theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Dec 15, 2010 16:48:56 GMT -5
Well I imagine things happening at two levels. The challenge of ordering your squadrons/divisions (what was the correct term at this time?) and having them do what you want. As well as squadrons that are "broken" and figuring out how they react. I'm thinking that you won't even be able to issue orders to broken squadrons/individual ships, until a new flagship has been established or something, and until then they work on the reaction table, or a standard, "reform the line" action. A sailing fleet was divided into smaller units usually called squadrons (the Van squadron in the lead, the Rear Squadron in the back, and the Center Squadron in the middle). Sometimes these were called Divisions (nomenclature was pretty loose throughout the AoS). Each squadron was led by a junior admiral. Usually the more senior subordinate was given command of the Van Squadron (considered to be more prestigeous) while the junior got the Rear (that's how the rank of "Rear Admiral" evolved). While the commander-in-chief could and did issue orders to subordinate admirals or their squadrons, or even to individual ships, usually the ships in a squadron looked to what their immediately commanding admiral was signalling. If the squadron admiral seemed to be signalling one thing and the commander-in-chief seemed to be signalling something else, captains under that subordinate admiral had a real conflict of interest problem to solve. Historically most captains did what their squadron admiral told them to do, if there was any conflict of orders. Lots of courts-martial were held to decide who was to blame in such circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Dec 15, 2010 20:30:56 GMT -5
If the squadron admiral seemed to be signalling one thing and the commander-in-chief seemed to be signalling something else... The very definition of being between a rock and a hard place.
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Jan 29, 2011 23:47:39 GMT -5
Fleet Combat and Admiral's Decisions
If the object of a "fleet-level" wargame is to put the player in the position of "the admiral" and have the player making those decision (and only those decisions) that the admiral would make, perhaps an examination of historical admirals and their decisions, both before and during battle, might help define what decisions should be the player's to make during a game. Let's look at three famous battles so we can see how technology changes (or doesn't change) the decisions of the admiral commanding.
First up is Trafalgar, 21 October 1805. Without a doubt the most important decision Nelson make at Trafalgar he actually made long before the battle. He decided to attack, and to attack as soon as he could reach his enemy, and everything else he did was to expedite this attack. He rearranged his fleet's cruising formation to be the same as the attack formation; he told his captains (before the battle) that he wanted them to attack early and attack often (the famous quotation, "...no captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of an enemy.") During the battle he sent very few signals, and he went into action flying the signal for "Close Action" which remained flying as long as he lived. In gaming terms I would say that Nelson set up commands for:
1. Attack the least-damaged enemy you can reach. (the more enemies captured the more prize money) 2. Attack enemy ships threatening friendly ships. ("captains are to look to their particular line") 3. Attack something!
I find it curious that these attack orders are pretty similar to what a fighter group might have.
For a wargame, these attack rules would be something the player would set up before the game begins, and ships would move according to a set of die rolls that interpret these rules for each ship. During the battle I imagine the player would be limited to telling his flagship where to go and what to shoot at, and with a limited ability (command points?) to get ships or groups of ships to do something else.
Second up is Jutland, 31 May 1916. Once again I think we find that the most critical decisions were made before the fleets even left port. Jellicoe had long decided that he would not risk part of his fleet, but keep it all together and fight defensively. He was (rightly or wrongly) more concerned with not losing his ships than with sinking German ones. He trained his fleet to stay together and act on orders (and to not act without orders).
During the battle he made only one true "decision", the famous deployment on the left wing squadron. I say this is the only true decision he made all day because all of the other "decisions" he made (or did not make) were not his to make on that day; he'd already made (or not made them) by the way he'd trained his fleet. He couldn't send his battle squadrons left and right to surround the Germans (didn't have a signal for that), he couldn't send his destroyers on a torpedo run (trained them for defensive/escort duty), he couldn't pursue the Germans into the fog and darkness (hadn't trained for that), and he couldn' turn into the German torpedo attack (had already trained for turning away). So the one decision he left for the battle was which way to deploy, and he nearly flubbed it by waiting too long (admittedly he didn't know where the High Seas Fleet was until the last second). But his decision was the correct decision; he brought his fleet into action in the way it was trained for, with all the possible advantages he could gain for his ships (better visibility, all guns bearing, capping the enemy "T", etc.). As far as shooting it was mostly up to his captains, firing at whatever they could see. Even if visibility had been better shooting was arranged by doctrine.
In gaming terms the decision was a combination of changing formations (cruising to battle) and setting course to select the range to fight at. Everything else was a matter of pre-set doctrine, which would be controlled by game mechanisms.
The last battle I'll look at is Midway, 4 June 1942. When we look at Fletcher and Spruance we see again that many of the decisions were made before the battle, but not so many this time. Besides the decision to fight at all (which was made by Nimitz) there were two big decisions before the battle; the location where the American carriers would wait to ambush the enemy, the famous "Point Luck," and the decision to fight at long range, using only air strikes.
In the battle both admirals made one decision each. Fletcher decided to use half his dive bombers to reinforce the search for the Japanese, which tied up aircraft that might have dealt with the fourth Japanese carrier in the first strike. Spruance decided to use all his aircraft in one big strike at the first enemy carrier force sighted, which left him unable to react to any other enemy forces if they had appeared. The other famous "decison" was Spruance's famous turn east to avoid surface battle, which was really a decision that had been made well before the battle.
In gaming terms, Fletcher and Spruance were deciding on their firepower allocations; that is, they were telling their ships how many "shots" (aircraft) to fire and how to group that fire (all on one target/enemy formation).
So what does this tell us about "fleet-level" gaming? If we want the players to be making "admiral-level" decisions we need game mechanisms for several things:
1. Formations; creating them, using them, and benefits/restrictions from them. 2. Firepower distribution; how is it done and how does it go astray? 3. Most importantly, doctrine; what are the captains trained to do, and what are they not trained to do? 4. A way for players to create all these things before the game.
Comments? Other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by fastgit on Jan 30, 2011 9:46:19 GMT -5
Thoughtful response. A little bit to chew on . Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by kealios on Sept 19, 2011 1:53:38 GMT -5
I loved Spelljammer as a teenager I was also just looking at my 1/4800 Old Glory British, French and Spanish fleets today wishing I had a ruleset to use them with (I bought them for GW's Trafalgar and wasnt totally impressed...although I loved how you could kit out your ships how you wanted!). I have been hawking your Colonial Battlefleet ruleset in my FLGS recently (today, in fact, mentioned the anime expansion you are hopefully still working on), so having another of your products would be nice. I must say, however - PLEASE do not turn into something like Two Hour Wargames where all hope of getting your troops to do what you want is thrown out the window...
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Sept 19, 2011 7:59:30 GMT -5
No, I don't think it will reach that point. Don't worry.
|
|