Okay, time for my random musings. Note that I don't have FT (just SG2 and the
EFSB) so I may be a little off in terms of game mechanics.
First of all, I would place any dirtside defenses either in an armored
silo/housing buried in the ground (On an elevating platform in the case
of direct fire weapons), underwater or on mobile platforms such as trains.
Perhaps submarines would be a suitable platform for missiles. I have no idea
about atmospheric diffusion of lasers, but with a fixed emplacement you could
provide quite a bit of wattage.
"Okay people, we're shutting off the MegaTropolis power grid- it's time
to power up the Planetary Defense Lasers!"
Small unmanned ships (larger than a fighter but smaller than a System
Defense Boat), perhaps hiding in the ocean, could piggyback high-yield
nuclear missiles. The missiles would be a target, and many would be shot
down, but with many missiles, carriers and a bunch of payload-less drone
missiles the enemy fleet might get overwhelmed. These missile boats could also
carry SMLs. Since they have no crew, after launching their payload they might
as well auger into the enemy ships too.
Massdrivers might work okay, perhaps firing really big nuclear shells.
I would also try to put a lot of this stuff in orbit and/or on natural
satellites.
That's all I can think of now...
It is a similar situation to what is currently available in terms of Air
superiority. Currently, unless you own the air, you are highly
vulnerable to aerial strikes - bombs, missiles etc. You can set up
static AA defenses, even dig them in, but in relative terms they are immobile
and easily identified and therefore can be easily disrupted, if not destroyed.
Translating this to a space based superiority it should be relatively easy for
attacking ships to remain outside of the effective range of ground based
systems or at least out of arc, map them out and then deal with them
appropriately. Whether that is dropping a 50M boulder to make a crater 2 miles
wide and 300 meters deep, shaking everything for dozens of miles to a dozen
titanium rods to penetrate a missile silo cover, these things can
be done leisurely and accurately once a fleet has acheived space domination.
On the other hand, a good offense is a good defense. If you're stripped down
to only planetary defenses you' probably in dire straits anyway. Having a good
space navy could make planetary defense a much less critical job since you can
intercept stuff with time and space to spare.
--Binhan
> Los wrote:
> OK I've noticed that many people on this list seem to assume that
Given how hard it is to damage a ship in space from another ship, I'd think
the atmosphere and the gravity well make planet-based defenses very hard
to pull off.
I figure the missiles launched from the planet take twice as long to reach
their target (so make them cheaper and easier to shoot down).
Railguns on the planet need way more power to overcome gravity, so they
probably don't track well.
I'm not sure about particle beams or non-visible spectrum lasers, but
the atmosphere is is great scatterer of visible light (especially sky blue, eh
?). I don't know the numbers, but I bet Indy does. I'd bet that visible
spectrum lasers will also prove infeasible.
My best guess is close-orbit stations and automated weapons platforms.
Depends on the genre as well:
Energy Shields and Hyper Missiles with the moon as a battle planetoid
(mutineers moon etc)
Energy Shield, Ion Cannons (star wars)
Orbiting SML's and HBW (b5)
Bugger all (star trek - as vger (STTMP) and the probe (TVH)
had no real opposition)
Plasma Squirts (STtoopers)
> Los wrote:
How
> > effective would be ground based wepons? Obviously they could be very
I would go for stealth 'one shot one kill' if I was designing ground side
defenses. I would accept that if my ground defenses (big guns) were detected
from orbit they would be destroyed without any impact on the enemy from a safe
range. My response would be to stealth them out (put them in the ground, power
down, anything that would work). The plan is that the enemy fleet spends time
out of range scanning my planet (is that an industrial park, iron deposit, or
a powered down weapon system?) and wait for it to decide things are safe and
move in to drop troops. I assume an
enemy fleet could/would use any number of 'stand off' weapons to deal
with a fixed weapon from outside the range of any of the planetary defenses it
detected. When the enemy fleet moves in the (remaining, some would be
detected - but then maybe they were decoys) ground weapons open up.
Maybe only one system would open up allowing the enemy fleet to retreat out of
range (after a kill or two hopefully) and sucker the fleet back in for a
second round with other weapon systems (I assume the destruction of the
first).
The weapons on the ground could also be impressive. If a race can field
large numbers of 20-40 mass ships with lots of expensive things like FTL
drives then why not a couple of installations with the equivalent of one shot
pulse torps? Ten pulse torps fired at close range (something in
orbit, would that be a 2+ hit?) could cause all kinds of damage and if
they got a second shot off all the better. You could even make an argument for
weapons on the ground taking up less mass. You wouldn't need all the
supporting stuff that is used in space, and if they are throw aways (fire off
your one or two volleys and then evacuate the complex) then they might be
smaller yet.
I would think that the targeting systems on my ground defenses would be better
also. I could place them all over the planet, put stealthed satellites with
passive systems in orbit with the rest of the junk. The satellites could
follow the same plan, stay 'passive' until the right moment and then go strong
active to support one shot and expect to die. I would just hope to have enough
in orbit that you will run out of ships before I run out of satellites.
The answer would be to send in the troops without the orbital support to
search and destroy any of these possible defenses prior to the fleet coming
in. The response to that would be to put up so much 'interface' defense that
you could slaughter any assault.
I'm also assuming here that the enemy in question wants to capture the
planet/population/industry intact. If genocide is acceptable then all
bets are off.
Just a thought
Chad
OK I've noticed that many people on this list seem to assume that orbital
strikes, ortillery and woning orbit means it's pretty much all over for a
planet, that it might as well roll over and die.
I'd like to throw it back at everyone and ask, if you had to design a
planetary defense to counter such a situation what could be done? How
effective would be ground based wepons? Obviously they could be very effective
against atmospheric craft but what about Stuff in space?
I know fixed defenses may be a problem but what about underground defense
complexes connected by hundreds of kilometer of underground rail where heavy
weapons fuel with the vast power reserves available to a planet could pop up
shoot and scoot? Any ideas? I'm thinking about defensing the planet here not
subjugating it.
I would like to think about your problem in a different angle.
If a race lives in the atmosphere of a given planet, then that race is very
vulnerable to space attack for the purpose of obliteration. All that is
required from an offensive force is to build devices that will destroy the
atmosphere. In case of the earth, a large number of nukes would suffice to do
the trick (think also about bio warfare). After a number of years of war like
that, not a living creature would be left in good health to keep fighting. In
this scenario, the offensive force is not planning to occupy the planet
afterward. Also, the offensive force does not have to come close to the
planet; it can lob those nukes from far away. The defense system will stop
some, but it would not take too many misses to wreck the planet.
Second scenario, the offensive force wants to occupy the planet. Now, this is
a totally different game. 1) They must identify what to shoot at. They can do
this through intelligence or by getting close to the planet. 2) They must be
able to aim at the specified targets. They can do this by getting close to the
planet. 3) They must survive the attack. In this scenario, the roles are
reversed because the offensive force needs to get close to the planet while
securing the artificial environment in which they live. I will not discuss
about the technological issues, but the
earlier observations (previous e-mail) on power requirement seem to
indicate that the planet is better equipped to destroy all space installation
that come too close. In this scenario, the analogy with the air force makes
sense: even in the event that the offensive force win space superiority,
grunts are still required on the ground to take over the defensive operations.
Third scenario, the defensive force does not employ the atmosphere provided by
the planet (like Moon Base Alpha in Space 1999). Quickly, this seems to be a
variant of the second scenario. (I must think more about that since destroying
the planet based envrionment systems does not deny the planet to the offensive
forces)
It seems to me that the most important factor is whether the offensive forces
are taking the planet over or if they are getting rid of rodents.
JP
> OK I've noticed that many people on this list seem to assume that
Do you mean to ask, what sort of planetary defenses would there be in the FT
universe, ~2183 AD, or how to build effective planetary defenses using the
various FT rules?
If you want _effective_ planetary defenses, I recommend halving the
hull and structure costs (but not necessarily the armor costs) for planetary
bases. This takes into account the fact that life support and living space are
comparitively free, and some defenses are
really cheap, just bury your facilities under a _lot_ of dirt, rock,
sand and concrete.
I'd put some really long range beam batteries on the various moons. They'd be
limited to 1 or 2 arcs, and turning the moon isn't really an option.
Planet based fighter groups and missile racks are probably the best from a
game mechanics point of view. The planet can launch its defense before the
attacker can hit them, the defenses don't risk being plinked to death from
long range.
The question then arises, is it better to have one big Uber-Base
or several dozen minimal sized bases?
If you have lots of small bases with one Salvo Missile Rack, long range, each,
it is possible that the enemy won't be able to detect all of your bases before
they fire, or detect which ones actually still have weapons left. Even if the
attackers scanners can detect bases and determine their approximate size, a
couple hundred 6 point bases mixed with some large number equipped with
missiles could be very hard to dig out.
> You wrote:
> Planet based fighter groups and missile racks are probably the best
Point--if you've got moons to play with, whether they be monsters like
Luna or pebbles like Phobos and Deimos, those would seem to me to be the best
place to base fighters. Less of a gravity well to fight out of and no nasty
atmosphere to slow you down.
Another point re: lobbing rocks or asteroids. Would all star systems or even
most even have asteroid belts or rocks floating around in sufficient quantity
to find and use effectively?
Re: Fighters, These quick moving buggers could serve as good high altitude
launch platforms for SMLs or whatever. SOrt of like the ASAT missles we had
for F15s.
There's a lot of good ideas. Now another question. Where does all this leave
an occupying force that now has to turn around and hold a planet or colony
without years of prep time? (Most of teh occupying fleet has to move on to
other stuff. I'm talking mobile PD equipment here. While we know that we have
mobile
ADA/SAM
units. What about ODA (orbital defense artillery) and SOM (Surface to Orbit
missles)?
> Tom McCarthy wrote:
> I figure the missiles launched from the planet take twice as long to
Yes I believe it woudln't be too hard to get Salvo missles into orbit with a
booster. A whole planet and could conceivably ahd thousands of these things
sufficient to swamp anyone that get's too close.
> Railguns on the planet need way more power to overcome gravity, so
True but a planet could again have infinately more power available to it than
whatever a hsip carries. In fact now that I think of it, scew the booster SML
concept. Launch SMLS via railgun. (Small SMLs) It gets them into orbit without
a discernable signature,and then tey take over from there.
> I'm not sure about particle beams or non-visible spectrum lasers, but
We talked about this a few weeks ago. The US is fielding an operational
fleet of seven 747-400 mounted ABM lasers. They've liked the atmosphere
thing in testing at least. Power would be the main consideration.
> My best guess is close-orbit stations and automated weapons platforms.
I agree this is obvously the best option. Don't loose the space battle!
As far as fixed defenses, who needs them? We can have mobile defenses based
loosely on the Soviet rail mounted ICBM launchers where they have a several
hundred square kilometer area to stick and move from. Shitty weather, good
ECM, and electronic masking can make targetting from orbit pretty damn hard.
And as for sitting around lobbing nukes into a planet. A nuke, a bomb or a
missile can be shot done given sophisticated tracking just like any thing
else.
Now dropping a boulder big enough to wipe out 300 sq miles is a little tough
to stop. Almost as tough as it would be to get the thing and fling it into the
planet with accuracy from a safe enough distance without jeapordizing the
ship. If you are using smaller boulder for point underground targets, agian
it's something that can be "hit". Though the pieces will still come down
somewhere, again we are looking to screw up and enlarge the CEP of the falling
object.
Obviously so much of this is situation specific, but I have to believe a
planet, could have greater potential resources and staying power than the
fleet sitting up in orbit.
Hey you guys are all intelligent enough to sit around and come up with pat
answers on bombing a planet into submisison but noone can think of a way to
defend it? I don't buy that. <grinning, ducking, running> I'm looking for
solutions that don't involve space based defense. That's obvious. And
essential. What about Close in defense? Think of a naval example. When a naval
task force losses it's air cover it stilll has something to fall back upon to
defend itself from missle and air strikes. Nothing is 100% of course.
> At 02:16 PM 9/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
Even better would be orbital weapons platforms supplemented by various land
based weapon sites. The dirtside sites would have to be very long range
batteries. The strategy would be to force the enemy to go after the OWPs
first, allowing the planet based sites to operate with immunity (for a while
anyway). Basically a space based version of defence in depth. I just finished
"In Death Ground", so the idea of OWPs is very fresh in my mind.
> At 11:32 AM 9/25/98 -0700, you wrote:
Actually, a friend and I have been working on that question in private
e-mail recently. We are putting together a campaign game using GDW's
Imperium and Don Hawthorne's "Integration Packet 001" as starting point.
<http://www.wizard.net/~caw/intpackets.htm>
Instead of trying to design FT analogs for the ships in Imperium as Hawthorne
suggests, we'll probably just be using FB ships (FSE & NSL respectively) for
the tactical combat.
Anyway, since planetary defenses are fairly important in Imperium, we will be
trying to make them effective in the campaign as well. Since we are trying to
simulate a specific universe with a fairly well developed technological
background, some of our assumptions may not apply to a more general discussion
of planetary defenses.
First of all, planetary defenses in the Imperium universe are not perfect.
Massive orbital bombardment can neutralize or destroy it before it can reply
in kind. If it fails to do so, the defenses can attack every ship in the fleet
with a moderate chance of destroying each. I interpret this to
be an strategic level abstraction of a FT-style battle in which the
attacking fleet must damage or destroy a significant portion of the defense
network quickly before its weapons can wear them down. The levels of firepower
needed for a quick kill on a planetary defense are formidable; the equivalent
of up to 4 or 5 of their largest capital ships or 7 to 9 heavy cruisers.
Secondly, all inhabited planets possess some inherent level of planetary
defenses (depending on the size of the settlement) at no cost. Players can
expend resources to upgrade these basic defenses, effectively doubling (or
more) their firepower and durability. Any planetary defense is capable of
striking down any starship that bombards or ground force that tries to land on
the planet although some units (such as capital ships and jump troops) are
more resistant to these attacks.
Third, the upgraded planetary defenses are not very expensive relative to
starships. In Imperium, a planetary defense marker is 10 resource units; less
than the price of a heavy cruiser. Part of this is probably the result of the
ship design assumptions in the Traveller universe; their starships require a
much higher proportion of their mass for FTL drives and
fuel. This same principle applies to non-FTL ships such as monitors
(capital ship firepower and defenses for light cruiser prices) as well. Were
we to simulate this properly, we would tinker with the FT 2.5 design system to
increase the mass requirements for drives. As it is, we are considering a
quick hack method which is to adjust the economic system's point conversion
rate to allow a player twice as many FT points per RU for planetary defenses
or monitors as we do for regular starships.
The ideas we have been kicking around are things like a swarm of SLM box
launchers in low orbit, discounts for some things like armor on ground bases
(hey, dirt is cheap), a few really large beam weapons with limited
arcs, a network of PDS-equipped satellites, etc.
One of the more radical options proposed would be to treat a planetary defense
network in the abstract as one big installation (or a sectional installation)
with the unusual array of weapons. All ranges would be measured to or from any
point on the surface of the planet (I use a 12" globe), not the center. This
cuts both ways; it gives the defenses a large "footprint" but makes it all
equally vulnerable. Not quite sure how hull points or thresholds fit in, maybe
they would represent the strength of
dug-in defense installations and maybe they would represent the amount
of bombardment the planet would be willing to put up with before throwing in
the towel.
This would be a highly abstracted representation of what I visualize as a
network of satellites, mine fields, hidden sensor arrays, bunkers, dispersed
launch silos, subterranean meson cannons, PDS air defense launchers, fiber
optic land lines, comsat links, etc. This has the advantage of being much
easier to game than keeping individual stats for
60-bazillion tiny weapons platforms (plus decoys).
Fighters are also an important weapon for planetary defense, but since they
are handled separately in Imperium, I've left them as a distinct system.
I
would say that any planet can provide unlimited "free" base capacity for any
fighter squadrons based there. (ie, not need to buy a hangar bay) I would also
assume that the fighters are aerospace vehicles and need not worry greatly
about launching. Or you can have them spend a point of endurance in taking off
if you like.
I have one problem with the "stand off and bomb the planet into oblivion"
approach. Why are you attacking the planet anyway? Chances are you want
something from it. Doesn't make sense to obliterate it. Of course, a battle
can only go on so long before a commander decides to say f**k it and eliminate
all resistance.
As for effective defences, for worlds with water, submarines with (sub)surface
to orbit missiles have some chance of being effective. I'd guess that they'd
hug the ocean floor playing "I'm a coral reef" until they fired then they'd
have to scoot away to avoid being blasted to bits. I'd see large grav vehicles
with big weapons speeding around stopping to shoot every once in a while. If
they had energy weapons they're going to have really powerful generators
anyway, so they may be able to "make tracks" so to speak after they shoot.
Flying missile launchers could be deployed as the enemy fleet was coming at
the planet. They could be robotic, so they could almost be rocket powered up
to altitude.
Of coursem for Robotech fans, dig really big holes in the ground at various
points around the world. Use those as incredibly large weapon barrels. It's
just a matter of keeping the weapon hidden until it firing it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem here is that with any non underground defence system, a decent EMP
blast would knock it out. Or a nuke.
I would argue any planetary defence has to be off planet (keep off planet
stupid: Howard Anderson TFN [Starfire]), with support ships (Monitors and
Planetary Defence Cruisers). The problem here is big is vunerable, and small
lacks firepower.
Also needed is lots of fighters to block any holes in your coverage.
Darryl
[quoted original message omitted]
> Darryl Adams wrote:
Another point is political. For instance, no country today seriously designs
its bases to survive nuclear attack, because A. it's impossible, and B. It's
about as likely as an alien invasion. The point is, that in a human universe,
or a universe where humans and aliens have had a fair amount of political
contact, there will be political considerations on what type of planetary
defense set ups you have. For example, in a very old, stable political
setting, planets may have no defenses at all, the policy being to fight until
the fleet is out matched, and then withdraw, expecting things to be settled
during the negotiations.
On the other hand, with beserker/K'vak style enemies, planets
will be
fortified as much as possible-- the aliens will show no mercy and
forcing them to utterly destroy a biosphere to neutralize the defenses
works to the defenders advantage-- except for the fellows on the planet,
of course.
> Charles Gray wrote:
The Swiss are a notable exception. Also, the Germans have a very bizarre idea
about nuclear defense. They have built several nuclear bomb shelters for
historical, cultural, technical archives.
IAS
> Another point is political. For instance, no country today
Eric brings up some interesting ideas, and I hearken back to my Traveller days
to bring up a few interesting points regarding planetary defense.
one of the standard ideas for Traveller is the Deep Site Meson Gun which can
fire out to near orbit, no matter what the atmosphere. these sites are usually
buried under mountains or undersea.
In MegaTraveller, Terrance McInnes did a series of 3 articles that
appeared in Challenge Magazine #55-#57
which postulated the use of very large grav powered submersibles for last line
of defense craft. they were armed with a whole buncha detonation laser
missles, and lasers. the sensors were carried on floats with long tethers,
allowing the ships to maintain passive ops til the last minute. they were
hidden in undersea caves until needed. this is also not a bad idea for small
system defense craft, they just need to be streamlined.
the idea of using a Trident sub as an SDB is almost appealing, you could mount
space combat nukes instead of ICBM's. yeah I know thats a major stretch, but
its the same basic concept
One reasonable strategy for poorer colony worlds is to surrender and mount
guerilla campaigns against the invader's ground forces. Passive resistance and
industrial sabotage could make an invader's life very difficult. Of course,
the invaders could always commit attrocities, like shooting entire villages
and so on. Just think occupied Europe during WWII.
> On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Eric Fialkowski wrote:
> I have one problem with the "stand off and bomb the planet into
Well, it does in some cases.
a) You might be an alien attacker with motivation incomprehensible to humans
b) You might be a religious/political fanatic with motivation
incomprehensible to sane humans :-)
c) The planet might not contain anything of value besides the enemy base(s) d)
The *threat* of total annihilation coupled with demonstrated ability can cause
a surrender. You do remember Hiroshima, don't you?
Standoff tactics are boring as hell to game. But they can work, and they're
typically the safest option in terms of manpower. Thus, if time is on your
side, they're likely to be the first thing to try.
> course, the invaders could always commit attrocities, like
Or eating the inhabitants as "In Death Ground" Depending on what the
conquerers have in mind determines the ferocity of the resistance.
As far as genre specific planetary defenses go, some friends of mine and I
were running an abortive space campaign based on the W40K universe. Eldar
planets were defended not by planetary screens but by planetary Holo fields (a
40K system that creates a spray of confusing images and patterns around a
vehicle or figure). Most of the other planetary defense weapons were at least
slightly mobile, and the really big ones were heavily camoflaged. The Holo
Field made it difficult to spot launch points and energy batteries when they
fired. We decided it was created by an ionospheric effect similar to some of
the wilder rumors about the USAF Harp project up in Alaska.
Admittedly, this may not be very useful when dealing with FT, but don't limit
your imagination when you're dealing with this kind of stuff.:)
> Eric Fialkowski wrote:
> I'd see large grav vehicles with big weapons speeding around stopping
On heavily-settled planets, the mobile weapons platforms might not need
such large power generators. They could hook up to pre-positioned
'power links' to the planetary grid, fire, then be off again. Admittedly, your
grid would eventually begin to fray under an orbital bombardment, but you
could get a much bigger beam weapon on your mobile unit.
(In a Gernsbeck universe, your defending units could even depend on broadcast
power.);)
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Well, it does in some cases.
Well I think we already established a while that if your dealing with some
opponent bent purely on annihlation (Arachnids, Bugs, berserkers, Doomsday
devices any numberof scifi enemies or opponents summed up in your arguments
above) then defensive options are seriously limited.
But think of even the GZG universe. These wars are much more power
politic/cold war type affairs. Noone is going to be annihlating anyone
else just like major and minor wars have been fought since WW2 without people
using NBC weapons. SO the theat of nuclear annihlation is a limited threat. Of
course the occassional nuke lobbed down from orbit is going to happne now and
then, but a planet sufficiently prepared should be able to ride even a number
of simultaneous hits out.
Even in the extreme GW universe, Where major races are going at it always, an
exterminatus is almost only conducted when a Genestealer cult infestation has
become to deep to arrest.
You look at Weber's stuff, ie Honr Harrington, these aren't really wars of
annihlation either, the resources on the planet People. mineral, wahever are
too valuable to waste.
However, you take new Israel and they DO have a much more differnt situation
to deal with Intyheir minds, the Islamic Federation is most likely bent on teh
physical destruction of tehir peole and tehir world (I'm speculating of
course), so I believe that a comnutry like taht would take every effort to
have the most formidible of defense, both in fleet units, orbital defenses and
ground installations.
Mikko spake thusly upon matters weighty:
In the interests of political correctness and brotherly understanding, I have
provided translations of your obviously unfortunate and poorly informed word
choices. No doubt a fault of society's very fabric rather than any personal
defficiency....
> a) You might be an alien attacker with motivation incomprehensible to
a) You might be a non-terrestrial sentient being with motivations
which appear difficult to understand unless due consideration for your racial
physiology, history, biology, sociology, and culture is applied.
> b) You might be a religious/political fanatic with motivation
b) You might be a terran or non-terrestrial sentient of spiritual
inclination whose World View encompasses a very different set of
ethnic, cultural, mythological, and non-secular belief objects. This
non-scientific and possibly holistic approach may seem unfathomable
to technocratic secularists, but with due empathy and open minded
consideration they could surely come to appreciate the values of your
religious tradition (and if not, God knows what to do with them).
> c) The planet might not contain anything of value besides the enemy
Ergo nothing of value.
> d) The *threat* of total annihilation coupled with demonstrated
Sure. And do you think that if the Japanese too had had the bomb and the
ability to deliver it that the US would have Nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I
doubt it. They wouldn't have wanted to open that door. It's one thing if
you're the only one who can do it....it's another if it can be done back to
you. But the lessons here still apply to space combat and planetary
bombardment.
> Standoff tactics are boring as hell to game. But they can work, and
Ratiocination and Attritional Warfare by whatever means are usually the
tactics employed by those who don't have the raw manpower to push through all
opposition, but they are very effective and reasonably conservative.
/************************************************
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Tom McCarthy wrote:
Try railguns powered by huge sources of energy such as geothermal or linked
subterrainean fusion reactors. Enough power to overcome gravity easily and to
still hurl big chunks of mass at high speed accurately (I think).
> We talked about this a few weeks ago. The US is fielding an
Sure they aren't X-Ray lasers though?
> As far as fixed defenses, who needs them? We can have mobile defenses
Of course, weather works both ways.
> And as for sitting around lobbing nukes into a planet. A nuke, a bomb
Sure, I just lob some ECM drones (a SFB concept) which project the image of
ten missiles onto groundside tracking, a bunch of dummy missiles, and my nukes
scattered between. But for every attack a
counter.....
> Now dropping a boulder big enough to wipe out 300 sq miles is a little
Difficult to do. But how about simply a few thousand pound (one volkswaggen
worth a la New Jersey) chunk of metal (maybe with an ablative coating)
launched in at some decent fraction of C. Bang! Nuclear bomb, comes in faster,
hits just as hard. Way cheaper to field. Can be fired on ballistic trajectory
from outside of defender weapons range. No guidance to fool.
> Obviously so much of this is situation specific, but I have to believe
Or not. Depends on lots of things. Atmosphere is a good defensive
factor - makes space fighters function less well, slows ordinance,
disipates beams. By en large, a planet only has to have enough force to deter
attackers, not destroy. In theory, your fleet would be doing that.
> Hey you guys are all intelligent enough to sit around and come up with
Actually, I think people can come up with point and counter for quite a while
and (like the PA discussion and the FTL discussion and others) all depends on
relative costs of technology and its efficiency for the task. So its all
'referee' or 'campaign designer' dependent in the end analysis.
I'm
> looking for solutions that don't involve space based defense. That's
Military installations would have short range, high power gatling laser point
defences (powered from their power plants), counter missiles, high speed
railguns, lots of concrete, dirt, ablative shielding, EW (backed by a LOT of
power), etc. It might not be hard to nuke a city from orbit, but Nuking the
Septagon(Hexagon, Dodecagon whatever) defence HQ might be 1) hard to do 2) a
minor irritation to its occupants. It may be that ground assault is still
needed (or a hell of a lot of will to spend ships and missiles and other
ordinance) to root out fortified ground defences.
/************************************************
Los spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> There's a lot of good ideas. Now another question. Where does all this
As an attacker, when I leave, I'd better have left enough forces to control
the space around my target in most expected threat conditions
- that means small, fast deployment break-down fighter bases and
fighters (and close aerospace support gunships and transports), small orbital
artillery platforms, surveillance sats, some defsats (to deter fleets from
trying things or blockade running), some small fleet elements. And lots of
PBI.
Tom.
/************************************************
Jean-Pierre spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I would like to think about your problem in a different angle.
All
> that is required from an offensive force is to build devices that will
No offence to nukes but you would need a LOT to make earth totally
uninhabitable. You'd need a fairly large number just to make the majority of
it difficult to inhabit.
After a number of
> years of war like that, not a living creature would be left in good
Wouldn't it? I think we're talking in the high thousands or possibly tens of
thousands to make someplace like Earth unpopulable. I think you underrate the
recovery of the biosphere. It can take quite a slug and keep on ticking. Now,
it may change how life is conducted, but it may well be just fine for survival
with a few new steps (time to move underground).
> Second scenario, the offensive force wants to occupy the planet.
In
> this scenario, the roles are reversed because the offensive force
And a way to conduct this attack (given your comments on the power of ground
based weapons) would be thousands of drop pods (some full, some dummies, some
EW images) to swamp the defences and let your troopies on the ground take out
weapons installations to let the fleet move in. Sounds like a job for Marines!
OTOH, attacking a
fortified high-pop planet has to be a non-starter because they'd have
the weaponry, the power, the sensors, and the ground troops to forestall
orbital attack and invasion.
> It seems to me that the most important factor is whether the
Why do I get the feeling when you speak of getting rid of rodents this is a
reference to what you plan to have your ESU fleet do to your gaming
companions, JP? (Grin)
Tom.
/************************************************
> Mikko writes:
> Standoff tactics are boring as hell to game. But they can work, and
True - the vast majority of wartime situations are really boring to game
out, tactically. They are much more interesting in an
operational/strategic sense, however.
> kwalsh writes:
> the idea of using a Trident sub as an SDB is almost appealing, you
Not that much of a stretch. Given an efficient, powerful spacedrive
(whatever that might be...) a sub is pretty much a ready-made
spacecraft. Sealed environment, lots of space to work with. If you rip out the
missiles of an Ohio-class SSBN, or, Lenin forbid, a Typhoon-class, you'd
have a lot of space to play with. A Typhoon, puttering around with a bellyful
of SMs or MT missiles would be scary. In the Traveller milieu,
space missiles were even smaller than modern SLBMs - about 7 cubic
meters, as I remember from TNE.
Actually, even a low-efficiency spacedrive would work well on a sub -
ion drives, maybe.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Los wrote:
What about something like the "Grand Cannon" from the anime "Macross" (or the
first third of "Robotech")?
The barrel was several hundred feet in diameter, and
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Los wrote:
> But think of even the GZG universe.
Frankly, I could not care less for the Official(tm) GZG universe.
There are valid reasons to obliterate a planet. There are valid reasons not
to. That's all.
> You look at Weber's stuff, ie Honr Harrington, these aren't really
Orbital bombarding a "dead" planet is not going to make it any more dead (and
you don't have to use nukes), nor destroy raw material resources like mineral
deposits. As for capturing enemy bases intact... well I don't think it's a
very reasonable chance.
> ----------
All
> > that is required from an offensive force is to build devices that
It seems that technology is better at destroying live habitats than sustaining
them. At the present time, we are able to pulverize large cities. In the years
where technology will be able to carry large ships through solar systems in a
reasonable amount of time, then I believe the same technology could be used to
destroy (or make unhabitable) large area of terrain.
> After a number of
You are referring to wars as we have known them. Bio-wars and the likes
will bring a very different reality.
> > It seems to me that the most important factor is whether the
Actually, I think I was thinking about you :-)
> Tom.
JP
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Frankly, I could not care less for the Official(tm) GZG universe.
So what? A large portion of the people carrying on this discussion do.
> There are valid reasons to obliterate a planet.
Yes and the discussion about planetary defenses revovles primarily around the
latter. Continuing to harp on just annihlating the planet has no relevance on
the discussion after being stated once. The discussion ais about how to defend
the planet once you have decided to. Not whether it could or should even be
botehred with.
> > You look at Weber's stuff, ie Honr Harrington, these aren't really
It does if whoever you plan on putting down there to harvest the minerals
(i.e. humans) have an adverse reaction to deadly radiation or the aftermaths
of whatever other type of method of annihlation is used? (i.e.biological
etc).
> As for capturing enemy bases intact... well I don't
Intelligence gathering raids have been a staple of warfare over the past
several thousand years. If you can secure an enemy facility by hook or by
crook, extract whatever you are looking for (beings or data) and get out, then
you work to that end. Heck a plausable example of this in the SF world is the
Kra'Vak raid on ROSS 142 in "Karl's Kidnap" which was posted on the unofficial
stargrunt website. The Kra'Vak forces secured orbit, came down, assaulted the
colony complex with infantry, were looking for some "unknown thing" at the
colony facility, then hauled ass out. They left a little "see ya later"
orbital bombardment then were gone.
> What about something like the "Grand Cannon" from
Correct me if I am wrong but didn`t something like that need mirrors in orbit
so it could be aimed? Once the mirrors went down wasn`t it kinda of
ineffective?
> If a race lives in the atmosphere of a given planet, then that
All
> that is required from an offensive force is to build devices that
Or a few really big ones
The Macross version was limited in arc in that it didn't have mirrors. It was
somewhat aimable in that it could cover a
portion of the sky - in the series it eradicates a couple of
hundred (thousand?) ships in a beam a couple of miles wide
that went whipping around the sky like a search-light. If I
remember correctly it was located somewhere in Alaska. Of course the Zentradei
ships covering the Southern Hemisphere and those over Europe were untouched.
> scipio@interlog.com wrote:
> > What about something like the "Grand Cannon" from
Guerilla operations are fine IF you are supported by the outside. No guerilla
war in history has ever won without outside (other nations) help.
> Alex Shvarts, Andrew & Brian Martin wrote:
Of
> course, the invaders could always commit attrocities, like shooting
> David wrote:
> Guerilla operations are fine IF you are supported by the outside. No
Not true at all.There have been successful internally run guerilla movements.
One of the most recent examples would be Eritrea. They fought a 30 year
struggle against Ethiopia to win their independence with virtually no outside
help. Everything theyy got and everything they learned came from the enemy.
The Ethipoians had a blank check from the Soviets as far as equipment as well
as numerous advisors.
Imagine the resources of a whole planet.
> Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
The 747 ABM laser uses visible, or very close to it, light lasers.
X-ray
lasers are typically powered by a nuclear weapon and destroy their own aimer.
The article describing the equipment, showed how the beam was predistorted to
compensate for atmospheric interference. Before you ask, the
equipment is intended to be used above the clouds. :-)
> You wrote:
> Guerilla operations are fine IF you are supported by the outside.
No >> guerilla war in history has ever won without outside (other nations) >>
help.
> Not true at all.There have been successful internally run guerilla
That's one counter-example. There aren't any others. One exception in
history. And as I've put it in the past, in military history we can find
examples of everything except one side loosing due to meteors flattening the
command staff. Do we want me to start listing sucessful
counter-insurgencies? I'll even restrict to the past 2 centuries.
Besides, the stuff I've read about the Eritreans mentioned a world-wide
support network of ex-pat Eritreans who funnelled money back home and
more importantly, got education and training on the outside then took their
skills back home.
Plus the Ethiopian were... what's a polite way to put it, less than stellarly
competent? Assuming a military organization that can find it's arse with a
flashlight and both hands the situation looks a bit different.
And last but not least, let's not forget the rather substantial
Ethiopian contribution--the Ethiopians were stuck trying to put down an
insurgency in their own country and occupy Eritrea.
> Thomas Barclay writes:
> In the interests of political correctness and brotherly
> a) You might be an alien attacker with motivation incomprehensible to
> a) You might be a non-terrestrial sentient being with motivations
> b) You might be a religious/political fanatic with motivation
> b) You might be a terran or non-terrestrial sentient of spiritual
Tom, you must have gone to the same college as I did. A big rock is now
arcing over towards your location. Duck and cover. Have a nice day.
> On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> > c) The planet might not contain anything of value besides the enemy
Well, it seemed to me that the concept of military forward/supply bases
and/or staging areas on "dead" planets whose only worth lies in their
location was forgotten and everyone just assumed that every planet worth
attacking would have a significant civilian population.
For contemporary examples, look at Truk and other Pacific atoll bases in WWII.
> Sure. And do you think that if the Japanese too had had the bomb and
Well, once things get that far, the planet receiving the bombardment is
unlikely to be able to pay back... its allies might, but the concept of
preparing for retaliation in kind (or an escalated one) applies to any
military venture anyway.
> Ratiocination and Attritional Warfare by whatever means are usually
It's also a good way to capitalize an advantage in industrial power
(especially if you lack a similar manpower advantage).
In modern times, the dollar cost of launching yet another
missile/bomb/whatever may be inconsequential compared to the political
price of yet another bodybag going back home.
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Los wrote:
> > Frankly, I could not care less for the Official(tm) GZG universe.
That while the special requirements of the GZG universe are a factor worth
considering, they are not the only background factor applicable.
Unless I missed a "thou shalt only play in the Official(tm) GZG Universe"
somewhere...
> Yes and the discussion about planetary defenses revovles primarily
Well, I do think that "total annihilation" type weapons can also be used in a
more limited fashion. If you have no defense against, say, wholesale orbital
bombardment, what is your defense against tactical "orbing"? And if you don't
have one, why wouldn't the attacker use it on you?
E.g. to parallel real world strategies, you don't have to assault the enemy
homeworld immediately when you get a chance. You might want to hit his
industrial centers with a couple of quick orbital strikes first.
> It does if whoever you plan on putting down there to harvest the
Just dropping rocks has no major aftermath on a world without an
ecosystem. Many planets are uninhabitable anyway -- including deadly
background radiation. A couple of nukes won't change that in a major way.
> Intelligence gathering raids have been a staple of warfare over the
A raid is not to capture the entire base intact.
> Heck a plausable example of this in the SF world is the Kra'Vak raid on
Why wasn't the base rigged for self-destruct once things got really bad?
That's what I meant -- the concept of assaulting a planet to gain use of
its military complexes *intact* seems a bit far-fetched to me. The
defender would just use scorched earth tactics and blow up the bases himself
when defeat seemed inevitable.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Los wrote:
I agree they can be used in a more limited fashion. Nukes for example. It
would take either a large amount or huge ones to have "permanent"
sever damage to the planet's eco-system. And on airless rocks, who
cares, drop 'em buy the dozens. But then again just because they are being
dropped from orbit doesn't mean that they can't be intercepted and destroyed
before impact.
> Just dropping rocks has no major aftermath on a world without an
Again I have to ask. Where are we finding all these rocks to drop? Admittedly
our solar system has a nice supply, which still requires getting out there to
get them. But what about other solar systems? Do they all have asteroid belts?
Are do you have to search all over creation for a few rocks. Any rock big
enough to cause teh kind of dmagae necessary to get at hardened undergorund
facilities (for example) will begin causing ebvironmental damage (nuclear
winter type stuff) if you have to drop them in sufficient quantity. Might as
well just use bombs.
> A raid is not to capture the entire base intact.
It wasn't a base it was a colony. Is Finland rigged for self destruct in case
the Russians attack? I hope my home town isn't. <grin>
> That's what I meant -- the concept of assaulting a planet to gain use
Yes a quick strike raid is more the ticket, but even that can often require
gaining at least temporary air suuperiority. Look at the Dieppe raid
(Admittedly a big abortion) That was a major operation requireing hundred of
ships and planes to put down the raiding force. I'm trying to remember the
Weber book where we see this example...Crusade that's it.
Jean-Pierre spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> It seems that technology is better at destroying live habitats than
Point taken. But then the defences may have moved forth apace.
> You are referring to wars as we have known them. Bio-wars and the
True, but they are a total unknown. We can't scope them. It is just possible
that biowars will be a fizzle (ie you inject your designer bug, and something
in the native ecosphere kills it dead). Or they could beat Nukes for
destructiveness. It's all a *projection*.
This future is all what we make it anyway....
> > Why do I get the feeling when you speak of getting rid of rodents
How touching. When Tom M next runs his con scenario, remind me to set myself
up on the opposite side of the board....just to give you the
chance to eat those fighting word.... :-)
Tom
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:23:38 -0700, Los <los@cris.com> wrote:
> Again I have to ask. Where are we finding all these rocks to drop?
Simple answer: we don't know. We're only now getting an idea of the prevalence
of planets, and even still our statistical sample is woefully short! If we
assume that Sol's system isn't radically out of whack with the rest of the
universe, then asteroids and other debris are probably pretty likely in a
system with a planet.
But, again, our statistical sample is such that we can't make any realistic
predictions. In other words, pick what you want! Since this is science
FICTION, I'd assume most habitable systems are like Sol and have asteroids.
> Any rock big enough to cause teh kind of
Except bombs are more expensive, dangerous to transfer, and more prone to
failure.A lucky hit to a cargo hold full of rocks isn't going to destroy your
mass driver ship. In fact, an argument could be made for a mass driver ship to
carry her ammunition on the OUTSIDE to use as additional armour.
You might even get some energy advantages by the fact that you don't have to
carry your ammunition around with you, until you get close to the target.
Don't forget radiation. While a nuclear bomb might be as devestating as a
planet killing asteroid, after the dust starts to settle the bomb leaves the
target radioactive. A rock doesn't (although I'd imagine you could find a rock
that would... :-) ).
> It wasn't a base it was a colony. Is Finland rigged for self destruct
Good point. I'd be willing to bet that something like Groom Lake is, however.
Noah spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Tom, you must have gone to the same college as I did. A big rock is
Let's just say that 1). Nothing brings out my right wing habits worse than
stupid,
ignorant behaviour from the so-called enlightened educated
congnoscenti. 2) Political correctness is a crock. Forthright speaking,
combined with a little bit of decorum, wisdom, and open mindedness totally
negate any need for such obviously surficial and ineffectual things. 3) I've
seen too many folk with multiple degrees getting fed by the state because they
can't be bothered to work. If you can get multiple degrees, you can sure as
hell work.
As for the big rock, I have my HKP cannon ready to splinter it as it
approaches. And I have many levels of ferroconcrete to protect me. And I can
call on my pal Yoda to throw it back your way. Nyah Nyah Nyah. (grin, ROTFL).
The thing I like about the GZG list is people speak their minds, and often
apologize if they come off abrasive without meaning to. And even the
characters (Mikko, John A, etc.) have a certain flair and panache. And even
those I differ with I think I kind of like. Can't wait to meat more of the
crew in person (a long term project).
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
...Snip...JTL
Can't
> wait to meat more of the crew in person (a long term project).
I would say that it is a long term project...10 to 20 years (with time off for
good behavior). What is the punnishment for cannibism these days?
(or were you talking in the gaming term 'meat on the table', to defeat ones
opposition?)
Or is the problem that I just cannot resist when such a line is delivered to
me?
(Belive it or not I can actually recognize a typographical error when I see
one.)
:-)
Bye for now,
> You wrote:
> The thing I like about the GZG list is people speak their minds, and
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Los wrote:
> cares, drop 'em buy the dozens. But then again just because they are
Ofcourse not.
> Again I have to ask. Where are we finding all these rocks to drop?
Allan already gave a rather good answer. All I have to add is that even in the
case where rocks are not readily available in every system, you still have to
calculate whether it's worthwhile to transport rocks (or other
kinetic ammo) with FTL tugs/tenders for example.
> creation for a few rocks. Any rock big enough to cause teh kind of
Sufficient quantity for what? To cause eco-damage? Well, sure, ofcourse.
To damage the target? Depends on a number of other variables. Not all
worthwhile military targets are (or even can be) buried beneath the local
Himalayans.
> It wasn't a base it was a colony.
Ah, we have a slight misunderstanding here. I was talking about military
bases. I'll accept the concept of raiding, especially if you manage to
catch the defenders off-guard.
> Is Finland rigged for self destruct in
Actually, we *do* build our bridges ready-to-be-rigged-for-demolition.
> Yes a quick strike raid is more the ticket, but even that can often
Agreed, but I think planetary defenses will be by their very nature very quick
to respond. Ofcourse, you could argue for knocking out static defenses on one
side of the planet and doing the raid before mobile assets can be moved.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
Apparently the crime for bad typing is public censure.:)
> Or is the problem that I just cannot resist when such a line is
Seek therapy.:)
/************************************************
> Again I have to ask. Where are we finding all these rocks to drop?
According to Space 1999, a nuclear explosion is enough to take the Moon
out of its orbit. I guess that is a big enough rock :-)
JP
P.S. This is my second and last quote of this stupid show.