Conformal Movement I think this came about from worrying about SMLs and how
they engage the
nearest ship but it also seems useful for lazy players. This may simplify
movement in big fleet engagements. Any number of smaller and more agile ships
may be nominated as escorts for a larger, slower ship. Each of the escorts
will maintain a fixed position relative
to the ship they are escorting so should probably be within a short distance
of her (2 MU or so). During movement move the escorted ship normally and then
move all the others so that they retain their position
relative to the escorted ship. Should the escorts be damaged so as to reduce
their thrust rating to equal to or less than the escorted ships they can no
longer function as escorts. I like this idea but it may be abusive. It will
hinder the use of SMLs although this may be more 'realistic', they now have to
tear a hole in the escort screen before they can reach the heavies. Another
loss (for good or ill) is that it would simplify fleet movement, this saves
time but a commander (and his opponent(s)) now have a much clearer idea of
where his ships are going.
MRB
This is kind of the idea I had in mind when I thought about a FleetControl
(or Flag) system (in combination with FireCon and Flight Control - but
no, I'm not trying to reopen that discussion.)
Anyway - the presence of a FleetCon allows the ship to link with other
ships (thinking 2 per flagcon?) in a more tightly controlled squadron -
sharing targeting and defensive nets. The squadron must maintain a tight
cohesion - maybe 3-4 MU, which could be done with the conformal movement
as you said. Benefits are that ships in the squadron can attack a target at
the range of the closest squadron member - (so those leading escorts
fine-tune the firing of the trailing heavies). I'm at a loss as to how
to share defensive capabilities effectively. What I'm looking for is
essentially a shared PDS system. For example, the small escorting ships with
no ADAF (or ADFC) can use their PDAF or PDS in the area defense mode, but only
in protection of other ships linked into the squadron.
So, obviously this needs to cost something.
First - there is a definate limit of how many ships can be in the
squadron
- first thought is flag+2 ships per FleetCon, but I haven't tested it.
If you want a bigger squadron, get more FleetCon. (And yes, I do think that
cascading fleetcon would work fine).
Second - I envision FleetCon as being a fairly expensive system -
Definately Mass 3 in FT2 (I wanted all control system the same mass, cost
could vary), I'm thinking 5 in FB - cost probably in the 20+ range.
Third - It ties up 1 firecon on the subordinate unit. - I want to
represent
the control dedication needed to feed at this data trough - the only
problem is this mean that many escorts could be used only for their PDS and
forward edge spotting ability (i.e. - they are closer, so they improve
the heavies range bands). Any thoughts on representing this, or is it even
worth trying?
Fourth - Obviously, while in the link a subordinate ship is not
operating with full individual freedom. I am thinking (and this may vary with
your estimate of turn length) that if a ship is forcibly removed from the 'net
(parent unit destroyed of FleetCon damaged - forcing them out) then on
the following turn they suffer negative effects as they are inbetween
independant and Subordinate operating states.
Lastly - I've said before I think FT needs some sort of morale rules - I
still think so. The presence of FleetCon (Flag) should have a positive
effect on Morale - likewise, watching your flag go up in flames should
incur a negative penalty - I'm still mulling this one over.
Hopefully I explained that better than the last time. Comments?
Jared
Conformal Movement I think this came about from worrying about SMLs and how
they engage the nearest ship but it also seems useful for lazy players. This
may simplify movement in big fleet engagements. Any number of smaller and more
agile ships may be nominated as escorts for a larger, slower ship. Each of the
escorts will maintain a fixed position relative to the ship they are escorting
so should probably be within a short distance of her (2 MU or so). During
movement move the escorted ship normally and then move all the others so that
they retain their position relative to the escorted ship. Should the escorts
be damaged so as to reduce their thrust rating to equal to or less than the
escorted ships they can no longer function as escorts. I like this idea but it
may be abusive. It will hinder the use of SMLs although this may be more
'realistic', they now have to tear a hole in the escort screen before they can
reach the heavies. Another loss (for good or ill) is that it would simplify
fleet movement, this saves time but a commander (and his opponent(s)) now have
a much clearer idea of where his ships are going.
MRB
> Jared E Noble wrote:
...Big Snip...JTL
Let me see if I have this right: My scout ship that I moved to 10 inches of my
opponent fires as if it had the weapons of my two battle dreadnoughts that are
at 33 inches range. MY 'A' batteries get a three dice attack,
the pulse torpedos fire at a ten inch range, ect. I can see how a certain
segment of the gaming world could get into this.
What are the drawbacks? What about play balance? What is
the mass of the new FCS? Can this new FCS be exchanged for an
old without penelty? What is the point cost? Why am I asking
these questions, This concept is really gross!!
I think this needs a play test against a normal fleet prior to a general
suggestion being issued.
If this was a call for realistic comment then I am overreacting and I am sorry
for that. (I've had a hard week, but then most weeks are hard.)
The squadron movement is something that I/we use all the time.
It allows the control of a larger number of ships per player and saves quite a
bit of time during movement.
Morale: In a 'one of' game the morale factor means that the game
really hinges on the roll of a single die. This is now really a
satisfactory situation. What happens if both players go over
the morale check point at the end of the turn, both roll a morale failure, do
both players lose the game? Morale in a campaign is provided by the knowledge
that 'there will be a tomorrow' and therefor the roll of a die to
determine loss of the battle is not valid. I am faced
with a situation in the Campaign98 for tomorrow: I have one cruiser and two
frigites vs two cruisers, 1 destroyer,
one scout, and a merchant. If only the ship strengths are
considered I would be at a morale disadvantage and would surrender
or run. However, these ships are protecting two colony worlds(
my enemy has demanded that I leave the system), that I do not want to
surrender. What do you think is going to happen?
Not intended as excessively critical.
Bye for now,
> At 09:35 17/07/98 -0900, you wrote:
This sounds an arwful lot like "data link" out of Starfire. It came in IIRC 3
varities depending on your tech level. Roughly basic, enhanced and superior.
For my campaign I came up with something similar with the basic
system allowing 2 ships to work together, enhanced - 4 and superior 7
ships. I had mass as 2 for FTII but a cost of 30 pts. PDAFs could protect any
ship linked to the firing ship, all ships fire at once on the same targets at
the shortest range, within 6" of each other (or line with each 2" from the
first like in Stargrunt) and that all ships in the group had to be indentical.
The other idea I had was that you could buy a master/slave
datalink system. The master was mass 5, 40 pts the slave systems 1 mass and 15
points. The master/slave system worked the same but the only the master
ship could be different from the others and the ability was lost from the
group with the loss of the master system. Make them subject to threshold
checks and I was going to use D inside a diamond as the symbol.
> Lastly - I've said before I think FT needs some sort of morale rules -
If you are worried about morale rules it might be worth looking at Schoon's
Crew and Quality rules which were posted 12th May. I think the idea of a Fleet
Admiral is more the sort of thing your'e looking for rather than use Fleetcon.
realjtl@sj.bigger.net on 07/17/98 03:06:35 PM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject: Re: Conformal Movement
> Jared E Noble wrote:
See the part of the post that you included:
"The squadron must maintain a tight cohesion - maybe 3-4 MU"
If you have someone at 10", and others at 33", how many do you have in between
(can you say "long line waiting to get cut in half?") certainly the point is
made that there needs to be limits on how much the range can be improved, But
I'm looking for that kind of feedback so I can put those kinds of things into
it. Generally I was thinking that ranges could be improved by one range band,
or if you get lucky your heavies may be just out of his range for one turn
while you can still shoot thanks to your
"Forward Observers" - FT is rarely a game of static lines and distances,
so
you probably won't get that lucky again - and if you so, then he
deserves it.
> What are the drawbacks?
Several listed in the original post, perhaps more needed
> What about play balance?
That's part of what I'm trying to determine, with the help of experienced FT
players on the list
> What is the mass of the new FCS?
As stated in the post, I really don't know for FB designs - With FTII it
was to be the same mass as standard firecon - All the control systems
would be (FireCon, FleetCon, and FlightCon). The new superlight (mass 1)
firecon in the FB kind of messes this up, as that seems to light for what I
envision - Mass 3-4 seems more appropriate here.
> Can this new FCS be exchanged for an old without penelty?
Again, that was the intent in FTII, except as originally planned you could not
replace any of your "free" Firecon with FleetCon. A capital ship would
need to have at least 3 Fire/FlightCon (any combination), and could have
extra fleetcon if desired. If you already had a SDN designed with 5 firecon,
then up to 2 could be replaced with fleetcon.
> What is the point cost?
As stated, I don't know the point cost, but it should be expensive. in FT2 I
was thinking 25 points, but this was off the top of my head. Again don't
know about FB - haven't even had it a week!
> Why am I asking these questions, This concept is really gross!!
When misinterpreted, It can be - I don't think that is necessarily has
to be, though.
> I think this needs a play test against a normal fleet prior
I understand, and that is exactly what is was. Let me say this - I have
had FT/MT for over a year and I am not aware of any single person in
Alaska, outside myself, who has even FT, or for that matter has heard of the
game (outside 2 friends of mine.) so it is very difficult to playtest against
a normal fleet to develop the full set of ideas. I would like to stage a game
at some small, local con up here but have not yet had an opportunity. By
putting in writing the ideas I have, and getting the stuffing beat out of them
by people who have much more experience in FT than I have, I hope to get them
strengthened to the point that I can convince a friend to try them out in one
of the gaming sessions we have
(which seems to happen at most! once a month. - real slow going on the
playtest cycle). In probably 5 minutes you pointed out major concerns and
holes either in the system or my explanation of it (in my opinion there was
some of both).
> The squadron movement is something that I/we use all the time.
Well, DSII and SGII seem to have a fairly decent one-off morale
framework -
The combination of Mission Motivation and Fatigue (forgive me if thats not
the right term - I am without my manuals) with multiple levels of morale
(not the GW Superdude/Routed type) seems to mitigate the single roll
dependancy quite a bit. And in any single encounter, a thirty second
description of the events can pretty well set the Motivation and fatigue
levels. See below
> Morale in a campaign is provided by the knowledge that
How important is it to you to not abandon the system? politically,
economically, does it matter? you just said that you don not want to
surrender the colony worlds - and in doing so set yourself a medium to
high motivation. Set the level for the opponent as based on assuptions of what
their situation is. Fatigue - your ships are in a local picket,
presumably they get time for R&R since there is a local friendly presence. Are
his
troops fresh, or have they just pushed the front-line to reach this
system?
You now have a one-off scenario. Certainly in a true campaign the
morale strategic portion of morale is overweighed by the actual events. But
the tactical shouldn't be. This may be an important battle for your Admiralty.
But as the captain of your frigate watches your two lead SDNs (the backbone of
your squadron) go up in major explosions, and the captain of the CL (new
squadron commander) screens and tell him to charge into the teeth of enemy
DNs, does this frigate captain stay so motivated?
As I see things - that's part of what makes DSII/SGII so well liked.
The
cool die-type shifts aside, I attempts to model the difference in what
you plan and order, and what the troops actually do. It may be harder for a
ship to cower and hide than it is for lowly PFC Funk, but I'm certain that
there have been crews that have balked at the orders they were given, just
like grunts.
> Not intended as excessively critical.
Not taken as such. Thanks for Your input.
Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> As I see things - that's part of what makes DSII/SGII so well liked.
The
> cool die-type shifts aside, I attempts to model the difference in what
"USS Phoenix, to USS CannonFodder. Admiral Botch orders you to advance to
within 500m of the Sa'va'sku Battle Blob and engage it in intense counterfire.
You are to ignore your imminent death and the extreme unlikeliness of
effective results. The Admiral requires a good showing for his monthly
Admiralty dinner."
"USS Phoenix, <insert sound of someone making crackly noises poorly>, we do
not <more apparently fake crackly noises> you.... over.... say <more crackly
noises, with a cough>.... losing recep.... comms failing...<buzz (kind of
sounds like a raspberry)>"
(Sorry, it is quite possible for the scenario described above. A naval captain
could argue his primary responsibility was his ship, and he withdrew when
combat damage made it untenable (or he had a sudden filbert flange failure or
whatever) but in any case there are reasons valid and strictly CYA for this
kind of withrdawal to occur).
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> At 09:35 17/07/98 -0900, you wrote:
Sadly I never had an opportunity to play Starfire. I got too turned off TFG
when Star Fleet Battles when wildly out of control and produced 300 pages of
contradictory rules that necessitated the 40 pages of eratta and addenda to
provide you with a game that, while it did drive you to bankruptcy in buying
new rules, at least had the virtue? of slower play,
combined with spiffy-new computer generated SSD's. I have heard good
things about starfire though, alas I cannot afford to try it out, and I so
rarely have time to play games I doubt it will ever be an option for me.
That said - for the FleetCon, they would most certainly be subject to
threshold checks, just as normal firecon are. And to use a Web-analogy,
my
idea was to be server-based - any web client could connect and take
advantage of the system without the need for special plug-ins, so in FT,
plain vanilla ship designs could participate in the system with no special
design constraints, but perhaps requiring one Firecon to the link. Now maybe
replacing this single firecon with a smaller dedicated slave device? That
might mork, but I would want that an option, not a necessity.
> Lastly - I've said before I think FT needs some sort of morale rules -
I have looked at them on several occasions, and there is some good information
there I will probably cannibalize at some point. However, as Schoon points out
in the same post: "As FT does not currently have anything that resembles the
Reaction or
Confidence tests from DSII / SGII, there are two ways of dealing with a
captain's leadership. The first is to use the levels as arbitrary designations
that have effects on certain rolls or circumstances. The second is to add
Reaction rolls to your FT game. This second option is a little more than I
want to bite off for a crew quality offering, so we'll deal with the first
only at the moment."
I think that some kind of reaction/confidence tests are important - to
really get the feel of subordinates balking at their orders, or hesitating at
a crucial moment. FleetCon may not exactly do what I want, but I think that
fleet admiral doesn't either. I want to be careful to not get into
the "my super character is better than yours" scenario - but create a
valid and reasonable framework for formation actions.
I don't think that it is specifically the admiral that gives all the benefit
to a task group, but a large portion comes from additional coordinating
resources, CIC, etc. Thats what I want.
> Jared E Noble wrote:
...Many snips, various places...JTL
> >> Anyway - the presence of a FleetCon allows the ship to link with
> "The squadron must maintain a tight cohesion - maybe 3-4 MU"
> > What is the mass of the new FCS?
firecon
> in the FB kind of messes this up, as that seems to light for what I
XXX Suggestion: Leave the mass of the 'Fleetcon' reasonably low, but devise a
method of using the much neglected advanced sensors as part
of the package. JTL XXX
> > Can this new FCS be exchanged for an old without penelty?
XXX This is sort of handeled w/ the above statement. JTL XXX
> [quoted text omitted]
By putting in writing the ideas I have, and getting the
> stuffing beat out of them by people who have much more experience in
XXX I hope these comments/suggestions will make some amends and if
properly implemented could make things more exciting. JTL XXX
> Not taken as such. Thanks for Your input.
bye for now,
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Jared E Noble wrote:
> XXX The vision I had was: A long line of scouts with the Superships
Each ship must be within 4MU of the ship which is 'superior' to it in the
chain, not just any other ship. Ever played illuminati? remember the control
arrows? Anyway, If you wanted to have a degenerate chain, of 1 to 1 to 1,
that's your business, but in order to maximize the length, you have to buy a
fleetcon for each step of the chain (and remember, we want them to be a bit
pricy). Is is worth the cost? Admittedly this requires a little bit more
paperwork, but I think not much. And when you have a heavily cascaded topology
some well placed shots could cut off large portions of your squadron. And
remember that 1 turn penalty for being forcibly removed from the chain!
Here's another thing I would like to throw out - the maximum benefit to
weapons fire is 1 range bracket FOR THAT WEAPON. Beam weapons have a 12"
bracket, so conceivably a ship out at 45" could fire as if at 36" _but
that's it_ just one die. A pulse torpedo (6" range bracket) could go
from out of range to hit on a 6, but not if it's beyond 36".
<snip>
XXX Suggestion: Leave the mass of the 'Fleetcon' reasonably low, but
> devise a method of using the much neglected advanced sensors as part
Anyway, back to the point. Might something like that work? - use other
parts of the squadron as the sensor inputs for the heavy horsepower sensor
platform?. Or how about allowing enhanced or superior sensors within
the
squadron to gain power as the squadron size increases - As the entire
squadron becomes a massive synthetic Array?
> > Can this new FCS be exchanged for an old without penelty?
Argh. Forgot I'd unsubbed from the list for a week. No doubt everyone has
already realised this, but here goes anyway :-)
> Michael Blair wrote:
> > where his ships are going.