Hey All,
I'm toying around with hacking together a version of FT for use with Modern
Naval gaming. Has anyone done anything along these lines?
The trouble, as I see it, is to come up with a model for the BILLIONS of
various radars and sonars used by naval forces today. I want to keep things
cinematic but I also want to capture detection of opposing forces.
I've thought about using an opposed roll. Once detected the vessel stays
detected throughout the game.
OR there is the option of just BAGGING IT. Assume detection and game on.
Damo
Having worked just a bit in the area of naval sensors, I can't imagine trying
to simulate them for gaming purposes. Sorry, but I say define a sensor range
and game on.
> -----Original Message-----
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lEveryone jumps from
FT to Naval. Wouldn't DS be a better base? It doesn't take that much modern
ordnance to get a mission kill on a ship.
Roger
> On 8/16/06, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the cinematic movement is pretty ship-like over limited ranges;
could you bash DS gunnery and FT movement?
Also, I wondered if, aside from subs, electronics was more about targeting
than detection currently? Does ship size matter as much as I assume it does
for detection, and lock on? Back to 'ship classes'?
The_Beast
Roger wrote on 08/16/2006 09:12:03 AM:
> Everyone jumps from FT to Naval. Wouldn't DS be a better
Sorry, folks, for contradicting myself, but this has sort of started a
conceptual itch.
Aside from the occasional suicide small craft, do the ranges suggested for
most 'modern' battles negate the fiddly maneuvering FT2 would model? DS2 might
just do the job then. Not that I'm anyone to speak to that.
Using FT2 would sort of bring the thing back full circle, though. Jon has
admitted that Ariel's SeaStrike was an inspiration for the ship displays.
The_Beast
Roger on 08/16/2006 09:12:03 AM:
> Everyone jumps from FT to Naval. Wouldn't DS be a better
Perhaps I'm buried too deeply in a small niche of the RL subject, but modern
naval seems to be about:
i) detecting the presence and identity of the enemy ship as early as possible
ii) detecting his actual intent to launch or the launch as soon as possible
iii) detect the incoming weapons with maximum 'time to go' (as early as
possible)
iv) responding with the best mix of anti-weapon weapons (CIWS,
anti-missile missiles) and countermeasures (jamming, chaff) to eliminate
the incoming weapon
As a subset of iv), you want to position yourself to be less visible to radar
but still bring your jammers and weapons to bear and move away from the path
your chaff seduces the missile to.
Oh, and guiding your anti-missile missile to the incoming weapon using
your radar may make you more attractive to the incoming weapon's
radar...
Note that little or none of this seems to talk about positioning yourself to
hit the enemy with ballistic weapons and shells or vice versa, which is a
great deal of what I think space navy battles and 20th century navy battles
were about.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 8/16/06, Roger
> Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps because stock FT is so close to a WW2 naval wargame? I guess the
concept I'm looking for would be a cinematic version of modern naval
wargaming -- not the realistic kind where one good missle hit will MK a
ship.
For that FT would work well I think. Then again DS would also work by
modeling ships as multi-segment vehicles...
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 8/16/06,
> McCarthy, Tom (xwave) <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com> wrote:
So give surface search radars a range based on the horizon and air search
radars a much bigger value? That'd do the trick methinks.
Sonars would have a shorter range (right?) but I'd give them a CZ or three to
play with as well.
Damo
> For that FT would work well I think. Then again DS would also
Use DS (or SG2), say "weapon" hits destroy a turret and "suspension"
hits reduce movement and / or damage steering.
> On 8/16/06, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Aside from the occasional suicide small craft, do the ranges suggested
DS2
> might just do the job then. Not that I'm anyone to speak to that.
Fiddly maneuvering has it's place in modern naval battles. Though the only
real purpose of such fiddly movement would be to unmask your batteries to
shoot down incoming missles.
> On 8/16/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
hits reduce movement and / or damage steering.
> [quoted text omitted]
The DS approach would certainly work for coastal / riverine vessels
but I don't think they'd work for the blue water ships.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l"McCarthy, Tom
(xwave)" <Tom.McCarthy@xwave.com> wrote: Perhaps I'm buried too deeply in a
small niche of the RL subject, but modern naval seems to be about:
i) detecting the presence and identity of the enemy ship as early as possible
ii) detecting his actual intent to launch or the launch as soon as possible
iii) detect the incoming weapons with maximum 'time to go' (as early as
possible)
iv) responding with the best mix of anti-weapon weapons (CIWS,
anti-missile missiles) and countermeasures (jamming, chaff) to eliminate
the incoming weapon
As a subset of iv), you want to position yourself to be less visible to radar
but still bring your jammers and weapons to bear and move away from the path
your chaff seduces the missile to.
Oh, and guiding your anti-missile missile to the incoming weapon using
your radar may make you more attractive to the incoming weapon's
radar...
Note that little or none of this seems to talk about positioning yourself to
hit the enemy with ballistic weapons and shells or vice versa, which is a
great deal of what I think space navy battles and 20th century navy battles
were about.
"McCarthy, Tom (xwave)" said:...
> but modern naval seems to be about: <snip: missiles>
Might be a more realistic model, though. I'd like to see a FT background more
like the Traveller one in which missiles are the primaary long distance weapon
and beams are only for close range work.
> Ken Hall wrote:
--->8---
Good summary snipped
--->8---
But that's one-on-one. It gets more complex when you're dealing with
tactical situations a bit more complex than a Mano a Mano Gunfight.
Things like protection of Vital Area Centre, the great Intelligence game
where you keep some capabilities in reserve, the co-ordination of
assets, how optimising for an air threat makes you vulnerable to subs