Proto-Fleet Combat System

[robject]

These concepts are less developed than my HG5/BCS concepts. Like my BCS concepts, they are not official.

CONCEPTS

[FONT=arial,helvetica]1. This is for fleet level combat, and perhaps abstract squadron level combat.

2. Fleets are supported via RU allocations.

3. Movement is done on a subsector/sector map, and possibly on a system map.

4. "Fleet Cards" have ATTACK, DEFENSE, Initiative Order, Crew Rating, and Leadership effects. "Squadron Cards" have these, plus Attack Effects related to spines and weapon loadout.

5. Battles are fought on a variant of the High Guard playing field with eight abstract locations: each side has a left, center, right, and reserve.

6. Each round of battle is resolved with one roll on a CRT result table, packed with interesting outcomes and chain reactions (disperse, retreat, tables turned,
both sides down 1, destroyed with momentum advance, attack reserve, etc).[/FONT]

 

[Ulsyus]

Have you ever seen the tactical options matrix used in the Napoleonic board game Empires in Arms? It offered one of the most effective step-downs from strategic to grand-tactical that I've seen. Not as detailed as that which was in Le Grande Armee, but faster in play to allow more turns of the game.

 

[robject]

Have you ever seen the tactical options matrix used in the Napoleonic board game Empires in Arms? It offered one of the most effective step-downs from strategic to grand-tactical that I've seen. Not as detailed as that which was in Le Grande Armee, but faster in play to allow more turns of the game.

No, I haven't, but the description in Wikipedia for the game in general looks interesting.

Found the rules. "The Land Phase" is very interesting. Looks like the matrix is not translated into this doc, tho.

 

[McPerth]

No, I haven't, but the description in Wikipedia for the game in general looks interesting.

Found the rules. "The Land Phase" is very interesting. Looks like the matrix is not translated into this doc, tho.

The idea is (making long explanation short) that once armies meet and battle begins, each player has several options about how will their troops fight (e.g. the attacker may probe, assault, outflank, if it has more tan one corps, etc...; while the defender may stand, withraw, form in cordon, etc...).

Each pair of tactics, give you the tables that would be used in the battle, taking into account casualities likely to be produced and morale likely to be lost.

The tactical matrix you choose will orient the combat to be more a casualties affair or a morale one (e.g. an assault is likely to produce more casualties, but less morale effects than a probe), and, of course, some tactics are more effective against others (if you assault and the defender stands, you're likely to loss the battle, while if you assault and the defender forms in cordon, you're likely to win it).

See that troop ratios are not featured in those tables, but casualties produced on your enemy are as percentage of your own troops. Battle is finished when one side is eliminated or breaks morale.

 

[robject]

Oh yes, I understand that concept. If done right, it can give a nice rock-paper-scissors effect, but with a psychological angle ("know your enemy").

I also like (in general) the "mass combat" rules from LBB4 (Mercenary), which is pure abstract without grand-tactical decisions. Pairing those two together sounds promising.

 

[McPerth]

Oh yes, I understand that concept. If done right, it can give a nice rock-paper-scissors effect, but with a psychological angle ("know your enemy").

Wargames I know to use tactical matrix:

AH:

• 1776 (American Revolution) (never played it, but that's what I've been told)
• Caesar's Legions (roman german border)
• War and Peace (napoleonic)

In all cases, tactical matrix modified the die/dice roll. Not really rock-paper-scisors though, as some matrixes were more risky (and could obtain better results) than others, so leaving you to decide how much do you want to risk.

International Team: Atila. In this case tactical matrix was used instead of dice. A really rock-paper-scisors case

ADG: Empires at arms: tactical matrixes decided the table used for battle, but you could choose at your interest (basically loking for numbers or morale to be decisive), as told above.

Game Systems Inc: Middle Earth Play by Mail: your tactics affected the combat power of your armies, each kind of tropos being differently affected (e.g. Heavy cavalry benefited from charge, while bowmen benefited from skirmish).

I also like (in general) the "mass combat" rules from LBB4 (Mercenary), which is pure abstract without grand-tactical decisions. Pairing those two together sounds promising.

I've already said several times in this board that I always missed a likewise abstract system for fleets, where a single die (or dice) heavily modified decided the combat (or at least the losses)...

 

[mike wightman]

Easy enough to make one - use FFW/IE/I/DN combat matrices and move the counters around a tactical map rather than just line them up. The tactical map can be hex based (especially if you want vector movement), range band, or based on a series of 'boxes' (a bit like IE - outer system, one box for each area of contention [plant, space station, major asteroid base that sort of thing].

When one fleet gets within weapon range of an enemy fleet (adjacent hexs/range bands, same system 'box' take your pick) you use the combat matrix of your chosen basic game to determine the outcome.

 

[robject]

Mike, I think you're right - the GDW combat matrices need to be consulted here.

McP, it's interesting to have two "decisions" in combat resolution (essentially, each side "modifies" the CRT thru its tactical decisions, then the dice yields a % down result based on the resulting CRT).

That lets the game designers put a lot of thought into the tables, and an interesting mix of results get baked into relatively few choices.

 

[Ulsyus]

Rob, here's the matrix mentioned, with all the ancillary stuff for combat.

It's a game system for a different setting and medium, but the concept led to some fascinating battles for us. Very very rarely was one side eliminated in battle. Most of the time one side broke, and then it was just a matter of what was left after the pursuit (think Fra vs Pru 1806!)