> On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Fight somewhere he has to defend - his shipyards, colonies etc....
Well, yes, it's realistic. I just think that from the gaming point of view it
has a couple of problems (especially combined with
FTL-anywhere-u-like):
a) People will optimize their fleets (or parts of their fleets) for strikes
against "fixed" targets (this is related to the obscene speeds issue).
b) It tends to eliminate the possibility for some fun scenarios, e.g.
convoy escort -- just give the slow tubs some time to get up to
speed, and they're home free.
Adding a (very) limited amount of jump points to the mix, you can get
battles around the jump point, but other than that battles _en_route_
somewhere will be incosequential skirmishes -- and frankly, not much fun
to play (place 40 ships, write orders, shoot once, disengage, pack up the
minis...)
(Not that this is any news: Battleships advocates spent the entire WWI and
WWII waiting for the decisive battleship engagement, which never really came
about. In addition, I recall reading all the naval battles of WWII took place
within 400 miles of shore. Realism and playability are not always the same
thing.)
Mikko wrote in reply to me:
> > Fight somewhere he has to defend - his shipyards, colonies etc....
The obscene speed issue is a realistic problem as well <shrug> That's why I
assume planetary sensors to have a vastly longer range than shipboard
sensors - to allow a defending force to build up an intercept vector
before the enemy hits the planet. The point is that the defenders have
problems breaking off - because if they do, the planet is going to be
hit. Hard. You don't have to fight close to the planet, but you have to
threaten it strategically - much like you pin an enemy pawn in chess by
threatening to check the king if the pawn is moved.
> b) It tends to eliminate the possibility for some fun scenarios, e.g.
No, it doesn't. The slow tubs in question is another good example of
something which has to be defended (and which cannot easily escape) -
the convoy escort commander who breaks off and leaves the freighters to be
destroyed or captured is going to have a *very* short career... OK, the
destruction of a convoy might not be all that decisive (unless the cargo was
critical), but the "pinning" strategy is the same.
> Adding a (very) limited amount of jump points to the mix, you can get
Or you have long running engagements where a longer-ranged defender
tries to whittle down the attacker. If the defenders have the sensor advantage
(...see my assumption above...), it is rather difficult for the attackers
to break off - and the defenders can't allow the attackers to reach
their targets, so they can't really break off either <shrug>
Regards,
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> The obscene speed issue is a realistic problem as well <shrug> That's
(Speaking of realism, I'm assuming vector movement here).
Have you actually done any math on this interception thing, or are you just
assuming? E.g.
I jump in somewhere. If there are no fixed jump points (or too many of them),
this could be pretty much anywhere and the likelihood of you having ships in
the immediate vicinity is neglible.
I take an intercept vector against your base/planet/whatever. That
could be pre-calculated since planets and the like move *very*
predictably.
I step on the gas pedal. If my strike fleet has thrust 8, your best chance
to catch me for a multi-turn engagement is if you start chasing right
about where I started my run -- which is a pretty remote chance at best.
Specifically, any ships you have at the target site are next to useless.
Picket ships along the system rim might have a chance if they're close enough.
Your odds improve, ofcourse, if I'm braindead enough to bring slower
ships into the strike team -- though I can't really see why I'd do that.
Let's do some calc.
Assume we get a "good" battle if you can get within 50" of me with velocity
within 20" of mine.
Assume you have a picket ship X" to the side of my fleet, at standstill. You
must allocate part of your thrust to try to match my vector, part to actually
get where I am. Ok, assume you allocate 7" to match and 1" to getting where I
am.
In essence, you'll have to close the gap of X" to within 50" before our
velocity difference gets too big, or 20 turns in this case.
s = 50 + 0.5*1*20^2
or 250" (and this leaves you with considerable now detrimental "sideways"
vector).
What's an inch? 15000km? Neptune's orbit is out at about 30 AU. The lenght of
the orbit is about 188AU or about 28071 MILLION km. Placing one ship every
250", you'd need about 7485 ships for the picket line. Ha ha haa. If you can
afford 7485 ships for a picket line, I can probably afford something similar
for the strike team. How would you like 3000:1 odds for your defensive battle?
No wait. It gets better. Space, unlike FT, is 3-d. Do you really want
to know how many ships you'd need for the picket globe?
Now consider that I could choose to jump in a couple of 1000" further away.
The number of ships rises to astronomical proportions pretty quickly with all
the combinations.
Yes, this is not a definitive study, but it sheds light on the magnitude of
the numbers involved. The ugly fact is that intercepting a boom'n'zoom attack
is next to impossible unless you have a fairly good idea of the attack vector
beforehand (as you would if the system has, say, 2 jump points). Even then,
anything with thrust under 8 is of limited usability.
Matching vector with something constantly accelerating is VERY hard. Consider
the following:
I jump in 10000" away from target. You're directly on my approach vector,
halfway out. Sounds like a good defensive position, doesn't it? I step on the
gas pedal. Now tell me, how you're going to match my vector assuming we have
identical thrust ratings (i.e. 8)?
a) Fly towards me? Well, that'll get you one pass at 7500", but you'll never
catch me after that.
b) Stay put and try to get after me after I pass. Well, it's still one pass at
speed 280" or so. Good luck catching me.
c) Fly towards my target and fight as I overtake you? Let's see what happens
with different thrust setting you use:
Thrust 8: Sorry, you pass the target before I do. Thrust 7: ditto Thrust 6:
ditto Thrust 5: ditto Thrust 4: 49 turns into the attack run, we're still 198"
apart. We'll get a bloody mess right on top of the target
Thrust 3: Pass at turn 44-45. However, your velocity is about
135" to my 360". Sayonara sucker.
Thrust 2: Essentially ditto at turn 40-41
Thurst 1: -"- at turn 39-40
(Note that this calc is *slightly* off wrt FT as I used the real formula for
distance traveled).
Morale of the story: You have to be in the right place before you can even
*think* about matching vector AND position, i.e. pretty damn close to where
the attack run is started.
(Boom'n'Zooming the attackers is easier, but that way you only get one attack
pass yourself).
> No, it doesn't. The slow tubs in question is another good example of
No it isn't, because even thrust 2 ships have a very good chance of
escaping once they've built up a respectable, hard-to-match
vector. Let's try the above example with thr2 vs. 8:
Length of the attack run is a neat 100 turns.
I'll ignore the futile options. About your best bet is to fly out as much as
you can to get a pass at standstill, then turn around for pursuit.
Turn 41 or so, pass at 8319". My velocity is 82" as you turn for pursuit. 69
turns into the attack, you catch me. Our velocities of my 138" vs. your 224"
need a bit of matching, but you have 30 turns. You brake at max, we pass again
turn 85 or so. Now it's 170" to your 80". Blah, I have to go, but as you can
see, even with quadruple thrust it's not exactly
easy...
Without sarcasm, I say to those who think a quick strike is hard or
impossible to stop - your own velocity is the weapon I use to kill
you. At the speed you'd be travelling, just as it gives the defending ships at
the planet little time to act, it gives your moving ships scant time to react.
Lets say you're moving 280" with thrust 8, I just mine (using hard to detect
mines) your path. You can't change it that much because of how feeble your
thrust is wrt your velocity vector. So you barrell through my minefield. It
could even just be
space garbage at that speed - it'd punch right through your hull. But
it wouldn't be, it'd be bomb pumped lasers or whatever mines are these days.
Your ships chance to dodge would be negigible since your speed would exceed
most projections of sensor ranges I've seen so far, so you wouldn't even see
the mines coming in time to dodge. I don't have to 'intercept you' and catch
up with you, I just have to know where you are headed and mine the space
around the planet. Then your own velocity kills you. And if you slow down,
then my pickets gang up and attack you.
As for how do I know where you are? I put sensor platforms on some likely
approach routes and they might give me a warning. If not, my minefield is set
to go off when anything without the right IFF comes through it. So you zip in,
and boom.
I'm not saying the ultra high-vee attack isn't practicable but
1. You'd need sensors that exceed your speed by an order of 2 to 10
times - otherwise you'd be foolishly risking your ships by such
velocity - and that would give warning of your arrival.
2. You'd need to be capable of sweeping or avoiding mines, which suggests a
slower approach or at least a sacrificial wave of ships to take the hit, far
outvaluing the minefields value.
Plus the political consideration that if you do it to them.... they do it to
your worlds too. Most governments have the sanity to realize what this means.
I don't think this attack is the 'be all and end all' in space combat,and I
think kamikazee captains whose speeds exceed their ability to manoevre or
their sensor ranges would get yanked by an Admiralty board so fast it would
make your head spin. This isn't
chess with little plastic pieces that have no lives - this is
manoevres with million ton battlecruisers with hundreds of crew each of whom
is expensive to recruit and train. Things one could do in the game world (if
you treat it as a game) are things that may well be eschewed by more realistic
players who realize the implications.
Tom.
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 maxxon@swob.dna.fi wrote:
<interesting analysis snipped>
> Yes, this is not a definitive study, but it sheds light on the
Agreed.
> Matching vector with something constantly accelerating is VERY hard.
True... it's also incredibly boring in game play. That's why we impose speed
limits in our games so we'd have something interesting to play. You have
brought up many good points in your analysis...
Pete
I suppose I'm just incredibly dense. The predicability of the location of
the planet/station/target seems to me to have nothing to do with the
situation. Given the rules we're playing, if a ship is moving a distance
larger than the size of the table on which we're playing, his endpoints of
movement are statistically outside the engagement area, he's missed his
opportunities of fire, he's failed in his attacks on my defense point. I've
won.
Speaking of eight thousand inches sounds like a different game to me.
The_Beast
> On 17 Aug 98 at 9:53, maxxon@swob.dna.fi wrote:
[snip]
> (Not that this is any news: Battleships advocates spent the entire
Adding to the information that you already may know:...;)
Jutland was probably the most decisive naval battle of WWI... The British lost
3 armoured cruisers, 8 destroyers, and 3 dreadnaughts, with about 6,000
killed. The Germans: 4 light cruisers, five torpedo boats, a pre dreadnaught,
and 1 dreadnaught, with about 2,500 killed
At first sight this makes it look like the German fleet were the victors.
However, it was the German fleet that disengaged and ran to port, never to try
a foray again. This is mainly due to the fact that the British fleet though
dented, still far outnumbered the Germans in ready capital ships, while the
surviving German capital ships were severely damaged and unable to put to sea
at short notice.
The battle also hilighted the foolhardyness of pitching destroyers against
capital ships with predictable results.
Signal interception and decryption/decoding was also a factor (partly
wasted) in the setting of the battle.
Working these factors into a campaign setting can give it far more flavour,
and give the commanders a (sometimes bewildering) number of factors to take
into account
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 17 Aug 98 at 11:07, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
[snip]
> No, it doesn't. The slow tubs in question is another good example of
If it was important enough to give an escort it was... important enough to
escort;)
Due to poor convoy procedure and undeveloped anti U-boat
tactics/strategies, the 'Battle of the Atlantic' put a severe strain
on the UK, and may even have broken the war effort had it not been
for the developement and refinement of those tactics/strategies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 17 Aug 98 at 16:11, maxxon@swob.dna.fi wrote:
[snip a thought provoking essay on high speed pass attacks]
It's been mentioned before... if your closing to target movement vector per
turn is much higher than your ships sensors range, then you are going to have
trouble detecting the targets. In fact, they may be somewhere completely
different to where you guessed they were, and at the crossing speed you have,
you don't have enough time to alter course to attack them.
On the flipside, lets assume that orbital early warning systems may have
detection capabilities at far greater distances (personally, I'm using light
seconds in place of MU's) This means you can have your orbital massed SML
launchers plant rather a large cluster of volleys right in your path, and you
don't even see them to use PD'S's on because you can't see them until it's too
late.
You end up actually being better off with a slow closing speed, and the chance
to manuever into a self supported engagement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:17:17 +0000 "Richard Slattery"
> <richard@mgkc.demon.co.uk> writes:
On the other hand, during the invasion of the Phillipines, the destroyers
escorting Taffys One, Two and Three showed just what aggressive,
well-handled destroyers could do. well, before they sank. :-)
Gosh, i love the story about that engagmeent!
> Richard Slattery wrote:
> > OK, the destruction of a convoy might not be all
With your entire battle fleet? Well... to each his own <g> Most space convoy
escorts I've seen haven't included anything heavier than an escort cruiser,
though <shrug>
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
<snip> Extreme speed flyby
> before the enemy hits the planet. The point is that the defenders have
I've seen this happen in several tournaments. The player misjudges orbital
radius & *splat* dead cruisers (it always seems to be the cruisers that
misjudge).
'Neath Southern Skies
PS: Turn 2 of Random Strategies has been run.
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/ft/random/random.htm
> 1. You'd need sensors that exceed your speed by an order of 2 to 10
No argument, but note your sensor platform need not be your weapons
platform--nor do they need to approach with same vector.
> 2. You'd need to be capable of sweeping or avoiding mines, which
Who cares about the minefield value? It's the target's value we're interested
in. If I lose a few cruisers to mines (or anything else), but take out your
main naval base, then I've succeeded. I do think minefields are one of the
best defenses against this sort of tactic, I just quail at the thought of how
many mines we'll have to place to cover everything.
Consider a sphere at least 37MU radius--what is the surface area? Times
however many sq km per square MU. And don't forget to deploy in depth.
This is why I think a mine-layer missile (or high speed drone) would be
a good idea.
> Plus the political consideration that if you do it to them.... they
There may be classes of weapons that are restricted (Thou Shalt Not Use
Antimatter Bombs On Planets or Stars; Thou Shalt Not Drop an Asteroid on Thy
Neighbor), but I can't see anyone feeling too confined about using normal
weapons with different attack profiles, ie high velocity
raids--unless the defenders can find a way to make them too expensive
for the benefits.
> I don't think this attack is the 'be all and end all' in space
And I think captains who insist on waddling in, giving the defenders time to
prepare, would also get yanked, if they survive the party. You do whatever
works. The way to deal with a tactic we don't like is not to stubbornly say
"That's stupid because I don't like it" [despite the fact that political
leaders, and sometimes generals, do it all the time] but to find or create
reasons it won't work. Minefields, strict application of sensor rules, limited
jump points, and restricted fuel are all possibilities. No doubt there are
more.
laserlight spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > 1. You'd need sensors that exceed your speed by an order of 2 to 10
True, but the lag might well make this option unfeasible. Any lag
might be unacceptable in weapon-sensor cases. (Now with non-moving
targets.... its a different story). But if your scouts are observed, you can
bet I'm not about to ignore them. I'll assume they may presage an attack.
> Who cares about the minefield value? It's the target's value we're
You may have, but unless your ships are crewed by automata, you don't get much
support for a plan which boils down to 'drive in, hope you don't get killed,
and if you do, it doesn't matter as long as not many of you do, then attack
his base'. The word mutiny comes to mind.
Risks are a part of any soldiers creed. Stupid suicide isn't.
I do think minefields
> are one of the best defenses against this sort of tactic, I just quail
Or deploy when your out system sensors detect incoming ships along their
probably vectors. Smaller area to cover.
> Consider a sphere at least 37MU radius--what is the surface area?
Times
> however many sq km per square MU. And don't forget to deploy in
Whats a mine worth anyway? If mines are not too expensive, then deploying even
thousands of them might not be a big deal. If they just sit there, require
little maintenance, etc. then its not such a big deal really. (Of course, only
important sites would have deep minefields and OWPs).
> > Plus the political consideration that if you do it to them.... they
Hmmm. Civilian casualties seem to cause lots of political turmoil in most
modern governments. Therefore unless your modern weapons are really surgical
(and they can be argued to be or not be depending on your opinion of ortillery
and beams and missiles), then you're going to kill civilians in racks by this
attack method. That opens you up to the same risks, and these are your
taxpayers and electorate. Don't think they won't notice or have it pointed out
to them by someone.
> > I don't think this attack is the 'be all and end all' in space
Agreed. There is a happy medium.
> You do whatever works.
IF it truly works. And that means consdering the possible counters and the
implications.
> The way to deal with a tactic we don't
I would agree that 'because I don't like it' is a poor justification. But the
fact that a body politic or an admiralty board might find it repugnant might
have something to do with it. And the fact it is suicidal to outrace your
sensors might weed such tactics rather quickly. And the fact that your crews
aren't going to like the 'go ahead and chance the minefield, even if it is
deadly, we won't bother sweeping it because we're in a rush' might be a factor
too. Captains may disengage sooner ("We had engine problems, Sir") from such
battle plans. Note that I too totally concur that solid tactics and
technologies should make this impossible or problematic if one does not want
to see it in the game. OTOH, ignoring human factors would be silly too. They
probably have more to do with shaping what militaries can and cannot do than
any single technology or tactical plan.
Tom.
> On 18 Aug 98 at 7:12, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Richard Slattery wrote:
<taking placed words out of own mouth>;) I didn't say use the entire fleet.;)
An escort ought to either be potent enough to engage what is likely to mount
an attack on the convoy, or at least long enough for reinforcements to turn up
(if feasible). Or so potent (and protecting a larger convoy perhaps) so as to
force the enemy to concentrate his raiding forces, instead of spreading them
out to have a chance of actually managing to find you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Without sarcasm, I say to those who think a quick strike is hard or
I agree, this is a realistic possibility. But it has one serious
drawback -- IT'S NOT IN THE RULES. FT mines, especially, are notoriously
non-costeffective (and velocity plays NO part in mine damage, FYI).
I *DO* think the ships should have
- limited reaction matter
- limited max speed to avoid damage from random space debris
(tied to hull quality would be a nice touch)
- a good sensor lock to fire *anything* (including missiles)
BUT THEY DON'T. I'm doing this to point out the logical conclusion arising
from that fact.
Show me a way, in vanilla (vector) FT, WITHOUT HOUSE RULES, to counter
a B'n'Z attack (from a freely chosen jump-in point, as per vanilla
rules again) against a known *immobile* target.
If you can't do it without a house rule, show me the SPECIFIC house rule,
not just "...mumble no-one sane would do that mumble it's not honorable
mumble..."
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
> I suppose I'm just incredibly dense. The predicability of the location
I've
> won.
No, predictability is exactly the key issue here. That allows you to
precalculate your attack run so that you spend ONE, and *exactly*one* turn in
the "engagement area" before zooming off to the sunset.
The defender is more hardpressed. To intercept he must not only cross your
path, but actually *end* his movement for the turn within firing range (which
I chose to ignore in the previous analysis).
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Richard Slattery wrote:
> It's been mentioned before... if your closing to target movement
Unfortunately, that's not really mentioned in the rules. And even if it were,
it'd raise the issue of sending one "forward observer" through just a bit
ahead to relay target info to the strike ships following.
> In fact, they
Yes, and that's why this only really works against "fixed" targets.
> On the flipside, lets assume that orbital early warning systems may
Well, unless you have a *house*rule* about orbital SMLs, their range isn't
any better than the ship-mounted version -- which is my whole point:
B'n'Z turns the game into single turn, "dump everything you have and run"
attack passes (with lots of *verrrry* boring "maneuvering off board for
position" turns).
> and you don't even see them to use PD'S's on
That, too, is not in the rules.
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, laserlight wrote:
[Good thoughts omitted for brevity]
> And I think captains who insist on waddling in, giving the defenders
Exactly. It's nice that unlike the last time around, someone seems to have
caught the point of the issue.
I outlined an attack form which I find detrimental to the game under current
rules. One must either
a) Disagree with me. Yes, it plays that way and that is exactly the way you
want the game to be played. (Fine, I have no objection as long as I don't have
to play with you). b) Ignore the issue and hope it doesn't surface in your
gaming group. c) Devise rules that either disallow this or make it not
worthwhile to even try.
I'm a c-type of guy.
> You wrote:
> If you can't do it without a house rule, show me the SPECIFIC house
OK,
House Rule Jump Points: Jump engines do not work within the gravity well of a
star, defining gravity well steep enoug to interfere (for simplicity's sake)
as the outer orbit slot, whether it's occupied by a planet or not. This is
necessary for any sort of sensible universe, otherwise you can FTL right into
planetary orbit.
House rule for collisions: (velocity of both objects added) squared, times
(mass of both objects
added). Under this, a ball bearing can destroy a super-dreadnought
moving at 200. Shields have no effect.
House Rule sensor nets: Most well defended planets will have a ring of sensor
nets sufficient to pick up the signature of an operating jump engine.
New System: Ball bearing launcher: Simillar to scatter pack, usually fitted to
sattelites. Mass 1. Fires ball bearings in a 1" diameter pattern which moves
at a speed of 24. May be ignored as micrometeors by any ship moving less than
50" per turn. Any ship is used to being hit by micrometeors. The catch is
eventually you start going way too fast and the kinetic energy involved gets
too difficult to deal with. When a ship moving 50" or more hits 'em, is
impacted by 2d10 ball bearings, each doing damage as per collision above.
Happy?
> Mikko wrote:
> > On the flipside, lets assume that orbital early warning systems may
> > using light seconds in place of MU's) This means you can have your
> > right in your path,
Going FT-mechanical at you again: The planet-based SMLs get to fire in
the same turn as the incoming high-speed fleet can fire their *non*-SML
weapons, and explode *before* the high-speed attackers can fire any of
their weapons... excepting, of course, Class-4 or bigger beam batteries,
MT-style missiles and Nova Cannon. The Class-4 and NC has certain
problems of their own - size, for example - leaving the MT-style missile
the only viable high-speed strike weapon in Full Thrust.
Regards,
> At 10:45 AM 8/19/98 +0300, you wrote:
Agreed. And _technically_ if the target ship does not END its movement
within 6" of a mine, the mine just ignores it. (This is from memory, pardon me
if I'm in error) Although I'm not sure yet if it is practical or playable to
allow starships to fire during movement, but I think it entirely reasonable
(and necessary) to allow mines (and possibly SLMs
and/or missiles?) to do so. Even then, standard mines are wimpy; I
would
argue that they at least need SML/MT missile-type warheads.
Also, I don't see any reason why you can't design a mine system which does
cause damage proportional to the target speed; make up any PSB you like, all
the other weapon systems do. Given that the target ship can't outrun a radar
pulse, I think a field of claymore mines with proximity fuses would
work pretty well for the low-tech crowd. There's also the
kilometers-wide
nets described in the Aliens-Universe colonial marines sourcebook. Or
if
you want something a bit more Star Trek/Star Wars-ish call 'em gravitic
mines or whatever.
> I *DO* think the ships should have
A good place to start is the rules on nebula, dust clouds, meteor swarms and
debris and asteroid. These rules provide the best precedents so far for speed
limits.
(I glanced through them in a rush this morning and don't have the books handy,
so pardon any errors)
Nebulae and dust clouds impose an effective speed limit of 12" on a ship;
at speeds of 13+ the ship begins taking 1 die of beam damage. Not very
impressive, I'll admit, but a start.
Meteor swarms and debris fields are a little more deadly. For every full
6" of speed they cause 1 die of damage (I believe this is 1-6 points,
not 1
die of beam damage) to ships passing through them. So at speeds of 0-5,
you are safe. At 6+ you start taking hits. These fields are described
as being 6" to 12" across.
Asteroids, IIRC are the most deadly; you hit one, you die. I cannot remember
if the rule is written such that a ship is destroyed if ANY PART of it's path
crosses the asteroid or not, but that seems logical.
I would argue that you can extrapolate in several different directions from
these rules.
The first direction you can consider is that any or all of these phenomenon
can/could/would/should/do occur in any sufficiently large volume of
space. One way to handle the high speed slashing attack would be to roll for
"encounters" with random space phenomenon each turn of the attack run. "Oops,
you hit a meteor swarm at speed 280...lets see, that's 46 dice of damage. I
win." The down side is, that the odds of an encounter would realistically be
very low. (But, then when has realism stopped us?)
The second direction you can extrapolate these rules is that if this level of
damage occurs at this combination of speed and debris density, then it would
be logical to assume that a similar effect would be observed at higher speeds
with lower particle densities; micrometeors which a ship moving at 12" would
shrug off or miss entirely start ripping holes in your hull at triple digit
speeds. Nebulae are dense compared to interplanetary space, but still very
thin. At high enough speeds, you will see to same effect. Just assume that all
space is a very thin nebulae and impose whatever speed limit you like.
Essentially this is a PSB effect, I admit, but then so are all the rules,
ultimately. Just pick something that works for you and run with it. (Sci Fi
precedent: David Weber's Honor Harrington
-- merchant hulls have a lower maximum speed than military hulls due to
inferior particle shielding.)
The third direction I can think of to take these rules it that of
man-made
obstacles. In the same section you will find that an exploding starship
produces a debris field of one turn's duration; 2" for escort, 4" for cruisers
and 6" for capital ships (don't remember if that's radius or diameter,
though).
This gives us a starting point. Let's assume that the explosion consumes some,
but not all of the ship's mass and that the force of the blast causes the
dispersion. It seems entirely reasonable that a similar mass of
man-made debris distributed evenly in a stable (non-dispersing) pattern
would have the same effect.
Furthermore, one need not expend the same resources on a debris field as
you would on a starship; gravel from a mined-out asteroid would do.
Just pick a number you think is reasonable for the mass and another for the
point cost and allow the defender to deploy these man-made debris fields
as "speed bumps" just outside the normal weapons range of the target world;
say 36" out. For the cost of a shiny new escort, I might be able to
purchase several escort-sized debris fields, etc.
Some of you may point out that this smacks of the dreaded sandcaster debate of
several months past. That is true. My biggest problems with the "sand cloud"
concept are dispersion, portability and relative size.
If you are using sand clouds, I would argue that in game terms they should
be used as non-moving temporary dust or debris fields; pitch one out in
front of the enemy ship and hope he hits it. Beyond that, physics be
damned...clouds of dirt flying at triple-digit speeds do not excite me
as either a sci fi concept or a game mechanic.
Also, the smaller the particle, the easier to deflect; modern engineers know
that a sheet of metal foil will stop most micrometeorites since they expend
all of their energy on contact. For any degree of penetration, you need a
larger chunk of debris.
I would also argue that using the exploding ship debris cloud sizes as my
baseline, that sand clouds are impractical in terms of mass as anything but a
fixed defense. A volume of sand that you could reasonable transport for use as
a weapon MIGHT be 1" across.
> No, predictability is exactly the key issue here. That allows you to
Why? The defender can just park his ships in random orbits close to the
planet. He knows you're coming and where you're going to be. If you get one
shot, he gets one shot as well. Then it all just boils down to a standard
short range furball...one turn long.
And while the attacker has spent 50% of their mass for drive and FTL, the
defender can buy orbital weapons platforms or big, slow monitors and get more
weapons per ton than the attacker.
Furthermore, IIRC the rules on planetary bombardment at least imply a low
orbit and not just a close pass. If you take this as the rule, then a
fast-pass attack would hit the planet, but with an unaimed shot against
a
planet-sized target, even nukes can miss the population centers or
industrial sites you would want to hit. So you are limited to one turn's
attack against any orbital targets. And they still get to shoot back. In fact,
if you are using vanilla firing rules, they may win the initiative and cap you
before you get a shot.
A lot of the arguments you've made in favor of this tactic (and yes, I realize
you are playing the Devil's Advocate and respect that) sound like they apply a
double standard just because the attacker is moving fast and the defender is
not. My contention is that whatever set of game mechanics you adopt for
resolving this scenario, there must still be a level playing field for both
sides.
If you argue that the attacker gets a surprise attack due to high speed, I
will argue that the defender should be allowed to purchase remote sensor
platforms, enhanced planet-based sensor or even a bloody optical
telescope since you are, after all, applying continuous thrust all the way
aren't you? I would argue that this makes you pretty obvious.
And if you are travelling at a significant fraction of light speed (270,000 to
360,000 inches per turn or so at the scales most commonly discussed) then both
sides suffer equally from being sensor blind. And even if you can accelerate
to those speeds with a manuever drive, I would argue that you ARE running into
a hard radiation storm as every atom in your path collides with you at the
speed of light. ("Lets see: 60,000 dice of beam damage...BZZT!...thank you for
playing...")
All in all, I don't believe in the unbeatable tactic. And like you, I think it
is a good idea to kick the possibility around and try to plug all the
loopholes in the rules whenever we find them. And while it may be
impossible to fully satisfy all of the armchair physics/rules
lawyer/munchkins in the world, it should be possible to come up with a
common set of basic parameters under which fun and reasonable games can be
played.
Again, you miss my point, Maxxon, though understandably. I keep noticing you
saying this or that isn't in the rules, then talk about manuever 'off the
board'. I've been looking and looking, and STILL can't find that in the rules.
You consider that an understandable extrapolation; I say, by claiming your
'precalculation' you are playing the rules and not the game, though not even
playing the rules, as you are taking the rules outside the game envelope.
You are not SPENDING one turn in the engagement area; you are ENDING one turn
there. All the games I've seen described has a fleet ships STARTING on the
edge of the area. Reinforcements not excluded.
Predictability of where a fixed (or stable orbit or whatever) is NOT the
question. End of turn position outside the grain of game scale IS.
Page 3 of FTII: 'If you have a huge area, then you can expand the units
accordingly...' Not a requirement, but seems to define the spirit of the game.
Page 28: The 'moving table' is described as effecting ships/fleets in
contact.
Knock yourself out, but quit complaining when others do the exact same thing
in what they call an understandable extrapolation of the game, please.
The_Beast
maxxon@swob.dna.fi on 08/19/98 02:45:38 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: Re: Space tactics
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 Doug_Evans/CSN/UNEBR@UNebMail.UNeb.EDU wrote:
> I suppose I'm just incredibly dense. The predicability of the location
I've
> won.
No, predictability is exactly the key issue here. That allows you to
precalculate your attack run so that you spend ONE, and *exactly*one* turn in
the "engagement area" before zooming off to the sunset.
The defender is more hardpressed. To intercept he must not only cross your
path, but actually *end* his movement for the turn within firing range (which
I chose to ignore in the previous analysis).
I wrote in reply to Mikko:
> > Well, unless you have a *house*rule* about orbital SMLs, their range
...which only works if, as I have stated is my usual assumption,
planetary sensors have a (much) longer range than ship-board ones. If
they don't, they won't know when to fire and where to aim. This is of course a
house rule complementing the rules (not changing anything, though since
planetary sensor ranges aren't specified anywhere <g>).
Regards,
> On 19 Aug 98 at 10:41, maxxon@swob.dna.fi wrote:
> I agree, this is a realistic possibility. But it has one serious
This is about the LEAST serious drawback there is.... FT was intended to be
fiddled around with according to your needs.
> I *DO* think the ships should have
So make your own house rules that seem right to you and use them.... discuss
them here.... you will at least get lots of opinions;)
> Show me a way, in vanilla (vector) FT, WITHOUT HOUSE RULES, to
Ok... here we go. Just for fun... being a slave to the letter of the rules..
you can do it this way. Defender places a large number of asteroids (yay,
there are rules for them) on the approaches to the immobile target. Asteroids
have no points cost;) Make them orbit each other in an complex manner (chaos
theory dictates that you end up not being able to use predictive systems based
on their courses to plot a high speed apprach that will miss them) Model this
by having them all have random speed and directions.
Watch the explosions.
Ok.. it was a rules lawyers answer...
> If you can't do it without a house rule, show me the SPECIFIC house
Do it yourself;).. I reiterate, FT rules are not GOSPEL. House rules are
specifically encouraged.
However, the easiest house rule is to give installations and orbital stations
far better sensors than a startship can economically or accurately mount. This
means you can position your own fleet effectively to let the attackers blindly
rush into a hail of perfectly placed SML's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 19 Aug 98 at 6:36, John Atkinson wrote:
> House Rule Jump Points:
I've been playing about with the idea that the *only* place you can jump is
actually close to a star.. within a few light seconds. You can make up a PBS
reason... being near to a star is a fairly unique place. If you are into
having FT parallel some of the issues of wet navy combat... it makes jump
points the equivalents of the narrow passages of water that seperate the
oceans...
[snip]
<chuckling at the spirit in which the other points were written>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me preface my defense of Mikko by saying that I think we (the listers)
mostly agree that High Speed Attack Passes don't make for an interesting game,
and should therefore be discouraged. Our difficulty lies in how to effect
that. One batch appears to believe that simply defining it as foolish should
suffice. The other batch appears to believe that there should be one or more
practical reasons why it should be foolish.
The Beast muttered: (in response to Mikko's comments on high speed attack
runs)
> Predictability of where a fixed (or stable orbit or whatever) is NOT
The game is supposed to reflect "reality". There is not game scale grain in
reality.
> Page 3 of FTII: 'If you have a huge area, then you can expand the
To take your own line of thought right back at you, "can" not "must". I'm
hereby defining my gameboard to include the 1000 meters (realworld) nearest my
house in all directions. For convenience's sake, we'll redefine the position
of the edges as needed instead of going into the yard and dealing with the
mosquito swarm. Happy now?
> Page 28: The 'moving table' is described as effecting ships/fleets in
Define "contact". If I'm attacking you next turn, I'm in contact, no matter
how far away I am. No? How about if I buy a dreadnought and mount a class 25
beam on it? Legal and waaaay out of your range, but if I can
hit your planet and/or orbital facilities....If you disagree with that,
how about if I have MT missiles and you have Class 1 beams?
> Knock yourself out, but quit complaining when others do the exact same
It wasn't complaining; it was in response to something that was *not* an
understandable extrapolation (ie, the circular logic of, "it won't work
because it won't work"); and anyway, quit complaining when others do the exact
same thing in what they call an understandable extrapolation of the game,
please.... ; )
What bothers me is that if a starting speed of, say, 12 MU is reasonable, then
why not 13? Okay, how about 14? Etc up to 200, 300, etc...where do you draw
the boundary and why?
> House Rule Jump Points:
Nah, too liberal. Let's tighten it down. Jerry Pournelle, in one of his
collections, wrote an explanation of what they did for Mote in God's Eye (as a
preface to the introductory space battle which they cut out of the book). He
postulates "tramlines" between stars. The stars must be relatively close and
the number of jump points per star are limited. Which stars connect? I haven't
worked out anything in particular, but to give everyone something to argue
with:
Mass*Luminosity(star A) + Mass*Luminosity (star B) / AB distance
squared
> a constant.
I'd do it so big, bright stars (blue giants) have say 20 jump points
(assuming other stars are close by); G stars might have 2-3; M dwarfs
wouldn't have any unless they were very close to the other star.
Alternately, we could just assign a value to each star type MKGFABO, say a
Fibonacci sequence 1 2 3 5 8 13 21. If Star(a) value * Star (b) value >
distance squared, a link exists. So a K and an A star within 4 parsecs would
link (haven't tried this but I think lightyears is too short for this to
generate enough links. Alternately, keep lightyears and increase the star
values).
I'd also make jump points vary in their distance from their star according to
the luminosities (or temperature) involved. An O star linked to a M will have
its point way on out there, while the M star's point will be right close by.
Links for a G star would usually be at least as far out as Mars, more likely
out past Jupiter. (note that a one gee continous thrust,
if I recall correctly, moves you 1/2 AU per day, from a standstill).
Now, how do we keep defenders from building battlestations at the jump point
and slaughtering attackers without a fight? Well, the jump point varies with
the fluctuations of the stars involved, and while you can know from second to
second what your own star is doing, you can't tell about the other star unless
you are monitoring the other side. Further, by detonating nukes or antimatter
bombs, you can shift the jump point slightly. Not very far, but far enough to
move the point away from the battlestations.
> You wrote:
> Nah, too liberal. Let's tighten it down. Jerry Pournelle, in one of
Alderson drives are cool, and I use 'em in My Personal Backgroud [tm], but not
supported by GZGverse.
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Going FT-mechanical at you again: The planet-based SMLs get to fire in
You have a point there. I've only played with SMLs once or twice, so you'll
have to excuse me for not being intimately familiar with them.
Doesn't change the basics, though -- it still boils down to one turn of
intense fire and zoom away (if you can't survive the SML onslaught in the
attack pass, how do you reckon you'd survive it in a "normal" battle? Yes,
hitting you is tad harder, but OTOH you're sticking around to receive multiple
shots)
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, John Atkinson wrote:
> House Rule Jump Points:
That, unfortunately, doesn't help any. There are infinite points "far enough
away", and one of the problems was that of predicting the attack vector.
> House rule for collisions:
It doesn't rhyme with the printed ramming rules, but I'll assume you'd change
those too (and be prepared to deal with ramships).
It also either a) requires trigonometry to calculate or b) blatantly ignores
the concept of RELATIVE velocity
> House Rule sensor nets:
Doesn't help any. I assumed the defenders automatically knew the jump-in
point as soon as the jump is actually made. If your sensors are good enough to
know X turns in advance, now that's another story...
> New System:
a) It is not logical (why are ball bearings limited to speed 24"? why is it
only the ship's velocity that matters?) b) Flattening 3d space to 2d works as
long as you don't have any
area effect weapons -- and even in 2d the amount of ball bearings
required puts a serious dent in my "suspension of disbelief" c) Covering base
a), you *really* don't want to see me take this to its logical conclusion and
use it as an offensive weapon...
P.S. Yes, I do think Nova cannons are silly.
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Richard Slattery wrote:
> Defender places a large number of asteroids (yay, there are rules for
So, in your games, the defender can place *any* number of asteroids *anywhere*
for *no* points cost? Or maybe the attacker must write down his plans for the
game and if they include speeds over X" you get the rocks?
Besides this being patently silly, it comes to the question I've always asked:
Where do you draw the line? What is excessive enough to give the other guy
access to some special rule?
> Do it yourself ;) .. I reiterate, FT rules are not GOSPEL. House
I take it you're in the b-crowd then. Feel free to ignore this
discussion.
> However, the easiest house rule is to give installations and orbital
Actually, it doesn't take any special sensor power, as Ãrjan pointed out.
It's just one of those things you have to endure.
[lots of stuff snipped for brevity]
> Besides this being patently silly, it comes to the question I've always
There is no one answer to this. There can't be. These totally rely on
individual interpretation. And either one uses common sense or makes
reasonable judgements, or one bases their answer in accordance to the
folks he/she/it plays with (eg, see also some of the crowd M Seifert
has gamed with in the past). I guess it also depends on whether or not you
want to play the game, or play the rules. *shrug* As for what is considered
'reasonable'...that's your call. Not everyone is going to agree on one
person's interpretation of 'reasonable' or 'common sense
judgement'. It's a no-win arguement. Either one accepts the calling or
ruling (so to speak) by another person, or one doesn't.
Mk
> On 20 Aug 98 at 15:27, maxxon@swob.dna.fi wrote:
> So, in your games, the defender can place *any* number of asteroids
Silly question got a silly answer. It wasn't a serious assertion. Just using
the letter of the rules. Tongue in cheek, ironic, something like that;)
> > Do it yourself ;) .. I reiterate, FT rules are not GOSPEL. House
I deleted the mail where you did the a, b and c thing.... which one was that?
In any case... I'd categorise myself as one who would rather see a logical
playable sensible reason that high speed passes are not a good idea.
> > However, the easiest house rule is to give installations and orbital
> > stations far better sensors than a startship can economically or
Erm, it does take special sensor power for the fixed installation, or you
don't detect the high speed attack fleet in time to reposition your own fleet
for ambush... or I missed what Ãrjan said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Richard Slattery wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> I deleted the mail where you did the a, b and c thing.... which one
... Snip...JTL
Try this one,
The tactic is not interesting or fun!
Bye for now,
> At 21:35 21/08/98 -0700, you wrote:
The ship combat in the Renegade Legion Universe did include high speed passes.
You just let the computer handle it. Now since most of the FT ship combat
seems to be a combination of human judgement and computer accuracy (at least
with beam weapons), high speed passes become either impossible or ineffective
at best.
As John said if its not in the spirit of the game then don't do it. Space the
rules lawyers.