Highguard 2.0 - Railgun Barbette

[Infojunky]

if a ship is screaming toward the enemy at full burn it is irrevocably committed to close range engagement with no idea of the exact composition of the enemy force.

Nothing in the rules would lead on to come to that conclusion. Nowhere in the movement rules is inertia taken into account.

 

[wbnc]

if a ship is screaming toward the enemy at full burn it is irrevocably committed to close range engagement with no idea of the exact composition of the enemy force.

Nothing in the rules would lead on to come to that conclusion. Nowhere in the movement rules is inertia taken into account.

Thre are rules for vector movement in which inertia and momentum play a strong role.

 

[Infojunky]

if a ship is screaming toward the enemy at full burn it is irrevocably committed to close range engagement with no idea of the exact composition of the enemy force.

Nothing in the rules would lead on to come to that conclusion. Nowhere in the movement rules is inertia taken into account.

Thre are rules for vector movement in which inertia and momentum play a strong role.

Yes there are but for them to work as they are supposed to work a total rewrite of the core rules are necessary. Remember vector movement is a optional rule.

And in light of this thread whether or not railguns are in play is really up to the game you are playing. I for one would allow them in with the same range limitations as anti-shipping plasma and fusion weapons as both require relativistic magnetic drivers for them to be effective in ship ranges.

 

[wbnc]

Nothing in the rules would lead on to come to that conclusion. Nowhere in the movement rules is inertia taken into account.

Thre are rules for vector movement in which inertia and momentum play a strong role.

Yes there are but for them to work as they are supposed to work a total rewrite of the core rules are necessary. Remember vector movement is a optional rule.

And in light of this thread whether or not railguns are in play is really up to the game you are playing. I for one would allow them in with the same range limitations as anti-shipping plasma and fusion weapons as both require relativistic magnetic drivers for them to be effective in ship ranges.

I dont have all the books memorized but there are portions that indicate M-drives do generate inertia.....The most direct wording I can recall off the top of my head Core rulebook under travel times. Pg153

All of these formulae use kilometres (which can be determined by Range Bands for short distances), and assume the ship is undertaking a journey from rest, that it accelerates continuously to midpoint of the trip, then decelerates to rest again.

How you want weapons ot work in your own personal games depends on how closely you want to stick to real world conditions, what stye of combat you want to encourage.

For example:
I don't restrict railgun ranges but they are far less accurate at longer ranges. Due to travel time lag. then again combat in the setting I use tend to be close range knife fights.About the only time to ships will need long range relativistic speed weapon such as lasers and particle beams is when they engage targets in normal space. plasma fusion and railguns all have lag times.

I use an alternate Hyperspace hat is shared by all ships, allows for intercept and is extremely "DDnD" Dirty,Dangerous never Dull. so the slower projectiles such as plasma/fusion Bolts, and kinetic weapons suit my setting fairly well.

However, I am pretty brutal on such things as depressurization and explosive decompression during hull ruptures. and the effects of ship momentum on maneuvering, and closure rates in normal space. that forces most combat to be fought over n hyperspace where it's safer. well except for the fact you can have someone hide in drifting debris and fire from point blank range without warning.doing an emergency hop back to norma is an escape maneuver...Most captains won't risk having their drives shot out leaving them stranded a few trillion Km from nowhere.

 

[phavoc]

I dont have all the books memorized but there are portions that indicate M-drives do generate inertia.....The most direct wording I can recall off the top of my head Core rulebook under travel times. Pg153

Yes, Traveller M-drives do indeed generate inertia. They appear to be reactionless, but not intertialess. All of the travel times assume acceleration half of the way and deceleration the other half of the trip.

Traveller isn't the best starship fighting system. For the most part it doesn't take into account vector, inertia, facing/heading, etc. High Guard has always been a bolt-on to an RPG. You would be better off looking for a different gaming system to apply that you prefer for starship combat. Others, such as Leviathan from FASA's Renegade Legion, or Star Fleet Battles works better for starship movement. Leviathan is kinda of nice as it limits maneuverability by ship size, so those massive battleships need a lot of room and time to maneuver where smaller destroyers or fighters can turn on a dime. Another nice thing about the Levianthan system is how the weapons/damage work. Different types of weapons cause different types of damage, and you track specifically the damage on the armor facing. Spinals and other weapons just punch through armor whereas others strip it away. It makes for a grittier, realistic feel when you are having to balance out these issues while figuring out how to kill your enemy.

 

[wbnc]

I dont have all the books memorized but there are portions that indicate M-drives do generate inertia.....The most direct wording I can recall off the top of my head Core rulebook under travel times. Pg153

Yes, Traveller M-drives do indeed generate inertia. They appear to be reactionless, but not intertialess. All of the travel times assume acceleration half of the way and deceleration the other half of the trip.

Traveller isn't the best starship fighting system. For the most part it doesn't take into account vector, inertia, facing/heading, etc. High Guard has always been a bolt-on to an RPG. You would be better off looking for a different gaming system to apply that you prefer for starship combat. Others, such as Leviathan from FASA's Renegade Legion, or Star Fleet Battles works better for starship movement. Leviathan is kinda of nice as it limits maneuverability by ship size, so those massive battleships need a lot of room and time to maneuver where smaller destroyers or fighters can turn on a dime. Another nice thing about the Levianthan system is how the weapons/damage work. Different types of weapons cause different types of damage, and you track specifically the damage on the armor facing. Spinals and other weapons just punch through armor whereas others strip it away. It makes for a grittier, realistic feel when you are having to balance out these issues while figuring out how to kill your enemy.

I played leviathan, Starfleet battles, and Star Cruiser 2300 for a while way back when. they had some great concepts that is for certain. the one redeeming point for Traveller is that it is very light weight and easy to learn and follow for players who aren't as deep into the mechanics of spaceflight and combat. Making it easier to keep them interested and active. At some point, I really do wish they would come up with a standalone starship combat game that could be integrated into the 3I setting that had a decent movement system and a bit crunchier technology set up.

 

[Infojunky]

I dont have all the books memorized but there are portions that indicate M-drives do generate inertia.....The most direct wording I can recall off the top of my head Core rulebook under travel times. Pg153

Yes, Traveller M-drives do indeed generate inertia. They appear to be reactionless, but not intertialess. All of the travel times assume acceleration half of the way and deceleration the other half of the trip.

Apples and oranges, the combat system doesn't support it, except for the optional Vector movement rules in High Guard. And as the ship construction is written to support those rules my argument stands.

 

[wbnc]

I dont have all the books memorized but there are portions that indicate M-drives do generate inertia.....The most direct wording I can recall off the top of my head Core rulebook under travel times. Pg153

Yes, Traveller M-drives do indeed generate inertia. They appear to be reactionless, but not intertialess. All of the travel times assume acceleration half of the way and deceleration the other half of the trip.

Apples and oranges, the combat system doesn't support it, except for the optional Vector movement rules in High Guard. And as the ship construction is written to support those rules my argument stands.

Yu of course are free to interpret the rules as you see fit. But within the boundaries of my interpretation, my point stands. In your interpretation, it is in error.

but the basic premise that combat would not occur beyond the outer limits of sensors is still solid. the lack of detail would make it very unwise and ineffective to fire on heat blobs. whie scouts can moe in to get a better tactical assessment as soon as the scout leave the area, or is destroyed, accurate targeting data is lost and the enemy can execute various maneuvers and deceptions to render the last known assessment less than useful.

 

[Infojunky]

Apples and oranges, the combat system doesn't support it, except for the optional Vector movement rules in High Guard. And as the ship construction is written to support those rules my argument stands.

Yu of course are free to interpret the rules as you see fit. But within the boundaries of my interpretation, my point stands. In your interpretation, it is in error.

Page 155 lower right corner, The whole bit about having to spend thrust for each range band change, proves without a shadow of a doubt that Inertia isn't in play in the CRB's ship combat system. If it was then you could spend 1 thrust at the beginning combat towards a stationary target and wait the number turns as indicated on the Thrust required column on Range Band table on the next page to close each band. As I said my point stands....

Note I am pondering using the rules withe a hex sheet since they mostly set up for it anyways....

 

[Sigtrygg]

Traveller ship movement has always been Newtonian. The fact that MgT has tried to simplify it to "thrust" is just another example of trying to simplify the game and once again has lead to incorrect conclusions being made about the nature of ship movement and combat.
Thrust based movement is an abstraction of vector movement, it is badly worded and implemented hence your confusion and erroneous conclusion.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I played leviathan, Starfleet battles, and Star Cruiser 2300 for a while way back when. they had some great concepts that is for certain. the one redeeming point for Traveller is that it is very light weight and easy to learn and follow for players who aren't as deep into the mechanics of spaceflight and combat. Making it easier to keep them interested and active. At some point, I really do wish they would come up with a standalone starship combat game that could be integrated into the 3I setting that had a decent movement system and a bit crunchier technology set up.

I have been asking for A Call to Arms: High Guard for years, or an adaptation of Victory at Sea to Victory in Space.

 

[wbnc]

I played leviathan, Starfleet battles, and Star Cruiser 2300 for a while way back when. they had some great concepts that is for certain. the one redeeming point for Traveller is that it is very light weight and easy to learn and follow for players who aren't as deep into the mechanics of spaceflight and combat. Making it easier to keep them interested and active. At some point, I really do wish they would come up with a standalone starship combat game that could be integrated into the 3I setting that had a decent movement system and a bit crunchier technology set up.

I have been asking for A Call to Arms: High Guard for years, or an adaptation of Victory at Sea to Victory in Space.

Now that I would I would buy in an instant. I picked up a copy of Victory at sea from the local game store just to look it over and see if I could figure out a way to use it in a sci-fi setting, well that and game out a few of my favorite historical sea battles with a friend.

 

[Infojunky]

Traveller ship movement has always been Newtonian. The fact that MgT has tried to simplify it to "thrust" is just another example of trying to simplify the game and once again has lead to incorrect conclusions being made about the nature of ship movement and combat.
Thrust based movement is an abstraction of vector movement, it is badly worded and implemented hence your confusion and erroneous conclusion.

Not my confusion, the authors. If you have played with Newtonian movement and assumptions you will see how the rules as written breakdown.

In terms one could call them cinematic, ship's in the rules move like movie starships. one could say that newtonian movement only occurs off screen.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I have lost count of the number of times I have criticised the cinematic shift of the MgT ship paradigm. It was brought up in every playtest. The powers that be appear to be adamant to go Star Wars rather than The Expanse - despite every other version of Traveller ever having Newtonian movement for ships.

I will stick with Newtonian.

 

[phavoc]

BOTH arguments are valid.

Traveller movement is, indeed, Newtonian, with having to factor in inertia.

However, the COMBAT system, is NOT Newtonian. For combat, essentially, both ships start at zero movement, regardless of the previous activities.

So a ship that has been boosting for 2hrs to get to the jump point can be overtaken by a ship that had been lying doggo and at zero velocity, because that is how the combat system works.

Tactical Traveller could be a fun supplement.

 

[wbnc]

BOTH arguments are valid.

Traveller movement is, indeed, Newtonian, with having to factor in inertia.

However, the COMBAT system, is NOT Newtonian. For combat, essentially, both ships start at zero movement, regardless of the previous activities.

So a ship that has been boosting for 2hrs to get to the jump point can be overtaken by a ship that had been lying doggo and at zero velocity, because that is how the combat system works.

Tactical Traveller could be a fun supplement.

If that's how the Ref wants to play it out. Initial velocities and vectors aren't spelled out in the rules but they aren't directly removed from consideration either. the system is set u to make it possible to add them in with a few simple steps. but function fairly well without them.

To allow for Newtonian movement the gm can make the following statement.
Ship A has an initial velocity of x , ship B has and initial velocity of Y...Ship A will enter (insert range band) in z turns...a ship is moving at 50,000 Kph accelerating at 2 gees, with an angle of approach of 45 degrees...on an intercept vector,Ship B is moving at 100Kph on a ballistic course...no acceleration...it will take (insert results of quick math here) turns to close range if she B does not take steps to avoid closure.

of course, my math breaks down a bit at this level due to way too many years since my last physics class...but I can come up with a ballpark figure that will work for a game scenario...

in your example ship A has to burn at twice the acceleration of ship B for one hour to match velocity, then perhaps another hour to overtake the fleeing vessel....I am sure that's off by alot...but 30 years since my last physics lesson don't ya know...the fleeing vessel might make the jump limit if it was already close, but prepping for a jump with a ship hot on our tail, not to mention a few missiles or torps if the pursuing vessel wants to pop off a few long range shots...that might be tricky.

if someone has the formula to determine time to intercept allowing for intal velcity, angle of intercept and acceleration of both objects I'd be eternally grateful.

 

[phavoc]

If that's how the Ref wants to play it out. Initial velocities and vectors aren't spelled out in the rules but they aren't directly removed from consideration either. the system is set u to make it possible to add them in with a few simple steps. but function fairly well without them.

To allow for Newtonian movement the gm can make the following statement.
Ship A has an initial velocity of x , ship B has and initial velocity of Y...Ship A will enter (insert range band) in z turns...a ship is moving at 50,000 Kph accelerating at 2 gees, with an angle of approach of 45 degrees...on an intercept vector,Ship B is moving at 100Kph on a ballistic course...no acceleration...it will take (insert results of quick math here) turns to close range if she B does not take steps to avoid closure.

of course, my math breaks down a bit at this level due to way too many years since my last physics class...but I can come up with a ballpark figure that will work for a game scenario...

in your example ship A has to burn at twice the acceleration of ship B for one hour to match velocity, then perhaps another hour to overtake the fleeing vessel....I am sure that's off by alot...but 30 years since my last physics lesson don't ya know...the fleeing vessel might make the jump limit if it was already close, but prepping for a jump with a ship hot on our tail, not to mention a few missiles or torps if the pursuing vessel wants to pop off a few long range shots...that might be tricky.

if someone has the formula to determine time to intercept allowing for intal velcity, angle of intercept and acceleration of both objects I'd be eternally grateful.

I don't have the rules handy, but that's the comment that came out of the playtesting. And that was done (the reset ship velocities) to make it possible that you COULD have ship combat. Otherwise, since the rule for retaining velocity out of jump space was retained, ships could accelerate in a safe system, jump, then blow past any ship lying in wait in the arrival system and be in orbit before they could be intercepted.

Another issue is that of vector. To intercept you have to be on at least similar vectors, otherwise you may have to brake, come to a full stop and start accelerating again to match vectors. Unless you have time and a huge advantage in thrust generation you would never catch up to the fleeing ship.

For combat the rules allow a fleeing ship to use it's thrust for the turn to flee, but also it can do a 180, bring it's spinal to bear, engage whomever is chasing it, do another 180 and not lose any speed during it's turn. That's not going to happen either. It's unfortunate they didn't put in a very common sense rule... if a ship is fleeing it may not bring any spinal weapons to bear on vessels chasing it. But that didn't happen, so you have to implement something like that yourself.

 

[Condottiere]

An obliging dungeon master could let a canny player make a flyby at speed, the issues would be at what point can't you launch kinetic weapons, and when can't you aim energy ones.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

...a ship is moving at 50,000 Kph accelerating at 2 gees, with an angle of approach of 45 degrees...on an intercept vector,Ship B is moving at 100Kph on a ballistic course...no acceleration...it will take (insert results of quick math here) turns to close range if she B does not take steps to avoid closure.

My last physics class was only 25 years ago. There is no advanced maths involved, the trick is to set up the problem. Drawing the vectors help.

50 000 km/h ⇒ 50000 × 1000 m/h = 50 000 000 m/h ⇒ 50 000 000 / 3600 m/s ≈ 13 889 m/s

I'll use a coordinate system where the Y-axis is straight ahead and the X-axis is sideways.

Ship B is moving straight ahead at 100 km/h (?) so has a vector of about ( 0 , 28 ) m/s.

Ship A is moving towards the intercept point (somewhat ahead of Ship B) at 50 000 km/h from a 45˙ angle. That is a vector of ( 13889 × cos 45˙, 13889 × sin 45˙) m/s = ( 13889 / √2 , 13889 / √2 ) m/s ≈ ( 9821 , 9821 ) m/s.

Ship A must match vectors with Ship B while accelerating at 2 G. It must produce a delta-vector of ( 0 , 28 ) - ( 9821 , 9821 ) m/s = ( 0 - 9821 , 28 - 9821 ) = ( -9821 , -9793 ) m/s. That is a magnitude of √( 9821² + 9793² ) ≈ 13869 m/s. At 2 G ≈ 20 m/s² it would take 13869 / 20 ≈ 693 s or 11,5 minutes.


The formula would be t = | Vᴮ - Vᴬ | / a presuming the ships started in the perfect positions.

And I guess that is why the default rules do not use Newtonian movement for tactical encounters.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Do it graphically or with counters and it is simplified to the point that anyone can understand it.

Even Starter Traveller's range band system was closer to an approximation of Newtonian movement.

But I guess the powers that be want cinematic Star Wars ridiculousness rather than true science fiction.

Traveller ship combat should be The Expanse not Star Wars.