Hi guys,
I've been following this thread for a while now and thought I would jump in
with some comments:
> John Atkinson wrote:
In principle I agree, although I would be reluctant to assign a hard number
like 6 million; a planet is HUGE and it is population density that makes the
biggest difference.
There are about as many people in Austin, Texas (for example) as there are in
the entire state of Alaska. Conquering each of these would present an entirely
different set of tactical problems as a result of the relative population
densities.
Austin would be harder (relatively) to conquer without collateral damage, but
would be more likely to surrender outright under threat of orbital
bombardment. In Alaska, it would be easier to seize major resources with small
forces, but harder to round up the whole population and keep an eye on them. I
suspect that most colony worlds would fit the Alaskan model.
Given an entire planet to fill up even a population of 6 million people would
be very dispersed; not all (or even most) of its population will be clustered
together in large settlements unless forced to by hostile environment, natives
or wildlife. Besides the simple desire for living space, there would be
economic motives as well; the colonists would go where the resources were. So
you would probably have numerous small settlements scattered across the
planet.
> ...Example: Israel, with 6 million
> (or is it 12 and 1? I don't recall). Taking down a force that big
Depending on the situation, a similarly large force might or might not be able
to stop a determined enemy from seizing control of a planet.
Large concentrations of troops just beg for orbital bombardment and unless
they are using their own population centers as human shields, there is no
reason the bombardment has to be indiscriminant. Kinetic strikes or low yield
nukes will make short work of large troop concentrations, military bases, and
centers of resistance. Even the threat of such actions would probably cause
most colonies to surrender and wait for the relief force; at which point your
large civilian population becomes a liability, not an asset.
(Unless the invaders are the Bug-Eyed, Carnivorous Space Vermin From
Galaxy-X (tm) in which case all bets are off...)
:)
Smaller, highly mobile/heavily stealthed forces with cached supplies and
equipment can put up a tough resistance and work to deny the enemy the
infrastructure and resources of a planet, but these require a high degree of
initial preparation and training which may not be reasonable on a developing
world. (Political or social climate may change this; a couple
of pirate raids or a long-running cold war would encourage the
development of such contigency plans.)
Controlling the "high ground" of local space gives any attacker tremendous
advantages of superior surveillance, relative invulnerability of supply lines
and reserves, superior mobility and the ability to choose when and where to
fight. One of the first targets of an incoming attack fleet would be to
destroy enemy communication and survey satellites.
Unfortunately, starships are too valuable a resource to just park in orbit
forever. If they move on, the odds become a little more even. Although the
invaders can leave their own satellites in orbit, a hidden laser or
surface-to-space missile may be able to knock them down.
In my opinion, any unsupported ground forces that try to resist an initial
invasion will be annihilated. The larger they are the higher the stakes; the
enemy will just bring more ships, more troops and use orbital bombardment more
liberally.
The best hope of any colony world IMO (short of its own fleet and/or
full
scale orbital and planetary defenses) is a pre-prepared resistance force
armed, equipped and trained to lay low until the initial invasion is over and
then attack the enemy garrison troops to deny the economic value of the planet
to the enemy until relief arrives.
(Rick Shelley's Buchanan Campaign/Fires of Coventry/Return to Camerein
novels, Gordon R. Dickson's Tactics of Mistake & Dorsai novels, David Drake's
Hammer's Slammers short stories and novels and David Weber's Crusade & Path of
the Fury all have good examples of small unit actions
against outlying colonies and/or address the problems of full scale
planetary invasions.)
Jeff spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Austin would be harder (relatively) to conquer without collateral
That would depend on the nature of the colony. Mining colonies might well be
focused around small pockets of a resource. Colonies on hard to inhabit worlds
might exist underground or in domes which contain friendly atmosphere or (a la
deathworld) try to keep out the native flaura and fauna. But given a Star
Trekish M class planet with breathable air, liquid water, and a topography
that looks like we'd expect, established for reasons of growing a colony or
agricultural products, then yes, the Alaskan model would probably prevail.
> Depending on the situation, a similarly large force might or might not
The Canadian Army is I think about 60,000 men (of which I'm not sure how many
would be line troops). I don't think (no offence intended) they could protect
the Metro Toronto penninsula from an invasion. It's just too big. Places like
Canada are just too decentralized, and large pop centers are just too big to
make defence feasible. Here again raw size isn't the issue, it's army size,
topography, and the things that must be defended all rolled into one neat
package.
> Large concentrations of troops just beg for orbital bombardment and
Hmm. I think even in our latest Hi-Tech war (the gulf) their were
plenty of 'accidental losses' and a lot of 'collateral damage'. I don't really
think you could do really surgical strikes if any degree of urbanization
existed without expecting significant collateral loses. Even the intercepted
SCUDS in the gulf were killing people with their explosive rocket fuel.... as
were falling patriots.
> Smaller, highly mobile/heavily stealthed forces with cached supplies
And it may be that the invaders merely want to remove the colony as a waypoint
(take the starport), capture rare resources (vital minerals for stardrives
stockpiled at the mine site), or some other such thing which doesn't require
beating the planet or giving the locals free shots at your troops on their
turf.
> Controlling the "high ground" of local space gives any attacker
Only from ship to ground... if the invasion force is a long travel time from
'home', it may have a limited supply situation.
superior mobility and the ability to choose when and
> where to fight.
Or not.... if they plan to defend or take planet bound locations or if they
have objectives... that may force their hand. And the locals (if they fade
away into the background) can make it so that there isn't much to fight...
except when they wish it.
One of the first targets of an incoming attack fleet would
> be to destroy enemy communication and survey satellites.
But watch out for the SDBs lurking on the sea-bottom or in extinct
volcanoes or on the moon of the colony just waiting for a week moment from the
orbital invader.... or the large salvo missiles that might be installed by a
rich corporation.... etc. It is just possible a high tech invader may find
more than they bargained for.
> Unfortunately, starships are too valuable a resource to just park in
Although
> the invaders can leave their own satellites in orbit, a hidden laser
What if the incoming force had a few freighters with it - military
transports that either have good shipboard defences or contain enough
parts to throw up some short-term modular 'battle stations' to allow
the invading force to retain an 'orbital' basing.
> In my opinion, any unsupported ground forces that try to resist an
The point of the defender is to bleed the attacker as he advances
(from system entry right down to planetary landing) - each life he
costs the attacker is theoretically better for him since the
defending planet should start out in the ammo/fuel/people catbird's
seat. If the siege goes on, the advantage may shift to the invader as
resources grow short on the invaded planet.
> The best hope of any colony world IMO (short of its own fleet and/or
And perhaps to defend key points like power stations etc. that the enemy may
want but won't want to ortillery....
That forces the enemy to commit forces to hit these points... thus making them
perhaps vulnerable to counterattacks or traps...
Good points though! Jeff obviously thought about this some....:)
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> Unfortunately, starships are too valuable a resource to just park in
Surely habitable planets are the *one* thing that *is* important enough to
leave warships around. Perhaps SDBs and not FTL ships, but well worth the
investment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At 01:53 AM 6/14/98 +0000, you wrote:
True, but they are much better utilized patrolling nearby space or engaging
enemy space forces and reinforcement convoys than they are parked in orbit for
months on end serving as glorified recon sats and orbital fire support
platforms. Sure, there may be a few left behind and your point about SDBs is a
good one (though less so with the advent of the FB, I suspect) but no one
could afford to leave their whole invasion fleet "parked" waiting for the
chance to bombard a few partisans. And when they move on, the invader's
biggest advantage becomes less pronounced.
I was under the impression that it was S.O.P. to keep system defense ships in
orbit at strategically significant areas. Not FTL capable, little more than
gunboats... but enough to deter all but the most powerful attack fleets from
making a landing. If kept in reserve until the last moment, they could easily
strike out at enemy troop
carriers and make a mess of the under-armed troop transports...
-TR
Jeff spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Sure, there may be a few left behind and your point about SDBs
> is a good one (though less so with the advent of the FB, I suspect)
Why? I assume even with FB it is quite feasible to design a non-FTL
capable ship which (by virtue of not needing the FTL drives) has more hull
capacity (and maybe space freed up by fuel) to accomodate more armour, weapons
and ECM.... and costs less.... therefore making a wonderful planetary defence
option.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> At 02:04 PM 6/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
According to Schoon's spreadsheet (which is all I've seen of the FB so far)
the difference between FTL and non-FTL ships is 10% of the ship's mass
rather than the 25% is used to be under the FT II rules. Or, coming at it from
the other direction, an SDB used to have one and half times the
payload of a FTL ship (75% vs 50%) for all classes and/or speeds of
ship.
This was a very significant advantage. Now (assuming average hull
integrity) the difference is 20% more payload on a thrust-2 ship, 25%
more
on a thrust-4, 33% on a thrust-6 and 50% more only on thrust-8 ships.
In most cases, that extra space will probably go into drives or hull instead.
In this context, the non-FTL option is just one of many design
trade-offs
available rather than the "across-the-board" bonus it used to be.
So, yes, they are still a viable option...just less so, as I said.
> Jeff spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Just as a guess, not having seen the FB yet (sigh) from the discussion I haved
seen, the percentage of MASS savings for the ships may not be as significant
as in FTII (25%). To therefore SDB's are still a valid and effective option,
but perhaps the advantage is not as significant as it was before. A simple
matter of degree.
SDB's could be truly frightening in Traveller (at least High Guard era) where
it was not uncommon for warships to dedicate 40% or more of their total
tonnage to jump fuel. Think how that kind of sacrifice would affect FT ships.
One of my problems with FTII, is that for any ship, FTL is FTL. One cost, so
hard to justify differing performance characteristics. Even just throwing in
Basic,Enhanced and Superior FTL would be nice in my opinion. These can be more
easily slapped onto other background fairly easily, while still giving flavor
and variety to 'generic' ships. For traveller stuff,
j1 or j2 is Basic, j3 and j4 is Enhanced, and j5/j6 is superior. In
starwars the millenium falcon is clearly superior, others I don't know -
but there is variety. Tramp freighters are probably basic, while couriers
(in the no-ftl universes) would be enhanced or even superior.
Don't get me wrong, I do understand the argument for keeping it general, and
FTL levels have no direct relation to the tactical game, but anyone who
wants to support multi-level FTL has to roll their own. Just building
these simple levels in the basic system leaves it easy to campaigns to plug
into them. One thought I had was effectively redundancy - Basic FTL is
destroyed with one hit, Ehnahced or Superior FTL is reduced 1 level per hit.
Enough rambling, I'll shut up now.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
Jeff spake thusly upon matters weighty:
Thanks. I am now informed (if we believe the spreadsheets....)
Tom.
> At 02:04 PM 6/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
In
> most cases, that extra space will probably go into drives or hull
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> On 15 Jun 98 at 7:47, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> >Surely habitable planets are the *one* thing that *is* important
Well, actually, I was thinking of them protecting the planet from counter
invasion, rather than (but partly in addition to) discouraging partisans.
Whoever you took the planet from is going to want it back, and the one sure
place their invasion fleet is going to turn up is the planet that they want to
recover. This ties in with something that occured to me about FT campaigns. It
can be mighty difficult to meet the enemy fleet if communication is only as
fast as FTL ships, and you both jump to where you think you ought to, or where
you think they are going... or.. etc. etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Sure, there may be a few left behind and your point about SDBs
Wellll... yes and no. Under the FTFB design system the FTL drive uses 10% of
the ships total Mass, so an SDB has more space for other things. However, it
is cheaper than any weapons or electronics, so the SDB will
actually cost somewhat more than a similar FTL-capable ship :-/
Later,
> On 15 Jun 98 at 14:04, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Sure, there may be a few left behind and your point about SDBs
Not having FTL drives in the Fleet book gives you back 10% of your hullspace.
Previously you got rather more, I think. Even so, for a
cruiser sized ship, it means an extra shield, and/or some armour, or
an extra gun or two, or SML's.. or a small combination. Bearing in mind an
SDB's desire to pack a major punch in a short time, then run behind the
umbrella of planetside weapons, SML's are a good proposition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
That's not a problem. Many of the FT2 SDB designs cost more than a similar
massed FTL ship. It's all the additional weapons and defensive systems that
make the SDB a more potent fighter.
> At 12:59 AM 6/16/98 +0000, you wrote:
My contention is that there are better ways to do this. But they involve
moving most of your mobile forces out of the low orbit position required for
tactical fire support.
Option one: Assuming you want to maintain a strong fleet presence, then I
would start fortifying the planet by laying minefields, shipping in
pre-fab
orbital defense platforms and putting the locals to work building bunkers for
John's SLM launch sites. Turn the planet into a major fleet base. Bring more
ships. Patrol the outer system so you can ambush the enemy as they drop out of
hyperdrive. Run fleet exercises to keep the crews sharp. Don't leave your
ships in nice, safe predictable orbits where they can be
ambushed by a counter-attacking fleet. This option works best when
there is a strong assurance that a counter attack will be delayed several
months. (Which is not unreasonable given some of the communication techniques
under discussion.) Best option for limited strategic goals and/or
contested territory.
Option two: "The best defense is a good offense." Take the assault fleet and
hit the enemy somewhere else. Take two or three colonies away and make him
choose which one he is going to relieve. Keep him off balance. This strategy
dictates that the invader leave a smaller (and more expendable)
occupation force; big enough to prevent casual re-occupation, small
enough not to cripple the war effort if they are lost. Use kid gloves on the
planet's population so that if the occupation force does end up getting
bounced, they are not all shot for war crimes. This is a strategy of denial of
resources to the enemy in an unrestricted campaign of conquest.
> Whoever you took the planet from is going to want it back, and the
Granted. But I would fire any admiral who just sat and waited for them to show
up. In reality, the counterattacking fleet would come in sufficient strength
to win or not at all (barring bad intelligence). If they are strong enough to
retake the system from your assault fleet, then a) Why did you start this war
in the first place? and b) Why are sitting and waiting for them? If you are
stronger that them, press the issue and take the battle to them.
> This ties in with something that occured to me about FT campaigns. It
Yup. I can think of quite a few sci-fi stories in which that very thing
happens. Occasionally, they pass one another in hyperspace and sack each
others bases. Gets complicated.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Jon
------------Reply separator--------------------
I think the important distinction is that while SDB's will not have the
advantage of being cheaper on a Mass for Mass basis, they will be cheaper on a
Gun for Gun basis, since you need to up the size of a normal ship to
carry the payload of the SDB - so yes, they are economically effective -
I wouldn't rate my fleet designs based on the tonnage of the ships, but rather
the combination of capabilities (i.e. systems)
> On 16 Jun 98 at 9:39, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> At 12:59 AM 6/16/98 +0000, you wrote:
Agreed
> Patrol the outer system so you can ambush the enemy as they drop out
I don't find this very sensible. The outer system is BIG, it's also a long way
from anywhere, including other parts of the outer system. You are spreading
yourself very thinly to cover it all, or if you only cover parts of it in
strength, you are likely to be waay out of poisiton when the enemy jumps in,
and they will probably beat you to the planet by days, assuming even that you
can detect them on the other side of the system.
> Run fleet exercises to keep the crews sharp. Don't leave your ships
Well, assuming you see them tens to hundreds of thousands (even millions) of
kilometers away, then you have ample time to manuever and respond, if you base
youself near(ish) to the planet. The outer system is several orders of
magnitudes further.
> (Which is not unreasonable given some of the communication
Well, that is the best defense is keeping the enemy off balance. However, he
is likely to be doing the same thing to you as well. I'd like to see the
'voters' responses to you invading several enemy colonies, garrisoning them,
and expecting several of them to fall if more than casual effort were used.
Losing your troops by inches is not a good offense. However, keeping your own
mobile relief force to bolster those that are attacked is a partial solution
to this. Communication speeds (see other discussions) makes a lot of
difference to flexibility though.
> >Whoever you took the planet from is going to want it back, and the
> >that they want to recover.
Intelligence is very important. Keeping a mobile reserve bouncing between
captured systems with a secret schedule is a good way for the enmy not to know
where you are strong at any one moment. Again, communication speeds can make a
heck of a lot of difference here.
> >This ties in with something that occured to me about FT campaigns. It
> >can be mighty difficult to meet the enemy fleet if communication is
Even worse... trying to play a campaign game where communication is ship speed
makes for a record keeping nightmare for showing how far the knowledge of
certain events has got, and for the propogation of orders regarding that
knowledge. Instant communication makes it far easier to record keep, and play,
but takes away that 'flavour'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The old Renegade Legion game Prefect had some interesting discussions on
invading systems and planets.
I don't believe that anyone has posted the details on the net; which
is a real shame - the game SYSTEM for Prefect left something to be
desired, but the heart was certainly in the right place.
One important thing mentioned was this - in any era that has GEV, grav
and vechicles with simarlar high speed, conflict only occurs around static
things like bases, cities, etc. Bringing the enemy to conflict in an open
field just does not happen, unless, for some reason, both commanders want it.
(And in Prefect, both fools would probably be
court-marshalled and one of them executed for the idiotic idea!)