Re: [OFFICIAL] new ideas!

At 12:18 PM 2/22/97 GMT, you wrote:

>Considering 4) and 6) together, Allan Goodal recently ran a PBeM game
>where the rear-arc fire was allowed and ships mounted weapons mainly
>as starboard-front-port and starboard-rear-port, which combining these
>rules seem like the optimal way of mounting weapons (so all weapons
bear
>on the two broadsides) and it was still very much a "plughole"-type 
>game.

I really do intend to get a blow-by-blow account of our game out this
week...

My idea was to run a game that was metaphorically similar to the
Russo-Japanese War. Actually, I wanted to see what would happen if you
allowed rear arc weapons but altered the ship design rules so that the
rear
arc was "realistic."

Ships were designed along old style naval ships. Ships were designed
with
three arc main gun "turrets" at bow and stern. Dreadnoughts and
battleships
had A batteries, cruisers had B batteries, escorts had C batteries.
Secondary batteries (C batteries) were mounted differently. If it only
had
one or two C batteries, they were mounted like the primary batteries. If
there were four C batteries, they were usually mounted at the "corners"
(i.e. they had two arcs: fore/port, fore/stbd, rear/port, rear/stbd).
More
secondary batteries than that usually had four mounted on the "corners"
with
the remainder as single arc batteries on the sides.

Rear arc fire was unrestricted. Even still, the ships were maneuvering
pretty much as they usually do in FT. There was an advantage to firing
broadsides at the enemy, but they didn't have as much of an effect as I
expected. The problem is the lack of a line-of-sight rule. The optimum
attack pattern in this type of game is for both fleets to try to cut
each
other off at a point somewhere in front of both fleets. They should
approach
such that the headings for each fleet forms a triangle or a wedge like
this:

		     X	- aim point
		    / \
 fleet 1 heading   /   \ 
		  /	\ fleet 2 heading
		 /	 \

This lets each fleet approach the other while maintaining a broadside.
In
fact, if both fleets approach at the same speed, the firing angle will
not
change (simple geometry). 

A line-of-sight rule suddenly adds some options. Without a LOS rule, all
ships are fair game. In a game with rear arcs, trying to swarm an enemy
usually means that you'll put a ship into a firing arc that wouldn't
otherwise have a target. With a LOS rule, you can put a big, shielded
ship
up front to take the brunt of the attack, with the other ships running
line
astern. This is, in fact, the way pre-dreadnought through early WWII
naval
combat worked. I think everyone here is familiar with the idea of
"splitting
the T" but that only worked when the majority of the battle line could
approach the enemy unscathed. In FT, this would be suicidal. The ships
trying to "split the T" would present forward weapons only while taking
broadside shots. The mutual "triangluar approach vector" is the only
reasonable way for the two fleets to approach. Changing the forward and
rear
firing arcs to a tighter arc will make the triangular approach even more
necessary, as well as easier to do.

Another problem with rear arc ships is that the movement rules make it
impossible to maneuver in formation. Try turning a battle line running
line
astern. Because of FT's movement rules, a line astern turning will
result in
a line abreast formation. You can't order one ship to follow the exact
course of another ship.

I'm not so sure that this all that bad a problem. I mean, it's a big
problem
if you want to simulate pre-dreadnought combat, but this is a SF game.
SF
combat should be different than pre-dreadnought, or I might as well dig
out
my already painted Russo-Japanese war ships and play on the floor. I
agree
with David that a rear arc might not make that much of a difference in
stopping "plughole" games. I like Jon's rear arc idea, though,
particularly
in a "real thrust" movement game. It adds a little tactical complexity
without adding rule complexity.

Allan Goodall:	agoodall@sympatico.ca 
"You'll want to hear about my new obsession.
 I'm riding high upon a deep depression. 
 I'm only happy when it rains."    - Garbage