Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Play by Post - OOC (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=77)
-   -   in-system game 02 - debrief (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=35868)

flykiller March 5th, 2016 12:33 AM

in-system game 02 - debrief
 
I'd like to start of with a discussion of the game events themselves. we can get to the game operations, then the game rules, later.

I certainly learned a lot from this. three observations:

1) I don't think the green scouts contributed much to the military results. after they played their role of illuminating the attackers they had no further function, and the illumination could have been provided by combatants just as easily, especially given the primary strategy of defending farrell with nearly fixed forces.

2) the green monitors' m1 rating limited their ability to respond to maneuver by red. they obviously were meant to defend farrell and nothing else, a perfectly reasonable approach, but this left red free to dance around the rest of the system. in addition the three green secondary ships were severely limited in their ability to respond to attacks by their s3 ratings.

3) red piling most of his attack into one ship makes for a powerful unitary attack, except the s9 sensor limitation reduced the utility of this approach. I think having two main attack ships might have worked out better, allowing more flexibility within the s9 range.

warwizard March 5th, 2016 11:56 AM

to point 3) Red 11 15 attack, 7X destroyers 21 attack. Most of the firepower was in the destroyers due to the requirement to garrison the various planets, needing some 5 attack factors to maintain control. I needed to keep 5 of the destroyers alive to garrison.

GreenDragonKing's scouts also provided a space occupying force to try to keep a zerg rush force at range while they shoot.

greendragonking March 6th, 2016 08:35 AM

In the beginning i thought to have one or two huge ships only a s9a50d53m1 800pt ship would of been impossible to fight or having 2 s9a25d26m1 he probly could kill one if separated
Conversely if i placed m6 i would of had one ship s9a29d29m6 with the high movement. It could of prevented a concentration of fire power

If warwizard concentrated his points he could of had a S9a43d43m1j2 1200pt or somthing with legs s9a29d29m6j2 1200 pt
This shows that jump two adds 50% cost but the space drive isnt counted in the jump drive cost other then a flat negative to defence.
I chose a fleet that could defend the main planet effectively and have a reaction force to protect the other small planets .
The reason for the short sensor range on the destroyers is a mixture of keeping cost under 100pts and the drop off of range vs fire efficiency. If i had s9 i would only have a6 as i figured most of the attacking force would only have d4 causing any attack under a4 would be wasted
I could of gone with a s9a9d9m6 for 200pt but i figured 2 s3a7d6m is a much beter deal

greendragonking March 6th, 2016 08:54 AM

As to the game it self the hidden initiative forced me to shoot early preventing focused firer , perventing internal damage.
But this also slowed the game down considerably. Waiting for a referee for every post is time consuming the other combat took a day or two to finish this took a month

flykiller March 6th, 2016 03:19 PM

Quote:

As to the game it self the hidden initiative forced me to shoot early preventing focused firer
when red 11 approached farrell and I could see that red 11 sniper was going to go last it was clear that green had a chance to severely damage it. but instead of lining up the four ships green could have, you lined up only three and fired while you had the chance, not knowing if red 11 would still be there if you moved up the fourth. this allowed red 11 sniper to survive and continue to function. this is why, despite how long it took, I implemented hidden initiative, because it simulated real engagements in forcing the commander to make these sorts of decisions.

but yes, it is taking a very long time. I have a solution to this, and it removes the referee from the game entirely, allowing players to implement hidden initiative directly and play an in-system game directly with no referee.

flykiller March 6th, 2016 11:53 PM

knowing what you know now, how would you design any ships differently, and how would you have deployed differently?

warwizard March 7th, 2016 01:53 AM

In the deployment phase I was attempting to place ships to lure out defenders.

The Farrell map with the huge jump shadow combined with a D-6 scatter, only allows plotted entry from row 13 through 19, a 7 hex ring that could allow a few high sensor and AF defenders to put some serious hurt on the invading forces.

The scatter rules along with the 2D6 days to re-enter the map and the useless fuel rules makes it highly inadvisable to jump near the map edge.

I have serious problems with finding fuel then rolling a new 2d6 to enter. NO NO NO!!! I am moving to enter the map and am scanning for fuel sources that I can visit that will be along the way to entering the map. One does not be 7 days out, stop to grab fuel and all of a sudden you are 12 days out.

Is there some ship design option for specifying HePLAR drives such that the scatter to out system is not 2d6 but 1 day?


"knowing what you know now, how would you design any ships differently, and how would you have deployed differently? "
Lobby for rule changes... bring an extra J1 of fuel for in system jumps, design for destroying the opposing force, sniper could have been a lot more effective with an A20 putting a +6 attack onto the light cruisers with an average of 21 hits to pay for that the destroyers would be 6 with A2 and 1 with A3

greendragonking March 7th, 2016 08:51 AM

I also would of gone bigger is better M1 isn't that useful so maybe a orbital base and A m6 defender
A s9a30d30m0 and a s9a16d15m6
So do we have to keep the upper limit of sensor 9 and move 6?
If we could squadron identical ships togethers. The split initiative would not be a deterrent to multiple small ships

flykiller March 7th, 2016 01:30 PM

both warwizard and greendragonking are very adaptable and competent at implementing the rules as they stand, but I am detecting some dissatisfaction ... very well, moving straight to a discussion of the rules ....

Quote:

The split initiative would not be a deterrent to multiple small ships
I'm finding that many people have a vision of the way certain games ought to be (especially an emotional attachment to personal victory within that vision) and they seek rules to implement that vision (and their victory). rules which don't implement that vision are experienced as "deterrents".

strictly speaking the rules can be whatever you wish - but without limitations such rulesets evaporate. for example there is no objective reason why identical ships cannot be locked together for squadron initiative. by the same token there is no objective reason why non-identical ships cannot be so locked together in a squadron. by the same token there is no objective reason why squadrons cannot be assembled and disassembled turn-by-turn. by the same token there is no objective reason why "squadrons" (in this environment) cannot be delineated by attack dice regardless of platform. this may even include the whole fleet. and so on.

in real life one is limited by reality. games are not directly limited by reality, but rather are even more limited by playability, interest, and time. in addition games have a further limitation - believeability. one is forced to find a balance between all these, using rules that are believeable, and are playable, and hold players' interest, and that can be run in a reasonable timeframe. these delimit the game, for better or for worse.

so. if one wishes one may implement squadron initiative for, say, fighters. but this then inherently permits one single squadron consising of one's entire fleet. the referee may say "no", but at that point the rule is absolutely arbitrary and players who want exactly that then find this rule to be a deterrent to their own vision. if the referee acceeds then all notion of individual ship initiative disappears from the game and it becomes much more like hg2.

so I drew a line. each ship is operating independently in terms of maneuver and fire and being fired upon - this seems reasonable. one may delay firing until a fire group is assembled - this seems reasonable - but this runs a risk of the target moving away before the fire group is assembled - this seems reasonable. in my opinion this seems believeable, and defensible, and interesting, and playable.

Quote:

The Farrell map with the huge jump shadow combined with a D-6 scatter, only allows plotted entry from row 13 through 19, a 7 hex ring that could allow a few high sensor and AF defenders to put some serious hurt on the invading forces.

The scatter rules along with the 2D6 days to re-enter the map and the useless fuel rules makes it highly inadvisable to jump near the map edge.
yes. should it not be that way? admirals and generals always seek total control and precision over their deployments and operations, and rightly so, but in real life for thousands of years real battles have been messy affairs barely controlled by the commanders. good commanders accomodate themselves and their battle plans to this fact. in my opinion these rules add a sense of reality to the game, which I find more believeable and preferable.

all of that said, you don't need me and my rules. you easily can play this game yourselves your own way with no referee. simply print your own boards and communicate your moves to each other, tracking on your own boards at home. you can even implement random blind initiative without a referee. simply post a list of all ships involved and a coti dice roll for each ship. those which have the highest rolls move first. after this move is done then re-roll for the remaining ships.

example:

red 01: [2d6] 5
red 02: [2d6] 9
red 03: [2d6] 11
grn 01: [2d6] 8
grn 02: [2d6] 8
grn 03: [2d6] 7

red 03, 02 move first. battle activity takes place.

red 01: [2d6] 11
grn 01: [2d6] 12
grn 02: [2d6] 4
grn 03: [2d6] 10

grn 01 moves next. battle activity takes place.

and so on. it doesn't matter who posts the rolls, since 1) coti rolls and 2) all you are looking for is who moves next.

also, reasonable players can implement sensor range limitations - simply inform your opponent when one of his ships moves in range of one of your sensors.

I invite everyone to copy the farrell map and alter it as you please - new worlds, different stars, different 100d's - and play your own games with your own rules. enjoy.

warwizard March 7th, 2016 08:22 PM

The Farrell map is supposed to be simulating a massive star, I'm just saying the "outer system where your grav drives stop working" should begin a bit further out, as hex row 24 is just 200 diameters out from the star. If your map edge represents jump error then each additional die pip that they "miss" the system by would be not linear but represent additional powers of 10 in distance, or any such method, such that additional dice rolls are not needed, missing by only 1 or 2 is not very severe, and 4,5, or 6 pips out is put your ship on course set the power plant on minimum and get into the cold berths, wake us up in a year, kind of problem. Ships exiting the map under real space maneuver would have real space physics applied not jump physics.

I'm fine with the scatter and fog of war, and offer a refinement, if the unit is further away than 10X the range of any of the opposing force's sensors, then it is not placed on the map at all.

So a force of sensor 3 ships are at 18-000 they would not see a similar force at 18-054 and vice versa.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.