Designing an Honorverse Strategic Level Game Using VBAM

Hi all,

I am a long-time reader of the Honor Harrington novels and for some time I've been trying to create an Honorverse setting for the VBAM strategic gaming system (basically an engine for creating a generic pen and paper 4X game, ala David W's own Imperial Starfire game). I've been using the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator as a guide (mostly the point values given for the ships there).

The VBAM system isn't great for Honorverse, but it can be usable.

One difficulty I'm having is justifying the existence of DDs, CLs, CAs, and even BCs in the strategic context so I thought I would ask a few questions of people who know more than I do.

Can destroyer and light cruiser missiles damage ships of the wall? I think I read somewhere that they can't, but I've been unable to confirm this.

Cruiser missiles (used by BCs and CAs) must be able to, based on HH3. Are they less effective against ships of the wall than capital missiles relative to how effective they are against lighter ships? In other words, should BCs and CAs suffer some type of combat penalty when shooting at BBs, DNs, and SDs?

When designing a strategic level game that abstracts some of the setting (in other words, cuts down on the number of star systems), it's hard to think of reasons that either Haven or Manticore would bother to build light units (particularly in the context of the VBAM rule set and how much more powerful ships of the wall are).

What I had been doing was simply giving one side a bonus if they had "screen superiority", defined very loosely.

I'm now wondering though if that's missing the point of lighter ships.

Do DDs, CLs, and CAs actually fight each other in a major fleet contest, or do they simply add to the defensive and sensor capabilities of their larger brethren? In other words, perhaps a CL or DD's real value is its ability to shoot down capital missiles, not fire its own missiles back at the enemy's light ships.

Anyway, that's enough for now, although I have a billion other questions.

Thanks.

In fleet actions the smaller vessels are often locked into the defensive networks of the wall, providing missile screen, closing gaps in defenses, etc. They also thicken offensive missile waves and provide a few more platforms to support the big guys in the main event.

Sometimes the commanders of the wall will turn loose their smaller combatants to maneuver separately, especially if they have a secondary objective or other reasoning.

Smaller ships do have smaller missiles but they would still do damage to the DNs and SDs. The DNs and SDs simply have more tubes, more defenses and are better armored so the amount of damage they can take before it's game over is much higher. The big ships have more hit points, longer range and more attack power, effectively.

More over you need to consider where at in the Honorverse timeline you are, and which sides your playing. 1920 RMN ships against anything in the SLN? Or 1900 SLN against Haven? Each faction has different levels of technology. And there are other less tangible factors. The skill of your crew, the leadership of the officers and your institutional experience are also factors.

I thought I read somewhere that destroyer missiles couldn't penetrate the sidewalls of ships of the wall, but I guess I was wrong.

The timeframe I'm using is between HH1 and HH2 (and leaves out the superscience weapons that start to be introduced in HH2).

I'm still at a loss to figure out a way to incentivize players to buy (or target) smaller ships. I guess it's hard to explain outside the context of a strategic combat system.

Fireflair wrote:In fleet actions the smaller vessels are often locked into the defensive networks of the wall, providing missile screen, closing gaps in defenses, etc. They also thicken offensive missile waves and provide a few more platforms to support the big guys in the main event.

Sometimes the commanders of the wall will turn loose their smaller combatants to maneuver separately, especially if they have a secondary objective or other reasoning.

Smaller ships do have smaller missiles but they would still do damage to the DNs and SDs. The DNs and SDs simply have more tubes, more defenses and are better armored so the amount of damage they can take before it's game over is much higher. The big ships have more hit points, longer range and more attack power, effectively.

More over you need to consider where at in the Honorverse timeline you are, and which sides your playing. 1920 RMN ships against anything in the SLN? Or 1900 SLN against Haven? Each faction has different levels of technology. And there are other less tangible factors. The skill of your crew, the leadership of the officers and your institutional experience are also factors.

It should be noted that DD scale weapons do less damage then the other types, SD sidewals will bend and disperse them; though reduced in focus, they can still penetrate the sidewalls, but SD armor will aborb most of their damage. But, like a WWII DD attacking a BB, everything exposed on the Captial ship is vulnerable to DD/CL scale weapons. So nodes, weapons emplacements, and sensors, are all vulnerable to hits. It would be a death of a thousand cuts, but enough DD hits would incapacitate an SD.

As mentioned above, the time frame is necessary for the weapons and tactics used. in 1900, DDs and CLs form an outer screen for battlegroups. Their purpose was to feel out the enemy and create the shape of the battle as well as find details about the enemy. When tactical fleet scouts encounter each other, fights occur, because part of scouting is denying the enemy scout of information as well.

In the inner layer of a battlegroup, CAs or BCs are part of the formation, guarding the vulnerable wedge openings of the wallers, and adding their counter missiles to the fleet. An additonal layer of CLs or DDs in turn guard the vulnerable aspects of the CA/BC escorts.

The one drawing I have of a "proper" battle group formation shows >50 ships in a formation of 8 Wallers.

Another point to take into account, in the Honorvrse , almost no one has wallers. Only ~25 navies can boast a squadron or more (8+ ) wallers. Most largish navies boast CAs or BCs as their capital ships, and the majority of system navies can be described like "a handful of LACs and 2 obsolete DDs, one being used as parts for the other" None of the big empires have fought in centuries, so in 1905, waller combat is mostly theoretical, with most "daily" combat having been done with FGs-CAs.

I strongly recommend getting both the Jaynes books, Anthology 5 (In Fire Forged), and House of Steel for more information.

According to Jackson Kriangsak, who commanded a BC during Third Yeltsin, his squadron was trying to maneuver into position to attack Parnell's unsidewalled bows or sterns(can't remember which), whilst the Havenite force had rolled their wedges against the RMN's second fleet.

I can't remember any specific examples, but I think screening units are meant to maneuver their slightly smaller wedges in a manner to physically obstruct the battle wall's more vulnerable throats. Sometimes they are deployed off to the side to serve as a communications relay ship in case the wallers block their own sensors and communications due to combat maneuvering.

In a top-level strategy game, smaller units would be more useful for scouting and perhaps convoy escorting and raiding and piracy suppression. It depends how deeply the mechanics go. I would say lighter vessels should be more useful in protecting resource generation - income from merchant shipping for example.

jscott991 wrote:I thought I read somewhere that destroyer missiles couldn't penetrate the sidewalls of ships of the wall, but I guess I was wrong.

The timeframe I'm using is between HH1 and HH2 (and leaves out the superscience weapons that start to be introduced in HH2).

I'm still at a loss to figure out a way to incentivize players to buy (or target) smaller ships. I guess it's hard to explain outside the context of a strategic combat system.

To build on what Theemile said, a commander without a decent screen is going to be more vulnerable to ambush and misdirection. A screen is supposed to catch surprises like the ambush Hamish almost got caught in at the beginning of Flag in Exile (or at least force it to go active far enough out that the main battle group isn't completely screwed). They can also help with target identification and clearing up the clutter of a battle group and decoys.

BCs and BBs are intended to force an opponent to either commit ships of the wall to offense or defense to meet the proposed threat. If there's a squad of BC heading out to raid infrastructure, they'll trash any light units but pin down anything heavier without being caught by it.

Theemile wrote:

Fireflair wrote:Another point to take into account, in the Honorvrse , almost no one has wallers. Only ~25 navies can boast a squadron or more (8+ ) wallers. Most largish navies boast CAs or BCs as their capital ships, and the majority of system navies can be described like "a handful of LACs and 2 obsolete DDs, one being used as parts for the other" None of the big empires have fought in centuries, so in 1905, waller combat is mostly theoretical, with most "daily" combat having been done with FGs-CAs.

I strongly recommend getting both the Jaynes books, Anthology 5 (In Fire Forged), and House of Steel for more information.

Well wall combat is far from theoretical for Haven and Manticore, which are basically the only nations I'm bothering to simulate (although I did build out stats and such for the Andermani, Silesians, and Erewhon).

I have all the SITS stuff, Jayne's books, and House of Steel (which really is just republished SITS stuff in terms of 1905 material).

The VBAM people think I'm crazy for even bothering to show anything other than battle squadrons, but it just doesn't feel like the Honorverse to me if you cut out destroyers and cruisers.

I think I'm on the right track giving a die roll bonus to the nation that has something like screen superiority. The only issue with that is keeping people from bringing unrealistic numbers of screening units to a battle (like 100s of DDs for example).

jscott991 wrote:Well wall combat is far from theoretical for Haven and Manticore, which are basically the only nations I'm bothering to simulate (although I did build out stats and such for the Andermani, Silesians, and Erewhon).

I have all the SITS stuff, Jayne's books, and House of Steel (which really is just republished SITS stuff in terms of 1905 material).

The VBAM people think I'm crazy for even bothering to show anything other than battle squadrons, but it just doesn't feel like the Honorverse to me if you cut out destroyers and cruisers.

I think I'm on the right track giving a die roll bonus to the nation that has something like screen superiority. The only issue with that is keeping people from bringing unrealistic numbers of screening units to a battle (like 100s of DDs for example).

It might make sense for a penalty to apply to a fleet without enough screens. Like, -1 for no screens, 0 for enough screens, +1 for superior screens.

noblehunter wrote:It might make sense for a penalty to apply to a fleet without enough screens. Like, -1 for no screens, 0 for enough screens, +1 for superior screens.

This is basically what I've been doing. -1 if you have no screen at all, +1 for screen superiority, and +2 if you have more than 2-1 screen superiority.

jscott991 wrote:

noblehunter wrote:It might make sense for a penalty to apply to a fleet without enough screens. Like, -1 for no screens, 0 for enough screens, +1 for superior screens.

This is basically what I've been doing. -1 if you have no screen at all, +1 for screen superiority, and +2 if you have more than 2-1 screen superiority.

That sounds about right, Over a certain level, if you have too many scouts, they don't add anything more to the equation, and if you have too many light screeners, they are no longer in a protective formation and get picked off easily by opposing waller fire.

Notice above, I specifically referred to 1905, which was the beginning of the Havenite war. Before the Battle of Hancock, neither side had ever had a capital ship battle with a peer force. Manticore had deployed capital ships twice against foes with no more than a BC, and Haven had faced a couple of old BBs it had sold it's neighbors along it's way to empire. While the SLN, IAN, RMN and PRN had fleets of Wallers for centuries, their proper use was academic for everyone until 1905.

While we were never told - most of both side's pre-war doctrine was probably torn from the manuals quickly after the missiles started to fly.