RE: FT Taskforce and Fleet Actions

At 7:02 PM -0500 8/6/01, David Rodemaker wrote:
> > OK, I've mumbled some things about this in the past and now I'm
> > starting to think about this in more detail now that I've got a few
> > things taken care of.
>
>Nothing wrong with that!
>
> > I have in the past, begun to think about an extension to Full thrust
> > that allows for a better scale of scenario build up rather than the
> > basic X-thousand points and a table kind of matches.
>
>Obligatory statement of desire for an "official" campaign system based
on
>"Canon"

I'm working it as Canon as possible, but I think you're talking to 
Jon. Let me point out that you have campaigns that could be set up 
where you're fighting for control of a system and then there are 
campaigns where you are fighting for control of many systems. Each 
has a different focus and a different set of parameters involved, as 
well as time scale. I'm going for the first kind which means, there 
isn't resources like raw materials and ships being built to keep 
track of.

>
>Looking at the other posts on the subject, and after some thought I
think
>that this would in fact work OK. An alternative is to merely work on a
range
>band concept similar to Traveller and abstract it out majorly. This way
is
>probably somewhat easier and more fun...

Lots of thinking that works on a broad area, but can affect small 
details. like, where do you send your scouts. Which vessels go active 
with sensors, etc.
[snip]

>
> > At the edge of the Theatre map is the hyper limit for safe FTL
> > transition. FTL transition near the Primary or other major/minor
> > planets will have varying degrees of hazard. FTL into the system is
> > only on the edge, closer in results in ship/task force loss.
> > Transition further out results in longer times to enter the system
> > and is reserved for special scenarios as it takes a week or more to
> > FTL that far out and thrust in at low speed to avoid detection.
>
>As an old Trav. player I don't like this. I like the Planetary
Diameters
>better. For FT I would be more tempted to place this as a series of
>concentric rings around any planetary hex...

The problem with the planetary diameters function is that you will 
never ever have a system that is defensible. Its going to be outposts 
that are separated and always easily isolated from each other. Making 
a perimeter that allows scramble creates a frontier of sorts that is 
more easily watched. Some of the concepts seem to work thematically 
as I've worked a bit of Honor Harrington into the concepts. I hope 
Jon doesn't mind...

It also makes for more fights that involve the raiding force coming 
down the slot. ITs not as much fun if you can 'pop' in and hose the 
ship yard then pop out before the ships on station the next planet 
over can get to it.

[snip]
>
> > Taskforces will be those ships in a specific hex. They could be a
> > full battle line, a convoy of cargo vessels, a small CA/DD task
> > force, ships (CLs/DDs/FFLs) on picket duty, a Scout(s), or a
> > anti-scouting DD screen.
>
>You may want to give some thought to C&C ala SFB...

Well, the overall com signals are whisker thin lasers. I'm shying 
away from the gravitic pulse comms stuff for now. (perhaps the Grav 
Drive Aliens would use it?) This isn't a big deal as it only takes 7 
seconds for light to travel 1 AU...or something like that. So at the 
extreme range of the edge of the system you're talking about 
something like 16 minutes max.
>
>
>Yup, but with the current rules I would just argue for running hot or
cold
>basically, and the amount of fire controls active, etc...

I want the ability to differentiate between vessels at range. A bit 
more precision...at least as an option...

> > Fighter groups will be detectable at closer or further ranges
> > depending on what really feels right. They will be detected at much
> > closer ranges compared to ships (Active and passive). Probably 1-2
AU
> > on passive, 6-8 AU on active
>
>Seems a bit high to me... But who knows. This also begs the question of
what
>exactly "fighter endurance" means in a strategic game. I would argue
that
>you don't operate fighters on that scale.

I'm thinking that CEFs would be burned to cover 1 Hex extra/turn or 
to change course. This would give a good approximation of their 
endurance and if combat were to take place, they'd be in a world of 
hurt. They'd eventually get back if they used all their CEFs but it'd 
be only if the SAR teams went out and towed them back.

1 Free CEF for initial vector and direction (ship's catapults)
Move 1 Hex per turn
Cost 1 CEF to change direction.
Cost 1 CEF to increase movement to 2 hexes per turn.
CEFs in the hex (Ship Action Scale) are burned normally.

So a mission could have a fighter group running out at 2 CEF/ turn (1 
CEF burned) for 4 turns (8 Hexes away) Making a course change to 
adjust to the latest target data (2 CEF's burned now). Fighting for 
two turns (Burning 3 CEFs in the process now 5 CEFs burned total) 
then returning at low speed to the carrier.

Obviously Fast Fighters would move 2 hexes per turn and LR would have 
their normal 9 CEFs.

You could then in this process have fighters out there where you 
don't as the other guy expect them and have them jumping your task 
force unexpectedly.

> > The combination of sensor effectiveness and range will make the need
> > for sensor pickets and scouting extremely important in the game. It
> > will also allow for varied developments of carriers being separated
> > from gun type groups and still contributing to the fight in a
> > realistic manner very important. Hunt the carrier/assault group
> > scenarios would be very playable and very fun. The use of bogeys and
> > weasel boats will up the ante quite nicely too.
>
>All very true, plus MT missile bombardment or even another variant
class of
>SML missiles.

I'm thinking a uber LR MT missile...but that is additional. I need to 
get the overall theatre tactics down before the new weapons pop up.

> > Keep in mind, I'm still batting the concepts around but the basic
> > idea seems solid and playable. Thoughts comments?
>
>First looks are good.

Good...Its been banging around in my head for a while...

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -