In-Setting Space Combat Map Symbols

[Ray of Meep]

Based on the small amount of Googling I've done, there really isn't any standard for naval combat irl.



Maps like these don't have unified symbols, and are illustrated in retrospect, but they're an okay start.



NATO does have standard symbols for land warfare.

With these IRL references in mind, let's consider what would be important for an admiral examining a local area in space, strategically, with warcraft moving about.

• The acceleration and velocity of the warcraft. Where are they heading, and are they accelerating, or slowing down.
• The affiliation of the warcraft.
• The size/classification of the warcraft.
• Simplicity and readability. A tactician should make one glance at a map and quickly understand the players involved and their pieces, and be able to replicate the map quickly. This will come at the sacrifice of details, but since space combat strategy is built strategy, assets are unlikely to change in performance quickly, thus giving strategists and tacticians plenty of time to learn the capabilities of a faction's vessels at a certain size or classification. Considerations should also be made for colorblindness.

In these naval battle depictions, the front of the ship is portrayed. I personally consider this to be less important, since warcraft are going to have gimbled weapon systems, and sometimes their engines are going to be front facing. Still, such portrayal doesn't come at a cost, and can be edited as necessary.

 

[Ray of Meep]

Here is my first take on space combat symbols. Ship classifications mainly focus on size, since a larger ship will have more firepower, more sensors, and other equipment, letting them outclass a smaller ship most of the time. Missiles deserve a special mention here, since they can be just as complex as a sub-corvette sized ship, and the fact that some larger ships are AI controlled further blur the line between a missile and a ship. In reality, everything, a missile missile, and a ship, are all missiles in space. Here, missiles are defined as spacecraft used for the intention of impacting another asset, damaging or completely destroying itself in the process to damage or destroy the target asset.

Drone, on the other hand, is defined as a spacecraft even smaller than a sub-corvette, dependent on a mothership, and non-suicidal. They are not expected to have conventional bio-support.

 

[Ray of Meep]

The sketch above shows the symbols used in action, depicting on part of the current Battle of Pelagic. Corvette symbols are modified to account for the HFR's use of corvette squadrons, giving them numbers currently active in their squadron instead of depicting corvettes individually. The group on the left has been diminished in number, and mostly strafing to the side of the Daqin battleship in the center. The group on the right has two active missile groups flying towards the battleship, with healthy corvette squadrons, two frigates, and a cruiser heading towards it, but mostly slowing down.

 

[Uso]

I wanted to get a few thoughts down before I make a larger reply:

I think we're going to have to accept that these symbols kinda have to be used OOCly separate from ICly. In character we're going to have 3d images and the like to better represent all of this stuff. Out of character we're squishing things down into a 2d image.

With that in mind, I think we can ignore facing because that is going to get COMPLICATED.

In order to do facing well we'd need to show what direction the ship has, its momentum, and what direction the ship is thrusting in. Perhaps instead of the 'path traveled' lines I've been using we could start using a projected path?

---

Nato symbols also have a bit of a building on things thing.

Hemisphere for air defense

Hemisphere with rocket for Anti-air missile,

a strike through for recon.

I think more important than size is capability. Perhaps instead of sorting by size (or in addition to sorting by size) we have markers for the weapon type? Laser / Guns / Missiles?

I think instead of a special symbol for Drone, there should just be a line through whatever the unit card is to indicate that it is unmanned.

I also kinda like using the single dot to indicate small object like 'a satellite' or 'dood in a space suit'

 

[Uso]

Ok, some more thoughts. Instead of using a single line to indicate unmanned, I think we should use a chevron to match NATO's unmanned aviation vehicle thing.

A unit card example of unmanned vs manned is below:




And the rest is me throwing ideas around. What about using a dot to represent a spacecraft (small things with limited Delta V. Satalites, space suits, starfighters, etc.). A circle would represent larger craft that can make interplanetary trips.

Large craft Opfor, vs Small Ship Friendly



Opfor Large Drone, vs Friendly Small Drone


And what if we use the Triangle to represent not just missiles in flight, but also missile carrying craft?

Opfor large missile armed ship, vs Friendly Missile Armed small craft



Opfor Missiles vs Friendly Missiles

 

[Ray of Meep]

A few things.

Projected path using dotted lines seems good.

I think the distinction between manned and unmanned needs to be changed to "decision maker" vs "dumb drone". We're in a setting where the line between free thinking biological and artificial intelligence is blurred. Some cybernetics can be free thinking decision makers, some bionetics are dumb drones. The MA for example, would most likely have free thinking sapient bots housed in "unmanned" drone ships, while the Vrexul could have biological dumb drone ships.

Better yet, manned vs. unmanned is really a distinction between command-independent vs command-dependent, the same way large craft vs. "spacecraft" is a distinction between logistics-independent vs logistics-dependent.

Distinction vs size/capability is also something I'm struggling on. I think the missile designation is a good start, simply because of how important missiles are in space combat. But what about other capabilities? Maybe a hemisphere at the bottom to show the presence of point defense, whether it be lasers or PDC's? Though, in this way, a card can quickly get crowded.

We can designate groups of things by putting numbers or dots at the top of the card.

I wonder about the use of colors. NATO uses basic shapes to distinguish between friendly and Opfor, but OOC since we're using computers to communication, colors should be fine. However, I would like to put some consideration into this by using color-blind-friendly color pallets.



Blue being friendly, red being Opfor is largely a Cold War-era artifact.