Re: [FT] Operational game

So far this looks "do-able" and I think it has merit.

On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 14:03:03 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
>Okay, thus far we have these assumptions:
>1.  This is limited war, so we don't have to deal with major planetary
>bombardment/asteroid strikes / nukes / biowar etc.
>2.  Normal starships are not effective against planetary surfaces;
>this means that capturing planets must be done by ground troops,
>possibly with support from specialized ortillery ships.
>
>So there can be strikes against orbital facilities, but no conquest
>unless the invader sticks around for a while.	This makes it possible
>for the native to mass his own fleet to respond.  In addition, we have
>lines of supply for the invasion (and for the natives) so both sides
>can have a hand at commerce raiding.
>
>Should we have various "Blockade" states?  eg
>a. Assault Orbit: ortillery can make attacks on the surface; surface
>weapons emplacements can engage ships.
>b. Close Blockade: outside direct fire range of surface installations;
>within range of orbital defenses and fighters; high probability of
>intercepting freighters/smuggler
>c. Far Blockade: outside range of orbital defense installations but
>within range of fighters; moderate chance of intercepting convoys.
>d. Raiding: Outside the range of all planetary defenses including
>fighters; small chance of intercepting shipments.
>e. Lurking: attempting to avoid contact with any enemy ships whether
>armed or not, but capable of reconnaisance
>g. Hidden: no contact including recon.
>
>We could then have a roll for each force with DRMs for posture,
>thrust, sensors, and admiral quality; whoever wins the roll has the
>choice of making contact.
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com