Reintroducing the Planetary Tactics skill

[Eric R.]

I have an intense dislake for the new catch all Tactics skill and worked out a new CODA skill. (note I obviously used some info (my paraphase and copy) from the the CODA core book and TOS Icon Core book)

Planetary Tactics (Int)
Academic; Trained
The character with this skill possesses an understanding of those tactics best employed on a planets land surfaces or in its atmosphere and is able to employ them in different environments. During combat on a planets surface the Planetary Tactics skill determines your unit’s (squad or larger) initiative.

Sample Specialties:

Small Unit Tactics – the character knows the best methods for conducting small units such as companies, platoons and squads in conventional “stand up” combat. These kind of combats include patrolling, raiding, defending, and attacking.

CQB – this is used when combat occurs in close quarters such as the corridors of a Starship, inside a tunnel or securing a specific building. This used most often by Security personnel and terrorist.

Terrorism – the character understands the use of terror (bombings, kidnappings etc.) against a civilian population in order to cause a political reaction. This specialty can be used by both terrorist themselves and counter-terrorist experts.

Other Specialties
Guerilla Warfare, Mechanized Warfare, Naval Warfare, NBC Warfare, Air defense

In Combat a tactics test is carried out by the leader of a unit when they attempt to either conduct a maneuver or bring weapon fire from more then one place onto a single target. In addition the leader can conduct a skill test to see how successful there plan for an operation is for example the PC playing a platoon leader lays out the way he intends to attack a Cardassian strongpoint, the narrator then orders the platoon leader to make a Tactics roll (or maybe several), if successful then the combat is resolved. In addition some times a plan requires many different parts played by subordinate leaders to maneuver and attack, in each case a subordinate leader will conduct such movement and may be called upon to make a tactics test as well.

If a platoon leader or whatever the rank of the leader, fails there tactics test then based upon the difficulty of the test the narrators can assigned penalties to subordinate leaders.

Simple (TN 5) - Defending a well supplied strongpoint against a technologically inferior attacker.

Rountine (TN10) – Defeating an outnumbered force in a single battle

Challenging (TN 15) – Defeating an outnumbered army in a single campaign

Difficult (TN 20) – Defeating a superior force

Virtually Impossible (TN 25)– Defeating a Superior force at odds greater than ten to one.

[D.S.McBride]

While my major interest in Coda is in translating the applicable "crunchy" bits into Icon terms, I like your take on the Planetary Tactics stuff very much; the specialities make sense and the Difficulty Numbers - altered to fit whatever system may be under discussion - are sensible and the scenarios clear. Good work - I'm going to steal this.

[Doug Burke]

Seems rather redundant to me, Eric. I mean, tactics is tactics, really. But then, I for one always thought two diferent Tactics skills was overkill.

If you really feel the need to expand it, I'd suggest make Tactics a Skill Group divided into Sea, Air, Space, and Ground . I mean, if there's enough difference to have Space and Planetary, then the other types should have different skills too. There's just as much difference in what your goals and options are...

[Eric R.]

Nevertheless here is Naval Tactics

Naval Tactics (Int)
Academic; Trained

Naval tactics is the set of specialties used to bring the firepower of an individual ship or fleet to bear upon an opposing ship or fleet. It also suggests a certain amount of understanding of the technological differences and abilities and defects between individual vessels and those produced by a specified power and how to gain an advantage from that knowledge. Naval Tactics is used both for vessels which function in water on a planets surface and in space.

Sample Specialties
Raiding/Pirating – use to conduct raids on enemy vessels and bases usually by a single or small squadron of small, fast, and maneuverable vessels such as Starfleet escort type vessels. The same specialty can be used by pirates when attacking merchant and civilian shipping.

Fleet Action – The character has a basic understanding of how best to coordinate and bring the firepower of a single fleet to bear on another fleet as well as how to move it from one place to another either avoiding or attempting to bring out an opposing force for action.

Specific Power’s (Romulan, Klingon) Naval Tactics – this specialty suggest that the character has a background in the construction/organization, capabilities/defects and normal operating procedures of an enemy vessel and fleet.

Other specialties: Patrolling, Convoy Protection, Replenishment, Space

In Combat a Naval Tactics test generally only occurs before a combat begins not during the combat itself except when performing a maneuver.

Simple (TN 5) – Conducting an attack on a technologically inferior enemy vessel

Routine (TN 10) – Patrolling an enemy spacelane and conducting attacks on enemy shipping.

Challenging (TN15) – Attacking a force of enemy vessels which are of an equal technological ability.

Difficult (TN 20) – planning and coordinating an attack from one or more directions onto a single target.

Virtually Impossible (TN 25) – Attacking a BORG cube alone

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Doug Burke
Seems rather redundant to me, Eric. I mean, tactics is tactics, really.

I do not mean this to sound rude, but obviously you have never studied military history. The basic requirements to fight in one sphere are quite different in there environment, technological, logistical, and motiviational needs. There is a reason why hardly no commander in history has been able to master both spheres at the same time, why Rome a strong Land power found means to make a naval battle resemble a land battle to overcome there weakness. Air warfare is different as it is designed to either support tactical goals or Strategic ones which would fall under a Startegic Operations skill. Both Naval and SPace combat are very similar and so can be found in the same skill. And I have yet to go into the fact a good tactical leader does not mean one is a good strategic or even operational leader there are countless examples of this namely Maj. Gen Hood CSA comes to mind, a great tactical leader but a horrible army leader.

By your rules in CODA a Charcter can simply master all four spheres of combat from basic tactics to Grand strategy by simply having reached a Tactics score of 12, that is not very realistic. Simply put you over simplified it. Even the fact you included Grand Strategy as a specialty of tactics shows to me the designers had very little understanding of what grand Strategy even means. (BTW Grand Startegy is the complex interaction of Political, Economic, Social and Military factors to secure victory) such a Charcter who is very ggod at grand Strategy would have high scores in Tactics, Political science, Diplomacy, Administration, Social Sciences (Economics among many) and Strategic operations just not a friggin Tactics (Grand Startegy) 11!
Sorry this is where ICON got it right.

How would you like it If I said Enginering is Enginering and that three separate engineering skills is equally edundant as well as five Science skills.

[IceGiant]

Originally posted by Eric R.
I do not mean this to sound rude, but obviously you have never studied military history.

Except we are dealing with star trek here. Sisko was in charge of DS9, He was put in charge of the ground forces on that planet with the subspace mines and he was put in charge of a fleet.

I think you are trying to put real world "reality" into star trek, where it is shown that tactics is used universally by the characters because technology and Star Fleet training gives you the ability to do it "All"

So in the end you don't have to know anything about history, except to use it as a plot device.

YMMV

[Doug Burke]

There's no need to get snarky, Eric. While your interpretation (which is entirely valid) mimics reality, the game as written was not meant to mimic reality, it was meant to mirror what happened on screen. Kirk was a master of ground and space tactics, as was Sisko. In the genre of Trek, "tactics is tactics" applies.

And anyway, I didn't (and wouldn't) say "you can't do that." I gave my opinion and I even gave a suggestion for creating the Tactics Skill Group, for crying out loud! Maybe you should read the whole post before you overreact, yes?

[Ramage]

I have to agree with Ice Giant here.

Star Trek is not about things-military; it is about drama, stories, personalities and the like.

If I were running a WWII game, or other military setting, I would expect a lot of breakdowns in skills related to tactics, types of weapons, etc. If I were running a game set in 18th French courts, I would expect a large skill-set involving intrigue, social interaction, and the like. In Star Trek I would expect a lot of broader skills as most of the characters seem competent in a fair range of situations; the more breakdowns you have, the less likely the person is to have any skill, thus the further you move away from the feel of the show.

I know there are a lot of people on this board (via an earlier poll) with military background and a lot of folks who like the Starfleet Battles vision of Trek, but looking to the shows, the movies and the books, while there is a military aspect, it is far from primary. To break down the skill set any more to emphasize the "military nature" of Starfleet is to create a different game.

That being said, if that is what your group prefers, go for it.

For me, I'll stick to a less militaristic interpretation of Star Trek.

[Eric R.]

Ok it took me most of yesterday for me to figure out how to reply with at least 3 false starts, so it was not a knee jerk reaction. And I really like the word Snarky, BTW, not to aggressive but suggests just the right amount of resistance to keep a conversation going in a firendly way.

As to some real points brought up

1. Star Trek does not mimic reality, true, but it is and always has been been a logic projection of Humanity into the future therefore at its core to be believeable is a bases of reality. A good Trek RPG like any game needs to abstract what it portrays however besides CODA I know of no other SF system that has ever used just one tactics skill including the past two successful Trek games (FASA and ICON) Icon reached what I think is a correct balance with Starship & Planetary Tactics and a Strategic Operation skills.


2. I had wrote up all four spheres & Strategic Operations into a skill group at one time, what I found was that it was over redundant, Space and Naval combat used a lot of the same speciaties, Air was far to dependent on the environment used then specific tactics developed which were more like indiviudal manouvers. and that for a good officer to have the basic knowledge he would need he would have to waste far to many advancements to gain them while at the same time taking up way to much space in the development packages.

3. I have never seen any canon evidence that suggest either Kirk or Sisko were both starship and gound tactical experts what I did see was that both had a good sense of basic ground tactics (Small Unit) no evidence that they knew how to direct and lead large scale ground combat. Sisko did show he understood the strategic Operational level of combat in his era but again this would not suggest by itself that he was an expert in Ground Tactics.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Ramage


To break down the skill set any more to emphasize the "military nature" of Starfleet is to create a different game.

I have and will always see Starfleet as a organization dedicated to both exploration and defense with niether missions being primary, I think this middle of the road approach is more in line with most viewpoints on the subject. Actually this is not an effort to emphise the military nature of starfleet it is to give it a fighting chance to at least approach equality. lets break it down like this:

For the Exploration, Scientific, and Diplomatic side we have the following INT based skills

Engineering, Structural
Engineering, Propulsion
Engineering, Systems
Knowledge skill group
Negotiate
Science, Life
Science, Medical
Science, Planetary
Science, Physical
Science, Space

For the Military peackeeper side of Starfleet we have the following INT based skills

History (Military)
Negotiate
Tactics
Science, Social

So I don't see how having a Starfleet Officer with a proper Naval Tactics skill gained at creation and later aquiring a Ground Tactics skill through advancement would create a different game.

[Doug Burke]

::Shrugs::

Looks like this one of those areas where we'll just have to agree to disagree, then, Eric. The way I view Trek and the way you view it, while similar, just don't seem to reconcile on this point. Wouldn't be the first time I've run into that...

[Sea Tyger]

Your point has merit, Eric, but I have to agree that there is no real need to micro-manage the tactics skill in the way you're suggesting.

I think that while tactics is a broad skill grouping, so is each individual science skill. Physical science covers a heck of a lot of ground, much moreso than the entirety of tactics and strategy. The same argument can be made, to a lesser degree, for each of the individual engineering skills. The sheer volume of knowledge required for a "level" in an engineering skill is, IMO, at least as equivalent as the knowledge required to have a "level" of knowledge in ALL tactics.

I find the skill set works perfectly fine the way it is, allowing the PC to specialize in small unit/large ground force/naval/air/space/whatnot as the player desires.

[D.S.McBride]

Whatever it's worth, my humble opinion on the matter is that there are only two factors that have real approval/veto power over game mechanics: the Narrator and the Crew. If the gang prefers to have a somewhat more differentiated list of specialities to cover a range of situations and/or permutations, then that's perfectly cool; ditto for a group that wants to keep it simple and, hey, if you can handle one aspect of a problem set, then you can likely handle them all.

Our group definitely comes out closer to the former: we've got a couple of Canadian Armed Forces Reserves vets in the Crew, and they really like the fact that just because Captain Smith of the Lollypop had some experience dealing with the Romulan ship blockade at Gygax IX, it doesn't mean he/she'll be just as good at handling the Purina Chow terrorists fighting an underground battle on Canine II. Thus, Crew members with differing specialities (and remember, we're talking Icon homebrew here) can be brought into play and have something worthwhile to contribute. At least that's been our experience.