Options in Fleet battle

[aramis]

How about writing Striker like orders...

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

something like that anyway.

I found that striker was almost unplayable without a neutral referee to interpret those kinds of orders. (Then again, I've played with a lot of rules-lawyers.)

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 idea of fixed chits for specific types of mission (EG: defend the mainworld, defend the GG, float and defend the system) all have potentially interesting game effects without the nasty complexity of Striker-esque written orders.

 

[Piper]

What if:
Each element (herein defined as a group of squadrons in a system not under direct player control) would be operating under some order from Fleet, even if it's only "stand still". When a change in situation occurs (such as an enemy entering the system) your options table is consulted. Instead of selecting a fixed option, I suggest a range of options, the precise one being determined semi-randomly. This would provide some fog of war and prevent the players from having precise control over elements not under direct command.

Example: You have a squadron sitting at planet A. No movement orders have been issued to it so it is essentially in a defend the system mode. An enemy group jumps in. This group is larger but not overwhelming in relative strength so you would consult the appropriate line on the table: "Enemy force stronger but less than twice as strong" or what have you. This line on the table offers a number of Decisions (such as Orr suggests). The precise decision would depend on a die roll.

Any number of modifiers could be used to effect this roll; general morale/crew efficiency ratings, past performance of sub-commanders, supply or lack thereof and so on.

 

[aramis]

Any number of modifiers could be used to effect this roll; general morale/crew efficiency ratings, past performance of sub-commanders, supply or lack thereof and so on.

Rather than modifiers, benefits perhaps should be roll X dice and pick one? This allows the player to have some control besides the fleet order.

 

[Piper]

Rather than modifiers, benefits perhaps should be roll X dice and pick one? This allows the player to have some control besides the fleet order.

It would definitely require some finesse in the design. A straight up d6 roll is too grainy for something like this. Multiple rolls would work, possibly shifting lines on the table could do it if the tables were organized for it.

 

[Orr]

What if:
Each element (herein defined as a group of squadrons in a system not under direct player control) would be operating under some order from Fleet, even if it's only "stand still". When a change in situation occurs (such as an enemy entering the system) your options table is consulted. Instead of selecting a fixed option, I suggest a range of options, the precise one being determined semi-randomly. This would provide some fog of war and prevent the players from having precise control over elements not under direct command.

Very interesting suggestions, I'm sure they'll give Oz lots to mull over.

With regards to modeling the fog of war and preventing a player from always and automatically gaining precise/complete control of their forces, let me again use the Wars of the Imperial Age series as an example. (As an example and not as a blueprint!)

The games in the series revolve around operation chits. Each side receives a certain number every game turn. The numbers are rarely even, the side with the historically better general staff usually gets more. The numbers also vary during the course of the as battles are won or lost, objectives seized or lost, or through the the play of various political events.

Operation chits are used for everything. If you think of command points or pips in miniature gaming you'll have a good handle on operation chits.

You need a force to move when and where you want? Spend an operation chit. You want the tactical advantage in battle? Spend an operation chit. You want your siege artillery to bombard a fortress? You want to detach cavalry in a screen? You want to recon? Spend an operation chit.

When you spend an operation chit, the action becomes automatic. It happens just as you want it to occur. There are never enough operation chits to go around however and that's when the fun begins.

You can attempt to move a force without an operation chit. You roll on a march table modified for what type of troops and what kind of commander is involved. Your force can end up moving just as you wish, impetuously attacking the nearest enemy force, retreating away from the enemy, or not moving at all.

No operation chit available to claim tactical superiority in a battle? If your enemy has one they can claim it instead. No operation chit on hand to rally a demoralized force? Roll on the table and keep your fingers crossed. No operation chit to ensure foraging is successful? Either stick close to your supply lines or roll on a table hoping you don't suffer too greatly from attrition. No operations chit to bring forward reinforcements and replacements? Better hope your HQs roll well enough to take up the slack.

Once the operation chits run out - and they always do - just watch the fog of war become as thick as pea soup. What had been automatic is now problematic. And a lot more fun.

The operation chit "budget" each player works with every turn nicely models, among other things, the differing staff and logistical prowess each side enjoys. The chits provide an umbrella under which a wide number of operational issues can effect the conduct of the game without slowing play or resorting to page after page of special rules.

Speaking of special rules, look at the many Antietam games released over the many decades. In that battle the AotP grossly outnumbered the ANV so any competent Union player is going to send all his men in all at once and steam roll the rebels flat. Besides that fact that such a thing didn't happen in the actual battle, watching a Union steamroller smush the rebels doesn't make for much of a game. Accordingly designers have had to add all sorts of McClellan is a boob rules restricting how the Union player could play the game and those McClellan is a boob rules were sometimes longer than all the rest of the rules.[1]

Now imagine an Antietam game with an operation chit system like the WotIA series. No longer are there page after page of McClellan is a boob rules. Instead the Union player gets a smaller chit budget each turn than his rebel counterpart. No automatic steamroller, just an inferior staff and commanding general unable to do as much as their counterparts. Simple, not simplistic. Stupidity isn't forced on the Union player through Boob rules. Operational issues are quickly and seamlessly modeled.

That's what chit and card play have brought to war game design over the last few decades and that's why chit and card play have been successful.

1 - One fairly successful design restricted the Union player to activating one AotP corps at a time. The active corps then had to suffer a certain number of casualties and be withdrawn from combat before another corps could be activated.

 

[Garnfellow]

Is the Oz's Fleet Battle Options page available anywhere? The original link is broken and Google isn't helping.

 

[The Oz]

Here you are:
I've been working for some time now on a squadron/fleet-level TRAVELLER wargame that is intended to put the player in the role of the Sector Admiral defending against invasion; sort of a new version of Fifth Frontier War, if you will. I think I have most of it worked out, but I want to add more "crunchy tactical goodness" (as Ken Burnside calls it) to the battles that take place in systems that the player is not personally at. I'd like more than "Add up the fleet strengths, roll on the Results Table, modify the roll according to the Admiral's skill" but I don't want it to take much more time than that to resolve such battles. I think I've worked out the intersecting decision trees of both the Invading admiral and the Native admiral, and reduced the intersections to a table, but I'd like others to check my logic and see if it's reasonably valid.



First, some assumptions. Both fleets have similar weapon ranges and accelerations. The Intruder fleet must exit Jump outside weapons range of the target, so both sides can see what's coming. While it is impossible to completely hide maneuvering ships, deception about numbers and types of ships is possible. This is for resolving battles with invading fleets, not for dealing with raiding forces.



I see the Intruder having two initial choices: go for the planet, or go for the defending fleet. Inside those choices I see two more for each option: if going for the planet, you can either go quickly and overrun the world, or you can approach cautiously. Overrunning is the optimal choice if you have plenty of force, while caution is advised if you're not sure. If the enemy fleet is the objective, again I see two main choices; lure the enemy into battle by appearing weaker than you really are, or trap him into battle by dividing your forces so he can't avoid a fight with at least some of your fleet.



Explaining those options: I put things as a choice between the enemy world and the enemy fleet because if the Intruder has enough strength to go for both at the same time, how much fighting can there be anyway? Besides, you know where the planet will be, so you can always deal with it later. The reason to have the planet as a possible objective is that you might need the planet quickly, or the enemy fleet might stand to defend it so you could get a "two-for-one" deal. "Lure" is the option to pick when you think the enemy fleet also wants a battle. You certainly wouldn't divide your fleet against a willing enemy, and it never hurts to make your enemy a little overoptimistic.



For the Native (defending) fleet, I also see two main options, each with two sub-choices. The defending fleet can run for it, in which case it can either split up or run as a single force. If the defender splits up, they're not looking for a fight at all; if running together they still aren't looking for a fight, but they will fight to get clear. The other main choice the defender can make is to stay and defend the planet. I see two options inside that choice: stay at the planet, so planetary weapons (deep meson gun sites) can help, or fight away from the planet so it can't be bombed.



When you put the Intruder choices along the top of a grid, and the Native choices along the side of that grid, you end up with a table that I thinks looks like this:

Choices	Overrun planet	Cautiously approach planet	Lure defenders into battle	Trap defenders into battle
Split up and run for it	No fleet battle, proceed to planetary bomb/invasion, Native may Jump	No fleet battle, proceed to planetary bomb/invasion, Native may Jump	No fleet battle, proceed to planetary bomb/invasion, Native may Jump	Random Native losses, proceed to planetary bomb/invasion, surviving Native may Jump
Stay together and run for it	No fleet battle, proceed to planetary bomb/invasion, Native may Jump	No fleet battle, proceed to planetary bomb/invasion, Native may Jump	Passing battle if the Native chooses, surviving Native may Jump	Passing battle if the Intruder chooses, surviving Native may Jump
Defend the planet at the planet	Passing battle at planet	Meeting battle at planet if the Intruder chooses	Meeting battle at planet if the Intruder chooses	Meeting battle at planet if the Intruder chooses
Defend the planet away from the planet	Passing battle away from planet, then passing battle with planet, surviving Native may Jump	Meeting battle away from planet if the Intruder chooses, surviving Native may Jump	Meeting battle away from planet if the Native chooses, surviving Native may Jump if Native chose battle	Meeting battle away from planet if the Intruder chooses, surviving Native may Jump

If the Natives split up and run for it, the only naval fighting will be between isolated Native ships and the trapping Intruder forces. That will go badly for those Native ships that get caught, but most should get away.

If the Natives stay together as they run, and the Intruders go for the planet, the Natives get clean away. If the Natives run as a unit and the Intruder was luring them into a battle, the battle will happen if the Native chooses battle (if he falls for the lure). If the Native runs as a unit and the Intruder set a trap, then the battle happens if the Intruder chooses (if he thinks his divided fleet can still muster enough strength). Both of these battles will most likely be what I call “passing battles.” I think passing battles will occur when one or both sides want a short, sharp engagement. The fleets will pass through/by each other at relatively high opposing vectors, such as when one fleet is really just trying to get to the Jump limit. Passing battles would open with one missile barrage as the fleets approach and then a burst of energy fire and missiles as the two forces intermingle. Once the forces pass there’s no more shooting as they would be out of energy range, and running away from missiles.

If the Natives stay with the planet they are giving the initiative to the Intruder who can choose or refuse battle. Such battles would be what I term “meeting battles,” which are like the battle you get in High Guard. The fleets are closing at a low relative velocity, and either side can maneuver to change the range. I see these engagements as being slow, attritional missile engagements.

Of course, if the Intruder committed to overrunning the planet, there will be a passing battle at the world. If the Intruder committed to overrunning the planet, and the Native chose to defend the world away from the planet, there will be two passing battles: one with the Native fleet, and one with the planet as the remaining Intruders overrun the world.

Otherwise, if the Native chose to defend away from the planet we have several possibilities. If the Intruder approached the planet cautiously, a meeting battle away from the planet will happen if the Intruder wants it. Since the Intruder’s vector will be low (cautious approach) he can quickly reverse and either slow the Native’s overtake (if the Intruder wants battle) or avoid contact entirely. I see the same being true if the Intruder split up his forces to trap the Native. The Intruder doesn’t have to fight unless he wants to keep the Native forces from escaping into Jump. The Intruder can always chose to let the Native go if the odds don’t look right.

Now if the Native is seeking battle away from the planet, and the Intruder is trying to lure the Native into battle, a battle will happen if the Native chooses. Either the Native thinks he can win or he has fallen for the lure. If the Native refuses battle, the Intruder cannot force it on him (the Intruder was trying to lure the Native out, after all) but the Native cannot Jump away since they turned away from the Intruder.

 

[The Oz]

Sorry about the big spacing in that post, I'm not used to using html tags and I don't know what I got wrong.

 

[McPerth]

Off topic, but naswering The Oz:

Sorry about the big spacing in that post, I'm not used to using html tags and I don't know what I got wrong.

Probably you put spaces inside the table. The table must be put as a single line, without spaces nor line changes, or they wil lbe all posted just before it.

So:

No, you must click first on the table icon, then on the box icon (the one with the box marked) for each box, and to the one with the line marked to change line.

Example:

[TABLE][TR][TD]character[/TD][TD]career[/TD][TD]terms[/TD][TD]position[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Mark[/TD][TD]Scout[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]Pilot[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Allan[/TD][TD]Navy[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]Navigator[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Mike[/TD][TD]Scouts[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]Engineer[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

will show up as:

character	career	terms	position
Mark	Scout	3	Pilot
Allan	Navy	2	Navigator
Mike	Scouts	2	Engineer

BTW, don't let spaces among the table or they will show up before it, as any characters among one box and the next one

OTOH, if you change the lines as here:

[TABLE][TR][TD]character[/TD][TD]career[/TD][TD]terms[/TD][TD]position[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Mark[/TD][TD]Scout[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]Pilot[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Allan[/TD][TD]Navy[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]Navigator[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Mike[/TD][TD]Scouts[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]Engineer[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

It will appear as

character	career	terms	position
Mark	Scout	3	Pilot
Allan	Navy	2	Navigator
Mike	Scouts	2	Engineer

(see that the blank space is the equivalent to the 3 line changes I put inside the table)

And now, we can retourn to the topic

 

[Garnfellow]

Thanks for posting that -- this is very helpful for what I'm doing with the Magyar Campaign of the Rim War.

It occurs to me that fleet combat in Traveller is very difficult because while both parties might have near perfect tactical information -- what assets are currently in system -- neither party ever has perfect strategic information -- what assets could be in system.

If you are an invading force jumping into the system your intel of the defenses is, at best, over two weeks old and could be completely wrong about anything other than the non-jump capable assets. The defenders might have abandoned the system, moved assets to another point within the system, been reinforced by additional assets, or any combination of these possibilities.

Presumably you had recon units jump in several hours ahead of your main force, and when you emerge from jumpspace these recon units are hopefully broadcasting useful situational data. You assimilate this data and your tactical computers run 10 million simulations of potential battles. The simulations give you reasonably accurate predictions for engaging the defenders.

Both sides, therefore, should have good information about the opponent long before they engage and should be able to evaluate the probable outcomes of an encounter. What neither side knows is whether the other side has the ability to retreat from the system or if the other side has reinforcements scheduled to emerge from jump, and when those might arrive.

Most engagements, then, are probably over before they occur. The simulations tell you that you are unlikely to overcome the opponent and you simply jump away before a shot is fired.

Engagements occur only (1) when overmatched opponents can not or will not withdraw, (2) one or more sides miscalculate: they engage when the opponent has imminent reinforcements, or expected reinforcements do not arrive, or (3) the odds are close to even and both sides are motivated to engage.

This leaves a lot of room for feints, bluffs, double-bluffs, and so on.

 

[The Oz]

Engagements occur only (1) when overmatched opponents can not or will not withdraw, (2) one or more sides miscalculate: they engage when the opponent has imminent reinforcements, or expected reinforcements do not arrive, or (3) the odds are close to even and both sides are motivated to engage.

This leaves a lot of room for feints, bluffs, double-bluffs, and so on.

That's what I think, as well. Battles will normally happen when 1) one (or both) sides have to fight for some reason, or 2) one (or both) sides have been tricked in some way.

And I think that puts it on the admirals in tactical command. They might fight because they're overconfident or tired or tricked or too proud to run or defending their significant other's homeworld or for one of a thousand other reasons. Tactics skill and experience will tell them what they ought to do: what will determine what they will do?