An Idea for Raider/Blockade Runner Scenarios
Jan 4, 2019 19:46:20 GMT -6
garrisonchisholm, abclark, and 1 more like this
Post by tbr on Jan 4, 2019 19:46:20 GMT -6
Currently the setup for the Raider/Blockade Runner Scenarios is a bit intransparent to the player and those scenarios are often immersion breaking. A weaker but faster blockade/patrol cruiser, especially one with fuel reserves, would never do a "do or die" attack on a runner/raider but try to "shadow" and guide in heavier forces for support. Likewise, a faster raider with fuel reserves would use the same to avoid engagement and break contact. I also would like to see some desing decisions like engine priority and range have more of an impact in the "raider game".
I suggest to have a bit of a "mini text adventure" for raider/runner scenarios, albeit only after an "AMC deception roll" has failed, i.e. leave everything as is if the raiding/running AMC is successful in deceiving the patroller into the "Sidney/Kormoran scenario". The player would be asked whether he wants to press on for battle, or shadow and vector in reinforcements (if patroller) respectively break contact (if raider/runner).
Then there would the a "success roll" to determine whether the player gets what he wants. The two meeting ships would be compared as to their maximum speed and engine priority. But because external factors like sea state, visibility, maintenance status, the respective captains capability to outgues each other etc. figure in this should come with an element of chance, not just be fully deterministic based on relative ship speeds. Also, engine priority fits in here because a "reliable" engine would have a higher sustainable speed as a proportion of maximum speed than a "normal" or "speed" engine and "a stern chase is a looong chase". I recommend therefore "counting" "speed" engines as -2kn and "reliable" engines as +2kn on the actual maximum speed. If the players ship (including the engine priority modificators on both ships) is 4kn (or more) faster than the enemy vessel he would always get what he wants (100% roll), if his ship is 4kn or more slower never (0% roll). Increase success chance by 12.5% for every kn between -4 and +4 and there would be a nicely graduated set of probabilities.
If the "shadow" roll is successful combat is initiated with substantial reinforcement for the patroller if available in the map sector or its direct neighbours (e.g. a CA/BC, a CL division, or, later on, a CVE/CVL based hunter-killer group). If a "press on" or "break contact" roll for the raider/runner is unsuccessful we get the same result.
If a "press on" roll is successful we get combat as currently in RTW. Of course, the raider/runner player may still choose to try to escape in the tactical game.
If a "break contact" roll for the raider is successful (or a "shadow" roll for the patroller is unsuccessful) we get a further "raider survival" roll. This would reflect the potential that even when the raider breaks contact successful he could expend too much fuel or overstrain his engines. Once again I would like to see a graduated set of probabilities here. A raider/runner with extreme range and reliable engines should have a 100% chance to avoid a negative outcome, for every "step down" therefrom this probability should be lowered by 12,5% (1/8th), so that a medium range raider/runner with a normal engine would have a 62.5% chance to avoid a negative outcome. have a pre-existing "*" modifier on the rainder runner cout as two "steps down" for this. The negative outcome should be either that the raider/runner gains a "*" modifier, or, if he arleady had one, gets a "scuttled ot interned" roll.