Operational Traveller

[Jeffr0]

This would be for a variant rules set for a TCS type campaign.

"Turn" becomes a more loosely defined concept in this game.

Each fleet would get a "Squadron Dexterity" rating based on its M-drive ratings, tactics skill levels, admin skill levels, and fuel reserves. Fleets that are mostly out of fuel will have poor Dexterity ratings.

Each fleet would also get a "Squadron Initiative" rating based on its fighter screens, sensor platforms, computer ratings, leadership skill levels, and strategy skill levels.

Extended system generation rules (from Scouts, First In, TNE, whatever) would be used to flesh out the worlds in a given system.

Actual locations of the star and the worlds in their orbits will be determined as a function of time. Points where folks are most likely to jump in based on what hex they came from can be determined.

The key locations of the star system can then be abstracted out into a special operational map in order to obviate the need for a massive tactical map. The travel time to and from the various locations can be worked out and so forth.

Fleets that are jumping to the same system on the same turn don't really get there at the exact same instant. A contest of Squadron Dexterity is rolled... and the one that wins arrives first and has more time to refuel, scout the system, prepare picket lines, and so forth. Squadron Intitiative checks are used to determine the effects of surprise and so forth... and determine the initial set-ups of any combat scenarios.

Flame wars about Jump Masking and Jump Flashes will ensure that this game is never fully developed or played.

 

[DonM]

You might look at the "detailed system map" in Power Projection, and how it's used. You might find that worth cribbing from (I know I have...)

 

[Matt123]

Are you advocating abstracting the fleets (ie: abstracting up a level) whilst throwing in more system detail (more appropriate for a tactical game?)? Not sure I followed your train of thought correctly.

Cannon AFAIK doesn't support being able to establish the start point of a ship that just jumped in system. Jump masking, if you use it, can narrow down the possible start points tho'. However a canny Captain will pick a 'neutral' jump exit point to confound observers.

 

[mike wightman]

What's really needed to make HG a better tactical game is some sort of abstract maneuver and sensor rules.

I have considered adapting the T2300 Star Cruiser sensor rules and allowing for some sort of hex based movement - sort of Mayday with ping pong balls on golf tees.

Each ball would be a seperate fleet, squadron or even ship - maneuver these around the system board until actual id is confirmed - then resolve fight with normal HG rules.

 

[Jeffr0]

Are you advocating abstracting the fleets (ie: abstracting up a level) whilst throwing in more system detail (more appropriate for a tactical game?)? Not sure I followed your train of thought correctly.

What's really needed to make HG a better tactical game is...

Uh... hm.... The context is TCS campaigns... fixing the sequence of play so that fleets with better M-drives, fuel reserves, and fighter screens get their proper Operational benefits.

TIME SEQUENCE
For convenience, and to save the referee's sanity, time in the campaign is divided
into weeks, and the events of each week are divided into six segments. In campaign
terms, events either take one or more complete weeks or no time at all. The order
of events within a week is given below and should be strictly adhered to.
1. Jumps: All ships which jumped at any time in the last week are placed in their
systems of destination.
2. Communication and Intelligence: Players receive information from the referee
regarding the system they have entered and the composition of enemy forces there.
Players in the same system may talk to each other and may continue direct communication
until one of them jumps out of the system. Ships with sufficient fuel
may jump before combat if they wish.
3. Battles: All battles are fought to a conclusion. Refueling from gas giants may
take place during battle. Ships may escape from battle by jump or maneuver.
4. Changes of Control: Fleets which have driven off enemy forces (or which
were uncontested) may take control of enemy planets. Enemy worlds will surrender
to a fleet; any ship may take over a gas giant.
5. Refueling: The player who controls a source of fuel may refuel his ships there.
6. Final Operations: Ships which undertook operations lasting a week or more
(such as refueling or repair) are ready for other operations. Ships which were in the
process of being constructed, refitted, or other shipyard work are ready. Final
orders for movement, reorganization, and other operations are given. Ships which
have not already done so may jump.

The idea is to use contests of initiative and contests of dexterity to determine which fleets have which advantages going into the battles in step 3. A weaker fleet that got there first could refuel before the fight, for instance.

There needs to be new sets of tasks that ships can be designated as doing. Stand-up fight mode is the default. SDB's harassing ships trying to refuel is another. Fighters and patrol ships harassing enemy traders ships is another. Rules for troop transport ships and penetrating planetary defenses would also be good.

The idea is to add enough depth to the combat scenarios that ship designs get more "realistic" and varied... while giving stragic benefits to ships that don't necessarily offer much in a stand-up fight.

 

[mike wightman]

Uh... hm.... The context is TCS campaigns... fixing the sequence of play so that fleets with better M-drives, fuel reserves, and fighter screens get their proper Operational benefits.

All the more reason to add a manuevering in system element IMHO - as simple as it can be made.

Invasion:Earth offers more choice than HG/TCS currently.

The idea is to use contests of initiative and contests of dexterity to determine which fleets have which advantages going into the battles in step 3. A weaker fleet that got there first could refuel before the fight, for instance.

And I'm all infavour of doing so - I just like to have a visual board the players can move stuff around on.

There needs to be new sets of tasks that ships can be designated as doing. Stand-up fight mode is the default. SDB's harassing ships trying to refuel is another. Fighters and patrol ships harassing enemy traders ships is another. Rules for troop transport ships and penetrating planetary defenses would also be good.

Brings me back to the need to allow you to maneuver your fleet elements somewhat abstractly - you can then pin the new tasks and rolls.

The idea is to add enough depth to the combat scenarios that ship designs get more "realistic" and varied... while giving stragic benefits to ships that don't necessarily offer much in a stand-up fight.

Which is why I propsose using the ping pong ball model (it needn't be those - just use markers like Battle Rider) so that you have to go out and find out what the unknown threat is - makes scouts, sensor pickets etc a necessity.

 

[Matt123]

Uh... hm.... The context is TCS campaigns... fixing the sequence of play so that fleets with better M-drives, fuel reserves, and fighter screens get their proper Operational benefits.

M-drives on an Operational level (vs. tactical), you can achieve most of what you are seeking via expanding system detail to; Main world, Gas Giant 1, Gas Giant 2, etc. In most cases the attacking Fleet will arrive 100D out and bore straight in, facing whatever defences are present. Want easy refueling? Hit a Gas Giant. Want to take over the System, Alpha strike the main world.

Fleet fuel reserves are generally a design consideration, to allow the player better operational maneuver. Few players build fleet tankers for operational maneouver, yet this one aspect alone can determine the outcome of a campaign.

Fighters are interesting, but ones view depends on whether you believe fighters are 'useful' or not. My view is subject to change at the moment in light of other discussions. But regardless, I like squadron rules. As much for the flavour they provide as for anything else. I'll outline my house rules in a seperate post.

For operational uses of fighters, I'd consider adding a +1 to initiative if a fleet has a CAP & pickets, requiring say 4 squadrons (40 fighters) to achieve (6 hour watches per squadron). The quality of the fighters in this role doesn't matter, so Imperial 10tn light fighters will work just fine.

Flag ships could also be useful, if a capital ship has a back-up bridge, it might be used by the Fleet Admiral to give a +1 to initiative. If the bridge is needed to run the ship, the bonus is lost.

Troop ships require thinking hard on planetary assaults and whether the added detail adds enough to TCS to be worth the work. One possiility is to change the requirement for a planet to surrender. Assume most En ground formations are forced to disperse because of the threat of orbital bombardment, meaning they can be defeated or suppressed in detail by concentrated forces.

Then call it say a Division per UWP population point to make a planet surrender. Each must be transported and supported in place - requiring troop transports, supply transports and a supporting/bombardment fleet of fighter carriers and/or missile/mass driver ships. Of course now you have to figure out how large a division is, its transport space required, a suitable supply rate in Tn's delivered per week while pacification operations are ongoing and how large the supporting element needs to be.

The idea is to use contests of initiative and contests of dexterity to determine which fleets have which advantages going into the battles in step 3. A weaker fleet that got there first could refuel before the fight, for instance.

Generally, this refueling aspect is a function of the attackers focus. If the attacker values full tanks he/she will attack the GG before heading for the main world. Any defending forces will already be around the GG. No contest required. The only time this won't happen is when two fleets arrive in system at the same time and at the same GG. In that case I'd determine the attacker/defender randomly.

SDB's in GG and based on the main world could both use a similar mechanic. By hiding in the planet/GG you could determine they are invisible at long range. If the attacking fleet closes to short range of the planet/GG, any craft with adequate streamling may refuel, escort or attack other craft within the atmosphere. Craft outside the atmosphere get a -2 (say) to hit modifier when firing on craft within the atmosphere. SDB's can choose to stay in hiding. This should give a feel for the close orbit battle as well as encourage better streamlined fleets and fighters. Perhaps also a +1 to hit modifier for the craft with the more expensive configuration, reflecting lifting & control surfaces giving a bonus in pursuit/dogfighting situations.

Just random thoughts.
Cheers

 

[Jeffr0]

<head explodes>

 

[Matt123]

<head explodes>

yeah, I do that...