Operational Level High Guard Gaming

[Ulsyus]

So it occurred to me that there's a lot of discussion about HG vessels, but the abstract nature of that system takes no notice of the manoeuvre that would occur before an engagement begins.

There's also plenty of discussion about pirates and corsairs, but it occurs to me that they need to hide somewhere or vector in on their prey from a pre-existing point.

All of this would involve movement around and within a solar system. That's an operational level thing. Has anyone played a campaign doing that within a system?

The old Ad Astra game High Trader had a map for this sort of thing, which you can see here. I think the old Sierra Madre game High Frontiers had a similar sort of thing. That made players think about how they were going to manoeuvre about a system, rather than just allowing them to point and go.

 

[whartung]

Fleets tend to not engage in deep space, rather they engage near fixed positions (i.e. planets). They do this because deep space isn't really interesting from any military point of view, but planets and other "fixed" points are (gas giants, etc.). Obviously there are exceptions, but this is a general guideline.

You can't stop an attacking fleet. They almost have to agree to fight. Otherwise the closing vectors are simply too large. The fleets may clash, for a moment, but they're just run right past each other. Out of range, in range trading quick opportunity shots, then out of range again, with the attacker going to where they want to go, and the defender now behind, and chasing.

So the best bet is for the defender is to be where the attacker wants to be, and meet them there. Yes, they give up the initiative to do this, they can't start the attack. They simply have to wait for it to happen.

Finally, if you have more than one fleet in the system (say one at the main world, one at the gas giant), the other fleet likely won't have the time to respond to an attack on the other. They're simply too far away to get meaningfully engaged in time.

So, this is why an abstract system like HG works, and why the complexities of playing it out at the system level rarely warrant the time and effort to actually do it.

Operationally, a fleet will jump in and assemble in deep space, as the fleet arrives over time due to jump scatter. They will assemble far enough away from where intelligence puts the defending fleet elements (i.e. away from the gas giant or planet or whatever). When the fleet is assembled, they'll start to maneuver toward their ultimate target and the defender can prepare to respond.

This also goes back to the nature of intelligence due to travel times. Essentially, attackers won't start a fight they can't win. When fleets arrive, they're either stuck there, or they can quickly jump out. If they're stuck there, i.e. they have refuel in system, then they will plan to arrive with enough strength to assure that they can do that.

If the defender is too strong, then it's an impasse. The attacker can't attack successfully, so why should it (unless it wants to waste the fleet and attrit the defender), and the defender can't readily chase the attacker and engage them. If the defender has overwhelming superiority, in that it can defend it's fixed positions and have a strong enough reaction force to engage the attacker, then the defender can give chase. If the defender has a true advantage in fleet speed, this can work. But if not, then it's going to be a lonnng chase in the dark of space.

If not then then the attacking fleet, while not able to do damage, it is able to pin the defending fleet in the system, as the defender dare not jump out.

So, now the couriers jump and try to bring reinforcements.

This basically boils down to a SFB game I was in once, where the ships were at an impasse. Player A was chasing Player B. And A simply asked B "When are you going to turn around", and B replied "when are you going to stop chasing me". A wasn't close enough to be effective against B, nor B against A, until they turned around. But B knew if he turned around, it was to his disadvantage. So, impasse.

But you can see how while on the one hand, you think there is a rich maneuvering environment to be had, in practice it tends not to be. There are exceptions. But if you want to model it out, simply convert each hex on the map from the tactical scale to a larger scale (say 50x, so each hex is now 50 hexes), and boost the time scale by 50. The rest of the mechanics are the same until the ships enter the same hex. Then you're back down to the tactical scale.

Since you don't track fuel, whatever maneuver mechanic you use is the same. Just have to multiply your velocities.

 

[kilemall]

The other part is that the nature of HG combat makes approach/attack angles, weapon arcs and such largely irrelevant and weapon power is mostly a factor of size and expenditure, so smaller raiding forces are highly unlikely to disrupt or even slow down a larger force much and therefore you end up with largest force on largest force.

 

[Condottiere]

Military engagements rarely happen between equally strong opponents, but both tend to plan to exploit aspects that are favourable to them.

At Salamis, the Greek navies looked outnumbered against the might mustered by the Persian Empire. And trapped.

But Themistocles gifted Xerxes with his allegiance and priceless military and political intelligence. Something that no one since the Trojans has learned to view with skepticism.

 

[McPerth]

Fleets tend to not engage in deep space, rather they engage near fixed positions (i.e. planets). They do this because deep space isn't really interesting from any military point of view, but planets and other "fixed" points are (gas giants, etc.). Obviously there are exceptions, but this is a general guideline.

(...)

So the best bet is for the defender is to be where the attacker wants to be, and meet them there. Yes, they give up the initiative to do this, they can't start the attack. They simply have to wait for it to happen.

But this risks the attackers target (usually an inhabited planet) to bombing and other damage, so, in some instances, it could be worthy to try to intercept them.

You can't stop an attacking fleet. They almost have to agree to fight. Otherwise the closing vectors are simply too large. The fleets may clash, for a moment, but they're just run right past each other. Out of range, in range trading quick opportunity shots, then out of range again, with the attacker going to where they want to go, and the defender now behind, and chasing.

True, that's what I many times compared with a medieval joust. You speed against your enemy, try to hit him with your lance, and the combat is over for that round...

So the best bet is for the defender is to be where the attacker wants to be, and meet them there. Yes, they give up the initiative to do this, they can't start the attack. They simply have to wait for it to happen.

Offcourse, this will leave other targets undefended (e.g., if you have your fleet defending the main world, then any GG would be open for your enemy to refuel)...

Finally, if you have more than one fleet in the system (say one at the main world, one at the gas giant), the other fleet likely won't have the time to respond to an attack on the other. They're simply too far away to get meaningfully engaged in time.

Sure, you have a problem here. if you try to defend both targets, you effectively have two different fleets giving little support (if any) to each other. At most, they can give your fletes a "sanctuary" to retreat to (if one fo the fleets withraws toward the other, the attacker may feel not strong enough to pursue and fight both).

So, this is why an abstract system like HG works, and why the complexities of playing it out at the system level rarely warrant the time and effort to actually do it.

But this same abstract system does not reflect tactics like bypassing the main planet (and avoid the defending fleet there) and just stop in one system to refuel in its GG, and then jumping away.

This tactics may be important for relatively small fleets to penetrate deep in enemy space for raids, commerce raiding, etc., so efectively making the need of some defense in deep felt. This is talked about in Traveller canon (as in AHL incident V, when describing how the Haunting Thunder was lost)

In HG based games (as TCS Islands campaign), once you're in a system, any fleet there can engage you, so fleets defend at once the main planet, any GG in the system (remember there can be multiple GGs) and any other target on it...

Operationally, a fleet will jump in and assemble in deep space, as the fleet arrives over time due to jump scatter. They will assemble far enough away from where intelligence puts the defending fleet elements (i.e. away from the gas giant or planet or whatever). When the fleet is assembled, they'll start to maneuver toward their ultimate target and the defender can prepare to respond.

See that in some versions ships cannot exit jump in deep space, needing a gravity well to do that...

And many times, your first target will be a GG to refuel, before proceeding to your ultimate target.

This also goes back to the nature of intelligence due to travel times. Essentially, attackers won't start a fight they can't win. When fleets arrive, they're either stuck there, or they can quickly jump out. If they're stuck there, i.e. they have refuel in system, then they will plan to arrive with enough strength to assure that they can do that.

But, due to the same nature of intelligence, you cannot be sure of what will you find whe nyou arrive, as your intelligence will be (at least) two weeks old...

If the defender is too strong, then it's an impasse. The attacker can't attack successfully, so why should it (unless it wants to waste the fleet and attrit the defender), and the defender can't readily chase the attacker and engage them. If the defender has overwhelming superiority, in that it can defend it's fixed positions and have a strong enough reaction force to engage the attacker, then the defender can give chase. If the defender has a true advantage in fleet speed, this can work. But if not, then it's going to be a lonnng chase in the dark of space.

If not then then the attacking fleet, while not able to do damage, it is able to pin the defending fleet in the system, as the defender dare not jump out.

So, now the couriers jump and try to bring reinforcements.

See that, unless the attacker has time to refuel (and that's not the case you talk about), it's quite likely to be short in fuel, so the defender, if strong enough, can chase it until its fuel is exhausted. Depending on the version, this can take from a few hours of acceleration (if the drives are not gravitic) to some weeks.

So, unless the attacker may call for reserves (that will arrive, at best, in 2 weeks, assuming he has not jumped with all available units to overhelm the deffender), he's lost.

That's the importance for the attacker to refuel, and to have different locations for the main planet and the GG(s) in a system.

But you can see how while on the one hand, you think there is a rich maneuvering environment to be had, in practice it tends not to be. There are exceptions. But if you want to model it out, simply convert each hex on the map from the tactical scale to a larger scale (say 50x, so each hex is now 50 hexes), and boost the time scale by 50. The rest of the mechanics are the same until the ships enter the same hex. Then you're back down to the tactical scale.

See that among fleets that can be in a GG and main planets, the distances being what they are, even this scale might be too small.

Since you don't track fuel, whatever maneuver mechanic you use is the same. Just have to multiply your velocities.

Depending on the version, fuel must be tracked (e.g. TNE and T4 for non gravitic drives, as many ships use them and have only a few hours of thrust).

For others, you just track the endurance of the ships (in CT/HG 4 weeks, one of them already spent in jumpspace for the attacker, while the defender is likely to be kept fully fueled, and that might include jump fuel that can keep the ship's PP fueled for quite a longtime), and, after that, if unable to refuel, you're out of fuel (and so inoppertaive and good for taking as prizes).

 

[whartung]

But this risks the attackers target (usually an inhabited planet) to bombing and other damage, so, in some instances, it could be worthy to try to intercept them.

All the more reason to be there to stop them rather than rocketing after them for a quick snap shot.

But this same abstract system does not reflect tactics like bypassing the main planet (and avoid the defending fleet there) and just stop in one system to refuel in its GG, and then jumping away.

This tactics may be important for relatively small fleets to penetrate deep in enemy space for raids, commerce raiding, etc., so efectively making the need of some defense in deep felt. This is talked about in Traveller canon (as in AHL incident V, when describing how the Haunting Thunder was lost)

In HG based games (as TCS Islands campaign), once you're in a system, any fleet there can engage you, so fleets defend at once the main planet, any GG in the system (remember there can be multiple GGs) and any other target on it...

Then rather than target system, target planets within the system, or more notably, "interesting" planets as targets for jump. Give a system two boxes, one for the GG, one for the main world and let the defender deploy there. Many GG after faster to jump to than maneuver to from their main planets anyway. Only reason to maneuver is to save fuel.

And many times, your first target will be a GG to refuel, before proceeding to your ultimate target.

If the GG is your first target then the fleet will be large enough to decisively take the GG, based on intelligence, because doing anything else is insane.

But, due to the same nature of intelligence, you cannot be sure of what will you find when you arrive, as your intelligence will be (at least) two weeks old...

See that, unless the attacker has time to refuel (and that's not the case you talk about), it's quite likely to be short in fuel, so the defender, if strong enough, can chase it until its fuel is exhausted. Depending on the version, this can take from a few hours of acceleration (if the drives are not gravitic) to some weeks.

So, unless the attacker may call for reserves (that will arrive, at best, in 2 weeks, assuming he has not jumped with all available units to overhelm the deffender), he's lost.

That's the importance for the attacker to refuel, and to have different locations for the main planet and the GG(s) in a system.

Of course it is, it's also the importance of intelligence. The attackers intelligence is 2 weeks old, but so is everyone elses. Everyone suffers that problem and that's just part of the strategic game. It also influences operations in general, considering that fleets are so expensive that the confidence must be quite high that the attack will succeed before it's even made. Sure, there's always dumb luck, but when assets are making one way trips, they do it methodically because the consequences of loss are so high. Safer to have a jump in reserve to back out, even to deep space (i.e. no system), than lose the fleet to dumb luck. I'd rather spend 6 weeks ferrying tankers and nursing them home than lose hundreds of months combined of build time.

For others, you just track the endurance of the ships (in CT/HG 4 weeks, one of them already spent in jumpspace for the attacker, while the defender is likely to be kept fully fueled, and that might include jump fuel that can keep the ship's PP fueled for quite a longtime), and, after that, if unable to refuel, you're out of fuel (and so inoppertaive and good for taking as prizes).

4 weeks may be fine for a trader, but no military vessel, or at least the operating unit, is going to space with a 4 week duration. You can hardly get anything done in 4 weeks in deep space when things go awry.

Remember, in High Guard the game is pretty much decided when it starts based on fleet composition. What you don't know, is how much victory will cost. Strategic withdrawal has to be entrenched in doctrine, otherwise every single mission is a potential suicide mission (not suicide for the crews, but just in terms of losing the assets to damager and capture). When every mission is an all or nothing one way trip, the fleet compositions change dramatically and you take measures to assure that the trip is going to be successful.

But if you want to make the game a "bit" more tactical, break the systems up in to strategic points of interest (GGs, planets), and defend them individually. Its a simple change that will give you the flavor you're looking for without maneuvering ships on a huge, empty map.

 

[robject]

Fleets tend to not engage in deep space, rather they engage near fixed positions (i.e. planets).

With the (possible) exception of The Battle of Two Suns -- but which may have been fought in the oort clouds or debris fields among or between the two systems, or (less likely) was comprised of two phases, one phase around each system.

 

[mike wightman]

But this risks the attackers target (usually an inhabited planet) to bombing and other damage, so, in some instances, it could be worthy to try to intercept them.

Unless they choose to be intercepted you get one turn of fire on them then you are out of weapon range.

True, that's what I many times compared with a medieval joust. You speed against your enemy, try to hit him with your lance, and the combat is over for that round...

Hmm, wonder why Brilliant Lances got its name...

Offcourse, this will leave other targets undefended (e.g., if you have your fleet defending the main world, then any GG would be open for your enemy to refuel)...

So if the intruder splits their forces what do you do - try a pointless intercept or defend the known locations an enemy fleet is likely to want to control?

Sure, you have a problem here. if you try to defend both targets, you effectively have two different fleets giving little support (if any) to each other. At most, they can give your fletes a "sanctuary" to retreat to (if one fo the fleets withraws toward the other, the attacker may feel not strong enough to pursue and fight both).

Which is why I would only ever invade a system if I knew I have a three to one advantage over the defending fleet.

But this same abstract system does not reflect tactics like bypassing the main planet (and avoid the defending fleet there) and just stop in one system to refuel in its GG, and then jumping away.

That is the realm of a strategic game like FFW - and this is a legitimate tactic.
I have played games where I have moved through systems unopposed because the Impie player has decided not to take the losses.

This tactics may be important for relatively small fleets to penetrate deep in enemy space for raids, commerce raiding, etc., so efectively making the need of some defense in deep felt. This is talked about in Traveller canon (as in AHL incident V, when describing how the Haunting Thunder was lost)

Again, play FFW and you will use this tactic...

In HG based games (as TCS Islands campaign), once you're in a system, any fleet there can engage you, so fleets defend at once the main planet, any GG in the system (remember there can be multiple GGs) and any other target on it...

and you have to choose to fight each other, the invading fleet can just jump out and proceed to a less well defended system.
How many planets in the solar system offer hydrogen compounds? Ice caps should include methane caps and ammonia caps - Pluto would be a good place to refuel.

See that in some versions ships cannot exit jump in deep space, needing a gravity well to do that...

Only GT:ISW and the historical Imperium and Dark Nebula eras - and it is during the Dark Nebula era that deep space jumps become possible.

And many times, your first target will be a GG to refuel, before proceeding to your ultimate target.

Or any body in the system with a significant amount of ice, ammonia ice, methane ice etc...

But, due to the same nature of intelligence, you cannot be sure of what will you find whe nyou arrive, as your intelligence will be (at least) two weeks old...

Yup, there is nothing worse in a FFW game than seeing your opponent's fleets are moving towards the same system you have planned to invade...

See that, unless the attacker has time to refuel (and that's not the case you talk about), it's quite likely to be short in fuel, so the defender, if strong enough, can chase it until its fuel is exhausted. Depending on the version, this can take from a few hours of acceleration (if the drives are not gravitic) to some weeks.

Never jump into a system without the fuel to maneuver to the outsystem or jump out.
A fleet could refuel at just about any large dwarf planet in our solar system.

So, unless the attacker may call for reserves (that will arrive, at best, in 2 weeks, assuming he has not jumped with all available units to overhelm the deffender), he's lost.

Only if you have enough assets to prevent his refuelling at every fuel source in the outsystem. If the attacker brings a fleet three times your size you have lost.

That's the importance for the attacker to refuel, and to have different locations for the main planet and the GG(s) in a system.

And every other potential refuleing point in the system.

Law of unintended consequence- expanded system generation now allows attacking fleets to refuel at whim.

See that among fleets that can be in a GG and main planets, the distances being what they are, even this scale might be too small.

For an operational level game I use a hexmap with the star at the centre hex and the centre hex and first ring is the inner system, the next is for near gas giants/outer system, the next ring is for far gas giants/outer system, and the last ring is for the far outsystem.

Depending on the version, fuel must be tracked (e.g. TNE and T4 for non gravitic drives, as many ships use them and have only a few hours of thrust).

And fuel will be moot, extended system generation gives too many refuelling points in a system.

For others, you just track the endurance of the ships (in CT/HG 4 weeks, one of them already spent in jumpspace for the attacker, while the defender is likely to be kept fully fueled, and that might include jump fuel that can keep the ship's PP fueled for quite a longtime), and, after that, if unable to refuel, you're out of fuel (and so inoppertaive and good for taking as prizes).

It boils down to you line up your ships that want to fight and I line up mine, we have chosen to fight...

 

[mike wightman]

With the (possible) exception of The Battle of Two Suns -- but which may have been fought in the oort clouds or debris fields among or between the two systems, or (less likely) was comprised of two phases, one phase around each system.

Where a Kinunir class battlecruiser held up an entire Zhodani fleet...

reconcile that with later canon if you can

Personally I want the Kinunir class retconned to a state of the art TL15 74,000t ship that could potentially pull this off versus a TL 14 Zhodani fleet (with its escorts of course) so that we can keep the Battle of Two Suns as something that actually happens. I always get goose pimples thinking about the Allamu...

It's a very evocative bit of Library Data fluff to me.

 

[ovka]

Where a Kinunir class battlecruiser held up an entire Zhodani fleet...

IIRC it was more than just the single battlecruiser. There is an entire ship graveyard out there in the void between the systems.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[McPerth]

4 weeks may be fine for a trader, but no military vessel, or at least the operating unit, is going to space with a 4 week duration. You can hardly get anything done in 4 weeks in deep space when things go awry.

But 4 weeks is what your fuel lasts, acording HG, unless you devote more volume to fuel.

Remember, in High Guard the game is pretty much decided when it starts based on fleet composition. What you don't know, is how much victory will cost. Strategic withdrawal has to be entrenched in doctrine, otherwise every single mission is a potential suicide mission (not suicide for the crews, but just in terms of losing the assets to damager and capture). When every mission is an all or nothing one way trip, the fleet compositions change dramatically and you take measures to assure that the trip is going to be successful.

And HG campaigns may be pretty much decided before they start, if there's a high TL difference (think on Imperium vs Sword worlds, where the 3-4 TLs gap make them pointless for the Seord Eorlds)

But if you want to make the game a "bit" more tactical, break the systems up in to strategic points of interest (GGs, planets), and defend them individually. Its a simple change that will give you the flavor you're looking for without maneuvering ships on a huge, empty map.

Isn't this the whole issue of making it more operational?

Hmm, wonder why Brilliant Lances got its name...

Never though on this, but makes sense...

So if the intruder splits their forces what do you do - try a pointless intercept or defend the known locations an enemy fleet is likely to want to control?

It will depend on forces rations, potential targets, etc...

Which is why I would only ever invade a system if I knew I have a three to one advantage over the defending fleet.

Then you will never invade a system, as you may not be sure of where enemy's fletes are (as you hint below about FFW)

That is the realm of a strategic game like FFW - and this is a legitimate tactic.
I have played games where I have moved through systems unopposed because the Impie player has decided not to take the losses.

Again, play FFW and you will use this tactic...

and you have to choose to fight each other, the invading fleet can just jump out and proceed to a less well defended system.
How many planets in the solar system offer hydrogen compounds? Ice caps should include methane caps and ammonia caps - Pluto would be a good place to refuel.

It has been long years since I played FFW, but anyway it's not based on HG. If so, the TL advantage for fletes would be quite greater (and Sword Worlds fleet would be uselesss against a single Imprrial squadron, due to the reflexive DM).

Or any body in the system with a significant amount of ice, ammonia ice, methane ice etc...

A fleet could refuel at just about any large dwarf planet in our solar system.

Only if you have enough assets to prevent his refuelling at every fuel source in the outsystem. If the attacker brings a fleet three times your size you have lost.

And every other potential refuleing point in the system.

Law of unintended consequence- expanded system generation now allows attacking fleets to refuel at whim

As long as you have the time to refuel from it. It takes quite more than to refuel from a GG, and we're talking about an outnumbered attacker taht is low on fuel and pursued by the defenders. If you must stop several days to refuel, you're lost anyway.

Yup, there is nothing worse in a FFW game than seeing your opponent's fleets are moving towards the same system you have planned to invade...

Fully agreed

Never jump into a system without the fuel to maneuver to the outsystem or jump out.

Then you slow even more your offensives, turning the war into a trench attrition one. That may be good for the Imperium, but for the Zhodani or Solomani...

For an operational level game I use a hexmap with the star at the centre hex and the centre hex and first ring is the inner system, the next is for near gas giants/outer system, the next ring is for far gas giants/outer system, and the last ring is for the far outsystem.

Akin Starfire you mean?

The problema on this is that, unlike Starfire, Traveller ships do not move at constant speed.

And fuel will be moot, extended system generation gives too many refuelling points in a system.

Aside what I said above about refuelling at any system, in some versions (TNE, T4) where the maneuver fuel ais counted in hours of thrust it may never be moot (curiously, and for other reasons, those are the versions I like the least of those I know about).

 

[mike wightman]

I have never seen Starfire so I don't know.

 

[mike wightman]

IIRC it was more than just the single battlecruiser. There is an entire ship graveyard out there in the void between the systems.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

Ok I will grant you that - the source says it was caught in the van(guard) and sustained four hours of intense fire - no way does even a BG equipped 1200t ship do that.

I agree there were other ships, cruiser, capita (possibly)l and escort, but the standing up to four hours of fire...

 

[whartung]

But 4 weeks is what your fuel lasts, acording HG, unless you devote more volume to fuel.

Which, by doctrine, military vessels should do. Or, by doctrine, the accompanying fleet train can support the fleet.

And HG campaigns may be pretty much decided before they start, if there's a high TL difference (think on Imperium vs Sword worlds, where the 3-4 TLs gap make them pointless for the Seord Eorlds)

Perhaps, but you still need to count the cost.

Isn't this the whole issue of making it more operational?

It was a simple suggestion if someone wanted a more formal way to play the game where the distances of the planets with the system have some affect on play, as represented by abstract boxes to discriminate in system operation areas and objectives.

Then you will never invade a system, as you may not be sure of where enemy's fletes are (as you hint below about FFW)

Neither side has perfect intelligence. Everyones intelligence is at least 2 weeks old. But that doesn't mean there aren't static elements that need to be accommodated for, nor does it mean that mobile elements can not be pinned down to where invading a system has a high probability of NOT engaging the enemies main mobile assets.

And, again, that's why a smart attacker has some plan for strategic withdrawal. Confidence or desperation must be very high to jump in to a system tanks dry.

It has been long years since I played FFW, but anyway it's not based on HG. If so, the TL advantage for fletes would be quite greater (and Sword Worlds fleet would be uselesss against a single Imprrial squadron, due to the reflexive DM).

But it still models the strategic problems.

Then you slow even more your offensives, turning the war into a trench attrition one. That may be good for the Imperium, but for the Zhodani or Solomani…

It's all a matter of your risk tolerance for loss versus speed. The simple fact is without a strategic withdrawal capability, a fleet jumping in tanks dry is a in a win or lose situation. It's taking the position, or it's not. It's not going to "lose some ships". It's not going to have a rear guard action while the main fleet withdraws. There is no Dunkirk. If they bite more than they can chew, they will be eaten. Destroyed and/or captured wholesale.

In most war time frames, these are permanent loses. The ships simply take far too long to build and be considered attrition units.

So, while there may be some blitz at the beginning, once the defender is alerted, it's time to solidify gains and sue for peace. As you said, the victor is determined before the fight starts, it's all about how much it costs.

Aside what I said above about refuelling at any system, in some versions (TNE, T4) where the maneuver fuel ais counted in hours of thrust it may never be moot (curiously, and for other reasons, those are the versions I like the least of those I know about).

But we're not talking about TNE. Different tech, different doctrines.

If it's an issue, bring more fuel with you.

 

[aramis]

I think there is a romantic myth of the enduring fighter that people like to be nostalgic about, the heavy weight fight where the opponents deal blows to one another for hours as our heroes stagger to victory. But I think the reality is quite different, things get blown up really quickly and just by lucky chance the victor emerges from a frightful encounter.

Actually, when one looks at real naval battles, they often lasted for multiple hours.

for example, The battle of the Sibuyan Sea starts at 10:00, and runs through almost 1900, counts 4 waves of airstrikes, plus surface action.

 

[CliffBates]

But 4 weeks is what your fuel lasts, acording HG, unless you devote more volume to fuel.



And HG campaigns may be pretty much decided before they start, if there's a high TL difference (think on Imperium vs Sword worlds, where the 3-4 TLs gap make them pointless for the Seord Eorlds)



Isn't this the whole issue of making it more operational?



Never though on this, but makes sense...



It will depend on forces rations, potential targets, etc...



Then you will never invade a system, as you may not be sure of where enemy's fletes are (as you hint below about FFW)



It has been long years since I played FFW, but anyway it's not based on HG. If so, the TL advantage for fletes would be quite greater (and Sword Worlds fleet would be uselesss against a single Imprrial squadron, due to the reflexive DM).



As long as you have the time to refuel from it. It takes quite more than to refuel from a GG, and we're talking about an outnumbered attacker taht is low on fuel and pursued by the defenders. If you must stop several days to refuel, you're lost anyway.



Fully agreed



Then you slow even more your offensives, turning the war into a trench attrition one. That may be good for the Imperium, but for the Zhodani or Solomani...



Akin Starfire you mean?

The problema on this is that, unlike Starfire, Traveller ships do not move at constant speed.



Aside what I said above about refuelling at any system, in some versions (TNE, T4) where the maneuver fuel ais counted in hours of thrust it may never be moot (curiously, and for other reasons, those are the versions I like the least of those I know about).

This is why one needs to have lots of tankers and support craft.... and if there are gas giants--that is one of the first targets that need to be secured in a system. Refueling of the main force is key, so retreat is a real option...

Without refueling at the start... BBs and Dreadnaughts are just over sized Battle Riders with a lot of non-used space.

After at least one Gas Giant is secured and your force fully fulled... your Battle Units go to your targets. In fact I would arrange strikes so that I would recon the place for at least 6 months... with knowledge of the orbits and jump in to a outer Gas Giant if they exist... If undefended.. set up my control and defense, Then with main forces I would do a micro jump of the units to where I want them.

 

[ovka]

Ok I will grant you that - the source says it was caught in the van(guard) and sustained four hours of intense fire - no way does even a BG equipped 1200t ship do that.

I agree there were other ships, cruiser, capita (possibly)l and escort, but the standing up to four hours of fire...

Fair enough, but then again perhaps that's why it was noteworthy.

Cheers,

Baron Ovka

 

[Matt123]

In HG based games (as TCS Islands campaign), once you're in a system, any fleet there can engage you, so fleets defend at once the main planet, any GG in the system (remember there can be multiple GGs) and any other target on it...

I've not seen that interpretation before. The games I have played distinguished fleets at the GG as separate to the fleets at the Main planet. It takes a week to merge fleets if you have the time and inclination.

It appears HG does not explicitly state this as you point out, but I think then that the choice to allow the defending fleet to be everywhere in the system is a ref's choice that as you also point out does not force defenders to choose what to defend. I wouldn't lay that on HG, it is a ref hand wave given there is plenty of evidence that planets and GGs are not within easy travel times of each other.

 

[McPerth]

It appears HG does not explicitly state this as you point out, but I think then that the choice to allow the defending fleet to be everywhere in the system is a ref's choice that as you also point out does not force defenders to choose what to defend. I wouldn't lay that on HG, it is a ref hand wave given there is plenty of evidence that planets and GGs are not within easy travel times of each other.

See that this would depend on the specific system, if we're going to be purists. E.g. Regina, being a GG satellite, will not have this difference.

Of course, that would mean quite a work on the referee part...

 

[aramis]

See that this would depend on the specific system, if we're going to be purists. E.g. Regina, being a GG satellite, will not have this difference.

Of course, that would mean quite a work on the referee part...

And it's a lot of work that makes the very abstract nature of HG operational rules very clearly an abstraction for general applicability. When HG was written, the number of GG's was still a matter of referee fiat...

Plus, if the distance exceeds 60° of arc, two GG's are essentially at least as far apart from each other as from the main world... and if more than 120° apart, double that.

For a G_V dwarf system, taking HG as a model... but making it into an actual operational system...

If we want 1 week turns, the "hex size" is 7*24*60*60*10 m (the accumulated vector) times 7*24*60*60 (the action time of accumulated vector), and ignore that that's 50% over 1 turn's burn as a simplification... and that's 24 AU... anything less than Orbit 8 is within a week at 1G. At 2G, anything inside orbit 9...

At 2 days, 1 AU is just about 0.5 hexes...
At 1 day turns, 1 AU is 2 hexes...