Re: [FT] Operational game

I think you need to define some things before you get too far into this.

Are you shooting for a strategic campaign, or a tactical operation?

The time frame for each is dramatically different.  As an example, a
WWII
operational game could be Utah Beach in Normandy, with the ensuing
Contentin pennisula battles (Carentan, Carteret, Cherbourg, etc) while a
WWII strategic game would cover an entire Theater of Operation, or
perhaps
the world.  The time frame for the Contentin would be 3-6 weeks, where a
strategic game would cover 1-2 years.

A true FT operational game would probably encompass the battle for a
solar
system, or perhaps a cluster of solar systems.	A FT strategic game
would
encompass the battle between whole star nations.

Assuming you want a true operational game, I would make each operational
turn a day, or perhaps half a day.  Reinforcements would be strictly
defined by the GM as to composition and arrival time.  Once they're in
the
AO, then they would be under the command of the player.  Likewise
supplies
would be delivered to the AO in set amount, possibly affected by the
success of the forces (ie they overrun a supply base and transfer some
of
their opponents supplies to their own stockpile).  Bonuses could be
given
to a task force if the CO hordes his supplies and ups the TF's supply
level
for a turn.

Ship repair would be strictly limited to field only repairs.  Crew
replacements could be delivered as "supplies".

With the short turns you would have travel delays that would make scout
ships important.  Plus you could have situations where a reinforcing
task
force would arrive during a battle.

Remember, in an actual conflict sides are NEVER equal, so if you try to
generate "even" battles through a higher level game, you'll probably be
disappointed.  The ultimate victory generally goes to he who uses what
he
has most wisely, not who fights "fair".

JMO, it's probably worth what you paid for it.

Bill

									
								 
		      >"Laserlight"					
								 
		      ><laserlight@quixnet.n>et>	To:	 
<gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>						
		      >Sent by: 			cc:		
								 
		      >owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.B>	Subject:  [FT]
Operational game						   
		      erkeley.EDU					
								 
									
								 
									
								 
		      >01/29/2003 05:16 PM				
								 
		      >Please respond to gzg-l				
								 
		      > 						 

>
>
>One of the problems with an operational game is how you divide your
>forces.  Let's say both fleets start at 5000 points.  Ideally, an
>admiral is going to want to have all 5000 points show up on the table,
>but this means that each operation has exactly one huge battle.
>
>Okay, we give each side several points to defend.  So one side gathers
>his forces and hammers the other side's detachments, which either have
>to flee or die--not an interesting battle either way.	We want to have
>several, reasonably even matches.
>
>So what would induce an admiral to hold back some forces?  Fear of an
>ambush is one; having a limited control span is another.  What else?