Re: [FT] Re: Curing the fighter blues and Warpwar(Metagaming)

In a message dated 99-01-15 16:05:43 EST, Indy wrote:

>>As a side note, on rec.games.board, someone commented on doing Warpwar
>>as
a
>>PBeM, and I mentioned thinking it might be good as a campaign setting
for
>>FT. So far, no replies, but the idea I had was to take the diceless
combat
>>table, make its cross-reference results be whether fleets would
actually
>>meet in battle, based on the limited intel they'd have as they were
>>approaching, possibly adjusting results based on comparative 'fleet
>>speeds'. Any comments?
> 
> Funny, I was *just* e-talking with Noam 'Iceberg' Izenberg not even an
hour
> ago about doing a potential campaign FT game based in WarpWar. I've
been
> mulling this over for about 2 years now, but never got off my butt
beyond
> a very simple playtest run I did over the summer (which was left
unfinished
> as I ended up taking off on a 5-week adventure :). My take on this, at
least
> very initially, is to keep tech levels 'frozen', just to get a feel
for it.
> I was thinking of abstracting the economics to the limit (eg, all econ
points
> you collect in your empire are dumped into a pool at the end of each
turn
> for you to use as you see fit; also, enemy navy cannot attack the
merchants
> due to the level of abstraction, so the only way an empire could lose
their
> econ points is to have the enemy take over the system(s) giving a
given
empire
> said resources). I wasn't going to do the WarpWar combat system, but
rather
> use FT to resolve battles in a contested system. On the map all the
other
> player sees is where you are moving your task forces/fleets (said
fleets can
> be composed of whatever you want them to be, from 1 ship to many), and
if
two
> enemy fleets meet in a system, resort to FT to resolve the battle.
This
will,
> no doubt, lead to some lop-sided, uneven battles, which is what some
people
> would like to see. These could then *easily* be converted into
stand-up
> scenarios.

Interestingly enough, this seems similar to the campaign I'm working on
at the
moment, though it's more of a "Theatre" level rather than the Grand
Strategic
level game. I wanted to add the merchant raiding  without neccesarily
playing
each little raid, so the plan (for now anyway) is to abtract it more or
less
as follows. Each player can allocate ships to the Raiding Pool or to the
Merchant Protection Pool. Each ship has special value this role (*not*
the PV,
because it seems to me numbers of ships out there raiding is a bit more
important than the actual combat value of the ship itself [ IE WWII,
scads of
weak subs were much better at convoy raiding than was the Bismark, if
only
because big B scared the crap out of the Admiralty and they were
determined to
find and sink her, which of course they did]) During the strategic turn
there's a roll on a old style Combat Results Table to determine the
damage
done to both the enemies logistics level and to the forces involved. The
Logistics Level is sort of (if you'll excuse the AD&D analogy) the
combatants
"hit points", the lower the level, the harder it is to do repairs and
replentish the consumable munitions. I hope to finish the rules and whip
them
into some reasonably understandable form on om my web page Real Soon
Now.   

> Naturally, movement of the Fleet counters would be pre-plotted each
turn.

Naturally. :-)
 
> I would also abstract away ship construction and say once you have the
points
> to buy a certain ship or ships, and spend the points, you have built
it, it
> is ready, at your homeworld.

In my campaign, since there's no provision for ship construction, I'm
tying
reinforcements into each sides Victory Points (ie, "Oh crap, they're
getting
the stuffings knocked out of them, send reinforcements!" to "Wah-hoo,
send
more ships and the war's over by Christmas!"). 
 
<snip>
 
> I also decided to abstract out ground combat and presume that whomever
> holds the system at the end of the FT combat phase controls the
econ/resource
> points for that system next turn (this *is* supposed to be a very
simple
> campaign sort of thing, after all). I won't tell you what Noam thought
> about the ground combat stuff; you can ask 'im yourself.  ;)	(you're
> welcome, Iceberg! :)

Yeah, me too. I'm just assuming that there's a widely accepted doctrine
that
worlds that don't surrender to an orbiting fleet get trashed.
 
<snip again>
>The whole idea here is just for doing naval engagements between
> enemy forces. Other stuff can come or expand in it as one desires (and
time
> allows).
 
Yep, same here. That's why I got rid of actually constructing fleets and
whatnot, I figure let the folks back home crank 'em out and let me deal
with
fighting them. :-)

> If Iceberg and I ever get together and do this, we'll post a 'campaign
report'.
> Right now I'm kinda leaning to using the Fifth Frontier War map
instead of
the
> WarpWar map. More systems, more options for attack, more fleets to
play
with.

I hope to get my Minataur Sector Campaign started and on line in the
next
couple of months. We'll see though.

> Mk