Hey all,
I have been doing a massive push lately, building up a NSL fleet and tryign to
round it out by adding a few new ships designs and such. It so happes though
that I got to thinking on ortillery equipped vessels and then I thought some
more and ultimately stopped myself cold.
The problem I came upon was that it occured to me that for ortillery to be
effective, a vessel would have to remain pretty much stationary, poised over a
specific zone to be able to provide for the troops on the ground or to
target specific positions.
This led me to seriously doubt the inclusion of ortillery on conventional
ships, and perhaps the inclusion of specific ortillery platforms into my
fleet. If a ship is going to be a sitting duck while issuing fire to the
surface, it would likely be a defensive monster and wouldn't really be worth
placing much other offensive weaponry on.
I'd liek to hear others' takes on ortillery as perhaps I am missing something.
Thanks, Eli
> Eli wrote:
In one of my planetary bombardment monitor designs, I have a small ship with
thrust one and one ortillery.
The other has seven ortillery and several PDS. It's got a strong hull and
armour, as well as screens.
I've just recently thought of including two or three fighter squadrons, as
they could provide aerospace fighter support.
I haven't tried these out, just designed them.
Got it in one. The only ortillery platform I designed was for special forces
support. It had a cloak, 1 ortillery system & very little else (see webpage
for details). Ortillery monitors are only sent in after the active space
defences have been suppressed. Once you get that close to the planet, you
start dueling with the surface batteries, which (if their smart) you have to
find using sensors first. This is requires good defences.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
> -----Original Message-----
> thought some more and ultimately stopped myself cold.
In a message dated 12/2/99 10:27:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> emu2020@hotmail.com writes:
> This led me to seriously doubt the inclusion of ortillery on
That depends upon how you define your Ortillery system--If its a big
honking laser or NPB or something, then you could have some problems when it
comes to ortillery platforms in a hot environment. On the other hand, if you
define
it as a magazine/launcher/controller/FCS for a bunch of Thor
mini-sattelites...
On the (third?) hand, an ortillery system here and there throughout the fleet
could come in handy against LIGHTLY defended or undefended recalcitrants.
Rob
> On the (third?) hand,
(He chimes in helpfully:) The Gripping Hand. See the book by that title,
sequel to The Mote in God's Eye.
> an ortillery system here and there throughout the fleet
> The problem I came upon was that it occured to me that for ortillery to
This could lead to a "tender" design where a tugs pulls the batteries into
position over the planet, and then moves them to the next system when they are
"finished."
I can envision tenders moving orbital platforms into geosynchronous orbits
above the battle fields. I would bet the ortillery would be manned space
stations with no propulsions units.
Bobby
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:25:05 -0800 Sean Bayan Schoonmaker
> <schoon@aimnet.com> writes:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Bobby Mock wrote:
> I can envision tenders moving orbital platforms into geosynchronous
I would think that a self mobile ortillery platform that was dedicated (and
thus had multiplt systems) would be much preferrable as a platform than
something that needed another craft's assistance. Were it a really small
craft, I could see that. Mainly I question the use of a tug to pull an
object into position in the middle of a battle, take out/damage either
the tug or the platform and you'd have made an effective mission kill on
the platform.
I've been thinking about the Ortillery platform/Bomb ketch idea. Why not
a DD or CG sized vessel that has mostly Ortillery, lots of armour, PDS low
thrust and perhaps a fighter group for Air support? It would be fairly self
escorting with a fighter group, but that would push the cost up and the
ortillery availabilty down? Granted this doesn't deviate
from what people have proposed already, its merely a futher support of such
concepts.
The more I think about the platform idea, I wonder if towing platforms would
only be useful in a sustained conflict. The main reason that I like the towed
platform, is that you can utilize tugs that may be otherwise in use in the the
Merchant Fleet. I tend to think that multi purpose vessels would be more in
use than specialized ortillery vessels. I realize that you might ought to
paint a red circle on the orbital platforms. I guess
the cost/benefit factor would be the main reason for choosing either
type
of vessel/platform.
We need a coherent campaign system, were these issues could be explored.
Bobby
> I've been thinking about the Ortillery platform/Bomb ketch idea. Why
> On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 12:36:46PM -0500, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> low thrust and perhaps a fighter group for Air support? It would be
> such concepts.
I think most navies would adopt specialized versions -- an
all-ortillery ship for fire support and a mini-carrier for "air
superiority". You gain flexibility, and can make better use of your supply
chain.
All the ideas I've been seeing have been really informative. I've been
thinkign a bit more and got to wondering if Ortillery might be included in
Assault ships for initial support, speicalized vessels coming in when more
punch was needed, with dedicated barges, satellites, and platforms being
used for those really nasty, drawn out campaigns.
Eli
> From: Robert Crawford <crawford@kloognome.com>