Abstract combat thoughts

[The Oz]

Is an in-system movement mechanism really needed? There's usually only one target worth attacking in each system (maybe two, if you count the local gas giant) and attackers will usually jump right to the 100-diameter limit to reduce enemy warning time.

Perhaps all you need is a system for movement from the 100-D limit to the target.

 

[mike wightman]

Without a movement mechanic you are back to the range band system of High Guard, which I dislike.

The ST range band system could be used - as Oz says most battles will be within range of a planet/gas giant/station.

But I want to be able to move my fleet around the system, play hide and seek with sensors and fighters, try to build up local space superiority by maneuver.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Without a movement mechanic you are back to the range band system of High Guard, which I dislike.

I agree that a tactical movement system (tactical being defined as movement within weapons range of the enemy) is needed.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
But I want to be able to move my fleet around the system, play hide and seek with sensors and fighters, try to build up local space superiority by maneuver.

If I am the defending fleet commander, I don't care what you do in the outer system; eventually if you want the mainworld you'll have to come to me and I'll keep my whole force concentrated for that. Everything else is second-fiddle.

That said, I also like the idea of playing hide-and-seek in the outer system, dodging around gas giants and asteroids.

Adapting the detection system from BATTLE RIDER might be a place to start.

But I just can't really see the need, operationally speaking. Most star systems in TRAVELLER only have one thing worth fighting for, which greatly simplifies the operational level of maneuver.

 

[mike wightman]

What if you leave the bad guys alone in the outer system too long and they start to throw comets at your mainworld

Ok, without wanting to go the route of near-c rocks, what if they build a mass driver and start to bombard your mainworld?

 

[far-trader]

Or, to steer further away from the cometary bombardment, what about we just sit out there beyond the reach of your planetary defenses and interdict the whole system and slowly starve you out. Presuming you're not a self sufficient in all things world.

All we need to do is fire missiles at any ship's trying to jump in near your 100d or come back out to jump out of system.

I think you'll want to come out to deal with a stand off force in the case of a siege like that.

 

[The Oz]

Sigg:
Let's leave the c-fractional bombardment out, if you please.... That's a whole different ball of worms.

As for a mass driver bombardment, just how long do you think this war is going to last? Long enough to build a mass driver big enough to do the job?

Dan:

If you're laying siege to the mainworld trying to starve it out, why do we need a system for maneuvering in the outer system? Your blockade force (the only hostile presence that really matters) is not in the outer system, but just outside the 100D limit. That's tactical (maybe grand tactical) scale, not operational.

Now, I can see a real use for a system for manuvering in the outer reaches of a star system, but not for full-scale warfare. I can see it for hunting pirates, tracking down smugglers, playing "Spy vs. Spy".... Lots of things, but all things for small numbers of small ships seeking each other in the deep dark, not for fleets of warships fighting for control of the mainworld of a star system.

 

[whartung]

If you want a movement system, then I think you should make it a "strategic" in system manuever system.

The fundamental problem is that manuever is really only interesting with terrain, and there simply isn't any terrain in space. If you have detection ranges outside of weapon ranges (which is pretty much the case), then there isn't even a response factor. And once within weapons range, then "big fleet wins", or "matched fleets flip a coin".

That's why the range band system of High Guard is actually reasonable. You're either in range, or you're not. Or you're in short range or long range.

With light based weapons, you can not dog fight. Things simply happen too fast, and the computer is the one doing the aiming anyway.

With impact weapons, a) they're simply too powerful. You don't need to be going anywhere near C to have a chunk of metal do sigificant damage if they're impact.

What does a modern tank round fly at? 3-4000 m/sec? A speed 10 missile is traveling at 160,000+ m/sec. Ouchies! If it's going speed 10 and you're going speed 9 (since, by definition, it DOES have to catch you), that's still 16K+ m/sec --and it masses a heck of a lot more than any tank round.

So, anyway, the reason for range bands and such is pretty much that open space combat is pretty uninteresting. The interesting parts is in maneuvering the fleets to kill the other fleets. The actual engagement is practically pre-determined and not interesting.

In a system with only a single interesting target (i.e. main world with the starport), even a strategic meneuver system isn't really helpful.

The only real game is the detection game, as detection is essentially false terrain. Avoiding detection is essentially the only way a ship survives. The detail is that, basically, if a ship maneuvers, it's detected. The only real scenario is if a target ship flies within weapons range of a quiet ship that doesn't have to maneuver in any significant way to engage the target, and basically gives them first shot.

That scenario can pretty much only happen around fixed positions (like planets), and the enemy needs to cooperate by flying by them. In that case it's fluke luck, or you have a large defense grid of deployed, idle ships. Or perhaps pre-stationed missiles.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by The Oz:

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Without a movement mechanic you are back to the range band system of High Guard, which I dislike.

I agree that a tactical movement system (tactical being defined as movement within weapons range of the enemy) is needed.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
But I want to be able to move my fleet around the system, play hide and seek with sensors and fighters, try to build up local space superiority by maneuver.

If I am the defending fleet commander, I don't care what you do in the outer system; eventually if you want the mainworld you'll have to come to me and I'll keep my whole force concentrated for that. Everything else is second-fiddle.

That said, I also like the idea of playing hide-and-seek in the outer system, dodging around gas giants and asteroids.

Adapting the detection system from BATTLE RIDER might be a place to start.

But I just can't really see the need, operationally speaking. Most star systems in TRAVELLER only have one thing worth fighting for, which greatly simplifies the operational level of maneuver.

No, definitely not with a defending fleet. You want to wait for them to come to you.

But if you allow smaller engagements with smaller tactical scenarios, then you've got a justification to use in-system cat-and-mouse once in awhile.

 

[robject]

I'm resurrecting a thread/concept that Oz and Sigg were cooking up last year, regarding the conversion of counters from Fifth Frontier War to High Guard and back.

Small Squadrons Are People Too

So, I've lately been thinking their system might be useful if extended to include small squadrons as well -- all the way down to the realm usually covered by High Guard itself. Thus, I'm toying with limiting High Guard to ship construction alone, and using a much more abstract system to resolve combat between NPC ships and multi-ship engagements.

For example, I'd like to be able to encode/evaluate the relative stats of a squadron of 400-ton system defense boats, or a Kinunir with a clutch of Gazelles, as well as being able to profile entire fleets.

This means that squadrons without spinal weapons are part of the game, perhaps... although in a wargame setting, perhaps that makes no sense at all.

Counter Layout

I figure there are a maximum of five stats that can be shown on a counter without taxing players too much; there will be Offense-Defense-Jump Range, at least. Maybe there needs to be a "force" indicator, so we know if it's a squadron vs a fleet. Other possible things?

So the picket would have an offense and defense of 0. System defenses would have a jump rating of 0. Assuming Off-Def-Jmp, what's a 1-1-0 system defense composed of? And assuming small, non-spine squadrons can be represented, I suppose that means Offense and Defense can be double-digit (or there's some other way of dividing major squadrons and fleets against relatively weak squadrons).

Combat Model

Next, I'll suggest Book 4's mass combat system as an example.

The B4 system has a simple matrix which shows the DM to an attacking force, based on its size relative to its target size.

Thus, an individual can attack a brigade. And fail miserably, even with a large TL advantage. But he can try.

What I'm suggesting is more related to Oz's comments; the reasonable boundary of a wargame doesn't have to include ludicrous but possible extremes, such as 1000 Sloans attacking a single capital ship.

At the same time, I think small non-line squadrons can have a place in a squadron- and fleet-level combat system. The result might be an extension or amendment of 5FW.

I'm thinking that squadrons which contain ships of the line would be designated with a dot. On the combat charts, this dot would related to relative size on a combat matrix (I haven't seen 5FW, by the way, so my ignorance is showing).

 

[robject]

Survivability

The one thing I've heard about Dreadnoughts versus Battleriders is that the DDs have a higher survivability, while BRs have a higher firepower (and are super cheap). Sigg has wondered aloud why Battleriders don't have a Jump-1 drive.

 

[mike wightman]

The problem remains the High Guard combat system.
If it is a true model for TL15 ship to ship combat then even a factor J meson gun will mission kill a DD - hence lots of small, cheap battle riders will become the design of choice.

Now if the rider is large enough fitting a jump 1 drive and fuel to give it an emergency escape route makes a lot of sense.

The tender should make use of tankers or drop tanks to jump insystem with enough fuel to jump out again if necessary - or jump out anyway to meet up with tankers and drop tank carriers.

 

[mike wightman]

Rough numbers:
2% bridge
17& maneuver drive
12% power plant and fuel (agility 6)
16% armour
12% jump drive and fuel
59% total
A 15,000ton rider could have a factor N meson gun,
while a lighter rider would have to make do with a factor J.

 

[robject]

I don't have a problem with a cruiser (ah, excuse me, a Battlerider) being able to kill a dreadnought; but I think what separates them is that a BR is too weak to take what it dishes out. Additionally, my opinion is that BRs could be at risk from large escorts, whereas dreadnoughts can simply swat them away like flies.

...of course, that may not bear out in High Guard.

 

[robject]

By the bye, here's Oz's HG-5FW conversion rules.
Oz's HG-to-5FW conversion rules.

 

[robject]

Minor Squadron Counters

So, I see that squadron units have a designation + jump rating, an ATT-BOM-DEF rating, and a streamlining indicator.

I don't know where to put a "minor squadron" indicator. Maybe on the ATT-BOM-DEF string. Some kind of "itty bitty" indicator so we know to give it a huge disadvantage when dealing with "line combat" squadrons.


Building Minor Squadrons

In our traditional Traveller games, it looks like the cruiser squadrons are the smallest battle groups, reaching down into piddly ratings such as CruRon 505 (CR J5 PS 1-1-3). That's just about the smallest squadron to field a spinal weapon.

That represents ships from 10,000 tons and up.

So I'll define Minor Squadrons as ones lacking spinal weapons, and representing ships from 100 tons to 10,000 tons.

I reckon the values will have the same general range as the traditional counters -- i.e. from 0 to 9 -- but their effectiveness or meaning will probably be scaled down an order of magnitude. Thus a Minor Squadron with ATT 9 BOM 9 DEF 9 can attack CR505, but it will attack as though it were an 0.9-0.9-0.9 squadron. I suggest it won't have much of a chance.

ATT. Minor Squadrons, lacking spines, are rated by the eight largest battery factors from among the ships. Sum them up according to the table and round up.


</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Battery Factor Value
1 0.1
2 0.2
3 0.3
4 0.4
5 0.5
6 0.6
7 0.7
8 0.8
9 0.9</pre>[/QUOTE]BOM. Might use Oz's rule with few modifications...

DEF. Probably a variant of Oz's rules, tuned down for smaller hulls:

1 point for every ship of 1000+ tons.
0.5 points for every ship from 100-999 tons.

Same modifiers table, except perhaps just a "no armor" DM of -1 (instead of -2).


Example
A single Kinunir and four Gazelles. 4-0-1.

The Kinunir has two Factor-5 batteries, and each Gazelle has one Factor-5 and one Factor-4. Taking the eight highest yields 3.8, rounded up to 4.

Since the sum of all missile racks is less than 30, BOM is 0.

DEF is one 1200-ton ship (1 point) plus four small ships (4 x 0.5 = 2 points), -1 for low agility, -1 for no armor. DEF = 1.

 

[mike wightman]

The ship symbol itself could do that.

I've been thinking about the High Guard combat model, and I think I'm coming to agree with Hans' conclusion that High Guard is too simplistic to accurately depict real combat between OTU navies.

Massed escort class ships should be a threat to a DD IMHO - PP:Fleet does a good job of showing this.

Perhaps a squadron/fleet level game could break with High Guard...

 

[robject]

Thanks, Sigg, that's a good idea.

Really! I think HG's combat model is too complex!

Addendum

Well, taking my rules for "minor squadrons", you could simply sum up the values of the escorts' attack factors until you've totalled a Dreadnought's ATT. Then you can kill any large ship with a fraction of its cost in planetoid monitor swarms, I suspect.

 

[mike wightman]

See, this is wher I think High Guard breaks down.

Spinals kill capital ships, and escort class ships, and fighters.

Bays kill fighters, if they hit.

Turret weapons kill fighters, if they hit.

One class of super weapon, the rest are pretty useless.

I would definitely change it to:

spinals kill capital ships, kill escorts if they can hit them, no chance of hitting fighters

bays kill escorts, kill fighters if they can hit them, massed bay fire can threaten a capital ship

turrets kill fighters, massed turret batteries threaten escorts.

 

[robject]

I've re-done my example slightly, and added another.

Example 1

A single Kinunir and four Gazelles. 4-0-1.

The Kinunir has two Factor-5 batteries, and each Gazelle has one Factor-5 and one Factor-4. Taking the eight highest yields 3.8, rounded up to 4.

Since the sum of all missile racks is less than 30, BOM is 0.

DEF is one 1200-ton ship -- 1 point -- plus four small ships -- 4 x 0.5 = 2 points -- -1 for average agility < 5, -1 for no armor. DEF = 1. We can barely squeak by a DEF of 1 because I rounded average agility UP.


Example 2

Eight Kinunirs and Eight Gazelles.
Let's do this in two groups in order to get the most for our money.

Eight Kinunirs. 4-0-5
Eight Gazelles. 4-0-2

BOM is probably zero.

Kinunir DEF is 8 -- 8 x 1 -- minus one for armor, minus two for Agility < 3.

Gazelle DEF is 4 -- 8 x 0.5 -- minus one for armor, minus one for Agility < 5.

 

[robject]

I think enough large missiles fired at a capital ship could take it down; I don't think other kinds of bay weapons should affect them.