Re-imagining High Guard's example ships

[Shardan13]

This may be a very short discussion.

I have seen some people noting the problems of grandfathered designs of ships from previous editions. If you weren't bound by cannon how would you change the example ships. Anything goes, fluff changes, art changes, deck plan changes, stat changes like a change in hull size or type. Just remember any replies are opinions if you disagree with something it may be best to agree to disagree or create a new thread.

 

[mavikfelna]

I'm working on redoing all the Mongoose designs. And occasional other older designs that peek my interest.

MgT2e Designs – Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[Condottiere]

We'll see how they evolve in the next edition.

 

[Terry Mixon]

We'll see how they evolve in the next edition.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

[Condottiere]

As long as the Third Imperium setting remains, they're too iconic not to be included.

As regards to being legal as per then design rules, maybe?

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Different TL iterations of the designs. Not everyone is going to be playing in a TL 15 Empire.

I'd make a larger Scout design with labs and sensor enhancements and 3g so it can out run more potential enemies. Give it basic Stealth too if it is going outside the Empire that builds it. I've done a 180 ton design with Aero fins as well (TL 11 no deck plans).

Make use of modules to allow re-configuring ships for different roles. Pull the Scout module out and put in a Seeker module or a cargo module or passenger module. You can have a ship that depending on the module has Jump fuel for J-1 or J-2 essentially letting your ship be a Free/Far Trader with a module replacement.

More use of batteries to handle Jump power when it is a higher level than the M-Drive.

Split the name of Jump Nets to J-Nets and M-Nets. It makes no sense to have J-Nets that can't be used for Jump.

Since they have the 100 ton ship bridge decreased to 6 tons they should have the 10 ton bridge to up to 500 tons.

The subsidized Merchant either take out the text saying how small it is for that role or put in some larger more typical examples.

Some pure cargo versions with crew quarters only.

Umbilicals with the docking clamps so you can power a derelict or subsidiary craft (airlocks incorporated for larger ones).

 

[Shardan13]

Fluffy Bunny Feet those ideas sound great!

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Just a few off the top of my head. Mostly things I already do.

 

[rinku]

Everyone has their own ideas about naval ship designs, but I've yet to be convinced that any of them are worth replacing the work of the GDW staff, really. Even Trillion Credit Squadron, the nearest we ever had to quantifying space fleets, got distorted by its tournament version, as wargames divorced from operational matters are wont to do. A tournament fleet can be optimised to kill other tournament fleets but end up unrealistic for what a fleet is called on to do in the field.

New kinds of specialist civilian ships? Sure, go for it. Especially yachts. There's literally no reason why every rich being's pleasure craft shouldn't be a one-off, except for publishing convenience and maybe space racing standards (Even then, you know they'd be cheating like crazy).

One thing I think would make sense though, is putting a low berth or two on a Type S or a Seeker. Maybe replacing a stateroom with a medbay-cum-freezer. Or just install them in the cargo area.

It seems to me that if only for medical emergencies that would be a thing the Scouts would do. But also be a way to defray the boredom of a long series of jumps and extend crew size.

In any case, there's highly likely to be dozens of common Type-S variants. And probably quite a few Seeker ones on top of that.

 

[Shardan13]

One idea I've read is to give the modular cutter a more box-like hull so that the modules make more sense.

 

[Arkathan]

Escorts that have the ability to escort.
Point Defense Batteries and Point Defense Software. Some Fragmentation Missile loadouts.
They need to be able to intercept missile salvos aimed at friendly ships.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Escorts that have the ability to escort.
Point Defense Batteries and Point Defense Software. Some Fragmentation Missile loadouts.
They need to be able to intercept missile salvos aimed at friendly ships.

The point defense software, too.

Too tired and missed it in Arkathan's post. Going to bed.

 

[collins355]

For me it all comes down to making the ships match your design architecture, and your ship combat system. As Mongoose has made changes to both of these from Classic Trav, it only makes sense to recraft the standard ship designs in High Guard to fit.
The example Arkathan gives of escort vessels is but one place to start tinkering.

 

[rinku]

Missile loadouts are one area that can be tuned without redesign. Actual small craft carried are another.

If one design of fighter no longer makes sense, it can be replaced by a same tonnage one that does... or in many cases by different size small craft that still fit in the bay (launch tubes may be a limiter there, however).

Turrets are swappable. As might be bays. Designs that worked for the Fourth Frontier War vs the Zho might need reconfiguration in the face of an Aslan attack. A cruiser class patrolling the Vargr border may have different requirements on the Solomani front.

Generally speaking for secondary armament the energy requirements won't vary enough between options to matter. Certainly you can always look at swapping lasers to missiles or such.

 

[Vormaerin]

A playable fleet combat game has to exist before you can make fleet combat. Because we have to know what's actually happening and what roles are needed. If we are designing ships for Jutland in space, that's going to look very different than Midway in space. Actual space combat is unlikely to look anything like our naval analogies, but we aren't trying to create a "realistic" future combat system. We are trying to create a fun, playable one.

Traveller tends towards the Jutland model of battleship fleets with scouts and no one having the faintest idea where anyone else's fleet is. Missiles and smallcraft have to be dangerous to large ships for escorts to actually be needed in a fleet battle. Or perhaps there's little point in bringing anything without a spinal mount to a battleship fight and the rest of the ships are raiders, scouts, and convoy escorts.

Personally, all I really care about for warships in an RPG sense is their artwork and having a deckplan useful for Azhanti High Lightning type scenarios. If they ever make a good fleet boardgame that cares about the high guard stats instead of giving ships abstract ratings (which high guard fleet combat already half does anyway), that would be cool. But even if I'm playing a naval campaign where my PCs are the bridge crew of a warship, I doubt I'd actually fight out the Second Battle of Zhimaway. It'll be just "what does your ship do during 2nd Zhimaway?", if that. Some mechanical support for cool ways to do that would be nice.

Yes, the ships should conform to the current rules. But the fact that the rules keep expanding makes it difficult to keep ships current.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The ships in MgT HG are grandfathered from the ships constructed using HG80 and appearing in CT S:9.

They were not particularly good designs then, not to mention several are broken.

I say that based on the combat system they were designed for and therein lies the rub.

MgT changed the rules, but has not produced a functional fleet combat system whereby we can design fleets and then fight imaginary battles to determine the merits and flaws of design choices.

An agility 9 TL15 BB would be a very nasty surprise in HG80 combat...

 

[Condottiere]

Original assumptions may no longer make sense with evolved design rules.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It is the combat system that we need details for so that we can design accordingly.

 

[CordwainerFish]

I've yet to be convinced that any of them are worth replacing the work of the GDW staff, really. Even Trillion Credit Squadron...

The Eurisko source code is out there, you know... (Though getting it running on a modern Lisp would be a chore and a half.)

 

[paltrysum]

This may be a very short discussion.

I have seen some people noting the problems of grandfathered designs of ships from previous editions. If you weren't bound by cannon how would you change the example ships. Anything goes, fluff changes, art changes, deck plan changes, stat changes like a change in hull size or type. Just remember any replies are opinions if you disagree with something it may be best to agree to disagree or create a new thread.

As one of the designers on HG2022, and the architect of most of the capital ships, I can tell you that it was a frustrating exercise in some ways. As you become more familiar with the rules, you can see all the improvements you could make, but if you make them, at some point a Tigress is no longer a Tigress, a Plankwell is no longer a Plankwell, etc. You either try to fit the old designs into the new construction rules, or you toss out the old altogether and make new ships.

When trying to redesign these ships faithfully, you have to wonder: Just what the heck is Imperial Naval Doctrine? Most of these ships seem extremely vulnerable and, at the expense of some firepower, they could be made so much more effective. Maybe the Imperium just likes putting big guns into the field and doesn't care if the ships are destroyed. Maybe by inflicting maximum firepower, they believe they will force their opponents to relent before their own vulnerabilities are exposed. You have to sort of shoehorn a rationale behind the designs, because they definitely seem like they can be improved.

We could redesign them again, calling them Tigresses, Plankwells, Elements, Arakoines, Atlantics, etc., this time using what we believe to be the most effective designs, but they would be the originals in name only, and offering a different narrative than the original designers intended.