Topic 1
The main problem as I see it with space stations/hollowed asteroids etc
is that there's one weapon type where the major balancing factor is dependent
on the target being mobile. Against an immobile target, the weapon is wayyy
too powerful for its cost.
The weapon is, of course, the missile - be it Salvo or MT. There is a
similar problem with fighters, but not nearly to the same extent.
I've played in far too many scenarios where I had to have at least some
missile-equipped ships to take out base stations. Make the bases
stronger to deal adequately with the missiles without being sitting
ducks, and they become overly strong against non-missiles.
In order for stations (by that I mean any stationary shiplike things) to
be useful but not too-powerful, we need to be able to balance them vs
missiles.
How to do this? Some of my ideas are below - but regardless of how good
or bad my proposed solutions are, I'd like people to think about the problem.
Topic 2
The obvious solution might be to give some PSB about the homing mechanism on
Missiles being dependent to some extent on the target having a manouver drive.
Ships which have no manouver drive ( not just switched off or even destroyed,
but not fitted with one) are to some degree protected against missiles. How
much protection, and how to give this protection without extra die rolls etc
are the difficult questions.
Maybe a 50% protection - halve the number of effective SM warheads (
rounded up? rounded down?) and roll a die for each MTM, on a 1-3 it
doesn't home in. Ignore other targets within homing radius for simplicity
rather than logic. Now a 50% discount still IMHO makes
missiles the weapon-of-choice vs battlestations, but at least it cuts
the imbalance down so they're "somewhat better" rather than "overwhelmingly
better". In a campaign, the logistics involved in equipping a fleet for a
massive missile strike may even balance things
so it's six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other.
Another solution - which may cause more problems than it fixes - might
be to say that hanger space on base stations gets some discount, fighers
being a good anti-missile defence. Maybe even free, or 1 pt/mass instead
of 3. This means though that base stations become super-carriers, in
order to attack a system which is guarded by battlestations, you'll need a
relatively large carrier fleet. Great if you're simulating WW2 Naval actions
in the Pacific, but do we really want this? I see FT as being more akin to
1890 than 1945, with fighters taking the place of torpedo boats prior to the
dirigible torpedo.
In any event, it would be nice to be able to use the same basic ship
design rules. So I'd prefer the manouver-drive-homing solution myself.
Comments?
On or about Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:35:09PM +1000,
aebrain@austarmetro.com.au typed:
> In order for stations (by that I mean any stationary shiplike things)
to be useful but not too-powerful, we need to be able to balance them vs
missiles.
> How to do this? Some of my ideas are below - but regardless of how good
Improved PDAF/PDS effectiveness strikes me as a reasonable compromise -
it cuts the effectiveness of, specifically, fighters and missiles, without
heavily compromising other attack forms. Perhaps a
non-manoeuvred construct can afford bigger and more delicate targetting
computers than the tough but simple machines used on warships? This
could be fine-tuned fairly easily, I think.
> Topic 2
I don't really like this; it feels ugly. What about non-manoeuvreing
ships? This would have to be tied in with sensor rules to be really
effective...
[quoted original message omitted]
On 2-Oct-01 at 22:38, aebrain@austarmetro.com.au
(aebrain@austarmetro.com.au) wrote: >
> Topic 1
to be
> useful but not too-powerful, we need to be able to balance them vs
In our campaign the solution fell out rather quickly. Much as in the Honor
Harrington books, bases are sitting ducks. If you can't dodge not only will MT
missiles toast you, but Salvo Missiles do the same. So, all our military bases
became fighter carriers.
Our base was: 20 mass, 2 hull, 2 fighter squadrons.
The only real varient could best be described as 6 of these on an asteroid.
The nice thing about the base was you could move them to a new system with a
tug rapidly.
As for station keeping drives, we don't need them now, why should we need them
in the future? It's much more cost effective to have a tug tap the base every
other year or so. It's even cheaper to put it in a Lagrange point.
> On or about Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:35:09PM +1000,
I personally think that the answer is inherent. Yes, missles are very, very
nasty against a stationary target. But that stationary target has lots of
(free) armor, and has a bunch of space that isn't being used for drives that
can be spent on PD.The issue isn't that bases need better PD, it's that they
need more.
That and the *tactics* involved in using forts are going to highly different,
as will the tactics for fighting them. <g>
More PD, and a SDB protection force sound the answer to me. Perhaps a series
of smaller stations with ADFC in order to maximize protection around the
larger battle station would help also.
Leave the combat rules/points as they are.
> Topic 1
I understand the desire for the 'attack the base station scenarios', but I
think they really depend on the background universe and how it handles sensors
and jumping in.
In the B5 universe, ships can jump in right on top of you with little if any
warning. In many other universes though, there should be enough warning that
an attack fleet is on the way. Then the defending fleet should go out to meet
the attackers way before they reach missile range. Make the attacker choose
between firing the missiles to save their own ships or trying to save the
missiles until they are in range of the station.