Re: Conformal Movement

realjtl@sj.bigger.net on 07/17/98 03:06:35 PM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: Conformal Movement

>Jared E Noble wrote:
>>
>> This is kind of the idea I had in mind when I thought about a
FleetControl
>> (or Flag) system (in combination with FireCon and Flight Control -
but
no,
>> I'm not trying to reopen that discussion.)
>>
>> Anyway - the presence of a FleetCon allows the ship to link with
other
>> ships (thinking 2 per flagcon?) in a more tightly controlled squadron
-
>> sharing targeting and defensive nets.  The squadron must maintain a
tight
>> cohesion - maybe 3-4 MU, which could be done with the conformal
movement
as
>> you said.  Benefits are that ships in the squadron can attack a
target
at
>> the range of the closest squadron member - (so those leading escorts
>
>...Big Snip...JTL
>
>     Let me see if I have this right:
>My scout ship that I moved to 10 inches of my opponent fires
>as if it had the weapons of my  two battle dreadnoughts that are
>at 33 inches range.   MY 'A' batteries get a three dice attack,
>the pulse torpedos fire at a ten inch range, ect.
>     I can see how a certain segment of the gaming world could
>get into this.
See the part of the post that you included:
   "The squadron must maintain a tight cohesion - maybe 3-4 MU"
If you have someone at 10", and others at 33", how many do you have in
between (can you say "long line waiting to get cut in half?") certainly
the
point is made that there needs to be limits on how much the range can be
improved, But I'm looking for that kind of feedback so I can put those
kinds of things into it.  Generally I was thinking that ranges could be
improved by one range band, or if you get lucky your heavies may be just
out of his range for one turn while you can still shoot thanks to your
"Forward Observers" - FT is rarely a game of static lines and distances,
so
you probably won't get that lucky again - and if you so, then he
deserves
it.

>     What are the drawbacks?
Several listed in the original post, perhaps more needed

>     What about play balance?
That's part of what I'm trying to determine, with the help of
experienced
FT players on the list

>     What is the mass of the new FCS?
As stated in the post, I really don't know for FB designs - With FTII it
was to be the same mass as standard firecon - All the control systems
would
be (FireCon, FleetCon, and FlightCon).	The new superlight (mass 1)
firecon
in the FB kind of messes this up, as that seems to light for what I
envision - Mass 3-4 seems more appropriate here.

>     Can this new FCS be exchanged for an old without penelty?
Again, that was the intent in FTII, except as originally planned you
could
not replace any of your "free" Firecon with FleetCon.  A capital ship
would
need to have at least 3 Fire/FlightCon (any combination), and could have
extra fleetcon if desired. If you already had a SDN designed with 5
firecon, then up to 2 could be replaced with fleetcon.

>     What is the point cost?
As stated, I don't know the point cost, but it should be expensive.  in
FT2
I was thinking 25 points, but this was off the top of my head.	Again
don't
know about FB - haven't even had it a week!

>   Why am I asking these questions, This concept is really gross!!
When misinterpreted, It can be - I don't think that is necessarily has
to
be, though.

>
>     I think this needs a play test against a normal fleet prior
>to a general suggestion being issued.
>
>     If this was a call for realistic comment then I am overreacting
>and I am sorry for that. (I've had a hard week, but then most weeks
>are hard.)
I understand, and that is exactly what is was.	Let me say this - I have
had FT/MT for over a year and I am not aware of any single person in
Alaska, outside myself, who has even FT, or for that matter has heard of
the game (outside 2 friends of mine.)  so it is very difficult to
playtest
against a normal fleet to develop the full set of ideas.  I would like
to
stage a game at some small, local con up here but have not yet had an
opportunity.  By putting in writing the ideas I have, and getting the
stuffing beat out of them by people who have much more experience in FT
than I have, I hope to get them strengthened to the point that I can
convince a friend to try them out in one of the gaming sessions we have
(which seems to happen at most! once a month. - real slow going on the
playtest cycle).  In probably 5 minutes you pointed out major concerns
and
holes either in the system or my explanation of it (in my opinion there
was
some of both).

>
>     The squadron movement is something that I/we use all the time.
>It allows the control of a larger number of ships per player and
>saves quite a bit of time during movement.
>
>Morale: In a 'one of' game the morale factor means that the game
>really hinges on the roll of a single die.   This is now really a
>satisfactory situation.   What happens if both players go over
>the morale check point at the end of the turn, both roll a
>morale failure, do both players lose the game?
Well, DSII and SGII seem to have a fairly decent one-off morale
framework -
The combination of Mission Motivation and Fatigue (forgive me if thats
not
the right term - I am without my manuals) with multiple levels of morale
(not the GW Superdude/Routed type) seems to mitigate the single roll
dependancy quite a bit.  And in any single encounter, a thirty second
description of the events can pretty well set the Motivation and fatigue
levels. See below

>     Morale in a campaign is provided by the knowledge that
>'there will be a tomorrow' and therefor the roll of a die to
>determine loss of the battle is not valid.   I am faced
>with a situation in the Campaign98 for tomorrow:
>I have one cruiser and two frigites vs two cruisers, 1 destroyer,
>one scout, and a merchant.   If only the ship strengths are
>considered I would be at a morale disadvantage and would surrender
>or run.   However, these ships are protecting two colony worlds(
>my enemy has demanded that I leave the system), that I do not want
>to surrender.	What do you think is going to happen?
How important is it to you to not abandon the system? politically,
economically, does it matter?  you just said that you don not want to
surrender the colony worlds - and in doing so set yourself a medium to
high
motivation.  Set the level for the opponent as based on assuptions of
what
their situation is.  Fatigue - your ships are in a local picket,
presumably
they get time for R&R since there is a local friendly presence.  Are his
troops fresh, or have they just pushed the front-line to reach this
system?
You now have a one-off scenario.  Certainly in a true campaign the
morale
strategic portion of morale is overweighed by the actual events. But the
tactical shouldn't be. This may be an important battle for your
Admiralty.
But as the captain of your frigate watches your two lead SDNs (the
backbone
of your squadron) go up in major explosions, and the captain of the CL
(new
squadron commander) screens and tell him to charge into the teeth of
enemy
DNs, does this frigate captain stay so motivated?

As I see things - that's part of what makes DSII/SGII so well liked. 
The
cool die-type shifts aside, I attempts to model the difference in what
you
plan and order, and what the troops actually do.  It may be harder for a
ship to cower and hide than it is for lowly PFC Funk, but I'm certain
that
there have been crews that have balked at the orders they were given,
just
like grunts.

>
>Not intended as excessively critical.
>
>Bye for now,
>John L.

Not taken as such.  Thanks for Your input.

Jared Noble