RE: [FT] Operational game

Having Schwerpunkt is always good and most people would want it that way
which leads to large concentrations of points into a couple of fleets. 
You almost need an artificial reason to force "equal" battles.	One
method is to assign "victory points" for various systems - with the
rationale being some systems are worth more than others (for economic or
political reasons, such a critical shipyard, resources or high
population density).  You can either play until one side controls a
certain amount of VP, or wipes the other side completely out.  If using
the second condition, then VP should translate into greater
reinforcements to the owning side.

Roughly half the VP should be in a few key systems - maybe 2-3 systems
and the remainder scattered in half a dozen to ten other less critical,
but valuable systems.  This allows an attacker to either concentrate and
try to take out critical systems, or split up and try to grab a bunch of
low-value systems. 

This would discourage bulking up up into one or two mega-fleets and
trying to take one minor system at a time - you'd still need to leave
behind defense ships and such and progress would be incredibly slow. 
This will lead to two distinct strategic ends with some strategies
falling in the middle - A schwerpunkt drive to take the 2-3 key systems
or a broad even attack to take all the minor systems first.

If you allow defensive tactics, like minefields or active defenses which
are played abstractly (i.e. roll a d10 per level of minefield/defense,
multiply result by 5 and that is how many points the attacker loses)
then bulking up systems to "channel" attackers or wear them down by
attrition becomes viable.  You would need to limit the number of
minefields/defenses per side perhaps as a point cost to the fleets.

Will there be stratetic reconaissance?	If they enemy can't check out
the system first and has to jump in blind, then minefields/defenses
become much more dangerous.  If the enemy can scout first, then they can
become a deterrent.

If you allow reinforcement, then time becomes an issue, if you sit back
too long, the opponent will be able to build more defences and
eventually make his systems "impregnable" to "conventional" attack.  You
might need to add the ability to sabotage systems - i.e. spend points so
that a critial fusion plant is off-line or "aquire" ID codes that allow
your fleet to pass safely though the minefields. 

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laserlight [mailto:laserlight@quixnet.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:16 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: [FT] Operational game
> 
> 
> One of the problems with an operational game is how you divide your
> forces.  Let's say both fleets start at 5000 points.	Ideally, an
> admiral is going to want to have all 5000 points show up on the table,
> but this means that each operation has exactly one huge battle.
> 
> Okay, we give each side several points to defend.  So one side gathers
> his forces and hammers the other side's detachments, which either have
> to flee or die--not an interesting battle either way.  We want to have
> several, reasonably even matches.
> 
> So what would induce an admiral to hold back some forces?  Fear of an
> ambush is one; having a limited control span is another.  What else?
> 
>