have the same rate of fire as turret missile launchers. Effective as a point defense against missiles, completely useless against beams of any kind.

9) Meson guns.. I like meson guns, I also like peanut butter, but I don't want to eat peanut butter all the time I want some choices! Sadly, especially at high tech levels, meson guns rule without challenge. The problem isn't meson guns, the problem is meson screens.

Meson screens in HG are treated exactly like nuclear dampers but the two technologies are completely different. Nuclear dampers are much more like an repulsors, they have to be aimed. It makes sense that either they have full effect or none - either you hit or you missed.

Meson screens are a passive defense, an omnidirectional screen, much like armor but only against meson guns. So why aren't meson screens treated like armor against meson gun fire? Never could answer that and using the same basic idea I've read elsewhere, I won't have to again.

Comments, suggestions, and critiques are welcomed.

 

[Matt123]

The issues I've identified with HG '80 are as follows:
1) The cheap nigh-invulnerable planetoid battlerider
2) Crew codes (again.. still..)
3) Ordnance
4) Armor values for smaller vessels
5) Barbarian horde ineffectiveness at higher tech levels
6) Prevention of breakthrough by exploiting systemic flaws
7) External mounts for smaller vessels
8) The role of sandcasters
9) Overwhelming superiority of meson guns

All of the above issues, to one degree or another, cause canon design theory for fleets, ships, and small craft to be ridiculous in actual play.

I would disagree. Of all the space combat games I played through the 80's & 90's, the only one I still have any interest in and play on occasion is HG/TCS. Obviously you feel something similar or you wouldn't be putting this effort in.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't ask for input while telling me the game I like is ridiculous... (no I'm not that sensitive, its just a strange way to go about asking for feedback from experienced players.)

3) Ordnance...

Most adaptations I have seen to include ordinance, focus on making it a finite resource, rather than providing extra abilities to missile batteries.

The original magazine rules were dropped to simplify book-keeping and any solution has to take into account the likelihood of it being applied to fleets of thousands of craft a side, all firing missile batteries.

To give a sense of scale, my last game of TCS (2011, Serendip TL12) each of my offensive fleets had 5367 ships in them, mostly fighters. I had 5 of these fleets, 3 of which were operating together along with a large tanker squadron adding (with escorts) another 1500 or so ships. Thats around 17,500 ships I'm bringing to a major engagement, all of them armed with missiles.

A simple ordinance solution might be to assume a battery has (for example) 10 rounds of combat fire available. All ships in the line are assumed to be engaged in combat fire. Further rounds of combat fire, in batches of 10, cost x ton, y MCr per turret of bay. But even this will be cumbersome (gameplay wise) on the scale HG/TCS operates.

5) Barbarian horde strategy has always been a favorite option of mine in some games, but with HG, it just doesn't work at all.

You are mixing your issues. Barbarian horde strategy works well, in fact for the lower TL player, it is the only strategy they have. Implementing it well is a challenge. More than a 1 TL spread however starts getting problematic.

Along with that, canonical gunships and fighters die in droves to properly designed large high tech craft without even scratching the paint.

The short answer, is so they should. A low tech fighter (TL12/13) or a high tech very light fighter should have no chance vs a properly designed high tech (TL15) craft. What you need is a properly designed fighter.

The period of fighter dominance is up to TL12/13, after that BB's dominate and CV's perform support roles. If you like, it takes several millennium from WW2 for BB's to regain their ascendency. I kinda like that.

I call my version of it "Close Attack"...

Personally I like this type of rule, not because fighters need the help (fighters dominate anyway up to TL12/13, after that their time has passed), but because it adds flavour to the game where I think it is short. (Starwars & BSG)

7) ...Stretching that out a bit, I've allowed small craft missile launchers to hold three times the number of missiles as their turret mount brethrens and added the option for small craft to engage in triple fire, exhausting their entire payload in one attack.

Your typical light fighter cannot even hit a typical combat ship, sadly firing three times in one turn will not help. The light fighter will have something like (for example the TL15 Rampart IV, JTAS 27) computer 1 giving, without a bridge, a computer modifier of +0.

Compare this to your typical TL15 combat vessel with a computer modifier of +9 and you will quickly find your fighter gets a -9 to hit, making the to-hit for its factor 1 or 2 missile battery 15+ on 2d6.

The problem isn't with the Rampart, as noted above, by TL15 the fighters days as a main combat vessel are over. The problem is with trying to get out-moded tactics to work using craft not designed for the role. It is reminiscent of WW1 Generals still convinced cavalry have a place despite the new technology of machine-guns and tanks.

8) Sandcasters - The laser experts...

Not so long ago the laser experts were telling us that lasers themselves wouldn't work and that any attempt to do so at the MW powers and distances needed for HG would require parabolic dishes larger than most HG starcraft.

I never swayed from lasers, purely on the basis its a sci-fi game & I like lasers. On a similar basis I'd hesitate to rely on "experts" to justify change to sandcasters (or planetoids for that matter). Having said that, I'm not criticizing your suggest rule amendment, I like the anti-missile flavor of it and if it feels right to you, its all good.

9) Meson guns.. I like meson guns, I also like peanut butter, but I don't want to eat peanut butter all the time I want some choices! Sadly, especially at high tech levels, meson guns rule without challenge. The problem isn't meson guns, the problem is meson screens.

Ahhh, the innocence of youth! You need to get a few more games in. Meson guns most definitely do not rule. They are obviously exciting, but Mesons do not win games. Missiles win games, even with the addition of any magazine rules.

Keep in mind HG combat is a grind, with very few quick deaths (less if you remove "fuel tanks shattered"). Now reflect on how fragile meson guns are and that a ship can only carry one. Compare that to the robustness of missile bays on the same ship, each of which fire at full strength until you get down to the last one. Add in that fire is simultaneous and that meson gun ships will get targeted first by all available missile batteries and you find your meson guns will only get one round of firing at full strength, while they typically need 3 rounds (at full strength) to score a hit on a well designed target. The only question is how long will it take to grind them down.

Between experienced players, meson guns are limited in number and held in reserve till late in the game when its either all you have left or you have created a safe(ish) environment for them to operate in.

 

[Omnivore]

I would disagree. Of all the space combat games I played through the 80's & 90's, the only one I still have any interest in and play on occasion is HG/TCS. Obviously you feel something similar or you wouldn't be putting this effort in.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't ask for input while telling me the game I like is ridiculous... (no I'm not that sensitive, its just a strange way to go about asking for feedback from experienced players.)

Noted, and agreed, I worded that statement poorly. I did not mean that the game is ridiculous, I meant that many (most?) of the designs we are given as examples in canon works are, compared to optimized designs, rather second rate.

To give a sense of scale, my last game of TCS (2011, Serendip TL12) each of my offensive fleets had 5367 ships in them, mostly fighters. I had 5 of these fleets, 3 of which were operating together along with a large tanker squadron adding (with escorts) another 1500 or so ships. Thats around 17,500 ships I'm bringing to a major engagement, all of them armed with missiles.

Right and understood, from a practical pen and paper standpoint the required bookkeeping makes ordnance tracking a nightmare in any large scale engagement. Probably the best solution that could be hoped for would be to simply make it a design requirement to include n turns worth of magazine in each ship, and then tracking it in batches as you describe.

You are mixing your issues. Barbarian horde strategy works well, in fact for the lower TL player, it is the only strategy they have. Implementing it well is a challenge. More than a 1 TL spread however starts getting problematic.

To me a barbarian horde is more than a 1 TL difference, rather its applying the inverse square law to combat effectiveness at up to some N TL difference. In HG an attack which hits but due to armor does not inflict any damage is completely ineffective. I believe this is the root problem and I don't have a direct solution for it that does not add a rather large bookkeeping load.

The short answer, is so they should. A low tech fighter (TL12/13) or a high tech very light fighter should have no chance vs a properly designed high tech (TL15) craft. What you need is a properly designed fighter.

No argument, in fact when it comes to fighters I don't believe they are a viable solution in 'semi-hard' science fiction space warfare. However, Traveller canon disagrees with this point of view so it is still an issue. In regards to fighters and small ships, the point I'm trying to address is not that they should be effective in the main at all tech levels, but that they shouldn't be completely ineffective at any tech level. Prime example here being the TL15 Fleet Carrier concept as given in supplement 9.

On a similar basis I'd hesitate to rely on "experts" to justify change to sandcasters (or planetoids for that matter). Having said that, I'm not criticizing your suggest rule amendment, I like the anti-missile flavor of it and if it feels right to you, its all good.

I probably shouldn't have addressed the sandcaster issue at all. It is reflective of my own struggle to keep my 'realism' preferences at bay. In actual play I don't expect many actually use sandcasters in HG/TCS fleet battles in anything but the anti-missile role so it'd be just as well to leave it unsaid.

Ahhh, the innocence of youth! You need to get a few more games in. Meson guns most definitely do not rule. They are obviously exciting, but Mesons do not win games. Missiles win games, even with the addition of any magazine rules.

At my age I welcome any comparison to youth I've taken many breaks over the years since I first started playing Traveller in '79 while in the USAF, but my perception has always been that meson guns were too overpowered even with needing to pop them in and out of the reserve. Granted I've not played in any TCS tournaments so my perceptions may be off, but given what I've read it seems my perceptions are shared by many rightly or wrongly.

Of course, if Meson Guns are weakened too much then you are left with a never ending battle if armored rocks are present.

I started this work with the idea of merging as much of the various adhoc solutions published over the years in one place or another to HG, along with a few ideas of my own, as an interim step in a larger project. It's beginning though to look like this is a dead horse since outside of you (Matt123) and Travellerspud, no one has expressed an interest.

The next step in the project is to eliminate the bookkeeping overhead by automating much of HG/TCS fleet combat with a computer program. Given the lack of interest though, I'm having a really tough time keeping my own preferences for 'realism' from spinning the project completely out of the Traveller realm.

 

[Matt123]

... I meant that many (most?) of the designs we are given as examples in canon works are, compared to optimized designs, rather second rate.

virtually all of the canon ships are broken.

... but that (fighters) shouldn't be completely ineffective at any tech level. Prime example here being the TL15 Fleet Carrier concept as given in supplement 9.

Fighters are useful in many contexts outside of main fleet combat.

Looking at the TL15 Fleet Carrier, you need to focus on its fighting arm of 300 Heavy Fighters. A quick look at the stats shows a computer 7 (no bridge) for a computer modifier of +6, the same modifier as the best available at TL12.

Given that Fighters dominate up to TL12/13 and system navies up to this point will be fighter heavy, the Fleet Carrier will dominate combats up to and including TL12, without risking damage to very expensive TL15 BB's. Throw in a couple of TL15 5000tn Fleet Escorts and a Light Cruiser and you have a very powerful Fleet detachment.

... but given what I've read it seems my perceptions are shared by many rightly or wrongly.

lol, yep.

Of course, if Meson Guns are weakened too much then you are left with a never ending battle if armored rocks are present.

Armoured Rocks at TL15 are the nemisis of missile batteries. At TL14 they are "difficult". Less than TL14 and they are just large slow targets.

I started this work with the idea of merging as much of the various adhoc solutions published over the years in one place or another to HG, along with a few ideas of my own, as an interim step in a larger project. It's beginning though to look like this is a dead horse since outside of you (Matt123) and Travellerspud, no one has expressed an interest.

Its not that people aren't interested, its just difficult to get agreement and you are not the first to attempt it.

Have you seen Don's official consolidated errata?
http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/trav.html

The next step in the project is to eliminate the bookkeeping overhead by automating much of HG/TCS fleet combat with a computer program. Given the lack of interest though, I'm having a really tough time keeping my own preferences for 'realism' from spinning the project completely out of the Traveller realm.

a worthy project, it would definitely get some use.

 

[Tobias]

Ahhh, the innocence of youth! You need to get a few more games in. Meson guns most definitely do not rule. They are obviously exciting, but Mesons do not win games. Missiles win games, even with the addition of any magazine rules.

That depends on Tech Level. Against a well-designed TL 15 Battle Rider, a nuclear missile battery (factor-9) has about a 3% chance of scoring a weapon-1 result. I don't think that's going to cut it. (Note that this would not be a planetoid ship, just regular hull with armor-14 to 15.)

 

[Omnivore]

Have you seen Don's official consolidated errata?
http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/trav.html

Yes, in the pdf of the wip document linked in the first post, I believe it states that those corrections are considered to be in force except where explicitly overruled. While I've undoubtedly missed a few, I've tried to be as thorough as possible in research, examining every article and reference I could find both on this forum and elsewhere.

a worthy project, it would definitely get some use.

The main obstacle is designing a usable and coherent interface. This is complicated by the need to work with fleets ranging in size from just one or two on each side (break-off/pursuit or small battle) to the scale you mentioned earlier with tens of thousands of ships on each side.

There's a few gaps between HG and TCS, this organizational issue being one of them. It's not as big a problem in most cases given a sufficiently large tabletop, a bunch of cardboard counters, and notebooks of individually plastic covered stat sheets you can mark up with a grease pencil, but try and fit that on a computer screen in a way that makes sense!

The basic approach to follow I believe is to break down the mass fleet of units into a hierarchy such as given here: Hierarchy_of_modern_navies. The user interface would then allow you to 'drill-down' at each level to the lower level - continuing on down to the individual ships.

While that could go a long way towards simplifying the user interface issues, it doesn't map well to HG combat resolution. I'm considering modifying the HG combat resolution to break down huge battles into smaller ones along hierarchical lines. Something along the lines of splitting Fleet 1 vs Fleet 2 into multiple: Task Force 1.x vs Task Force 2.x battles with some mechanism for merging the smaller battles into the larger as necessary.

Except for the huge fleet issue I could probably design the user interface today. That issue, however, introduces problems. It basically requires stepping between the HG and true wargame (Imperium/FFW) models in some manner that ideally gives the same results as a huge tabletop HG battle. I'm still scratching my head over this.

 

[Matt123]

Actually playing the game, you generally deal with the vast bulk in sweeping statements.

"I am firing 500 Bobcat fighters, each carrying missile-2 batteries at your BB Goliath."

In any situation where the modifiers are consistent, firing can be bulked and on the tabletop, determined statistically (per TCS, die rolling being impracticable).

The firers (as the sweeping statement has to refer to only one target) must have identical battery type and identical computers. In practice it is easier to deal with a class of firing ship at a time, the assumption being that the batteries & computer within a class will be identical.

Its relatively easy to log that 300 Fiery class Escorts have fired their missile batteries. And if there are 500 Fiery class Escorts, allocating the fire to the first 300 or a random 300 is trivial. Logging the Escorts target isn't required (might be nice for post game stats though), just the damage inflicted. The target needs to log the defensive batteries fired.

Capital ships may be dealt with individually (as might Escorts) but often you will combine firepower on one target to ensure a mission kill. Even Meson Guns are often fired in bulk, this gets problematic though once battle damage creates differences in weapon type within a class.

--//--
Sooo, converting this to a unit interface, perhaps (and treat this more as thinking out aloud rather than a serious proposition);

On one side, list Targets by class, ranked by size with a notation detailing numbers (Line of battle / Reserve).
eg:

Goliath BB (4/0)
Minow Escort (15/5)
Sprat Fighter (1000/0)

As targets are presented to the attacker, (game rule is each is presented once, starting from largest tonnage to smallest), break out each target individually.

eg:
Goliath BB (4/0)
... Goliath
... *Samson
... BUFF
... Whale
Minow Escort (15/5)
Sprat Fighter (1000/0)

In a details pane, list Samsons current state, including damage. Perhaps allow the firer to select other units (BUFF or Whale) to allow comparison. If you have a limited intelligence thing going on, display known info.

On the other side show the players Fleet in a similar manner (class, ranked by size with a notation detailing numbers). Allow the player to find detailed ships by double clicking the class, expanding the occupants of the class.

Use filter buttons to display; damaged ships, ships suffering criticals, ships without power (PP or FTS or Fuel loss), ships with unused batteries, ships running low on Fuel, etc, etc.

In the details pane display current ship state, unused batteries with the option of firing (all or a number) on the current target and appropriate orders (break off, emergency agilty, repair, etc, etc).

When a class is selected, in the detail pane display all the unused batteries for that class with the option of firing (all or a number) on the current target. And display any orders that may be applied to the entire class (break off, emergency agility, etc, etc)

Hmmm, or something like that. Plenty of details to be fleshed out (if you decide it might work for you), but it might work ok.

 

[tater]

Found this thread researching alternate HG rules here. Hope 6 months isn't too much of a necro-bump.

Looks interesting.

HG has numerous problems, IMHO. One being anything to do with smaller units. Fighters and other small craft play a role in fleets in traveller, and in HG/TCS in particular at TLs where the system can be gamed to make them more effective. This of course being my problem with many systems, the idea of "gaming" rules that are in fact arbitrary to create some new, ideal (for the arbitrary rules) unit.

I like to take looks at the extremes, and see where stuff doesn't make sense.

Single laser turret in HG at TL 13+ cannot hit an agility 6 small craft, ever, with equal computers, the DM is -8 on a base 7+. In fact, you need a factor 8 beam weapon (7 triple lasers, 8 double FGs, or 10 double plasmas) to have even a ~2.8% chance of a hit vs this agile craft. Maybe HG was better before the "errata" added agility DMs vs beam weapons?

It's odd compared to reality, because within some range a beam weapon cannot possibly miss such a craft in RL (even today). HG instead makes such a task not automatic, but impossible. Of the 2 choices, automatic is more realistic, even if also wrong.

Then look at spinal PAWs and MGs. THEY can hit this slippery little dude 16.66% of the time, even though they must rotate the entire spacecraft. Even corrected for the idea that HG combat rolls are only telling us about "effective hits," and that the danger space of the spinals is large, in this case HG is also "telling us" that a BB can rotate to track a target faster than any turret possible.

Clearly something needs fixing there.

 

[dean]

The next step in the project is to eliminate the bookkeeping overhead by automating much of HG/TCS fleet combat with a computer program. Given the lack of interest though, I'm having a really tough time keeping my own preferences for 'realism' from spinning the project completely out of the Traveller realm.

I think that interest in running TCS games and TCS games in general would GREATLY increase if a program such as you describe could be had.

I also think that a database type arrangement for tracking the locations of ships and fleets would also be of interest. I'd started and stopped that project more times than I can remember.