Age of Iridium Summary - Final Commentary - 6/6

First, if anyone would like to see maps of the battle please e-mail me
and I
can send them to you.  I have pictures, in GIF format, for every turn of
the
game.

BATTLE COMMENTARY

One of the Tsarist players said that it was a pleasant change to see a
game
won more by tactics than luck, and I must concur. If anything, the
Nipponese
had the best luck (causing Khalkin Gol to strike with one threshold
check,
Shinome's improbable resistance under exceptional fire, several bad
minesweeping rolls). 

The Tsarists didn't so much win as the Nipponese lost. The Tsarists'
play
wasn't what I would call brilliant. This isn't a slam; they were never
put
in a position where they COULD be brilliant. They were competent and
made
few errors, which was all that was necessary to win. I will say that the
Tsarists were the best organized of any team I've ever seen in any PBEM
or
PBM game. They never missed a turn since their admiral had default
orders
for every ship. I'm not sure I'd encourage this in the future (a few
players
felt out of touch with the game since all they had to submit for orders
was
"me too") but it certainly gave the Tsarists an edge. This, more than
the
Tsarists' actual maneuvering, won them the game.

On the other hand, the Nipponese were hurt with a poor initial setup,
which
was exacerbated by communication problems. This could have been fixed,
but I
think the Nipponese were too focused in pulling their fleet together. If
you
are ever looking for reasons why you don't split up your force if you
can at
all help it, this was it. However, in the face of this adversity I
wouldn't
have been surprised to see the team break up and lose interest. That
wasn't
the case. The Nipponese never gave up hope even when they themselves
were
unhappy with their own setup. I really must commend the Nipponese for
never
giving up and playing the battle to completion.

I still think that the Nipponese might have been able to pull off a win.
The
turning point was on turn 4 when the Nipponese realized that the
cruisers
weren't going to get out of range in time. Instead of turning and
running,
which split the group even more, I think that they may have been better
aiming the north fleet right at the Tsarists. This was potentially
suicidal,
but could reap HUGE benefits. Half the destroyers had pulse torpedoes,
and
the other half had seven C batteries. That's a lot of firepower. I think
they would still have lost their cruisers, and maybe all of their
destroyers, but they could probably take out one or two of the
battleships
on their own. With a little luck, half the Tsarist capital ships could
have
been destroyed or struck in that one, grand sweep. That would have gone
a
long way towards balancing the scenario. Any survivors would be able to
fly
through the other side of the minefield, where they could join up with
the
battleships. This is just my personal thoughts. It's also possible that
they
wouldn't have done any appreciable damage while losing their destroyers
as well.

I would unhesitatingly play a game with any of these players, and would
happily include them in any game I run in the future. There was a very
real
feeling that the Nipponese did not play up to their potential and would
like
a rematch. 

SCENARIO COMMENTARY

The purpose of the scenario was three fold. First, I wanted to run a
large
game that would be next to impossible to play on the tabletop. Second, I
wanted to try a game that used rear facing arcs. Finally, I had an idea
for
a game based loosely on the Russo-Japanese war.

The ship designs were less than optimal. I based them roughly on
pre-dreadnought designs. The ships are long and thin. The major
batteries
have three firing arcs, but the other ships have either one or two arcs
only. Battleships were based on A batteries as the primary weapon and C
batteries as secondary. Cruisers were armed with B and C batteries, and
destroyers had only C batteries. This doesn't produce the best possible
ships, but it created some interesting tactical problems. These ships
require more thought than, say, a fleet of three-arc A battery ships. 

Both sides were given only partial information on the other side's
technology. The Tsarists had shield technology and submunition packs,
while
the Nipponese had anti-shield technology (pulse torpedoes) and enhanced
sensors. This meant that the Tsarists had an edge in long range gunnery
duels and the Nipponese should prefer a close-in battle. 

The sun never entered into the game in any real tactical sense. My
original
supposition for the scenario was that the Nipponese would try to hem the
Tsarists in between them and the sun. This would force the Tsarists to
close
range or try to fly right through the Nipponese, thus nullifying their
long
range advantage. If they didn't close, the risked damage from solar
radiation. Once through the Nipponese fleet, they would have to turn
around,
preferably in the middle of a minefield. I expected a short, bloody
battle
with the Nipponese sitting in broadside formation as the Tsarists ran
directly at them. The two fleets would pass through each other in a
bloody
melee and the Nipponese would eventually have the sun to their rear.
This
would give them the advantage for removing critically damaged ships. In
fact, at one point I thought that the Nipponese might be far too
powerful.

I would like to try this scenario again sometime, with both sides
knowing
what they have to expect. I would probably eliminate the reinforcements
since they added nothing to the game and make the scenario too
complicated.
I might also give the Nipponese battleships level 1 shields. The third
possibility is to eliminate the minesweepers. Finally, the minelaying
cruisers didn't do much at all to the scenario, so I'd probably replace
them
with something more potent.

PBEM COMMENTARY

I made a mistake during the game. In turn three or four I accidentally
gave
the Nipponese turn results to the Tsarists. I asked the lurkers what I
should do about this and they all agreed that I should make it up to the
Nipponese. Giving them some reinforcements was the consensus. I gave
them an
extra ship, which was the first through the jump point. This was to
compensate them for the mistake I made; in the end the ship had no
effect on
the battle. The other reinforcements were planned from the beginning. I
used
a random method, chosen by the players, for determining the composition
of
the reinforcing squadron and the turn they appeared (one on turn 9, the
other on turn 12).

Mines are a pain in e-mail games. In a tabletop game it's relatively
easy to
figure out which ship is first to detonate the mine and whether or not
the
minesweeper would get to the mine first. Since I was using an automated
system for resolving movement, I had to calculate by eye the ships that
would be within range of the mines during the turn. I have since come up
with an algorithm that could make this calculation, so I intend to add
it to
my e-mail resolution program (when I write it :-)  ). For PBEM purposes
I
assumed that every ship within range of the mine during that turn has a
random chance of being hit by it, but minesweeping occurs first. This
gives
strange cases where a group of ships could fly through a minefield with
the
minesweeper at the BACK of the fleet, but it worked in the context of
the game.

I would probably use simultaneous fire in the future. Sequential fire
works
fine, but it adds a fair bit of work to the turn resolution. It also
doesn't
add much to the game. I prefer sequential fire in face-to-face games
since
it adds some tactical complexity, but in an e-mail game you have to
preplot
the fire order before you see movement and combat results. The extra
complexity doesn't gain you much.

FULL THRUST COMMENTARY

I noticed a few things about Full Thrust in this game. Sensors don't
seem to
have much of an effect. I gave the Nipponese better sensors with the
assumption that they would be able to pick off the minesweepers before
the
Tsarists hit the mines. In all honesty, I haven't found sensors to be of
much use. Sure it's nice to know what you are up against. In most games,
though, you don't get a useful scan until you are within range of the
weapons anyway. Perhaps if there was a system that could hide the class
of
the ship and only enhanced or superior sensors could penetrate it, there
would be a reason to have sensors in the first place.

In retrospect, I'd probably dump the sensor rules for the next game.

Rear arcs proved interesting, but probably because the ships weren't
optimum
designs. Broadsides were powerful, when the occurred. Interestingly, the
Nipponese southern fleet swung in behind the Tsarist fleet at one point.
This maneuver would have been devestating in regular Full Thrust. In
this
case, the Nipponese had a slight advantage. Both sides had two A
batteries
that they could bring to bear, but the Nipponese also had pulse
torpedoes.
Without artificial constraints on weapon arcs, though, rear arcs would
pretty much eliminate the need for tactics.

The fleet morale rules worked quite well. My flagship rule (giving each
player a personal flagship that would never strike) meant that each side
would always have one ship per player unless the ships were destroyed.
This
is quite useful in a multiplayer game. I wouldn't recommend the fleet
morale
rule for small engagements as it makes it too easy to eliminate a ship,
but
in this large fleet engagement I thought it added to the game. It might
also
be an idea to add it in campaign games. I might try to simplify the
rules
around prize crews and capturing the ships. It was kind of neat seeing a
struck ship revert back to its original side. I would just like to
simplify
the mechanics, if that is possible.

CONCLUSION

Once I've got an automated e-mail resolution program, I'd like to run
this
scenario again. I might make it smaller, though, or at least run it with
fewer players. I had 19 people sign up for the game and eventually went
through each one as the game progressed. Maybe shrinking down the
scenario
would be helpful. It might also be possible to play the same scenario
with
fewer people. 

In closing, I enjoyed running the game and had a lot of fun. Hopefully
the
players did as well. I would like to thank everyone who played in the
game.
I greatly appreciated it.

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