Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Why?
Mostly I'm interested in the logic behind this. I can see a reason why, but would like to hear your thoughts. We my be liking the same thing for totally differing reasons.
CT Only: Crew effect in HG2 combat
- Thread starter McPerth
- Start date
Why?
Mostly I'm interested in the logic behind this. I can see a reason why, but would like to hear your thoughts. We my be liking the same thing for totally differing reasons.
Due to the confusion of reserves coming forward or units retreating. If the commander is not able to coordinate this, it may result in quite a chaos (units disturbing among them, gaps in the lines, etc...).
Damaged units would be exempted because most friendly commanders will expect them to retreat and even try to cover them.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Thanks. That was my take as well.
In the heat of battle reserves are all to often forgotten or deployed to early. Either way they are all to often misused. Another all to often not acknowledged problem is obsessing over the reserves. Focusing on trying to decide when, or if, to commit them. Occasionally this causes a commander to lose track of the current situation.
I'm not even suggesting a bad commander either; the "fog of war" is a very real, and trying, thing. It's bad enough when trying to optimize a war-game. It's really rough when they are live troops and not cardboard counters or miniatures.
What he said!
My point is I don't like the 2n. I do like the 2n+1, although I'd have to take a close look at how high Fleet Tactics can get. It could get weird above level 3.
The picture you paint is not the one painted by a blanket +1 or more bonus to the enemy's to-hit rolls. And, given the vast distances, high technology and long turn length involved, I really don't see ships interfering with each other in any significant way, even in a full on free-for-all. Frankly, even being able to interfere willfully, as with establishing a protected reserve that the enemy can't target, is a major stretch and likely requires some very careful and deliberate positioning.
There are a couple of ideas for emulating poor control of a squadron (or of subordinate admirals, if playing with multiple squadrons). For example:
1. There is a chance for any starship/spaceship in reserve (including the flagship, if it is in reserve) to be inadvertently exposed due to miscommunication or flawed movement orders. Roll for each ship in reserve; on a failed roll, that ship finds itself on the line and may be targeted - it may not fire back, but it may fire defensively. Roll doesn't need to be difficult: the more ships in reserve, the greater the likelihood of even the lowest probability roll occurring. Say a fixed 3+ for every ship in reserve to remain in reserve.
2. There is a chance for any starship/spaceship/junior admiral's force on the line (except the flagship itself) to become separated from the fleet and find itself cut off. Roll for each ship on the line, or each junior admiral if your admiral's leading junior admirals; on a failed roll, that ship/force becomes separated from the fleet during maneuver: thereafter, it rolls initiative separately, determines range separately, and it can not go into the main fleet's reserve for the remainder of the battle. And, of course, that ship no longer counts against the admiral's span of control (and no longer counts towards that fleet's initiative).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit.
First point - these rules would add extra die rolls to what effect? Do they speed up play? No
Do they allow the gods of randomness to remove ships from the line and mess with your plan? Yes
That said I like them, they mesh nicely with my abstract movement rules for flanking, breakthroughs etc.
I still don't like raising skill levels to powers as a means to determine number of ships that can be controlled. - I'm leaning toward 2n+4.
First point - these rules would add extra die rolls to what effect? Do they speed up play? No
Do they allow the gods of randomness to remove ships from the line and mess with your plan? Yes
That said I like them, they mesh nicely with my abstract movement rules for flanking, breakthroughs etc.
I still don't like raising skill levels to powers as a means to determine number of ships that can be controlled. - I'm leaning toward 2n+4.
Once again claiming my real world inexperience (I guess that is allowed
), I thought this has (at least to a point) ended with the incorporation of the radar guided air controlers (and more so with the AWACs) to air combat, air combat becoming something more coordinated.Even at its early stages (think on the Battle of Britain in 1940), the fighter units were guided to the combat to take an advantageous position for the initial engaging, and trying to keep this advantage the whole combat. That would be what this use of Fleet Tactics represent in game for fighters.
As said before, Fleet Tactics is quite a rare skill to obtain. In CT:HG advanced Chargen, you can only adquire it in the Command or Staff Colleges (50% each, and both being rare occurances) or by rolling in the Staff Officer table (1 in 6 for O4-O6, 2 in 6 for O7+).
For the schools, you must roll Special Duty (3 in 36, so 1 in 12) to have 50% (assuming the +1 modifier for college or SOC 11+) to attain either of them. That gives you about 1 in 24 chances to attain one of such schools, so about 1/48 possibility to so earn the skill per year.
For the Staff Officer table, while easier, remember than the higher Rank you reach, the easier to have command (so not being able to roll in the table). As contradictory it may be, an officer from Techincal Services or Medical Branches will have easier access to the skill in this way than one from Line or Flight branches :CoW:.
I don't expect many officers with Fleet Tactics 3+. In fact, I expect very few with 4 and only an ocasional 5 (and that would be "Nelson in space", IMHO).
I agree with you here. Maybe that's why I initially missread a -1 on friendly to hit rolls, instead of a +1 to enemy's (representing mostly uncoordinated salvoes).
Nice, but (as Mike above) I'm concerned about the high number of extra rolls that this can represent. And this time, just using statistical results might not work, as ther may be quite different ships in reserve and which one is afected may be important (just some of your BRs appearing unintentionally in the first line will not be the same as some tenders, tankers or troop transports being the affected ships).
While also nice, that might end in several different battles being fought simultaniously. While this might even be quite realist, I'm concerned about the added complexity.
Last edited:
In that case, before you limit the number of ships an admiral can coordinate to 25 for a veritable Far Future Nelson, you should consider that high-population worlds can afford to maintain scores or even hundreds of ships. Clashes between the Imperium and the Zhodani in the 5FW, for example, could involve multiple fleets (a single fleet averages 62½ ships).
Perhaps you could work out something along these lines: A flag officer can control 1 plus 1+2+...+X fleet elements (i.e. FT-1 can control 2 elements, FT-2 can control 4, FT-3 can control 7, etc.), where X is his fleet tactics skill. Each of these elements can be further sub-divided and controlled by subordinate flag officers, down to the level of the squadron.
Hans
Last edited:
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Assume TL15
As a "first in battle" line unit, fighters would be a waste of resources. BUT:devil:, looking over some of your own battle reports of late...
Many of those crippled ships would never be able to withdraw with a squadron, or more, of fighters hounding them.
(In spite of the "humanitarian" arguments against destroying enemy ships I'm going to do exactly that. I will not have my ships, and crews, put in jeopardy a second time fighting the same ships they previously defeated.:nonono:
I will use Auxiliaries to rescue any defeated crews though.)
[/QUOTE]
The point of not destroying enemy ships THAT HAVE SURRENDERED can be considered humanitarian or it could be a starkly pragmatic quid for the quo that the enemy won't destroy your ships when the have surrendered, but either way you're not expected to let enemy ships escape.
What the convention of not destroying ships that have surrendered means is that in return for not shooting up a defeated ship and killing the crew, the crew of a ship that has surrendered does not destroy their ship at their leisure once you've stopped shooting at it.
Hans
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
There used to be a naval tradition of prize money per ship captured, measured by how useful/usable the captured ship was.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
IF they surrender AND my navy could possibly use that ship, and IF I had sufficient personnel for a prize crew...
But the example wasn't a surrendering ship, but one fleeing to be repaired and fight another day... NO WAY am I allowing that to happen when fighters are in fact cheap and effective in that role.
Surrender and you're rescued, continue to fight or flee and, if possible, I'll continue the fight.
After battle derelict ships might be worth salvaging and then again they might not. Much depends on TL and possible racial differences, how badly damaged, how much effort and resources are needed and available, intelligence value, how long before an enemy relief force might be expected, etc.
All these factors considered, I will NOT allow a defeated ship to return to combat as an enemy controlled vessel. THAT outweighs every other factor.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
When is the last time a modern navy paid out prize money? Or what captain has available, or would reduce his combat readiness, to transfer crew to an enemy ship surrendering? When has a modern ship ever actually surrendered during combat? (USS Pueblo? Pretty unique circumstances.)
Scuttling is also a naval tradition and has seen frequent use in modern times.
I don't know of any conventions of war, real or imagined, that require a combatant to stop shooting on people until they have surrendered. Granted, once enemies have been rendered harmless, many codes require that you give them a chance to surrender, and there are codes that require the losing side to fight to the last man, but that's not the same thing.
Now, if you don't have the personnel to control prisoners, some codes require you to leave them alive anyway (a convention that has been violated from time to time), but you don't have to let them keep their ships or weapons.
Incidentally, as was pointed out the last time this came up, if you are an officer serving in a military organization, it's not up to you to choose to destroy fleeing ships or not. The organization will have rules and you're supposed to follow those rules even if you disapprove of them.
Hans
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Again, my HG fleets have provision for taking prisoners and would use them.
I know of no rule, or practice, during war, that forbids a field commander from destroying any enemy in a condition to fight.
Mike, you might think that when you start a sentence with "In spite of the "humanitarian" arguments...", you're talking about refraining from shooting at ships that have not yet surrendered, but I sure didn't get that, because, as I said, I know of no actual conventions of war that restrain a combatant from shooting on an enemy combatant that hasn't surrendered yet. Hey, the conventions I know about allow you to shoot someone who's completely unaware of your existence in the back.
And, no offense, but if you're talking about keeping up attacks on enemies that are still in a condition to fight and haven't surrendered, I belive the appropriate, albeit admittedly rude, response is "Well, DUH!!"
Hans
Agreed, but see that this "Nelson in space" could control quite a lot of subofficers under my variant, so allowing him/her to control quite a lot of ships. And I wonder how many of those ships you tell about in the Imerium/Zhodani battles were at first line and how many at the reserve at any battle point...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Mike, you might think that when you start a sentence with "In spite of the "humanitarian" arguments...", you're talking about refraining from shooting at ships that have not yet surrendered, but I sure didn't get that, because, as I said, I know of no actual conventions of war that restrain a combatant from shooting on an enemy combatant that hasn't surrendered yet. Hey, the conventions I know about allow you to shoot someone who's completely unaware of your existence in the back.
And, no offense, but if you're talking about keeping up attacks on enemies that are still in a condition to fight and haven't surrendered, I belive the appropriate, albeit admittedly rude, response is "Well, DUH!!"
Hans
Hans, you are right. I'm not sure where we got off track. I haven't been at my best for several weeks due to what is turning into a serious concussion. One minute my thought process is clear (or at lest seems to be) and at another it's anyone's guess.
Thanks for bearing with me.
I agree with you IF they are retreating instead of surrending AND if I have ships to spare to shoot at the more imminent danger that still shooting ships suppose AND if that does not mean to send my own ships in a hot pursue that might end with a space version of the Scotts Greys...
This said, sending your units to pursue fleing enemy is an old tradition, as launching your cavalry to pursue an enemy broken army (the main casuality producing strategy in many Napoleonic games, BTW), so, I see that not against any military tradition, opposite to shooting at surrendering ships...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I believe we are in agreement.
I tend to think of fighters, in a pursuit situation, as cavalry and use them accordingly. Any ship that is in a condition to leave the line of battle is probably in a reduced enough capacity to allow fighters to work it over pretty well, and stop it from escaping by "breaking off by acceleration".
There are of course exceptions. Fully functional ships may attempt to break off and escape overwhelming odds before destruction. In this case the fighters aren't going in. Another case would be an enemy deliberately drawing your fighters off. In HG once any ship(s) leaves the fleet for any reason, it's gone for that combat, though may have its/their own battle to fight.
If those fighters are drawn off against a ship not sufficiently damaged they don't accomplish much, if anything, and may very well find themselves in trouble. In this case they are wasted as they can't return to combat and are now unable to clean up the future cripples.
Once again claiming my real world inexperience (I guess that is allowed
Valid point. The Soviets, I understand, controlled their aircraft pretty tightly back in the day. However, modern fighters are much more powerful in comparison to their targets than their Trav equivalents. One modern fighter can put a whole lotta hurt out, so coordinating that force for maximum gain becomes very important. Trav spacefighters, on the other hand, pack about as much comparative punch relative to their targets as a WW-I biplane; it becomes acceptable for the commander to throw them about en masse rather than worry about the actions of each individual craft.
Valid points as well. It breaks down rather badly the larger the force involved. Really only works for squadron-size engagements. I am not so averse to the randomness bit, though. I just can't wrap my head around the idea of the admiral's incompetence at coordinating his ships resulting in making it easier for the enemy gunners to hit those ships.
A thought occurs, belatedly. We're talking about the far future - way advanced computers, tight-beam laser or even meson communications and all that. At some point, the tech prevents the obvious mistakes - the big flashing image of Intrepid on your display tells you they're still awaiting orders, the computer verbalizes an alert that the proposed movement will leave Serendip in the reserve exposed to hostile fire, and so forth. At some point, the tech is good enough that anyone can be at least competent, and the standouts who get the bonuses are the ones who can go beyond the tech to pull some advantage out of the aether.
