In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970422194837.15592A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
Ah, now look what you done. You stirred up all that "points
are good"/"points are bad" stuff...
> Yeah, scenarios, umpires and all that... but in practice most of our
I can sympathise with that. No one wants to be an umpire. You always end up
umpiring whatever you want to play. Some people simply won't play games that
aren't straight out of a printed rulebook. Perhaps if we all stare at JMT for
long enough he'll produce (or sanction) an official "quick scenario"
generator.
Given some form of PSB FTL-drive that pulls you out of normal
space there's no sense in a meeting engagement. For two fleets to meet their
has to be something interesting nearby.
> > Presumably one could write a scheme for re-evaluating points values
Fair point. It should already be factored into subbies and PTT's. However it
seems normal for a weapon *not* to affect screens, once you consider all the
official suggestions in FT.
I tried to write a mass-free points system a while back, and
if it was un ugly system, the shields were the ugliest part.
And then every bright spark with half-an-idea invents his new
weapon and it isn't ever affected by screens.
> After that is done, *they* become the losers because
That doesn't work for me. Humans should run the same ships against Kra'vak
that they run against each other IMHO. The points value system should just
ascribe a newer, lower value to keep the game square.
> > Well, the points difference between with-AF and without-AF will not
In principle, then, yes. What is a C-battery worth anyway?
> > No, but I, personally, imply them. I suppose that they remain beam
It makes more sense in terms of MT's fighter sequence. And they engage
missiles.
> > Well, if we're on the topic, I though it was a dreadful game that
I'd rather play Captain's Edition. Different scale, perhaps. I find it
baffling that one man could write one game without having a clue about
abstraction, and then demonstrate himself to be a master of it. Odd.
Unimportant.
> > defences and make sure the game included some definate objective,
Same thing. Launch... run... fail to take objective.
> On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Ah, now look what you done. You stirred up all that "points
Canned worms are my specialty ;-)
> Given some form of PSB FTL-drive that pulls you out of normal
But the "nearby" is defined by the same PSB. If, for example, you can FTL
in/out near enough a planet or base, escort scenarios don't make any
sense either. I don't think that's the effect we want.
How about "recon in force"? Or "border skirmish"? Or the good old "sneak
attack"? Or "defend the jump point"? Or simply "delay"?
There can be a number of reasons to fight over empty space (forces equal
or not). Actual naval warfare has seen more than its fair share of those.
But true, naval warfare also has more than its fair share of inconclusive
draws. Withdrawing is so much easier when you only lose salt water.
> Fair point. It should already be factored into subbies and
Eh? Care to explain?
> That doesn't work for me. Humans should run the same ships
Well... It's a nice idea but it doesn't work. At least not until the ship
design system is revamped to non-linear (and that might not be a good
idea anyway). Let me explain. Because the linear nature of the system, you can
take a Mass 64 dreddie, and split it up to two Mass 32 cruisers, or four Mass
16 destroyers or... you get the point. Each fraction will have exactly that
fraction of cost, damage points and firepower. And better thrust to boot.
So why ever design big ships? Because you save by placing the systems
under one defensive umbrella (screens + *DAFs).
But the KV completely negate most of that umbrella (screens). So it makes no
sense to send big ships against them. (Special weapon systems that
cannot be mounted on non-capitals are an exception).
Thus you don't have to listen to "realism freaks'" moans about dreadnoughts
without screens. Just split your big ships into
destroyer-cruiser sized fragments.
Combined the fragments will still have the same cost and firepower, but better
thrust and survivability.
> In principle, then, yes. What is a C-battery worth anyway?
My idea was along these lines: Instead of forcing people to change their
A's for C's, why not give them incentive to change their PDAF's for C's?
Trade a little bit of AF power for added AS effectiveness.
> It makes more sense in terms of MT's fighter sequence. And
Sure. It's a balance thing. From the pts/mass issue a PDAF and 1-arc C
are equal. So, IMHO, they should have roughly equal usefulness.
> Same thing. Launch... run... fail to take objective.
... come again next day, and the day after that and the day after...
WITH ZERO RISK.
It's called "materialgeschlag".
It's not heroic. It doesn't require that much skill. It doesn't produce very
interesting games.
It just wins wars.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970423214109.17835A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
> > Given some form of PSB FTL-drive that pulls you out of normal
Fair point. The PSB is that used in FT though.
> How about "recon in force"? Or "border skirmish"? Or the good old
All sound good. Each has a context, something to recon, a border outpost, a
thing to attack. Delay is tricky in space, tho. How do you delay a space
fleet?
> There can be a number of reasons to fight over empty space (forces
Has it? I'm not a 20th century historian, but in earlier times fleet combat
almost always took place in sight of land. Given vast areas and limited target
aquisition purely oceanic battles just don't happen. If you are looking for
the enemy fleet to crush the best place to look is a port or off a coast.
Trafalger, Nile, Copenhagen, Salamis, etc. Is this a WW2 thing?
> > Fair point. It should already be factored into subbies and
How many weapons are stopped by screens? Beams, mines, most fighters. How many
not? PTT's, SMP's, torpedo fighters, nova cannon, wave guns, missiles, needle
beams, rail guns, scatterguns. Nor do screens do anything about ramming,
meteors, FTL damage. Did I forget anything? (checks rulesbooks) Boarding
actions aren't, though Savasku are. Seems like beams are the abnormal case in
some ways.
> > That doesn't work for me. Humans should run the same ships
It's a difficult thing to do using only simple arithmetic. Do you have any
particular inspiration? I gave it a try and what I came up with was
desperately ugly, a linear thing with an exponent tacked on.
JMT says that he will abolish the escort-cruiser-capital
distinctions for MT3 and with a mass-only system where two fast
escorts can be combined in a fast cruiser. Big ships will rule
without a non-linear points system on top.
> Let me explain. Because the linear nature of the system, you can
Not quite the only reason to my mind. Taking an escort-sized lump
out of a big ship rarely loses an escort's-worth of weaponry in
threshold tests.
> Combined the fragments will still have the same cost and firepower,
If we weigh that against the above principle... probably you are still
correct. This just gets factored into the points though, no? We give, as I
suggested, screens a negative value. You can have a big slow ship for the cost
of a faster ship with less DP. The Kra'Vak will outmaneuver you anyway...
> > In principle, then, yes. What is a C-battery worth anyway?
I don't think this will work. Suppose I have a design for a DN. I have
carefully thought out how much AF defence I need. To get the same level of AF
defence from C's as PDAF I need more mass. This
comes from the A's. What I am trading, then, is long-range AS for
short-range AS with a caveat that an enemy can overwhelm me with a
combined attack, delaying a fighter attack until the DN gets into C range and
tying down the C's with fighters. I think I'd want to save points on the deal.
I would prefer to drop PDAF's altogether and give a C-batt an AF
mode equal to a PDAF, although this probably wouldn't work outside
of a whole set of other amendments. Rear-arc fire for one. I like
rule additions that give new abilities to old systems and ships, rather then
being associated with new systems.
Consider Scott Field's idea of a "needle firecon" that can direct
a beam to make a needle-gun-like attack. I would restrict this to
B's and C's only, and give all ships one as it's first FC. Now
I've given a new ability to non-A-battery ships. Any B-battery
carrying escort from the basic rules can pass muster as a commerce raider or
customs vessel, because it can make needle attacks to disable ships. This
seems preferable to creating a specialised needle beam IMHO.
> > Same thing. Launch... run... fail to take objective.
Ah, well, it would have a German name...
> It's not heroic. It doesn't require that much skill. It doesn't
Are thinking of any war in particular? I'd like to consider this in some sort
of context.
> On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Fair point. The PSB is that used in FT though.
But FT never specifies anything in real units. Or does the Official
Background(tm)? I never really bothered to read it.
> All sound good. Each has a context, something to recon, a border
Depends on how close to target you can FTL in. If you have, say, two jump
points in a system, well away from planets and other worthwhile targets, you
place your fleet(s) between those points and the likely target. The enemy must
either engage you, or waste time trying to run around you (and you still might
intercept him).
> Has it? I'm not a 20th century historian, but in earlier times
No. Let me clarify: Even though most battles took place close to land, that
was mostly because it was easier to find an enemy there, not because an empty
stretch of beach in the middle of nowhere was particularly worth defending.
Take Jutland. The two fleets went out with the sole purpose of hammering each
other. Even though the Brits forced the Hochseeflotte to withdraw (scoring a
strategic victory and a tactical loss), it was not followed by an invasion or
even bombardment of German harbors.
Even if one side had completely obliterated the other, most likely they
would have just gone home very happy -- the followup comes later.
Jutland is exactly the kind of battle some people seem to find so
unrealistic -- two fleets meet, try to hammer each other as long as
things look good, then try to disengage. And I could cite other examples.
Likewise, I find it completely justified in FT.
> Seems like beams are the abnormal case in some ways.
True, but beams are also an abstracted superclass. They *could* have separated
lasers, particle beams, phasers, masers, grasers, blasters, macrobeams etc.
etc. ad nauseum.
> It's a difficult thing to do using only simple arithmetic. Do you
I don't think it's necessarily desirable. It just has certain effects one must
consider.
> JMT says that he will abolish the escort-cruiser-capital
IMHO, this is generally an improvement. It's more realistic. But something
needs to be done to keep small ships usable, even in
one-off battles. I'd say a short-range, heavy damage, one-shot weapon
could duplicate the effects of torpedoes in naval warfare.
> Not quite the only reason to my mind. Taking an escort-sized lump
Balanced by the difficulty of targeting several ships and the "wasted" damage
in overkills.
> I don't think this will work.
[Clipped]
True... the differences in batteries are not big enough. A real ship would
mount the biggest guns it could, and then fill the remaining space
with secondaries and tertiaries.
Or... drop beam classes altogether! Just buy beam factors, with a formula to
calculate their effectiveness at different ranges. E.g. assume one
factor is the same as one C. At close range, works normal. At 12-24"
halve the power, so 1 factor does nothing. At 24"-36" halve again.
and at 36-48" halve again... always rounding down.
A Mass 14 DD could mount a maximum of 7 factors stretching it,
getting 1 die at 24"-36", 3 at 12"-24" and the 7 at close.
A Mass 100 dreddie could theoretically mount 50 factors, projecting 1 die all
the way to 72". What was the max sensor range again?
This is just an example. We could tweak the numbers more if this seems
promising.
> I would prefer to drop PDAF's altogether and give a C-batt an AF
Why not? Sounds good. Maybe an extra +2 points to fit a C with a
dedicated, all-round, AF firecon. It would retain the normal arcs for AS
duty (PSB justification optional).
> Consider Scott Field's idea of a "needle firecon" that can direct
Sounds good, though specialized needles still have a place in special ships,
if the needle FC can only direct a limited amount of needle attacks.
> > It's called "materialgeschlag".
Well, it's only fair they get to pick the nickname since it was used against
them.
> Are thinking of any war in particular? I'd like to consider this
Well, before the World Wars weapons technology wasn't really advanced enough
to support this strategy, but you could consider sieges a special
form of "materialgeschlag" -- the attacker sits back flinging material
at the defenders rather than risking manpower in direct assault. In this
mini-cosmos, the attacker holds the "industrial" edge since he can go
get/build new stuff and the defender can't.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970424103733.19042B-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
Actually no. I am misremembering. Relevent numbers, like how
far you need to go from a planet for safe FTL and long-range
detection aren't implied even.
> > All sound good. Each has a context, something to recon, a border
The
> enemy must either engage you, or waste time trying to run around you
Hmmm... so the enemy is travelling from A to B, probably at their best speed,
presumably slowing only before jump. How do we delay them?
> No. Let me clarify: Even though most battles took place close to land,
Point taken. But we could construct a context generator around a simple
scenario of this sort so as to flavour and complicate
a simple umpireless unplanned pick-up game. We have no coastlines,
only significant points, like planetary systems, in a 3d space
that is largely bypassed by FTL-travel outside of normal space. We
can infer, therefore, that we have a defending force at this place and an
attacking force arrives to offer and receive battle (with neither the means
nor will to assault any populated planets).
What can we impose on this scenario to give it some extra flavour? The
defender presumably has the upper hand in intelligence, has, say, many sensor
bouys around the system to warn of the attackers approach. Can we say that the
defender can pick the "terrain" such as it is, choose to fight near a planet,
or an asteroid belt, or
a minefield? Can we allow fleets to plan a mid-game FTL-arrival
or flank arrival, or otherwise spring surprise tactics on each other?
Probably the generator should lead typically to an empty table with the two
fleets at each end, but with the players at least wary of some possible
tactic.
> >Seems like beams are the abnormal case in some ways.
For which we should be thankful.
> But something needs to be done to keep small ships usable, even in
...Scatterguns. How circular...
If a small ship can carry it, so could a large one, so I'm not sure how you
mean to have it help the small fry. Do you
mean a short-range missile, that a smaller ship could outrun/
outmaneover?
> > Not quite the only reason to my mind. Taking an escort-sized lump
> damage in overkills.
There's a difficulty in targetting several ships? There is waste, true, in
overkill.
> True... the differences in batteries are not big enough. A real ship
Or mount missiles. If you can cite them, so can I...
> Or... drop beam classes altogether!
Oh, right, just when I've found a good way to give B's and C's abilities that
A's don't have, you go and abolish them. Hurumph.
> This is just an example. We could tweak the numbers more if this seems
> promising.
My gut feelings are against it. There's some balancing that can be done with
the seperate A, B, C's. Larger gets you more range, smaller more redundancy.
Hmmm... there's a slight advantage to having a big ship over
two small half-ships where you gain on the rounding down.
> > Consider Scott Field's idea of a "needle firecon" that can direct
How many needle attacks do you want? I suppose a Capital could carry three
Needle FC in place of the usual, with one attack each. You can't do any better
than three needle attacks in FT (without adding on extra firecons).
> Well, before the World Wars weapons technology wasn't really advanced
So... what you're saying is that you don't want to game in a
mini-cosmos where materialgeschlag is an option, right?
> On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Hmmm... so the enemy is travelling from A to B, probably at
Enemy hesitation: They've been ordered to bombard planet Xyzzy. An enemy
force of unknown capabilities blocks the way. Right on through, James?
Shoot them to bits: Either they join the fray or you're going to have a fest
lighting up tailpipes. Depends on time scale, though.
Post-battle mess: Even if you lose, they're likely to take losses and
spend some time getting reorganized.
> Point taken. But we could construct a context generator around
Sure. That's what scenario generators are for.
> We have no coastlines,
It need not be. Remember Thargoids! Ok, assume a FTL hyperdrive can only
go straight in empty space. To change course, you must drop out of FTL. If the
sensors detect an obstacle, you're down to normal speeds again.
Now, you know where they left harbor and you have a good guess where they're
going. Place your fleet on this line and they'll pop out to avoid
FTL collision (insert PSB) -- and they'll have to get X maaru away
before they can FTL again.
Ok, maybe it's not possible in background X, but think about this: How do
pirates operate? If FTL effectively teleports you from one safe zone to
another, pirates are out of work. Likewise, interceptors and blockades are
useless. If you want to stop someone getting someplace, your only choice would
be to get there first and meet him.
This is possible, but it would mean a very, very profound change in
military tactics. Maybe more weight on immobile defenses. Maybe FTL-only
attack/defense bases (shades of Death Star). No more commerce raiding.
But, if we assume that FTL is only there to justify interstellar wars and to
remove the boredom of empty space, we could say that:
- FTL only works outside significant g-fields. Thus you'd get the
system space as potential battle field with only M-drives usable
- FTL jump range is limited. At certain intervals you must stop to
maintain the engines, or preferably even scoop some fuel -- providing
you with possible intercept points near desolate "fuel only" systems.
> What can we impose on this scenario to give it some extra flavour?
Sounds logical.
> Can we say that the defender can pick the "terrain" such
If the attacker is there for the sole purpose of attacking the defender,
sure. But he'd also have the choice to disengage before battle if the
defender is dug-in too hard. You have to balance the maximum "dug-in"
bonus, because premature disengagement makes no fun games.
> Can we allow fleets to plan a mid-game FTL-arrival
That gets harder, but I guess it could be doable. Depends on things like
the existance of FTL radio.
> ...Scatterguns. How circular...
Scatters do fit the bill. They're just too cheap and too long-ranged.
> If a small ship can carry it, so could a large one, so I'm
Let me give you an example: Assume you have a 1pt/1mass annihilator
torpedo that does infinite damage, hits always, but has a range of 1". Sure
you can mount them on all ships, but are you really going to risk your big
ships by getting close enough to use their systems? In fact, are you going to
let *anything* come close enough to risk the torpedoes?
Big ships have an edge in range. The usual trick is not to fight on the
enemy's terms. Thus your capitals want to keep their range open, lessening
their effectiveness against smaller ships.
Couple this with a bit of torp paranoia, and you have the smaller screening
ships clashing with each other while the heavies slug it out "over" them. Each
ship class has a functional use within battle again.
> There's a difficulty in targetting several ships?
You run out of firecons. Assume your dreadnought is rushed by 20 small boats
closing 12" per turn. No matter how powerful your weaponry, you can
only take out 6 before they're on top of you (assuming standard A-batt
weaponry).
> My gut feelings are against it. There's some balancing that can
Care to dwell on this further? My aim was twofold: First to simplify beam
construction and second to stop "unrealistic" beam choices like mounting a
single A in a Mass 6 corvette. With my system, you can't do it because you
can't fit enough factors in a ship so small, not because there's a special
rule saying so.
I always prefer basic facts to stated exceptions.
> Hmmm... there's a slight advantage to having a big ship over
That, or the other way around. I prefer this. Also, you need round down at
some point or everyone has unlimited range.
> How many needle attacks do you want? I suppose a Capital could
Multiple needle attacks against the SAME system only need one FC. I can
see use for a dedicated needle ship with 3-6 needles. That gives you a
42% - 66% chance to knock out a single important system in one volley --
like a screen on a screen-3 ship (probably the best needle target,
instantly doubles the effectiveness of the rest of your fleet's beams vs. the
target).
If the Needle FC can only direct a single B against a single target, regular
needles are still useful.
Or... merge C's and PDAFs into close defense batteries, merge needles and B's
into needle batteries and keep A's as main batteries.
> So... what you're saying is that you don't want to game in a
In a nutshell, yes. It produces very boring games.
E.g. have you ever seen a siege game without a time limit, either direct
or indirect in the form of arriving reinforcements? I don't think so. Without
the time factor, sieges aren't much fun to game.
> On Tue, Apr 22, 1997 at 11:41:53 PM, David Brewer wrote:
> > As I said, I'm not really into the genre. But despite its flaws,
This assumes that Larry Bond wrote both games -- a natural assumption,
given that his name is on both, but in this case it is incorrect.
Incidently, if you went over to Consim-L (the wargames mailing list) and
made
the claim that _Harpoon_ is the best widely available naval minis game
for either the modern or WW2 periods, they would call Fire From Heaven down
upon you. <g> I guess it would all come down to what "widely available" means,
and
I suspect that someone would comment that this makes _Risk_ the best
"wdiely available" wargame.