As I understand those rules, I asume the carrier/tender to fulfill that role.
CT Only: Crew effect in HG2 combat
- Thread starter McPerth
- Start date
As I understand those rules, I asume the carrier/tender to fulfill that role.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
But a carrier/tender can't survive in the line. Thus Fighter Squadrons take the "one half" penalty. I like the idea of a specialty ship controlling the fighters from the line.
It would be a potent force multiplier, but, also a prime target.
I don't see the need for this controller to be in the first line. After all, AWACS are usually quite behind...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I tend to agree. What I wonder is though, given the whole "screening" of the reserve, is this an abstract of sensor interference?
Also, if the fighters get the benefit of the AWACs, why not a potential detriment as well? This is another way smaller ships can fit into a large ship battle. This could even be a PC opportunity.
I tend to agree. What I wonder is though, given the whole "screening" of the reserve, is this an abstract of sensor interference?
Also, if the fighters get the benefit of the AWACs, why not a potential detriment as well? This is another way smaller ships can fit into a large ship battle. This could even be a PC opportunity.
Well, if to use the tender/carrier for fighter cooordination is too risky, then the squadron leaders take a more important role in the fighting, with those with FT skill becoming the wing leaders...
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
I don't like the Fleet Tactics Skill +1 as the relevant power of 2, McP. It makes it way too easy to acquire the skill to command a large number of ships in the line, and you are almost never going to have a situation where you have a fleet under the command of a leader whose skill level is giving away a "to hit" DM. It also adds additional complexity, and I want to keep things simple. 2 to the power of Fleet Tactics Skill is already rather higher up the complexity scale than anything else we do with skill levels.
The number of Commodores who actually COULD effectively control a squadron of more than a handful of ships in action has always, historically, been pretty limited. I like keeping it that way.
And Fleet Tactocs-0 should not, in my view, be sufficient to be able to control a 2-ship engagement without detriment.
It's probably just a matter of taste; but for me if the "standard" skill level is 2, then this is the level to be assumed as the norm as the first rank where the officer will have more than one ship under command. So he will be competent to command up to 4 ships in line of battle, but will start giving away penalties if you put him in charge of 5-8, and massive penalties if you put him in charge of 9+. That "feels right" to me. To suggest that it is the norm for a Commodore to be competent to handle an 8-ship engagement feels a little optimistic to me.
On the other hand, I DO like the idea of the "chain of command" allowing a larger engagement to be handled with sub-commanders; subject only to this, that I would count the sub-commander as TWO of the head commander's ships, not one; and that the highest level at which the sub-commander can function is 1 below that of his head commander (restrictions of subordination I'm afraid, guys), so that a sub-commander with Fleet-Tactics-4 who was subordinate to a commander with Fleet Tactics-3 would only ever function, in that role, at Fleet Tactics-2.
That would mean that a head-commander with Fleet Tactics-3 could command 8 ships directly; or have up to 4 sub-commanders operating at Fleet Tactics 1 or 2 (maximum), so a chain of command would enable him to double up his effective command ability to 16 ships; or if he had more than 16, he would be able to overload one of his sub-commanders beyond their command ability, but not the others, so it was only the ships of that sub-command which suffered the "to hit" detriment.
I don't think I like this ... although perhaps we're grappling towards the same end result (albeit at far different levels as to the total numbers of ships achievable under effective control) by my suggestion that a sub-command should count as TWO ships, not one.
As you say, it's probably a matter of taste, but it's also a matter of numbers.
Of course, numbers can always be discussed, but IIRC in the SMC the 154th is commanded by a Comodore, and the squadron has 7 BRs, 7 escorts and about 300 fighters...
You say you asume the standars skill level is 2. So, on your own numbers, a regular squadron commander would be able to control 4 ships, and yet a squadron averages 6-8 ships... Does it mean that a regular squadron commander cannot control his squadron unless understrenghted or half (or one third) of it is held in reserve?
And FT 0 should count somewhat (as most zero skills do), and as the minimum to count is with 2 ships, IMHO it makes sense.
Assuming your numbers, a very competent fleet commander (FT 4) could command 16 ships or up to 8 squadron commanders, each of them being able to command at most 8 ships (as his own skill is limited to 3). So any fleet over 64 ships needs a truly exceptional commander (at least FT 5) to be controlled (unless part of it is left in reserve status)...
See that in canon there are many battles fought by larger fleets.
And I asume you agree about fighters control, as if not, being able to throw only 64 fighters against the enemy fleet makes them nearly useless at any TL...
The intent in this addition was to encourage to keep squadron integrity and to justify an advantage for multi-raider Tenders, to offset their lack of flexibility liability and justify the inexistence of single BR Tenders in canon.
One of the things I always missed in HG (aside from crew quality, as told in the OP) was command and control and a need to keep with squadron integrity.
Last edited:
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
Ah, but you see, I'm not trying to justify canon ...
I have no problem with Commodores with Fleet Tactics - 2 commanding a squadron of 6 - 8 ships. But he's EITHER going to have to do it via 3 or 4 FT-1 sub-commanders each managing a section of 2 ships, or he's going to be giving the opposing ships a +1 DM to their "to-hit" rolls because he's actually commanding a little beyond his own ability (but he'll grow into the role in time ...)
I'm entirely happy with that.
And my set-up DOES give FT-0 an advantage over no skill at all, because I said I would count no skill at all as FT minus 1.
So FT-0 commanding a 2-ship unit (which requires FT-1 to command effectively) gives his opponents a +1 DM on all their "to hit" rolls; whilst no skill at all commanding a 2-ship unit gives his opponents a +2 DM on all their "to hit" rolls.
I'm going to be setting up a campaign game shortly with one or two local gamers contacted through this board to try out some of these rules adjustments, and I'll be starting with my version of this variation. We'll report back on how it plays. If it seems too restrictive, then we'll try yours.
As for fighters, I don't really care about them as I'm still struggling to see what use they are in space combat (other than at very low space flight tech levels) as they either suffer a HUGE computer model deficit which makes them easy to swat and very difficult to score a hit with; or the cost of the computer they ship and the power plant to drive it makes them a very expensive way of putting a limited amount of fire power into the line.
They probably have a role in the provision of close support to orbital assault troops - particularly in the first phase of the assault before any ground bases can be established - but other than that, I'm afraid, they just don't seem to me to have any useful function. So I don't see it as a loss that if you put a swarm of them in your battle line, you might lose the ability to control them.
If you want to integrate fighters into the rules, though, you could easily enough have a rule that each fighter squadron operates independently and does not count towards the fleet commander's total command limit; but they do need to have a squadron commander with an ability to command the number of ship sin the squadron if they are not to give away a "to hit" DM to the other side.
I have no problem with Commodores with Fleet Tactics - 2 commanding a squadron of 6 - 8 ships. But he's EITHER going to have to do it via 3 or 4 FT-1 sub-commanders each managing a section of 2 ships, or he's going to be giving the opposing ships a +1 DM to their "to-hit" rolls because he's actually commanding a little beyond his own ability (but he'll grow into the role in time ...)
I'm entirely happy with that.
And my set-up DOES give FT-0 an advantage over no skill at all, because I said I would count no skill at all as FT minus 1.
So FT-0 commanding a 2-ship unit (which requires FT-1 to command effectively) gives his opponents a +1 DM on all their "to hit" rolls; whilst no skill at all commanding a 2-ship unit gives his opponents a +2 DM on all their "to hit" rolls.
I'm going to be setting up a campaign game shortly with one or two local gamers contacted through this board to try out some of these rules adjustments, and I'll be starting with my version of this variation. We'll report back on how it plays. If it seems too restrictive, then we'll try yours.
As for fighters, I don't really care about them as I'm still struggling to see what use they are in space combat (other than at very low space flight tech levels) as they either suffer a HUGE computer model deficit which makes them easy to swat and very difficult to score a hit with; or the cost of the computer they ship and the power plant to drive it makes them a very expensive way of putting a limited amount of fire power into the line.
They probably have a role in the provision of close support to orbital assault troops - particularly in the first phase of the assault before any ground bases can be established - but other than that, I'm afraid, they just don't seem to me to have any useful function. So I don't see it as a loss that if you put a swarm of them in your battle line, you might lose the ability to control them.
If you want to integrate fighters into the rules, though, you could easily enough have a rule that each fighter squadron operates independently and does not count towards the fleet commander's total command limit; but they do need to have a squadron commander with an ability to command the number of ship sin the squadron if they are not to give away a "to hit" DM to the other side.
I guess the main difference among us is that you're thinking on squadron actoins while I'm thinking on fleet actions...
As I understand you, fleet performance would be quite downgraded if a fighter squadron commander (I asume FT 1-2 at most) is only able to effectively control 2-4 fighters, making them quite small units...
I feel under your numbers you'd need most your unit commanders to have Ft at 3 or more, and fleet tactics is quite a rare skill (only attainable in HG through the Command and Staff colleges or the Staff officer skills table, if you're O4+)
If even your fighter flight (3-4 fighters) needs it, you must assing an O4 at least to this position. I have no experience in any Navy or Air Force, but I think an O2 would be more likely to hold this post...
As I understand you, fleet performance would be quite downgraded if a fighter squadron commander (I asume FT 1-2 at most) is only able to effectively control 2-4 fighters, making them quite small units...
I feel under your numbers you'd need most your unit commanders to have Ft at 3 or more, and fleet tactics is quite a rare skill (only attainable in HG through the Command and Staff colleges or the Staff officer skills table, if you're O4+)
If even your fighter flight (3-4 fighters) needs it, you must assing an O4 at least to this position. I have no experience in any Navy or Air Force, but I think an O2 would be more likely to hold this post...
Last edited:
I'm going to preface this with the caveat that the Book-2 character generation system may not reflect probabilities within the milieu itself. Adventurers are intended to be exceptional - witness the unusual number of high social individuals the character generation system spits out. The guys who retire after 20 years, having seen nothing but the ship's galley or the base warehouse or the like - they're probably not the guys the character generation system was intended to produce. No, the Book-2 rules in my opinion represent the career arcs of the highly motivated and the driven, the kind that get roles in a Horatio Alger story. Therefore, the following numbers should be taken with a heapload of salt - and discarded entirely if they muck up your idea of how the milieu works. On the other hand, pilots tend as a rule to be exceptional folk, so I like it.
Anyway ...
For Navy personnel, Pilot skill in Book 2 is gained by going to the Advanced Education Table (the second one, for characters of Edu 8+). You have a 1 in 6 shot at rolling pilot. You get two skill rolls on your first term and one thereafter, plus one if you gain a commission, plus one for every rank you go up - but most people aren't going to shop only from the Advanced Edu table during their careers.
For these purposes, we assume someone has rolled Pilot at least once, else he wouldn't be a pilot. Question then is, how far can he go? How many pilot-2's and 3's is the Navy likely to have? Well, each go at the table gives you 1 shot in 6, so that's a start.
Then you've got attrition: you might not survive, you might not be permitted to re-enlist. You've got a 60% shot at getting past re-enlistment and then making the next survival roll to get a shot at the next term's skill rolls - 70% if you've got sufficient IQ. On the other hand, if you can get past that, there's around a 58% chance of getting two skill rolls that term. There's also that chance of earning a commission and the extra skill that comes with that.
Very roughly, assuming the Book-2 skill generation system, 1 in 10 of the pilot-1's will go on to pilot-2, 1 in 10 of those will go on to pilot-3, and so forth. (Some will get an extra skill roll in a given term, but some will select from other skill tables from time to time, so there's some balancing out there.) It makes for a nice round figure for calculating: if you give the player 100 pilots for his fleet, 90 will be Pilot-1s, 9 will be pilot-2's, 1 will be a pilot-3. Loads of escort pilots and relief-shift co-pilots, some cruiser senior pilots, and the rare squadron flagship or dreadnought pilot.
(Fighters I understood to use Ship's Boat skill, no? Note that if you've a mind to set limits on fighters, the odds of rolling ship's boat skill aren't any better than those of rolling pilot skill, so you're justified in declaring that there are only as many fighter jockeys available as ship pilots. Ergo your fighters run their own track, with 90% being - well, green, 9% being veteran and probably squadron leaders, and that 1% being elite or better and probably wing leaders. Well, roughly - the pilots are guaranteed to have the education needed to get that +1 for promotion and the extra skill, while those rolling on the ship's boat table might or might not - but I have to assume the fighter jockeys are the best of that lot, so I'll stick with the 1 in 10 bit.)
As to survivability - well, you're just going to have to make something up. TCS didn't deal with the issue for campaign play - it's not even clear how much of a given empire's population is available for recruitment. For thee actual number of pilots, it's easiest is to assume there's enough naval personnel being recruited and trained to man your fleet, since that's the job of your recruiters. Add up the number of pilots your fleet needs, assume your recruiters filled that need, then slap that 90%/9%/1% bit on them to figure skill. For combat survival, there's an interesting thing: folk like to put the bridge at the front of the ship, but those wicked meson beams tend to go off deep in the ship's guts. Maybe there's a reason for that. You could easily justify ruling that pilots are only at risk if you get a Bridge Destroyed result - and then maybe give them some roll (maybe that Book 2 survival roll) to see if they survived the experience to take the helm another day.
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
As I say ... I'm not particularly interested in torturing a perfectly good revision in order to accommodate fighters, which canon acknowledges, but even TCS struggles to justify.
No matter.
If you want your fighters, make them independent commands ... put them outside the aegis of the "Fleet Tactics" command and control structure if you like ... perceived problem goes away.
As for "Fleet Actions vs Squadron Actions" ... I'm thinking about both, actually.
And again, if the rules make giagantic fleet actions something that is beyond hte ability of either commander effectively to control ... so what? They both end up giving away DMs. Is that really such an issue?
Would such enormour actions be fought anyway? I personally doubt it ... but if they were, it might well be that nobody existed with the skills TRULY needed to command. Did anybody exist with the skills TRULY needed ot command the Western Front in WWI? Or at Jutland? Is there really anybody with the skills truly needed to be CEO of a MegaCorp?
Or is it just the usual story of out-of-their-depth commanders, who were promoted to the position because somebody had to be, struggling to do the best they can with what skills they've got?
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
WW2 Eisenhower; Lt. Col to 5 Star General?
And yet fighters are the decisive weapon at certain TLs...
I don't think they should be taken off the Commanders control in battle, as they are assumed to be coordinated with the rst of the fleet to be effective.
And yet in all those cases armies/fletes were controlled by their commanders (how effectively so may be arged to boredom, I admit), even with the communications problems a fleet commander in Traveller will not have...
And that was mainly through staffs. See that FT is a Staff (not Command) skill, as shown by the fact that it is (twice, if you hold a Rank high enough) in the Staff officer table, while it's not in the Command officer one.
Let's see the practical effects this rule would have (in both, your versión and mine):
In both cases:
- Limit the number of ships effectivelly commanded in first line
- Giving advantage to larger ships (as more weaponry can be effectivelly controled)
- Hamsters lose most of their advantage (very large numbers) against capital ships (corolary of point 2).
With your suggested variant:
- Fighters also lose most of their effect (unless left aside from command and control)
- Numbers are quite limited (a FT 3 overall commander could control up to 8 ships, exchanging 2 of them for a FT 2 subcommander able to control 4, to a maximum of 16 ships in the main line)
- At least one officer with FT 1 must exist per 2 ships to be able to perform mutli-ship actions. A 8 ship squadron would need at least a FT 3 officer to effectively engage with the full squadron at front line (a FT 2 officer could only control 4 ships, or 2 subcommanders with FT 1, so 4 ships again).
Under my own variant:
- Fighters keep some effect, albeit they must be controled and not massive waves are possible
- A commander with FT 3 can command up to 16 ships or subcomanders, each of them (FT 2) can command up to 8 ships or fighter squadrons (16 if unit integrity applies), so up to 128 (256 if all of them are affected by unit integrity) ships or fighter squadrons can be in first line.
- A 8 ship squadron would only require an FT1 officer, as it could control 4 ships (doubled for squadron integrity rules) for a full squadron in front line engagement.
- ADDITION EDIT: when ships become damaged, just exchanging ship for ship from the reserve would not work, as it would break the unit integrity and leave some of the ships out of command (and so with negative modifiers to part or the whole fleet).
Last edited:
Amber Chancer
SOC-12
Another way to deal with fighters might be to conceive of that "flight control officer" required by the HG crew rules as the fighter controller.
As long as his ship is in an effective command chain, then he can control a number of fighter squadrons equal to 2 to the power of his relevant skill level on the same basis as a fleet or squadron commander with his ships.
Now, there may be an issue here with the "relevant skill" which is worth considering. Fleet Tactics it probably ain't ... but is there a suitable alternative proxy. Do we need to introduce an additional skill specifically to cover it (e.g. Fighter Tactics), and then mess with the rules to give a way of acquiring it? Probably not.
Alternatively, we could argue that, unlike bigger craft, with fighters the ability to fly them and the ability to fight them are essentially one and the same ... so that the relevant skill to be flight control officer is Ship's Boat.
So where do we get to?
A Flight Control Officer with SB-3 has enough understanding of the effective use of small craft to be able effectively to control 8 squadrons of fighters operating from his ship. Feels about right to me. And gives somewhere for those highly experienced fighter pilots to go rather than just remain in the line until they get shot down.
I think it's probably time to do some play testing and see how this all pans out.
Incidentally, I agree with the majority of your analysis of the probable consequences and effects of the main revision; although I think in your eagerness to prove your own ideas superior to mine you have over-egged the pudding with point (3) in your statement of the effects of my version.
As long as his ship is in an effective command chain, then he can control a number of fighter squadrons equal to 2 to the power of his relevant skill level on the same basis as a fleet or squadron commander with his ships.
Now, there may be an issue here with the "relevant skill" which is worth considering. Fleet Tactics it probably ain't ... but is there a suitable alternative proxy. Do we need to introduce an additional skill specifically to cover it (e.g. Fighter Tactics), and then mess with the rules to give a way of acquiring it? Probably not.
Alternatively, we could argue that, unlike bigger craft, with fighters the ability to fly them and the ability to fight them are essentially one and the same ... so that the relevant skill to be flight control officer is Ship's Boat.
So where do we get to?
A Flight Control Officer with SB-3 has enough understanding of the effective use of small craft to be able effectively to control 8 squadrons of fighters operating from his ship. Feels about right to me. And gives somewhere for those highly experienced fighter pilots to go rather than just remain in the line until they get shot down.
I think it's probably time to do some play testing and see how this all pans out.
Incidentally, I agree with the majority of your analysis of the probable consequences and effects of the main revision; although I think in your eagerness to prove your own ideas superior to mine you have over-egged the pudding with point (3) in your statement of the effects of my version.
It was not my idea to prove my own ideas superior, just to point how does it affect the numbers, which can be good in your version to give advantage to BB vs hamsters, as BBs will seldom be affected, while hamsters will be quite more affected in your version than in mine.
And now an appology:
somehow, I missinterpreted your initial rule suggestion and I missread the modifier to be applied as negative to own fire instead than as a positive one in enemy's. This changes things a little, as, to give you an example, it makes hamsters not less effective, but more vulnerable (which also affects the equation, but in a diferent way).
Purely my fault. You wrote it quite clearly, I guess I just came with preconceived ideas and missinterpreted it.
As you suggested, one interesting effect is among fighters:
usually, fighters are unable to hit each other (a fighter with triple missile needs a 5+ to hit, with a -6 for agility and -2 for size, so a 13+). If they have to endure the penalty, fighters' dogfight begins to be important. This may lead to some odd results, though:
Imagine both sides can control up to 64 fighters. One side, expecting the enemy big ships to be in the line sends its 200 fighters against the enemy, while the other sends just the ones he can control (64) and no more ships. At the end of the round, the side with less fighters will have hit (and probably mision killed) about 5 enemy fighters with no losses (as he enjoys a +2 to hit, he needs 11+, so 1/12 will hit, while enemy still needs 13+ to hit, so no hits).
See that I asume same computers for all fighters along this post...
"Fleet tactics is a skill used by individuals in command of groups of two or more space or star ships."
I would interpret a space ship to be a craft of 100 dT or over that lacks a jump drive. A craft of under 100 dT is a boat or small craft. Ergo, I would interpret fleet tactics as the skill of coordinating groups of craft which are individually over 100 dT, the more so because fleet tactics is applied to the initiative DM but, under the current errata, small craft do not count toward the initiative DM.
I'm having trouble with this idea on a couple of fronts. First, that square-of-skill mechanic. The basic idea behind divvying everything up into squadrons and fleets and such - or squads and platoons, when it comes down to it - is the concept of span of control: how much one person can manage without losing track of something. Fleet tactics 1 as presented implies that there's a point at which a person with training in coordinating ships in action cannot effectively coordinate more than one other ship. That just sounds way too low to me. I can see limiting him to 3 or 4 ships - or 3 or 4 subordinate officers with fleet tactics - but two strikes me as baseline: something someone with no fleet tactics skill at all should be able to do.
Second, I'm having trouble with the penalty. You're a ship floating in space with nothing but tens or hundreds of thousands of miles of vacuum between you and the other guy. How is your admiral's incompetence making it harder for your sensor guys to pick out targets or for your gunners to train weapons?
A more "realistic" consequence, if you'll pardon the application of the word to a science fiction game, is to assign some probability that a ship won't be where it's supposed to be - that a ship who is supposed to be screened in reserve will inadvertently find itself exposed to fire because of some mistake in coordinating movement, or that a ship who is supposed to be on the line will inadvertently find itself out of position or out of optimal firing range - at long range when the fleet is supposed to be at short, or at short when the fleet is supposed to be at long, or even in reserve.
Mistakes of fleet coordination result in ships where they're not supposed to be or ships fighting opponents they weren't intended to face - think Taffy 3's destroyers and escort carriers desperately fighting off enemy battlewagons 'cause someone forgot to mention to the task force commander that the flank screening force was off chasing decoys.
I would interpret a space ship to be a craft of 100 dT or over that lacks a jump drive. A craft of under 100 dT is a boat or small craft. Ergo, I would interpret fleet tactics as the skill of coordinating groups of craft which are individually over 100 dT, the more so because fleet tactics is applied to the initiative DM but, under the current errata, small craft do not count toward the initiative DM.
I'm having trouble with this idea on a couple of fronts. First, that square-of-skill mechanic. The basic idea behind divvying everything up into squadrons and fleets and such - or squads and platoons, when it comes down to it - is the concept of span of control: how much one person can manage without losing track of something. Fleet tactics 1 as presented implies that there's a point at which a person with training in coordinating ships in action cannot effectively coordinate more than one other ship. That just sounds way too low to me. I can see limiting him to 3 or 4 ships - or 3 or 4 subordinate officers with fleet tactics - but two strikes me as baseline: something someone with no fleet tactics skill at all should be able to do.
Second, I'm having trouble with the penalty. You're a ship floating in space with nothing but tens or hundreds of thousands of miles of vacuum between you and the other guy. How is your admiral's incompetence making it harder for your sensor guys to pick out targets or for your gunners to train weapons?
A more "realistic" consequence, if you'll pardon the application of the word to a science fiction game, is to assign some probability that a ship won't be where it's supposed to be - that a ship who is supposed to be screened in reserve will inadvertently find itself exposed to fire because of some mistake in coordinating movement, or that a ship who is supposed to be on the line will inadvertently find itself out of position or out of optimal firing range - at long range when the fleet is supposed to be at short, or at short when the fleet is supposed to be at long, or even in reserve.
Mistakes of fleet coordination result in ships where they're not supposed to be or ships fighting opponents they weren't intended to face - think Taffy 3's destroyers and escort carriers desperately fighting off enemy battlewagons 'cause someone forgot to mention to the task force commander that the flank screening force was off chasing decoys.
And yet I guess that fighters must be quite coordinated for their attack to have any effect, and that would be (IMHO) from Fleet Tactics skill too...
I'm not sure I understand your point here. As Amber Chancer presents it, Fleet Tactics 1 would allow to coordinate up to 21, so 2 ships, while under my variant suggestion it will allow to coordinate 21+1, so 4 ships (8 if unit integrity applies). So, in both cases, a trained character can control more than just one ship as you say...
I understand it as ships interfering with each other actions (either jamming friendly sensors, being in a friendly line of fire, not effectively distributing fire, forcing enemy ships to move where a friendly one does not want, etc...)
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Historically, and there is only about a century of that, fighters play "follow the leader" on strike/bombing missions. Command and control isn't a huge issue there. Once, and if, it degenerates to a "dog fight" all bets are off. There is no more C&C, just instinct, training and ingrained tactics.
I prefer the McPerth solution (Between McPerth or Chancer, btw, both have merit
). Makes the Classic Canon "8" (ships in a squadron) work out very well.That and adding the targeting orders, theory and practice. Do you order your command to concentrate fires or disburse them? In either case, differing weapons systems call for differing tactics.
I like the whole command and Control concept.
Suggested addition to the rule:
>No more than half the ships/squadrons an overall commander may control may be moved from reserve to first line (or vice versa) without incurring in similar pennalty (cumulative with the modifiers for overload command and control). Damaged ships leaving the line to attempt repairs/retreat are exempted from this number.
>No more than half the ships/squadrons an overall commander may control may be moved from reserve to first line (or vice versa) without incurring in similar pennalty (cumulative with the modifiers for overload command and control). Damaged ships leaving the line to attempt repairs/retreat are exempted from this number.
