Following a question which made me think a bit, some changes to our earlier programme
Fleet orders are issued before departure to new systems.
Permissible orders are
Stand off; fleet will manoeuvre for advantage until it elects to withdraw, is attacked, or changes its orders to attack after assessing the situation
Fleets on Stand Off orders do not attack against either fleets or planetary defences, and do not count as interdicting the system if they are still present at the end of the turn.
Attack; fleet will attack what it finds on arrival; first attacking other fleets on attack orders (attack posture is readily distinguishable from stand off because active sensors are switched on), then other fleets on stand off orders, then planetary defences.
Attack orders give +1 to initiative rolls
Withdraw if contested; fleet will withdraw if any hostile mobile forces are present in the system. If only planetary defences forces are present, a fleet in "withdraw if contested" may remain, and change its orders to attack following recon of the defences.
This does not answer the question as posed. This was whether a fleet under orders to bombard the planet could be given conditional orders to attack the planet if there was no hostile fleet, but otherwise to stand off. After a bit of thought, I came to the conclusion that there was little real point to such a conditional order. If your force can't take on a hostile fleet, it should bug out full stop; putting it on stand off just makes it vulnerable to an attack order. So I amended Withdraw If Contested to give the same net effect and changed Stand-off to make it clear that a whole bunch of fleets on stand off are dancing around on the edge of things and don't have any real effect on trade in and out of the system. (Because otherwise people would throw stand off fleets into everything to deny money to people). And note the +1 for attack orders.
Based on returns to date (which are sketchy, but suggestive) actual forces coming into a system will not have large numbers of ships, so we should be able to use the scouting rules from FTII without much fuss.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(65)
-
▼
April
(41)
- And the same thoughts, but not in gibberish
- News from the sector
- When the UNSC gets around to naming ships
- One little link
- Minor rule clarification
- Continuing news from our conflict correspondents
- Paying visits to planets; a revised etiquette guide
- One way to deal with Savasku
- The growing threat of conflict in the region
- 20% off for army surplus
- We have met the enemy and he is you
- System Defences; a superficial analysis
- The inverse Q ship
- K-gun ballistics, the detail
- Charted routes and interdiction
- Re-roll damage
- Repair
- The Average Taxpayer has just died OR K-Gun ballis...
- Leading by example
- New race
- Drive-by shootings; how the rules constrain them
- But I don't like it that way OR it seemed like a g...
- Windshield wipers
- Economic turn clarification Revised
- Left over money
- Combat Repair
- Focus
- Savasku, and the need to start every day with a he...
- Logistics ships
- Oceanic Union Defence Forces and the Islamic Feder...
- Bugging out; when bad things happen to inept people
- Travel to distant exotic suns, meet interesting pe...
- Allies
- Gentlemen, start your engines
- Grasers; simplified cost benefit analysis
- Big versus small
- Turns. The ugly, expensive option
- UNSC ships
- After Action thoughts; four way battle of 10 April 07
- The Campaign Rules Proper
- Introduction
-
▼
April
(41)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment