Squadron Combat as Ground Combat

[robject]

Fifth Frontier War looks more like a strategic land war game. So... What if squadron combat was a variation on ground combat instead of naval combat? How would such a game play differently?

Flanking a unit makes it vulnerable.

Support via screens and group formations. A ship cut off from others is vulnerable.

Agility. In ground warfare, movement is quite dynamic. Units can retreat and reorganize as easily as move forward and attack. Retreat and regroup can be a valid defensive tactic, trading ground for time.

Momentum. In Mayday, the number one rule is Newton's First Law. But units in ground warfare only use Newton when they are massive enough to crush opponents in their path.



SUMMARY of Responses to this Thread

No, space warfare is closer to naval than ground warfare.

* Terrain and concealment are different.
* Unit replacement is much easier in ground combat.
* Logistics plays a much greater role in ground combat.
* Flanking is also about initiative.
* Agility is not about movement of the front line of battle.

Strategic space warfare (e.g. FFW) can be like Napoleonic warfare, but without the convenient replacement rate of ground forces.

* Lack of continuous fronts, allowing flanking maneuvers
* Screens
* Lack of command and control.
* Force concentration for decisive battles.
* Foraging (wilderness refueling).

 

[Reban]

Terrain

I suppose the principle difference is that instead of two "units" be it squadron, flotilla or fleet, engaging each other in the relatively "flat" terrain of space, ground combat is about taking and holding ground, exploiting terrain features or capturing objectives in the landscape.

Functionally there isn't a whole lot of difference between a simulated ship and a simulated ground combat unit. The big differences are in how they interact with their environments. For example in Traveller: In space there is no stealth, but on the ground concealment is a major tool of the soldier.

 

[Reban]

Does ground combat look more like a strategic naval wargame?

In a strategic naval wargame you have planets that act as choke-points along jump routes.

GT Ground Forces explains the Imperial way of war as "Nexus Warfare" focusing on important nodal points such as communication, transport or power hubs.

 

[McPerth]

I see many differences among space and ground combat.

One of them is what Reban said about terrain and concelment.

Another is the meaning of a unit. WHile in ground terrain the unit is composed of many subunits (up to a single soldier), and it's quite difficut to fully destroy it (in fact, in most games destroying a unit means to destroy it as figthing force, not to last man), while in sapce a squadron uses to be composed of only a few subunits (about 6-10 ships at most), and most damages would be in from of fully destroyed (understood as damaged beyond repair, or when repair would be longer and more expesive tan a new ship) ships. that means replacement is quite more difficult for naval units tan for ground ones.

Another big difference is that ground combat is quite dependent on supply lines, while ships are expected to be tactically independent in this sense (and as beams, incluiding spinals, take preference over missiles, more so).

Flanking

While in principle you're right about being flanked is being more vulnerable, this also fails when you achieve a brekthrough, when you're flanked but you hold the initiative.

For ships, OTOH, there's no equivalent to this flanking, as no "front" is expected to be kept. Ships will move to avoid being hit while trying to hit enemy.

Support:

I expect ships also trying to support each other, either by allowing one to retreat for temporary repairs, by concentrating fire agains an enemy ship, etc...

Agility

her I fully disagree with you. In tactical sense, ground combar is quite static, when compared with space combat. You are right in an operational/strategic sense about the front mobility, but this is developed in quite more time that a space engagement is likely to last.

Momentum

This will be a great problem in space combat. If the ships fight at any speed, they are quite likely to reduce the combat to some volleys while bypassing one another (I already have comapred them to medieval jousts in this sense), and then either stoping to turn off and close for another round or each one keeping their way (or more likely the intercepted forcé keeping agains their target while the intercepting one turning off and trying to pursue them to keep fighting. There's no equivalence in ground combat for this problem, as you say.

---------------------------

The main fact is that while we can have an idea about how ground combat is (while this may change as technology advances), we have no real idea about how space combat can be, just speculations.

So, as we understand it, the closer equivalence would be naval combat (excluiding submarines and ASW), as they fight in an environment where there are no terrain features that influence combat, little stealth and combat is fully dependent on equipement, as single people cannot fight in this environment. That also means that you try to damage/destroy the equipment, not to kill people, as in most ground combat, and the fact this equipment is slow and expensive to build, you can expect little about new one, unless the war lasts quite a lot.

While in ground combat (at least from TL 5 on) units are rotated to reserve for resting and refit, and use to keep contact with each other thoughout the war, naval warfare uses to be short and deadly, with ships lost unable to be replaced, and losses being more definitive.

While in ground combat units try to keep in communication with their rearguard to keep their supply lines, naval combat uses to be more as single engagements, not keeping those supply lines (in tactical/operational sense), as ships are self suficient in supplies for the whole engagement, returning to their bases for resupply (and probably repairs) after combat.

So, as I understand (or expect), ground combat and space combat are nlikely to be quivalent, unless you mean at very strategic scale, but even then replacement will always be quite quicker in ground units than in spaceships (that take monts or years to build).

 

[mike wightman]

Mr. Miller and Mr. Keith both rightly understood space combat games as a variation on naval combat games. Especially small-unit actions: the Beowulf against the Pirate for example.

On the other hand, Fifth Frontier War looks more like a strategic land war game. More like Risk, for example.

So. What if squadron combat was a variation on ground combat instead of naval combat? How would such a game play differently?

Flanking

In ground warfare, the number one rule is Flanking, not Momentum. If you're flanked, you are more vulnerable.

I have rules for this in my HG variant

Support

In ground warfare, groups support one another. If your unit is cut off from other friendly units, you are more vulnerable.

I have rules for ships supporting each other - escorts escort for a reason - IMHGV.

Agility

In ground warfare, movement is quite dynamic. Units can retreat and reorganize as easily as move forward and attack. Retreat and regroup can be a valid defensive tactic, trading ground for time. In space warfare, Newton's First Law is the major component of movement.

IMHGV 'agility' is used to open range, close range, attempt flanking maneuvers or used as a defensive DM

Momentum

In Mayday, the number one rule is Newton's First Law. But units in ground warfare only use Newton when they are massive enough to crush opponents in their path -- e.g. deadfall ordnance, near-C rocks, or ramming.

I don't use Newtonian movement IMHGV.

Squadrons are split into task forces which move as units using the rules I mentioned upthread.

There is one fundamental flaw with HG2 - the lack of maneuver rules (which I have solved to my owl liking). The other flaw with HG2 is the ridiculous number of dice to roll - hence my latest project to turn damage resolution into a crit based system and have batteries bearing turn into a logrithmatic DM - still playing with the numbers.

 

[JFGarber]

I have rules for this in my HG variant

Would you be willing to post your variant?

 

[CliffBates]

In the typical planetary system there are these things called worlds, moons, asteroid belts gas giants and suns. So the system space is very very vast. And given blind spots and time delays on radar and electronic sensors there is a lot of room to sneak in for an attack.

Any battle here needs must take into consideration the fact that this is 3D environment. And thus ships will be in battle formations and will attack in formation. This is especially true of fighter/attack craft--when they are going to go after larger ships they needs must work as a squadron or their attacks will be lack effect on larger ship with their sizable armor. So yes there are very much room for flanking attacking. In fact--the flank attack are the very kind of attacks the fighter/attack squadrons will make... they will not charge directly in rather they will often fly at right angles of the target and then once in a position to attack at a flank or the rear they will go in for the attack. They will target engines and weapons and launch/recovery facilities. They won't kill a cap ship or cruiser but they can show it down and reduce its weapons. Hence this is why defensive fighter screens and escort screens are very important line of defense. But they can't be every where.

Also, given that any sane strategy of defense would mine (you know nice little 3D fields of 1000s of cubic miles of 5-10 ton nuke drones that are places on the key jump ports and will way-lay any ship without the right codes) the jump spots close to the main worlds to prevent any ships from jumping in and laying assault.

Also given key worlds will have both ground based and orbital meson gun emplacement, you don't put your big ships too close until you can take them out via. orbital bombing by smaller faster ships.

Also given SDB, missile platforms (or boats), and/or system monitors will be propositioned in key points (usually in asteroid belts and gas giants and key refueling areas to pounce on enemy units), if one wishes to secure those areas one better commit sufficient unit resources to successfully deal with those forces. Also securing the gas giant will be one key target to be able to have prolonged operations within the system and is the first stage to being able to lay siege to the core planets.

So any serious engagement in such an environment would surely require a very sizable force to be effective.

Regards

Clifford Bates

 

[CliffBates]

Would you be willing to post your variant?

Yes, it would be interesting to see.

 

[whartung]

In the typical planetary system there are these things called worlds, moons, asteroid belts gas giants and suns. So the system space is very very vast. And given blind spots and time delays on radar and electronic sensors there is a lot of room to sneak in for an attack.

Once you turn your drive on, you're not "sneaking" anywhere. The singular advantage a defender may have is burying their ships in orbits mixed in with civilian ships, with their systems "quiet", so as to mix in the noise of civilian activity -- assuming you have a volume of civilian activity. However, turn on your drive to maneuver, or ping a "bogey" for a sensor lock, the enemy fire control is going to light you up like a christmas tree. The defender could also have dedicated, orbital sensor platforms that can go active and had locks off to other nearby vessels. Of course, the invading fleet can have these "scouts" as well.

Any battle here needs must take into consideration the fact that this is 3D environment. And thus ships will be in battle formations and will attack in formation. This is especially true of fighter/attack craft--when they are going to go after larger ships they needs must work as a squadron or their attacks will be lack effect on larger ship with their sizable armor.

Yea, not really.

First none of the game systems model combat this way.

There is simply ALMOST no value to a 3D environment in space combat games. 3D combat makes complete sense for terrestrial dogfighting, because the 3D aspect adds a component of momentum that's important to dog fighting that simply doesn't exist in 0g space.

Next, the systems that model this at all, model the combat over enough time that the ships can roll on their axes freely, and even change facing freely (to a point), which eliminates any particular advantage one angle of attack may have over another angle of attack outside of the 2D plane.

So yes there are very much room for flanking attacking. In fact--the flank attack are the very kind of attacks the fighter/attack squadrons will make... they will not charge directly in rather they will often fly at right angles of the target and then once in a position to attack at a flank or the rear they will go in for the attack.

These aren't dive bombers over Midway. They're attacking from 10's of thousands of kilometers away, over time frame of 20-30 minutes.

They will target engines and weapons and launch/recovery facilities. They won't kill a cap ship or cruiser but they can show it down and reduce its weapons. Hence this is why defensive fighter screens and escort screens are very important line of defense. But they can't be every where.

Yea, save that none of the combat systems model THAT either. Be happy you can hit the ship at all from 30-60K Kilometers away, much less a door or an exhaust vent.

Also, given that any sane strategy of defense would mine (you know nice little 3D fields of 1000s of cubic miles of 5-10 ton nuke drones that are places on the key jump ports and will way-lay any ship without the right codes) the jump spots close to the main worlds to prevent any ships from jumping in and laying assault.

"Jump Port"? Anything outside of 100D is a "Jump Port". That's LOT of space. It's actually more efficient to just have a ship with launchers that can maneuver towards the threat rather than litter near orbit with zillions of systems that all need to be properly placed in orbit, maintain those orbits, plus all of the other maintenance etc. And you still need some kind of fire direction and sensor platform to light up and guide the missiles.

Also given key worlds will have both ground based and orbital meson gun emplacement, you don't put your big ships too close until you can take them out via. orbital bombing by smaller faster ships.

Anything that can kill a deep meson site can be killed by a deep meson site, since deep meson sites tend to best be attacked by complementary meson guns. The detail, though, again, still, is that having a maneuverable asset wielding the same meson guns is much more flexible. A planet full of meson guns doesn't work well against a fleet patrolling the 100D limit and interdicting incoming and outgoing traffic while the planets meson guns sit idle and out of range.

Also given SDB, missile platforms (or boats), and/or system monitors will be propositioned in key points (usually in asteroid belts and gas giants and key refueling areas to pounce on enemy units), if one wishes to secure those areas one better commit sufficient unit resources to successfully deal with those forces. Also securing the gas giant will be one key target to be able to have prolonged operations within the system and is the first stage to being able to lay siege to the core planets.

Asteroid belts are not key points, they're really, really big. And if you want to get all 3D, the invaders can come in above the ecliptic and drive straight to the home world, bypassing them completely.

Static defenses let the invader beachhead in open space. Who needs gas giants when they can bring tankers. The defenses at the GG can't defend the core worlds, each GG needs to be defended, since ships don't really care what GG they refuel at (so, in our case, that would be Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus). Sure, the outer planets are far out. But the invader can secure an outer GG, and then Jump in system to hit the core worlds, bypassing other GGs. Similarly, the core world defenses can't support the GG defenses.

Frankly, Starfire is the only game that models these kinds of assaults in any real form. I haven't seen anything from Traveller that does this well. And the systems we have in Traveller are cumbersome enough that people don't try them.

 

[McPerth]

Frankly, Starfire is the only game that models these kinds of assaults in any real form. I haven't seen anything from Traveller that does this well. And the systems we have in Traveller are cumbersome enough that people don't try them.

Starfire can model it because

1. Warp points are limited and fixed
2. Speed is constant, not by acceleration
3. Ships carry no momentum, so can stop to fight each other (or turn arround to flee without losing speed)

This said, agreed in all you post

 

[McPerth]

Afterthoughts

In fact, in the strategical picture (FFW and up), Traveller space combat may be seen as ground strategical game, as long as you resort to Napoleonic ones.

There are several features that are common in both cases:

1. lack of continuous fronts that allow flanking maneuvers
2. need of screens (corolary of point 1)
3. lack of communications that means lack of command and control. A "supporting" corps cannot really support you in time for battle most times
4. need of force concentration for a (expectedly) decisieve battle after time of maneuvering dispersed
5. partially living from the land (fuel in Traveller case)

Nonetheless ,the speed of replacement is a great difference among the situations (no quick army raising as Napoleon did after Russia campaign).

 

[jec10]

I'm with those who see more important differences than similarities between squadron combat and ground combat. There was a famous attempt by Jim Dunnigan in S&T magazine back in the day to take Napoleonic ground rules and turn them into wet navy rules. The game was "Sixth Fleet" about the modern USN in the Med. Most people who played it came away saying "what was he thinking!"

 

[whartung]

Starfire can model it because

1. Warp points are limited and fixed
2. Speed is constant, not by acceleration
3. Ships carry no momentum, so can stop to fight each other (or turn arround to flee without losing speed)

The Warp Point in SF, at a strategic level, makes it easier to have a hard front and soft, chewy center. You can reinforce a fixed point (barring hidden warp points).

The newtonian movement issue is a non-issue, it's just a different tactical domain regarding engagement.

With fixed ship speeds, and the associated quick turning capability, it's far easier to engage an opponent and stay engaged. With newtonian mechanics, it's quite possible for one side to have a high velocity and simply run on by an attacker. So, it's harder to "stop" the ships, and to "control" space in that regard.

However, what you end up with in the end is that the attacker in the system is there to, well, attack something, not simply fly around scaring the populace. So, in order to actually engage a target, and bring weapons on target, the ships have to slow down so they can send salvo after salvo in to whatever it is they want to have destroyed.

So, ideally, that's the defenders game to be where the attacker wants to be in order to distract them from their actual target, and to engage them.

Using the Napoleonic Wars analogy, there may well be moments where the fleets "agree" to meet somewhere in deep space to have at it.

So, where SF allows you to harden your borders, in Traveller you have to harden your targets to make them unattractive to attackers.

But, also, and this is a separate discussion, Traveller suffers from Jump Lag, since a Jump is 168 +/- 10% hrs long. So, there's always the talk about how do coordinate an attack when your fleet is going to arrive at random intervals across a 33 hour window. The solution, of course, is to make sure your jump destination is > 33 hours away from a likely reaction force.

And this makes sense. There's little reason for a reaction force to go accelerating towards an attacker when, as discussed, the attacker can accelerate and just fly past them on to their real target. May as well lie in wait for them.

SF is well suited to this simply because they've designed it so. They take in to account the economic issues of the fleet, which is important, but also the details of the different system scales of movement that they offer. The latter can be easily adapted, just take 6 or 12 hour "turns" until the ships get "close" rather than 20-30m turns.

 

[mike wightman]

In Traveller fleet engagements combat can only happen:

if both sides want it - i.e. the deliberate maneuver to weapon range and then the dance of death begins

both intruder and defender have to want this since space is just too big.

one side has no choice - high guard to a fleet refuelling, defence line before the intruder gets in range of planet/base whatever

Once battle is joined the combat has to be fought with a similar vector, hence no need to model using Newtonian based rules, the abstract will do, especially with a 20min turn.

I use a modified Starter Traveller range band system.

Each fleet starts at their edge of the map so they are twenty range bands apart.

I use coloured plastic counters to represent the task forces within a fleet - each counter usually represents a capital ship and its assigned escorts - the exact composition is recorded on a task force card off board - you can even use stand of minis if you want a prettier battlefield.

 

[McPerth]

However, what you end up with in the end is that the attacker in the system is there to, well, attack something, not simply fly around scaring the populace. So, in order to actually engage a target, and bring weapons on target, the ships have to slow down so they can send salvo after salvo in to whatever it is they want to have destroyed.

So, ideally, that's the defenders game to be where the attacker wants to be in order to distract them from their actual target, and to engage them.

Using the Napoleonic Wars analogy, there may well be moments where the fleets "agree" to meet somewhere in deep space to have at it.

So, where SF allows you to harden your borders, in Traveller you have to harden your targets to make them unattractive to attackers.

In Traveller fleet engagements combat can only happen:

if both sides want it - i.e. the deliberate maneuver to weapon range and then the dance of death begins

both intruder and defender have to want this since space is just too

one side has no choice - high guard to a fleet refuelling, defence line before the intruder gets in range of planet/base whatever

Once battle is joined the combat has to be fought with a similar vector, hence no need to model using Newtonian based rules, the abstract will do, especially with a 20min turn.

Agreed, but that means that if I want to attack a planet of yours, in Traveller, with the newtonian movement, you cannot stop me from reaching it (unless you can destroy my fleet with a single volley as we pass through each other), and so you have to wait for me to reach your planet at (relatively) slow speed, and that means that you're planeet canot be kept safe from bombing, as being close to it, I can spare some volleys to it while fighting your fleet also, if that's my intent.

OTOH, it means your planet can participate int othe battle if it has fixed defenses.

And, IMHO, this impossibility to block an enemy fleet from reaching the target (again, unless a single turn of firing is enough) is what makes so difficult (and to a point irrelevant) the operational system for moving across the empty space in the system.