Options in Fleet battle

[The Oz]

I've posted some ideas concerning choices and consequences for admirals in battle scenarios for the TRAVELLER universe. I'm looking/hoping for feedback on these ideas before I integrate them into the wargame project I am working on.

You can find the web page here: Fleet Battle Options in TRAVELLER

 

[Timerover51]

I've posted some ideas concerning choices and consequences for admirals in battle scenarios for the TRAVELLER universe. I'm looking/hoping for feedback on these ideas before I integrate them into the wargame project I am working on.

You can find the web page here: Fleet Battle Options in TRAVELLER

Looking at your option template, you apparently assume that capturing the planet will be essentially effortless. Are you bringing transport in with your attacking force or not? If you are, what provision do you have for protecting them during the fleet engagement? If you are bringing them in later, again, how do you protect them?

You also do not seem to consider that the defending force may want to trap the attacking force between the planet and their fleet. Or do an in-system micro-jump and hit the attackers a week later when they are presumably dispersed throughout the system.

Have you ever looked at the Imperium game, by the way?

 

[robject]

Have you ever looked at the Imperium game, by the way?

I'm sure Steve has played Imperium, as well as Dark Nebula and Fifth Frontier War. Correct me if I'm wrong, Oz. It just seems to me that between you and Mike Wightman there's more knowledge about Traveller's wargames than I can ever know.

 

[The Oz]

Looking at your option template, you apparently assume that capturing the planet will be essentially effortless. Are you bringing transport in with your attacking force or not? If you are, what provision do you have for protecting them during the fleet engagement? If you are bringing them in later, again, how do you protect them?

I had not considered that enough. My thinking on the subject was that any ships the Intruder did not want shot at would be "in the Reserve" behind the battleline, as in a High Guard battle. What the Intruder would do with such vulnerable vessels in a passing battle does need to be thought about.

Mostly the template is intended to clarify (as much as it possible to do so) the options available to the naval forces involved and any planetary defenses capable of anti-ship fire.

You also do not seem to consider that the defending force may want to trap the attacking force between the planet and their fleet. Or do an in-system micro-jump and hit the attackers a week later when they are presumably dispersed throughout the system.

If the Native wants to "trap" the Intruder between the planet and a Native fleet, then the Native is choosing the option of "defending the planet at the planet" because the Native intends for the planet's firepower to be available.

And doing a micro-jump means the Native is, at least for a week, running away from the planet. And to do that, the Native forces must either get to the Jump limit, or have been deployed there in the first place.

That does point out another unspoken assumption I had made, however. All of the Native's choices assume the Native fleet is deployed near the planet, and that may not be the case.

Have you ever looked at the Imperium game, by the way?

Yes. Why do you mention it?

I appreciate the comments. Discussion like this is what I hoped for.

Robject: Thanks for the compliment.

 

[phavoc]

Your chart makes sense without having more information about the composition of the defender and the attacker.

From the defender's point a view a lot would depend on the defenses of the planet. Strong defenses, especially hard to silence deep-site meson guns means the attacker has to come in range (unless they plan on doing bombardment, though that affect the guns. If the defenses are strong and the mobile forces weak, I'd just disengage and either force the enemy to come to me or try and wait them out (depends on what other targets and resources are available). Assuming they came without tanker support, they would be stuck in the system once they exhausted their onboard stores. Though they would be pretty stupid (or caught totally off-guard) if they tried to jump into a system without the necessary firepower to win the battle.

On the offensive side, there's even more intangibles. Is the enemy the type that he would allow me to attack the planet and become bogged down and then engage in guerilla warfare? SDB's can be pretty nasty to transports and such, so even by "winning" the planet the attacker might have to tie up large quantities of escorts to protect his prize. If the defender were fanatical (or the attacker), then defending the planet at all costs would make sense, and the attacker might suffer pretty heavy casualties. Taking a planet isn't easy, but wrecking one is. The defender, assuming they had jump capable ships in their fleet, could potentially leave enmasse and attack the rear of the offender, especially if they were more or less evenly matched in the first place. The attacker would have to bring everything they had, and then some, to overcome the bonuses you get for defending, thus leaving their own bases exposed. If they had jumped in, their tanks would be dry (maybe, depending on distance) so retreat may not be an option.

 

[Timerover51]

If the Native wants to "trap" the Intruder between the planet and a Native fleet, then the Native is choosing the option of "defending the planet at the planet" because the Native intends for the planet's firepower to be available.

And doing a micro-jump means the Native is, at least for a week, running away from the planet. And to do that, the Native forces must either get to the Jump limit, or have been deployed there in the first place.

That does point out another unspoken assumption I had made, however. All of the Native's choices assume the Native fleet is deployed near the planet, and that may not be the case.

If I am anticipating a planetary invasion (note, I have a low opinion of planetary invasions), why would I put my fleet near the probable target? I want to have you thoroughly engaged with the planetary defenses, and have your transports needing protection before hitting you. I would be sitting either in the system asteroid belt, at one of the gas giants (since you do not seem to be concerned about them), or maybe at fuel caches located at the Trojan Points of one of the system's gas giants. I want to have your attention as much as possible focused on taking the planet with the idea that then hitting you is going to wreak havoc with your reactions to being attacked, plus hopefully having your attacking force depleted or degraded by my planetary defenses. I have no interest in offering you a simple target to hit.

I may also decide that hitting the system that you departed from might be a nice idea too. As it is your system, if I plaster the planet with city-buster bombs, and all of the nasty biological bugs that I can dump, it does not cost me anything.

Yes. Why do you mention it?

If you want to fight space battles, why not simply use that?

 

[robject]

(note, I have a low opinion of planetary invasions)

We need another thread started to discuss the angles of THIS one.

Is your opinion theoretical, as in not concerned with invasion as a game, or practical, as in planetary invasion is not possible in your estimation, or that it is not an interesting enough topic to have as a wargame, or that the whole idea seriously lacks verisimilitude, or all of the above, or some of the above, or things I haven't thought of so far?

My opinion is that it "should" be a fun part of Traveller wargaming, for some value of "fun".

 

[phavoc]

If I am anticipating a planetary invasion (note, I have a low opinion of planetary invasions), why would I put my fleet near the probable target? I want to have you thoroughly engaged with the planetary defenses, and have your transports needing protection before hitting you. I would be sitting either in the system asteroid belt, at one of the gas giants (since you do not seem to be concerned about them), or maybe at fuel caches located at the Trojan Points of one of the system's gas giants. I want to have your attention as much as possible focused on taking the planet with the idea that then hitting you is going to wreak havoc with your reactions to being attacked, plus hopefully having your attacking force depleted or degraded by my planetary defenses. I have no interest in offering you a simple target to hit.

I may also decide that hitting the system that you departed from might be a nice idea too. As it is your system, if I plaster the planet with city-buster bombs, and all of the nasty biological bugs that I can dump, it does not cost me anything.

If you want to fight space battles, why not simply use that?

There's a couple of point here. Stooging around the gas giant isn't a bad idea, but what if there are two? Then you'd have to either split your fleet or leave one more or less unguarded, so you are in the same boat. I don't think any of the games really explored the idea of what it would take to render a gas giant a really bad place to be for refueling.

If I were going to be invading, I would not bring my transports with me initially. There is no reason for them to be there. Plus you can't really surprise attack a fleet from the rear with another fleet in deep space. I'm not saying there's no such thing as stealth (cause we ain't in the 33rd century, so who knows what they'll be able to do). But hiding a fleet shouldn't really be possible. So you'll see the guys coming at you, and all you need to do is move your own fleet to attack them. Since we are talking "fleets" here the mainworld defenses would most be fixed, so disengaging them means they aren't a threat. Space is big, so there's plenty of room to maneuver.

If you keep your fleet out elsewhere, where is your anchorage going to be? Fleets don't stay deployed all the time. It's expensive. They will be in port, somewhere, probably 1/3rd of the time during peace. Plus there's always training, maintenance, repair, shore leave, etc. That's just how navies work.

As far as whacking the other guy if he is in your system, that is a reasonable idea. But whacking him with c-fractional bombardments, bio-plagues and nukes from orbit really isn't. Cause if you are willing to do that to him, he'll do it to you and you'll both lose out. I would think MAD would apply in space wars as it does here on the ground. We know enough now to know that "winnable" nuclear warfare isn't all that much of a "win".

 

[Timerover51]

We need another thread started to discuss the angles of THIS one.

Is your opinion theoretical, as in not concerned with invasion as a game, or practical, as in planetary invasion is not possible in your estimation, or that it is not an interesting enough topic to have as a wargame, or that the whole idea seriously lacks verisimilitude, or all of the above, or some of the above, or things I haven't thought of so far?

My opinion is that it "should" be a fun part of Traveller wargaming, for some value of "fun".

Did you miss this one? I was not at all popular.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=33049

 

[Timerover51]

There's a couple of point here. Stooging around the gas giant isn't a bad idea, but what if there are two? Then you'd have to either split your fleet or leave one more or less unguarded, so you are in the same boat. I don't think any of the games really explored the idea of what it would take to render a gas giant a really bad place to be for refueling.

If I were going to be invading, I would not bring my transports with me initially. There is no reason for them to be there. Plus you can't really surprise attack a fleet from the rear with another fleet in deep space. I'm not saying there's no such thing as stealth (cause we ain't in the 33rd century, so who knows what they'll be able to do). But hiding a fleet shouldn't really be possible. So you'll see the guys coming at you, and all you need to do is move your own fleet to attack them. Since we are talking "fleets" here the mainworld defenses would most be fixed, so disengaging them means they aren't a threat. Space is big, so there's plenty of room to maneuver.

If you keep your fleet out elsewhere, where is your anchorage going to be? Fleets don't stay deployed all the time. It's expensive. They will be in port, somewhere, probably 1/3rd of the time during peace. Plus there's always training, maintenance, repair, shore leave, etc. That's just how navies work.

I know how navies work. See the YouTube link below.

As far as whacking the other guy if he is in your system, that is a reasonable idea. But whacking him with c-fractional bombardments, bio-plagues and nukes from orbit really isn't. Cause if you are willing to do that to him, he'll do it to you and you'll both lose out. I would think MAD would apply in space wars as it does here on the ground. We know enough now to know that "winnable" nuclear warfare isn't all that much of a "win".

If someone is invading my planet, I assume that they want to replace the existing government with their own. Why should I not inflict the maximum possible pain on them? My world society no longer exists.

 

[robject]

If someone is invading my planet, I assume that they want to replace the existing government with their own. Why should I not inflict the maximum possible pain on them? My world society no longer exists.

Having perused the Planetary Invasion thread, I can't see how one could possibly work in real life. It doesn't seem realistic.

However, in Fake Life, it would work similarly to fleet battles, where the layers are different and vast, and we can't assume planetary conquest necessarily results in the death of society, culture, or civilization, nor that it necessarily works in the manner you've explained above.

 

[robject]

Oz:

If I understand it, your options matrix helps modify conflicts which the player is not directly involved in; i.e. he's an admiral somewhere else.

If so, then the setup phase, before the game actions start, would be where each player secretly assigns a 'doctrine' to each of his fleets.

So the speed of the game overall will depend in a large way on how easy it is to initially 'program' each fleet relative to the system defended.

 

[aramis]

If someone is invading my planet, I assume that they want to replace the existing government with their own. Why should I not inflict the maximum possible pain on them? My world society no longer exists.

Because the price of resistance is likely to involve them doing their damnedest to figure out your relatives, and then holding them hostage. And or making you wish they'd kill you once they catch you. And/or making it clear that your resistance results in much more suffering.

All the things that happened in Vichy France... but with the tech to back it up and really root out the 5th column. And the ability to use the Dr. Mengele type as a visible tool. And the forensics to get it right. And, undoubtedly, there are collaborators who will make certain the databases get turned over.

Simply put - while a small percentage of the population will resist such, it's quite possible, with proper investment, to make it odious enough for the majority to sell out resistance fighters. Especially if the occupation forces are not generally brutal, learn the local language, and the resistance fighters are given the chance to surrender before familial punishment is inflicted. Especially if resistance fighters are "reconditioned" then released.

We know from canon that there is, by TL15, tech that can suppress or subvert one's personality. (Expedition to Zhodane.) Given that, a few resistance types implanted with sleeper orders, ratting out a few others, who likewise get them... very quickly, one can, in theory, stepford the majority of the resistance.

 

[Carlobrand]

Because the price of resistance is likely to involve them doing their damnedest to figure out your relatives, and then holding them hostage. And or making you wish they'd kill you once they catch you. And/or making it clear that your resistance results in much more suffering.

All the things that happened in Vichy France... but with the tech to back it up and really root out the 5th column. And the ability to use the Dr. Mengele type as a visible tool. And the forensics to get it right. And, undoubtedly, there are collaborators who will make certain the databases get turned over.

Simply put - while a small percentage of the population will resist such, it's quite possible, with proper investment, to make it odious enough for the majority to sell out resistance fighters. Especially if the occupation forces are not generally brutal, learn the local language, and the resistance fighters are given the chance to surrender before familial punishment is inflicted. Especially if resistance fighters are "reconditioned" then released.

We know from canon that there is, by TL15, tech that can suppress or subvert one's personality. (Expedition to Zhodane.) Given that, a few resistance types implanted with sleeper orders, ratting out a few others, who likewise get them... very quickly, one can, in theory, stepford the majority of the resistance.

Without dwelling too deeply on modern events, I might point out that your scenario presupposes an organized resistance under cultural circumstances favorable to the occupier, and that given a differing set of cultural circumstances - oh, say, one involving extremes of fanaticism, or a very rigid honor/duty code that cast the death of loved ones as preferable to their survival by dishonorable means - the occupier is likely to find many of those tools a good deal less effective. I might also point out that offensive and defensive technology tend to pace each other: if you can stepford someone, there most likely also exists technology to detect if someone's been stepforded. Trav canon on the subject is all well and good, but it's written to make a fun adventure; in real life, when people face some significant threat, they put their minds to countering it.

 

[Timerover51]

Because the price of resistance is likely to involve them doing their damnedest to figure out your relatives, and then holding them hostage. And or making you wish they'd kill you once they catch you. And/or making it clear that your resistance results in much more suffering.

All the things that happened in Vichy France... but with the tech to back it up and really root out the 5th column. And the ability to use the Dr. Mengele type as a visible tool. And the forensics to get it right. And, undoubtedly, there are collaborators who will make certain the databases get turned over.

Simply put - while a small percentage of the population will resist such, it's quite possible, with proper investment, to make it odious enough for the majority to sell out resistance fighters. Especially if the occupation forces are not generally brutal, learn the local language, and the resistance fighters are given the chance to surrender before familial punishment is inflicted. Especially if resistance fighters are "reconditioned" then released.

We know from canon that there is, by TL15, tech that can suppress or subvert one's personality. (Expedition to Zhodane.) Given that, a few resistance types implanted with sleeper orders, ratting out a few others, who likewise get them... very quickly, one can, in theory, stepford the majority of the resistance.

Japanese civilians on Saipan.

Also, I am assuming that a successful (hypothetically) occupation will be sufficiently brutal to terminate any resistant movement. Which I why I will clobber the base for the attack with my regular forces, and all of the nastiness that I can think off. And if I can pull off figuring out the Darrian Star Flare, I will use that as well.

 

[robject]

Also, I am assuming that a successful (hypothetically) occupation will be sufficiently brutal to terminate any resistant movement. Which I why I will clobber the base for the attack with my regular forces, and all of the nastiness that I can think off. And if I can pull off figuring out the Darrian Star Flare, I will use that as well.

Since that scenario is ad absurdum for the purposes of Traveller, we must think of a better situation.

Consider the possibility that Imperial rule is separate from world rule. In other words, invasion is a change of (uppermost) management. Or to put it in the words of The Who:

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

The Imperial <whatever from wherever> ruled our fine democracy. Now the Consulate <whatever of elsewhere> rules our fine democracy.

It is probably in the interests of the world government, if one exists, to cooperate and even negotiate with the winner. It therefore strikes me that a planetary invasion has three, not two, actors.

When might there be a third, world actor in an invasion scenario?

Gov 1: Corporate state. Do you suppose they'll want their world burned to slag?
Gov 2: Participatory democracy. Ditto.
Gov 3: Oligarchy. See Gov 1.
Gov 4: Representative democracy. See Gov 2.
Gov 5:

Ok I'm stopping now, because it's clear to me that all these governments, with the exceptions of 0 and 7, will do their utmost to make transitions as smooth as possible. Yes, even the nutjob TEDs and religious dictators.


hyperbole follows

<newscaster>: Ha ha ha, nice one Dave. And now let's turn to weather. Fran?

<meteorologist>: Yah, well we've got a chance of rain in the Getty Basin area, don'cha know, and hurricane Tycho is still raging on Fiore. Oh, and that planetary invasion fleet will be bombing Imperial assets on Vern, so please stay clear during those exercises, ya got that now?

<newscaster>: Oh for sure, Fran, don't wanta be caught in THAT hailstorm, eh?

(/hyperbole)

 

[robject]

Oz, I have been thinking about wargames off and on, and generally dislike it when micromanagement (boring) overshadows moving big battleships on a field (fun) and shooting big spinal guns at each other (fun).

Until now I haven't really had a good way to explain my feeling, but today I read a line from Stratfor that sums it up nicely:

Strategy is something that emerges from reality, while tactics might be chosen.

Assuming the above could be axiomatic, I would suggest that randomly determining the strategic situation might make for interesting and creative tactics.

 

[mike wightman]

I've taken my time to read it and I think you have nailed the choices.

First rule of fleet vs fleet battle - both sides need to want the fight, unless one side has a massive numerical and manoeuvre drive superiority.

Have you thought about rules for the defender having more than one planet to defend or the intruder having more than one objective in a system? The main world and gas giants are obvious bottlenecks to try and engage an Intruding fleet.

 

[The Oz]

Have you thought about rules for the defender having more than one planet to defend or the intruder having more than one objective in a system? The main world and gas giants are obvious bottlenecks to try and engage an Intruding fleet.

That comes next. This is what I think of as the "basic" scenario-one Invading fleet with one objective, one Native fleet located at that objective.

Multiple Invading fleets, multiple Native fleets, multiple objectives; all that comes later.

And I reemphasize that this method will be for resolving battles where the player (the Sector Admiral) is not present. For battles the player is at, I have a more detailed system in mind, with actual task forces deployed on a map, building up vectors, scouting and screening, deceiving and being deceived. Much more complex, which is why it's saved for battles where the player is personally in command.

 

[Piper]

I've posted some ideas concerning choices and consequences for admirals in battle scenarios for the TRAVELLER universe. I'm looking/hoping for feedback on these ideas before I integrate them into the wargame project I am working on.

There's another option (actually a form of "run for it") you might want to consider. Call it "Fleet in Being" or some such. The native may choose to withdraw to space but remain in-system (only possible if the Native has parity or superiority in M-drives).

This can present a new set of choices/challenges for the Intruder to deal with.