Missiles and campaigns and stuff

Looks like the confusion isn't about to die down. Since I feel I didn't
express myself clearly enough, I'll try to correct that.

Örjan writes:

> So because you find it a hassle, you frown on anyone drawing the
> logical conclusion of your 1) finding fixed edges "patently absurd"
and
> 2) playing on too small a table or at least setting the fleets up too
> close together.

I'm sorry I don't understand. You had, falsely, come to the conclusion
that I used hard edges, which I simply corrected with my reasoning for
the choice.

Given a choice between something that I find patently absurd and
something that I find a hassle, I go for the hassle even though I don't
like it.

And excuse me for being a lazy git, but YES, I do find moving *scores*
of
miniatures, keeping their relative alignments and positions intact, a
bloody hassle. I find it inconvenient even with a hex map, let alone a
nondiscrete table.

And this is assuming no one starts thinking about pincer maneuvers...

> If any weapon (except SV stingers <g>) can shoot almost from the edge
> of one deployment zone to the edge of the other, the fleets are
> definitely set up too close together...

Ahem, I don't follow you quite here. I seem to recall the old (albeit
optional) sensor rules had detection range of 54MU. Perhaps I'm just
dead
wrong assuming setting up about 60MU apart is just fine. 

> If they launched too early believing that you'd
> keep advancing, all they achieved was to waste their missiles for
> nothing and you won the battle on walk-over.

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this, but I consider a
"nil - nil" score a DRAW if neither side had a special objective to
attack/defend.

(And for the record, the missile fleet does work better (i.e. faster
results) combined with regular units which force the enemy to engage --
but using it all-out is not such a bad choice for a raiding force)

Analogies? Let's try strategic bombing. You want to take Bagdad NOW, you
send in the troops. If you can afford the wait to wear it down, your
bombers go in night after night after night. You don't expect to destroy
it any one night, but you can drop bombs faster than he can rebuild.

Subs. Launch torps, get the hell outta Dodge. Heck, even artillery is
meant to hurt the other guy from where he can't hurt you. There are
numerous real-world examples where being able to hit from out of harm's
way has taken precedence over per-shot effectiveness.

However, *gaming* such things I do find boring.

> years. Unfortunately you didn't give any entry parameters in your
> scenario set-up apart from "Start the battle in the normal way.",
which
> is about as unspecific as you can get.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. By "normal way" I meant
something like what is to be found in the example scenarios in the
rulebook. Which have initial velocity around 10 or so. I, perhaps
wrongly,
assumed that is close enough to what most people are using.

> As Roger pointed out, your resupply rules seem to have been extremely
> generous.

Not really. First of all, it was a commerce raiding campaign (i.e.
attacking main bases was not really an option). Second, there was only
about 2 or 3 reloads needed.

One side deliberately chose to leave his shipping unguarded, keeping his
fleet in big lumps in hope of the one decisive battle.

(And before anyone cries out how unrealistic that is, it's pretty much
the
early WWII strategy the Japanese navy used).

Yes, this did cost him the campaign in the end -- but that didn't make
the
games we actually played any more fun.

That's the funny thing about campaigns (and design-heavy games like Car
Wars) -- for the total gaming experience to be enjoyable, the
"preliminary" stage must provide some edge, but not too much. If a
really
super-duper general/designer wins the game on the drawing board, the
"actual event" ends up being boring.

For the record: We also played out the sample campaign, "The Lafayette
Incident" with FB1. Unfortunately, I must say that sucked much, much
worse
than our homebrew. (To be fair, I realize it was balanced for the old
rules).

> First you say that massed missiles are boring. Then you say that
making
> the missiles expensive, which is intended to limit the massed missile
> tactics to more realistic levels, is boring. Please make up your mind,
> OK?

Entirely two different things! Yes, I found the old MTM not to my taste.
That's ONE weapon system, which needed balancing in one-offs AND
campaigns. 

This sentence, OTOH, was a general observation on *all* ammo-using
weapons. E.g. I have no problem at all with submunition packs or SRMs.
Or even MTMs under current rules.

Let's consider a real-life analogy: A sub captain has to carefully
manage
his torpedo supply while on patrol. But when he gets back to base,
there's
no question about not affording a full reload (unless things are
*really*
bad for his side).

Another analogy for realism: Let's say you went to Pentagon and said you
have a weapon technology that's slightly less powerful, pound-for-pound,
than what they currently have, but it never needs to be reloaded. Would
they go for it, or would they go for it? Hmmm... what was the reason
they
went for M-16? Did it just happen to have something to do with
logistics?

The availability of infinite-shot weapons tech would kill off ammo-using
weapons except in some niche areas where the infinite-shot tech just
can't
do the job.

Ammo-using weapons, as they are, are (presumably) balanced for a one-off
where everyone starts with a full load. Right?

In a campaign the ammo-users are already disadvantaged by the need to
make
reload trips (as there are no rules for other aspects of warship
endurance) and the possibility of being caught when ammo is low or gone.
If you slap a point cost for reloads on top of that, there just isn't
enough incentive to use the bloody things.

Therefore, I have a two-pronged suggestion:
 - Assume that *all* ships have consumables (food, fuel, reaction mass,
ammo, laser capacitors, spare parts etc.) Although these are not counted
individually, they effectively give the ship a cruising endurance and a
combat endurance (which is not effectively unlimited).
 - Assume that resupplying is a fixed, mass-based cost, inclusive of
*all* consumables (even the ones that are separately counted, i.e. ammo)
(this cost could even be zero -- just the need to resupply every once in
a while is a penalty).
 
A word on building ships during campaigns.

I guess my view differs from the norm here. What most people seem to
regard as campaigning, I view as fighting out the whole war.

In my view, a campaign is a series of battles fought with a limited,
fixed
set of resources that needs to be spread and/or carried over the
separate
battles. Generating new resources is not really a part of a single
campaign, it belongs in a larger scope.

E.g. the fight for the Solomons was a campaign. How many ships did
either
side start to build, launch and deploy to the area within the timeframe?
Zilch. None. Nada. Zip. 

They did get reinforcements, but not to order, and specifically not
built
to their specs.

What I find most interesting in campaigning is playing the admiral of a
task force. You get assigned a task force to do a job. You may beg for
more, but what you get depends on your success rate, luck and how things
are going on the other fronts. I.e. the acquisition process is not under
your total control, you can not suddenly put on a presidential or ship
designer hat and pour all resources into your pet project. In addition,
the fortunes of war might even call some of your forces off to another
front.

This makes for a great balancing tool: If you're doing too well, the
higher-ups start thinking maybe you could make do with less...

This also means you don't have to model the entire war time economy,
reducing the hassle factor.

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
GSM +358 50 5596411 Tel +358 9 8092681		  | is just an ordinary
pig
Länsimetsä 3B1 02300 ESPOO FINLAND   Hate me? Try |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      hateme.html  |