Operational Game

It seems to me a lot of ideas have flown 
around, some of which apply to the Operational 
Game, some of which apply to Strategic Game 
and some of which apply to both. Furthermore, 
the ways in which these ideas apply from level 
to level varies. 

It seems to me that a Stategic Level game has 
real questions of logistics, economics, 
resources, politics, etc. This is the level at which 
political decisions are made, at which resources 
are allocated for construction, where large front-
wide logistics are carried out, etc. It is also the 
place where you conquer things and gain 
something from doing so. At any lower level, 
the time frame will be to short to reap any in-
game benefit from capturing facilities, 
population or production bases. 

On the operational level, things work differently. 
Politics plays a role (ROE and Victory Point 
restrictions). Economics plays a role only 
insofar as it may provide VP restrictions (ie 
identify what is worth having) and may 
determine how big the force you arrive with is 
or how many reinforcements you could expect. 
Logistics might play a minimal role, but at this 
level you can expect fleet colliers and 
replenishment vessels to resupply fighting ships. 
Construction would be non-existent and repairs 
would be limited to a small amount that a 
portable Fleet Repair Dock would allow. Major 
damage would put ships right out of the game 
for all intents and purposes. 

So what are the design factors for an 
operational level game?

Time: say 0.5 to 2 days per turn. 

Distance: I'm thinking the map has to at least 
represent the inner system, possibly the whole 
system, even if it is an abstraction.

Fleet sizes: Unless you're assaulting a core 
world or an inner colony, I'd imagine you'd be 
looking at not more than 10K points in your 
incoming fleet. 5K might be more likely. 

Reinforcements: The attacker probably has 
mostly scheduled reinforcements, the defender 
random (relief forces or rapid reaction forces 
arriving when they can, though he should be 
allowed to let them build off-map so they don't 
have to arrive piecemeal). 

Logistics: Assume each fleet is accompanied by 
colliers (these should be represented, but not 
paid for I think). Also provide some limited 
repair facilities. The colliers would resupply 
expendables (fighters, missiles, subpacks, etc) 
and provide raw materials for repairs (replacing 
armour, hull, and internal systems). Losing 
them (if the enemy can get to them) will result 
in the loss of repair/replacement ability (or the 
attriting of same). These need to be modelled 
because hitting them will be an important 
target. Also, the decision to play them deeper 
in system (more vulnerable, but faster to 
access) or further out system (less vulnerable, 
but longer to and fro times for ships being 
resupplied) will be an important one. 

The defender, defending a base or system, 
should have a smaller fleet, but may have even 
better resupply, repair rates (if he can hold his 
stations or meaningful orbital superiority). 

Minefields would only be useful in areas 
immediately surrounding objectives. Space is 
just too big otherwise. Fighters similarly are 
likely to be deployed at planets, moons, bases, 
etc. 

At this level, fog of war is pretty much critical, 
as is proper rules for recce and scouting. This 
explains why fleets bring small units and 
sometimes why they are forced to disperse 
some of their combat strength. Without the fog 
of war, people know things which let them make 
decisions about concentration that they 
realistically could never make. Additionally, this 
adds a lot to the challenge for the defender 
(where is the attack coming from? Which one is 
a feint? Do I go out to meet it to protect the 
planet from bombardment? Or is it not the real 
threat?) and to the attacker (where are his 
defenses? has he added new ones since my last 
intel appreciation? has he hidden forces I don't 
expect?). 

VPs should be assigned by objectives and both 
sides don't necessarily have to apprise 
objectives the same value. Also, throwing in 
some randomness in forces (card draws like 
Charlie Company used might be one idea) so 
that it is just possible the attacking force is 
about to walk into a fleet of the wall the 
defender was rotating through the system or 
maybe the defender had just pulled out half his 
mobile defense assets.... that really adds a lot 
to the flavour and fun. The trick is in establishing 
a VP scheme for the game that means that it 
isn't whether the battles are fair or not, but if 
the defender uses what he has (or the attacker 
does) most wisely. 

This is a tough thing to do, generically, doubly 
so without a referee. The referee can add in a 
lot of judgement. To just make it a hard and 
fast rules situation.... that's tough. 

----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thomas Barclay
Software Developer & Systems Analyst
thomas.barclay@stargrunt.ca
----------------------------------------------------