Re: Retrograde gimmickry

----- Original Message -----
From: <stiltman@teleport.com>
To: Full Thrust mailing list <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 2:58 PM
Subject: Retrograde gimmickry

> > Stilt:
> > > *shrugs*	We just don't over-design things so that they can't
> > > deal with a broad variety of situations.
>
> > I disagree that a Beam-6 fleet is more overdesigned than a 41-45
fighter
> > group dreadplanet. Each _is_ overdesigned, and each needs to be
tweaked
to
> > deal with different types of threats.
>
> Well, here's the problem.  (And the rest of the email I'm responding
to
sort
> of goes around this same circle, so....)  It sort of goes for just
about
> every sort of retrograde keepaway game from hell.
>
> The purpose of a starfleet of any sort of starfaring power is to keep
your
> enemies from going places where you don't want them.	The reasons for
this
> aren't too difficult to figure out.  Oerjan touched on it a bit, but
I'm
> not sure he quite got the point across, so I'll state it a bit more
explicitly.
> The general point is that science fiction is rife with examples of
what
> happens when a starship is given some sort of free rein to hammer away
at
> a planet that can't run away from it, regardless of how slow it is.
(big snip)

I stayed away from getting invovled in this thread early on because it
looked like it had great potential for a flame-war, and that just isn't
what
I want to waste my time with--but now that it seems to be past that
point...

Good point (the above paragraph from Stiltman).  Or sort of--it depends
upon
what PSB you are using.  If you are going with a kind of FTL that cannot
be
used within a star system or within so many diameters of a planet (as in
Traveller or Battletech) or one where a ship in FTL is still a valid
target
or can be otherwise engaged (as in Star Trek), than "skirmisher" style
fleets are VERY valid.	If you are going with an FTL that does not have
these limitations, than Stiltman is dead on.

But read on...

> A starfaring power that does _not_ want this to happen to them has to
be
> able to put ships between the enemy and their planets that can hold
the
line
> to make sure that it doesn't.  If they're dedicating much of their
resources
> to what amount to "skirmish forces" that are going to be good for
little
but
> flying away from an enemy in deep space and slinging insults at them,
they've
> lost sight of this simple goal.  An enemy with slower ships with
greater
> short-range firepower is not truly being stopped by speed and range. 
The
> skirmishers need all day to do significant damage to the enemy at the
range
> they need to maximize their effectiveness; the planets they'd be
charged
with
> defending won't have that long to live.
>
> _That_ is why I would not give a lot of respect to the broad
effectiveness
> of a retrograde keepaway force and be more inclined to consider it
"gimmickry"
> than a dreadplanet overloaded with fighters.	In a serious war effort,
the
> effectiveness of the keepaway forces will be marginal.  The
dreadplanet
can
> let them brag about being able to drive it off in open space all they
like;
> it'll just head straight to the enemy homeworlds and reduce them to
their
> component atoms.
(big snip again)

Ahh, but here's the rub.  While one race built a single "dreadplanet"
that
can reduce one opposing world to ashes, someone else builds 10 smaller
warships that can reduce 10 of the first race's worlds to ashes while
the
dreadplanet is out playing with one friendly world.  Or, to put it
another
way--the "dreadplanet" can only be in one place at one time.  Now, if
we're
talking about an FTL PSB that uses set "warp points" as in Starfire,
then
this is probably NOT a problem (except that in that case, the slow,
lumbering "dreadplanet" gets toasted by the skirmishers as it passes
from
warp point to planet).	Hmm, interesting tactical problem (except in
this
case it is more of a Strategic problem).

But I suppose that my above assertion is based upon several assumptions
being correct:	a limited (and somewhat equal) production capacity by
both
sides, and a number of member planets (for each side) in excess of two
or
three.	It may also lead to the point that no one will really want to
roast
anyone else's planets for fear that their own will get toasted in
retaliation.  A sort of MAD, I guess.

I think I'm starting to ramble here...time to get back on track.

(big snip yet again)

> Sure, it worked for the Viet Cong.  But the Viet Cong didn't have any
easily-
> identified, stationary targets that they needed to keep.

Actually they did, but those were either:  a. not valid targets due to
political considerations or b. protected by the Russians or the Chinese.

(another big snip)

> If you can't protect it, you're going to lose the war regardless of
> what you can do out in the open.

True enough, but the form of protection can vary (and must) with the
circumstances you are operating under :-)

I generally play and design scenarios that do include a fixed
on-the-board
objective that must have something done to it, so I do understand what
Stiltman is talking about.  Furthermore, as he's made clear, it is the
game
he and his group enjoy playing.  Even so, it ain't for me, but I'm more
of a
DD and CA kind of player anyway (anything over 120 mass is just too big
for
my tastes)!

Rob