Well here's my bit for the Gate Defense discussion...
First there's the logistics. If all I have to do is worry about the
spot I'm in, then I can load up on firepower and armor/shields because
I don't have to worry about spending money on moving things around. If I have
to worry about attacking a spot other than the one I'm in, then I will have to
worry about moving things about, which means less resources for armor and
firepower. So at this point it's already cheaper for the defender....
Now for the intelligence side in reference to what I'm facing. If I'm simply
defending the spot I'm in, then I'll probably have a few pickets on the other
side of my gate. Nothing much really, probably a small station closest to the
gate, and a few picket ships roaming some distance from the station. Since I'm
only worried about one spot though, it's not like my picket line has to roam
the neighboring system, they just need to be far enough out to be able to warm
the watch station in time. This gives me an opportunity to get a snapshot of
what's going to try and get through the gate to my side. If I'm trying to
attack a spot other than the one I'm in, I'm going to need to send scouts out
ahead of my main fleet to look for pickets, lest the defender get a clear
picture, or even a glimpse of my force composition. Even if I know where the
gate is, there's no garuntee that the enemy picket line, if they do have a
picket line, is going to be right there, which means that my scouts are going
to have a quite a bit of space to cover before I can move in. The only way
that I could possibly be able to move in without the enemy picket line, again,
if it is indeed there, being able to warn of my approach would be to jump
in-system, litterally on top of the picket line, and wipe them out
instantly. This of course requires that my weapons were warmed up and ready to
fire, and targetting solutions were >acurately< plotted before the jump; that
the point I come in at is >exactly< where I intended to be; and that the
transition from FTL is instantaneous with the crew suffering no effects from
transittioning....
If I'm defending the gate, the first thing I'm going to do is to define a
coridor leading from the gate, and it won't be towards the heart of the
system, instead it would lead to the side somewhere. Around the corridor I
would place layered minefields in groups. First around the gate would be a
layered minefield, as some of the mines were detinated, other mines behind
would thruster into place to fill the gaps. At the end of the first minefield
would be my first set of defensive platforms. Hollowed out asteroids, filled
with gun batteries, PDS arrays, and even some EW suites. A few of the
platforms would have
sensor/comm suites to relay information about what's coming through the
gate. After that I'd have one more minefield, and my final ring of platforms,
and then the actual gate defense platform. The final platform would be larger,
containing more batteries and PDS arrays and EW suites, everything pointed
straight down the corridor. A little further in system is where I'd place a
station with a moderate defense fleet. The majority of this fleet would
probably be mainly frigates and cruisers, system defense ships. If I'm
attackning a system, even assuming I managed to take out any advanced warning
system, I'm still probably not going to know what's in the system, so my first
launch would be scouts and recon drones. Assuming they actually come back with
data on the defenses, I'm going to have to finalize my attack based on that
data, which of course gives my opponent time to mobilize his defenses...
Now, let's assume my drones come back depicting the defensive setup I
mentioned. My initial milssle salvos would have to be specifically targetted
to the minefield first. The corridor would probably be defined for starships.
I doubt my missle salvos are really going to attract the attention of the
mines, so even is my salvos get through the fire from the defense platforms
and manage to disable a few of them, my ships would still have to contend with
the unmolested minefield. So I have to attack that first. Then I have to take
out the defense platforms, which, with the minefield gone, would have truley
open fields of fine on my missle salvos, drones, etc that come through the
gate. There's also the gate defense platform at the end of the corridor I have
to worry about. Okay, somehow I manage to take out the first minefield and the
first ring of platforms. I now have an area that I can divide my fleet and go
around the remaining minefield and defense platforms. However, I still have to
worry about the gate defense platform firing at me straight down the corridor,
and going
> around< the remaining defenses means splitting up my fleet. Making the
Now if I had a fleet of system defense ships. instead of the aforementioned
gate defense system.... First off I'd have to hold off until the attack came
through the gate. If they sent salvo after salvo, my ships would be at the
mercy of the missle salvos. Then when the fleet came through, whatever
remained of my fleet would be at the mercy of the invaders.. my defenses would
have burned out rather quickly.
The other thing to consider is that >if< I do create a system defense fleet
large enough to repel the incoming invasion fleet, that's one more fleet of
ships that I don't have out there defending my shipping lanes, other systems,
or generally doing what they can to whittle down the incoming enemy fleet.
> Rrok Anroll wrote:
> Well here's my bit for the Gate Defense discussion...
If you only have one single "gate" to defend, this works fine. (BTW, let's
call them "warp points" instead since that's what they are :-) )
However, if you have two or more warp points to defend the defender runs
into problems. Simply put, if A and B have the same build capacity and A
has two possible avenues of attack, then B must defend *both* of them -
which makes it quite likely that B will be outgunned at the point of attack
when the attack finally comes. Probably not by 2:1, since A not only has to
invest in engines but also needs some sort of screening force at the other
warp point, but still by a fairly respectable margin. The more avenues of
attack there are, the worse the defenders' problems become.
> Now for the intelligence side in reference to what I'm facing. If I'm
> This gives me an opportunity to get a snapshot
No, it doesn't. All you get is a snapshot of the attacker's *vanguard* -
which will typically be just strong enough to drive in or destroy your
pickets, and nothing more. The real attack force won't move up against the
warp point until your picket has already been destroyed. Without pickets,
the defenders don't know if there'll be an attack at all - so how long
can they remain at combat alert before they have to stand down at least some
of their forces and let the crews rest?
Of course this requires the attackers to send out a vanguard force - but
once the defenders' pickets have been removed, *neither* side knows exactly
what the other has available unless they send ships through the warp point to
take a look. Then again, unless there's only one single avenue of attack
the "vanguard" force might be nothing but a feint - with several
different attack routes available, a typical offensive will probably start
with the attackers driving in the defenders' pickets in several different
systems
more or less simultanously, and then pause for a while before the real
attack goes in :-/
> The only way that I could possibly be able to move in without the enemy
> picket line, again, if it is indeed there, being able to warn of my
Provided that you *can* "jump in-system" without using the warp point,
of
course - otherwise you're merely describing the opening stages in the
warp point assault proper. However, as I described above the attackers don't
*need* to avoid the pickets since they won't see the entire attacking force
anyway.
> If I'm defending the gate, the first thing I'm going to do is to define
That's nice. Means that there are lots of targets for attacking AMT
warheads to wipe out - they don't need any precise targetting, after all
<g>
BTW, how long ranges do the weapons on your defence platforms have? If
they're long-ranged enough that they can hit attacking ships effectively
from outside the attackers' own weapons range, then they'll not only be
huge but also hugely expensive. If they're short-ranged, they'll have to
be
deployed close to the warp point - which makes them vulnerable to the
enemy's return fire.
Either way, if you've deployed all your platforms to protect the corridor it
won't take much of a minefield breach in the opposite direction to allow the
attacking ships to move away from them! If you want to be (reasonably) sure
that (some of) your platforms will be able to keep the attacking ships under
fire for any serious amount of time, you either need to deploy
platforms all around the warp point or you need to deploy long-ranged
platforms very close to the warp point... which of course makes them very
vulnerable to the attackers' weapons.
> A few of the platforms would have sensor/comm suites to relay
With this set-up, the "final" platform will almost certainly be too far
from the warp point to be of much use. If the attackers can breach the
minefields they won't go anywhere near it; and if the attackers *can't* breach
the minefield so they'd have to go up the corridor (and thus get close to the
"final" platform) it would be much cheaper for the defenders
to use some more mines to block the corridor as well - you did describe
your mines as being slightly mobile, so it wouldn't be too hard to unblock it
again if you need to.
> A little further in system is where I'd place a station with a moderate
Or you make an educated guess and attack anyway - after all you're no
worse off with an educated guess than you'd be if your recon probe fails, and
you
haven't wasted any resources on dead recon units :-/
> Assuming they actually come back with data on the defenses, I'm going
...and then *keep* them mobilized indefinitely, waiting for an attack which
might or might not appear... :-)
> Now, let's assume my drones come back depicting the defensive setup I
No, you don't *have* to attack the mines first. If the mines don't attack your
missiles, there is in fact *no* need for the missiles to attack the
mines immediately - you can just as easily concentrate on the defensive
platforms first (eg. to knock out the systems that control the minefield
redeployments) and use later missile waves to deal with the minefields. It all
depends on how many missiles you have available.
> Then I have to take out the defense platforms,
Not all of them, particularly not if they're positioned the way you
specified - you positioned the defence platforms to cover the
*corridor*, but if the mines are gone (which as I noted above they don't have
to be,
but let's say they are) the attacking ships don't need to move through your
prepared corridor at all. They can move in any other direction they like,
eg. directly in-system to attack the moderate mobile defences directly
:-/
> Add to this the fact that if I haven't expended my supply of salvo
Says who?
> So at this point I'm pretty much to my beam weapons... going up against
Provided that the defenders aren't badly outnumbered from the start, of
course. Which they might very well be, particularly if they've had to build
defences this massive in more than once place while the attackers concentrated
most of their ships and missiles into one single assault
force :-)
> Now if I had a fleet of system defense ships. instead of the
Your ships would be considerably *less* at the mercy of the attackers'
missile salvoes - because unlike the fixed minefields and defence
platforms, the system defence ships can run away and let the missiles expend
themselves on nothing. If the attacker manages to get recon data on the
defences, mobile ships can also reposition themselves make said probe data
invalid pretty much immediately; it takes *much* longer to reposition
minefields and immobile stations.
> Then when the fleet came through, whatever remained of my fleet would
Why? You put a small squadron on the warp point - large enough to deal
with
scout probes, nothing bigger - and you'll most likely lose it when the
attackers' missiles start coming through... but that leaves 90% or more of
your fleet intact since the rest of the missiles expended themselves for no
effect.
> The other thing to consider is that >if< I do create a system defense
But if you create an immobile warp point defence force large enough to repel
the incoming invasion fleet, that's *also* one more fleet of ships
that you don't have out there. You seem to base your argument on an unstated
assumption that your massive minefields and defence stations are
very cheap compared to the mobile system defence ships - but if they're
massive enough to stop the enemy, they won't be cheap at all.
All in all, I fully agree with Grant: if it is possible to send automated
weapons through a warp point (or even cyborg weapons - eg., I very much
doubt that humans would have any serious qualms about tying a rat or even
chimp brain into a missile pod if it was necessary to get the pod through the
warp point), then fixed defences are effectively reduced to tripwires.
Of course, there already is a game which studies this kind of warp point
assaults in detail. The VVerse would probably be better off not emulating
StarFire :-/
Later,
> From: Oerjan Ohlson
*definitely* concur...
Let me finally throw my.02 Euro in:
Point One: You're all talking about multiple FTL methods, right?
Including one that is not limited to wormholes, right?
Under that circumstance, only a friggin moron would bother building anything
but customs inspection stations, perhaps with a handful of fighter squadrons
for backup, at the wormholes.
Because the second you spend even 10% of your budget on wormhole defenses,
some bright boy is going to hyper in an entire battlefleet on the other side
of the system, move in, sweep aside your mobile forces, and take over your
planet. Your warp point defenses will then meekly surrender when they realize
they aren't getting any resupply of food, ammo, spare parts, etc.
Analogy: Wormholes are like rail lines. Standard FTL is like trucks. Rail is
much cheaper for bulk cargos, and much faster. BUT: No one invests huge
amounts of money in defenses for their train stations. Just some customs
officers to make sure there isn't anything shady going on. Just as no one
really has armed and armored trains. You could do that if your rail lines were
under attack, dedicate a handful of warships to convoy escort duty through the
wormhole system. But most of your military is going to be in trucks and
armored vehicles, not armored trains. And your fortresses are going to be
around places where you know the enemy has to go. Not your bleedin' train
stations!
Point Two: Some people are filling my mailbox arguing (largely ignorantly)
about TACTICS when you havn't even nailed down precisely how the PHYSICS work.
PHYSICS drives Engineering Physics also defines the Astrography Engineering
and Astrography drive Economics Economics and Astrography drive Strategy
Strategy drives Operational Considerations Strategy also drives Procurement
Engineering drives Ship Construction Operational considerations, procurement,
and ship construction all drive Tactics.
You're arguing stupid pointless details because you havn't figured out what
considerations make up the background to those details.
By analogy: I havn't decided whether to paint my house or install siding. You
are each trying to convince me of the value of a particular shade of red
paint.
I'm not even sure I want to paint the house, much less whether it should be
red!
Point Three: Stop thinking in terms of equal point battles. Those are
(historically speaking) about as common as two-headed calves. If you
are trying to think in terms of a universe's reality, then ignore the game
convention of equal point battles.
Point Four: Enough about Gibralter already. Space is neither an ocean with
tiny chokepoints where you can build fortresses, nor is it like land warfare
with mountains and passes and whatnot. A warp point is not "like" Gibralter or
the Cumberland Gap, or the Suez Canal. A warp point is a warp point.
Point Five:
If you havn't read at least two of the Starfire novels AND/OR played a
dozen warp point assaults in the Starfire game system, please shut the hell up
because you're rehashing points that are made in those places with a good deal
more coherency.
In a message dated 2/1/05 8:22:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
Let me finally throw my.02 Euro in:
<snip 1 through 3> Point Four: Enough about Gibralter already. Space is
neither an ocean with tiny chokepoints where you can build fortresses, nor is
it like land warfare with mountains and passes and whatnot. A warp point is
not "like" Gibralter or the Cumberland Gap, or the Suez Canal. A warp point is
a warp point.
Point Five:
If you havn't read at least two of the Starfire novels AND/OR played a
dozen warp point assaults in the Starfire game system, please shut the hell up
because you're rehashing points that are made in those places with a good deal
more coherency.
John <snip>
So, your point is... {VBG}
John, I love the fact that you cut straight to the chase (over bodies
sometimes, yes...) and that you have grasped an essential point of Air
Warfare -
the 3rd dimension makes a lot of 'standard' realities from land/sea
warfare no longer relevant for Air warfare (or in this case the 'beyond the 3D
limitation because of hyperspace' extension). I suppose Subs have some of that
3D aspect but littoral warfare affects even Subs. Which is why I really prefer
thinking of FT as a quasi-Air Combat game more then a quasi-naval game.
But
then, as an ex-USAF guy, I would.
Looks like I have a few books to read Gracias,
> Warbeads@aol.com wrote:
> *Looks like I have a few books to read*
John's right. The Starfire novels cover warp point assaults in exhaustive
detail. The technological assumptions are specific to that universe, but some
of the points are generally valid. Try, oh, "In Death
Ground" and "The Shiva Option". They're the highest-tech and have many,
many battles - almost all warp point assaults. They're also the most
widely available right now. Pity he's unlikely to do anything about the
Rigellians. As novels they're kind of depressing, the casualties the Arachnids
inflict are horrific. I gave up on Starfire because warp point assaults are
depressing.
You can do some graduate work on wormhole strategy by reading the Vorkosigan
Saga. It's got warp point assaults, changing technology and lots of
astropolitical theory in a wormhole setting.
Realistically, if you do end up implementing ANY kind of fixed defenses,
you'll end up putting them at your critical nodes. Shipyards, colonies,
anyplace the enemy has no choice to go if he wants to do something. Jumpgates
aren't one of those places when you have multiple FTL engine types.
And as the Vorkosigan novels say: "The easiest way to capture a Wormhole is
from both ends at once".
Politics and espionage are much easier than frontal assault.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> Oerjan wrote:
> Of course, there already is a game which studies this kind of warp
As a refuge from the Starfire list, I can agree with that sentiment <G>.
Well...
I'd just like to go on record for thanking both Oerjan Ohlson & John
Atkinson.... And I actually do mean that, although the rest of this is laced
with humor...
First Oerjan for reminding that I am not indeed Patton during his finest
moments, but quite rather Custer at his last stand....
I have to admit, that I had managed to get suckered in on the logistics
argument... and of course I was thinking of only a single defense point not
the big picture.... One only learns from playing chess against those better
than oneself....
And to John, for quite succinctly pointing out the pointlessness of this
discussion... Somehow I managed to lose my sense of sanity....
Like Tic-Tac-Toe, 'to win' sometimes just isn't a good enough reason to
play....
If anyone else wants to join me in removing themselves from this particular
discussion... I'll be playing in the computer lab at the
Crystal Palace.... ;-P
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:20:36AM +0100, John Atkinson wrote:
> Analogy: Wormholes are like rail lines. Standard FTL is like trucks.
The only reason I can see that this might work differently - and this
is of course tied to your Point Two - is if the physics work out as
"wormholes are like high-speed rail lines, standard FTL is like
walking". Even then you (the wormhole power) are likely to have a big mobile
reserve rather than wormhole point defences...
> Stop thinking in terms of equal point battles. Those are
I have been trying to get this idea across for years. :-) The scenarios
I run tend to be:
(1) Part of a campaign game. Each side has the forces it managed to get on
site. We don't really know who "won" until the whole campaign is over and we
can analyse all battles in context.
(2) One-off game. There's a stronger side and a weaker side. Why is the
weaker side staying to fight? It's slower and can't evade; it's covering the
withdrawal of the freighters; it's making a Heroic Last
Stand to defend a fixed high-value target; it's expecting
reinforcements any time now. These are some of the options; I'm sure there are
others. Those are the scenarios I run, and rather than just count up the
number of destroyed ships I usually rate each side's success proportionally to
the force they took in. If you went in with a scoutship and blew away one
destroyer from the Grand Fleet before you got nailed, that's a "win" for your
side...
> If you havn't read at least two of the Starfire novels AND/OR played a
I was trying to suggest this, but I think your approach is more likely
to get through. :-)
R
John Atkinson said:
> Let me finally throw my .02 Euro in:
Actually, no. If the wormhole isn't worth defending, then it's not worth
defending. Since there is a discussion about how to defend it, it is assumed
that it is worth defending.
> Point Two:
I think the physics is mostly irrelevent, since it comes down to
how the game system works - which yes, is based on someone's idea
of physics, but...
> Point Three:
...any game system is going to be (vaguely) balanced. An asteroid with a base
built into the middle of it is going to be relatively cheap from a physics
standpoint, but will have thousands of points
of armour/hull (possibly millions). A game system which costs
according to hull strength (as FT does) is going to break as soon as you bring
in fixed defences like this.
For example, are big long ranged weapons expensive because they have to fit
into a spaceship? A beam weapon that isn't constrained by mass, volume or heat
efficiency may be a lot cheaper than one that is. Unless the game system
allows this though, it's pointless talking about 'real world' physics.
> Point Five:
Irrelevent. Those places aren't this place. Different rules and different
physics.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:12:28 -0000 (GMT), Samuel Penn
> <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually, no. If the wormhole isn't worth defending, then it's
You're still putting the cart before the horse. If the wormhole can be
bypassed, then it isn't worth defending. If it can't be bypassed, then get
into the minutia.
> > Point Two:
about
> > TACTICS when you havn't even nailed down precisely how the PHYSICS
It's no more irrelevant than the study of ballistics is irrelevant to the
firing of artillery.
Sure, from an operater standpoint you don't need to know the precise physics
of it, but from a designer standpoint you absolutely must.
> ...any game system is going to be (vaguely) balanced. An asteroid
Actually, what burns you on points is weapons. That's why a system defense
destroyer costs more in points than does its FTL cousin. The question you have
to answer to determine whether or not STL or stationary defenses make sense
is: Does the points cost reflect economic reality?
Obviously, if you purchase ships in a campaign system according the point
value as given in FTFB, you have declared that the point system DOES reflect
economic reality and that static defenses are a huge flaming waste of money
because mobile starships are actually cheaper than the same mass in asteroid
bases.
> Irrelevent. Those places aren't this place. Different rules
Not irrelevant. Have you read them? How many of the issues people are
bickering about in minute detail are addressed at great length in
those novels? 90%+.
John Atkinson said:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:12:28 -0000 (GMT), Samuel Penn
No, the discussion assumes that it can't be bypassed. If it can be bypassed,
then you are right, there's far less reason to defend it (there may still be a
reason if only some people can bypass it).
At least, I'm assuming that it can't be bypassed. I'm also assuming that a
fixed base can keep station with it and that it's relatively small. Change any
of those, and it becomes indefensible with fixed defences.
> ...any game system is going to be (vaguely) balanced. An asteroid
Depends. A 1,000,000 mass asteroid with 4 fighter squadrons and a couple of
PDS costs a *lot*. You're not paying for the weapons. Realistically, it's
'real' cost may only be that of a light cruiser.
That's what I mean when I say the physics is irrelevent - the
actual game system is far more important because it takes into account things
like 'play balance'.
> Obviously, if you purchase ships in a campaign system according the
Well, I'd modify that to say that you've declared to balance forces according
to this point system. I've never viewed it as economic reality. If I did, then
the FTFB point system would go out the window.
> and that static defenses are a huge
Agreed with you here fully, but I'd say that the point system isn't geared to
represent reality but to represent play balance. I haven't been arguing from
the point of view of balanced points (though I'm aware some people have been).
> Irrelevent. Those places aren't this place. Different rules
No I haven't. And if 90%+ of people here haven't read them either,
then they're irrelevent until someone provides the info.
As you are. However, saying "it's been argued elsewhere, shutup" isn't useful.
In a message dated 2/1/05 9:01:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au writes:
And as the Vorkosigan novels say: "The easiest way to capture a Wormhole is
from both ends at once".
Politics and espionage are much easier than frontal assault.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
<snip>
Amen to that. Especially on the 'active participants' involved.
Gracias,
> Michael Llaneza wrote:
There was another interesting warp point assault in ANTARES DAWN by Michael
McCollum. The evil aliens used a dirty trick.
They spent the better part of several years manufacturing antimatter. Then
they sent a
"fire-ship" through the warp point, which
was of course surrounded by huge defensive orbital forts.
The invading fleet went through about fifty microseconds after the antimatter
detonated.
Consider, since the antimatter explosion is mostly an energy explosion, all
the deadly radiation and explosive force