Coordinated fleet response. was re: UNSC beta and FB3

Obviously not a first hack at this.

I want to think about how this would work in an AF model...

Thanks for the example.

Gracias,
Glenn

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:27:13 -0800 (PST) Jared Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
writes:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jared Hilal" <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
>> 
>> >  It would have been nice if we could get away from the
>> > "two largest capital ships have a couple of fighter groups no
>> > matter the background blurb" and the "collection of ships rather 
>> > than a coordinated fleet" syndromes which afflict all human, KV 
>and
>> > Phalon ship designs.
>> 
>
>--- Star Ranger <dean@star-ranger.com> wrote:
>> I did the designs based off of what is seen on the mini, some input
>> from Jon, and base ideas from Derek Fulton.
>
>Well, you matched the "feel" of the FB1 designs well enough that I
>couldn't tell the diff. :)
>
>> Yes, a fighter group was included in the largest ships because these
>> ships were supposed to be from the same universe as the ships from 
>> FB1 so naturally they would be similar in some ways.  The SDNs only 
>> have one group unlike most of the other FB1 races though ;-)
>> 
>
>The fighter thing is kind of a hold-over gripe from FB1.
>
>For example: 
>the NAC blurb says: "Fighter operations doctrine is to base them on
>specialized carriers which rely on supporting escort ships for their
>defence" 
>and the NSL blurb says: "Fighter operations are based around small
>numbers carried on the largest general combat ships rather than
>specific carrier designs".
>
>Reading these two lines, I would expect that the NAC Excalibur and
>Valley forge would have no fighters, while the NSL would have fighters
>on the BB and maybe a BC as well.
>
>When we initially got FB1, the first thing we wanted to do was put
>together a couple of small battle squadrons and test the changes to 
>the
>existing rules.  We wanted to start simple, and looked to avoid
>fighters and SMs until the second or third game.  Instead, we found
>that all of the -dreadnought classes carried fighters an several also
>carried SMs, even for powers that generally don't use SM's.
>
>
>--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
>> What, to your mind, is the difference between a "coordinated fleet"
>> and a "collection of ships"? How would this be reflected in the 
>> set of ship designs? 
>
>---and Dean wrote:
>> Like others have said, I'm interested in your take on how you define
>> a 'coordinated fleet'.
>
>A "collection of ships" ship designs are ships designed to operate
>independently and which can be grouped together to make operational
>units.
>
>A "coordinated fleet" is one were the different ships fulfill 
>different
>roles, so that together they complement each other, the whole being
>greater than the sum of its parts kind of thing.
>
>Real world examples would be that a fleet carrier is primarily 
>designed
>to operate aircraft, and a battleship to directly project firepower. 
>Both are vulnerable to anti-shipping missiles and submarines.	Even
>though they have basic capabilities in these areas (sonar, ASROC,
>CIWS), they are not capable of surviving a concentrated attack by 
>these
>means.  However, when operated in concert with dedicated ASW and SAM
>ships, the CV and BB are capable of taking care of any "leakers" that
>get through the heavy defense provided by these other ships.
>
>For the AF types, a similar analogy can be made to fighters escorting
>bombers or strike fighters.  The fighter/interceptors and Wild Weasels
>provide cover against enemy fighters and ground threats while the
>bombers and/or strike fighters conduct their operations. 
>
>Essentially, ships can be divided into six basic categories.
>
>1) Capital Ships.  These are designed to project power by engaging and
>destroying enemy ships in squadron and/or fleet actions.
>
>2) Fleet Escorts.  These are designed to escort capital ships,
>providing specialized capabilities to protect both themselves and 
>other
>ships from threats.  This includes Anti-fighter and anti-missile
>capabilities as well as speed and weapons to drive off enemy Escorts
>and Fast Attack types which threaten their charges.  Might come in a
>range of sizes (small, medium, large) as well as a variety of
>specialties.
>
>3) Space Escorts/Patrol Ships.  These are designed to escort merchant
>ships and convoys as well as to patrol trade routes and system spaces. 
>
>They may be less capable than Fleet escorts as they are not intended 
>to
>keep pace with battle groups.
>
>4) Cruising Ships.   These ships are designed to cruise independently
>or in concert with a few escorts.  They are used to "show the flag"
>where a battle squadron is not warranted, for scouting, harassment, 
>and
>commerce raiding.  Due to the expectation of longer periods of
>independent operations, they must be more general in design than
>Capital or Escort types.
>
>5) Fast Attack.  These ships are generally smaller, but pack a heavy
>punch in the form of missiles, sub-munition packs, MKPs, pulse torps,
>etc.  They fill the roles of wet navy TB, MTB, PT, PCG, etc.
>
>6) System defense/offense.  Heavy armament and defenses, but not
>necessarily capable of fleet actions.	Def. types includes STL 
>monitors
>and system patrol ships, while off. types include older or less 
>capable
>capitals, bombardment ships, etc.
>
>I did not include carriers as a separate type.  Instead, carriers fit
>one (or more) of the above categories but simply have fighters as 
>their
>main weapon system rather than beams, guns or missiles.  With this in
>mind, fighters on any other type of ship are also just another weapon
>or defensive system helping the ship fulfill its mission.  E.g. a
>capital with a group or two of interceptors could use them as an
>additional active defense system, i.e. protecting it from incoming
>fighters and ordnance.
>
>Almost all of the FB designs are either Capital, Cruising, or Fast
>Attack.  Even there, the Capitals and Cruising ships are not designed
>for group (squadron) operations.  Take any FB Capital design (BC, BB,
>BDN, SDN, CV) and include a single ADFC on each ship.	A squadron of
>these becomes much more effective than a squadron of the same number 
>of
>unmodified designs.
>
>There is no FB ship really designed for the Fleet Escort role.  Such a
>design needs either significant PDS/ADFC/class 1 capability for
>fighter/ordnance defense and/or medium weapons for dealing with other
>escorts and FA designs.
>
>--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
>>Could you sketch a "coordinated" UN fleet?
>
>Depending on how the UNSC is envisioned, this is probably the only
>Fleet that would not use Space/Escort types, leaving that to the
>individual powers.
>
>The next question is does the UNSC operate its ships as a conventional
>battle fleet or as small cruising squadrons?  If the latter, then it
>would consist of Cruising Capitals, Cruising Escorts, and Independent
>Cruisers, all of various sizes.  Cruising ships should avoid 
>ammunition
>based weapons like missiles, but need to provide their own fighters. 
>If they operate in battle groups, then the designs would consist of
>Capitals, Fleet Escorts, and Fleet Cruisers.  Munitions can be used
>more freely as they have regular access to tenders and make frequent
>calls at fleet bases.
>
>I envision a "Cruising Squadron" to be 1-4 cruising capitals with 4-8
>cruising escorts, while independent cruisers would operate as singles
>or pairs.
>
>A "Battle Group" would consist of squadrons of capital ships (4-8 
>each)
>with 1-3 squadrons of fleet escorts assigned to each battle squadron. 
>One or more squadrons of fleet cruisers might be assigned to the group
>as needed as scouts or long range picket ships.
>
>J
>

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!