Fleet Themes

[robject]

I'm idly wondering if any war-gaming value can come from thinking about "themes" for battle groups. Can a "taxonomy" of themes be described, which can provide a rich resource for conducting OTU wargames?

In other words, can we describe the ways which fleets might possibly operate, which would have game-play value?

For example, "Hunting Pack". Or "Linked Point Defense". Strong Defense? Interceptor? Strike Carrier?

Maybe they can be modelled after animal behaviors. Pouncers, Chasers, Killers, Trappers.

Just some idle wonderings, that's all.

 

[samuelvss]

I believe the value would be cultural.

For a "naval" force, we might best draw anologies from naval history. Carrier task force, amphibious task force, battle fleeet, etc.

This IS the theme that is meaningful for us. What about for other cultures, however, without a naval tradition? Hunting analogies/themes might hold more sway.

 

[Hemdian]

I seem to remember reading something a long time ago (and hopefully archived to my hard disk if I can find it) that attempted to describe ships of the line in terms of their typical deployment in battle. There were skirmishers and jousters and maulers and several other types. These roles would affect the design: the trade off between speed/agility, offensiveness, and defensiveness. Is that the sort of thing you're after?

 

[kafka47]

Certainly, I like the idea of using the animal ecological niches to fill different fleet functions. I have in the past also use Grimtooth's Book of Traps to describe different fleet formations and battle maneuvers. It takes a bit of imagination but essentially easy. For example, Gamma Delta Trap Door.

The Fleet is approaching you in a standard quad. With the carriers on the flanks and aux. craft lining the sides and cruisers are keeping the front and rear flanks. Just as you within range. The carriers launch their fighters in downward swooping maneuver. The aux craft have moved to the top and the cruisers have launched their missiles closing on your position. What do you do?

 

[Spinward Scout]

'Battle Group' is the term the US Navy currently uses when ships are deployed for combat ops or readiness training exercises. Squadron is also sometimes used, but then it gets confused with aircraft squadrons. Not always using a carrier as the main 'flag' ship, but probably the ship with the highest ranking officer takes the lead. You'll hear it called 'the Ranger Battle Group' or 'the Enterprise Battle Group'. My brother participated in something called a PacEx - which I believe is NavySpeak for Pacific Expeditionary Group. I would think the Imperium would have more agressive sounding names for this. Strike Force or Strike Fleet or Bombardment Fleet - if it sounds menacing, it'd probably work.

Here's an article on Carrier battle group if that helps.

 

[Starviking]

I seem to remember reading something a long time ago (and hopefully archived to my hard disk if I can find it) that attempted to describe ships of the line in terms of their typical deployment in battle. There were skirmishers and jousters and maulers and several other types. These roles would affect the design: the trade off between speed/agility, offensiveness, and defensiveness. Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Destroyers used to be called Torpedo Boat Destroyers as that was the function they were designed for. Cruisers were, of course, designed to cruise - long duration independent operations.

 

[flykiller]

"taxonomy" of themes be described, which can provide a rich resource for conducting OTU wargames? In other words, can we describe the ways which fleets might possibly operate, which would have game-play value?

that will depend on your sensor rules, weapon ranges, and target aspect rules (if any), and also on your battlespace depiction (3d abstract, 2d board, range band, 1d long/short, etc). when you've seen how your fleet operates then you can name its tactics. deciding on a name and then trying to fit the fleet to the name can be awkward.

e.g. imtu I have two primary warships. the first is the kurashk, a vilani word that refers to any long-distance threat. lightly armored, it mounts a factor T PAW and tries to "snipe" at enemy ships from maximum distance. the second is the allosaurus, heavily armored and mounting a factor N meson gun. it attempts to close with a target and overwhelm it with massive firepower. supporting them are the cherries, heavily armed and armored scout ships that attempt to locate the enemy without being located themselves and thus allow the kurashk's and allosauri to engage in flanking maneuvers. a typical maneuver would be for the kurashk to draw attention and induce the target to pursue it, causing it to pass near a lurking allosaurus that suddenly pops up close and takes a flank shot. all of this works because I have limited sensor ranges on a 2d board - if I didn't the ships and their tactics would be considerably different.

 

[robject]

that will depend on your sensor rules, weapon ranges, and target aspect rules (if any), and also on your battlespace depiction (3d abstract, 2d board, range band, 1d long/short, etc). when you've seen how your fleet operates then you can name its tactics. deciding on a name and then trying to fit the fleet to the name can be awkward.

Good suggestion re deciding how a fleet operates versus naming tactics. But, I don't think it depends on any particular sensor rules, weapon ranges, and target aspect rules etc... but your point is taken if by all that you mean it depends on how combat works. I'm assuming combat has elements typical of Traveller, starships have the typical elements one would expect of Traveller, and the game is played on a surface. I think that "ought to be" enough to dervice general characteristics.

...skirmishers and jousters and maulers and several other types. These roles would affect the design: the trade off between speed/agility, offensiveness, and defensiveness. Is that the sort of thing you're after?

Possibly. Directed at "cultural" design differentiation, I think, which affects entire fleets. Maybe.

I'm drawing inferences from Traveller (Zhodani, Imperial, Aslan, Vargr) but also from Babylon 5's wargame, A Call To Arms, which tries (don't know if it succeeds) to differentiate based on culture.

 

[flykiller]

... I don't think it depends on any particular sensor rules, weapon ranges, and target aspect rules etc... but your point is taken if by all that you mean it depends on how combat works. I'm assuming combat has elements typical of Traveller, starships have the typical elements one would expect of Traveller, and the game is played on a surface. I think that "ought to be" enough to dervice general characteristics.

traveller combat rules often vary without intersection (bk2 vs hg2), and have many problems. for example, lasers traverse 1ls in 1 second, while a 6g missile will require 53 minutes to traverse the same distance - yet most versions treat laser and missile combat as simultaneous. this grates on one's sensibilities, and while useful in an abstract setting it makes no sense on a 2d board. (and sand - that's a whole 'nuther issue, discussed elsewhere.) consider sensor rules - if sensor range is unlimited then there is no need for scouts or screening vessels, but if sensor range is limited then scouts and screening vessels take on critical roles. consider 2d board depiction - hex maneuver is not at all the same as vector maneuver. for example, in hex maneuver, a scoutship may detect an enemy and then stop to evaluate - but in vector movement the scoutship may careen into an enemy formation before it can zero out. this makes a big difference in how a scoutship is designed and deployed.

 

[Garyius2003]

Maybe:

If you are using the High Guard rules....

designate something the fleet/group is good at and give a plus for tactics for it.

The 11823rd Resupply Escort Squadron is designed and trains to escort medium and heavy commerical transport convoys. When used in that role, the unit has a +3 to fleet tactics and +2 to ship tactics.

2234th Heavy Battle Squadron is designed for main force attacks on gas giant forces and main worlds. It trains heavily for those missions, and is not usually used for patrols. When used in that role, the unit has a +4 to fleet tactics and +3 to ship tactics.

 

[far-trader]

Whoa. Some pretty hefty bonus there Garyius

...but I kind of like the idea. Fighters get a bonus for behaving like fighters (so they might actually be able to hit something). Scouts get a bonus for lurking (so they can hide). Could work. But I think the bonuses should be more like +1, maybe +2, if you're talking like above as an add to Tactics, +3 or +4 just seems far too generous for a 2D6 roll.

 

[The Oz]

There's also strategic "themes" or doctrines; the way the Fleet plans to fight the war as a whole.

We know of at least two "canon" strategic doctrines for the Imperium: we're told that the Navy used to put most of it's strength up close to the borders for a "crustal defense" strategy, but now has pulled most of the fleet back to more central locations for a "rapid response" doctrine, with selected "island fortresses" (Jewell, Efate) of resistance to slow an invasion until the reserve fleets can arrive on the scene.

This has implications for ship design. Presumably most of the battlerider squadrons are in the "rapid response" fleets, because they can jump farther than most battleships and they deliver a lot of firepower quickly. Battleships are supposedly in the forward delaying squadrons because they can jump away more easily if they are defeated.

The Imperial "jump-4" standard makes more sense if you think of it as only applying to the ships for the response forces. I could even see some jump-5 battle tenders in the response fleets. The ships fighting in the delaying forces don't need such high jump and should be jump-3 at most.

 

[flykiller]

designate something the fleet/group is good at and give a plus for tactics for it.

I like that too, it's an excellent abstract method.

The Imperial "jump-4" standard makes more sense if you think of it as only applying to the ships for the response forces.

then the fleets can't work together except by limiting the performance of the more capable fleet. an imperial standard should be standard, so that commanders on the scene can mix-and-match forces as needed on the spot. a simple fleet delineation of j4/sdb would work better at the strategic level.

 

[BlackBat242]

USN standard for CBG* (Carrier Battle Group) or SBG* (Surface Battle Group) is 30+ knots sprint, 25+ knots sustained.

USN standard for ARG** (Amphibious Ready Group) is 24 knots sprint, 20+ knots sustained.

If a CVN (+ escorts) is sailing in company with a LHD & LPD (+ escorts) it is restricted to the slower speed.


What's the problem?



* recently renamed to Carrier/Surface Strike Group
** recently renamed to Expeditionary Strike Group

 

[flykiller]

What's the problem?

apples and oranges. the original discussion was about fleet strategic response, not local invasion operations. an invasion target is static and invasions usually are attempted only after local strategic superiority is established, so strategic speed is a lesser issue. but when delaying fleets are falling back and response fleets are moving forward into a fluid situation a commander should not have to choose between dividing or slowing his available resources. he should be able to scoop up whatever he finds and move it all together. an imperial standard helps achieve that.

 

[dccarles]

It seems to me that fleet types in naval warfare would depend upon what (I'm assuming you're a massive empire, of course) you want done. Since tasks will remain pretty constant across cultures (defend planet, attack planet, smack those annoying Vargr) and the technology is similar, most cultures will have very similar types of fleets. (Even the Vargr have smack those annoying Vargr fleets.)

Common tasks would be
* Planetary Attack
* Planetary Occupation (a very different kroyloss of Droyne, indeed)
* Planetary Defense
* Strategic Defense (i.e., Planetary Defense plus more jump)
* Escort
* Commerce Raiding
* Transport

Of course, the method might differ from the purpose. In my Islands Campaign, for example, New Home realizes that it can't stand against a concerted effort from any of the other major powers. What it can do, however, is make it to the homeworld of any potential aggressor in one jump and turn the planetary surface into radioactive glass when the main fleet's not there to defend it. New Home's strategic defense is thus operational offense.

Esperanza, on the other hand, is multiple jumps from any other major world and has resources to burn, and so their policy is something more like defense in depth. This can, of course, be a base for an offensive policy of gradual planet-by-planet conquest.

--Devin