Small Ships--Why?

> To the Wise and Venerable list,

<SNIP>

> They seem to get smoked well before any beam weapons they are armed

<SNIP>

I think that you have your answer right there...

In a one-off game, there is little reason to do so unless you have some
fantastic tactical plan based around it.

In a campaign game with economic rules however... (see the last thread on
campaigns)

To the Wise and Venerable list,

I apologize in advance for bringing up a topic I am certain must have been
discussed many times on this group. I have had little success locating
references in the archive so I will beg your indulgence here.

My group has been having discussions as of late regarding the usefulness of
smaller vessels (10 to 50 mass). So far, we have found only a couple of

uses for them. As a note, we play cinematic rules.

1. Screen larger ships by taking SM hits for them.
2. Load them with expendable/single shot weapons (ie SM), fire it and
bug out.

Both of these functions can be served in other (possibly more efficient ways
(i.e. installing more PDS on the big ships or bigger magazines)

They seem to get smoked well before any beam weapons they are armed with

fire. Their increased manuverability seems to have little impact on increasing
their survivability. It may simply be a function of my play group's lack of
experience but larger ships seem to be the way to go. In a
design-your-own environment or in the Fleet Book fleets, would small
ships
have a role in your fleet in one-off games?

I often see "house" rules requiring some proportion of smaller ships to
larger. To me, this is validation of my perceptions about their usefulness (or
lack there of).

When addressing ths problem, I find myself thinking about ocean navies. Why
can't carriers be armed to operate without escorts? Perhaps in the answer to
this question, an answer an be found to the game question.

If there is a problem with smaller ships, is there any simple solution that
wouldn't break the play balance?

When I think about what would encourage me to take small ships, I imagine a
weapon that could conceivably destroy any size ship with one (lucky) shot. In
a universe where a weapon like this existed, I would hesitate to stack so many
of my eggs in one basket.

I have considered allowing ships to sacrifice 2 thrust per turn in exchange
for some penalty for other ships to hit them. I am not saying this is wise,
just a thought.

Any imput from this group on my real or imagined difficulty would be greatly
appreciated.

Kindest Personal Regards,

> "David Rodemaker" <dar@horusinc.com> <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu> RE:
Small Ships--Why?Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:00:24 -0500
> Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu

I agree.  In a one-off there's no reason.  Real fleets work because they
have layers and because radar is generally limited by the curve of the earth
and other such things. By stringing your ships out you can extend your sensor
range.

Having smaller, faster ships also allows you to react to new situations more
effectively. In a situation where you have an unidentified contact, are you
going to want to commit a large vessel or maybe check it out with lighter
craft who can move to make contact and then get away to tell the tale or be no
great loss when they die.

In short, small ships are only useful in the real world or in attempts to
simulate similar situations.

Eli

<de-lurk, de-work>

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Eli Arndt wrote:
Small Ships--Why?Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:00:24 -0500
> >Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
[snip!]
> In short, small ships are only useful in the real world or in attempts

I have to take object with "only" clause. The last time this thread
came up I noted I had recently been in a battle with Noam (an NAC-NI
Exercise). Due to our speeds and Noam's NI designs, the NAC had a very
difficult time of it. However, after Noam killed most of my escorts, he
ignored the remaining (granted, very damaged) ones in favor of drilling my
larger ships. This allowed at least one frigate to get guns back online and
maneuver to a position where it was able to skewer a couple of Noam's ships
(one of the few major Teske Field experiences I've had:), waking him up to the
frigate's existence and pulling fire away from the larger ships. I don't
recall if the frigate ultimately died or limped away with a box or two
remaining, but it did its job by drawing fire onto itself (and at the same
time, damaged the opposing side).

If you ask a sailor on a real escort, they'll tell you (well, the ones I spoke
with, anyway; my brother serves on a frigate, currently the Halyburton) that
their entire main purpose in life is to draw fire away from the larger ships.
So that's how I play 'em: draw fire from the larger ships, and if they get
into weapons range, damage what they can before they're smacked aside.

An alternative tactic to use, if you don't want to lose the escorts early, is
to have them TRAIL the larger ships, not lead them into battle. This way they
can't be picked off early. Then when in range, dash to the front and start
hitting things. Now your opponent has multiple targets to deal with, and some
decisions to make (continue targetting the larger ships, or start focusing on
the small fry?).

Mk

> From: "Galen Thies" <fldmrshl@hotmail.com>

<SNIP>

> They seem to get smoked well before any beam weapons they are armed
In a
> design-your-own environment or in the Fleet Book fleets, would small

I added a house rule that extends the lifespan of "high-thrust" ships.

  Thrust 6-7 ships are more difficult to hit.
  Attacker receives a -1 penalty to die roll.

Thrust 8 ships are really difficult to hit.
  Attacker receives a -2 penalty to die roll.

Note: A roll of a 6 ALWAYS hits.

I've been playing with this house rule for years and it seems to do the trick.

Pete

I did a couple of test games with something similar.

Cinematic if you make at least a 2 point turn (includes sideslips) and
increases/decreases thrust by 4, the ship counts as 1 range band further
away. For weapons with 1 range band, treat the weapon as if it had only
1/2
normal range.

Vector: If 4 or more thrust is applied 2 or more points off the momentum line,
the ship is treated as 1 range band further away. For weapons with 1
range band, treat the weapon as if they had only 1/2 normal range.

It worked OK, but there needs to be a simpler solution.

We also tried allowing "evasive maneuvers". Evasive maneuvers cost 4 movement
points. Ships performing evasive maneuvers were considered 1 range band
further away. This worked well as the fast ships had to choose whether to do
real maneuvers or evasive. But did end up with the weird situation where
Thrust 4 ships were accelerating faster than Thrust 6 ships (due to evasive
maneuvering). We tried it with only a cost of 2 or 3 movement points, but then
every ship did it and so it was a wash. At 4 movement points a thrust 4 ship
could use it but, it makes your ship easier prey for fighters and salvo
missiles.

-----
Brian Bell
-----

> -----Original Message-----
In
> a

> Peter C. wrote:

> I added a house rule that extends the lifespan of "high-thrust" ships.

My Survivor fleet would love those house rules. Their slowest ships are the
dreadnoughts and bigger, at a measly thrust 6... most of the ships are
thrust-8 or -10.

FWIW, a -1 to a beam die roll gives the same effect as a level-2 screen;
-2
is equivalent to the level-3 screens in FT2. Quite impressive, really.

Regards,

I should point out that this house rule was written for FT2. Have not tried
using it in FB.

Pete:)

> From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Eli Arndt wrote:

> [quoted text omitted]

> I agree. In a one-off there's no reason. Real fleets work because

The above SOUDNS like they would already come into their own in a
one-off
with unknown contacts?

In ground-based wargames, the way to make recon troops come into their
own is hidden deployment etc. I would imagine the same applies here.

Also, with many small ships there's less chance of a freak hit knocking out
your fleet. I imagine the core systems rule ould make a fair bit of difference
here as well?

Cheers,

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> (may be forged)) by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.1/8.11.1) with

Don't forget (for FT purposes) even that wonderfully expensive Komarov can
only engage a max. of 4 targets per turn. Try a game utilizing a SDN against
an equal points fleet consisting of corvettes, frigates, or (god forbid!)
scouts, and see who comes out on top! The swarm force will lose quite a few
coming in, but once they get behind the big boy, it's usually pretty well
over. Also, smaller ships are great for finishing off cripples, etc.

Mark

> Cheers,

> To the Wise and Venerable list,

Yeah, right ;-) (turns away and laughs, and then keeps typing, and
typing. This got much longer than I first intended)

> I apologize in advance for bringing up a topic I am certain must

Check the archives for around March 27th with the topic 'Fleet Escorts'

> My group has been having discussions as of late regarding the

8< snip >8

> They seem to get smoked well before any beam weapons they are armed

Are your escorts leading your fleet into battle? This is a common tactic I
have seen that only results in their destruction. I have seen much better
results by leading with your capitals and cruisers with your escorts hanging
back. Make your opponent choose between a close ship with screens and lots of
hull or your escorts which are a range band further away. The same rolls which
would do damage to your escorts will have much less effect against a capital
ship or screened cruiser. Don't give them an easy target, make them choose
between rolling less dice at your small ships or rolling more dice at a harder
to damage target. Plus when your larger ships are in front, they now can hit
your opponents earlier instead of having to wait.

Now how to use the small ships:
- With their higher thrust level, they can move and react quickly to
where needed.
- Make a perfectly timed deadly strike against major target.
- Finish off damaged ships when you don't want to commit a major ship.
- Intercept your opponents smaller ships when they attack.
- A quick addition of a specialty ship when needed (area defense, etc).
- Overload your opponents Fire Controls, he can only fire at so many
ships a turn.
- Screen larger ships from Salvo Missiles (Banzi Jammers)

> I often see "house" rules requiring some proportion of smaller ships

One-off battles when there is no reason for the battle are not to my
taste, so the least I can do is try and force a more 'realistic' mix of ships
to be used. There are many campaign reasons for smaller ships (convoy escorts,
picket duty, power projection, quick way to increase the navy, etc) and
without these influences, an all large ship navy is possible but then what are
you simulating? I want my space battles to reflect what could happen between 2
or more spacefaring powers, not just an exercise for number crunching on what
gives the most damage potential per point of damage taken.

If you don't want these campaign type of issues forced onto your fleets, then
go ahead and play a demolition derby in space, have fun, I won't stop you. I
just disagree and think FT can be more than that. Small ships are more
valuable in a campaign than in a tactical battle, but their tactical
value can be found - you just have to look for it.

> When addressing ths problem, I find myself thinking about ocean
Perhaps in
> the answer to this question, an answer an be found to the game

As I understand WWII/Modern naval warfare, there are lots of reasons,
more flexibility for the fleet if you can swap out smaller ships instead of
refitting a larger one. If tensions increase, it is easier to add defenses via
additional escort ships than adding to the carrier. The tonnage for defensive
weapons on the carrier is better used fielding more aircraft while these
weapons are more effective on an escort. Used correctly, a fleet of ships each
specialized for their roles is more effective than a fleet of
generalized jack-of-all-trades ships.  Plus as has been said, each hit
on a escort means that it didn't hit the carrier.

Some of these are 'campaign style' issues that are irrelevant in a
one-off
battle.

> From: "Galen Thies" <fldmrshl@hotmail.com>

I'm currently creating a game universe of my own design where one side will
have (to begin with) a bunch of small ships.

They are quite valid in large battles, though -- admittedly -- more so
in FT2 than with the Fleet Book rules.

One thing small ships can do is overwhelm fire controls. If you have a massive
ship with lots of beams but only 3 fire controls, you will only be able to
fire at 3 targets, maximum. Small ships may go "pop" with this, but depending
on the designs you'll see a lot of wasted potential damage. In FT2, this was
particularly useful against massive "munchkin" ships, as small ships got a
benefit in the manoeuvring department.

> I often see "house" rules requiring some proportion of smaller ships

It's not a question of "usefulness". Or, rather, it's a question of
"usefulness" in the context of a wider game.

FT is, essentially, a naval wargame. I've always felt that naval wargames feel
"wrong" in the context of a single battle. Players tend to fight their ships
(starships or naval ships) to the bitter end, unless victory conditions or
roleplaying encourage "historical" outcomes.

In a campaign game, you'd see smaller ships being more useful. How much does a
BDN cost in resources? How long does it take to build? How many star systems
need ships to protect them, or sit there as scouts? How long does it take to
repair damage?

Losing a big ship, in a campaign, could be considered a huge deal. As such,
battles could turn more from firing on small ships to blasting the really big
ones. Battles would also end up being more cruiser versus cruiser, or
destroyer versus destroyer. Small ship battles start to appear more
frequently.

> When addressing ths problem, I find myself thinking about ocean

Okay, you are trying to compare modern navies to Full Thrust. Not a good idea.
They don't translate.

Bear in mind that modern surface ship tactics have to deal with things like
curvature of the Earth limiting radar ranges; submarines; aircraft
with a high rate of speed compared to ships; the primary anti-ship
weapon is the missile. In FT, everything on the board is visible, there are no
submarines (unless you use cloaking rules, but the Tuffleyverse doesn't use
them), and fighters are "out of whack" with the speed of starships (maximum of
24" per turn, while there is no maximum speed for starships). Missiles,
likewise, have speeds vastly different compared to starships, than today's
missiles have compared to modern capital ships.

Today, you have escorts acting -- essentially -- as a big sensor and PDS
screen for inbound missiles and fighter-armed missiles.

In other words, FT just can't be compared to modern combat.

> If there is a problem with smaller ships, is there any simple solution

I don't think there's a problem. This is just the way the game works. Small
ships go "poof" pretty easily. What's missing is the macrogame, the campaign
game.

Small ships probably shouldn't show up for big battles (except to sit on the
periphery and take out wallowing, damaged ships). This is, funny enough,
similar to the way small ships were utilized at the turn of the 20th century.

On the other hand, if you start getting into building your own ships, you may
find that your friends build nothing but huge vessels with one or two fire
controls. When they start showing up to the "bring a fleet of X points"
battles with one or two ships, that's when you hit them with a fleet of tiny
strikeboats...

> Galen Thies wrote:

> When addressing ths problem, I find myself thinking about ocean

A carrier that carries enough weapons and sensors to defend itself is a very
large and valuable ship, as weapons compete with aircraft for deck space. The
only way for a carrier to have enough room for everything is if it is expanded
in size until the deck area reserved for aircraft handling is the same as on a
current supercarrier. A carrier operating by itself does not have an ASW
screen, and is unlikely to detect a sub before it launches anti-ship
cruise missiles, and on a calm day with no wind, the carrier may not notice
the sub before the first torpedo hits; unless, it has suspended flight ops.

> If there is a problem with smaller ships, is there any simple solution

Not much that would be fair outside of a campaign. A possible solution is to
adjust the cost of larger ships down, but have a probability that they are not
able to make it for the battle (intelligence goofed, and it was determined
that they were needed somewhere else).

> When I think about what would encourage me to take small ships, I
shot.
> In a universe where a weapon like this existed, I would hesitate to

Historically, small ships are built by wet navies for a number of reasons.
They take a smaller amount of raw materials and less time to build, even if
they are more expensive on a per unit mass basis, especially important during
wartime. They can patrol a larger area than the equivalent monetary value of
battleships. Tonne per tonne, they can keep a larger number of shipyards from
closing due to lack of work (Which is why the US Navy builds carriers as
slowly as it can afford to). If you can only send one ship to scout something
unusual, small ships are easier to risk losing.

The simplest way to encourage the construction of small ships in a campaign is
to enforce the economic reality that shipyard workers are highly

Going back to my memories when I was serving on a small ship we had 5 main
missions.

Screening - Early warning for the CVBG. Either by detecting an enemy or
(hopefully not) triggering an attack by them.

Protecting - This is the unenviable task of sitting with the ECM gear
blaring
away, trying to convince the incoming missiles and/or pilots that you
are the carrier, or preferably, shooting down the incomings.

Chokepoint Blocking - A place like the Florida straits can be
effectively closed to passage by a few small ships. Its the naval equivalent
of Thermopylae. You wont survive a real push, but you will buy time and alert
the rest of your forces to their intentions.

Hunter-Killer - This was the fun one. A small ship not advertising its
presence can often get surprisingly close to an opfor BG or base. A launch of
missiles, torpedoes, etc. from a previously unknown enemy can even if actual
damage is small cause opfor sailors to be hyper alert, tiring themselves out
prior to real action. And with modern missiles, even we could mission kill a
large ship that was only slightly unlucky.

Gunfire Support - Smaller ships can come in closer to the beach, and
with their lighter guns hit opfor targets that are closer to our own front
line troops.

All of these with the exceptions of the protection mission, are probably

outside the range of a one off battle. But in a campaign game, the use of
small ships to act as tripwires along possible attack routes would allow the
heavier ships to hang back and stay more concentrated. Where those points
would be are a matter for you to work out based on the nature of the actual
"cosmos" you game in. But it would certainly be an accurate representation of
how they were used back in 1980.

John Rebori ETN2 (Discharged)
USN 1976 - 1982
ex-USS Pegasus PHM-1

G'day,

> Small ships probably shouldn't show up for big battles....

Well we don't play cinematic so this may not translate across, but I tend to
use the little guys like an ancients army might use light cav...(sorry not
much knowledge of naval stuff) to harrass around the edges. I've found
opponents tend to concentrate on big ships (especially with direct fire
weapons) and tend to ignore the little "pfft, pfft" from the DDs down...

until that one extra "pfft" gives them a threshold and knocks out all their
FC ;)

Cheers

Tomb wrote-

8) To make them effective, try replacing some of the beam armament with longer
ranged
weapons such as: MTM, SMR-ER, Beam-3, Pulse
Torpedo. I find the P-torp DD (used in
squadrons) can make a nasty suprise - take a
run in, fire about 20 mu out, turn away. You won't take that many casualties
without the enemy focusing a lot of firepower on you, and you will do him some
damage if you roll even okay. And you can keep attacking (superior to
SMR-ER in terms of longevity of threat on the
battlefield - though SMRs give good one off
punch).

That is something I`ve tried. SMR armed DD`s are useful if you have a
SML/R
capitol in company. In situations like this, the DD adds it`s missiles to the
number coming from the big boy`s, and helps you overload the PDS of the target
(I alway like, but don`t often get, more missiles on a target than it has
PDS).

10) I agree with the advice about trailing or flanking. I don't agree with the
"firebait" advice. If your escorts preceed your force, they usually are 1 RB
closer, unscreened, and can be induced to threshold with very minimal
difficulty. So very light amounts of fire render them combat inoperative. The
same fire would, if directed at larger vessels, need to be far more
concentrated (range, sheilds, long damage rows) to do anything useful. I can
kill a large number of beam 1 armed corvettes before they ever see engagement
range.... and thus I
destroy say 10-15% of your total NPV before
they can be combat effective (if I myself have opted for an all large ship
fleet). So try to get long range weapons for your small guys, park them behind
the fleet (unless using them as scouts, and once they locate the enemy, they
should be beating thrusters to get away to safety having done their job) or
off to one side, thus presenting a threat "for later use". I don't like small
ships as PDS escorts, they tend to attract fighters, SMs, MTs, and lots of
beams thus stripping the formation of PDS. I happen to be a strong proponent
of the light to medium cruiser (or larger) PDS barge (if in the kind of
environment that merits heavy PDS).

Little guys with PDS are easily killed, but if in close escort of the big
boys, they are diverting fire from the big boy`s at the same time as providing
PDS support (while they suvive). Having said that, my favorite is my
cataphract CLE (which also means that if any of my regualrs see a mass 50
cruiser in close escort of a heavy, it become the main target of the beam
weapons).

Also, a question about FB1 designs. Has anybody tried the FSE SDN (forgot the
name) with it`s fighter bays replaced with SML`s and ammo. What I`m asking is
that the extra SML`s to overload the targets PDS more useful in battle than
the fighter groups it comes with as normal?

> On 23-Jun-01 at 09:27, Bif Smith (bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:

> Also, a question about FB1 designs. Has anybody tried the FSE SDN

I can't speak for everyone, but those I have talked to tend to user fighters
and Salvo Missiles in concert. Most people tend to fear the Missiles more than
the fighters so the fighters survive. I really don't think the missiles are
more dangerous over the course of the game, but my opponents seem to think so.

So no, I keep the fighters. They are more flexible than the SMs. If my
opponent is PDS heavy the fighters attack. If my opponent uses carrier based
fleets I take interceptors.

G'day Bif,

> Also, a question about FB1 designs.

Foch.

> with it`s fighter bays replaced with SML`s and

I tried it a couple of times and found I liked the flexibility of the fighters
better. You should have a fair amount of SMs from accompanying
ships so the fact the fighters can be dual purpose is more useful - they

can swarm PDS ship(s) so they have to decide whether to save themselves of the
missile targets or the fighters can protect the FSE against incoming

threats. Then again that may be my still of play, you might find the extra SMs
more useful, especially if you're pretty sure of what you're up against.

Cheers

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:38:26 -0500 "Galen Thies" <fldmrshl@hotmail.com>
writes:
> To the Wise and Venerable list,
Ever looked at the cost of a Nimitz? Want to use one for picket, patrol,
escort of a convoy?

Ever wonder why the Battle ships were so seldom engaged in duels/battles
like occur in miniatures games? Perhaps they were too
expensive/valuable
to be risked without great need?

Watched a great amphibious campaign once (very early 1970's - home
brewed
game/research/development rules) where a player took over a minor power
when the original player quit the campaign - When he was promptly
attacked by a second tier power opponent, he ambushed the lone BB, an 'old' BC
and all the Players 4 (?) CA's in a fjord (hey it was fantasy WW2 but the
principle works) at point blank range with a single 'almost Long Lance' armed
hidden fortress (The previous player expended research
points/years for the torpedoes but did not spend the research to make
them ship borne) and multiple SP 8" howitzer batteries. It was all he had;
Great torpedoes (land launched only), reasonable CL's, a handful of mediocre
CA's, fast 4" armed DD's, "Super Howitzers", and his MBT's were Stuarts backed
up by truck carried infantry and 57mm equivalent ATG's! His replacement rate
was much better then even the larger attacker's large ship yards (building
Escort class ships took less time then Capital ships.)

The bait CA's, CL's and DD's were (all, most, some) sunk by the ambushee but
he withdrew the invasion convoy (outnumbered and marginally
outclassed) and by the time he finished/replaced his big ships (Game
years) the original ambusher had finished the previous owner's pocket
battleship, mounted the torpedoes on ships, grew to a second tier power by
adroit battle and diplomatic (with the players) skills, developed significant
manufacturing capacity, strung together an alliance of other minor powers to
screen his home country, and was cranking out pretty decent (improved) CA's in
relatively large numbers (large enough to be better then 1.5:1 with the
original attacker who put 90% of his resources into building a second set of
capital ships.)

The second invasion attempt did not need an ambush in a a fjord... And failed
equally badly, if not worse.

In Game Terms: The dreaded threshold check (even leaving out core systems from
same) with a 'cursed' die (perhaps the only time Beth rolls 6's??) syndrome.

If all you do is "xxx" points meeting engagements then the appeal to not use
small ships in a mix is understandable.

Of course their is always the scenario where the large ship being
'recovered' after a major accident/incident is attacked by 150% plus of
points worth of small ships...

Gracias,

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:28:39 -0400 (EDT) "Mark 'Indy' Kochte"
> <kochte@stsci.edu> writes:
<snip>
> An alternative tactic to use, if you don't want to lose the escorts
A friend of mine who used to do SFB when he could be coereced out of FRPG's
said his only real victory resulted from screening his smaller ships by
leading with his only big ship so it's not only a workable plan
but the problem exists in all games (we all fight the min-max syndrome).

Gracias,

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:38:26 -0500 "Galen Thies" <fldmrshl@hotmail.com>
writes:
> To the Wise and Venerable list,
<snip> Play a mini campaign where you escort multiple convoys in and out (you
don't need to play the ones without escorts - if they are attacked, they
are totally lost for VP's, if not, they are the owning side's VP's.

Oh, VP = Victory points.

> When I think about what would encourage me to take small ships, I

Needle Beams are my best theoretical answer. I have yet to field my Starguard
Nekton derivatives with their love for the NB but it's a cheap way to use Very
Small ships (scouts to corvettes) to swarm and take out
FCS/weapons so the cruisers can move in and use more 'conventional' in
human terms to chase off/destroy the opponent's ships.  I hope it works
out because I deplore the 'big ship only' school of game play. But that's just
my prejudice...

> I have considered allowing ships to sacrifice 2 thrust per turn in

There have been suggestions in that vein...

> Any imput from this group on my real or imagined difficulty would be

G'day,

> The dreaded threshold check (even leaving

If I roll a 6 it tends to be on a threshold... though I think Indy suffers
from that more than I do.

Cheers

Beth

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:

> G'day,

> Glenn Wilson wrote:

> Watched a great amphibious campaign once (very early 1970's - home

[snip]

Why does this remind me of the losses suffered by the Germans during their
amphib attack up the Oslo fjord...? <g>

Later,

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:09:52 +0200 Oerjan Ohlson
> <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> writes:
Because sometimes history gets re-created in a war game?

Gracias,