Bogey Markers

I just recently painted up two dozen bogey markers, and now I'm ready to put
ID letters on them. What do you use for IDs?

I'd prefer to ID them with a single letter denoting ship class and a number
for the marker. Escorts are easy, as you can label them E# (as in E1, E2, E3,
etc.). How do would you denote capital ships and cruisers?

I'm just wondering if there is some sort of standard out there.

> On Mon, 5 May 1997 15:00:46 -0400, you wrote:

> I just recently painted up two dozen bogey markers, and now I'm ready

We (any many SF games) use a bastardised version of the USN ship
classification system. BB Battleship; DN Dreadnought; BC Battlecruiser; CA
Heavy Cruiser; CL Light cruiser; DD Destroyer; FF Frigate; ES Escort; CT
Corvette; PT Patrol boat; AO auxillary oiler (fuel tanker); AOR auxillary
oiler & replenishment ship, etc.

The main advantage of the system is that you can show variants by
adding a third letter. A means armoured/heavy, G guided armament
(missiles), V carrier, B battle, C Command (there are others). So a CG is a
missile cruiser; a CL a light cruiser; a CVA is a heavy carrier; a CV is a
carrier; DDG is missile armed destroyer; DE is an escort destroyer; CC is a
command cruiser (CA with more guns and an extra bridge for the commodore), and
so forth.

Note that the USN system is _real_ complex. I don't recommend using it
straight off (do you really need a code for "small auxillary coastal
minesweeper")?

> At 07:56 PM 5/5/97 GMT, you wrote:

The only problem with this is that with bogey markers you only want to give
away the rough Full Thrust class, i.e. escort, cruiser, or capital ship. I
suppose I could use E for escort, C for cruiser, and B (or D) for capital
ships.

Question: does a base have a bogey marker?

----------
From: Sandy Goh <sandy@artica.demon.co.uk>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Bogey Markers
Date: 05 May 1997 20:56

> On Mon, 5 May 1997 15:00:46 -0400, you wrote:

> I just recently painted up two dozen bogey markers, and now I'm ready

> We (any many SF games) use a bastardised version of the USN ship

> The main advantage of the system is that you can show variants by

I think the above would give too much detail for a 'bogey' marker. Hardly
worth having a bogey marker if you know it is an 'Unknown CLG or BDN (or is
that DNB!!?)

How about S, M and L. If Jon T dumps the hull size split in FTIII you won't
need to stick to terms of Escort, Cruiser and Capital, Use whatever ID system
you like, it will be as good as any, there are no standards out there.

Regards........

> At 11:23 PM 5/5/97 +0100, you wrote:

> How about S, M and L. If Jon T dumps the hull size split in FTIII you

Thanks, Roger. That might make sense. I might also just use A, B, and C, with
each being denoted per scenario. This way I have even more flexibility. Thanks
for the suggestions.

> On Mon, 5 May 1997 23:23:17 +0100, you wrote:

> We (any many SF games) use a bastardised version of the USN ship

> I think the above would give too much detail for a 'bogey' marker.

CLG is a light cruiser with missiles and a DNB would be a battledreadnought
(our system not the USN one). No idea what a BDN is. Could always use just a
two letter code. The advantage of the full system is that you just start at
the first letter and keep adding them
until you have enough detail... :-) Besides, we use it as we just got
used to the real one playing Command at Sea. Anyway now you know why all those
Nimitzes have "CVA" painted on them.

> How about S, M and L. If Jon T dumps the hull size split in FTIII you

I'm not a fan of hull size categories. Always too easy to abuse them, and then
there is the question of why anyone would build a ship that wasn't the biggest
allowable in its category.

What sublight drive system are full thrust ships supposed to use? My personal
take is that there is no real reason for the larger ships to have poorer
acceleration. Of course, if they are ion drives you can make up whatever
reason you like for the speed differential.

> Allan Goodall wrote:

I'm not sure of any standard, but I would use letters to identify the size
range(e.g. A=Escort, B=Cruiser, C=Captial, D=Supership, etc.), and numbers for
unique IDs(e.g. Bogey escort #1 = A1). Another option would be to use
different sized bogey markers to indicate size and just mark each one in a
size range with a unique ID.  I thought of using pinheads, ping-pong
balls, etc to represent different sizes.

> Sandy Goh wrote:

This works well for the actual mini, but you probably would not want to give
away the actual ship type while it is still a bogey.

> Sandy Goh wrote:

It's the same type - different usage.

IMO, no, Intelligence would probably be able to spot, track and classify
bases, using spy ships et al. The only circumstance for generic base 'bogeys'
would be something akin to the FT system with S,M, and L size prefab, towed
bases with quick change weapons and systems. So the
capabilities of (semi-) permanent civilian bases (unclassified ones, at
least..) should be known, as well as their location and general layout (like
shipping ports today). Military bases should be more of an
unknown quantity, capability-wise, but may be, in point of fact, more
'visible' on the star-charts. Sensors, ECM, ECCM for handling recon runs
against unknown enemy installations can come into play as they do with
determining ship systems in MT.

My opinion,

Gene
> ----------

> Mike Miserendino wrote:

> I'm not sure of any standard, but I would use letters to identify the

I prefer the USN designations, CA, BB, CV, FF etc. but only use the first two
letters, it's real easy to tell that a ship is frigate sized, but not exactly
what, if any loadout it has.

> Gene M wrote:

Good point. However, with the vastness of space, there is probabilty for
unknown sensor contacts like the first one that determines the existence of
the base.

> marshall wrote:

I use these designations on the actual mini, not the bogey. Placing it on the
bogey still gives too much away. For example, placing CV on a bogey might tell
the opponent you are carrying fighters. The general size categorys give a
vague idea on size, which is what a bogey should be, vague. Also, one fleet
may designate ships using a different system or have designations based on
alternate sizes. It is helpful to use one that most players can identify with.
I realize that Jon listed suggested sizes for designating a warship, but there
is no reason why one player's fleet might call some ships frigates, that might
actually be the size of another player's cruisers.

> Marshall Grover wrote:

> I prefer the USN designations, CA, BB, CV, FF etc. but only use the

If the target is still classified a 'bogey' how would you tell a BB from a CV
or a large Merchant ship.
If you use USN designations then you might need 13+ bogey designations,
from Courier Boat to Superdreadnought to account for the size classes in Full
Thrust.

Sticking to say Small           = mass 1 - 18
                       Medium           = mass 19 - 36
                   Large                = mass 37 - 100
                       Very Large       = mass 101+

keeps it simple without bringing in descriptive terms like Destroyer, Frigate,
Cruiser. Still, why worry everyone to their own.

Regards........

> I prefer the USN designations, CA, BB, CV, FF etc. but only use the

The problem with that is that most ship Types are REAL identifiable just by
mass and general configuration. A CVL and BB are about the same mass (40k
tons) but both look quite a bit different.

> At 10:52 PM 5/6/97 +0100, you wrote:
I have simpler classes: PT, FF, DD, CL, CA, BB, CVL, CVA, CVN. I use frighter
for the generic AO classes. You are likely going to be able to tell something
about the enemy just by thier very presence.

> At 04:08 PM 5/6/97 -0400, you wrote:

But we're still talking bogey markers here. The rules specifically state that
you only know the rough size class of the ship: escort, cruiser, capital, etc.
Using the US designation gives too much away, unless all you use is the first
letter (C for cruiser, B for battleship, etc.).

> On Tue, 06 May 1997 20:35:07 -0400, you wrote:

> I prefer the USN designations, CA, BB, CV, FF etc. but only use the

Unless the game rules include hidden SSDs (ship record forms) there is no
reason not to justify differentiating between a CVL and a CL, or whatvever.
Otherwise it's all rather pointless.

We do indeed depart from the standard ship sizes but we still have to use a
fixed reference scale. In another game I have a class of ship which I call
"Star Cruiser" which is, in fact, of destroyer size. Obviously, it gets a DD
bogey marker and is replaced with a star cruiser miniature when it is
identified.

Ideally you want some kind of "tactical intelligence" which allows you to
gradually ID ships with range. e.g.

range
144+    number of ships and size (s, m, l)
96 hull type (escort, cruiser, capital) 48 military or commerical (i.e does it
have lots of guns or does it have cargo doors) 36 number of 'a' batteries 12
can look at SSD sheet

(Obviously you need to develop the system further and adjust these range
values before the system becomes usable).

> On Tue, 6 May 1997 11:25:00 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

> Sandy Goh wrote:

Not under our system it ain't.

Just a thought. I went to a sporting goods store and picked up a couple of
dozen "bobbers" (for fishing lines) in three different sizes. Sprayed black,
attached to a hexagonal base, with numbers on the base. The three sizes
clearly represent escort, cruiser, and capital ship classes. Also, it was
much cheaper than I thought it would be -- only around $10.

> Sandy Goh wrote:

Sure there is. The discussion is about bogeys. Unidentified targets. The
definition is more than self-explanatory.  If the label helps you
identify a ship size, fine. If you classify the bogey as a CVL or CL or
whatever you might give away more information than what it is required. Maybe
your DD is actually a "Star Cruiser" or something other than a DD after all.
If you state it is of DD size, you are narrowing down the size range
information considerably from just an escort. A simpler classification would
only give away the general size category, adding a more unknown element to the
game as a bogey suggests.

> Ideally you want some kind of "tactical intelligence" which allows you

This looks interesting and makes sense. I would like to see something like
this to enhance the use of sensor rules.

> Sandy Goh wrote:

> Just a thought. I went to a sporting goods store and picked up a

Great idea! Down to the hardware store this weekend...