> Vaccheads will expend a FTL frigate without batting an eye...
Thanks, Chris! That's the closest you've come to admitting one should
expect rationality from us! ;->=
Has anyone tried to come up with a system to test if crew is crazy enough to
accept a crazy order? Not that battling in as hostile an environ as space
doesn't qualify as certifiable anyway...
On the other hand, I don't claim to understand Squids...
The_Beast
> Vaccheads will expend a FTL frigate without batting an eye...
> Thanks, Chris! That's the closest you've come to admitting one should
I *don't* expect rationality, I expect willing martyrs. Allahu akhbar!
Amazing that it is so easy to convince someone ELSE to be a martyr for the
cause.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
-- K. Marx
> From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net>
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >>Vaccheads will expend a FTL frigate without
You know, it's gonna depend on where exactally you recruit 'em from. Iraqis
don't seem to be too big on
the whole martyrdom crap--for that matter, I hardly
ever see one kneel in prayer. They drink whiskey and bootleg porno like
there's no tomorrow. It's mainly
the foreigners (Al-Q from Saudi Arabia) who do the
whole carbomb suicide thing.
I think Iraqis are going to be considered the scum of the IFed due to lack of
really being terribly observant Muslims. The Syrians aren't either, but at
least they have guts. Iraqis are lacking in that area.
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> Has anyone tried to come up with a system to test if crew is crazy
Isn't there something in one of the FT (MT?) books about striking the colors?
Would any of that apply?
Damo
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 05:30 PM, John Atkinson wrote:
Though I bet if the new Government were to suddenly turn Funda-mental
that situation would be resolved in a generation or two.
Damo
***
Isn't there something in one of the FT (MT?) books about striking the colors?
Would any of that apply?
***
I'm pretty certain that wasn't quite what I had in mind, but a start I forgot
was there.
Thanks!
The_Beast
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 12:10:39PM -0600, Doug Evans wrote:
> Has anyone tried to come up with a system to test if crew is crazy
Given the level of defences of your typical FB frigate relative to the
firepower that gets dished out in a firefight involving anything bigger, I
think that getting aboard one and sailing even slightly into harm's way would
count as a "crazy order" to many people. It's a tough life in the cockleshell
navy...
R
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 01:10 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
Thing is, with a ship (space or sea) the crew generally have to do
what the Captain decides - so it's up to his decision, not the
crew's, whether to follow a "crazy" order or not - it's not like
infantry combat where individuals can just hide in the bushes or skulk
away.... Of course, if the crew decide, in unison, that they really don't want
to be led into certain death, then that becomes either "mutiny" or "relieving
a Captain who has become unfit for command", which is getting into a rather
grey area best left to the military
lawyers..... ;-)
> On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 03:51 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> whether to follow a "crazy" order or not - it's not like infantry
I guess it all comes down to a crew having faith in the moron pushin' the
lead.:)
I think it would be nice to have some type of morale system at the fleet level
such that if you ordered Frigate Flotilla A to engage the Dreadnought of
Deadly Doom that the Flotilla Commander should roll something to send his
ships to their (almost) certain destruction. Something that takes into account
the mission motivation like SG2.
Damo
***
I think it would be nice to have some type of morale system at the fleet level
such that if you ordered Frigate Flotilla A to engage the Dreadnought of
Deadly Doom that the Flotilla Commander should roll something to send his
ships to their (almost) certain destruction. Something that takes into account
the mission motivation like SG2.
***
Thanks, I was hoping that someone would push in this direction. Less 'do the
troops follow the captain' than 'does the captain take his ship into
certain doom', if you assume the player is flotilla/squadron/fleet
leader.
Mainly, I haven't gotten my head around describing 'certain doom' as an FT
game concept, much less modifiers. Crew rating might be applied to captain.
Though you are absolutely correct about motivation.
You can expect a FF captain would be likely to save the Bismark, or one
hundred thousand colonists, if he could, no matter the cost.
Whatever may come up, it'll probably be too fiddly not to be profoundly
optional.
The_Beast
> On Thursday 20 November 2003 7:53 am, Damond Walker wrote:
> I think it would be nice to have some type of morale system at the
I've tossed around the idea of how to model (ruleswise) different qualities of
crew and/or captains without upping the complexity too much.
I really like the idea of reflecting those variables, but I'm not sure how to
approach it.
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> You can expect a FF captain would be likely to save
Historically, didn't small ships generally do what they were told to do? I
mean, can anyone come up with
a modern post-radio example of a destroyer commander
telling his TF commander to sod off?
Second, can anyone come up with an example at any point in history where this
happened and the ship commander did not get at the least dismissed from the
service and imprisioned? I'm not counting Admirals who get wild hairs (Nelson)
and win battles regardless of orders to disengage.
***
Historically, didn't small ships generally do what they were told to do? I
mean, can anyone come up with
a modern post-radio example of a destroyer commander
telling his TF commander to sod off?
***
Probably not; I like toying with possibilities.
***
Second, can anyone come up with an example at any point in history where this
happened and the ship commander did not get at the least dismissed from the
service and imprisioned? I'm not counting Admirals who get wild hairs (Nelson)
and win battles regardless of orders to disengage.
***
Not really germaine to the discussion.
Thanks!
The_Beast
> At 6:16 AM -0800 11/20/03, John Atkinson wrote:
Plus theres the aspect of naval combat happening just at or beyond visual
range. Most of the crew don't exactly have much to look at and just have to
stick with their tasks. Where the problems occur is where ships suffer damage
and how the crews respond with damage control and repair of critical systems
to maintain a fighting posture.
> I've tossed around the idea of how to model (ruleswise) different
FT is a (mechanically) simple game and cries out for a simple solution. The
basic mechanic of Good vs. Bad crew are already there with the Aces and
Turkeys rule regarding fighters right?
How about if GREAT gunners get to add one to the die roll for weapon fire
while poor gunners subtract one. The modified die roll is used to determine
rerolls (so poor gunners will never get a reroll).
That type of thing.
Damo
> Mainly, I haven't gotten my head around describing 'certain doom' as
In general I'd think if one class of ship is attacking another which is
one higher (frigate vs. a destroyer) then it's full speed ahead/warm up
the guns/etc.
On the other hand if the vessel in question is attacking another ship which is
two or more classes higher (say a frigate vs. a LC or BC) then it's time to
weigh the odds, mission motivation, etc.
> Yes it is. Remember, your average O3 and higher would
Back in my military days (late 80s and early 90s) they had a concept in the
Army of a lawful order. Where does that play in when ordered to do something
stupid? The lawful order bit might not apply fully in the face of the enemy
but what are your thoughts?
---
Damo
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 01:04:52PM +0000, damosan@comcast.net wrote:
> Back in my military days (late 80s and early 90s) they had a concept in
I think that this is not something that has much practical application -
obviously it came in after WW2 (mainly so that "I was ordered to do it" would
not be a valid defence), but in practice an army that had the troops querying
every order for legality would never get anywhere.
Asking for an order to be given in writing serves much the same purpose,
though ("are you _really sure_ you want to do that, sir?").
R
***
I dislike making the player just along for the ride and to roll the dice.
Morale is all well and good in ground combat where it can be demonstrated
historically that it had a real effect. I just don't see any modern warships
refusing orders. The commo is too good to play stupid, and everyone on the
ship pretty much doesn't see past their piece of the pie except the senior
officers. The black gang doesn't know where the enemy is or really where the
ship is going, they just know what speed the Captain wants, and they give it
to him, until machinery starts breaking down. Likewise a gun turret crew has
no control over where the ship goes, they just shoot at
the targets--and only a moron would refuse that order
(killing bad guys ALWAYS increases survival rates). And so forth.
***
Quite understandable, though I did move the question out of below spaces. So,
just the commo comment addresses my thoughts. I'll rethink the term 'morale'.
Also, there are many things that pull some control out the hands of player;
obviously, this could get way out of control.
The_Beast
Hi guys, Someone asked:
*****
Second, can anyone come up with an example at any point in history where this
happened and the ship commander did not get at the least dismissed from the
service and imprisioned? I'm not counting Admirals who get wild hairs (Nelson)
and win battles regardless of orders to disengage.
*****
Whilst the Beast was quite right to point out that it is not quite "germaine"
(So I'll ignore Nelson, as you requested):
Cochrane and Pellew, to name just two from the C18/C19 **incredibly**
able commanders who tended to ignore orders and engage ships far larger than
themselves, tended to ignore orders. True, Pellew happened to destroy a
capital ship with his own and another frigate, and Cochrane pissed off the
Naps so much that he gained a "most wanted" status, nevertheless both survived
their court martials (which I believe both had at one time or another).
OK, Cochrane never amounted ot much::in the UK navy:: but was, nonetheless,
admired.
I am quite happy to read through the rest of my copies of the Naval Chronicles
and put forward a range of names (which, IIRC ends up a huge list).
----------------------
SOME of this is dominated by the special case of FF being commited to a combat
in which it will be destroyed. It seems to me that several things are being
ignored (especially when history is being referred to).
1) FF vs BC or more means forget the FF. Seems fair to me. 2) FFin a fleet vs
another fleet means either:
a) forget Destroyers ro Frigates - they don't count OR
b) if they try... (see (1))
3) in the Mid-late C20, IIRC, FF/DD/DH were not even ran up against
capital
ships if at all possible (and that bits crucial) - so given (1),
fine. They ended up being pitted against each other (C19,C20) or similar
vessels, or only when they could gang up against something bigger. 4) In
space, crew can always retreat to the escape pods (see David Manley or Star
Wars). 5)...which means the campaign imperatives are missing from the
face-to-face rules. Which also means I just ::shrug:: - if you want to
complicate a battle and you're in the midst of a campaign absolutely great
(I put them in, then). If not - does FT really need it?
It seems pointless trying to assess the morale of a Frig/Dest captain or
crew ouside the imperatives of the campaign necessities in which they find
themselves. And a single tabletop, face-to-face situation is so far
abstracted from that as to suggest that either: a) You dice for it (random),
or b) you ignore such morale effects (current FT 2.5, ignoring MT). (Gets my
vote)
Whilst I _cannot_ ignore factor (5) above, the rest seems ot leave to
simplicity: Ignore such morale **except** when in a campaign setting.
Hope this helps !!!! ;-)
> I dislike making the player just along for the ride
Battle off Samar October 25,1944 Batle of Leyte Gulf
Surface action with fair visibility - all ships
in both fleets were in communications American Forces 6 X CVE 3 X DD 4 X DE
Japanese forces 4 X BB 6 X Ca 2 X Cl
10+ DD
Action:
US: US DD + DE layed smoke and attacked
Japanese fleet while CVE's ran and launched aircraft. Japanese: Closed on US
ships at maximum
speed. Japanes thought US DD + DE were
Crusers while CVE's were CV's Results: US: lost 2 X DD, 2 X DE in screen while
2 of the CVE were sunk by fire of the BB's Japanese: called back ships to
reform battlegroup and broke off action (thought US battleships would be
showing up shortly). In other words the Japanese fleet morale broke and fleet
withdrew.
This is an extreme example of a battle where morale was more important then
ship statistics. Actually most "wet navy" battles were and will be impacted by
morale in a major way.
> The black gang doesn't
Bad morale on ship could result in:
-Ships not present at battle due to major
system failures.
-Systems disabled due to faulty maintenance.
-Slower maximum speeds then those listed
-Ship breaking off action due to damage
at lower levels then ships with higher morale. Bad fleet morale could result
in:
-Misidentification of enemy ships due to
bad intel or orders not to risk fleet (put down BB model in place of Ca for
example)
-Ships/squadrons do not show up due to requirements
to escort convoys or guard stratigic locations.
Bad morale -> more no shows
-Fleet must brak off due to losses or the ratio
of your fleet to the enemies ( we can't afford to lose your ship as the enemy
can replace there ships while we can't for example)
> At 1:00 AM -0800 11/22/03, Scott Siebold wrote:
> This is an extreme example of a battle where morale
This is more of an example where the Commander makes the wrong choice based on
bad intel. This should be part of a set of rules where you have generic models
for the stand or some other rules that allow one vessel to appear to be
something else, either based on distance, ECM and bad IDs of the vessels.
Could be interesting to have a Ship contact at range and have a GM check a die
result that you make based on some die results that the target makes, and have
you put down an SDN figure instead of a CA figure in place of a Bogey marker.
We really need ECM/Sensor rules for FT.
> This is more of an example where the Commander
No, it's an example of a commander losing his nerve, which is a morale
problem.
> Could be interesting to have a Ship contact at
I strongly I agree with this...
> At 7:23 AM -0500 11/23/03, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
But in this case, it should be an example of the player loosing his nerve.
Victory conditions and points for vessels destroyed or lost would affect the
nerve of a reasonably good player. Thinking he had destroyed 2 CVs when it was
actually a pair of CVLs is a prime example. "We've done enough damage, we're
lucky their battle ships are elsewhere, lets not get greedy."
> Could be interesting to have a Ship contact at
I think if it could tie in with modifiers based on what you think you see as
compared to what you have to fight it would be useful as well.
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> I think that this is not something that has much
Ummm... the thing is that an order is assumed to be lawful unless it can be
demonstrated that it violates the US Constitution, the UCMJ, Federal Law, or
Army Regulation. But it is still taught and has been taught for years. Now,
obviously an order to pick up trash is lawful and a private that wanted to
give someone crap about it would find himself in deep shit. But an order to
whack unarmed civillians would be questioned by most people I know. Yes,
teaching your soldier the laws of land warfare and to question illegal orders
is of great practical value. It minimizes the time your PAO has to spend
explaining the unjustifiable.
> --- damosan@comcast.net wrote:
It is a lawful order for a TF Commander to tell his destroyer screen to engage
the enemy. That's why they are there. Using the idea of 'lawful order' to
cover cowardice would not get past your defense counsel,
much less the court-martial panel.