> Brian Bell wrote:
Yeah, this has always kind of bothered me as well. Basically, something that
was the size of a battleship could only carry a combat company? This implies
that starships are extremely volume inefficient. Now, you
can argue anything you want (after all, it's a game! (8-) ), but I guess
I read Starship Troopers too many times, (or maybe Crusade (8-) )and
want the ability to drop entire divisions if necessary.
It's at times like this that I wish I had my rule books at work, so I could
offer some ideas without fear that I'm just duplicating what's
in there. (8-)
Hmmm. Maybe a different multiplier for Cargo Space? If we use FB designs
(which are roughly twice as massive for the same 'size'), then something the
size of a battleship (at 120 Mass) should be able to move a substantial force,
(a couple of battlions, perhaps a regiment), even when combat loaded.
You know, I'm going to wait until I get home, and then I'll remind myself
of the exact numbers and post intelligently. (8-)
J.
> Minor peeve--note that it's only possible to actually conquer a small,
This is especially true with the troop capacity listed for FT/MT
dropships. The example in MT shows that it takes a 60 ton vehicle to deliver
31 vehicles and 197 combat troops (including vehicle crew). As was pointed out
above, this is very poor odds. With the FB the maximum size limitation is
gone, but ships are
generally more massive to accomplish the same thing as in FT2/MT. I see
this type of thing in many SF games. I would like to see this system revised.
I usually picture several ships that launch dropships carrying specialized
assault forces. These forces job is to clear and hold enough ground to land
the real troop carriers. The main troop carriers would be atmospherically
streamlined cruisers carrying thousands of troops in cryosleep or hundreds of
Armored Vehicles. For this to work, usually, a force would have had to landed
special
forces to take out the tactical/stratgic infrastructure (communications,
radar, etc.) timed with the assault. And the assault force would need to
gain space/air superiority.
> At 12:32 PM 6/12/98 -0400, you wrote:
IIRC, the relevant numbers are:
1 Mass = 50 cargo
Vehicles require (4 x Size) cargo units each
Troops require 4 cargo units each for standard berths or 1 CU/ea for
cryo berths. The space requirement is the same for powered armor or
conventional troops.
Dropship capacity is 1 Mass for each 10 cargo units, but vehicle crews do not
require additional space (they are buttoned up) and troops require 1 CU each.
Marine contingents are 4 CU per unit of ships mass; therefore generally about
1 trooper per unit mass.
> Hmmm. Maybe a different multiplier for Cargo Space? If we use FB
This is something I've been thinking about too for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the ships I use in my non-official background universe are
a lot bigger mass for mass than Jon's. Second, I picked up a book on modern
naval weaponry which has a very impressive illustration of the combat load of
a 40,000 ton Tarawa class assault ship.
I'm hesitant to quote specific numbers from that one until I get home, but I
think it was 2900 men and equipment for 1 medium armored company, 1 light
armored company, 1 artillery company, plus 6 Harriers, 6-8 armed
helicopters, maybe a dozen transport helicopters, 4 (or was it 6?)
200-ton
capacity landing craft, dozens of trucks, jeeps, and many tons of supplies.
Needless to say, this is more what I have in mind as a loadout for a medium
to large transport vessel than the mass-60 transport described in MT.
:)
> Yeah, this has always kind of bothered me as well. Basically,
Or the Honor Harrington books. Her first command was a small (88 kton) light
cruiser with a marine contingent of 94. Later she commands a large (880 kton)
battlecruiser with a marine continent of one battalion.
Of course it depends on whether you background has small, higly automated
warships or kilometers-long leviathans with hundreds of crew.
> Jerry Han wrote:
> Yeah, this has always kind of bothered me as well. Basically,
Um... if you've read the same Crusade (ie, Weber's) as I'm thinking of,
well... those marine forces were pretty small :-/ The TFN battleships
carried about 100 - 120 marines each; superdreadnoughts around 300 -
350. I'd call that a company or three, but hardly an entire regiment. To drop
an entire division, you'd need several troop transports - or the huge
fleets assembled towards the end of the war (like 38 SDs and 23 BBs
<g>).
> Hmmm. Maybe a different multiplier for Cargo Space? If we use FB
Should be "whose Mass unit is roughly half the size of the FT (basic
rules) Mass unit" :-/ (which, of course, isn't specified anywhere <g>)
But yes, that's the way to go.
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Actually, that was my point. (8-) I wasn't refering to marine
complements (though Starfire numbers always seemed more appropriate than the
numbers given in Honor Harrington), but the ability to drop three combat
divisions with full combat loads at the end of the book. The idea of having 12
Dull Knife (? I think that's the class) transports sounds better then the 27
plus MT type transports. (And, if I remember correctly, Dull Knifes are the
civilian equivalent to battleship hulls in Starfire, right?)
> > Hmmm. Maybe a different multiplier for Cargo Space? If we use FB
Pick, pick, pick. (8-)
J.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
...snip...JTL
> an entire division, you'd need several troop transports - or the huge
Hi All, How about considering a military tug as a troop transport?
Bye for now,
> You wrote:
> Yeah, this has always kind of bothered me as well. Basically,
Again--I'm being a little deviant (different FTL, Different Major
powers, Different troop capacities. Any other game company would have sent
around the fellas with the ax handles by now.;). But in Starship Troopers, a
corvette (Rodger Young) carried a platoon of Power Armored men. And that's at
about 60 to a platoon, as they have two sections of three squads each. Which
comes to a total of twenty elements of PA, or a short company in my
background, given an 8 element platoon and 3 men to an element. And the
history I've worked up does
involve multiple Corps assaulting planets--I'm assuming the Tagmata can
be moved in it's entirety.
> > Minor peeve--note that it's only possible to actually conquer a
I'd go along with this. I've thought about the problem of large populations
having large standing armies.. requiring fleets with vast amounts of troops to
prosecute a ground war...
Well, it assumes that you won the space war to be able to land the troops, so
you have got some pretty good space 'ortillery' to back you up, so that evens
things out. And lets assume that your special force dropship and missiles from
space managed to take out the planetary defenses in orbit or on planet...
Numbers of troops... Well, standing armies have been shrinking as technologies
increase. The equipment is vastly expensive, and you need very well trained
troops to operate it. So perhaps you end up with pretty small numbers of
troops with very advanced systems.
Which tangentially brings me to fighters in FT. They seem to have an extremely
short lifespan. Are they remote piloted? Military forces can't put up with the
massive wastage of men, and the morale implications are rather poor. Even if
the fighters can be mass produced, the pilots probably take years to train,
and soon run out. Or should we perhaps think of kills in FT for fighters (and
perhaps even for normal ships) as being mission kills. The drifting hulks
recoverable and many survivors picked up by the side that 'holds the field'.
Just my.02 credits;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 12 Jun 98 at 17:51, Daryl Lonnon wrote:
> Let's assume we want 10 million troops to invade a world.
Well, it's only my preference, but I'd rather not assume that you would want
to use 10 million troops to assualt a planet. My preference, as already stated
is extremely well trained, very well armed and supported troops.
Economics if anything... the supply line for 10 million people would be
horrendous, and if the opposing fleet turns up and cuts you off... there go 10
million troops into captivity, rather a dent and political disaster,
goverments topple.. While 10,000 troops have a thousand times fewer families
(voters) and you still have a pool of 9,990,000 people to recruit and train.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> Well, it assumes that you won the space war to be able to land the
Ortillery is a nasty proposition--but very limited in actual abilities
with regards to providing accurate fire support without trashing the entire
planet. A lot like nuclear weapons. And as for the Planetary Aerospace
defenses, a fortified SML emplacement with a vast magazine and a couple points
of armor (concrete slabs) will have a field day knocking ships out of nice,
predicatable orbits. And if you build as many of them as, say, the Mississippi
had river fortresses during the 'Merican Civil War, it'll take a LOT of
killing.
> Numbers of troops... Well, standing armies have been shrinking as
Beg to differ: From 1789-1918, armies multiplied in size rapidly. In
WWII, much the same levels were maintained, but spread out over the
globe instead of all crammed into a teeny-tiny European front. The
phenomenom of smaller professional forces is interesting, and a likely
indicator of Things To Come, but don't always bet on it.
> need very well trained troops to operate it. So perhaps you end up
Or perhaps much larger forces with not-quite-as-advanced-but-pretty-
good stuff. Like GEVs with HKPs instead of Grav Tanks with MDCs.
> Which tangentially brings me to fighters in FT. They seem to have an
Nope.
> can't put up with the massive wastage of men, and the morale
Lots of idiots wanna be fighter jocks. Check the average lifespan of
pilots in historical wars--grotesque attrition throughout the first ten
missions.
> On 13 Jun 98 at 22:10, John Atkinson wrote:
> Ortillery is a nasty proposition--but very limited in actual
How is it limited? Why should it be innacurate? It can be accurate as we
decide it is...
Planetary defenses, I agree, are a tough nut to crack, depending on their
limitations. Ships do not need to sit in nice predictable orbits. In FT the
manuever capability of a ship seems to be massively larger than the problems
gravitic attraction from a planet causes.
> >Numbers of troops... Well, standing armies have been shrinking as
But since 1918, and during the recent sudden rise in technology, the standing
forces of the advanced technology countries have been shrinking radically.
(Other than the US, who had a pre WWII standing
army of only 100-200,000, not including national guard, but this was
very atypical of the time)
> >need very well trained troops to operate it. So perhaps you end up
It all depends on what you want as a game/universe designer, and what
is most economic, what is easiest to supply, what is most felxible, and what
fits into the doctrine of the authoritative body. So, since we are designing
it for our own purposes, we have a lot of leeeway, provided we give sensible
reasons.
> >Which tangentially brings me to fighters in FT. They seem to have an
It takes more than an idiot to fly a fighter. It currently takes two years of
very expensive training to be ready for fighters. I'll also choose to not take
that as an insult to the bravery of the RAFduring WWII, where at the height of
the battle of britain the average pilot had a lifespan of two weeks from
entering active service. They were not idiots. We were actually running out of
people to be pilots, rather than planes. It was a serious problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At 22:10 13/06/98 -0500, you wrote:
> missions.
American aircrews in Britian in WWII believed that the standard tour of
duty was 25 missions because the odd were very damn good that no-one
would survive that long. Yet the US had to lengthen its training programs for
aircrew and pilots several times so as to allow enough aircraft to be built
for them to use. Flying is glamor warfare. I don't see it being any different
in the future.
> You wrote:
> How is it limited? Why should it be innacurate? It can be accurate as
Fine. If you wanna customize your background, that's your call. I'm using the
assumptions presented in More Thrust and Dirtside. You know, the ones where on
average orbital fire missions wander? And have a 200m blast radius, 400m if
specifically designed as ortillery? And leave residual radiation like nuclear
weapons?
> Planetary defenses, I agree, are a tough nut to crack, depending on
More Thrust 'strongly reccomends' ruling that to provide orbital fire support,
a ship must be in low orbit, as opposed to geostationary. Sounds to me like
they do need to sit in nice predictable orbits, at least when firing. Which
makes swatting them with SMLs fun and easy.
> But since 1918, and during the recent sudden rise in technology, the
Oh, you meant standing armies. I thought you maybe meant wartime strengths,
seeing as how we are talking about fighting wars. But even standing armies
have remained relatively large, compared to
batallion-sized landing forces.
> It takes more than an idiot to fly a fighter. It currently takes
I didn't insult their bravery, simply their sanity. It's a mentally unstable
person who takes up a profession where death is as close to garunteed as
possible. But fighters are sexy, hence fighter jocks will always be with us.
> average pilot had a lifespan of two weeks from entering active
If they're so bright, why did they end up dead? History is filled with
courageous people who's sanity I question. But better them than me. I like my
nice safe job playing with land mines. At least I can hide.[1]
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> If they're so bright, why did they end up dead? History is filled
I
> like my nice safe job playing with land mines. At least I can
> was previous comment. I'll say the same sort of thing about most of
> Zoomies, and Squids, we're all on the same side, but having fun at
Side note: Wasn't it you that told me in a breaching attempt, 70% casualties
is considered acceptable? I got news for ya, if anyone in my unit planned an
assault with 70% casualties, he'd be broken out of the infantry.... (maybe
he'd make a good engineer?). I think that you can't say they were insane for
doing what they did in the Battle of Britain... just that they put a higher
value on defending their fellow man and their way of life than they did on the
chance of dying. They were kind of desperate, but it got the job done.
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
**************************************************/
> On 14 Jun 98 at 17:10, John Atkinson wrote:
> Fine. If you wanna customize your background, that's your call.
Customizing it is what it's all about, and it's actively encouraged.
> More Thrust 'strongly reccomends' ruling that to provide orbital
Which in turn means you have to find a way of taking the SML's (or whatever
land based system) out. Any suggestions?
> Oh, you meant standing armies. I thought you maybe meant wartime
Good point. And another good point. So how do we find a way to make (space)
naval invasion achievable. Or is your contention that they shouldn't be other
than with extremely large numbers of troops, which is going to be awkward to
play out with Dirtside sized engagements.
> I didn't insult their bravery, simply their sanity. It's a mentally
It's a mentally unstable person that puts their life on the line when it's
*needed*? In a long war, being a 'fighter jock' suddenly isn't so glamourous
> >average pilot had a lifespan of two weeks from entering active
Huh? They ended up dead because the fighting was extremely intense, fighting
against other people as skilled as they were. Neither side were idiots, it was
the nature of the combat. I guess it would have been brighter for everyone to
have called in sick, but then again, you end up losing the war.
> John M. Atkinson
Hmmmm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> Side note: Wasn't it you that told me in a breaching attempt, 70%
Uh... Yeah.
> my unit planned an assault with 70% casualties, he'd be broken out of
Note: That's for a deliberate breach. IOW, they know you're coming, know where
you are, and have weapons sighted on you. Plus you're not going for subtlety.
> You wrote:
> Which in turn means you have to find a way of taking the SML's (or
Aerospace fighters. Also ARM missles would be nice, but you'd have to write
rules for 'em.
> (space) naval invasion achievable. Or is your contention that they
Give the man a prize! Yeah, I mean it will be God-awful awkward. What
I'd really like is an operational-level ground combat game. Barring
that, I will be quite happy playing bits and pieces of the overall picture.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> You wrote:
> write rules for 'em.
Traveller had the idea with its deep site meson guns - not attackable
from orbit. But you can't put sensitive sensors under too much armour, and
these can be destroyed thus rendering planetary batteries blind.
> John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
How do you send Aerospace fighters down to a planet thet you haven't invaded
yet to take out the SML launchers that are stopping you invading in the first
place?
Drop capsules? Why aren't they shot down by planetary defenses? Where do the
fighters go once they have expended their ammunition? Drop supplies? Drop an
airbase, drop defenses for it?
I suppose that of the fighters are successful you start the invasion proper,
but what can a little aerospace fighter carry that a starship can't that goes
through the many meters of armour that the SML's are under, that itself can
stave off starship mounted weapons. (sorry for the sentence structure)
(Oh, I did see someone's comment on sensor systems being vulnerable, and
agree, but you can have multiple systems deployed as necessary, expensive but
effective)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At 05:40 PM 6/19/98 +0000, you wrote:
Hint: AeroSPACE fighters... They fly from orbit into the atmosphere, do their
business, then fly back into orbit. Rmember the picture from the DS2 rulebook,
with the aerospace fighter in orbit? Also, I would expect that fighters and
their pilots are far more capable of avoiding the defences than a big, slow
troop transport.
[snip]
> I suppose that of the fighters are successful you start the invasion
Speed is the key. A starship in orbit has to wait while the planet rotates
under it in order to target a particular point. Several squadrons of aerospace
fighters can attack places all over the planet simultaneously. This suprise
factor would likely be critical to overcoming the planetary defences.
> (Oh, I did see someone's comment on sensor systems being vulnerable,
/**********************************
> You wrote:
> How do you send Aerospace fighters down to a planet thet you haven't
Usually, you sit outside their max range with your carriers, and send them in
like you would an airstrike on an enemy fleet.
> Drop capsules? Why aren't they shot down by planetary defenses? Where
Why are you basing them on the planet? That's why God invented carriers.
> I suppose that of the fighters are successful you start the invasion
The Aerospace fighters can't be targeted by SMLs, right? They can drop
precision-guided weapons (preferably, you've inserted SOF long before
and are lasing the targets) which penetrate then explode a la that bomb the US
used in Desert Storm to kill bunkers that could survive a
nuclear near-miss. The one that started with a surplus 8-inch howitzer
barrel. They've got to worry about smaller air defenses, but you can afford to
loose some aerospace fighters tangling with the SAMs, whereas you can't afford
to loose a battleship.
> You wrote:
> Defeat/drive off defensive space navy.
Right...
> Drop aerospace fighters with a lot of dummy emmiters, make a
Why do you keep wanting to drop 'em? Base them off your carriers. Equip first
strike for supression of air defenses and air superiority, presuming the local
fighters didn't join the fleet in attempting to blast your ships out of
existence (Which tactic makes more sense to me). They blast a hole or holes in
the aerospace defenses, go back, rearm, and come back with varient DFO
intended to rip apart the main PAD sites and then the fleet can move in.
> On 19 Jun 98 at 11:07, Tony Christney wrote:
> At 05:40 PM 6/19/98 +0000, you wrote:
[snip]
> >I suppose that of the fighters are successful you start the invasion
This doesn't follow. A starship in orbit can pop around to the other side of
the planet in a short time by manuevering. FT ships manuever pretty fast
compared to the size of a planet. Planetary defenses are going to be all over
the planets surface, having a blind spot is a critical weakness. So attacking
all over the place means getting shot down all over the place. You have to
concentrate on creating a opening, then exploiting it. Also, a planet is going
to field it's own aerospace fighters. The trick is that the attacker can
choose where to attack, while the defender has to defend many places. Possible
invasion tactic would be thus:
Defeat/drive off defensive space navy.
Drop aerospace fighters with a lot of dummy emmiters, make a concentrated
attack on the planetary defenses in that area to allow your fleet to mount an
invasion. Spread out from that location, using the horizon as your main
defense against planetary defenses, roll out the attack to other key targets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> Usually, you sit outside their max range with your carriers, and
> In the space invasion version. You look up, and other than a few
Umm... do remember that weapons have a max range, and you can situate your
carriers so they can't be shot down...
> Then you have to climb back out of the gravity well, being shot at by
Either you were sucessful, or you're dead already.
> Not targeted by the SML's themselves, but by the associated
Come on, if you're using PDSes from Full Thrust (naval AAA based near naval
main weaponry seems to be a reasonable basis for any Orbital Defense
installation) they miss half the time. And you can target them seperately,
unlike the the ship's AAA. Bang, you're dead.
> On 19 Jun 98 at 14:04, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
The parallel doesn't work particularly well for an attack from space.
In the wet navy/aircraft version, the horizon acts as an obstacle to
ship bourne sensors. AWACS help you, but ground clutter, ECM and stealth
targets are big problems for them.
In the space invasion version. You look up, and other than a few clouds, there
is not much between you and the airstrike. Perhaps ECM, and stealth are good
enough to make it worthwhile.
> >Drop capsules? Why aren't they shot down by planetary defenses? Where
> >do the fighters go once they have expended their ammunition? Drop
Then you have to climb back out of the gravity well, being shot at by the
planetary defenses again (unless you were very successful). But you no longer
have loads of dummy capsules to spoof. Perhaps
ECM/stealth etc is just great with little aerospace fighters.
> >I suppose that of the fighters are successful you start the invasion
Not targeted by the SML's themselves, but by the associated batteries of
longer than battlefield range point defense weapons
mounted with/near them. SML's to fire at starships, beam weapons for
anything else. Unless those nasty beam weapons don't work properly in
atmosphere, which would help us out a lot here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 20 Jun 98 at 12:01, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
When I say 'drop' I mean get them from your carrier sitting out of range of
the planetary defenses, then run the gauntlet of said planetary defenses for
probably thousands of miles, to close enough for them to make an attack, where
they also have to fight the planets fighters, the non aeroSPACE type... just
aero, since they would be somewhat cheaper. The initial approach is a
dangerous part, the 'drop' where the fully functioning defenses get to blast
at them for a goodly time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 20 Jun 98 at 12:05, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
> >and stealth are good enough to make it worthwhile.
I said the *airstrike*, not the carriers. Obviously the carriers stay out of
range, the airstrike can't, because it has to come to you to attack you.
> >Then you have to climb back out of the gravity well, being shot at by
> >the planetary defenses again (unless you were very successful). But
That is rather an all or nothing scenario. In the wet navy scenario a failed
attack doesn't mean all the attackers died, it means they didn't knock out the
defenses, most of them will return to rearm and try again. (depending on the
success of counter strikes of course.)
> >Not targeted by the SML's themselves, but by the associated
> >atmosphere, which would help us out a lot here.
Yes, but on a planet you can bother with having a LOT of them. 20 at a defense
site don't miss very often at all, 40 miss even less. etc. etc. Ships run out
of space, planets don't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> Yes, but on a planet you can bother with having a LOT of them. 20 at
Remember, I'm assuming on a core planet with full-up defenses, this is
more or less impossible. Remember I'm the one who argues that space warfare
can't touch colonies with a few million inhabitants? Given
that the FT/DS/SG universe doesn't have a lot of combat-capable AIs,
there is a limit to the firepower a 100,000 inhabitant colony can man.
Remember you've already whacked a small orbital defense fleets (even if
it's a destroyer, 2 frigates, 4 corvettes and a half-dozen scouts),
enemy aerospace fighters, and they've got ground troops waiting for you on the
ground. That's why it will be aerospace fighters. It only takes one or two SLM
launch sites to wipe out small ships and a
half-dozen to ruin the day of even a capital ship. But providing crew
for 40 or 80 or 10,000 PDS will strain the food surpluses of even the best
colony.
> You wrote:
> When I say 'drop' I mean get them from your carrier sitting out of
A goodly time? What version of Full Thrust do you play, man? PDSs have a 6"
range, which is identical to the attack range of a fighter. And they can (now
that fleet book is out) move 24" in a turn. During a turn a PDS can take down
a max of two fighters (and has a 50% chance of killing NONE). Now, you can
translate inch to whatever you
like--meters to kalicams to parsecs--but the rules don't change. You
wanna build some uberPDS, that's fine with me, but don't take that assumption
into a discussion of Full Thrust without saying something like "In my
universe, PDSs have a 6' range" or whatever.
> On 20 Jun 98 at 21:37, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
I thought that we weren't taking sides, just exploring the envelope. I thought
FT missiles (not SML's) each had an AI? That makes them pretty common.
Especially if you can afford to waste one per missile. One per battery of
PDS's is rather cost effective in comparison. Just a point regarding it only
taking a few SML's to defend a planet, or make it dangerous to go near it,
anyway. You nead about six sites aroud the planet to give an all aspect
defense, unless you want the attacker to come close via your blindside.
I think we've come to the general conclusion that mounting an attack on a
properly populated planet is going to be a VERY MAJOR campaign, drawing on
very large manpower, and other resources, and involving a massive supply
train, not the sort of thing tobe embarked upon lightly. For smaller colonies,
attacking critical points with the resources of a standing navy is possible.
Did you come up with any rules for planetary defenses yet?
I'm still knocking some ideas around my head on at least an abstract method of
doing planetary assualts, with a view to expansion to something that can
actually be 'played' in a more traditional sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 20 Jun 98 at 21:40, John Atkinson wrote:
> A goodly time? What version of Full Thrust do you play, man? PDSs
Good point. For some reason I'd mentally blocked that PDS's have the same
range. Probably something to do with them being land based and
not required to be so low powered/compact/nor on a moving platform,
but I guess offsetting that they have to fire through atmosphere, it may as
well equal out.
Hmm OK, at one PDS per fighter group attacking, that translates to
about 20-25% casualties, not good, but not excessive either.
Overload the defenses with many fighters and you do a lot better, find out the
planet has way more PDS's than you thought, and you are in trouble.
I prefer Rels by the way;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 20 Jun 98 at 21:40, John Atkinson wrote:
I don't want to get overly involved in this thread 'cos there is so much else
to do right now, but I'd just point out that 6" is not necessarily the
"weapons range" of a fighter - it is the distance from its target ship
within which it has be in order to be MOVED IN TO the attack; I'd have to
check the books to be certain, but I think we have mentioned at least once in
FT or MT that fighters that wish to attack a ship should be moved much closer
to the ship model after the ships have moved, in the same way that
dogfighting groups are placed base-to-base. The stated 6" is an
arbitrary distance within which the fighters can actually reach attack
position/range
within that combat phase, if that makes sense [:/]. Though we don't
explicitly state fighter weapon range, it is assumed to be pretty much
point-blank compared to shipboard weaponry (no PSB, I just invoke ADL -
Author's Dramatic Licence). Another thing that you should consider is that
aerospace fighters will almost certainly fly differently (and probably MUCH
slower) in atmosphere than in space.....
Jon (GZG)
> Hmm OK, at one PDS per fighter group attacking, that translates to
> On 21 Jun 98 at 21:47, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> >Good point. For some reason I'd mentally blocked that PDS's have the
Agreed on the speed issue, but at a back of the envelope scale of 1 inch is
1000 miles (I dunno where I got that from) 20 miles of noticeable atmosphere
is possibly insignificant, or possibly not, depending on how short a range
fighter weapons are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> I thought that we weren't taking sides, just exploring the envelope.
Not much of one--fly in a relatively straight line and detonate a
nuclear warhead when you get close. Doesn't deserve the title of AI.
> or make it dangerous to go near it, anyway. You nead about six sites
Sure--but what you're more likely to see on a sparsely settled colony
will be a half-dozen semi-automated sites near the spaceport.
> Did you come up with any rules for planetary defenses yet?
Not yet. I'm having difficulty taking into account scales and the atmosphere.
Take beam batteries, for instance. Whipping out my
handy-dandy TNE Fusion, Fire, and Steel (an invaluable resource for
anyone playing with semi-realistic science fiction), I note Particle
Accelerator Weapons (as the FT "official" beam batteries are) can
either be charged or not. Charged beam weapons have piss-poor vacuum
abilities (range multiplier of.001!), and neutral beam weapons have
fairly lousy atmospheric permformance. (Note for TNE users--am assuming
an atmosphere code of 6 or 7, ie fairly Earthlike) An N-PAW firing
from orbit (same 30K km space combat hex) is treated as if it were firing at a
vacuum target 50 hexes away. A charged particle beam is
about ten times as good--but it still takes something out of the
performance. And if the charged particle beam has to interact with a
magnetic field like Earth's, accuracy is degraded further. N-PAWs can
be switched to fire charged particles when necessary-but still note the
degredation for the orbital fire. In other words, this gives A batteries a max
range of 3.6 inches. Now that's roughly 3,600 km, right? Max range, mind you.
And a 1,200 km range for the class one batteries. Now, I don't know a thing
about a orbital mechanics. Which is another hindrance. I don't know what's low
orbit, geosynchronous, etc.
PDS are another issue. I've always assumed they are computor directed laser
clusters. YMMV. Now, operating those things in an atmosphere will (again,
going of TNE FFS, page 128) impose a range multiplier of.01. Hence the former
6000 km range becomes 60 km. Much less intimidating. Of course fighter weapon
ranges are also much reduced.
Missles will, I'll venture to guess, not be terrifically affected. If in a
vacuum they can accelerate to a significant fraction of lightspeed, then they
can do almost as well in an atmosphere. Of course, it works both ways, no? We
can drop nuclear warheads from the full 24,000km range of a SLM system, and a
MT missle has a range of... 18x3 is 54,000 miles. This does present nasty
issues like "Umm, doesn't dropping big whonkin' nukes sorta nullify the whole
point of the war?" But that's philosophy not tactics. You could, I imagine
remove the warheads of a salvo of missles to produce a kinetic weapon (at.1c,
do you really need to explode?). You'd even have decent odds of hitting your
target, presuming perfect intelligence on where everything of value is. Of
coures, against a orbiting warship, it
would also be much easier to target (perhaps d3+3 are on-target?).
> You wrote:
> meters of armor on the planetary defense batteries. Thinking about
Here's a nasty premise for you:
Starships have enough energy emissions from the drive, electronics, weapons,
etc to be targetted with passive arrays. How do you find a
passive sensor array? I mean yeah, with gee-whiz sensors you can find
out a LOT from orbit, but there is a vast difference between having the raw
data and spending the time to make it usable. Remember the ruckus when CIA was
accused of not finding out about India's nuclear tests? They had all the
evidence they needed on film, and actually delivered to the photogs. But they
didn't interpret it in time. That's the killer. If you take film with a 1cm
resolution and photograph a small continent, anyone wanna speculate on how
many hundreds of miles of film that translates out to?
> On 21 Jun 98 at 20:35, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
So they aren't clever;) Clever enough to point a PDS system perhaps, but you
are right, perhaps not clever enough to make decisoins about tactics.
> >or make it dangerous to go near it, anyway. You nead about six sites
Agreed.
> >Did you come up with any rules for planetary defenses yet?
Orbital mechanics are.. Low orbit is anything above the atmosphere, but not a
'long' way away (kinda fuzzy). Geosynchronous would only be
used by space stations/satellites that don't have any drives to speak
of, and that want to stay above the same part of the planet. and it's
thousands of miles up. FT ships have so much manuever power they can force
their own orbits at whatever height they want
> PDS are another issue. I've always assumed they are computor
Ok, perhaps one turn to get from the carriers to just above atmospheric
interface, and another turn to drop down to attack range.
> Missles will, I'll venture to guess, not be terrifically affected.
Well, assuming that it's atmospheric streamlining and strength are extremely
good it might survive long enough in atmosphere at.1c to do something other
than look pretty as it evaporates, or swerve radically off course. Kinetic
projectiles have to be fairly big to not burn up at those sorts of speeds.
Missiles actually probably have to specifically decelerate just before hitting
atmosphere after a quick transit from the firing platform, so that they can
acquire the target, and drop on it at a less fantastic speed.
Firing ship based missiles, is partly countered by having those meters of
armor on the planetary defense batteries. Thinking about the vulnerability of
their sensor systems, it seems likely that there
would be duplicated sensor systems, and/or portable ones (grav
trucks, submarines, etc) so that it's difficult to work out where they are.
They can relay the targeting info into the defense 'grid' in general perhaps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a quick note, since I should be configuring an Apache Web
server... (8-)
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
Yeah, though since the Atmosphere/Space interface is fuzzy, maybe
you should just define low orbit as an orbit where an object in that orbit
will stay up for 'a little while', i.e. where the atmosphere has a small to
minimal effect.
(Isn't the formal def'n of LEO for Earth anything below the Van Allen belts?
Anybody who does anything with space stuff care to comment? Indy?)
J.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >meters of armor on the planetary defense batteries. Thinking about
> out a LOT from orbit, but there is a vast difference between having
Okay, but it would be fair to say the reason we use active sensors is they
give us more data, faster. Passive solutions take longer to develop and are
usually less deterministic. So there is a point in having active sensors. And
these can get located from orbit or by EW fighters or recon missions by SF.
Now... once the active sensors for PD are down.... then they can go to passive
and still be a threat. But a lesser one, and perhaps slower to react, giving
the invader opportunity if he is quick.
Remember the ruckus
> when CIA was accused of not finding out about India's nuclear tests?
> They had all the evidence they needed on film, and actually delivered
> continent, anyone wanna speculate on how many hundreds of miles of
With computer power doubling every couple of years, would you care to
speculate how easy this simple pattern analysis (simple i'd guess with the
heurestic expert systems employed in 300 years) is even for a whole continent?
I'm thinking that this might be hard to do now... but isn't too hard in the
future. So locating ground sensors might be a competition of your camouflage
system vs. the enemy's terrain AI.
/************************************************
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
**************************************************/
Richard spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Orbital mechanics are.. Low orbit is anything above the atmosphere,
What are orbits just inside the atmosphere (outer layers)? Other than short
term...are they not also Low Orbits?
> but not a 'long' way away (kinda fuzzy). Geosynchronous would only be
True, but running low to the point of being on the edge of the atmospheric
envelope probably costs in terms of wear and fuel.
> Missiles actually probably have to specifically decelerate just
And they don't want to skip off an atmosphere (a risk in atmospheric entry)
nor do they wish to burn up by entering at a totally ludicrous
speed - they need to survive to reach their destination. They want to
come in fast, but not superfast.
> Firing ship based missiles, is partly countered by having those
Traveller proposed a network of these various active and passive sensors used
to coordinate deep site meson guns (and other weapons such as PAs and
missiles). You could destroy these sensors, but if you only got the active
portion, they could still acquire a poorer but still workable passive firing
solution. Maybe how we should look at treating planetary sensors should
involve a gradual degradation of planetary battery fire as ortillery,
aerospace fighters, and spec ops disable parts of the sensor net. This
degradation could eventually
result in a non-functional planetary defence, but most likely (since
the returns might be diminishing) you'd damage the net as badly as you could,
thus dropping the quality of defender firing solutions (if you could kill 95%
of the active sites, you'd probably not only attrit the ability to hit large
targets like orbiting ships but totally eliminate the ability to target
fighters and such as passive solutions aren't too hot for this) and then you'd
drop your drop pods, assault shuttles, and another few waves of aerospace
fighters and close air support for your assault. If you could (by damaging 65%
of the planetary sensor net) reduce your casualties by a factor of five, it
would make an assault far more feasible. Getting the last 10% of planetary
sensors might take months, but if the defenders are whittled down that badly,
they won't hit much.
Just my 2 pence.
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
**************************************************/
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 17:10:22 -0500 (CDT) jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) writes:
> More Thrust 'strongly reccomends' ruling that to provide orbital fire
If and I do mean if someone were to put "ortillery" in geostationary orbit it
would be 22,400 miles above the planet ( class M planet) and unless they were
light speed weapons it would have a response time of over ten minutes.
Actually at about 10 miles per second on a direct route it would take over 37
minutes. At a low earth orbit (100 miles) about 10 seconds. Since neither of
them would be traveling in a straight line you could double or triple that.
By the way if the projectile were traveling significantly faster than
that you will begin to talk of rather exotic materials and workmanship -
at that point missiles are cheaper.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
> At 05:55 PM 6/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
Wot, doing *work*??? ^_-
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
The atmosphere/space interface is *very* fuzzy, especially since, as I
recall, it changes periodically based on temperature, etc. -- the warmer
the air/plant below, the further out the atmosphere will "bulge".
Something like that.
> From my Model UN daze in HS, though, I think "legally" (as defined by
> (Isn't the formal def'n of LEO for Earth anything below the
Well, from my handy-dandy Smithsonian Guide "Spaceflight", LEO is "The
orbit around Earth that a spacecraft makes when it is between one hundred and
a few hundred miles above the surface." Not especially scientific, but there
it is....
> You wrote:
> Okay, but it would be fair to say the reason we use active sensors is
You've gotta fly in-system. Plenty of time for a good sensor network
(sensor bouys strung out into the asteroid belt, wot?) to refine a firing
solution.
> develop and are usually less deterministic. So there is a point in
PDSs will have to use active to deal with multiple small maneuverable
targets, but the anti-ship batteries won't have to.
> With computer power doubling every couple of years, would you care to
Way too complicated without really, really advanced AIs. It's still an
art today--with all the digitalized doohickys to help it out, you still
need someone with a certain temperment and talent, plus a good bit of
specialized training. Pattern recognition isn't very easy, and when you take
into account the various methods of camoflage available today, let alone 200
years in the future.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> >Okay, but it would be fair to say the reason we use active sensors is
> >they give us more data, faster. Passive solutions take longer to
Sure you do. But active sensors will let you pick up changes in enemy course,
speed and position faster. A smart enemy would make this routine while moving
in an assault. Random walk course alterations would play hell with your
passive solution. You need the active net to get up to date (or as near as you
can) targeting info. And I bet
I can nail your in-system sensors if they transmit their data....
> >develop and are usually less deterministic. So there is a point in
I wasn't so much thinking game mechanics as 'real' life. I think (as pointed
out above) your big guns need up to date active firecon data to hit targets.
Keep in mind, SMB may be able to dumb out missiles without much of a solution,
but particle beams, lasers, etc. need a
damn good solution - I'm assuming off by more than a thousand or two
thousand meters is a miss - which is possible when engaging a
randomly maneuvering target without active sensors. Or so I think.
> >With computer power doubling every couple of years, would you care to
> >speculate how easy this simple pattern analysis (simple i'd guess
> >a competition of your camouflage system vs. the enemy's terrain AI.
Perhaps (working with people at local Canadian universities in Image
Processing and pattern recognition from images using AI) I have a little more
current view of the state of the research art (not necessarily that deployed
in the outside world yet). The technology has improved markedly in the past
ten years. Multiply that into 300 years, and I think this feat will be a joke,
if the progress rate is linear (most are exponential with computers). And your
comment about
camouflage just agrees with my point - it'll be a competition of your
scanners and AI versus his jammers, spoofers, visual and EM
camouflage - just as it is today - just as it always probably will
be.
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
**************************************************/
> On 22 Jun 98 at 15:44, John Atkinson wrote:
> Starships have enough energy emissions from the drive, electronics,
Actually, this is something I've been mulling over, and haven't come up with a
great solution to yet. The pro's for finding the sites are: High
concentrations of perhaps detectable armour substance. Powerplants for beam
weapons. SML's don't need big powerplants though. The plethora of intelligence
sensor data could be scanned at high speed by computers I guess, and they
could send their best prospects to human operators for them to sort out the
real ones from the dummies....
You could of course bring a dummy ship 'fleet' into range and see where the
missiles light up from. It can turn into a game of chicken though. Is it a
real fleet? Do you want to give away your defense position? Or, send fighters
in close to take a closer look at the suspect sites..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> High concentrations of perhaps detectable armour substance.
How detectable is ferrocrete? (Or other generic SF bunker-building
material). Slam all small ferrocrete buildings and you might find yourself
nailing a lot of odd structures.
> Or, send fighters in close to take a closer look at the suspect
Whereupon we're back to tangling with those nasty PDSs.:)
> On 23 Jun 98 at 21:28, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
I dunno, so it must be up to us to invent;)
> >Or, send fighters in close to take a closer look at the suspect
Yup. I think the drone option has benefits. a 'fleet' of 8 thrust drones
acting like lower thrust starships, which run away at full speed as soon as
SML's are launched (not that the turn sequence allows it) or perhaps sacrifice
them, it's better than losing real ships, although possibly still a bit costly
in points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~