Re: [GZG] FT: Modern Naval

> I, on the other hand, am happy if the feel is right.	
> That doesn't mean I'm looking for a scrubbed down set of 
> rules that mash all the radars down to a single rating 
> and all the sonars of the world into generic active and 
> passive ratings.  As you allude to later on Harpoon is 
> fun but crunchy and Shipwreck appears to be at the low 
> end of that scale.  I'll probably end up ordering the set 
> eventually.  I went to Historicon last weekend and didn't 
> see a copy otherwise I'd probably already own them.

They are published by Vandering Publishing (or something like that) and
sold in the US by Strange Cargo Games.	There's a campaign supplement as
well, I don't know how good that is.

There is a Yahoo group as well, and tons of ship data cards on their
website.  None of which I have offhand, but if you like email me
off-list and I'll find URLs and can even email files.
	
> Assuming detection at extreme range you probably have a 
> minute+ to react to an incoming cruise missile (assuming 
> you use Harpoon's "Knots / 60").  

A Harpoon travels at 562 knots, give or take.  Range for the Block 2 I
somewhere around 80 nm.  At maximum range you have maybe 8 minutes if I
haven't screwed up my math. If you can detect a sea skimming target at
that range, which I believe is going to be troublesome.

> Some missiles are faster of course and the "detection at 
> extreme range" assumption is a big one.  Harpoon makes 
> the captain roll to detect vessels and missiles so it's 
> possible that you'll detect enemy boats but not see the 
> hot sea skimmers coming in for the kill.

Yep.  The range at which you detect them and they launch can also vary a
lot, especially with coastline clutter.  That minute goes way down if
you see them only a mile away coming around the bend, or if you're up
against a Slava with 16 P-500s, all coming in at Mach 2.5.   

This with a ship that can pull maybe 30 knots when all goes well,
launching SM2MR Standards (Mach 1.25-3.5) at up to 4+ every half minute,
but with a range of maybe 17nm.

For me, it becomes a rabbit hole.  I can understand perfectly how
Harpoon came about, since if you know the performance figures (or THINK
you know them, there is much conjecture and classified data, etc) it's
very tempting to use them.

Knowing how many Standards can intercept in the time it takes for the
missiles to clear their range envelope is interesting to me, because I
want to get it right.  Which leads to wanting to know how the fire
control radar works, and how many it can control at once, etc.	

> Guns exist to scare drug runners and to shoot down 
> missiles.  

Not much the latter anymore, if I've read the figures right.  Main guns
tend to be pretty poor at shooting down most modern missiles, though the
Phalanx and AK-630 and such do a much better job.

> Though it would be funny for a modern naval game to 
> devolve to a long range gun duel with 5" guns -- probably 
> not very fun or realistic.  I think two opposing fleets 
> (well...task forces, SAGs, etc.) will do some real damage 
> to each other but the guns won't come into play after the 
> smoke clears.

Yeah, and at that point the loser (or suspected loser) is probably
trying to break contact to live to fight another day (or at least get
back somewhere to reload).
	 
> > It's a tricky problem, and the interlocking layers of 
> > area and close and point defense are also hard to model 
> > in FT.
>
> You think?  It would appear, at least on the surface, to 
> be pretty easy to come to a close approximation.  An 
> Arleigh Burke can throw massive amounts of SM2s (per 
> Harpoon) -- Area defense would appear to be quite easy 
> with such a ship.  Your standard PDFs and low-powered 
> "beams" can fill the roll of close and point defense.

I just don't know.  Nothing I could think of was going to work, for the
reasons mentioned above.  Too many variables for me to condense into a
PD rating, since that PD rating was so closely tied to a given
combination of weapons and defenses.

> > 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.
> 
> That's a given with any game once you start the double-
> triple-quadruple blind situations and not a problem 
> unique to naval games.  

Nope.  Though Task Force (another old game, well worth picking up if you
can find a copy) did it brilliantly.  

> Are you strictly a blue water type gamer?  Have you done 
> any littoral type stuff?  Part of me says it's "modern 
> naval" with smaller boats and coastal diesel subs.

So far I've been most interested in the peak of the cold war (mid 80s)
so I guess so.	I'm not uninterested in coastal fighting, but my gut
feeling is that the first step is to model the "easy" bits and then move
to the more complex bits when you get into the littorals.

I don't have as much interest in the present day, though that may
change.

Tom (who's started to drift REALLY off-topic, sorry)

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