Ãrjan:
> I can't force the enemy scout to fight, but I can force it to make a
And the sensor rules are WHERE? Especially ones that don't come labeled
"optional"?
Under current campaign rules, you place all ships in a system to fight. Even
if you mildly adjusted this to allow split fleets, you'd still be doing this
blind, i.e. without knowledge of the enemy fleet composition.
Thus, what you'd do (and what we did in our abysmal attempt at "The
Lafayette Incident") is take *one* MD-high scoutship to each
sector/planet, "attack", if the system is empty, take the planet, if
there are enemy ships, put everything on table, count enemy
ships/types/classes,
do an immediate 180 and bug out -- scouting mission accomplished.
Sign me up for scout service. I like the idea of living through the war
without any risk.
> If it is a fast cargo ship (a smuggler or blockade runner, say) or a
I talked about this earlier, but I've yet to see anyone show MATHEMATICAL
proof that a reasonable intercepts can be achieved in *any* fair conditions
(except at target or jump point i.e. journey endpoints). Start with vanilla as
published FT and let's see how many rules you need
to change/add before you can intercept by anything other than blind
luck.
Ok, assuming you can achieve intercepts (i.e. intercepts are magically assumed
and setup defaults to "default"), it still makes probing a no risk
proposition. I'd just keep probing until I find a weak spot (or got bored,
which would probably come first).
> unless both its
So, you agree that under current rules it is effectively impossible to
intercept shipping? The U-boat service is a dead cause? Of course the
destination is in friendly territory (or you're talking assault mission
instead).
Which, in turn, reduces campaigns and therefore also "reasonable" scenarios to
a series of raids against fixed points.
You see, if the first thing that comes to my mind after reading the scenario
setup is "why would I ever get caught in a situation like
this?",
my first question will be "how many points do I get as compensation for
accepting this tactical disadvantage?"
Let's consider commerce raiding. Raiders are built on the "battlecruiser
principle", "Outgun everything you can't outrun and outrun anything you can't
outgun" i.e. they are *excpected* to simply run away from a stiff opposition.
High enough thrust coupled with the right mindset and nothing can touch you.
Great! Run into some warships, just run away. Catch a merchant and pounce.
Life is great...
...until they start building transports to the same spec. Noboby can catch
anybody anymore (except at port). And the convoy escorts are just out of job
too...
> Mikko wrote:
[snip]
> I talked about this earlier, but I've yet to see anyone show
Would depend on how you argue the range of your long-range sensors and
the speed of your vessels compared to that. With Ultra-long-range
sensors and slow vessels intercepting is easy, with short range sensors and
fast ships, it's impossible. Which of those circumstances you consider 'Fair'
will depend on your personal taste (and which side you are
on).
[snip]
> So, you agree that under current rules it is effectively impossible >
to intercept shipping? The U-boat service is a dead cause?
Even on Earth, intercepting shipping was very much a matter a hit-and
miss affair. The U-boats didn't rely on luck to find their prey. They
used various intelligence assets (spies, long range planes, radio monitoring,
outpost boats) and educated guesses about enemy routes (off specific harbours,
near choke points such as narrow straits) to enhance their chance of finding
merchant vessels.
[snip]
> Let's consider commerce raiding. Raiders are built on the
and pounce. Life is great...
Unless the merchant is in a convoy that is being escorted by some big brute.
You either retreat without fighting (i.e. not doing damage to the enemy) or
risk being destroyed by his heavy weapons.
[snip]
> ...until they start building transports to the same spec. Noboby can
> catch anybody anymore (except at port). And the convoy escorts are
Pretty unlikely. Fast drives are expensive. In peacetime, and under most
wartime campaign considerations (i.e. the enemy does not have overwhelming
superiority and you need blockade runners), that
space/money is
more profitably used for cargo bays/passenger space.
So most transports will be slow and poorly protected.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Ãrjan:
FT2 pages 21 and 22. They're marked "Advanced" just like the fighter
rules, all non-beam weapon rules and the ship design rules; it's your
call if that makes them "optional" or not <shrug>
The enemy scout ships need to get within 54mu of my capitals to be able to
tell what classes they are... or indeed if they are capitals at all,
rather than weasel boats. Your proposed "immediate 180-degree turn"
won't gain you any more information than the FT2 campaign system had
already given you - the general size of the bogies. Wouldn't it be...
very embarrassing, to say the least, if you fled from each battle because you
failed to scan my weasel boats and thought them to be real capital ships?
> unless both its
The U-boat service depends on not being detected by the target and
ambushing it when it is too late for it to evade, not on running it down in a
long chase. Yes, since the MT cloaking rules have very large
gaping holes in them the U-boat service is effectively a dead cause.
> Of course the destination is in friendly territory (or you're talking
I was writing from the perspective of the would-be intercepting force,
not of the freighter. It isn't quite obvious to me that an enemy fleet base or
planet is considered "friendly" to my ships...
> Let's consider commerce raiding. Raiders are built on the
In wet-navy history since times immemorial, there have been three
effective responses to fast enemy raiders: 1) Escorted convoys
2) Q-ships
3) Find the raiders' bases (or supply ships) and destroy them.
The "attack the enemy convoy" was the very scenario we fought to the
would-be long-range sniper raiders' exhaustion, and where I learned how
to handle such snipers with slower, shorter-ranged ships.
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> Would depend on how you argue the range of your long-range sensors and
> the speed of your vessels compared to that. With Ultra-long-range
Well, I tried to calculate with OMNISCIENT sensors. I.e. you immediately and
with absolute certainty know everything happening in the system (but no a
priori knowledge). Even assuming this, AND assuming one single jump point I
found it very hard if not impossible to achieve meaningful intercepts. With
"out of gravity well" FTL, intercepts are effectively impossible.
I'd like to be proven wrong, but I've yet to see anyone take even the slight
mathematical interest in the subject matter I gave it.
Speed, OTOH, is UNLIMITED. And that's a written rule.
Fair is not a matter of taste. Fair simply means that both sides play by the
same rules. E.g. if the attacking ships have fuel limitations, so do the
defending ships.
Ãrjan:
> FT2 pages 21 and 22. They're marked "Advanced" just like the fighter
Jon's comment about putting sensor rules on hold doesn't count? Nor the fact
that weapon ranges can now exceed maximum sensor range?
Ok, you're god and sensor rules are now strictly required in "fully compliant"
games. Did everyone hear this?
> The enemy scout ships need to get within 54mu of my capitals to be
The campaign system does not give that unless I jump to the system. And, IIRC,
immediately bugging out without the "table" phase is not an option for the
attacker. I'm just pointing that you can do no risk probing.
Under cinematic, it's not even too hard to do some actual sensor sweeps with
no or minimal risk with a fast scout.
> Wouldn't it be...
Actually, not really. Even weasels don't come free. The only viable course of
action in "The Lafayette Incident" is take the "free" planets with single
scouts and keep the strike fleet together. For the attacker. The defender can
look forward to simply losing.
Though there are some holes in the campaign rules that could render the whole
campaign moot if pressed...
> The U-boat service depends on not being detected by the target and
Missing the point here. I simply meant that you think that trying to
*intercept* (by whatever means) is a dead cause?
> In wet-navy history since times immemorial, there have been three
And now there's FOURTH. Cargo ships fast enough to simply run away (or fast
enough never to be intercepted in the first place). In the long run, I reckon
that's the optimal choice.
> The "attack the enemy convoy" was the very scenario we fought to the
There wouldn't BE any convoy if the nation running it wasn't so gentlemanly as
to give their enemies a shot at destroying the cargo. THAT'S what I'm getting
at.
If I was playing the defender in that scenario, I would be asking: "WHY, oh
WHY, would I use transports that are actually slow enough to be caught?"
G'day Mikko,
> There wouldn't BE any convoy if the nation running it wasn't so
"WHY,
> oh WHY, would I use transports that are actually slow enough to be
I haven't been paying attention so I may have the wrong end of the stick
here <if I have feel free to belt me with the right end;)>, but the
construction of merchantmen (at least when a conflict begins) isn't going to
depend on whether they're going to get caught or not but how cost
effective it is. If I give my merchantmen a mass/size that makes it
worth
hauling cargo from one end of my mega-super star empire (stop sniggering
the IAS, Independent Antarctic States for the new comers, WILL rule the
universe someday....) then putting engines on it is going to take up more
valuable cargo space than I'm willing to sacrifice. So I end up going slow
enough that I'm gonna need escorts to protect them, but if they're going to
the job properly they're going to have stay at the cargo haulers speed most of
the time (at least until something turns up to threaten them) and so
interceptions can happen.
Sorry if that was completely NOT what you were talking about.
I'll shut up now;)
Beth
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
"WHY,
oh WHY, would I use transports that are actually slow enough to be caught?"
Because the transports aren't designed by the military, but instead by
private enterprise, who are continually looking to lower costs? :-)
<Small Laugh>
I recently added some of ITTTs standard merchant ships (and some Q-Ship
variants). Note that these ships are larger than the merchant ships in the
back of FB1 because I thought that there was a need for interfaced craft to
service smaller colonies. This adds size to the vessel and to make a profit
the cargo size must be expanded as well. True a 'Husky' mass 600 freighter
with 252 mass in cargo makes a juicy
target. But heaven help you if you run into the Q-Ship version, 'Hokey'.
Also, like the IAS and OU, ITTT's freighters are modular and may switch out
cargo modules for weapons modules, so dedicated Q-Ships are augmented in
times of particular trouble.
Fetch Interface Shuttle ITTT 42 89
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rlyehable/ft/ft25/ships_nonmil.html#fetch
Hokey class Q-Ship ITTT 619 2115 (2241)
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rlyehable/ft/ft25/ships_nonmil.html#hokey
Husky class Hvy Freighter ITTT 619 1463
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rlyehable/ft/ft25/ships_nonmil.html#husky
Lodestone class Hvy Freighter ITTT 292 796
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rlyehable/ft/ft25/ships_nonmil.html#lodest
one
Roo class Interface Shuttle ITTT 17 41
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rlyehable/ft/ft25/ships_nonmil.html#roo
War Horse Q-Ship ITTT 144 460 (478)
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rlyehable/ft/ft25/ships_nonmil.html#warhor
se
Work Horse Medium Freighter ITTT 144 389
http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/rlyehable/ft/ft25/ships_nonmil.html#workho
rse
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
> I'd like to be proven wrong, but I've yet to see anyone take
Let us assume that there are a limited number of jump points (Alderson
points); and that the maximum speed to make jump transit is relatively low (eg
you have to spend 2 turns within a 12" radius of the jump point to give your
FTL gear time to function). Exit locus in the defender's system may move
around a bit (so you can't just park a dreadplanet there to whack anything
that comes through). Speed is unlimited for normal travel. Station your
intercept force at or near the jump point.
Assume the intercept force is non-FTL capable and puts that
extra mass towards main drives, so they're 2 points faster than equivalent
invaders. Wouldn't that generate intercepts for you?
Beth,
I've moved this basic idea to "The Interception Challenge", which I hope
clarifies my side of the issue.
However, as to your question/comment, the basic gist is this: If I can
custom design all my other ships, why couldn't I custom design my transports?
And if I can do that, why wouldn't I use a transport that doesn't *need*
escorts because it can't *ever* be forced to fight?
If you'd require me to use e.g. vanilla FB1 transport designs (for
whatever PSB/background reason), I would consider that an unfair
disadvantage and demand due compensation in some other way (more points,
better victory conditions, similar limitations to other participants
etc.)
> On 14-Jun-00 at 16:44, Mikko Kurki-Suonio (maxxon@swob.dna.fi) wrote:
Sure, you can custom design your transports, but you need to act as if you had
a limited budget. In our campaign where transports are a necessity they tend
to be thrust 2. It's just too hard to justify spending the money on fast
transports when you need the combat ships.
This isn't saying you won't escort them, just that you lose flexability if you
use expensive transports.
Here, let me micro-scale it.
You have 5K points for your 3 world empire to start. After start each world
produces 100NPV. One world has a shipyard, the other points from other worlds
must be moved to the shipyard, 1 mass of
cargo space hauls 1 NPV/turn. You also need cargo space to replace
expendable munitions (SMs, Subminitions, fighters), 1 mass of cargo space for
each NPV or 6 mass for fighters. Pick your maintenance rules (probably linear
by cost). Build your fleet.
Just work through this little exercise and see what you end up with in the way
of cargo ships. This is the same thing experienced by the large empires just
on a slightly bigger scale.