|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jun 15, 2015 15:53:29 GMT -5
Wouldn't a modern naval game be so dominated by air and stand off attacks trying to penetrate the defences of essentially static targets as to not really be a playable miniatures game at all? Other than very small scale engagements I mean. Yeah, I haven't really seen a way where this translates well into miniature gaming.
|
|
|
Post by lincolnlog on Jun 18, 2015 8:28:27 GMT -5
There are lots of tactical nuances within the modern naval environment. For instance, yes there are Russian subs that fire huge SSMs. But the subs have to know where to shoot. Radar is a just slightly beyond the horizon sensor. That is why radar antennas are placed way up on the mast. The visual horizon increases from masthead to mast due to height advantage. Submarines will use ECM to detect active radars to provide a direction of fire and a general distance (remember atmospherics play with radio signal ranges). A player would have to figure out ways to detect the enemy without themselves being detected.
Ships in the Cold War era were extremely unlikely to get into gun duels. Combat was expected to be SSM/ASM versus SAM and gun fire. There are some very good essays on the Naval Post Graduate School website on the probability of shooting down an incoming missile with both missiles and guns.
The Cold War battlefield was dynamic to the fact that even a sub-sonic missile like a Harpoon, is still moving very quickly across a game board. Missile launchers have a fast rate of fire, naval gun systems have a fast rate of fire. This is why Larry Bond in the game Harpoon went with such a short turn. Ships barely move while missiles whip across the board.
I have been writing a rule system that simplifies this by making a game turn several minutes, and then dividing shooting into engagement impulses. The Mk-13 launcher on an OH Perry FFG could fire many rounds per minute. The Standard SM1-MR missiles the Perry fired were moving at over 1,000 MPH. All I had to do was determine how far a missile could get in a few (15) seconds, versus the max range. The limitation on defense of a give warship is detection of incoming weapons, how many gun and missile fire control directors (the Perry's had 1 missile FC and 1 Gun FC that could double as a missile FC). So in the case of the Perry, it could engage 2 separate incoming SSM if it is not firing it's 76mm gun.
Unfortunately, if you take a lot of detail out of Cold War Naval, it does lack tactical depth. The challenge is how to leave in the detail without having to worry about every little detail. My idea is to simply game scale everything, and eliminate unnecessary checks. For instance, if a ship or missile is in radar line of sight, it is detected, if there are no conditions preventing it from being detected. With missiles, how far do they move in an engagement impulse, what is the missiles flight profile, what are the opposite capabilities of the intercepting weapon system. Single roll to hit on a D20 with some minor adjustments.
By the way formations are extremely import in a missile environment, you want to develop a layered defense for your fleet. Unlike WWII combat, there is no time to fix a formation weakness once the shooting starts. Fun period to play, not a great period to dumb down too much.
Just my thoughts on Modern Naval war gaming.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jun 18, 2015 13:23:34 GMT -5
Right, but where is the opportunity for player tactical decision making?
Maneuver is irrelevant as everything is guided.
You can match offensive and defensive capabilities against each other. . . but that's just a die rolling exercise, there's really not much tactical decision making.
I'm just not convinced there's much to actually "play" in that setting, as opposed to "simulate" if that makes any sense.
|
|
|
Post by lincolnlog on Jun 19, 2015 12:33:00 GMT -5
Right, but where is the opportunity for player tactical decision making? Maneuver is irrelevant as everything is guided. You can match offensive and defensive capabilities against each other. . . but that's just a die rolling exercise, there's really not much tactical decision making. I'm just not convinced there's much to actually "play" in that setting, as opposed to "simulate" if that makes any sense. Most naval war games are limited in tactical options. If your playing an open water WWII battleship duel, your option aren't really a lot different than with modern. Most WWII games allow WWII ships to move way faster than ships typically would have. This become a maneuver circling match (a big reason a lot of people don't like naval games period). The tactical options and decisions are more tech related. If I leave my sensors in passive mode, how do I detect the enemy. Possibly launch a helo that will pop up and use active radar well away from your battle group? Or will I use passive only hoping the enemy is active? Bearing only launch, or do I want positive and accurate solution on enemies location. How will I manage defensive weapons? How will I layer my defense? The challenge is taking these complicated options and making them game-centric, simplified mechanics so that you don't have to be a naval technical genius to play. This is definitely a niche game and game period. But in checking other forums there are many gamers out there that like to game this era, land-sea-air. There is a large crowd this will not appeal to. Hey, I don't like Warhammer 40K, go figure. It is a niche game also, that niche just happens to have a very large following. Not trying to convince you to write a set of rules, I just don't agree on how interesting a game in this historical era can play out. If the era were unpopular there would not be so many rule sets that sold as well as they did (Harpoon, Surface Battle Group 3, Shipwreck, Warship Commander) almost now all out of print.
|
|