Re: [FT] Operational game

--- Noam Izenberg <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> This could be dealt with coarse-grained by assigning
> "% available" for 
> a given fleet/force that is dependent on the
> distance from the nearest 
> secure supply station. Say a cruiser group is 80%
> available in "home 
> territory (so you'd need to assign 5 ships if you
> regularly want 4 
> available), 60% available just across the border of
> disputed space 
> (need 6 or 7 ships assigned to have 4 available),
> and 50% or below for 
> a deep, sustained incursion. % available would
> increase or decrease as 
> the status of the nearest planets changed (another
> mechanic to figure 
> out).

The proximity to planets or stations with sufficient
facilities to service the fleet should be the
determining factor, not just an arbitrary "In friendly
space/unfriendly space."  That way even long range
defensive patrols have to think about such issues.  It
just seems more realistic to me.  It would also
require both sides to spend points on planetary
facilities.  Really starting to sound like a long-term
campaign setting, and I like that. :-)
 
> >> civil unrest, morale issues etc.
> >
> > "Your political leadership requires that the
> planet Voteria not be
> > left undefended"--okay, that's another one. 
> Similar is the "defending
> > convoys" that Edward mentioned.
> 
> Random assignment, or something you "pay to maintain
> or reap the 
> consequences"?

I'd say a bit of both.

=====
Qui me amat, amet et canis meum.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com