G'day,
> if I'm orbitally assaulting...
While these always sound so much fun in stories and in games (and so I don't
want to see them disappear from those!) in reality how useful would an orbital
assault be and on how grand a scale would it have to happen? So in WWII (sorry
if I butcher the following ancient history is more my thing) they landed in a
few spots and pushed up from there. On the flip side Europe is a small place
relatively speaking and the top was penned off by Russia. How would you do it
in a bigger area? Starting at a continent scale, how would you do it for the
North American continent or even Australia? Going further how would you do it
for an entire planet, especially one settled for a century or more? Or is this
a case of "in reality you just bomb them into submission and send in troops to
pick off what you want later", which makes for a boring game
so we ignore that and pretend the much more dramatic beach-head style
thing can happen?
Cheers
> While these always sound so much fun in stories and in games (and so
FMAS scale: the equivalent of one helicopter with a Special Forces team
slipping in for recon. SG scale: a platoon or company, landing in advance of
the main attack, tasked with capturing or destroying some small but vital
facility--defense radar, weapon station, the sort of thing the
commandos did in WW2 (or the Germans at, for example, Eben Emal (sp?).
DS+ scale: a battalion or brigade landing to slug it out over some
large objective which has to be captured--maybe a regional capital or
starport
Is it plausible? Well, it depends on the assumptions you make, but if you
decide that starships can't just park in orbit and pound anything on the
ground, then sure, it's as plausible as the Marines landing on
Japanese-held islands.
> if I'm orbitally assaulting...
So in WWII (sorry if I butcher the following ancient history is more my thing)
they landed in a few spots and pushed up from there. On the flip side Europe
is a small place relatively speaking and the top was penned off by Russia. How
would you do it in a bigger area? Starting at a continent scale, how would you
do it for the North American continent or even Australia? Going further how
would you do it for an entire planet, especially one settled for a century or
more? Or is this a case of "in reality you just bomb them into submission and
send in troops to pick off what you want later", which makes for a boring game
so we ignore that and
pretend the much more dramatic beach-head style thing can happen?
Agreed we're pretending we don't have HonorVerse assumptions (if you
control the high-orbitals, the planet is obligated to surrender to
prevent massive civilian casualties, because everyone accepts that once you
lose the high orbitals, you can't defend against orbital bombardment). That
would make for dull games of Stargrunt....
Otherwise, it would all depend rather a lot on the assumptions built into your
universe, wouldn't it? If you're talking the 40k universe (or
something of that ilk) for example, having a billion-strong army and
millions of ships in your fleet, you can siege and assault any planet. In
a GZG-verse style setting, assaulting a heavily-settled planet is
well-neigh impossible. Either the ships are too small, and carrying a
large force would require much of a major fleet's transport capability, etc,
or shipping takes a lot of time, expense, etc etc.
But a less-settled planet, like most of those in the GZG-verse (with,
according to Bethish population projections, not very large populations), will
likely have most of the population within a relatively small area. It doesn't
make sense to spread out all over the place with a very small
population - you lose all the efficiency and safety of putting a colony
all in one place to start and spreading slowly from there. So an assaulting
power wouldn't need to assault a whole planet - just very small bits of
it.
If the population is a half-million spread around 1 major city and 4 or
5 large towns, you need to go there... Kind of just like the allies at
Normandy...
On a continent scale, remember the Americans sent a landing force into North
Africa direct from the US, and much of the Pacific campaign was fought over
*really big* distances for the era. Taking on North America *now* would be
impossible direct from anywhere else, just as it would be to take on Europe
now direct from North America. But that would be like
taking on Albion in the GZG-verse - you're going to need *overwhelming*
force to do it just because of the population and military potential of the
target - and that isn't likely in a situation like the GZGverse where
everyone seems to keep a pretty close eye on everyone else. Concentrating that
amount of force is going to be noticable....
So either you're assulting a planet that can practically be assaulted, in
which case you don't have to go after the whole planetary surface, just the
small settled bits OR you're not assaulting, you're taking on their fleet to
force political submission.
:)
From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> > While these always sound so much fun in stories and in games (and so
That's why I wanted to have Planetary Defnce Systems that would make
orbital bombardment tricky - but systems that were in turn vulnerable
to a ground-based assault.
--- Adrian Johnson <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> Australia? Going further how would you do it for an
Depends on the population levels. As I have mentioned in the past, there are
four kinds of planet in my interpretation of the GZGverse:
Planets with many millions of population, popularly considered to be
unconquerable on a practical level. New Moscow, etc.
Planets with small populations who are vital for some sort of reason, either
location or resource
extraction, which are fought over by high-tech
expeditionary forces and defended by permenant garissons. This is where most
DSII scenarios take place.
Planets of low value overall, with multiple
settlements who fight among themselves with low-tech
weaponry (Los's Epsilon Eridani, fer instance).
Planets with low value and single settlements, who pretty much have police and
some militia who never have to do their job.
> this a case of "in
I'm going to assume that given an entire planet to choose from, they are going
to live relatively near
the high-value items that the invading force is going
to want intact. Besides which, if the ESU starts nuking colony planets clean,
then the NAC is going to start nuking colony planets clean, and who the hell
wants that? You end up with a lot of sterile little
ex-colonies.
> Agreed we're pretending we don't have HonorVerse
Which is simply because David Weber isn't interested in ground combat and
can't write it worth a damn.
> That's why I wanted to have Planetary Defense Systems that would make
It need not be Orbital Defense Systems (name change to avoid conflict with
PDS) -- it might just be that systems designed to shoot through vacuum
don't work too well through atmosphere. IIRC you want a neutral-charge
particle beam for vacuum, for instance, but a charged particle accelerator
weapon works better through air. Ortillery ships would then be the ones fitted
with CPAWs.
Of course, some of us don't *have* an atmosphere, so ODS will be a necessity.
> That's why I wanted to have Planetary Defnce Systems that would make
Why land at the polar ice cap or similar remote place? If the troops are in
dropships, you can enter the low atmosphere (within 10,000 feet of the
surface) of the planet wherever you want, and then fly towards the targets you
want to take out and land a reasonable safe distance away. This can be rather
close if you use a NOE flight profile for the last part. Obviously, drop pods
can't do this. But if the troops in the dropships eliminate the defenses that
can take out then drop pods, then drop pods can be used to reinforce.
By the way, your defenses sound very Traveller'ish.
> At 4:50 AM -0800 11/25/03, John Atkinson wrote:
This is the thing that gets me (and I agree with you). If you
Orb-Bomb the planet from high into submission, why exactly are you so
hot to take it again? After all, you've now got a planet in the middle of
nowhere (galactically speaking) that will need aid and resources. What
population you haven't killed is going to die from the after effects of the
bombardment and you just tied up lots of resources trying to fix a planet.
This assumes you're planning on staying.
> Which is simply because David Weber isn't interested
John, we need to get you and Ringo together. You can two time weber on the
next round of books.
> At 9:56 AM -0500 11/25/03, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
Obviously,
> drop pods can't do this. But if the troops in the dropships eliminate
Hmm, THAAD near those holes in the network. Good way to loose those landers on
the way in. How much fuel do they have for a long flight and return to orbit?
***
> I'm going to assume that given an entire planet to
This is the thing that gets me (and I agree with you). If you
Orb-Bomb the planet from high into submission, why exactly are you so
hot to take it again? After all, you've now got a planet in the middle of
nowhere (galactically speaking) that will need aid and resources. What
population you haven't killed is going to die from the after effects of the
bombardment and you just tied up lots of resources trying to fix a planet.
This assumes you're planning on staying.
***
Please note this somewhat explains (P-Sociopolitical-B) my 'liberal'
political structure that has home world(s) as no conflict, inner colonies
as severely restricted rules-of-engagement, and far colonies still under
'humane' rules of warfare. It's mentioned in the timeline concerning the UNSC,
but the little assault system on which I've worked is based on an expanded
vision.
I always wanted an entry where a ship was hunted down and destroyed by it's
own service after nuking a colonial city from orbit...
Interestingly, the restricted rules-of-engagement require drops from
synchronous orbits, and that all entry paths are strictly near equatorial, not
polar, to restrict 'collateral' damage. I don't claim to have the PSB worked
out.
Comes from the restrictions of working with flat maps. ;->=
Some liberals even admit MAD works, to some extent. We just don't have to be
happy about it.
The_Beast
> This is the thing that gets me (and I agree with you). If you
Wouldn't you only Orb-Bomb major installations and other surface items
used to carry the war to the upper atmosphere and far orbit?
You still need to put heavy metal and troops on the ground in order to really
claim a planet.
---
Damo
In article <p06002000bbe9215ac29d@[10.188.51.55]>, Ryan M Gill
<rmgill@mindspring.com> writes
> This is the thing that gets me (and I agree with you). If you
Yep. Almost everyone forgets that although you can make the ground glow from
orbit, you can't take it.
If you aren't prepared to nuke it to the stone age or can't bluff that you
are, you've got to send in the troops.
Cheers
Hi folks,
> - --- Adrian Johnson <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca>
No he didn't. That was Beth.
> Planets of low value overall, with multiple
This view of the types of worlds makes sense to me, though I think that the
majority would be likely to fit into types two and three. Though it would also
depend on the age of the colony. A colony that right now is a
single-settlement-low-value might in fifty years be more valuable
because of resource discoveries, etc. And what about the
"single-settlement-valuable" type - founded by a corporation or colony
company to take advantage of a resource, or for an advanced naval base, or
whatever.
> this a case of "in
That was Beth again...
> I'm going to assume that given an entire planet to
That was my point.
> Besides which, if the ESU starts
Yep. The various factions want the territory, not smoking ruins. We see
that in the official timeline - they're invading colonies to take them,
not destroying them from orbit.
> Agreed we're pretending we don't have HonorVerse
Whatever.:)
His assumptions make sense for his universe.
And that's the great thing about this stuff... you can define your terms to
suit your objectives...
***************************************
G'day,
> This is the thing that gets me (and I agree with you). If you
I do agree with Adrian and Johns take on the likely set up of settled world,
particularly within the timeframe of the GZGverse settlement window. Putting
that neatly to the side for a second....
Bombardment from orbit doesn't necessarily leave you with a nuclear waste
ground. If you're from a different species (I was thinking KV strike on
humans) or you want the real estate and don't care about the exact state of
the fauna or flora then the "drop large rock etc" option is viable. Ecosystems
continue after such catastrophes, just not necessarily in a state where all
previous community members can participate... but if that is the goal of the
exercise in the first
place...
This just wouldn't be much fun to play though.
Cheers
Continuing on that thread:
Orbital bombardment doesn't necessarily equate with radioactive slag.
The large rock, shower of Hyper-kinetic projectiles (Thor?) or possibly
even a mega-large class 8 beam weapon could be used. The large rock has
the downside that you probably will be lucky to land it within the same state
(or 200 miles) of the target, but Hyper kinetic guided rounds could probably
land within 100 meters of the target and a Beam weapon that can smack a
thousand foot ship at light second distances is not
going to blink at a mere 50,000 miles for a 100 foot non-moving target.
If you have orbital superiority, it doesn't matter that the class-8
(9,10 whatever) beam takes 30 minutes to charge between shots - your
target isn't going anywhere, or if it does, it can't move fast enough to make
a difference. (Even hypersonic aircraft are only going to get a few thousand
miles away, which will be visible from space).
I can't imagine that there would be more than 100 installations on a planet
worth knocking out militarily, especially if you have orbital superiority. So
call it 50 hours of bombardment to remove any type of major military
resistance (military bases, supply centers, large fortifications, automated
military factories) This also assumes that you've only brought in a single
Ortillery ship, three would be more preferrable to give complete coverage of
the globe.
There really couldn't be any serious massed resistance to an invasion
force then - if you mass more than a dozen vehicles in one place, a
single class 10 beam shot will vaporize them. You would have to turn to
insurgent tactics or limit the fighting to the locations where you know they
won't vaporize you (in the mine shafts, in the power plants) but will lose a
lot of tactical flexibility in being able to choose the ground in which you
want to defend.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Bombardment from orbit doesn't necessarily leave you
True enough. However, the original discussion never mentioned other species,
so it seems reasonable for Adrian & John not to have accounted for that frame
of reference in their responses.
This brings home just how important it is to define terms and parameters for a
discussion, to avoid confusion and to provide participants with the ability to
weigh all relevant information.
Just for the sake of arguement, and to prevent DS from being rendered
irrelevant,
> --- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> Orbital bombardment doesn't necessarily equate with
And conjures up all sorts of political/strategic
nightmares a la WMD's etc.
but Hyper kinetic guided
> rounds could probably land within 100 meters of the
One PSB that can mitigate this is that the Firecons on ships are specialized
for targeting other ships in the blackness of space, and that all the
Interference of atmospheres and Ground clutter makes it difficult for anything
other than a dedicated Ortillery Bombardment ship to deliver their payload
with the accuracy needed for surgical or tactical strikes.
> If you have orbital superiority,
*snip a bunch that harkens back to my previous comment*
> I can't imagine that there would be more than 100
*IF* you have Orbital Superiority is a VERY BIG IF. This is especially true if
you're talking about
campaigns on crowded and/or balkanized worlds and/or
systems. If these conditions are true, you will also have to rethink how many
targets of Strategic importance there are, and how close they are to
Non-military targets whose destruction may cause
negative repercussions on the diplomatic/political
front. This is especially true if the planet's
inhabited by Three or more colonies/political groups.
> It need not be Orbital Defense Systems (name change to avoid conflict
Actually, this is not true. JTAS #20 on page 40 has a very good artical on
Spinal Mounts, especially the differences between NPAW's ad CPAW's. It very
strongly implies that you should be able to switch every NPAW into CPAW mode
when need for orbital bombardment. But please, don't take my word for it.
TNE Fire Fussion and Steel, page 112, left column, center, "Thus, N-PAWs
are
the space weapons and C-PAWs the ground weapons. But because a neutral
particle beam can produce charged particle beams simply by disengaging its
particle neutralizer, the N-PAWs is effectively a dual purpose weapon,
as it
can be set to fire beams appropriate to either enviroment." TNE-FFS
goes on
to state the requirments of using C-PAWs and dual purpose N-PAWs for
orbital bombardment. You have be in a low orbit (upper atmosphere) to use
them, otherwise the beam scatters before entering the atmosphere. This means
all beam batteries on FT ships can be used for orbital bombardment if the ship
is in a low orbit (currently undefined in FT)
> Of course, some of us don't *have* an atmosphere, so ODS will be a
Well that just makes orbital bombardment all the easier, because you don't
have to enter a low orbit. See the TNE Fire, Fussion, and Steel page 112 for
more details.
> --- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, this is not true. JTAS #20
Sorry if this sounds dense, but what is JTAS?
This means all
> beam batteries on FT ships can be used for orbital
Perhaps the beam itself isn't an issue, but if the goal is to make it harder
any weapon not designed for dedicated bombardment missions to be used in that
role, we can still PSB that the types of Firecon needed for each role are
significantly different from each other.
> Brian B wrote:
Journal of the Travellers Aid Society.
Current incarnation is a web-mag at Steve Jackson Games:
http://jtas.sjgames.com/
IAS
> Actually, this is not true.
You mean "actually this is true, but your NPAW can be a CPAW at need, so while
true, it is irrelevant"
> Of course, some of us don't *have* an atmosphere, so ODS will be a
IAS
> Well that just makes orbital bombardment all the easier, because you
It makes shooting *back* easier :-)
> It makes shooting *back* easier :-)
Very true...
Thanks....
> --- Ray Forsythe <erf2@wombatzone.com> wrote: