Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

> > 1) Movement vs. weapon range.  Missile ranges can be 
> > anywhere from 10-300 miles depending on launch 
> > platform, OTH detection and missile.  You could
> > model all ships with a ³thrust² value of 1, give 
> > missiles 36² range on the low end and still not get 
> > very close.
> 
> Harpoon handles this by putting everything on the same 
> scale more or less.  A ship in tactical turns may be 
> moving 0.25" while a missle moves 4+" a turn depending 
> on the missle in question.  Some can just STREAK out 
> there but are mostly used to knock other missiles and 
> aircraft out of the air.  I'd have no problem giving 
> surface ships a "thrust" of 1-4 depending on how fast 
> it can go with the vast majority doing 2-3.  Missiles 
> would be doing 12" at least per turn.
> 
> It's a cinematic thing.  If I was worried about the 
> last knot of speed I'd be playing Harpoon. 

When I looked at this (and granted it was a LONG time ago) I just got
caught up in the fact that ranges and speeds were SO far off from each
other that even an approximation wasn't going to cut it.

But I'm also more likely to be on the side of "counting knots" so that
wasn't a surprise really.

> I agree with your #2 -- one or two penetrating hits on 
> your average cruiser / destroyer, ffg will probably 
> smoke it.  But some missiles are airburst types aren't 
> they?  They hurt things by blowing up outside of the 
> ship and killing radars...mounts, etc.

Yes, they do exist.  SAMs fired against a surface ship (most can use
that mode as a backup) do basically that, and ARMs are designed
specifically to shower the target with shrapnel to take out whatever
radar they were homing in on.

The primary shipkiller though (Harpoon, Tomahawk, Styx, and the various
Volkswagon-sized supersonic monsters the Soviets stuck anywhere they
could find the space) is heavier and designed to penetrate, explode and
ideally burn its remaining fuel just to add insult to injury.

Actual survivability is going to vary a lot of course, but betting on
the low side is pretty safe.  ...and other than air launched ARMS most
ships seem to save their SAM launchers to shoot down incoming missiles,
rather than using them offensively.

> > 3) Take those two together and you get the 
> > fundamental precept of modern naval warfare.  If you 
> > spot the other guy first, odds are you just won, and
> > this applies to a very wide range of force balances.
> 
> If you spot the guy first you can get your missiles in 
> the air quick but then you have to make it through the 
> ship defenses.  

Yep.  ...and WHEN you see them makes a big difference in how many of
those defenses are pointing in the right direction and have the range to
fire.

Defenses are always there, and it's unlikely that a pair of Osas are
going to do much damage to a CVBG.  But detection is still a big issue,
because if they don't know where you are, you get to do X damage to them
(even if just depleting defensive missiles) for free.  

This is very much unlike WWI or WWII surface combat, where detection was
nice but you had to hammer them to scrap and that free shot was only a
bit ahead of the curve.  As opposed to the opportunity to completely
destroy an equal force with no damage at all.

> The "see 'em first and they're dead" mentality is 
> a lot like that spoken of during Vietnam with 
> heatseaking missiles.  You know...not needing a gun on 
> the aircraft because the missile made it obsolete?

True.  Though I'd argue that, at least in surface combat on the open
ocean, that statement is largely true for warships.  Guns are useful for
the ships that managedto survive the initial missile barrage and emptied
their box launchers, but the ranges are so skewed that they won't affect
combat resolution much until that point.

> Modern naval vessels have pretty potent anti-air 
> defenses at least with the scale of actions I'm 
> worried about gaming (6 or so ships / boats per side).

True.  There are always balance points, and it's not impossible to make
a formation that is nigh impervious to enemy fire, surprise or not.  The
problem of course (from a game standpoint) is that formation is
impervious regardless of what the enemy does.

It's a tricky problem, and the interlocking layers of area and close and
point defense are also hard to model in FT.

Note that another thing I tried, and got a little bit farther, was to
modify Full Thrust to work with Honorverse combat (SciFi series by David
Weber).  I had a modified set of rules and ships that worked their way
into the codebase for some long-ago version of FTJava, and had a lot of
the same considerations to deal with, with the benefit at least that
ships in the Honorverse can take multiple hits and survive.  

A lot of the same concepts applied however, and I eventually moved on to
building them in SITS, since it was wasier to custom build a combat
system to handle that kind of thing than to try and adapt something
else.  

> > #3, and any kind of detection game without a referee 
> > is terribly hard to pull off of course, and critical 
> > for modern naval warfare at almost any scale.
> 
> Playing standard surface fleets in Harpoon it's simply 
> a die roll after making sure you have radar line of 
> sight from an aircraft, helo, or ship.  It wasn't that 
> hard in the past.  If subs are in the picture you can 
> still get away without a ref as long as the players 
> are honest.

Ok, I should clarify. Any kind of _hidden movement_ is difficult. The
detection mechanics aren't the problem as much as always knowing where
the other guys ships are, even if you shouldn't.

> > What I¹d suggest is to look at Shipwreck.	
> 
> I've heard some good and bad things about Shipwreck.	
> Have you played it?  I know it's a lighter game than 
> Harpoon but that's it.

I have some problems with Shipwreck but on the whole I've enjoyed it. 
It's got some nice mechanics that simplify the missile engagement to
something playable and quick without losing too much detail.  I have
issues with how much it approximates things at times, and you'll want a
copy of Harpoon on hand just for the data annexes if you like details.

But it's a good game, and very fast.  Our learning game took maybe 3
hours to play including detection and combat.  In recent games I've
tacked on the hidden movement from Task Force (long out of print but a
BRILLIANT game) using Shipwreck as the tactical engine.  

Overall if Harpoon is on the "high sim, low game" side of the curve,
Shopwreck is on the opposite end.  What I want is something in the
middle.

...and I keep looking for others and reading everything I can. 
Hopefully I can find (or just bite the bullet and try and make) the
perfect game somewhere in the process.

Tom

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l