Roleplaying enemy ships.

[JALU3]

For preperation for a future campaign, how would one roleplay an enemy ship from the Narrator's persepective? That is, say they are going up against klingons. How would they manuever their ships differently from say a federation starship.
This is more so a naval tactical doctorine question . . . what known doctorines do the major powers refer to when deciding how to act in a combat environment?

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Uhhh... what kind of combat engagement? What's the context?

[JALU3]

For instance . . . doctorine dictates how units are initially arrayed prior to an engagement, how units are utilized during a battle, and how units draw down after a side has claimed victory.

Example a CVBG is composed of a carrier, its air wing, one guided missile cruiser, one guided missile destroyer, two ASW frigates, and a submarine. The Guided Missile cruiser would be close to the carrier, within 2-3 miles, and placed on the axis of an expected attack, the DDG would be on the opposite end of this inner circle. The two ASW frigates would comprise the outer screen, running around the carrier to look for any submarines in the area . . . and the sub would be in advance on the group scouting ahead stealthily for any seaborn threats.

Now . . . take this to star trek.
How would the Federation deploy their ships differ from the Klingon Empire?
What type of attacks would each side prefer? How would they react in a defensive position? Is there a preferred route of attack based on doctrine?
How could one fleet use this doctorine knowledge to their advantage against another fleet?
For instance I could imagine the Klingons purposefully hitting a non-strategic civilian fleet, to lay an ambush to a Starfleet vessel.
Or I could imagine the Federation using their scientific prowess to use the characteristics of the local space to their advantage to get the drop on a passing invasion force.

[C5]

Tricky question. Since I have absolutely no military background (and besides, I don't think Earth tactics would have a lot to do with Starfleet or Klingon tactics), I won't try to answer from my knowledge, but I think some data could be gained from watching the show. There are some instances, mainly in DS9, where you can see huge fleets of Klingons or Federation vessels. Maybe by watching them, you could get an insight as to how each fleet positions its ships relatively to each other.

Also, I expect tactics would be influenced by the respective empire's background. Starfleet would be more defensive and honest in its approach, Klingons would be more brutal and rely on diversions and subterfuge (that's what we saw on them on the show anyway, even if personally I don't find this very Klingon), and maybe show some individualism in their approach (as each captain may want to destroy as many ships as possible in order to gather more honor), Romulans would act with a lot of discipline and use sneaky tactics relying heavily on the use of cloaking device, and so on.

I'm not sure if I answered your question adequatly ?

[Tomcat]

I think you can use a great deal of modern day tactics to design your future battles - we still study Greco-Roman battles, Napolean, etc. all the way to Russian Doctrine during the Cold War - and I believe they would do it in the future.

That being said, with capital ships it is all going to be about stand-off. Your smaller vessels screening the larger ones and long-range weapon systems being employed to cause the most effect for when the ranges close. Because of the distances of space, the idea of small fighter-type craft engaging against each other or against the capital ships doesn't quite work (and it is more Star Wars than Star Trek) - although I like Star Fleet Command and I like the small fighter carriers... for closer ranges it would be the most inexpensive route. A small airplane being destroyed while it sank a battleship was a lot cheaper than a battleship being wrecked in the sinking of an opponent.

Anyway, Star Trek does seem more of the juggernaut-type of warfare, like the great battleships of WWI and WWII slugging away at each other - speed and weapons' range were the best asset these ships had.

So, to apply this to tactics and doctrine - I do not think any fleet would be reckless with their costly capital ships, and I do think that all warring species would take the time to study the others doctrine and capabilities and mirror them or at least try to out do them.

Klingons would approach a conflict with more power than the Federation might, but I see the Fed having smaller, faster vessels zipping around the behemoths.

Actually I take that back, the Klingon B'rel is a perfect picture of small size, speed, and stealth with an apparent punch.

I guess as Narrator, your just going to have to play the enemy smart... people would not rush in stupid with a billion $$$ vessel... and I know, there is no monetary system in Trek-ville, but you still have to dedicate assets, materials, labor to the building of these ships and that is quantifiable.

YMMV, but my two cents.

Tomcat

[The Tatterdemalion King]

I guess as Narrator, your just going to have to play the enemy smart... people would not rush in stupid with a billion $$$ vessel... and I know, there is no monetary system in Trek-ville, but you still have to dedicate assets, materials, labor to the building of these ships and that is quantifiable.

No money in the Federation, but again, they're not completely post-scarcity when it comes to ships. Their ability to retool construction for military vessels is probably pretty good, though. I'm sure Klingon strategists are acutely aware of how much House resources each ship represents, though.

We don't really know much about doctrines when it comes to aliens. It seems Romulans prefer to attack decisively–think Go-style envelopements. Klingons are as diverse as the Houses they come from. Psychotic berzerker attacks could feature one engagement, while another might be predicated on leading the forces into a trap. Intelligence on who is leading the attack would be more important than most.

Starfleet seems to be centred around proportionality, taking a strictly utilitarian view. Doctrines would lay out justifiable use of force given the larger strategic goals.

Now, all that said, you should look at the stats of each ship and ask yourself how you'd use them if you were in battle. Look at the big-ass fleet movements in DS9 and see if there's any apparent shape to it...

[toadmage]

I generally write out rules of engagement . What are the ships goals and order ?
Are they just on recon ? what amount of damage before running away ?

[Jem'hadar]

One thing to be aware of when designing space battles based on modern navy battles is that space combat is 3 dimensional while surface battles are largely 2 dimensional (the exception being submarine warfare).

However, you don't always see the 3-dimensional nature of space combat displayed in Star Trek battles on screen.

Space combat would probably take more lessons from air combat than surface ship combat. Of course, you don't have air friction in space & the speeds of the ships (even at sub-warp) are significantly greater, as probably would be the distances b/t combatants.

In any event, what's most imporant is enjoyment by you & your players. So I think if you want to run your Starfleet battles more like surface naval battles, there's nothing wrong w/ that at all.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

That might explain the popularity of 3 dimensional chess...

In fact, you could very well use that metaphor to think about it. There may be highly manuverable strike vessels (knights), ships with lots of movement or striking range in the clear (rooks and bishops, and queens), smaller vessels that work in concert to set up an attack (pawns) and maybe a space station or something (kings). Just extrude the board into a cube.

Or, better yet, take Go and posit it three-dimensionally. Enveloping enemy ships to prevent escape requires you to outmaneuver and outnumber their weak points, flanks not of actual position but potential position. All the while you're pounding the hell out of each other to suck up their energy.

[Antonsb214]

Well, using a mix for Star Fleet Battles and TV and movies, I think that Klingon vessels would make slashing attacks in formation if possible. Forming ships in 3-ship squadrons and coordinating fire to take on larger opponents. They have weaker rear shields and most of their firepower is forward facing, so their fighting style is very aggressive, while not being above using cunning to win a battle. They would also try to board an enemy vessel as soon as possible and take it in hand-to-hand combat (more honorable and glorious).
Romulans would use more stealth and guile. Sneak in under cloak, then hit with plasma torpedoes, then finish the target off with disruptors and photorps. Probably go for the decisive battle strategy (think Japanese Imperial Navy in WWII).
The Federation is more reserved, they will not fire first (unless it's wartime) and try to disable instead of destroy the target. They will not start a fight but will finish it. Federation ships will sacrifice themselves if it will save lives.

[LUGTrekGM]

Klingons:

Attack in threes, or sets of three, favored formation: triangular.

As said earlier, all out assault, pound their shields, and board, claiming the prize.

No retreat, no surrender.

Romulans:
Sub / Bird strategy: ambush from cloak or swoop in from the sun, tractor them back to the "nest" over the border. Ordered and disciplined. Blow up self to cause more damage, never surrender, or be captured. Favored formation, Wedge.

Tholians:
Web you, then squeeze. Form pairs form a grid, box in the enemy to restrict movement, like that Qix video game.