I don't understand why so many players are dead set against standard ships
being able to make orbital bombardments. They happened all the time in WW1,
WW2, Vietnam, etc. Here are my suggestions for orbital bombardments for those
who want orbital bombardment. Somre races are better then others, notably the
Kravak and Sa'Vasku. But if you allow varients, any race can build a MT
missile cruiser and load it with orbital artillary bombs (except the Sa'Vasku
who don't need it). I suspect that only the Sa'Vasku would qualify as an ST
race, although it
wouldn't effect their bio-constructs who could be customized for T
planets, also.
Using Imperial StarFire or GSF for star system generation, you have 4 types of
habitable planets. If you extend this slightly you have 5 types.
O1 - low density planet roughly equivalent to the moon with little or no
atmosphere and EM field.
O2 - medium density planet outside of the bioshell with some atmosphere
and weak EM field.
O3 - high density planet outside of the bioshell with heavy atmoshpere
and moderate EM field.
T - medium density planet in the bioshell with some atmosphere and
moderate EM field.
ST - high density planet in the bioshell with heavy atmosphere and
strong EM field.
If you rank these for their ability to disrupt/reduce orbital
bombardement you have:
Rank/Type:
0 Asteroid / Space station
1 O1
2 O2
3 O3, T
4 ST
You can then reduce the effectiveness of orbital bombardments accordingly. And
you can use this for ground based fighter to determine how much endurance they
use to climb out of the gravity well, time to climbed out is one half rank,
round up. To land, fighters must glide in using no endurance, time is again,
one half rank, round up. I suggest limiting orbial bombardment to ships that
are actually in orbit, and munitions are reloaded from frieghters before space
combat, so any special munition is one less regular munition you have
available in space combat before you can bombard.
Beams / Torpedoes / Pulsar Batteries:
each rank increase effective range by 1 range band.
Fighters: All fighters have normal attacks. While fighters glide in to the
atmosphere, all PDS's on the planet can fire at them, but not when the climb
out. Fighters must spend 1 endurance per turn in the low atmosphere in addtion
to 1 endurance if they make any attacks and they are automatically destroyed
when their endurance runs out while in the atmosphere.
Needle Beams / PDS / Scatter Gun Charges / Spicule Nodes:
these are in-effective for orbital bombardments.
MT Missiles: Ineffective, but can be replaced with orbital artillary bomb
doing 1d6 damage regardless of rank. Same mass and points as standard missile,
but automatically hits...
Submunitions: standard submunitions, each rank increase effective range by 1
range band. special orbitial bombardment submunitions have no space attack
capability. Halves effectives rank, round down. Same mass and points as
subminitions.
Salvo Missiles:
standard salvo missiles, -1 per rank for lock-on, 1d6 - rank for lock.
special orbital bombardment salvo missiles have no space attack capability.
Halves effective rank, round down, for lock ons. Same mass and points as salvo
missiles.
MKP's: standard MKP's, each rank affects MKP's like a screesns do to beams,
reducing hits scored. special orbital bombardment MKP's have no space attack
capability. Halves effective rank, round down. Same mass and points as MKP.
K-Guns:
each rank increase effective range by 1 and reduces effective k-gun
class by 1.
Stinger Nodes: rank * 3 = power factors for each beam dice.
Pod Launchers:
short range to hit, but each rank reduces damage roll by 1, 1d6 - rank
for damage
Plasma Bolts: each rank decreases plasma bolt strength by 1
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
With varying degrees of success (How many times have you read historical
accounts that contained phrases to the effect of "The bombardment was supposed
to demolish enemy resistance, but when the troops finally
went ashore....")
Weapons can fall into one of two categories: Generalized and specialized.
Specialized weapons are designed to do a few things very well (often
frighteningly well), at the cost of doing other things poorly or not at all.
Generalized weapons do many things, but in a mediocre fashion. Part of the PSB
is that FT weapons, while very deadly against space targets, are just not
designed with the mission of hitting something on the ground while avoiding
hitting the friendly things nearby. Maybe it's a Firecon issue as much as a
weapon type issue. From a gaming only standpoint, it's also a "too damned
powerful"
issue, especially WRT campaign games and FT/DS tie-in
games.
You also have to ask yourself, what scale target, what scale damage? Something
powerful enough to punch through the atmosphere and obliterate a city
definitely sounds a little risky to use on a DS
battlefield - it sounds more like strategic weapons
than tactical.
What about a Nova cannon?
What are people's thoughts on this? Could a low power Nova round be used to
destroy a city?
I am in the middle of some fiction involving the use of one of these. Would be
interested to hear what other people have to say.
But IMHO orbital bombardment would rarely be a tactical (as opposed to
strategic) weapon. Though ortillery as mentioned in DSII could presumably be
carried out by specialist space craft.
Sounds like a Hellburner from H. Beam Piper's Space Viking. VERY bad on the
receiving end.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
***
What about a Nova cannon?
What are people's thoughts on this? Could a low power Nova round be used to
destroy a city?
***
My thought would be that this would require a great adjustment of focus, not
necessarily power. It's a shotgun blast from a short barrel, by it's described
effect.
Take out continents or hemispheres, difficult to do single cities.
On the other hand, I also assume it would be even less effective through
atmosphere than other ordinance.
'Honey, put on the high-SPF sunscreen and dark glasses; we're being
nova-cannoned.'
*shrug* It always seemed a trifle silly unless I actually had to face it at
the speeds my games flew.
The_Beast
In message
<OF5D2968D1.6304C37C-ON86256CC6.0055214B-86256CC6.00559518@nebraska.edu>
> devans@nebraska.edu wrote:
> ***
Checking my records - we had a discussion on a similar topic (orbital
bombardment) almost exactly a year ago :-)
Nova Cannon vs. planets
The description in FT of the Nova Cannon is of an out-of-control plasma
reactor launched from a huge railgun, I guess if it hit a planet, a number of
possible outcomes could result:
1) The nova generator breaks up in the upper atmosphere, resulting from
anything from a harmless bright flash to a widespread EMP pulse through to
widespread radioactive fallout (depending of what exact PSB you are
using for the Nova Cannon) - disruption of the planets magnetic field
and/or an ozone hole are also possibilities.
2) The nova generator reaches the ground - BANG! medium size (up to a
few 100 m across at most), possibly radioactive, crater results (with side
effects).
3) As 2), but Nova Generator burns into planets crust - new volcano
results.
Given the accuracy (or lack thereof) of a Nova Cannon, the attacker will
probably no be able to target anything much smaller than a continent.
My 2p.
> With varying degrees of success (How many times have
Plenty, but how much worse would it have been if there had been no
bombardment? That's the question most people don't ask.
> Weapons can fall into one of two categories:
A 16" naval gun was designed to pierce massive armour. A specialized 16"
howitzer would have been more effective for most bombardments, but that 16"
gun is still effective. I can't buy the firecontrol issue. It is much easier
to hit grid coordinate on a planet underneath that moves very
predictable (or not at all if the orbit is geo-synchronus) then it is to
hit ship that can manuever in three dimensions. As for "too damend powerful",
all that means is "we don't want to take the time or trouble to make it
work." If you want really powerful weapons try the board / miniture /
computer game Harpoon. Even without a nuclear release, there are missile and
torpedoes that can cripple, if not sink, most ships with a single hit, with a
nuclear release you can take out whole task forces with a single strike. Too
powerful, no. Because the they took the time and trouble to make it work.
> You also have to ask yourself, what scale target, what
I never considered them that powerful. I view them as WWI / WWII naval
guns. If they shoot at a city enough times, they can take it out, but a single
shot will not. Also note that most weapons are ineffective, or have their
effectiveness very reduced against T and ST planets. Note that I am
also considering all weaponry to be non-nuclear, ie a general
prohibition against nuclear attacks that everyone is scared to death to
violate. If you want to go for nukes, you're looking at missiles, and a very
different type of game. DS battlefields won't be any uglier then the World War
2 Central Pacific campaign. The U.S. threw massive bombardments and air
attacks, and had massive naval gunfire and tactial air support. When they
"fell short" it was very ugly for the friendly troops. That's life for the
grunts if the fleet can's keep the enemy from landing, or when friendly fire
falls short. As for play balance, most battles in a campaign game aren't
balanced.
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Again, it depends on the situation. I've heard arguements that the German
bombardments of Moscow and Stalingrad actually made things worse, because the
rubble made even better obstacles and hiding places than intact buildings did.
*shrug* I'm not the WWII expert here, so I'll leave others to argue that.
> A 16" naval gun was designed to pierce massive
except that most of the ships didn't carry 16" guns, they were destroyers and
cruisers with 5" and 8" guns.
I can't buy the firecontrol
> issue. It is much
Well, even Ortillery, which is designed for hitting the ground, isn't
guaranteed to hit on the first try. And how much area does that grid
coordinate cover?
and which typ of anti-ship weapon are we talking
about? Beam Weapons? that's a pretty focused beam of energy, how effective is
that at Area effect bombardment?
As for
> "too damend powerful",
No, it means that the way we make it work doesn't
please you. Anti-ship weapons are designed for
anti-sHip fire, and suffer specific lmitiations which
make them less effective against ground targets than a dedicated Ortillery
system is.
If you want really powerful weapons try the
> board / miniture /
Uh-huh. And what scale of conflict does Harpoon
simulate? I've never played it, so I can't comment on the applicability. to
this discussion.
> I never considered them that powerful. I view them
Again, which system? While they may be the equivalent of modern and historical
naval guns in what their primary role is, they vastly differ from them in how
they carry out their function.
> Again, it depends on the situation. I've heard
The worst was Flanders in World War 1, but I notice that your examples are
cities, not islands in the Pacific drive.
> except that most of the ships didn't carry 16" guns,
If you read and understood my original post, you would realize that the
weapons on frigates, destroyers, and light cruisers are ineffective against
terran planets. Secondly, cruiser and destoyers were used for shore
bombardment in World War II quite a bit by the U.S. And those 4" to 8" guns
did a good job. So if anything, my suggustions are too restrictive on orbital
bombardments... For example, Mars is an O2; therefore class 1 and class 2
beams are ineffective. Class 3 beams get one die each. Another example is
Earth, a type T, only the class 4 beams off an ESU Kamorov are effective, and
they only get 1 die each. The moon would be type O1; therefore class 2 beams
get 1 die each, class 3 beams get 2 dice each, etc.
> Well, even Ortillery, which is designed for hitting
Nor is friendly, dirtside artillary. Grid coordinates vary, from kilometers to
a meter. Depends on what map you are using. With computerized fire control you
zoom into the level of detail you need.
> and which typ of anti-ship weapon are we talking
Individually, insignificant, but if you control the orbitals and have a half
dozen battleships up there...
> No, it means that the way we make it work doesn't
The reason it doesn't please me is because it is an extrapolation that is
inconsistent from what we know from history. Less effective does not mean
ineffective. Milan Anti-Tank Gided Missiles are not made to take out
machinegun nests. But they were used for just that in the Falklands Wars. Less
effective then a specialized missile, yes. Ineffective, no. Another good
example is larger caliber naval guns made to take on dreadnoughts. They were
less effective then a specialized weapon when used against destroyers. There
are cases where they puched holes straight through them and never detonated.
But they still sank destroyers.
> Uh-huh. And what scale of conflict does Harpoon
Individual ships, aircraft, and missiles. In larger battles you have multiple
taskforces of these running arround. It's much more detailed then Full Thrust
and I don't recommend running multiple carrier battle groups except on the
computer version. But it is a lot of fun on the computer...
> Again, which system? While they may be the equivalent
That's why I made them much less effective except against asteroids.
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> The worst was Flanders in World War 1, but I notice
true. My point is, that different situations render different results.
Comparing a whole planet to just either a city OR an island is faslling short.
> If you read and understood my original post, you
OK, point taken there.
Secondly, cruiser and destoyers
> were used for shore
No.... because the whole comparison between naval guns and beam weapons has
some obvious flaws. Beam weapons are precise, directed beams of energy with
very focused points of damage. Naval guns sling shells that explode,
scattering their fun around.
> > Well, even Ortillery, which is designed for
Yes, it is. Read your DSII -- artillery missions
AUTOMATICALLY hit where you designate.
Grid
> coordinates vary, from kilometers
And hit that spot on the grid with a beam. Assuming you were spotted for by a
FO, depending on how quickly he can designate and call you in, will there
still be anything in that spot? How far from the actual opoint of impact would
a beam do it's damage?
> Individually, insignificant, but if you control the
You might have enough beams to fill a grid section with enough points of
damage to simulat 1 ortillery battery.
> The reason it doesn't please me is because it is an
And your extrapolation is based on assumptions on how weapons deliver damage
that don't apply to FT weapons the same way they do to historical weapons.
Less
> effective does not mean
Both good points, except they have no bearing on FT Beams. they may not have
been specialized for those tasks, but by nature of HOW they did WHAT they WERE
specialized for, there was some natural carryover that allowed them to fulfill
those other missions, even if not optimized for it. But that doesn't mean that
ANY
weapons system will be just as cross-applicable.
Consider the sniper rifle - deadly in it's chosen
role. Would I take a sniper rifle into a bar brawl, in a windowless bar, when
I was inside it? I'm not saying that's a parallel to using beams for
bombardment. My point is, just because an axiom is true, doesn't make it
applicable to all situations.
> > Uh-huh. And what scale of conflict does Harpoon
I'll look into it.
> work." If you want really powerful weapons try the board / miniture /
Harpoon... urrrr urrrr urrrrr!!!
> Harpoon... urrrr urrrr urrrrr!!!
Is that because you like Harpoon or don't like Harpoon?
> true. My point is, that different situations render
Okinawa had cities... The point is that the closest approximation we have to
space warfare is the Central Pacific campaign. Vast distances, and importance
of islands (planets) as staging areas. You only attack and capture the islands
(planets) that you need. The rest, you neutralize it's usefulness to the enemy
and keep on moving. If you stop to take every island (planet), you will only
get yourself bogged down, and return the initiative to the enemy.
> No.... because the whole comparison between naval guns
Naval guns designed to pierce heavily armored ships make very bad howizters to
lob high explosives at soft targets. Your assumption is that beams fire just
one burst. My assumption is that beams fire a large number of pulses that
sweep an area.
> Yes, it is. Read your DSII -- artillery missions
You're probably right there. I quit playing DSII a couple of years ago, so I
haven't read the rules in a while. I much prefer the old Traveler game,
Striker. It is much more realistic because anything can go wrong, and usually
does to some degree...
> And hit that spot on the grid with a beam. Assuming
Ship board sensors will make moving arround very rough for the defender. Think
great big huge super dooper recon satelite. As for the FO, it shouldn't take
any longer then calling in friendly dirtside artillary, ie, you've got as good
a chance that he'll still be there. And if he does move, you may not need that
FO...
> You might have enough beams to fill a grid section
Depends on which ships with which weapons are there and the type of planet.
Beams are only really good against O1 and O2 planets, except the Sa'Vasku. But
it takes alot of power for them to attack T planets. For example the Sa'Vasku
Elder Broodship will have 4 dice for orbital bombardment of a T (earth type)
planet. That assumes that it hasn't lost any power generators. That's the
largest Sa'Vasku ship with the most power generator's in the
FB2...
You know, the only thing you are convincing me of, is that I've gone too far
reducing beam damage for orbital bombardment. Note: CLASS 3 BEAMS AND SMALLER
HAVE ZERO DICE OF DAMAGE FOR ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT OF EARTH TYPE PLANETS. Class
3 beams have 3 dice against an asteroid. 2 dice against a type O1 (Earth's
Moon), 1 dice against a type O2 (Mars), and ZERO dice agaisnt type T (Earth),
type O3 (Titan), or type ST (think terran planet with an atmosphere to dense
for humans to live on that even class 4 beams can't bombard).
> And your extrapolation is based on assumptions on how
Nope. Guns fire HE shell that explode causing damage to a large area. Beams
fire multiple pulses that sweep a larger area.
> Both good points, except they have no bearing on FT
I'd much rather have a sniper rifle in a bar room brawl then a bar stool,
bottle of bear, or my bare fist, the typical weapons. That sniper rifle
will make a really nice club / pole arm that can take a bar stool and
the guy swinging it apart. I like pole arms. But it is a little hard on the
scope... Well, your axiom about a sniper rifles in a bar room brawl is
certainly a matter of perspective... As the way beams in FT work...
> What about a Nova cannon?
I never considered it because I've never played with them and there are no
ships in the fleet FB's that carry them.
> I am in the middle of some fiction involving the use of one of these.
Would
> be interested to hear what other people have to say.
How about specialised munitions for Salvo Missiles, Submunitions, and MKP's?
Love it.. If it is as accurate as Larry Bond makes it out to be, that is
sobering... Being in the Navy, it is sobering how easy it is to sink US ships,
while Soviet ships are so hard to kill...
[quoted original message omitted]
A couple of thoughts on Orbital Bombardment:
If and how you can is REALLY dependent on one's background used. Really what
you come up with for YOUR background, as long as it works and is balanced, is
fine. But reality and background don't always have to 'meet' and since FT is a
very generic game to begin with, what works or makes sense to you, probably
won't be the same for others:o) (Having said that, you probably don't need to
read on folks, but if your
interested in MY take on the subject:o)
For example, can you do orbital bombardment in Star Trek? Why sure! And quite
accurately too! You can stun ONLY a single city block from 'standard' (Note
they never gave a good idea how high this was:o) and you can take out a
single building with the full force of the ships weapons and even carpet bomb
and small area with fire without endangering your landing party! (Extra points
for naming the episodes:o)
Can you bombard in the Babylon 5 universe? Yep. Though accuracy suffers due to
the use of the ships larger plasma guns, or drag a ships beam cannon along the
ground. Then there is 'projectile' bombardment. Everything from standard
missiles to "mass driver' rocks.
As I understand the 'background,' GZG 'standard' ships weapons are a type of
particle beam. Can you bombard a planet with them? Actually no. Why? Having
gotten an opportunity to attend a class on proposed "High Energy Weapons" for
the Air Force, I found that particle beams come in two types: Neutral and
Charged.
As I recall, Charged work wonderful out in the vacuum of space. And they are
highly ineffective inside a planetary magnetosphere. Neutrals are just the
opposite. So if your ships are 'optimized' to fight in a vacuum, then they
would be equipped with Charged particle beam cannon. While any ground
bombardment
would require a VERY low orbit and a dedicated Neutral particle beam cannon.
For another example, I'm planning my 'game' around the Star Frontiers game
universe. Standard ship weapons are lasers, 3 types of particle beams,
(Proton, Electron, and a 'Disrupter' beam which alternates between the two)
missiles, 'torpedoes', and rockets. So how am I going to run orbital
bombardment? Well, if they develop and use a 'neutral' particle beam. The
attacking ship would have to come down to a VERY low, (atmosphere skimming)
orbit and fire. Leaving it highly vulnerable to response from surface based
laser, or missile weapons. Laser weapons, (the ships 'main' cannon or fixed
forward mounted) could be used. But lasers are very susceptible to atmospheric
interference, and again the ship would have to come very close to the planet
to be accurate and effective. So likely, in my game, orbital bombardment would
consist of missiles, rockets, or torpedoes adapted to making surface attacks.
While not 'standard' systems, standard models of each could be adapted to the
job. But they would 'lose' some of their ability in order to do the job they
are not optimized for. For the main part, any 'surface' attacks done will
probably be by small,
atmosphere capable ships, and fighters doing attack runs. (Of course leaving
them open to attack by ground targets in return)
I plan on 'upgrading' the standard SF: Knight Hawks background with some of
the other FT weapons, such as the Pulse Torpedo, Plasma guns, Salvo Missile
launchers, as well as the Kinetic weapons. But other than (again) the missile,
and possible some of the larger K weapons, I'd rate the Plasma weapons as
minimally effective against any planet with an atmosphere. And anything that's
in a vacuum can mount shield generators for protection and can bury themselves
into the surface so might not be that effected by them either:o)
The 'idea' of comparing the Pacific Island campaign to a space campaign only
goes as far as general operations and logistics. If your going to think of
shore bombardment as comparable to surface bombardment from orbit, then you
should really look at the success rate of United States and Japanese
submarines in shore bombardment. From UNDER WATER! (Needless to say it never
happened:o)
The environments and weapons used are different and the two, without special
adaptation such as sub-roc, sub launched cruise missiles, and land
attack missiles, rarely meet.
Randy
> For example, can you do orbital bombardment in Star Trek? Why sure! And
(Note they never >gave a good idea how high this was:o) and you can take out a
single building with the full >force of the ships weapons and even carpet bomb
and small area with fire without >endangering your landing party!
> (Extra points for naming the episodes :o)
"A Piece of the Action" if I remember correctly...
> As I understand the 'background,' GZG 'standard' ships weapons are a
Having gotten an >opportunity to attend a class on proposed "High Energy
Weapons" for the Air Force, I >found that particle beams come in two types:
Neutral and Charged.
> As I recall, Charged work wonderful out in the vacuum of space. And
There was an excellent article of this in the JTAS (Journal of the Travelers
Aid Society). I don't remember the issue. In it listed the possiblity of
having a combined particle beam capable of both charged and neutral. End
result is the best of both worlds...
> The 'idea' of comparing the Pacific Island campaign to a space campaign
They can do it now days with cruise missile and ballistic missiles.
> The environments and weapons used are different and the two, without
Sure, but the same platform carriers the weapons. And often the weapons mount
fires both types, espcially torpedoe tubes that fire both torpedoes and cruise
missiles.
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
> >For example, can you do orbital bombardment in Star Trek? Why sure!
And
> quite >accurately too! You can stun ONLY a single city block from
For the "stun a city block" incident, yes. The single building was "Who Mourns
For Adonis?". They take out Apollo's temple. As for the carpet bombing
incident, even a ravening Star trek geek like myself is not sure. If he's
referring to "Arena", that was some sort of mortar, and not fire from the
Enterprise.
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> There was an excellent article of this in the JTAS
JTAS 20, p40. Spinal Mounts Revisited
Goes over CPAWS dispersing in space.
On the subject of NPAWs, it suggests that shooting
high-speed neutrons at a target carrying fissile
materials would probably cause catastrophic failure.
Doesn't say anything about switchables. Might be in
25-36, which aren't out as reprints yet. :)
> "A Piece of the Action" if I remember correctly...
Wasn't more wierd than that? Stunned the block EXCEPT for the room in which
they were sitting?
Note, I loved ST all the time it was on, in most varieties. However, always
inspite of flaws.
The_Beast
In a message dated 2/8/03 2:41:37 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> ias@sprintmail.com writes:
> >For example, can you do orbital bombardment in Star Trek? Why sure!
And
> quite >accurately too! You can stun ONLY a single city block from
Yep that's one of em....
devans@nebraska.edu said:
> Wasn't more wierd than that? Stunned the block EXCEPT for the room in
Again, yup:o)
s666@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca said:
> The single building was "Who Mourns For Adonis?". They take out
And another one where they blasted the "Snake head Temple" but the name
escapes me.
> As for the carpet bombing incident, even a ravening Star trek geek like
True. I'd mis-remembered. I recall the 'book' form had the Enterprise
attacking the surface to cover the landing party. But I could be wrong there
too. Still.... If you can stun a whole City block except for the room your
landing party is in....
Randy
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/8/03 2:41:37 PM Mountain Standard Time,
And
> > quite >accurately too! You can stun ONLY a single city block from
"The Apple"
> >As for the carpet bombing incident, even a ravening Star trek geek
The Blish novelization of "Doomsday machine" was alot different than the TV
show as well.