CBF: PHR vs Robians

[unclejoe]

OK so we got to play a few more games today (testing all most of the latest changes/proposed changes). Here is a brief recap of one of our battles.

The People's Holy Republic (for those who remember SSI's Stellar Crusade from 1988 ) felt the need to scrub the galaxy of the heretic Robians (led by the grand heretic Emperor Rob).

This was a meeting engagement of 1500 points.

The PHR dispatched a task force of 2 small BCs supported by a missile CA and an AC-armed CA to test the strength of the Robian fleet.

The Robians had a larger BC, 2 CAs, 1 Screen CL, and 3 torpedo DDs.

Using their superior C&C (the Flagship with the +3 Init), the PHR controlled the initiative for most of the battle. The opening round saw both side closing and the PHR salvoing a few missiles and getting a few squadrons of Ints into space.

The main lines clashed with the superior ballistic armed PHR getting the better of the laser/disruptor armed Robian ships. Also, the BC were able to pre-empt the Robian CAs, negating a lot of their firepower before it could do anything. The 3 DDs had moved off on a flanking maneuver, but were unable to get to decisive range in time to support their beleagured battleline.

The Ints never amounted to much (as expected since their were no Robian fighters to engage). They took out 4 shields on the front of a BC and were summarily scrubbed by incidental Laser Gattling on the various ships. The missiles that were launched did inflict some damage, but it was pretty much just mopping up what was left after the Rail Guns and Mag Cannons worked over the Robian line. Their return Disrupter, Turbo Laser, and AC fire were insufficient to the task.

Finally costs were the 2 CAs, 1 CL, and 1 BC for the Robians while the PHR escaped with only severe hull damage to their larger CA (all the other internal damage was repaired by the end of the battle).

The Robians learned that concentration of force is important since their main fleet was killed off while the DDs were still flanking. The PHR learned that heretics stand no chance before the power of the righteous!

[warchariot]

How far away did you start and how many turns did you play?

[unclejoe]

24 hexes apart at start (so farther than the Meeting Engagement in the book) and I think it lasted 3 turns before the DDs high-tailed it away.

First turn, light firing with no effect
Second turn, one Robian CA destroyed, 1 wrecked
Third turn, the CL exploded from missiles, and the BC died from direct fire as well as the cripped CA.
Fourth turn the DDs which had flanked and only scored a few hits turned on the speed and ran rather than fight 2 BCs and 2 CAs (although they could have finished off one of the CAs had they wanted to explode in the process.

That's the thing that still sort of catches some of the players off-guard is how quickly ships evaporate and the ranges at which it happens. Weapons far outstrip defenses except at the very very highest end, and even there, there are weapons which can cripple those ships in a blink.

Coming from Starfire where you pretty much focus fire a fleet on a CA-sized target to take it out quickly, having multiple CAs explode from cap-ship fire alone in a single turn is taking some getting used to.

[TheDreadnought]

YES. . . CB was deliberately designed as a high-mortality system. Which is interesting, because I had initially envisioned more of a slower paced age of sail style - before demand pretty much forced me to do a new system based on the mechanics of the old Colonial Battlefleet system.

[unclejoe]

In keeping with the Age of Sail dyanmic, I think one thing that could be interesting for a space system is some sort of 'engagement limit' or something. It would probably require some pretty serious sci-fi fluff explanation, but limiting the number of ships (or weapons maybe?) that could effectively engage a target in one phase might prevent the 'everything fires until it burns' method that many games have.

I guess a similar mechanic could be seen by having people pre-declare their fire prior to rolling, but that requires some book-keeping or a good memory.

I'm not even sure it's desirable, but it could be different.

[warchariot]

I like that the game moves along. We typically between 4-6 turns before it's over or we call it a game. We have one player who doesn't want to see everything die and would like withdrawal rules, but, things seem to go from no damage to half or better in a turn, so not much chance of leaving through spin-up.

[kashre]

Jul 11, 2010 15:09:57 GMT -5 warchariot said:

I like that the game moves along. We typically between 4-6 turns before it's over or we call it a game. We have one player who doesn't want to see everything die and would like withdrawal rules, but, things seem to go from no damage to half or better in a turn, so not much chance of leaving through spin-up.

Rather than using the spinup rules, I have considered using a sort of Star Fleet Battles style "Disengagement by acceleration" type rule, where in order to escape you have to be headed in a specified direction with a speed = at least .75% of your max speed.

For escort scenarios you can specify a range from your edge that you have to reach before you can warp/jump/fold/improbability away, representing some kind of jump limit imposed by the gravity well of the star ala Honor Harrington.

That gives you a little flexibility as far as *where* you are on the map when you escape, and if you keep your speeds high it gives you an "OMG I have to turn 2 hexes to the left before I can escape" when things go bad rather than "OMG I have to spend 3 turns spinning up, might as well not try".

Cause, yeah... stuff dies pretty fast.

[unclejoe]

Yeah, I think for a campaign setting it's going to have to be a little more possible to disengage or casualties will run up around 100% in many battles. Even allowing for easier disengagement, stuff just explodes so quickly that I think it will be tough NOT to have incredibly decisive battles.

[warchariot]

We just say, okay at this point my ships would leave and that's that.

[TheDreadnought]

Here are a few options:
Bigger play surfaces would allow for longer range missile engagements which might award an advantage to one side or the other before ever getting in close where the nasty weapons come out to play - resulting in a withdrawal by the disadvantaged side.

Play with a fixed board. Any ship leaving the board is considered to have retreated.

Play without using the optional rule for maximum speed. Keep your speed up, and if you need to disengage, unless the enemy has a delta advantage on you he will be unable to catch you. Goes back to speed=energy=tactical advantage motif of modern fighter combat.

In a campaign setting where damaged ships get sent to drydock and replacements have to be paid for, players are going to be less concerned about chasing down every stray, if there is a chance they might lose a ship to a lucky shot. Once you achieve your strategic goal of capturing a system, you're probably going to be less excited about complete tactical annihilation and will play more conservatively as a result. Heavy ships might be kept at longer ranges where the weapons are less effective, but where they are also less likely to be vaporized. Charging into close ranges will be seen as "rolling the dice", rather than normal tactical doctrine.

With the possibility of capturing starships out there (and maybe tech), you'll probably see a lot of interest in boarding actions, if you play with those rules.

Anyway. . . just some thoughts off the top of my head. There will definitely be the opportunity to withdraw in the campaign system.

[unclejoe]

In the absence of a campaign, we do the same thing...it saves time and it lets the defeated player escape with some shred of pride