I think someone (with a bit of materials or physics math) could illustrate the
amount of energy required to damage current steel structures.
I think someone else could show the amount of energy density required to
achieve that and the amount of raw energy you'd have to throw at a given
square ten km box of space to generate that.
I think the answer would be amazingly large.
This is why I assume beams are pinpoint accurate weapons that direct very
focused energies in extremely specific locations and why the name of the game
in the FT time period is *fire control* *fire control* *fire control* sensors.
Fire, Fusion and Steel (a Traveller thingie) had a good explanation of why
this would be an ironclad pain for lasers (and why gravitic lensing is almost
a must). Even absolutely minute differences in angles of focus make huge
differences of energy density in a beam fired over thousands or tens of
thousands of kms.
Which brings us to bombardments. I suspect a ships beam is powerful and
focused. But it may not be tuned to go through atmosphere (it is tuned for
vacuum combat). Fire control sensors are designed to pickup stuff against the
ambient stellar background, not through an atmosphere on the ground. And the
power of the weapons, though large, is not enough (IMO) to obliterate cities,
etc). Otherwise we'd see a vastly different style of ground combat in DS2 and
vastly different vehicle designs. And fighters designed for vacuum operation
(starfury anyone?) probably suck rocks in an atmosphere.
So, I suggest that the specialized ortillery ship is in fact called for (and
lo and behold, the rules provide!). The ortillery ship has multiple ortillery
modules, point defence, and maybe some B1s for close in defense. The ortillery
modules deploy OSM (Orbit to Surface Missiles) and
specialized anti-surface beam weapons (that
perhaps are high-powered to burn through the
atmosphere but tuned for the task). The ortillery ship also has an ability to
integrate with airborne and surface recce and fire direction systems to give
it a good chance of hitting what it wants. This includes with RPVs, recce
sats, and the like. The Orbital FC ship also probably deploys a constellation
of satellites loaded with munitions so that it can attack anyplace, anytime on
call (instead of being victim of orbits). These work a bit like RenLegs Thor
Javelins.
And it seems to me their ought to be a Ground-
Attack type fighter, specialized for in-
atmosphere assaults and surface and atmospheric envelope target engagements.
Most of the preceding applies to planets with a
terran atmosphere of earth-ish density. As you
thin out the atmosphere, normal starship sensors and beams become more viable,
though still less specialized than those on a OFC ship.
Having such things makes the game more interesting. It presents assets that FT
fleets have to defend (transports too, but OFCs and orbital C4I centers as
well). It also restricts the domination of the campaign worlds to navy, navy,
navy. If you want to play SG or DS without constantly applying the "hostile
atmosphere" or other artificial constraints, then there had better be a way to
prevent a single corvette (or even a small fleet) from threatening any surface
combat action without specialized assets.
It seems to me that the variety of ship designs, of tactical complexities, and
of campaign scenario options offered by this type of interpretation makes it
the most supportable from a game interest perspective, especially if you want
to play everything from Grand Strategic down to Skirmish level games. If the
Navy dominates and orbital superiority is the whole situation, then none of
the ground games are worth rolling out most times.
> I think someone (with a bit of materials or
Does my minor in Mathematics count???
> I think someone else could show the amount of
The point isn't to cover a ten km box of space. The point is that if the enemy
is position is off by a 0.000001 degrees from where you predict he will be
when you fire, you still have a chance to hit him. Assuming 10,000
km per MU, range of 36 MU; this gives us 10000km * 1000 m/km * 36 *
tan(0.000001) = 6.28 m. Area of a circle of this radius is 124 sq.m. This is
much less then a 10 km box which is 100,000,000 sq. m...
> I think the answer would be amazingly large.
Yes, assuming one pulse per 8 sq. m, this would require 1,562,500 pulses time
the energy required per pulse, an absurd number, and I see no reason to
calculate it, also note that there is a gap between pulses. However, if you
take 124 sq. m and assume one pulse per 4 sq. m, then you are only talking 8
pulses times the power required. A fighter will slip through, but then
fighters are supposed to.
> This is why I assume beams are pinpoint
Yes, 0.000001 degree is a very small error when you consider two ships each
moving 3 dimensionally realtive to each other at that range.
> Fire, Fusion and Steel (a Traveller thingie) had a
Yes, I think I proved that above just by the shear number of pulses required
for a 10 km box...
> Which brings us to bombardments. I suspect a
PLEASE CHECK MY ORIGINAL SUGGESTIONS. BEAMS AREN'T VERY EFFECTIVE ON EARTH
TYPE PLANETS, YOU NEED CLASS 4 OR LARGER TO DO ANYTHING.
As for the fighters, Thunderbolts exist in B5 specifically to fix that
defficency in Earth Force.
> So, I suggest that the specialized ortillery ship
I don't like the Ortillary system because they are NOT ammo dependent. As for
orbital bombardment satelites, make a small space station with 1 hull, and a
couple submunition packs loaded with orbital bombardment submunitions. Carry
in a freighter (or cargo hold of a military ship, or fighter bay of carrier)
and deploy when needed. One of the reasons I came up with my original
suggestions would be to allow people to do stuff like this.
> And it seems to me their ought to be a Ground-
Why bother. Use standard fighter types. Can have a very rough time going into
the atmosphere...
> Most of the preceding applies to planets with a
That's in my original idea.
> Having such things makes the game more
If it's a planet similar to Earth, corvettes won't be effective, unless they
have one shot weapons, ideally loaded with orbital bombardment munitions. Note
that this will make them one shot wonders. They drop there barrage then they
are out of ammo until the next operational turn, assuming they have frieghters
with more to get replenishment from.
> It seems to me that the variety of ship designs,
Yep, they're mop up opperation like the Central Pacific campaign if your fleet
can't threaten the enemy. But if the fleets are comparable, you wind up
fighting a serries of Guadalcannals... Both sides darting in to land
reinforcement and do a quick barrage of the enemy position, and then dash
off...
TomB> So, I suggest that the specialized ortillery ship TomB> is in fact
called for (and lo and behold, the rules TomB> provide!). [...suggested
outline...]
::applause:: The outline for the Ortillery/Assault support craft looks
pretty sound, IMO, and appears to agree with/sum up most of what's been
said, as well as giving meat to the assault ship/group protection
scenario. Any actual designs, TomB (I have to ask)?
TomB>I think ground assault requires specialized assets which TomB>are nigh on
useless in space. I couldn't agree more apart from, possibly and obviously,
some types of
missile systems (e.g. not the FT "anti-ship/homing" SMs which might have
to be heaviliy modified).
TomB>A true planetary invasion had better involve one side taking and
TomB>holding the planet and the space around it for a fair distance
[...]
TomB>I think if you really have not truly established local space superiority,
you TomB>have no real business landing troops. And if you can't hold it, the
troops TomB>you have landed are in a lot of trouble.... ias>If you are not
strong enough to attack and hold, but you are strong enough ias>disrupt, and
the target is valuable enough to disrupt, you would be a fool ias>not to...
Absolutely. To both. Without Orbital Superiority you are certainly at
risk, though even without it there is room for SG-style incursions (your
aversion to it accepted, ias), or maybe even the deployment (risky) of a
small, dispersed force - but it seems to me that both forces would be at
risk or would have to be dispersed to avoid the orbital weaponry from their
opponent. It all depends on the importance of the the target and why the
assault was being contemplated in the first place - a classic
risk-reward
situation which, I think, you were highlighting, ias.
> Absolutely. To both. Without Orbital Superiority you are certainly