Depends on what implicit advantage a fleet has beyond simple numbers. Is there pre-set coordination that collapses once the dance of combat begins and that can not be restored without some measure of down time for reorganization? Concentration of fire, target selection, ranging, things like that? Command/Control (loss of a flag ship for example)?
CT/HG Range Bands
- Thread starter kilemall
- Start date
Depends on what implicit advantage a fleet has beyond simple numbers. Is there pre-set coordination that collapses once the dance of combat begins and that can not be restored without some measure of down time for reorganization? Concentration of fire, target selection, ranging, things like that? Command/Control (loss of a flag ship for example)?
You'll have to ask the original HG authors for why they had such a rule. I would assume a larger fleet would have a larger staff and resources commensurate with their size- it's kind of more the reasoning that applies to Ancients land battle command and control.
But if it's important to people or a game effect I'm overlooking, need to possibly take a look at it.
Even if you were able to go back in time and ask them as they were writing HG2, I don't think you'd get much of an answer beyond "because". The same holds true for why agility, and not gee ratings, provides the "faster fleet" DM.
Winning the initiative and thus choosing the range is a friction mechanic, with friction referring to Clausewitz' meaning of the word. You can take steps to seize it some of the time, but you can't count on it all of the time.
An assumption which can be "dis-proven" by the fact that one hundred 10dTon "fighters" will receive the larger fleet DM against six battleships despite the fact that the fighters don't have room for a larger staff, better comms, etc.
Silly question time; How much vector-based combat have you played? You know, Mayday, Battle Rider, or Brilliant Lances? Have you noticed how you can use missile and weapon "envelopes" to "nudge" an opponent towards choosing certain vectors or "nudge" them away from choosing others? A force with more ships is going to be able to "cover" more of their opponent's potential vector choices and thus have more input to what vectors and ranges the battle will take place at. That possibility is them vaguely modeled by the "more ships" DM.
It's somewhat akin to how concerns over the effective gun ranges of both their weapons and their opponent's helped shape the decisions made by naval commanders regarding speeds, courses, rates of closure, approach angles, and other things.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
As far as I can see agility is just how much power you have available for the M-drive, hence available thrust (see Breaking Off). So naturally ships use currently available acceleration, i.e. agility, to determine faster fleet.
Outside of combat you will likely have plenty of power for the M-drive, so can use the full acceleration.
I don't think so, technically:
LBB5 said:
But your example works if you use ten 400 Dt corvettes against six battleships.
At the scale I am doing here, abstracted DMs for agility probably make sense, still don't know that 'covering more vectors' matters as much as a fleet that spreads itself out more leaves itself open to having part be more vulnerable, something like Jutland battlecruisers. So probably a case for the one, just not the other IMO.
Even at this scale, I'm allowing for differing subfleets at different ranges, so a meson cruiser component might be closing to short/contact while the PA force stands off and the carriers may be at extreme range or screened. So I'd say the larger fleet gets advantages in having subfleets at optimal ranges, screening vulnerable and/or repairing ships, and doesn't need the abstracted DM.
I'll be modeling the nudging more fully in the next phase, which incorporates velocities AND relatively simplified power/tactics while maintaining the range band mechanic. Velocity means dishing out and taking more damage from kinetic weaponry, and so closure rates, weapon mixes and maneuver will take on greater importance then just Imperium-style range choice.
Technically true, but if you are at full burn in a specific direction you are almost as predictable a movement target as powerless drifting.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Quite, but HG combat doesn't seem to involve a lot of manoeuvres given that fleets stay within 1 lightsecond or so for many hours.
So you use the available thrust for evasion.
So you use the available thrust for evasion.
I'll ask again, have you ever played any vector combat?
First, no one is suggesting that a fleet would normally be divided into parts which cannot support one another. Second, a larger fleet means more ships and more ships would be able to spread out more without leaving any part unsupported.
Yes, the historical effective weapon range example I already mentioned. Modeling how a player can orchestrate the position of each "subfleet" in relation to the position off all the others is where things will get sticky.
Battle Rider had a mechanic which tied "stacking" to a commander's Fleet tactics skill. The implication being that ships within a given volume must be positioned carefully with regards to weapon types/ranges, "line of sight", and other issues.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Does that mean SDBs, monitors and battle riders have no effect on initiative since they are all boats not ships?
I actually agree that it should only be vessels over a certain size that count for initiative. But you may decide to change the size requirement depending on the engagement in question.
E.g. a small squadron vs squadron action involving a few 400t ships may include small craft in the initiative DM determination, while in a full on fleet vs fleet action it may be only CruRon and BatRon numbers that matter for initiative.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
As to the nature of movement within High Guard my take on it is:
it is abstract for a reason
fleets have to 'agree' to fight each other at the HG scale of things and thus they have matched vectors, maneuvering is mostly concerned with evasive action
ships have engagement ranges dictated by weapon accuracy
long range and short range are abstractions for the ranges at which the weapons used by ships still have a chance to miss and cause minimal damage - close to a range closer than short and hit percentages and weapon damage potential become so great you do not risk your ships at these ranges
it is abstract for a reason
fleets have to 'agree' to fight each other at the HG scale of things and thus they have matched vectors, maneuvering is mostly concerned with evasive action
ships have engagement ranges dictated by weapon accuracy
long range and short range are abstractions for the ranges at which the weapons used by ships still have a chance to miss and cause minimal damage - close to a range closer than short and hit percentages and weapon damage potential become so great you do not risk your ships at these ranges
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
They are ships, but not starships.Does that mean SDBs, monitors and battle riders have no effect on initiative since they are all boats not ships?
LBB2 said:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I know, that's why I put the emoticon there and my agreement that smallcraft don't count.
There was quite a discussion about the definition of ship and warship a couple of years ago.
I'm not convinced that a thousand type S scout/couriers should always get the initiative benefit either...
Fighting Ships provides an update on how navies use terms to describe vessels:
This definition didn't appear until well after HG and can be considered setting specific for only the Imperial Navy.
and my agreement that smallcraft don't count.There was quite a discussion about the definition of ship and warship a couple of years ago.
I'm not convinced that a thousand type S scout/couriers should always get the initiative benefit either...
Fighting Ships provides an update on how navies use terms to describe vessels:
This definition didn't appear until well after HG and can be considered setting specific for only the Imperial Navy.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So we agree that:
Everything but small craft count for fleet size?
That might not be entirely optimal?
Everything but small craft count for fleet size?
That might not be entirely optimal?
IMHO the size of the vessels to count should be dependent on the kind of battle, and not only represents the better command control for larger ships (this being, again IMHO, represented by the Fleet Tactics skill) but the fact there are more flexibility and more targets to care about.
I agree fighters should not count on battleship battles, unless both sides use massive numbers of them, but they should in a fight among 100-500 dton ships...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yes I agree with you - small craft do not count for fleet size and that it is not optimal. I would prefer a system where capital ships are worth more than escorts for initiative determination.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I agree with you. The problem is coming up with a sensible, balanced system...
A fighter squadron could be the equivalent of one escort class ship...
Not large scale, no. No more then 3 ships per side CT-style on graph paper, plus some Triplanetary back in the day. No BL, and Mayday kinda makes me queasy- vector mechanics are more portable then CT, but the time scale is annoying.
More large scale combat with Starfire, which involves similar 'hex speeds' but of course is not vector.
In the vector games, I didn't get a nudging effect, because the view was engage and finish or break off and the distances vs. weapons are such that maneuver decisions taken 3 turns ago are playing out. But that could be again due to the smaller ship formations.
In Starfire, each hex of range counts, so that is more like wet navy 'maintain your optimal range' maneuver. You could look at that as nudging, I look at it as turning the strengths and weaknesses of maneuver/turn rate slow/high firepower protection vs. maneuver turn rate fast/minimal protection against each other, with appropriate formations and courses to get those optimal ranges. If things go against one side, they aren't going to nudge, they are going to run.
This is Phase I, just expanding the abstraction a bit to work out the range band kinks. Phase II is Tactics/Power Profiles and Vector while still using range bands. Phase III is where it goes to almost a new game, with a new firing/damage/design paradigm, Phase IV is putting it on a graph/minis/hex with finer range/damage interaction.
Going by phases makes this easier to digest, write and critique, and hopefully offers more versions that are of use to someone out there.
Sure, but in the large bands of range that CT gives us plus the extra ranges I am putting in to cover all the way out to 3 LS (based in large measure on the CT range mods), if part of a fleet is far enough forward to threaten closer or further range moves, it's likely at least 100000 km away from the main body. That isn't casual, and in a CT maneuver game could be pounced upon.
And, I AM saying that you can operate separate subfleets at different ranges instead of one big blob. Cause I am going for a finer scale then classic HG. As a result, a larger fleet CAN push a smaller fleet around or close from both directions and force ranges, hence less of a need to abstract that in a die roll. But critique away, I bring it up to get improvement rather then just post and move on.
Need to finalize that board setup thing, had the process in mind but didn't write it down here, so I'll go over it again to finalize. Like I said, this is just Phase I, offering for use of standalone for people who are comfortable to this level of abstraction. It's not the final detailed version.
If you have read what I have, I already have LOS/line of communication command rules built in. I probably have not described what happens if a subfleet passes through the enemy fleet and gets cut off, so that's a minor rework.
Now as to the differing subfleets position relative to each other, this phase is more abstracted as the range band mechanic won't necessarily capture those 45 degree angle courses to open up or cut the square to close and that action happening against 2-4 other groups, enemy and friendly. So I am looking more to the die roll to handle it.
Last edited:
Probably the same mechanic should apply for both screening and any fleet size DM.
Instead of hulls, use tonnage. Total screened must be equal to or less tonnage then screening ships.
Use the same for fleet size DMs, anything screened isn't 'nudging' anyone.
That is the problem and it's an even bigger problem because no one has yet point out what the problem actually is.
All this nattering about whether ships and/or boats of this, that, or some other size should "count" for initiative is overlooking just what it is which makes ships count: Their ability to damage an opponent.
At TL15, you can argue anything not carrying a spinal mount shouldn't count.
At TL 13 and below, sub-100dTon "fighters" can mission kill their cost in larger ships in one combat round.
Whether a ship/boat should count is a complicated equation involving tech levels, displacement of friendlies/opponents, numbers of friendlies/opponents, and weapons. Throw in factors like sensor locks/hand-offs and the equation becomes even crazier.
There's no simple answer which also doesn't ultimately rely on the scale of the game setting some ships/boats aside in favor of others.
Reasonable assessment of RAW.
I'm out to change that with tactical damage effects of kinetic velocity, contact range as an analog of the suicide beam attack in Imperium, power use choices in range maintenance vs. evasion vs. weapon tactics, etc. thus rendering HG as a more tactical choice game rather then a design and roll demolition derby.
Yes, a new game but with the ship design largely intact. Choices people make in building ships might change, but that is in the cards even with minor alterations.
