[[[Playtest Focus]]] Locking High Guard

[AnotherDilbert]

Hull options too expensive? Armour too cheap?

Basic hull costs kCr 50 / ton hull
15 Armour costs kCr 60 / ton hull ( 15 * 8% * kCr 50 )
Reflec costs kCr 100 / ton hull
Stealth+EmmAbsorb costs kCr 140 / ton hull, some sensor adv, twice the cost of armour...
SupStealth+EmmAbsorb costs kCr 1040 / ton hull, more that the rest of the ship...

 

[Nerhesi]

Hull options too expensive? Armour too cheap?

Basic hull costs kCr 50 / ton hull
15 Armour costs kCr 60 / ton hull ( 15 * 8% * kCr 50 )
Reflec costs kCr 100 / ton hull
Stealth+EmmAbsorb costs kCr 140 / ton hull, some sensor adv, twice the cost of armour...
SupStealth+EmmAbsorb costs kCr 1040 / ton hull, more that the rest of the ship...

Rad Shielding is even more expensive. However I would think Rad and Superstealth have excellent returns.

Rad shielding guarantees (almost) no fried crew by the multitude of particle, nuclear and fusion weaponry.
Superstealth pretty much guarantees no-lockons on your ship given fairly even sensor operators on both sides (a -4 which wont be balanced out by anything else...)

I agree they should be expensive but perhaps they're too expensive? Not sure...

 

[Chas]

Hull options too expensive? Armour too cheap?

Basic hull costs kCr 50 / ton hull
15 Armour costs kCr 60 / ton hull ( 15 * 8% * kCr 50 )
Reflec costs kCr 100 / ton hull
Stealth+EmmAbsorb costs kCr 140 / ton hull, some sensor adv, twice the cost of armour...
SupStealth+EmmAbsorb costs kCr 1040 / ton hull, more that the rest of the ship...

Rad Shielding is even more expensive. However I would think Rad and Superstealth have excellent returns.

Rad shielding guarantees (almost) no fried crew by the multitude of particle, nuclear and fusion weaponry.
Superstealth pretty much guarantees no-lockons on your ship given fairly even sensor operators on both sides (a -4 which wont be balanced out by anything else...)

I agree they should be expensive but perhaps they're too expensive? Not sure...

?? Radiation shield is only Cr25000/ton. It's relatively very cheap. Has been for all iterations I've seen.

Superior Stealth is a cost killer when you think you can get two ships for the price of one almost. That needs some thought. Right now it's for your Covert Intruder and nothing else.

 

[Nerhesi]

What is wrong with the option being a Covert Intruder and nothing else? Do we need to make the option a must have for all ships?

Not being difficult, just being curious - that perhaps superior stealth shouldn't be the go-to for every military ship. Regular stealth, sure... but only your expensive (example Dragon Class) covert intruders should be the ones costing twice as much... particularly when stealth not only affects your Lock-on change, but the chance to be flat-out detected. You could end up landing stealthily in a planets ocean without anyone being the wiser if the target isn't a military outpost with great sensor ops AND sensor operators...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Most Hull options are to expensive for warships, and laughable for civilians and adventurers. Superior stealth is extremely expensive, OK, but even the basic stealth package for a 100 t Scout is MCr 14, almost half the cost of the ship. Most warships will not pay 10 - 15% extra for regular stealth.

Not to complain, but armour cost next to nothing compared to the utility for a warship.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think you just highlighted in bigger issue. Why is armour so cheap? That should be more expensive than you average run of the mill stealth.

I would significantly lower regular stealth and rad shielding. Slightly lower superior stealth. Hike up armour like whoah

Sam W

 

[Chas]

I think you just highlighted in bigger issue. Why is armour so cheap? That should be more expensive than you average run of the mill stealth.

I would significantly lower regular stealth and rad shielding. Slightly lower superior stealth. Hike up armour like whoah

Sam W

Why do you think Rad Shielding is too expensive? Can you provide a comparison and reason here please Nehersi?

We'll need to be very very careful hiking up armour. That's fundamental to every build vs. weapon costs. And puts more pressure on TL cost increase, we'll get into another vicious circle where you say it doesn't justify the cost to use the better armor, just build a bigger ship with old armor types. The increased hull points are better having than the armor increase - which we don't want.

 

[Chas]

As I type this, a new version of the High Guard PDF is just uploading to Drivethru.

In the best of all possible worlds (!) I would like to have all chapters except High Technology 'locked' by Monday morning - that is, defined, sorted and with no more changes. I think that will primarily mean reviewing spinal mounts, but no doubt you chaps will spot something else that needs a final tweak!

Anyway, that is the aim - for all comments to be in for High Guard this weekend. Speak now or forever hold your peace!

What is your intended process from here Matt? In terms of including fleet battle rules, barrage rules and so forth? Curious because I would assume how some of this works will impact High Guard itself, and no doubt issues will be continued to be found. It's still very raw...

 

[Nerhesi]

I think you just highlighted in bigger issue. Why is armour so cheap? That should be more expensive than you average run of the mill stealth.

I would significantly lower regular stealth and rad shielding. Slightly lower superior stealth. Hike up armour like whoah

Sam W

Why do you think Rad Shielding is too expensive? Can you provide a comparison and reason here please Nehersi?

We'll need to be very very careful hiking up armour. That's fundamental to every build vs. weapon costs. And puts more pressure on TL cost increase, we'll get into another vicious circle where you say it doesn't justify the cost to use the better armor, just build a bigger ship with old armor types. The increased hull points are better having than the armor increase - which we don't want.

Hey! Who dropped Rad-shielding without telling me?? I missed the extra zero that was dropped reducing it to 25k not the 250k it used to be. So that is perfectly fine.

Hull Cost = 50,000 per ton
Max armour cost = up to 120% of the above (15 bonded super dense)
stealth cost = 200% of the above (100,000 per ton)
super stealth cost = 2000% of the above (1,000,000 per ton)

A 100,000 ton battleship pays 5 Billion Credits for it's hull.
It pays 6 Billion Credits for it's armour.
It pays 10 Billion for regular stealth... or it could be pay 100 Billion for Super stealth!

I wouldn't consider regular stealth to worth it for a cost that is almost double that of the maximum armour. Im not sure anymore about also increasing the cost TEN TIMES for an extra -3.

Perhaps it's made make more sense if regular stealth was Cr 25,000 and Super Stealth was Cr 50,000 - nothing should really be costs more than that maximum armour value though. This is purely looking at it from a returns for your buck sort of thing

 

[Chas]

Perhaps it's made make more sense if regular stealth was Cr 25,000 and Super Stealth was Cr 50,000 - nothing should really be costs more than that maximum armour value though. This is purely looking at it from a returns for your buck sort of thing

What Phavoc wrote above is not wrong. It's not the end of the world if a special option like Superior Stealth is only justified for a very specific mission critical task and it's not standard. We don't have to or even don't want to make the cost within reach of casual daily use. I'd suggest regular stealth is made cost effective, as you've done but a notch more 50,000 and hike up super stealth a chunk more, say 200,000Cr. Thoughts??

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Superior Stealth isn't overpowered. A warship will have a sensor DM +6, good augmented crew +5, so total DM +11, and they need a 8+ to see you.
If you have EmmAbsorb+SupStealth for -2 -3 = -5, they will see you on a roll of 8 -11 +5 = 2 or higher.
They might not see you at Very Distant range if you are fully stealthed.

If we have two levels of stealth at least one should be expensive enough to be uneconomical even for expensive warships, so keep Superior Stealth expensive, but nor ridiculous. Say kCr 100 - 200 / dT ship.

If me make Crystaliron more expensive we make the Core book ships illegal, so don't. But we can make Bonded more expensive.
If I look at an example 50 kT warship armour 15 costs about 9% of the total cost. If we more than double the cost I might be tempted to use Crystaliron (max 13) instead.
So suggestion:
Bonded Superdense costs 15% per level, max armour 15.
Molecular Bonded costs 25% per level

 

[Nerhesi]

Wanted to add the missile salvos consideration for dog-fighting. As is, currently the rules are pretty much just stating "launch X more missiles and you'll hit anyways". Doesn't make sense when in a dog-fight you may not be able to hit 200 barbettes firing, but launch 12 or 24 missile, and you're fine.

Recommendation:
Simply indicate that either missiles/torps FROM NON-SMALLCRAFT can't be used during a dog-fight. So smallcraft dog-fights can do so, but that cruiser isn't 1000 missiles while the fighters swarm it because somehow that is mechanically more effective than 1000 triple turrets or barbettes.

So your small craft sure can pop off 3 missiles in a dog fight, and thats great. But you can't have that cruiser circumvent the entire benefit of dog-fighting just because its missiles translate into a larger +effect (not to mention that should make it significantly more dangerous to launch missiles at targets that could be whipping by just a few hundred meters off).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The dogfighting rules say to use the Vehicle Combat system, not the Space Combat system. Missile salvoes are part of the Space Combat system, but not a part of the Vehicle Combat system. By my reading of RAW we cannot use Missile salvoes in dogfights. That is perhaps not intended...

Using missile salvoes in dogfights is the only way a big ship can kill fighters, that I have found. If big ships cannot kill fighters we have a problem.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The dogfighting rules say to use the Vehicle Combat system, not the Space Combat system.

I was wrong. But since I was not exactly alone in misinterpreting this, the dogfighting rules need clarification. See threat "Dogfight?", p2.

 

[Nerhesi]

Big ships not killing fighters in dog-fights is perfectly acceptable. Especially if it means that you can't just come in with no-fighters, and except to do anything but die a horrible death to a more balanced fleet.

As indicated in my other post, we need to explore (fleet combat) how squadrons can tangle with squadrons, and how they can hold off incoming squadrons, while larger ships support that entanglement as well. For example:

3000 fighters incoming.
Intercepted by 1000 fighters.
During that time, the fleet with the 1000 fighters can open up into the dog-fight at a smaller penalty (lets say -2).
If the 3000 fighters decide to just run the gauntlet and ignore the interceptors... then 1000 fighters get to open up a can of bloody murder on the 3000.

Otherwise - it is a bit too late to make that -6 only apply to 1000-ton and larger ships. Damn hindsight - that would have allowed the fleet to carry more dedicated "picket ships" that could still tangle with fighters.. basically fast patrol craft/boats.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Otherwise - it is a bit too late to make that -6 only apply to 1000-ton and larger ships. Damn hindsight - that would have allowed the fleet to carry more dedicated "picket ships" that could still tangle with fighters.. basically fast patrol craft/boats.

We might invent something like a Close Combat Fire Control apparatus or computer software that removes the DM -6 for say 50 turrets or less. That might encourage up to destroyer sized screening ships.

 

[Nerhesi]

Otherwise - it is a bit too late to make that -6 only apply to 1000-ton and larger ships. Damn hindsight - that would have allowed the fleet to carry more dedicated "picket ships" that could still tangle with fighters.. basically fast patrol craft/boats.

We might invent something like a Close Combat Fire Control apparatus or computer software that removes the DM -6 for say 50 turrets or less. That might encourage up to destroyer sized screening ships.

That may be very good idea. Technically just a different Fire-control (so bonus wouldn't stack with fire-control)...
So for example:

Close Combat Fire Control (available for non-small craft ONLY)
TL10, Rating 20, MCr 5, +2 to hit all targets within close/adjacent range with available direct fire turrets (and barbettes or not?)
TL12, Rating 30, MCr 10, +4 as above
TL14, Rating 40, MCr 20, +6 as above

Or just make one TL12 version with the +6, depending on how Matt wants to go with this. We would want to make sure the rating is high enough in that going after fighters swarming you becomes a focused task not an afterthought, and considering that the fighters will still have an advantage, we may want it to apply to barbettes so it is of some use vs high-end fighters (otherwise, turrets barely hitting wont do any damage either).

Thoughts?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Close Combat Fire Control (available for non-small craft ONLY)
TL10, Rating 20, MCr 5, +2 to hit all targets within close/adjacent range with available direct fire turrets (and barbettes or not?)
TL12, Rating 30, MCr 10, +4 as above
TL14, Rating 40, MCr 20, +6 as above

Or just make one TL12 version with the +6, depending on how Matt wants to go with this. We would want to make sure the rating is high enough in that going after fighters swarming you becomes a focused task not an afterthought, and considering that the fighters will still have an advantage, we may want it to apply to barbettes so it is of some use vs high-end fighters (otherwise, turrets barely hitting wont do any damage either).

Thoughts?

Sounds good. Initial reactions:
Matt has decreased the bandwidth of most software in the latest beta, this would be the highest bandwidth program.

Definitely include barbettes, if triple particle/fusion are nerfed we need barbettes to do damage.

This would allow ships to hit in dogfight on a roll of 6 or 7 so more than 50%, after losing a few shot to dodging. Might be too good, I have to fight a few fights...

Might be used by close combat optimised big ships against other big ships.

 

[Nerhesi]

Close Combat Fire Control (available for non-small craft ONLY)
TL10, Rating 20, MCr 5, +2 to hit all targets within close/adjacent range with available direct fire turrets (and barbettes or not?)
TL12, Rating 30, MCr 10, +4 as above
TL14, Rating 40, MCr 20, +6 as above

Or just make one TL12 version with the +6, depending on how Matt wants to go with this. We would want to make sure the rating is high enough in that going after fighters swarming you becomes a focused task not an afterthought, and considering that the fighters will still have an advantage, we may want it to apply to barbettes so it is of some use vs high-end fighters (otherwise, turrets barely hitting wont do any damage either).

Thoughts?

Sounds good. Initial reactions:
Matt has decreased the bandwidth of most software in the latest beta, this would be the highest bandwidth program.

Definitely include barbettes, if triple particle/fusion are nerfed we need barbettes to do damage.

This would allow ships to hit in dogfight on a roll of 6 or 7 so more than 50%, after losing a few shot to dodging. Might be too good, I have to fight a few fights...

Might be used by close combat optimised big ships against other big ships.

Yeah - I was worried about that last point but then I figure if it only applies to barbettes and turrets than it isn't an ordeal due to their comparatively low damage. So you wont have an 800-ton SDB try to use it's bays and get advantage of this.

 

[phavoc]

I wouldn't have the bigger TL jumps in positive DM's just for being at close range. We are essentially talking strafing runs here, and whether that craft be a Sopwith Camel, P-39, a Glouscter Meteor, a MiG-21 or an A-10, at that sort of range you just hit.

If anything instead of a positive targetting DM, we should simply eliminate all target defensive DM's. Maybe a slight +2 DM for close/adjacent firing from a small craft towards a starship (maybe tonnage based here???). By removing all defensive DM's you hit on a 6 or better (and that's without your other positive DM's you can get from your skills, computer, etc).

No need to inflate the to hit DM's that much, especially if you just eliminate all the defensive ones.