RE: FT Taskforce and Fleet Actions

> OK, I've mumbled some things about this in the past and now I'm
> starting to think about this in more detail now that I've got a few
> things taken care of.

Nothing wrong with that!

> I have in the past, begun to think about an extension to Full thrust
> that allows for a better scale of scenario build up rather than the
> basic X-thousand points and a table kind of matches.

Obligatory statement of desire for an "official" campaign system based
on
"Canon"

> The basic concept is that the table top that we normally play with is
> a very small fraction of the total space around a system.  This total
> space is likely to be subdivided off with hexes for ease of diagonal
> movement. Its not super accurate, but its a good balance between a
> grid and free angles and distances. At the center of your 'map' is
> your system core at about an Astronomical Unit (Distance from Earth
> to Sun). Each hex is about .5 AU's

Looking at the other posts on the subject, and after some thought I
think
that this would in fact work OK. An alternative is to merely work on a
range
band concept similar to Traveller and abstract it out majorly. This way
is
probably somewhat easier and more fun...

> The thing I'm stumped on is exactly how to represent movement based
> upon a task force's (and specifically the ships comprising said task
> force) movement across individual hexes. I want the scale of
> acceleration between each ship to be represented nicely but not too
> quickly.
> Does 1 hex per Thrust point per turn seem correct? It'd make it easy
> to work up movement velocities but I don't want a task force that is
> at an obscene speed to come to a halt in one hex. They should spend
> several turns after a turn around retro-thrusting to slow down.
> Once two groups of ships meet in the same hex, they get moved to the
> play table and there you perform the quick battle. This could allow
> for some really interesting actions between a scout trying to get
> close to perform close ID's of ships and not getting whacked by the
> taskforce... It could also allow for groups that have a slight edge
> on velocity overtaking a group that is slightly slower and running
> them down.

All sounds OK.

> Basic principles are:
> 1 Hex = .5 AUs and a nebulous area of one ship scale (std FT scales
> or Ship Action Scale) map.
> 80-100 hexes across is the overall map known as Theatre Action Scale

Ok.

> At the edge of the Theatre map is the hyper limit for safe FTL
> transition. FTL transition near the Primary or other major/minor
> planets will have varying degrees of hazard. FTL into the system is
> only on the edge, closer in results in ship/task force loss.
> Transition further out results in longer times to enter the system
> and is reserved for special scenarios as it takes a week or more to
> FTL that far out and thrust in at low speed to avoid detection.

As an old Trav. player I don't like this. I like the Planetary Diameters
better. For FT I would be more tempted to place this as a series of
concentric rings around any planetary hex...

> Any asteroid belts will have a maximum safe speed for transition
> across, this is represented either by picking your way through safely
> or by using thrust to go around in the 3rd dimension (abstracted just
> like in Ship action scale).

Have to think about this one...

> Ships that do not FTL, thrust, maneuver, fire energy weapons or emit
> ECM/Sensors will not be placed on the Theatre map.
> Ships that have FTL'ed, thrust-ed, maneuvered, fired energy weapons
> or emitted EMF energy will be represented as a task force icon/model.
> Highest thrust burn used by the task force and varying degrees of
> information based on weapons fire and or sensor use will refine the
> information available about that particular task force. Data
> available would be kind of sensors, total mass and thrust, type of
> weapons fire, etc.

Sure, makes sense.

> Taskforces will be those ships in a specific hex. They could be a
> full battle line, a convoy of cargo vessels, a small CA/DD task
> force, ships (CLs/DDs/FFLs) on picket duty, a Scout(s), or a
> anti-scouting DD screen.

You may want to give some thought to C&C ala SFB...

> Range for sensors is still being refined but I'm leaning towards a
> concept where higher grade sensors under the current model allow for
> broad sweep scans of areas or quadrants for detecting silent running
> vessels. A question is levels of stealth...

Yup, but with the current rules I would just argue for running hot or
cold
basically, and the amount of fire controls active, etc...

> Fighter groups will be detectable at closer or further ranges
> depending on what really feels right. They will be detected at much
> closer ranges compared to ships (Active and passive). Probably 1-2 AU
> on passive, 6-8 AU on active

Seems a bit high to me... But who knows. This also begs the question of
what
exactly "fighter endurance" means in a strategic game. I would argue
that
you don't operate fighters on that scale.

> The combination of sensor effectiveness and range will make the need
> for sensor pickets and scouting extremely important in the game. It
> will also allow for varied developments of carriers being separated
> from gun type groups and still contributing to the fight in a
> realistic manner very important. Hunt the carrier/assault group
> scenarios would be very playable and very fun. The use of bogeys and
> weasel boats will up the ante quite nicely too.

All very true, plus MT missile bombardment or even another variant class
of
SML missiles.

> Keep in mind, I'm still batting the concepts around but the basic
> idea seems solid and playable. Thoughts comments?

First looks are good.