Simulating the future of combat

Welcome to the Interplanetary Wargame - simulating the future of space combat.

If you haven't already, I recommend that you read the thread "How do you see space combat?", as it will provide a background for this 'game'.

The premise of this is that two teams of players (A and B - feel free to come up with more inventive names) have a week to research tactics and scientifically feasible technology to prepare for a combat scenario set by a third group (the referees), who also ensure that any technology 'used' is feasible. At the end of the week, the tactics are sent to the referees, who then post them (to ensure that no cheating by seeing what the other team is doing before posting your tactics occurs).

The above setup is by no means immutable - if anyone has suggestions for change or improvement, feel free to say.

Post below to make your entries into the game, which group you want to enter (A, B or Referees). Putting any particular scientific specialities on could be a good idea as well.

I think that it would be more fun to referee this, which I offer my services at. If that position is taken I would offer as a strategist to either side.

rmx256, on Oct 10 2005, 12:28 PM, said:

I think that it would be more fun to referee this, which I offer my services at. If that position is taken I would offer as a strategist to either side.
View Post

I think that there should probably be several referees - maybe on 'Leader' who gets sent everything and has the final word, but 'Two heads are better than one'.

I wanna be on one of the teams.

What is the assumed FTL tech?

I think that we need

1. a timeframe in which people join teams and the referee brigade

2. the referees need to make the rules

3. a set period in which the game is played and judged.

Who's in charge here? Get to work

Before we can start talking sides we need to set this thing up.

I vote we go for worm-hole/Stargate(hypergate) technology. You can build multiple stargates per system but they need to cost a massive amount of resources.

The amount of resources per side needs to be determined. Both sides would have the same amount, but what amount? Assuming 1 medium size astroid is 1 ru(resource unit), how many kg is that, and how many ru's would be in our solar system?

Galaxy, to keep it simple just two identical SOL type systems linked to an empty system.

To define "feasible" there would need to be a certain amount of documentation. IE, 2 papers at least from a scientific source that support or discuss the technology in question.

I think that limiting ourselves to three systems/spatial units here will be extremely tactically limiting, allowing for no real use of a combat scenereo as defined in the first post- there is no room to manouver. Perhaps simply using the Nova universe or a subset of it would suffice? There needs to be tactical room to move.

(Rik is a lifelong player of Axis and Allies, among other wargames).

I like this.

i choose to be on team A, and i think that the universe should have a medium amount of systems, (no larger than 20, no smaller than 4), because when there are too many systems then it gets too confusing, and too few systems isnt very interisting. for transporting between systems, hypergates would make very interisting defence stratagies, such as: space mines in front of the hypergate, fleet in front of hypergate to destroy all invaders or a mixture of both. then, the offense would need a couter stratagy, such as sending a high powered nuke through the hypergate to hit the waiting defenders, and ships specifically meant to find and disable all the space mines (a type of fighter, maybe). then the defence would have to find a counter to the offense, and the offense needs a way to beat the defence, and so on.

so, for transportation, i vote for hypergate

Well here's how we do this. Everyone sign up either as A. a judge or B. a player. Divide the teams up later and if we have too many judges we can force a few to move.

I agree with a hypergate system. Honestly, moving through another dimension is more feasible than moving faster than C through brute force alone, which is saying something.

I volunteer as a judge.

Btw, thanks for making a new thread, falcon.

This post has been edited by Koshinn : 10 October 2005 - 09:29 PM

Hypergates sound fine, although there are a few important questions: How do inter-gate connections work? Can any gate connect to any other gate? Can gates be locked? Can you hide a gate so that nobody knows it exists (until it connects to another gate, at least)? Are there any uninhabited systems? Can a gate connect to open space? If not, how do you explore?

Anyway, I think I'll go for being a player, as it seems like there will be enough judges.

And as for the galaxy... I just happen to have a simple map of most/all inhabitable systems within 30 light-years of Earth. Comments? (Colors are by star class: orange=K, yellow=G, yellow-white=F, teal=A)

Edwards

This post has been edited by Edwards : 11 October 2005 - 01:35 AM

Good map, Ed. On gates... Destroying them should be an offense punishable by all nations, as per treaty. Gates are vital to the survival of an interplanetary civilization, and connecting a new one requires hundreds of years of sub-light travel. I'd say gates act as a kind of phase-shift device that removes you from this dimension. You'd need another gate to reform yourself? Therefore any gate can connect to any other, it'd just take longer. But I don't know, that sounds very B5ish.

We could use a system where gates are just a marker for a naturally occuring location where the resistance between our universe and another is weaker for one reason or another, and can be overcome by technology. In that case, it'd be a jump point more than a gate, but it would be the same principle. Thinking about where that could occur, I come up with large gravity wells... stars basically. Get close to a sun/black hole and you can travel through hyperspace, but even then only fairly big ships can. That means you can travel to basically any system you want, with enough time. Black holes, would also work btw. But this is totally the opposite of like... every sci-fi game in existance. Gravity wells are always bad, but this would make them good...

But I don't know.

This post has been edited by Koshinn : 11 October 2005 - 01:59 AM

Does anyone mind if I 'be in charge', as rmx put it?

So far, the teams are:

Referees: rmx256, Koshinn
Teams: phyco with power1, NebuchadnezzaR, Edwards

A few more volunteers for teams would be good.
Edwards: Well done getting that map. Irritatingly, though, it won't display for me; could you tell me where you got it from so I can have a look?

FTL system seems to have been set up for hypergates - we'll use that for the first few scenarios. It could be interesting to try something a bit more free-form later on, though.

Any ideas for a suitable time period? If we're going to be using hypergates, we're probably looking at a minimum of 1000 years in the future - like I said before, wormholes aren't even a proper theory yet, as far as I know.

Finally, are we just going to have A and B as different factions with the same basic assets, or are we going to go for slight differences? (Thinks) Mind you, that'll probably happen anyway, but...

If we're only going to use hypergates this will eventually become a very drawn out defensive campaign, especially when several of these blocks of systems are connected to the main by only one 'link'. Defensive war is a lot less fun and also less challenging. I do like the map however, Edwards.

/me shakes the hand of Edwards.

IMO the teams should each be given an ammount of 'points' with which to buy thier technologies and ships, with the point value of each set by the judges as the tech is introduced. This is a rather traditional setup and it would allow each team to have differences while staying competitive.

We should also have probably several more days for this topic to percolate down... More members are certainly required.

This sounds like a lot of fun, I'm definitely in.

How exactly is this going to work? Are most things randomized, or do the referees just make an estimation based on their own view of what's going on?

Lets not worry about exact rescources, nor any sort of turn based play. Only a plan for how each team would allocate rescources, then an estimate of who would win.

Hypergates sound fine, but we need to know what the rules for building them are/who is the custodian/what higher court punishes HG vandalism.

I was under the impression that the whole thing was resource-based- even the hypergates/whatever are a resource. Each kind of technology mentioned in the other thread, each ship class that was thought and fought over is a resource- a planet is a resource. To keep each side balanced, assigning a point value to a resource and then a cap on the maximum number of points that a side can have is a tested and true method. And not nececerraly a complex system- although in essence any wargame of any level of complexity is more complicated than chess or monopoly. We're not talking like spending points to develop a tech, then points to equip your ships with them, etc. Just something like "Team A's particle beam cannon technology is 15 points out of thier maximum of 100 as decided by the judges, leaving them 85 points to use as they see fit. Team B's planetary shields are worth 50 as they are much more disruptive to the balance of play, leaving Team B only 50 points to use." See- in this example Team A chooses to have more points to distribute to ships or other technology, letting thier side be more balanced. Team B has chosen to invest very heavily in one area, making them that much more dependant on it and conversely less balanced. It's a rather simple system when you think about it, in my opinion.

But I am also only one person here out of many involved, so these are only suggestions and I will abide by the rules of play

It feels like the simplest way to work this out is to try it, and iron out any problems along the way.
If no one minds, I'll assign teams based on who's volunteered:
Team A: phyco with power1, NebuchadnezzaR
Team B: Mispeled, Edwards

Not many, but that's probably best for a trial run.
As for the worries about HGs should be handled, I think that any sane military commander would leave HGs intact. Look at EVN - the HG system was only blown by a bunch of terrorists. If you were the attacker, you'd want to be able to bring in reinforcements. If you were the defender, and you managed to fight off the attacker, you'd want to be able to strike back at them, or at least contact other worlds to bring in resources to repair the damage. or something like that. Hypergates are the only method of interstellar travel - blowing an HG condemns a system to a very long time of isolation.

Chrome Falcon, on Oct 11 2005, 08:44 AM, said:

Not many, but that's probably best for a trial run.
As for the worries about HGs should be handled, I think that any sane military commander would leave HGs intact. Look at EVN - the HG system was only blown by a bunch of terrorists. If you were the attacker, you'd want to be able to bring in reinforcements. If you were the defender, and you managed to fight off the attacker, you'd want to be able to strike back at them, or at least contact other worlds to bring in resources to repair the damage. or something like that. Hypergates are the only method of interstellar travel - blowing an HG condemns a system to a very long time of isolation.
View Post

Yeah, HGs shouldn't be ever destroyed... It would isolate a system for hundreds of years. Also, I don't thing HGs should be connected by a path or set jump line, but rather any HG can connect to any other HG, it just takes longer. That would make for a more fluid war.

Falcon, go ahead and run this. but I suggest waiting for at least 2 more people, one for A and one for B.

In terms of points... again it's not about resources, it's about technology. As long as you don't overdo it (example: sending 50 deathstars at your planet durring a siege) it should be fine.

1000 years in the future might be too much. Think about it. 1000 years ago we had swords. 500 years ago we had guns. 100 years ago we had cars. 80 years ago we had planes and machine guns. 50 years ago we had nuclear weapons and computers. 40 years ago we had space ships. In the last 20 years computers have grown more powerful exponentially, a normal desktop that you can buy off the shelf is more powerful than all the computers in the world 20 years ago, has more memory too. A simple graphing calculator, one you'd use in geometry class in high school, has more computing power than the Apollo spacecraft used to land people on the Moon. We've sent unmanned drones to Mars, we've advanced the fields of nuclear physics, genetics, artificial intelligence and countless others so far that looking back a generation they seem like giants compared to flies. Notice how we're gaining technology in leaps and bounds in recent times? In 500 years I can see us moving out into our own solar system. If it is possible at all, we'll find a way to travel faster than light in at most 750 years. If it's not possible.. then it isn't possible.

I volunteer to be on Team B.

This looks interesting.