Options in Fleet battle

[aramis]

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.

Actually, all that is needed is one side being fuel starved - No delta-V, no escape. The side with the fuel can then force an engagement.

Given the standards of the OTU, that's going to be VERY asymmetric.

Invaders have to have a fuel source post haste. If they don't, then, even before the asphyxia starts, the ability to maneuver, fight, and otherwise make like a warship stops. And warships generally cannot escape via jump if they're the invaders, unless and until they capture a fuel source. Given the ratios...

around 500L of gaseous O2 per day at STP, and about 30 kL of air per person aboard, so about 6 days of air for single occupancy ships, and half that for doubles. So, you have, typically, about 2.5 weeks of maneuver, and 0.5 weeks of "adrift in space" for a warship.

If you are the defender, you've got 3-4 weeks of maneuver with SDBs, and 12-18 weeks if you don't mind burning the jump fuel.

The defender can thus force an engagement... and can do so at a point when the invader is tanks dry... if they can hold the fuel supplies.

If you're using the (Still Unreasonably high) limited delta V of TNE and T4 OTU, it's worse. The defender will have, typically, several hundred hours of delta V aboard. the Aggressor will have under 30.

 

[Timerover51]

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.

And if the new boss is K'kree?

And for those who did not understand the comment about the Japanese civilians on Saipan. The following quote comes from the US Marine Corps monograph on the taking of Saipan, page 245. The monograph also has photos of the civilians committing suicide.

At this time the very zenith of horror occurred. Hundred of civilians, believing that the end had come, embarked on a ghastly exhibition of self-destruction. Casting their children ahead of them, or embracing them in
death, parents flung themselves from the cliffs onto the jagged rocks below. Some waded into the surf to drown or employed other gruesome means of destroying themselves. How many civilians died in this orgy of mass hysteria is not known. A commander of a patrol craft (YP) said that progress of his boat around Marpi Point at this time was slow and tedious because of the hundreds of corpses floating in the water.

 

[The Oz]

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.

That's one of the alternatives that I'll have to deal with, later. Right now I'm still tying to get the "basic scenario" better understood: one Native fleet at the objective, one Intruder fleet Jumping to the objective. That is the model that Fifth Frontier Fleet uses, so I thought I'd start with that.

To reiterate, the goal I'm aiming at is to have a combat system that handles the fleet combats the player is not personally at (in his role of Sector Admiral). I'd like the system to add more choices than just "add up the counters, roll the dice, take the losses" but not take much longer.

 

[Orr]

And if the new boss is K'kree?

The K'Kree have subject races, just like all the other Major Races. They don't automatically hunt every sentient omnivore and/or carnivore they encounter to extinction.

And for those who did not understand the comment about the Japanese civilians on Saipan.

[You have taken] an extreme example and applied it as broadly as possible. The events on Saipan were so unique that recreating them elsewhere would be next to impossible.

Saipan was a true colony, the roughly 25K civilians there were almost all Japanese. There was a monolithic culture and an educational system which stressed indoctrination above all else. When the invasion began, Hirohito sent an imperial order commanding all civilians to commit suicide rather than be captured. Japanese military forces on the island "assisted" in those suicides by gathering together groups and handing out grenades or satchel charges.

Despite the Emperor's order and the military's help, "only" about half of civilian deaths on the island were suicides. The rest died to old fashioned way; they were caught between two military forces going at it hammer and tongs with no where to run.

The compact geography of the island, it's roughly 20km at its longest and 10km at its widest, meant there was no place to hide. The US put something like 70K troops ashore and Japan resisted with around 30K all in an area about 20% larger than Manhattan. The Japanese military wasn't interested in shepherding civilians out of the fighting, even if there was some place to shepherd them to, and the US military wasn't taking time to determine whether that basement, slit trench, bunker, or building held civilians or soldiers.

Half of the civilian deaths on Saipan occurred not because of some desire to commit suicide, despite the orders from their emperor and help from their defenders, but because there was no place to evacuate to. With the Japanese military rounding up civilians, passing out explosives, and making sure they were used, a large percentage of the civilian "suicides" weren't exactly voluntary either.

Using the extraordinarily unique events on Saipan to suggest that even a simple majority of the population of an entire planet would choose to commit suicide in the face of an invasion is laughable.

 

[Orr]

To reiterate, the goal I'm aiming at is to have a combat system that handles the fleet combats the player is not personally at (in his role of Sector Admiral). I'd like the system to add more choices than just "add up the counters, roll the dice, take the losses" but not take much longer.

Several war games have the players make pre-battle decisions regarding their tactics in and/or goals for the upcoming battle. Those decisions are then compared against each other to help model the results of the battle.

In a tactical example, an aggressor's "Probe" compared to a defender's "Withdraw" would result in no real battle at all while "General Assault" against "Hold at all costs" would result in a bloodbath. IIRC, Avalon Hill's old 1776 had a system like this and I know there are others I just can't quite remember at the moment.

The design notes for GDW's Battlerider provide a operational/strategic example. They mention a naval miniatures game which allowed players to choose harder victory conditions in return for more points with which to buy units.

In the example, one player selected a victory condition which amounted to "Sink/destroy everything" while the other chose a more modest goal. The first player showed up with a huge force which kicked ass every turn. The other player could do little more than scurry about saving what little he could while asking his opponent "Have you met your victory conditions yet?"

The funny part of the example is that the first player never met his victory conditions in the time allotted. He lost and the player whose forces were nearly all but destroyed won!

I think of system of goals/missions chosen by each side before the intruder enters the system would help your project. Again, while your system won't be as tactical in nature, look at Battlerider. Each side has a mission before the game begins, a mission which will effect the conduct of the battle.

For example, Player A moves a fleet marker into a system containing one of Player B's forces. Player A reveals a "Recon" mission marker and the encounter between the forces present plays out in a certain way. If a "Raid" marker was chosen, the encounter would be handled differently. Ditto a "Seize fuel source", a "Invade Mainworld", "Sweep in force", or whatever other markers you feel would be appropriate.

 

[McPerth]

In a tactical example, an aggressor's "Probe" compared to a defender's "Withdraw" would result in no real battle at all while "General Assault" against "Hold at all costs" would result in a bloodbath. IIRC, Avalon Hill's old 1776 had a system like this and I know there are others I just can't quite remember at the moment.

AH Caesar's Legions and War and Peace had tactical matries to modify the dice. ADG Empires at Arms made it the core of its combat system.

In all cases they were used to represent combats form the formations era, where battles limited in time and battlefield area, and I don't believe them to be usable in more modern war, where no limited battlefield was and tropos don't wait for the armies to be deployed before combat.

 

[savage]

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

I think your chart is on the right track, but needs more flow. Your listing a lot of "what if's" but in fact they can be incorporated into the chart. right?

Gaping concerns for me would be invasion resources. You're often making me think the invasion fleet is incredibly effective, but let's remember destroyers can hold off a battleship fleet, if they have tactics and surprise, like at Guadalcanal.

An invasion fleet has the challenge. They need to have distinct objectives that they succeed at.

 

[The Oz]

Orr...

That might be a better way to deal with this issue.

Thanks!

 

[savage]

Another factor that gets glossed over is "Reputation" of fleet leadership more than the basic psychology of the two fleets.

If the enemy fleet knows they're up against Lord Nelson, how do the average sailors react when things get tough. Everything becomes command, control, and perception. Again, Khan's crew begins to demoralize when they're up against Kirk.

 

[Orr]

In all cases they were used to represent combats form the formations era, where battles limited in time and battlefield area, and I don't believe them to be usable in more modern war, where no limited battlefield was and tropos don't wait for the armies to be deployed before combat.

My example of previous games' use of tactical chits was meant to suggest a way out of the design problem Oz was facing. I wanted to remind him of the idea behind the use of tactical chits in game design. I was in no way suggesting he actually use tactical chits as my further example of mission chits and player selected victory conditions illustrated.

As you point out, the use of tactical chits in a operational/strategic level game is ludicrous.

Looking over my game collection, Joe Miranda's Wars of the Imperial Age for SPI magazine seem to illustrate the point I'm trying to raise here. The series covers the Wars of Italian Unification, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, and Russo-Turkish War. Chit draws and usage figure heavily in game play.

The players control armies and corps with occasionally detached divisions. Movement is not certain with chits controlling how far a force moves, how cohesive a force is after the move, and whether a force even moves at all. Chits also effect the results of the battles which occur between forces by modeling the varying missions those forces have been tasked with.

Not every encounter between opposing forces is a knock down, drag out, toe to toe, donnybrook. A force might be under orders to withdraw when the enemy makes contact, to only advance until contact is made, or not to precipitate a general battle. The use of chits allows players to model the operational control of their forces so, for example, the Prussian players in the FPW game can mimic history by advancing multiple forces towards Sedan and encircling the French there without each of his separate forces launching a lone and doomed assault the moment it makes contact.

(If anyone is interested in those games, this link will take you to the consimworld forum dedicated to them where you'll find several AARs.)[1]

Along with the use of chits which effect the conduct, course, and outcome of a battle, I'll point again to the use of mission selection prior to any battle. While operational chits and mission chits somewhat overlap, having a specific mission in mind and planned for before jumping into a system models real strategic concerns.

Contrary to the belief of some, an intruder jumping into a system doesn't always mean a planetary invasion will take place, let along an invasion of a high-tech, hi-population planet. Such invasions are the exception and not the rule, no matter if some cannot see the forest for the twigs and automatically presume the worst and most difficult situation will always occur. :rofl:

Sometime an intruder arrives to refuel and move on, sometimes to conduct reconnaissance, sometimes to raid shipping and infrastructure, sometimes to strike at military targets, sometimes to seize fuel sources, and sometimes - not all the time or every time - an intruder arrives to invade the mainworld.

Just as importantly, the defender will have varying mission goals in mind too; goals which will control their conduct in any prospective battle just as much as an intruder's goals control their conduct.

GDW's Battlerider is a game which employs these pre-battle mission goals relatively well. It's another mechanism Oz may find some use in examining.

Traveller has never had a war game which dealt with issues at the operational level, although the Imperium/Dark Nebula do have operational-like mechanisms in them. The so-called flaws in Traveller's strategic level war games are well known; I believe those flaws mostly to be design choices meant to aid playability.

I think, however, that with the example of the last few decades or so of war games in front us, games that use chit and card play to quickly model operational and strategic concerns, there are mechanisms we can employ to hopefully design an operational/strategic level war game for Traveller.

Well, a man can wish, can't he? :rofl:

Edit: [1] grognard.com also has links to reviews and AARs of the games I mentioned.

 

[Orr]

That might be a better way to deal with this issue. Thanks!

No problem. Hope it was of some small help.

Check out my far-too-long response to McPerth for some other ideas.

Good luck!

 

[McPerth]

My example of previous games' use of tactical chits was meant to suggest a way out of the design problem Oz was facing. I wanted to remind him of the idea behind the use of tactical chits in game design. I was in no way suggesting he actually use tactical chits as my further example of mission chits and player selected victory conditions illustrated.

As you point out, the use of tactical chits in a operational/strategic level game is ludicrous.

Looking over my game collection, Joe Miranda's Wars of the Imperial Age for SPI magazine seem to illustrate the point I'm trying to raise here. The series covers the Wars of Italian Unification, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, and Russo-Turkish War. Chit draws and usage figure heavily in game play.

The players control armies and corps with occasionally detached divisions. Movement is not certain with chits controlling how far a force moves, how cohesive a force is after the move, and whether a force even moves at all. Chits also effect the results of the battles which occur between forces by modeling the varying missions those forces have been tasked with.

Not every encounter between opposing forces is a knock down, drag out, toe to toe, donnybrook. A force might be under orders to withdraw when the enemy makes contact, to only advance until contact is made, or not to precipitate a general battle. The use of chits allows players to model the operational control of their forces so, for example, the Prussian players in the FPW game can mimic history by advancing multiple forces towards Sedan and encircling the French there without each of his separate forces launching a lone and doomed assault the moment it makes contact.

(If anyone is interested in those games, this link will take you to the consimworld forum dedicated to them where you'll find several AARs.)[1]

Along with the use of chits which effect the conduct, course, and outcome of a battle, I'll point again to the use of mission selection prior to any battle. While operational chits and mission chits somewhat overlap, having a specific mission in mind and planned for before jumping into a system models real strategic concerns.

Contrary to the belief of some, an intruder jumping into a system doesn't always mean a planetary invasion will take place, let along an invasion of a high-tech, hi-population planet. Such invasions are the exception and not the rule, no matter if some cannot see the forest for the twigs and automatically presume the worst and most difficult situation will always occur. :rofl:

Sometime an intruder arrives to refuel and move on, sometimes to conduct reconnaissance, sometimes to raid shipping and infrastructure, sometimes to strike at military targets, sometimes to seize fuel sources, and sometimes - not all the time or every time - an intruder arrives to invade the mainworld.

Just as importantly, the defender will have varying mission goals in mind too; goals which will control their conduct in any prospective battle just as much as an intruder's goals control their conduct.

GDW's Battlerider is a game which employs these pre-battle mission goals relatively well. It's another mechanism Oz may find some use in examining.

Traveller has never had a war game which dealt with issues at the operational level, although the Imperium/Dark Nebula do have operational-like mechanisms in them. The so-called flaws in Traveller's strategic level war games are well known; I believe those flaws mostly to be design choices meant to aid playability.

I think, however, that with the example of the last few decades or so of war games in front us, games that use chit and card play to quickly model operational and strategic concerns, there are mechanisms we can employ to hopefully design an operational/strategic level war game for Traveller.

Well, a man can wish, can't he? :rofl:

Edit: [1] grognard.com also has links to reviews and AARs of the games I mentioned.

As I understand you, you're talking about operational orders more tan about true tactical matrix, and in this way I find it can be quite useful. As you say, orders are not always invade/defend a system, nor destroy as many enemies as you can, but may be gathering informatin, delay, damage the tankers (ignoring the battle fleet proper), etc...

This would give concrete victory conditions for an engagement, aking AH's SL/ASL, where you can lose nearly all your forcé and still win the scenario because you delayed the enemy, produced enough losses, or kept the objective (regardless losses). Tactical games don't usually take into account the overall strategic situation, and your command as tactical leader might be quite useful even if you "loss" the battle.

As you say, Traveller has fine strategic games and (for what I've heard) striker is a nice tactical game too, but there's no opperational game in the middle level. Those chits/matrixes/orders could help to represent it in tactical games.

And (my second thoughts, in part diagreeing with what I myself said) even enough similitudes can be seen with the formations era to allow some tactical matrix in strategic games, as the concentration of force for a big battle also occurs in space strategic opperations in OTU (FFW, etc...).

 

[Orr]

As I understand you...

Excellent! My harum-scarum style of writing usually hides whatever point I'm trying to make, but this time I was actually able to explain something! :rofl:

... you're talking about operational orders more tan about true tactical matrix...

Yup, I mentioned those tactical chits/cards first because I thought people would be more familiar with them. I then went on to explain how chits/cards have been employed more and more often in war games at an operational/strategic levels for the reasons you mention.

As you say, orders are not always invade/defend a system, nor destroy as many enemies as you can, but may be gathering informatin, delay, damage the tankers (ignoring the battle fleet proper), etc...

Yup, again look at Battlerider. You get so many points to spend on ships and choose a victory condition known only to you. The resulting battle is a tactical one with individual ships and all, but there's an operational layer placed on it via the victory conditions you chose.

This would give concrete victory conditions for an engagement, aking AH's SL/ASL, where you can lose nearly all your forcé and still win the scenario because you delayed the enemy, produced enough losses, or kept the objective (regardless losses). Tactical games don't usually take into account the overall strategic situation, and your command as tactical leader might be quite useful even if you "loss" the battle.

Great example! I completely forgot about SL/ASL! D'oh!

Now Oz is looking at something a little further up the organizational scale than either Battlerider or SL/ASL, but the example of the mechanisms found in those games can help him with his own game.

And (my second thoughts, in part diagreeing with what I myself said) even enough similitudes can be seen with the formations era to allow some tactical matrix in strategic games, as the concentration of force for a big battle also occurs in space strategic opperations in OTU (FFW, etc...).

Hmm, you aren't disagreeing with yourself, you're just amplifying certain details.

Anyway, Miranda's Wars of the Imperial Age series has a few tactical ruffles and flourishes despite being played on a operational/strategic level.

One common tactical benefit is simply called Tactical Advantage. A player either receives it when a certain commander is in command or, more often, plays an Operations chit to gain it. Holding Tactical Advantage in the subsequent battle gives the player a better chance, not a foolproof chance but a better chance. Importantly, Tactical Advantage doesn't actually name any tactics! And, seeing how it's usually gained through operation chits, it most likely refers to how-where-when an army's forces arrive on the battlefield; i.e. good staff work giving you a better chance to arrive "firstest with the mostest".

Other tactical-level benefits involve sequencing attacks (i.e. using your siege artillery before assaulting a fortress), the use of screens to conduct or prevent recon on enemy forces (force markers move face down in the games, so you need to know what makes up a force before attacking it), and even special weapons (in the FPW game, France has counters for millailleuse
batteries[1]).

Chit and card play have certainly helped a number of war game designs leap the hurdle between failure and success. Chits and cards have also helped a number of war game designers more easily model complicated systems. I hope they help Oz too.


1 - France started the war with about 200 of them. Because they were both new and secret, there was little idea on how to employ them correctly. When by happenstance they were used effectively, such as at Gravelotte, Prussian casualties were high. In the FPW game the presence of a millailleuse doesn't effect whether a battle is won or lost but does increase the number of combat factors the Prussian side loses.

 

[McPerth]

Yup, again look at Battlerider. You get so many points to spend on ships and choose a victory condition known only to you. The resulting battle is a tactical one with individual ships and all, but there's an operational layer placed on it via the victory conditions you chose.

I have no access to Battlerider. It was NTE or T4, wasn't it?

Anyway, Miranda's Wars of the Imperial Age series has a few tactical ruffles and flourishes despite being played on a operational/strategic level.

At first I didn't remember about Wars of the Imperial Age and though I don't know them, but those are the ones published in some Strategy and Tactics, aren't hem?

If so, the tactical chits were drawn at random, something that is not what I understand is intended here. See that some of the chits (like "march to the guns" would not be aplicable, as thre's no way your fleet knows about a battle occuring adjacent to you, and by the time you know about it, at least a week has passed and any action (that will arrive in one more week) will be useless.

 

[aramis]

I have no access to Battlerider. It was NTE or T4, wasn't it?

TNE.

 

[Orr]

I have no access to Battlerider. It was NTE or T4, wasn't it?

TNE. It's basically Mayday with combat system that focuses on critical hits.

If so, the tactical chits were drawn at random, something that is not what I understand is intended here.

You're thinking of the various political chits that effect the players in different ways.

See that some of the chits (like "march to the guns" would not be aplicable, as thre's no way your fleet knows about a battle occuring adjacent to you, and by the time you know about it, at least a week has passed and any action (that will arrive in one more week) will be useless.

Again I'm broaching the subject of chit/card play in war games and using the Wars of the Imperial Age series to show how chit/card play can assist with quickly modeling operational/strategic concerns within a design. I am not suggesting that Oz lift the specific system found in the WotIA series with all it's specific chits into his design.

Oz isn't stupid to do something like that and, as you note, a Jump To The Guns chit really couldn't work.

I've been providing an example, not a blueprint.

 

[The Oz]

I've been thinking about Orr's idea of fleets being assigned "mission chits" that describe (in broad terms) what the fleet is to do in the destination system.

I'm thinking about missions, and these are what I've come up with so far.

Native (defender) missions:

Defend Mainworld - Native will fight if mainworld attacked
Defend Gas Giant - Native will fight if gas giant attacked
Remain In-System - Native will avoid battle but will not Jump
Avoid Contact - Native will Jump out to avoid battle

Intruder (attacker) missions:

Attack Mainworld - Native forces elsewhere will be ignored, at first
Attack Gas Giant - Native forces elsewhere will be ignored, at first
Attack Fleet - Native forces anywhere will be hunted and destroyed
Pass-Through - Intruder forces will refuel and Jump out

It seems rather simplistic. I want simple; I don't want stupid.

 

[mike wightman]

How about writing Striker like orders...

do "this" with the following contingency plans...

something like that anyway.

 

[Reban]

How about writing Striker like orders...

do "this" with the following contingency plans...

something like that anyway.

With the caveat that in the real world pre radio communication the central command or Admiralty tended not to give orders due to information lag but issued "Advices" giving the commander on the spot general rules to follow or objectives to meet but a great deal of personal responsibility on how to achieve them.

Which is really what you're suggesting just phrased differently.

 

[The Oz]

A lot of this will interact with the Admiral's Initiative rule I'm thinking about. Admirals will have a rating for Initiative as well as Fleet Tactics. Fleet Tactics will cover how well the admiral uses the forces assigned: proper use of scouts, surprising the enemy, that sort of thing

Initiative is the chance that the admiral will ignore what the orders are and instead do what you the Sector Admiral would if you were in his/her place. For example, a Zhodani admiral has orders to take his fleet from Querion and attack Frenzie. While refueling at Quare, contact is made with a small Imperial force. The Imperials try to refuse battle. A low-Initiative admiral will most likely just let the Imperials go: the orders say "Attack Frenzie," not "Attack Any Enemy Force Encountered." A high-Initiative admiral might detach a couple of squadrons to chase the Imps while the rest of the fleet Jumps to the target.