Last night we played a convoy attack / defense scenario with NAC on the
defense and ESU attacking. We used vector movement.
It reinforced a couple of things.
Relatively speaking, when comparing guns to thrust, I'd rather have thrust 6
in cinematic and I'd rather have thrust 4 in vector. It comes down to making
the most of small arc weapons and avoiding enemy firepower.
Limited fire arc weapons usually focus the brunt of the firepower straight
ahead. In cinematic, that means you want to point your nose at the enemy, so
you want to turn toward the enemy. Being out of position means being unable to
bring your nose to bear. In vector, 1 point of thrust turns your
nose to any heading, and if you're chasing / intercepting the enemy (as
opposed to head on engagement), it's also the direction you wish to thrust so
the 1 rotation per turn limitation is not a serious problem. In cinematic, I'd
flank and attack a low thrust target because the extra thrust let me face the
weaker broadsides. In vector, I can be perpendicular to his velocity vector,
but he'll still turn his heavy nose armament at me...
In convoy defense, I find myself revisiting the argument of whether FT is
closer to an air or naval model. In the air model, defenders detect attackers
with sufficient time to engage them beyond their maximum attack range, and
must destroy them before they reach attack range. The air model also features
primarily weapons with limited arcs that kill with a single
lock-on, so the attacker can actually be pinned or distracted by
attackers without either being destroyed. The naval model, on the other hand,
allows properly placed escorts to physically interpose themselves and support
with
counter-measures and area defence, effectively blocking or degrading the
shot at the target. Also in naval, the attacker can be threatened by flanking
forces and be distracted from the attack.
In FT, I find the convoy defender usually lacks the advantages of either of
these models and this is exaggerated in vector. Specifically, the games
usually start with the convoy and defenders close and the attackers no more
than 2 turns outside of engagement range. The attackers can usually mete out
punishment to the convoy and defenders as they choose, because there's few
ways to block or degrade shots at the freighters or civilian shipping and the
attackers usually don't have the same consideration attacking naval and air
craft have (that they are becoming more exposed by commiting to the attack).
The only way to deter the enemy from flying right at the target is
to use area effect weapons like e-mines, SMLs, and nova cannons, and in
vector this main not prevent them from using their best weapons (as explained
above).
I find myself wishing for a better model for convoy defense, like not having
the target ships on the board (like the air model) or some model for escorts
to actively protect the targets (like the naval model).
I agree. I see two ways to change this. 1) Force the attacking ships to
concentrate some firepower to the protecting/screening ships -or- 2)
Raise the withdraw threshold for the attacker.
1) Drawing Fire Awhile ago I came up with the following rules for drawing
fire: The following optional rules are designed to allow ships to draw fire
away from something that they are guarding. * Any ship that has not fired and
is hit (including hits to screen(s) or armor) must commit 1 of its fire
controls and one to attack the ship that hit it. If hit by multiple ships, it
must commit one FCS to each ship that hit it. * If all ships that attacked it
are invalid targets (not in a valid firing arc or out of range) the ship must
commit a fire control and weapon to a ship that fired on it (even if it
missed). * The weapon committed must have the ability to hit the ships that
damaged it. That is, the damaged ship may not commit a weapon that does not
point at the attackers or a weapon that does not have the range to hit the
attackers. * The attacked ship does not have to commit more fire controls than
there are valid attackers. Attacks from independent weapons (fighters,
missiles, mines, & Nova Cannon) do NOT force commitment a firecon to the ship
that launched the weapon.
2) Raised Withdraw Thresholds When an attacker makes a threshold check, that
ship must make a confidence check or withdraw.
1st Threshold: Roll 3+
2nd Threshold: Roll 5+
3rd Threshold: Roll 6
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://fly.to/fullthrust
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> n FT, I find the convoy defender usually lacks the advantages of
> Last night we played a convoy attack / defense scenario with NAC on the
[snippage]
I found this to be true as well during my first few vector games. Higher
thrust ships are at a distinct disadvantage in vector because their higher
thrust is less effective. 4 is very good because it gives 2 thruster points,
which is about the most you really need.
Above that, and you've "wasted" mass better spent on weapons, because, as Tom
so aptly pointed out, it's far easier to get you nose pointed the right
direction.
Air Power Viewport: I believe if using this viewpoint the best analogy would
be fighters (screen) protecting a raid of bombers (convoy). In this manner the
escorts must leave their charges and engage the enemy outside of the enemy's
maximum engagement range of the convoy. In my opinion this doesn't work with
the FT mentality as ships can take a pounding from the escorts and still pour
enough firepower into the convoy
to serious blow its day. The inability to get quick engage-n-kills makes
it difficult to reduce the attacker's numbers sufficiently for the defender to
win.
Naval Power Viewport: Looking at current doctrine you have a screen of ships
protecting the convoy from all threats. This screen is responsible for
localizing and
neutralizing threats - and if a weapon is launched attempting to
intercept that weapon to the best of its ability. This is very difficult to do
when the weapon connects to the target in fractions of a second. The methods
used for interception by other missiles, spoofing sensors by chaff, and
finally direct engagement by guns.
I believe what FT needs are methods used for fleet defense. Screens protect
individual ships, but there seems to be no way to extend protection
beyond your own ship (except against fighters) - which is exactly what a
escort was designed to accomplish.
Against fighters/missiles you have ADFC-PDS/C-batteries - so this is
well covered within 6". That leaves nova/wave cannons, torpedoes, and
beam
batteries. Personally, I think Nova/Wave cannons are so over the top
that I like the fact that they cannot be intercepted or really stopped. For
the torpedoes I cannot believe you cannot use the same
anti-fighter/anti-missile guns against a energy torpedo. I figure I am
just missing the rules somewhere. Therefore I will tackle what I see to be the
big problem - beam batteries. I believe that there needs to be system of
anti-beam defense.
I have given out my copy of 3G2 (3G3 is on order), so I don't have my material
on particle accelerators (beams in their universe). So, I don't
really know the speed of a beam battery - or if it delivers all of the
damage in a punch method (like a gun) or constant (like a
flame-thrower). I
will try to tackle each below.
Beams: Well, FT is meant to be fairly abstract so we only get a rough
introduction into what they classify as a beam weapon. Most of my experience
comes from Laser drillers for GE Aircraft Engines - so it is fairly
limited;
however, I will sprinkle my comments with science-fiction acceptance of
beams. If beams are like modern laser drillers then they are only effective at
their focal point - better drillers have more precise focal points.
Therefore, in order for a beam weapon to be effective it is probably
constantly adjusting its focal point to drill into the ship. In order to
reduce this weapon's effectiveness, you just have to throw off the alignment.
I imagine this can be done with a
magnetic/gravitic/reflective
device. If beams are constant streamers (like water drillers) then they are
equally devastating anywhere from the end of the barrel to the point they make
contact. However, in this case we can probably assume that the damage is
spread somewhat constantly over the time the stream is in contact with the
ship. This gives the escort time to sense the beam and partially
intercept the beam with some device - it won't stop all the damage, but
it might reduce its effectiveness.
Final Idea:
I suggest adding an Area Beam Defense System (ABDS) - similar to a
dedicate PDS+ADFC. Any ship with an active BDS can surround themselves
in a 6" radius dust cloud (acts as the dust cloud terrain for all ships firing
into or out of the cloud). This system has MASS 3 and costs 10 points. If
this is too powerful then make it this ship buy shots say MASS 1+1/2 per
shot and points 5+1 per shot (might need tweaking). Each shot lasts for
1 turn. The reason it only lasts for the turn is that the particles are moving
away from the canisters that launched them and after 1 turn they have
sufficiently moved apart that they are no longer providing an effective
defense. In any case, the ABDS is either up or down for the turn, decided turn
the orders writing phase.
Please note that I am very fresh to FT (coming from the SG game) and while I
have all three books I may be overlooking rules. I just thought that I could
add a different perceptive to the discussion.
> >I figure I am just
Yes, but there exists no way for escort vessels to provide some measure of
beam defense for their charges.
***
Yes, but there exists no way for escort vessels to provide some measure of
beam defense for their charges.
***
Needle beams? Actually, using navy analogy, the only big gun protection is to
keep the gun carriers from closing with the convoy.
I'm afraid I'm having trouble getting excited with the topic; in all the games
I've played, I've assumed that we were either interdicting a strike against
either an emplacement, against a convoy, or a scouting group returning to the
main fleet meeting opposition. Usually assumed you had to exit the other side,
usually.
The_Beast
Chip Dunning pens:
[...]
> I believe what FT needs are methods used for fleet defense. Screens
If you consider that fighters and missiles are hard-materials, vs a
torpedo which, as you say, is made of energy, I can see where
anti-fighter/missile
defenses wouldn't be able to stop a ball of energy.
> I figure I am just
Ummm...there are: screens (level-1 and level-2). These reduce the
effectiveness of beams fairly well.
And armour will stop beams and torpedos (if momentarily).
Mk
__......................................................................
...__
McCoy: "Angry, Mr Spock? Or frustrated, perhaps?"
Spock: "Such emotions are foreign to me. I am merely testing the strength of
the door."
McCoy: "For the 15th time?"
- ST:TOS, 'Bread & Circuses'
> At 02:30 PM 9/17/1999 -0500, you wrote:
Also, one thing that is overlooked when setting up a Convoy Mission scenario
in Full Thrust is the ability to "balance" the scenario by fiddling with the
victory conditions. Since most scenarios are stand alone situations as far as
logistics are concerned, the attacking player is
normally free to expend most if not all of his/her forces in order to
achieve the end result - the distruction of the convoyed ships. In a
balanced force, stand-alone scenario, this is almost impossible to
prevent.
However, most "for real" convoy raiders played in a larger context, and the
conservation of their own attack force was usually considered paramount. For
example, the Axis submarine attacks in WW2 in the Atlantic Theatre were
mostly carried out against *unescorted convoys*. They would - for the
most
part - avoid escorted convoys if at all possible.
One way to reflect this in a Full Thrust scenario is to set "acceptable
damage" limits on the attacking force as part of the victory conditions. The
attacking force would then be faced with the additional requirement of not
taking too much damage in executing their attacks, otherwise they can *lose*
the scenario even though they managed to destroy the escorted ships.
Another way to balance the scenario is to use the MT boarding rules and
require that the attacking party *capture* part of the convoy, instead of
simply blowing everything up. This makes for a very fun game.
I think that this approach is much preferable than trying to tinker with the
weaponry and shielding rules, which work really well they way they are
currently designed. Just my 2 Deutchmarks <g>.
In a message dated 9/17/99 1:50:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
> mshurtleff1@uswest.net writes:
<< >
> If you want to draw on 'established' science fiction analogies, there
Actually it is quite within the realm of possibility to use gun or missiles
to lay out a volume of (shall we say) ALGE substances - anti-laser gas
emitter - a cloud of reflective particles that would play hob with
lasers and such. If the particles are charged opposite the charge of particle
beam they would indeed divert the trajectory of the beam fire. There are ways
within reach of modern tech to do this, so I find it easy to believe that
futre tech would be able to do so as well.
> >I figure I am just
Nope, you're right, there doesn't. And actually, I think that's fine and as it
should be. If you want to draw on contemporary analogies of wet
navy-ness, there existed no way for escorts to stop inbound shelling of
gun rounds on their charges, either (I think it can be kinda sorta done now,
but I'm not all familiar with the interactive details of interception
capabilities of our Navy; most of my knowledge comes from either my brother
who is in the Navy, or from a Harpoon game I played 7 years ago, in which the
scenario was to take place in the near future...er, in 1999, actually!
the americans were shelling the Russian ships with their big-@$$ guns on
the battleships, and we were using our SAMs to try and deflect the paths
of the shells - but this is getting a little escoteric and drifting off
topic:).
If you want to draw on 'established' science fiction analogies, there has been
no demonstration (short of physically interposing ships) of a capability to
stop beam fire (be it lasers, blasters, phasers, etc) from one ship to
another. So, I'm happy with the beam rules as they stand.:)
Mk
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day guys,
Interested to note Laserlight's voice is missing from this discussion -
hope he's not in traction or something equally as dire;)
The reason being that we play tested a Kra'Vak "getting" Hu'Man convoy
scenario for him and it worked quite well. He had a time limit and
specific victory consitions/ objectives along the lines of Humans get
cargo out in one piece, KraVak kill warships and collect the cargo (cargo was
HIGH value). We tried it under a couple of different set-ups (one where
Kra'Vak started at a course perpendicular to the humans and one where they
were chasing them) and it worked quite well both times. The escort vessels
were a DD and CL if I remember correctly and admittedly they only slowed the
Kra'Vak down a little, but it was enough the majority of the cargo vessels
escaped each time. So maybe explicit victory conditions and a time
limit (x turns until FTL has cycled enough to power-up and let you get
away) is the key.
Cheers
Beth
> "On the other hand, you have different fingers." wrote:
Actually, here's an idea. (I haven't been following the thread too closely, so
this might have been already mentioned, but...)
We'll steal something from Traveller. (I think it's from Traveller)
SANDCASTER A ship with a sandcaster can create a 'barrier' between an enemy
ship, and a target ship. This barrier consists of very fine crystals (known as
'sand') which interferes with a broad part of the EM spectrum.
It can be mounted two ways; sand can be dumped overboard, creating a
trail behind the ship, or it can be fired by large, low-powered
launchers, creating sand 'clouds'. 'Sand' is placed in the movement phase of
the turn, after writing orders, but before movement.
Sand is laid in 9" long, 3" wide bands if dumped overboard, and explodes into
a 3" diameter circle upto 12" away from the ship when launched.
'Sand' does not impede ship movement in anyway. 'Sand' will disperse slowly,
becoming ineffective after three turns.
Sand interferes with all direct fire weapons. Treat the target as one range
band further away then it actually is. If 'sand' is located between a
detonating SML and a target ship, the die roll for attacking missiles is
reduced by one.
Somebody else can figure out the MASS and mechanics of the lauchers;
I have to get back to work here. (8-)
J.
Beth said
> Interested to note Laserlight's voice is missing from this
Hurricane Floyd, actually, my phone lines have been dead for a week (still not
completely fixed) and my local server also appears to have been flooded. No
other damage, though,
except for one tree--damage for me personally that is, I'm
glad I'm not two counties to the west, rivers there are 20 feet above flood
stage and still haven't crested. And more rain coming. If I don't reply for a
few more days, it's because my phone drowned again.
> The reason being that we play tested a Kra'Vak "getting"
Hu'Man convoy
> scenario for him and it worked quite well. He had a time
Thanks, I'll put that on the web page some time when I'm not connect at
2000bps
I fully sympathize with you. We are currently being visited by super typhoon
Bart here in Okinawa. Not to bad yet but the winds will get to
140MPH+ by tonight. Needless to say I suddenly have some free time to
work on the FMA system. Trying to compile all the previous stuff into a
manegable format.
That Chuk Guy
> Beth said