High Guard: Expectations?

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
User avatar
Golan2072
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Yavne, Israel
Contact:

High Guard: Expectations?

Postby Golan2072 » Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:00 pm

Similarly to the Mercenary Expectations thread, what are you looking for in High Guard?

I'm looking for more ship-design options, including small craft and ships above 2,000 dtons, energy point allocations, military-grade missiles (comparable to the heavier energy weapons in damage and launched from missile bays), black globes, and more detailed fittings (laboratories with equipment cost, medlabs, hydroponics). In other words, take the core-book's ship design rules, expand them, enrich them, add many options and variations to them, but please don't render them obsolete.

I'm also looking for a balanced, well play-tested system with as little hidden "sweet spots" and pitfalls as possible. I'm looking for a system which would support multiple different ship paradigms and naval doctrines in the same universe.

I'm not very concerned about character generation as the core book already gives a wealth of character options (and adding new ones is very easy).

What I am NOT looking for is something with the flaws of CT's High Guard, which has made LBB2 obsolete, focused on very large warships (many of which rarely see any use by PCs in an actual game; other so powerful that their effect on a typical game would be handled by referee fiat anyway, making the design effort pointless) and had a combat system unfit for PC-scale combat.
simonh
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1527
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:56 pm

Re: High Guard: Expectations?

Postby simonh » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:08 pm

Golan2072 wrote:What I am NOT looking for is something with the flaws of CT's High Guard, which has made LBB2 obsolete, focused on very large warships (many of which rarely see any use by PCs in an actual game; other so powerful that their effect on a typical game would be handled by referee fiat anyway, making the design effort pointless) and had a combat system unfit for PC-scale combat.
I fully agree with the main sentiment of your post, but don't agree that HG Bk5 was particularly flawed. It's starship design system was a far superior evolution from Book2, and it's designs were fully compatible with the Book2 combat system with the only exception being the larger military weapon systems. In that respect I hope the new HG will follow the same plan - further extension with this time hopefully even more backwards compatibility.

As for 'PC scal cobat', as a fan and proponent of operation scale games in which the characters are movers and shakers with considerable resources at their disposal, I need rules to enable them to employ those resources.

Simon Hibbs
Captain Brann
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: Bath UK
Contact:

Postby Captain Brann » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:57 pm

A fully worked up ship design system, with more weapons and shields of various types, power allocation and control systems.

Deck plans of various ships up to cruisers, the bigger ships should have a separate book of deck plans for them.

Work with GZG to use "Full Thrust" as the base of a fleet action set of rules.
Include rules on acceleration and manovering at high speeds and a quick way of working out the current speed of a ship after a period of constant accelerating/decelerating.
With Jesus in your life you have all the love you will need.

http://chrisbrann.wordpress.com/rpg-campaign-stories/
GypsyComet
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2184
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:09 am

Re: High Guard: Expectations?

Postby GypsyComet » Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:08 pm

simonh wrote: (High Guard's) starship design system was a far superior evolution from Book2, and it's designs were fully compatible with the Book2 combat system with the only exception being the larger military weapon systems. In that respect I hope the new HG will follow the same plan - further extension with this time hopefully even more backwards compatibility.
CT-HG designs lack an important bit of information that renders them only vaguely compatible with Book 2. Most people forget that Book 2 drive letter codes are also the damage track, while HG damage is done directly to performance. This difference is one of the main reasons CT-HG works as a fleet game but is too deadly for adventure class fights.

Design compatibility is a worthwhile goal, but fleet combat really does need a different level of detail to make it playable. In the current case, MGT ship combat rules in the main book become staggeringly tedious well before you hit the big end of the book's hull table.

-

While I'm at it, I find myself disappointed that Mongoose is repeating the product names of CT. The connection to the CT line is going to be lost on their intended customer base (newcomers) and will engender confusion in discussions with the old guard ("in HG..."; "Which HG?"; "Uh, the latest."; "There's more than one?"; "Technically, we're up to three, and I'm talking about the third, though I'll be comparing it to the second here shortly.").

Plays on CT titles, like 760 Patrons and 2001 Characters, don't have the same problem.
simonh
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1527
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:56 pm

Postby simonh » Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:30 pm

Captain Brann wrote:Work with GZG to use "Full Thrust" as the base of a fleet action set of rules.
Include rules on acceleration and manovering at high speeds and a quick way of working out the current speed of a ship after a period of constant accelerating/decelerating.
Your wish has allready been fulfilled.

Simon Hibbs
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Postby AKAramis » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Gypsy:
Last I checked, MoTrav doesn't use drive letters as damage steps.

And s far, there are already 3 HG... MoHG is #4
CT HG 1E
CT HG 2E
MT HG (part of MT Ref's Manual)
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
GypsyComet
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2184
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:09 am

Postby GypsyComet » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:33 pm

Thank You Aramis for demonstrating quite handily why product naming is an issue.

As for the MT version, I didn't include it in the example because it isn't a book named "High Guard".

I took issue with the "CT-HG is completely compatible with Book 2 combat" statement. MGT's iterations, however named, remain unknown for the moment, though statements by Mongoose suggest greater compatibility than in CT.
BenTOGS
Stoat
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:07 pm
Location: Empire of the Americas

Postby BenTOGS » Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:45 pm

Not expecting anything for High Guard, since I use & sell Power Projection from Final Sword Productions. It's a variant of Full Thrust, easily the best most adaptable rules set for starship combat. I would just use FT but Power Projection has all these wondeerful Traveller counters! $29.95 USD at any good FLGS. You could order it direct or online, but boyo, your FLGS could really use the income for his playspace. He's livin' on spam & baked potaoes these day, and looking thru the Help Wanteds.
BenTOGS
Earth, North America
Solomani Forever!
Service to the State, Glory to the Race! (Kudos to S. M. Stirling)
User avatar
daryen
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: High Guard: Expectations?

Postby daryen » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:58 am

simonh wrote:I fully agree with the main sentiment of your post, but don't agree that HG Bk5 was particularly flawed. It's starship design system was a far superior evolution from Book2, and it's designs were fully compatible with the Book2 combat system with the only exception being the larger military weapon systems.
It's when I see stuff like this that I wonder if people have actually read either source material in the last decade, or they are just relying on very distant memories.

Bk2 and Bk5 are NOT compatible, and did not try to be. Just to be redundant:
- Bk2 used massive jump drives and dinky maneuver drives; Bk5 did the opposite.
- Bk2 and Bk5 uses completely different fuel requirements for power plants.
- Bk2 and Bk5 uses completely different TL assumptions regarding jump drives and manuever drives. In Bk2 you could have J3 ships at TL10. In Bk5 that is impossible.
- Bk2 used drive letters to take damage; Bk5 uses the drive ratings. If you built your ship right, you could take multiple hits on your drive without losing performance; that can't happen in Bk5.

Just because staterooms were 4 dton in each and because it too 10% of hull volume in fuel to make a one parsec jump was the same, doesn't mean the two systems were compatible. They weren't.

Therefore, Golans wish (which, BTW, I heartily echo) is completely legitimate and reasonable: Please make sure that High Guard and the base shipbuilding systems are actually compatible with each other.
cmdrx
Stoat
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Postby cmdrx » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:51 am

Compatability with the current design system is a must. While I did prefer (and still do) the Classic HG over Classic book 2, I must say that the MGT system as is, is superiour to classic Book 2.

I realy want to see what they have in store for power allocation. I cringe at the thought of seeing Type S with a triple particle accelerator turret and managing to power that weapon and still get 2g's with only a Type A power plant. I've kludged something together for now based on classic HG which still uses the old 'agility' and extra 'EP' score. Plants produce EP as per the drive chart. Lasers use 1 EP and etc. like in Classic HG. Any leftover goes to Agility and it's this score I use for Manuevers(like how many times you can dodge) in the combat rules. Most ships are going to have to decide if they want to power the guns or save the power for evading fire. Perhaps the Great Master Mongooses could share a hint on what they have in store for power? Please? :D

I would like to see something similar to the USP for batteries of weapons. For now rolling 3 times for a triple laser turret is fine, but what about a Capital ship firing a full battery of 30? Mind you, rolling 12 times for a missile bay right now can be tedious.

Definitely want to see rules for small craft. What exactly is a <A drive anyway? Do the drive codes go 1-9? or is there only the half-drive?

Yeah I know. I'm a old, well not THAT old, gearhead from way back.... :wink:
simonh
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1527
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:56 pm

Re: High Guard: Expectations?

Postby simonh » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:30 am

daryen wrote: Just because staterooms were 4 dton in each and because it too 10% of hull volume in fuel to make a one parsec jump was the same, doesn't mean the two systems were compatible. They weren't.

Therefore, Golans wish (which, BTW, I heartily echo) is completely legitimate and reasonable: Please make sure that High Guard and the base shipbuilding systems are actually compatible with each other.
Blow me down with a feather, you're quite right! I distinctly remember running Book2 combat with HG ships without any trouble, I suppose we must have houseruled damage to work on drive ratings and just got on with the game. Seemed to work just fine.

Simon Hibbs
tneva82
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 5:08 pm

Postby tneva82 » Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:14 am

cmdrx wrote:I cringe at the thought of seeing Type S with a triple particle accelerator turret and managing to power that weapon and still get 2g's with only a Type A power plant.
I could say "I told ya!" :lol:

Somehow people didn't have problem with that when I tried to point that inevitable resolution. Ah well.
皆と友達ができませんが皆に友好的ができます

You can't be friend with everybody but you can be friendly to everybody
-Daniel-
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Postby -Daniel- » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:07 pm

I think most of the combat and ship design issues have been stated here already, so I will just say:

I am looking forward to a CharGen addition that gives me more range for the Navy based character while still keeping them in the same vain as the core rules.

I am looking forward to some interesting equipment and augmentation options focused on the navy character.

Daniel
Infojunky
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: North of Center California

Postby Infojunky » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:56 pm

I can't say what i want right now, other than I hope it will work with what I am working on.

A couple of comments.

Power Projection the FT expression of Traveller Fleet combat is just that Fleet combat, and I really can't think of a better system.

As a Related note, Stargrunt2 would be a great engine for company level Traveller combat. It's design was heavily influenced by Traveller. Dirtside2 is a related game useable for larger (think battalion+) games/conflicts.

I have been half-assedly working on a port of Mayday/Book 2 to MGT. I would like to see options for that scale of combat in the book. The main book's combat breaks down with ships much larger than 400 tons. Lets just say the weapons damages are out of line with Book 2, and that section needs to be heavily edited to bring it's usability up to say the level of the character generation section. There are some good ideas in there that are ruined by the lack of coherent editing.

I could go on, but I need to see something solid before I really can say more.
Evyn
Jame Rowe
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: Boston Area, MA/USA
Contact:

Postby Jame Rowe » Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:27 pm

I would like something that's compatible with the system which was laid out in the original book by MGP--provided that it gives provision for increasing hull size to about 20,000 tons. Even if the rest of the book resembles Book 5.
"Are you in charge here?"
"No, but I'm full of ideas!"

Baron Damascaa Kiikiigulii/Sakhag/Antares. Deal with it - come visit!
User avatar
daryen
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:48 pm

Postby daryen » Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:21 pm

Oh, two more requests:

1) Damage rules that don't make a ship lose 90% of its crew with each crew hit.

2) Ability to group fighters into batteries (or whatever the new High Guard comes up with) for at least defensive purposes.
AKAramis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:57 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, USA
Contact:

Re: High Guard: Expectations?

Postby AKAramis » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:24 pm

simonh wrote:
daryen wrote: Just because staterooms were 4 dton in each and because it too 10% of hull volume in fuel to make a one parsec jump was the same, doesn't mean the two systems were compatible. They weren't.

Therefore, Golans wish (which, BTW, I heartily echo) is completely legitimate and reasonable: Please make sure that High Guard and the base shipbuilding systems are actually compatible with each other.
Blow me down with a feather, you're quite right! I distinctly remember running Book2 combat with HG ships without any trouble, I suppose we must have houseruled damage to work on drive ratings and just got on with the game. Seemed to work just fine.

Simon Hibbs
I just used one hit per X tons, where X is the step size on the charts. (I gave armor 1 hit per ton.
-AKAramis
==================================================
Never catch a tiger by the tail...
... unless it is sedated or dead.
==================================================
http://aramis.hostman.us
User avatar
Gruffty the Hiver
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: MK, UK

Postby Gruffty the Hiver » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:00 pm

I want....

Big ships.

Big weapons (Meson gun spinal mounts etc)

A ship design system that works without shedloads of maths

Expanded ChargGen

I don't want....

Hivers flying about in shoeboxes, a la TNE :x :x :x :x
Xoph
Mongoose
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Power Plant Info

Postby Xoph » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:11 pm

It seems to me that there isn't really much info on Powerplants in the ship creation rules. Ship creation doesn't take into account power requirements for anything except the engines.
I would also like to see more non combat equipment like grappers, drone bays and such. and Rules for different size bridges, galleys, other sorts of rooms like labs or such.
-Daniel-
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Postby -Daniel- » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:39 pm

Gruffty the Hiver wrote: I don't want....

Hivers flying about in shoeboxes, a la TNE :x :x :x :x
What kind of boxes do you want them flying around in? :wink:

Daniel

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Galadrion and 29 guests