Losers lose big!

Charles Lewis · Post by **Charles Lewis** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:33 pm

It is our hope that the new CSCR will be a little more "realistic" in its outcomes, and allow for something less than total annihilation of one side or the other.

While you are right that naval battles tend to be more decisive than land battles, mostly because of the environment, they still don't tend to be one side goes home the other side goes down kinda things.

Jutland, while bloody, was decisive only in that it forced the German fleet back into port, where it stayed for the rest of the war.

Our hope with the new CSCR and the shifts being made in the VBAM 2.0 is that battles can still be as decisive as they were in V1 without being as total. We think it will be more likely for the loser to have a lot of crippled capital units that will need months and months of yard time to get back into action than a bunch of lost of capital units as before. The strategic impact can still be as dynamic as before - if half your fleet is sitting in drydock for repairs, it's not going to be out there putting the whammy on the enemy.

This should also help facilitate low-intensity conflicts and border skirmishes/wars. If your forces can fight without automatically looking at total destruction, you can fight more places with fewer units rather than bulking up for the killing blow and then plowing through to the enemy's capital. Particularly in a multi-power scenario, all-out war is not always the best option. Our intent is that the new rules and the new CSCR will allow for gradations of conflict that simply weren't feasible before.

wminsing · Post by **wminsing** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:15 pm

Also, while people cite Trafalgar, Midway, etc as examples where one force was mopped off the floor at the end, remember that those battles are famous in some sense because they were an exception. For every Midway there was a Coral Sea, and for every Trafalgar there was a Algeciras Bay. So one side suffering extreme loses or being wiped out was certainly possible, but it wasn't inevitable.

I think it's important that the CSCR allows Midway/Trafalgar to be possible, but it shouldn't force every battle to be decisive.

-Will

XSiberia · Post by **XSiberia** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:54 pm

I'm excited to buy and play whatever you guys put to paper (or pixel, as the case may be). Still, as a complete aside I do think that the evolution of naval arms and armament has pushed us and will continue to push us more and more in the direction of winner-take-all and "losers lose big."

However, in our (real) universe naval combat doesn't define the whole of the war (hardly). To the extent that VBAM is a space-ship game, space ships battles may have disproportionately large influence. I like what you are planning with morale for conquered worlds and I look forward to the changes in CSCR that will produce a game that is even more satisfying to play with more operational complexity.

wminsing · Post by **wminsing** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:18 pm

Still, as a complete aside I do think that the evolution of naval arms and armament has pushed us and will continue to push us more and more in the direction of winner-take-all and "losers lose big."

True, but keep in mind that space combat is not just naval combat without the water- it's hard to know exactly how battles will be fought in space, and our current naval paradigm might not carry over.

As a second point, a lot of the settings that VBAM wants to allow players to emulate are definitely not a 'winner takes all' combat paradigm. In Star Trek, for example, ships were crippled and driven off far more often they were destroyed. So it would not be appropriate for the Enterprise vs. a Klingon D7 to automatically result in one ship being destroyed (as would be likely in the current CSCR).

-Will

Charles Lewis · Post by **Charles Lewis** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:02 pm

It will still be possible to have big ol' throw-downs where one or both sides of a battle are totally thrashed and wish they hadn't fought at all to begin with. With the introduction of scenario intensity points and initiative, however, it should now be possible for an outnumbered defender to chip away at the edges and bleed an invader while at the same time avoiding the apocalyptic battle they can't hope to win (assuming, of course, the defender gets the initiative). In the old rules, there was pretty much no option but armageddon. Now, there will be - which should help players more accurately create (or recreate) the settings they want to romp around in and still get all the pew-pew-pew in all the right ways.

XSiberia · Post by **XSiberia** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:10 pm

True, but keep in mind that space combat is not just naval combat without the water- it's hard to know exactly how battles will be fought in space, and our current naval paradigm might not carry over.

Agreed. I try to follow the scificonsim yahoo group (and rocketpunk and Project Rho) but I have to admit that a lot of it (okay, most of it) is quite a bit over my head.

I don't know what far future will be like but I don't think that near future space will be that different from near future marine. Yes, maneuver will be in 3 dimensions, not 2 (and with subs, marine combat does already have a 3d aspect) but--we are already writing CONOPS documents for directed energy weapons and we are already solociting private industry for concept proposals for a carrier tailored to UAVs. And, marine combat already revolves around detection, fire and counter-fire with missile systems and so orders its fighting doctrine.

Of course, we're not optimized purely for tactical success. Simulations show over and over again that a large number of small, cheap (expendable) platforms with networked sensor and guidance sytems and equipped with OTH capable missile weapons are the way to go. We build ships much bigger for habitablility, survivability and mobility (range of ops) purposes because, among other things we don't put people on ships that are tactically defined as expendable, ships have diplomatic as well as tactical functions, and bigger ships intimidate and may obviate the need for conflict in the first place (run on sentence, I know).

But then I don't design games and I don't particularly want to. I'd rather have old hands like the VBAM brain trust give me a rule set that is smooth and fun to play! So keep up the good work!

Gareth_Perkins · Post by **Gareth_Perkins** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:27 pm

XSiberia wrote:I don't know what far future will be like but I don't think that near future space will be that different from near future marine.
<snip>
And, marine combat already revolves around detection, fire and counter-fire with missile systems and so orders its fighting doctrine.

Hate to disagree, but...

Unless there is some revolutionary technological advance (and at the moment it would have to be something really unexpected), detection is not going to be a big deal in space,

If it is in the same solar system then you will see it, unless it is physically behind something (and even then drone scouts might well flush you out),

In that way space warfare will be totally different to marine warfare (which really is information warfare in many ways - especially when you look at submarine warfare), because both sides will have much better information about where the enemy is, what he's got and what formation he is in as well as his course and options as far as positioning are concerned.

That really changes the battle, because you can make your decisions well in advance of any combat - unless your manoeuvre constraints prevent you from evading the enemy!

XSiberia · Post by **XSiberia** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:57 pm

Hmmmm. That was helpful for me. I've been reading for a while now how people talk about how detection won't be a problem in space on scificonsim, but it didn't really click until just now. Yes, marine warfare is information warfare. The fact that in space everyone plays with their hand exposed is going to make a big difference.

I'm going to have to mull on that for a while before I can say I've really grokked it. Thanks!

Gareth_Perkins · Post by **Gareth_Perkins** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 5:20 am

It's easily done,

The marine mindset is used by so many scifi shows and books that it a part of our culture and way of thinking - and it is cool, so I have no problems playing games with those cliches, but they are somewhat improbable,

It was Attack Vector: Tactical (by Ad Astra) that got me thinking about it (I think that they are linked with Project Rho somehow too), and their game designer has written a few good articles about detection in space,

This site is also pretty good:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

Emiricol · Post by **Emiricol** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:46 pm

I really like the idea of lowering intensity. (But I think the closer you get to major habitations or systems with a large number of jump points, intensity should go up).

The reason I like it is that in my campaigns, wars have tended to be a matter of 2-3 incursions into valuable systems and then one head-on slug fest that decided the entire war. Not always, but usually. It wasn't the flavor I wanted

I really like the ideas being floated in this thread.