One of the problems with an operational game is how you divide your forces.
Let's say both fleets start at 5000 points. Ideally, an admiral is going to
want to have all 5000 points show up on the table, but this means that each
operation has exactly one huge battle.
Okay, we give each side several points to defend. So one side gathers his
forces and hammers the other side's detachments, which either have
to flee or die--not an interesting battle either way. We want to have
several, reasonably even matches.
So what would induce an admiral to hold back some forces? Fear of an ambush is
one; having a limited control span is another. What else?
> So what would induce an admiral to hold back some forces? Fear of an
Have victory conditions tied to physical chunks of space (planets, stations,
mining operations on asteroids, etc) instead of the fleet. Sure, each side may
have 10,000 points worth of ships...but to *really* inforce an operational
game you must make victory based upon something other than the decimation of
your opponents naval forces.
Damond
Having Schwerpunkt is always good and most people would want it that way which
leads to large concentrations of points into a couple of fleets. You almost
need an artificial reason to force "equal" battles. One
method is to assign "victory points" for various systems - with the
rationale being some systems are worth more than others (for economic or
political reasons, such a critical shipyard, resources or high population
density). You can either play until one side controls a certain amount of VP,
or wipes the other side completely out. If using the second condition, then VP
should translate into greater reinforcements to the owning side.
Roughly half the VP should be in a few key systems - maybe 2-3 systems
and the remainder scattered in half a dozen to ten other less critical, but
valuable systems. This allows an attacker to either concentrate and try to
take out critical systems, or split up and try to grab a bunch of
low-value systems.
This would discourage bulking up up into one or two mega-fleets and
trying to take one minor system at a time - you'd still need to leave
behind defense ships and such and progress would be incredibly slow. This will
lead to two distinct strategic ends with some strategies
falling in the middle - A schwerpunkt drive to take the 2-3 key systems
or a broad even attack to take all the minor systems first.
If you allow defensive tactics, like minefields or active defenses which
are played abstractly (i.e. roll a d10 per level of minefield/defense,
multiply result by 5 and that is how many points the attacker loses) then
bulking up systems to "channel" attackers or wear them down by attrition
becomes viable. You would need to limit the number of
minefields/defenses per side perhaps as a point cost to the fleets.
Will there be stratetic reconaissance? If they enemy can't check out
the system first and has to jump in blind, then minefields/defenses
become much more dangerous. If the enemy can scout first, then they can become
a deterrent.
If you allow reinforcement, then time becomes an issue, if you sit back too
long, the opponent will be able to build more defences and eventually make his
systems "impregnable" to "conventional" attack. You
might need to add the ability to sabotage systems - i.e. spend points so
that a critial fusion plant is off-line or "aquire" ID codes that allow
your fleet to pass safely though the minefields.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
Force one side to spend 2000 points on slow freighters stuffed full of
fleeing civilians, and/or force the other side to spend 1000 points on
big, slow mobile fuel tanks.
on 03.1.30 8:16 AM, Laserlight at laserlight@quixnet.net scribbleth:
> So what would induce an admiral to hold back some forces? Fear of an
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> So what would induce an admiral to hold back some
How about these:
Standard maintenance & logistics problems: ships must spend x amount of time
in docks for repairs, maintenance and resuply for every Y amount of time on
patrol; perhaps the annual budget of the power only allows a limited amount of
operational time per ship, this would especially be true in the phase shifting
from peace to war
non-combat losses (here there be dragons, or black
holes, or whatever you want to say is out there to hurt your ships besides
other ships): a random events chart that increases your risk of accident the
longer you're out; Varying modifiers to amount of game turns it takes to FTL
from any given system to any other system (requires some sort of star map for
game)
fog of war (partially addressed in your fear of ambush): Don't make it a sure
betthat either side will know
exactly who's hitting what where until it happens --
use double-blind games, referees, etc., as well as
multiple objectives for both sides.
civil unrest, morale issues etc.
> > So what would induce an admiral to hold back some forces? Fear of
However, if you've decimated your opponent's navy, controlling his planets
becomes fairly simple. Or should we conclude that the fleet is there to
protect trade, and planets can look after themselves? That would imply that
most warships have little or no orbital bombardment capability, or else that
even a frontier planet can afford
anti-ship weapons
> Standard maintenance & logistics problems:
applies to both sides--however, it might well cost *more* maintenance
as you get deeper into formerly enemy territory. Okay, that's a good one.
> use double-blind games, referees, etc., as well as
I'd like the result to be usable as a two player game.
> civil unrest, morale issues etc.
"Your political leadership requires that the planet Voteria not be
left undefended"--okay, that's another one. Similar is the "defending
convoys" that Edward mentioned.
The cost of FTL ships might be a lot higher than that of System
Defense ships--that would also be a factor.
Anything else?
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> However, if you've decimated your opponent's navy,
You could take several different approaches at once: 1. Placing limitations on
what ships designed for
space-to-space combat can do in a planetary
bombardment senario definitely means that driving the defending fleet off is
just the first stage. It also gives the game a feel reminiscent of certain
historical periods, which is either positive or negative, depending on player
taste.
2. If the defending fleet is outgunned, for instance if it's spread out
defending several worlds, it might choose not to let itself be decimated, but
rather withdraw, and hit later after the attacking fleet has moved on.
Alternately, if both sides are both potential attackers AND defenders, there's
always a chance that if you commit too much to the attack, you leave your own
worldso pen to attack. So setting up a game where one side must attack and the
other defend, rather than one where both can do either, would not be the best
way to make things interesting.
3. given how powerful fighters are, I have a feeling most planets will be
issued squadrons even if the fleet isn't ported there.
Speaking of that, has anyone come up with a way to balance fighters? I
remember the issue was bandied about for a while.
You know, I _really_ like refugees and convoys and such in games.
It forces the player to try to play a realistic game, rather than a
face-to-face fight.
Having to fight a rearguard action against a superior force, buying time for
unarmed ships to escape to safety, or for people to board ships and flee,
either brings out some excellent tactical skills or ends quickly. For the
defending player, it isn't a question of winning, but rather how well you can
lose.
Refugee ships, buying time to board ships and flee, possibly a requirement
that transport be provided for bases in the system to be used IF the system
has to be abandoned, various other permutations. Suppose the base in the
system is an R&D base vital to the war effort. If lost, weapons development
will be retarded. If personnel can be saved, they can continue work. If
personnel is captured by the enemy they get your research. And if you let
personnel be killed or captured you're transferred to a guard post in Lower
Slobbovia.
This is all on the tactical level, of course, but extending the thought into
an example where one side has a massive advantage and the other has better
legs to run with, for example, could be interesting. The goal is not to stop
the invading enemy, but to see how much you can make them pay for every inch
gained (hopefully while the boffins back home are coming up with a better
idea...).
> 3. given how powerful fighters are, I have a feeling
Last I heard the playtest list was trying a few things out. The problem with
fighters is that they provide an exponential increase in effectiveness,
not a linear increase which makes pointing them difficult in one-off
games.
For my campaign rules, the cost of replacement pilots pushes the price of
fighters up considerably, as 50% of losses result in losing the pilot; which
BTW costs more than the fighters they fly.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > use double-blind games, referees, etc., as well as
You can still pull off a certain amount of uncertainty, especially if both
sides are defending multiple systems. Do it using the Battletech concept of
requiring FTL travel to terminate a minimum distance from a star (gravity
well, debris, whatever PSB you want to use to justify it), and requiring
sub-C travel from that point in, or from the system
out TO that point. Then you say that when a ship or
fleet jumps in-system, within that range, long-range
sensors can detect their arrival, but not their identity. That point is too
far out for long range sensors, and too widely dispersed for sufficient
coverage by drone probes. So you have to send a scout out to reconnoiter. In
the game, that means that you're told by your oponnent when something of his
has arrived, but not what or how much. You can dispatch units from that system
immediately, and you can summon from other systems, but it will take them
time, and you don't know how much you'll need. If you luanch immediately, you
may be committing your main force against a feint. If you wait for accurate
intel, the longer you wait, the less time you have to react. some sort of
ratio or chart for recon time to reaction time could be formulated.
> However, if you've decimated your opponent's navy, controlling his
Well, taking your term literally, destroying one in ten, would be a little
unfair, but it does suggest some concepts I attempted, poorly, in my Four
Corners campaign game.
An uber-fleet meets and destroys a third of an opponent's, while the
opponent has two-to-one superiority in ten other locations, also
destroying
a third of the uber-fleet's covering forces, and they have the high
ground in ten places instead of one, and picking up those 'points' that turn.
Not saying it would happen, just that it could.
By the way, I'm less likely to assume war on civilian populations. At least,
until someone new comes to the neighborhood...
But that's personal outlook.
The_Beast
--- "Robertson, Brendan"
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Last I heard the playtest list was trying a few
Yup, I remember the problem, I was wondering if a solution had been arrived
at. I had some ideas for making ship's weapons, particulary beam weapons, more
powerful against them, as well as increasing the effedctiveness of PDS and
ADFC.
> For my campaign rules, the cost of replacement
Realistic.
G'day,
> 2. If the defending fleet is outgunned, for instance
We got this result in Derek's campaign by having realistic build times
(a
SDN took 32 campaign turns or something like that), people didn't want to risk
and and slug to the death if that meant that they had absolutely nothing left.
Cheers
> However, if you've decimated your opponent's navy, controlling his
Blockading his planets becomes fairly simple. To really control a planet you
either have to bomb it from orbit or land troops. You could lay siege to a
world (I guess) but only against planets which have no real means of
self support or planet-wide populations.
Having said that, and depending on the level of abstraction we're going for
(we *are* talking FT here), it's a simple matter to have a system be in one of
four states: 1) Friendly, 2) Blockaded, 3) Enemy, or 4) Unknown.
Blockaded planets don't generate "income" or only provide 1/2 normal
victory points.
So the best an Admiral can do, even if he destroys the enemy fleet, is to
plant a ship in each enemy system in order to halve the opponents VP for that
system. That may or may not be a problem based on how effective he has been
during the game.
(I can see adding random events each Strategic turn which allows for a system
to break away from the empire, or double production, etc)
Damond
> > 3. given how powerful fighters are, I have a feeling
For planet based fighters, reduce the fighters endurance by having them climb
out of the gravity well of the planet. This will both delay the fighters
availablity by the time it takes to climb out and reduce the effect by
limiting the time they can spend in combat. Note that this could make long
range fighters rather common for squadrons based on planets, which is good
because the cost more.
> So what would induce an admiral to hold back some forces? Fear of an
Lack of information, as mention by someone else double blind play.
Delayed communications. If you don't have FTL communications, you'll have
to spend a ship (aka Traveller / Honor Harrington). This will make
smaller ship classes useful. This will also make it more time consuming to
respond to attacks. First you have to find out about the attack before you can
respond.
Ability to win by raiding as opposed to grand fleet engagements. This will be
campaign dependent. Are there enough small targets available to make avoiding
a major engagement a viable path to win the campaign. The above two
suggestions makes this doable.
> For planet based fighters, reduce the fighters endurance by having
That's assuming that they are land based. Larger systems might have a
station packed full of fighters -- or they might be based on a moon (or
some other very low gravity body).
How many fighter flights can withstand their full endurance value of combat
anyway? What does one less endurance factor *really* mean in the long run if
you have 15 more flights behind the 1st?
Damond
> > For planet based fighters
The test list has come up with what appears to be a solution; there are a few
quirks but they're being worked out. (See, what you do is, get Aaron to roll
your PDS dice, and Beth to roll the fighter
dice....)
However, this is slightly off the operational game and it's not ready for
announcement yet, so let's assume The Fighter Problem has been solved for the
moment and go back to the "forced ssplitting of
fleets". Some good ideas thus far--any more?
> That's assuming that they are land based. Larger systems might have a
Space stations are very fragile. Salvo missiles tend to shred them very
quickly. Fighters aren't very effective agianst ships moving faster then 48" a
turn unless they are fast fighters. And those can be rendered mostly
ineffective by moving faster then 60". Basically you conduct a "raid." You
come blazing in like a bat out of &^$^$ and lined up so you get one shot at
the station. The fighters will only get on shot at you, and you should be able
to blow the station away.
Optimal weapons are Salvo Missile racks. Salvo missile launchers aren't as
good because unless there is an enemy fleet there, you will only need on shot.
Submunitions can also work if used in large quantites and if your pass gets
you within 6 inches. After having crashed part of a task force into a planet
while moving at very high speeds, I tend to prefer to stay a fair distance
away when moving very fast. MKP's can also work. You will probably want to
mount them (and Submunitions) off center line. There's to little arc of fire
for front or aft arcs weapons at those velocities...
If one pass doesn't do it, you can always loop around and make another pass
(with beams if not on the ground of planet with an atmosphere). Ok, it will
take a while to turn around, and the fighters will get a second shot at you.
> -- or they might be based on a moon (or some other very low gravity
If the gravity is that low, then there would be no appreciable atmosphere,
so beams would also be able to engage that non-moving structure in a
raid.
> How many fighter flights can withstand their full endurance value of
We are not talking one less. For an earth type planet, 3-4 endurance
and turns would be spent to climb out. The moon would cost 1 endurance to
climbed out. But why bother. The whole point of planet based is to make beams
ineffective, and you need an appreciable atmosphere to do that. Earth and
Saturn's moon Titan certainly work. Mars is a judgement call.
> -- or they might be based on a moon (or some other very low gravity
Imre said: If the gravity is that low, then there would be no appreciable
atmosphere,
so beams would also be able to engage that non-moving structure in a
raid.
I'd assume military structures on airless bodies would be sub-surface,
so it shouldn't necessarily be all that exposed. However, for most planets, by
the time they get started on lunar installations, they ought to be able
to buy/build defenses--my main concern was the frontier planets whose
only substantial defense would be their atmosphere plus some light ground
forces
> Some good ideas thus far--any more?
By operational game are you just trying to model a large conflict or do you
want to include elements which can happen behind the line? Pirates,
revolts, politics (civilian lawmakers screwing up the works -- holding
the admiral back from total victory?), etc...
A supply system, if it hasn't been discussed, is a sure-fire way to
keep ammunition based forces from straying too far from home. Consumables will
keep a frenchy fleet from straying too far away from their tenders -
each fleet will need a number of civilian class ships carrying food, medical
supplies, spare fighters, missle reloads, etc. If that ship should get popped
during an extended mission from space then that fleet will quickly be in a
world of hurt. Even beam dominated fleets would require mass amounts of
consumables.
Unless you say "each ship has enough food/water to last a lifetime."
:)
Damo
> Standard maintenance & logistics problems:
This could be dealt with coarse-grained by assigning "% available" for
a given fleet/force that is dependent on the distance from the nearest
secure supply station. Say a cruiser group is 80% available in "home territory
(so you'd need to assign 5 ships if you regularly want 4 available), 60%
available just across the border of disputed space (need 6 or 7 ships assigned
to have 4 available), and 50% or below for a deep, sustained incursion.%
available would increase or decrease as the status of the nearest planets
changed (another mechanic to figure
out).
> civil unrest, morale issues etc.
Random assignment, or something you "pay to maintain or reap the
consequences"?
> The cost of FTL ships might be a lot higher than that of System
Can't be too lopsided, or there will be no way to mount an effective attack.
This balance point would be absolutely critical. Lots of people will be
looking for the "perfect distribution" and what we would want is as large a
spectrum as possible of equally viable options.
> Anything else?
FTL mechanics limitations (pick one or more):
- Fixed jump points make for defendable/assaultable bottlenecks.
- Fixed but randomly active jump points will cut off some systems from
some directions part of the time, requiring forces to maintain some
larger-than minimum presence on border territories. For example, Border
system A has 2 Jump Nexi - one heads into Empire 1, the other into the
outermost system of Empire 2. Jump Nexus passability is a random factor in
this system (every nexus has a different rule, some are regular as pulsars,
some entirely random with different average rates), and it is not impossible
for the Empire1 nexus to be closed for weeks at a time while the Empire 2
nexus is open for a few of those days.
- Jump emergence broadcasts an FTL signal that can be quickly locked on
and intercepted, _and_ Jump sickness is debilitating on the scale of
many hours - say 10% of a force is capable of fighting for every 2
hours - or each ship in a force has a 1% cumulative chance of
activation every turn after emergence. An intercepting force 2x the size of an
inbound attacker could still meet with even power since they'd have fewer able
ships after a given elapsed time, plus the entire encounter would take both
attacking and defending fleets out of other equations for a few days.
Noam said:
> This could be dealt with coarse-grained by assigning "% available" for
In a longer term campaign game, that's a possibility, but in an
ops-level
game, the attacker would try to arrange his maintenance cycles so he could
surge everything for the op. Therefore increased maintenance expense (which
takes place all the time) would be a better way to model it, rather than
decreased availability
> "Your political leadership requires that the planet Voteria not be
Noam said:
> Random assignment, or something you "pay to maintain or reap the
I'd be inclined just to charge for the number of routes. If someone really
wants to get into the commerce raiding aspect, then you might need to specify
ships.
> Anything else?
Noam said:
> FTL mechanics limitations (pick one or more):
That's pretty much a given
> - Jump emergence broadcasts an FTL signal that can be quickly locked on
and intercepted, _and_ Jump sickness is debilitating on the scale of
many hours
Lengthy jump sickness kills merchant shipping--it vastly increases
shipping expense. And it increases the likelihood of piracy, IMHO.
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
this result in Derek's campaign by having
> realistic build times (a
That's an excellent idea.
> "Your political leadership requires that the planet Voteria not be
I had that as part of my point scheme; you didn't get the points until you had
an unchallenged military force in orbit for at least one turn for
possession to change. I think my PS(ocio-economic)B was that the
planet/colony/ corporate outpost/whatever would cooperate, but it took
time to change administration structures, 'the code'.
Actually, in the Four Corners system, except for the hardened naval bases in
the asteroid ring, all static assets were owned by multinationals, and the
guilty secret is that NO power, major or not, is willing to piss them off by
attempting scorched earth.
So even a forlorn hope would deprive an enemy points for that turn.
The_Beast
> --- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> This could be dealt with coarse-grained by assigning
The proximity to planets or stations with sufficient facilities to service the
fleet should be the determining factor, not just an arbitrary "In friendly
space/unfriendly space." That way even long range
defensive patrols have to think about such issues. It just seems more
realistic to me. It would also require both sides to spend points on planetary
facilities. Really starting to sound like a long-term
campaign setting, and I like that. :-)
> >> civil unrest, morale issues etc.
I'd say a bit of both.
I think you need to define some things before you get too far into this.
Are you shooting for a strategic campaign, or a tactical operation?
The time frame for each is dramatically different. As an example, a WWII
operational game could be Utah Beach in Normandy, with the ensuing Contentin
pennisula battles (Carentan, Carteret, Cherbourg, etc) while a WWII strategic
game would cover an entire Theater of Operation, or perhaps
the world. The time frame for the Contentin would be 3-6 weeks, where a
strategic game would cover 1-2 years.
A true FT operational game would probably encompass the battle for a solar
system, or perhaps a cluster of solar systems. A FT strategic game would
encompass the battle between whole star nations.
Assuming you want a true operational game, I would make each operational turn
a day, or perhaps half a day. Reinforcements would be strictly defined by the
GM as to composition and arrival time. Once they're in the AO, then they would
be under the command of the player. Likewise supplies would be delivered to
the AO in set amount, possibly affected by the success of the forces (ie they
overrun a supply base and transfer some of their opponents supplies to their
own stockpile). Bonuses could be given to a task force if the CO hordes his
supplies and ups the TF's supply level for a turn.
Ship repair would be strictly limited to field only repairs. Crew replacements
could be delivered as "supplies".
With the short turns you would have travel delays that would make scout ships
important. Plus you could have situations where a reinforcing task force would
arrive during a battle.
Remember, in an actual conflict sides are NEVER equal, so if you try to
generate "even" battles through a higher level game, you'll probably be
disappointed. The ultimate victory generally goes to he who uses what he has
most wisely, not who fights "fair".
JMO, it's probably worth what you paid for it.
Bill
> "Laserlight"
> <laserlight@quixnet.n>et> To:
<gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent by: cc:
> owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.B> Subject: [FT]
> 01/29/2003 05:16 PM
> Please respond to gzg-l
> [quoted text omitted]
> One of the problems with an operational game is how you divide your
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:44:59AM -0600, bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
> A true FT operational game would probably encompass the battle for a
I've been hashing this over from time to time with Laserlight, and we've got a
terminology that seems to work:
Tactical (FT)
Grand-tactical (multiple games of FT, possible mutual influence)
System (the battle for a single solar system)
Operational (e.g. The Lafayette Incident)
Strategic (new ship construction and politics become important)
***
I've been hashing this over from time to time with Laserlight, and we've got a
terminology that seems to work:
Tactical (FT)
Grand-tactical (multiple games of FT, possible mutual influence)
System (the battle for a single solar system)
Operational (e.g. The Lafayette Incident)
Strategic (new ship construction and politics become important)
***
Ok, that's the last comment on the Four Corners campaign I'll make under
this thread. ;->=
The_Beast
> I think my PS(ocio-economic)B was that the
On an operational level, I wouldn't think you'd get any *production* points at
all, as your systems and their systems are probably not compatible
(except for civil wars) within the time frame of the game. You'd get
vicory points,although not perhaps until you'd held it for a while longer than
one turn
> Are you shooting for a strategic campaign, or a tactical operation?
"Operational level", between "strategic" and "tactical"
> A true FT operational game would probably encompass the battle for a
Kind of depends on how many planets you have there--eg the Unofficial
GZGverse has a lot of "Three Star Empires". FWIW, an analogy would be the
Guadalcanal Campaign, or Hughes v Suffren in the Indian Ocean campaign.
> Assuming you want a true operational game, I would make each
That's a bit short for what I have in mind--I'd call that "grand
tactical", I think.
> Remember, in an actual conflict sides are NEVER equal, so if you try to
Well, yes and no. If I have a 10K fleet on one side and 1K on the other,
there's no point in setting up the table. Thus, in order to have a more
interesting tactical battle, the question is "what factors would cause an
admiral to be unable to apply his full strength to a battle?" It could be as
simple as having more ships than he can effectively control, but how do you
implement that? The battle need not be even odds, but I want to have a
mechanism that makes larger fleets more unwieldy
> I'd assume military structures on airless bodies would be sub-surface,
That could make them too cost effective. I suppose sub-surface
installations could be "dug in" by allowing them to have cheaper shell armour.
The way to do this would be to use the Phalon armour rules (to proved descent
protection from armour piercing weapons), but the armour does NOT require hull
space. It is on top of the instillation underneath of it. This will reduce the
actual cost by one per mass of armour compared to space stations. It would be
even more when compared to ships.
For example, an instillation of any size could have the armour shells of a
Voth class Great Warrior for 144 points. While a space station would pay
144 + 40 (for hull space) = 184 points for the same armour. Note that a
Voth Class Great Warrior pays 144 points for this armour, plus 40 points for
the hull space to mount it on, plus 10 points for the hull space of Vapor
Shroud, FLT Drive, and Main Drive to move it, plus 22 points for all of those
systems (to move and protect that 40 mass of armour, not the whole
ship). Which means that armour actually costs the Phalon SDN 144 + 40 +
10
+ 22 = 216 points.
This means the total cost for armour (by layer)for an underground base would
pay 2/4/6/8 for armour, a space station 3/5/7/9 for armour, and the SDN
example 3.8/5.8/7.8/9.8. Note that the higher the trust rating of the
ship, the higher the cost for armor.
However I still suspect that Salvo Missiles raid would take out the
structure... I suppose the main underground base could be surrounded by a lot
of very small decoy bases to draw off most of the missiles. Say a mass one
base with one PDAF and one armour on top of it for a total of 6 point per
decoy. A space base version would be mass two, costing 7 points per decoy
base. This means that for 63 points you could have 9 space decoy bases and
only 10% of the Salvo Missile launched would attack the main base in the first
volley. Note that they won't do anything to protect the main base from direct
fire weapons (beams, torps, railguns, submunitions, MKP's, fighters, etc.).
An idea to fix the fighter problem is to change sequence of play. Defensive
Point Defense Fire (works just like Point Defence Fire step) Missile and
Figher Attacks (works just like the original)
Offensive Point Defense Fire (New Step - all point defenses that are
within 6 inches of a fighter group and did NOT fire in the Defensive Point
Defense Fire step may now engage enemy fighters with standard attack roles,
ships
with ADFC can engage fighers out to 12 inches - why you wouldn't have
already have fired those PDAF's I don't know, but the situation could
occur - you could allow fighters to burn endurance to reduce the effect
this fire, say each endurance expended gives a fighter group the equivalent
of +
1 level of shields from Offensive Point Defense Fire only, and fighter groups
that did not actaully attack enemy ships in the Missile and Fighter
Attack step get a + 1 level of shields - why they wouldn't attack, I
don't know, but yet again, the situation could occur).
All of this is just off of the top of my head. If anyone actually tries any
these ideas, I would love to read about how it went.
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 12:47:44PM -0500, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> the question is "what factors would cause an
Time limit on order-writing. Whenever a player says "my orders are
ready", everyone has to stop writing. I'm not even entirely joking.
I posed:
> the question is "what factors would cause an
Roger suggested:
> Time limit on order-writing. Whenever a player says "my orders are
Works for me. I'd been thinking "for squadrons of N ships, you may write
orders as normal; ships in excess of N must write orders 1 turn (or more) in
advance."
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >the question is "what factors would cause an
And if you're dealing with a big enough
operational/campaign game, you could combine the two
ideas:
Order phase: 1. Write orders as normal for up to N ships for this turn. 2.
Write orders for next turn for ships in excess of N BUT: 3. Any ships in
excess of N whose orders you wish to write THIS turn, and any ships whose
orders were written LAST turn but you wish to change, are written in a "RUSH
ORDER" round, which begins on signal and ends when any player declares "Ready"
> Time limit on order-writing. Whenever a player says "my orders are
This could be muddled a bit with command points, to factor both numbers and
size of ships, and designated fleet admirals with command ratings.
How'd you like to include putting ships totalling in excess of a certain
command rating( >Nsub-command-rating x X) off-board as 'reserves' to be
brought in as damaged ships disengage, so the larger squadron has advantage,
though not from the first shot?
Ok, I created a monster...
Along with poor dart throwing and lousy range estimation, I don't do well
under time constraints in a game. ;->=
The_Beast
> Are you shooting for a strategic campaign, or a tactical operation?
Ok, ala the V for Victory games from years gone by.
> A true FT operational game would probably encompass the battle for a
You'll pardon me if my knowledge of these wet navy campaigns is less than par.
My interest lays on the land with the Gropos and the treadheads.
> Assuming you want a true operational game, I would make each
I don't know how long a FT turn is PSB'ed to be, but even if it's 15
minutes a half-day turn would be 48 turns long, which is about 40 turns
longer than a normal game. Bear in mind you don't HAVE to have something
happen every turn. The V4V series games that I mentioned earlier are IMO
the best Op-level games I've ever played and their time scale was 4 hour
blocks. I think anything longer than a day is going to move the granularity up
too much and task force movements are going to feel too much on the strategic
level.
> Remember, in an actual conflict sides are NEVER equal, so if you try
Actually I disagree with this. If one side commits 10K points worth of ships
to an action, and he encounters only 1K of ships he then has to worry about
what the other 9K of missing enemy ships is doing. They could be in 4 2500
point parcels cutting off the big fleets supply line. Meanwhile the 1K could
be "sucking in" the big fleet into a running battle to attenuate the supply
line even further. It all depends on what else is happening.
Supply is the one thing I think is ABSOLUTELY essential to model in an ops
game. A force becomes combat ineffective very quickly if it's logistical tail
is cut and it's in a combat situation. Supply and logistics isn't cool and
nifty, but it's a make or break part of any actual fighting force.
If I may reference a pertinent real-world example, it doesn't matter how
"determined" Saddam's Republican Guard is, if they can't get any resupply of
fuel or ammo, they're just so many men with clubs in big metal pillboxes. A
situation I think is likely to occur sometime in the next 6 months.
Perhaps a way to model this is give ships or task forces "combat endurance"
ala fighters. Cut the supply line and their endurance is reduced dramatically.
The larger the force, the lower the combat endurance when out of supply.
If an uber-fleet has a very vulnerable logistics tail, they are going to
be very interested in protecting it.
Bill
> >> Standard maintenance & logistics problems:
A long time ago in two minds far out, a campaign was fought.
But to deal with the multitude of concepts that have preceded mine, I offer
some comments.
Fighters based on planets: The number of fighters Sq. is tied to the economic
value of the planet.
Shipbuilding: All shipbuilding and repair happens in an orbital facility and
makes use of the material shipped to the facility from throughout the system.
(Yes, not being able to find that @&$^$%# commerce raider can be a real pain
in the production cycle.)
Shipping: Shipping occures between planets in the system to move materials
(Suggest one mass shipped equals 10 ship build points}.
Shipment of materisl/crew/ect to other systems
requires a one turn move to EOS (Edge Of System), one turn between systems,
and one turn to enter
destination system/next waypoint.
Minefields: Useless concept as to maintain a stable orbit they would have to
be less than six inches from the planet thay are protectins. Not to mention
the cost of the 3D minefield for the planet.
Edge of system: Edge Of System is defined as 6 areas, arriving ships can be
detected by planet stations
to determine the exact area. Unless a ship of
some type is in the same area, the destination of the arriving ships will not
be known. Sensors play an important role in the campaign
as a ship with Enhanced sensors (E-sen) can
monitor two adjacent areas, Superior (S-sen)
can monitor three.
This just touches on the rules used, if questions come up, I'll try to find
them.
Bye for now,
> Perhaps a way to model this is give ships or task forces "combat
Schoon suggested this a few months ago, IIRC--freighters would then
carry endurance points.
I've got a semi-complete set of Operational rules/inter-related scenario
generator written up, I think I have mentioned it before. It is based
on the campaign system in DP9's Lightning Strike.
It is designed to create a series of inter-related battles for two
players. It is an attempt to make battles more Ârealistic so the players
must think of the bigger picture and of the future, so battles to the death
are rare since they severely hurt a fleets ability to fight the next battle.
They must preserve ships for later battles, repair damaged ships, and
re-supply
any missiles and fighters used or destroyed.
In this game, you are an Admiral who has to control his sector of space with
the resources available. There is no map of star systems that need to be taken
and defended. That is all in the background and is assumed to be
happening. These rules only deal with defining the inter-related
battles, playing those battles, and then preparing for the next one.
Players get a starting amount of points for ships, but must also use that pool
to 'buy' freighters to hold supplies and Fleet Auxilaries and Repair Docks to
fix ships.
Here is what happens in a turn:
Turn Phases 1. Deployment Phase 1.1 Assign ships to Reserve Fleet or Strike
Fleet 1.2 Choose Fleet Orders 1.3 Tactical Advantage Roll 2. Battle Phase 2.1
Determine the battle and the terrain 2.2 Play the indicated scenario 2.3
Salvage
3. Repair/ Re-supply Phase
3.1 Re-supply
3.2 Repair Ships in the Reserve Fleet 3.3 Severely damaged systems 3.4
Allocate maintenance costs 3.5 Reinforcements
I haven't had a chance to look at this for month's let alone play it. Some of
you have seen it and this version (1.4) is pretty complete compared to what
you might have seen.
Please let me know if you are interested in hearing more or seeing what I have
(91K Word Document).
Okay, thus far we have these assumptions: 1. This is limited war, so we don't
have to deal with major planetary
bombardment/asteroid strikes / nukes / biowar etc.
2. Normal starships are not effective against planetary surfaces; this means
that capturing planets must be done by ground troops, possibly with support
from specialized ortillery ships.
So there can be strikes against orbital facilities, but no conquest unless the
invader sticks around for a while. This makes it possible for the native to
mass his own fleet to respond. In addition, we have lines of supply for the
invasion (and for the natives) so both sides can have a hand at commerce
raiding.
Should we have various "Blockade" states? eg a. Assault Orbit: ortillery can
make attacks on the surface; surface weapons emplacements can engage ships. b.
Close Blockade: outside direct fire range of surface installations; within
range of orbital defenses and fighters; high probability of
intercepting freighters/smuggler
c. Far Blockade: outside range of orbital defense installations but within
range of fighters; moderate chance of intercepting convoys. d. Raiding:
Outside the range of all planetary defenses including fighters; small chance
of intercepting shipments. e. Lurking: attempting to avoid contact with any
enemy ships whether armed or not, but capable of reconnaisance g. Hidden: no
contact including recon.
We could then have a roll for each force with DRMs for posture, thrust,
sensors, and admiral quality; whoever wins the roll has the choice of making
contact.
So far this looks "do-able" and I think it has merit.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:03:03 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> Okay, thus far we have these assumptions:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:03:03PM -0500, Laserlight wrote:
I've written up some rules I quite like for this:
From: "Glenn M Wilson" <triphibious@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [FT] Operational game
> So far this looks "do-able" and I think it has merit.
Likewise.
I like this...
> Okay, thus far we have these assumptions:
To be believable there should be a sound reason for this: planetary
bombardment is not a light-and-heavy issue but includes all stages in
between. Even asteroid strikes can range from the Ortillery-like to
targetted infrastructure damage and upwards.
> 2. Normal starships are not effective against planetary surfaces;
Couldn't agree more.
> Should we have various "Blockade" states? eg (a-f)
Very reasonable states. Would not a larger fleet be able to have higher
chances for interceptions and (even in the vastness of system space) find it
more difficult to "hide" (the infamous "drive signatures", etc)?
Have fun,
Moi:
> Okay, thus far we have these assumptions:
TimB:
> To be believable there should be a sound reason for this: planetary
Is why I said "major". I assume that if you use strategic-level
weapons, the UN and everyone else is likely to be irritated with you. I also
assume that "limited war" means no one is trying to destroy national capitals,
etc
TimB
> Very reasonable [blockade] states. Would not a larger fleet be able to
Larger fleets could opt to stay together or split into squadrons. If the
latter, they will have a higher chance to intercept (ie more rolls). OTOH if
you have squadrons all over, it's more likely that someone will able to
generate his own intercept course for you...
***
Is why I said "major". I assume that if you use strategic-level
weapons, the UN and everyone else is likely to be irritated with you. I also
assume that "limited war" means no one is trying to destroy national capitals,
etc
***
*I* knew what you meant. My liberal-tainted reality took it even
further:
if a fleet commander/ship's captain took it upon him/herself to break
these
restraints, any other power would be hard pressed to sanction her/him,
as
his/her own fleet would be hounds on the hunt. I'm envisioning a version
of The Hunt for Red October.
This brought to my imagination several interesting scenerios, both for play
and for story making, but never got further.
Please note a couple of codicles: what you do to your own colonies tends to go
by a different judgement, if judged at all, and there's a decidedly sliding
scale: no military actions at all in the sol system, rigid
rules-of-engagement in the inner colonies, and much looser rules in the
far
outposts, though non-military assets still tend to get a free ride.
On the frontier, life is tough enough as it is. Nobody gets anything done if
each are constantly 'p*ssing in each other's corn flakes'.
The IMVHO optimistic growth curves observed seem to support a long period of
such restraint.
Until the time of FB2, of course...
The_Beast
**>[TB: Suggesting justification for limited orbit-ground bombardent]
*>[laserlight]Is why I said "major". I assume that if you use
strategic-level weapons,
*> the UN and everyone else is likely to be irritated with you. I also assume
*> that "limited war" means no one is trying to destroy national capitals, etc
> [devans] *I* knew what you meant[...]there's a decidedly sliding
I think this is excellent: it enables a definition of the level of
anti-planet force
which can be used in an operational game. "Major" is a flexible
definition: rock-
throwing or heavy-weight/en-masse (no puns intended) orbital weapons can
be
used as a _scalable_ threat from very limited tactical right up to
strategic (beyond the standard ortillery rules) without going as far as
destroying cities
- even DS2
points out the flexibilities of Orbital weapons. It's not an either-or:
the flexibility and threat of Orbital Superiority probably needs to be taken
into account (whilst accepting the limits we've seen on Air Superiority). It
may be too complicated, of course, to treat it flexibly.
It means that if a fleet has a successful blockade __and had the
specialised
ships__ then they would normally be able to destroy most, if not all,
ground-
orbit defenses before having to go in and take the "untouchable" areas "by
hand", so to speak.
Of course, the alternative is if they didn't have the specialised assault
ships or the
RoE prevented effective attacks on land-based military installations,
especially those based in the heart of major residential areas, then fine
(::shrug::), they'd have no choice. Players choice, I guess, whether or not to
include assault ships in their fleet. It's just how stringent the limits are
to be and why.
Have fun - I'm looking forward to the operational game.
Ok, rather than limit the "Close Blockade"-thru-"Hidden" spectrum to
the planet, let's make it applicable to each node in the system--eg
jump points, major centers of asteroid industry, etc. as well as the
planet(s). So you might post a squadron in Close Blockade at the jump point,
or you might just post a recon corvette at Distant Raiding from the point so
you'll see what comes through.
(Although if you use a Nightvision class--MD13--you don't really have
to worry about anyone other than SV catching you).
(Side comment: what ship can go from velocity N --call it 200
mu/turn--to a dead stop in one turn? Any SV ship that can hit Thrust
12--it makes a 12 point turn, so in this case it turns 180 degrees,
moves 100", turns back 180 degrees and moves to its original heading and
position.)
You could use the DRMs and results to give a table set up result, eg Close
Blockade actions might start at fairly slow speeds whereas Distant Raiders
actions would start out faster. Someone elaborate
from there--I'll be offline until Sunday.
> On January 30th, Imre Szabo wrote:
> If one pass doesn't do it, you can always loop around and make another
Um. I've seen you mention this "beams can't hit ground targets through an
atmosphere" idea several times now - it's just that according to the
More
Thrust space-to-ground rules, beams CAN hit ground targets regardless of
whether or not there's an atmosphere present...
Full Thrust =|= StarFire, like :-/
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Yeah, this is a spot where Imre's using the Starfire limits where they
The only thing I used StarFire for is to define the types of planets. It has
niffty starsytem genorator. I could have used the star system genator from
Master of Orion II, but I consider the StarFire one better.
> Um. I've seen you mention this "beams can't hit ground targets through
I know, and I still have people saying that beams are useless in any
atmosphere...
> Full Thrust =|= StarFire, like :-/
I just used StarFire for types of planets.
> From: "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
I would think a significant atmosphere should be quite good at
attenuating and scattering the damage of a non-specialized beam.
Delivering significant power to the earth's surface from medium to high orbit
would be tough.
> K-guns probably would be of similarly shattering effectiveness...
K-gun projectiles, unless they are made of something pretty phenomenal,
would burn up very quickly in Earth's (and possibly even Mars'
atmosphere. The amount of heat a fleet assault of K-guns could put into
the earth's atmosphere in this way would be trivial on the planetary
scale. _Possibly_ locally interesting.
> ... salvo missiles .... a few hundred of them would probably sear the
&
> Plasma bolts, wave guns, nova cannons, and other such weapons...
Aside from the idea that a salvo missile would have to be quite modified (from
its ship to ship capacity) to effectively deliver its payload to near the
surface of a planet, this makes FT weapons scaled to Science Fantasy levels,
and is wholly unsatisfactory. If you can
show me that's not true, it then makes the presence of a non-allied
missile equipped ship anywhere on the same gaming table as a planet the
equivalent of putting a loaded Soviet Typhoon submarine in the Chesapeake Bay
at the height of the cold war.
> One
I think you have to think of the Earth's atmosphere as Phalon type layered
armor that gets applied to fresh to every ship firing through it and gets
almost completely renewed every turn. Any given target on
the Earth (say a city block) has at _least_ 3 layers: Minimum 1 or 2
points from the upper atmosphere, 5-10 from the stratosphere, and 20-30
from the Troposphere. You have to burn through all those levels to get near
the surface, or have specialized delivery (ablative shields, entry cones,
specialized beams, etc.) to get near the surface without burning up or getting
dissipated. The only point at which things get more damaging in the atmosphere
is when you dump so much energy into it that
the atmosphere effectively gets co-opted into the weapon effect.
Whether FT weapons would effectively do that as they are currently
presented is a partially open question. Whether they _should_ be able
to do that and stay anywhere near a "hard" SF simulation - the answer
is no.
> At the very least, I would imagine that a single
The energies involved in planet cracking are comfortably more than can be
produced by a fleet of warships in anything other than science fantasy. If
nuclear winter were that easy, then most fleet battles
_should_ be in deep space, since any planet with have an ounce of self
preservation would put significant resources (in, for example, detection and
interception capabilities) in to keeping that kind of firepower well away from
the vulnerable target.
> ...The way the weapons are described, it really is
Which implies to me the descriptions need amendment.
Bizarre Lag Phenomena (Why it is sometimes hard to communicate