IIRC, in the Pournelle/Niven setting with Alderson drives
the transit in would scramble computers. This would make wormholes much easier
to defend because the attacker can't bombard you with smart missiles.
Clockwork timers on nuke bombs worked, but nothing more elaborate.
In the Andromeda universe, slipstreaming is only possible for living
intelligent beings. I don't think this was ever justified even at a PSB level,
but again it would make attacking through a wormhole a lot more dangerous.
cheers,
> IIRC, in the Pournelle/Niven setting with Alderson drives
Yep, either of these would make a *huge* difference. If you are forced to send
manned vessels through, you'll have to make a lot of changes. Of course, you
can just bury a crew deep *deep* inside a major asteroid to control the
weapons arrays festooned around the outside. It would make a lousy vessel for
maneuver combat, but against fixed defenses, a series of them would probably
work. I still say though that any "wormhole" or "gate" system that would allow
large numbers of unmanned weapons to pass through it effectively eliminates
the usefulness of fixed defenses. First you send through huge numbers of very
small seeker weapons to wipe out the minefield, then a bunch of nukes to knock
out the weapons positions with EMP effect, then missile swarms to overwhelm
point defenses and knock out any remaining sensors and exposed positions.
Repeat until there is a hole in the defenses sufficient for a manned fleet to
move through with impunity. Nova cannon type weapons only make this easier.
Conversly, mobile fleets are far less vulnerable to this type of attack
because they aren't "fixed" near the wormhole and as the volume of space that
they could be in increases, the weapons needed to attack that increase
exponentially. It doesn't take much to make the most effecient way to attack a
defending fleet be your own fleet moving through the wormhole. I would think
the best way to defend a gate point would be to have a small number of fixed
defenses with a significant fleet able to back them up.
The
trick is to have enough defensive positions to be able to hold up the enemy
for your fleet to arrive, but not so many that the other side feels the need
to build specific weapons systems to obliterate them.
> At 11:27 AM -0500 2/1/05, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
If you can send weapons through one way, I can send them the other. And it
comes down to who has more to send. If I'm next to my home planet and I have
nearby fixed positions, I've got a super short logistics train and you have a
super long logistics train. In this case think of the entire Normandy defenses
condensed down to one small area against the Overlord forces. Because it's a
point as opposed to a long border, the fixed defenses gain benefit from
interlocking fire.
You and I or someone else (John Atkinson) need to play a game of Dirtside or
Full Thrust with Fixed defenses and you run a mobile force. Then you'll see
about the problem of just expecting technology alone to win the day. It takes
more than just saying you'll launch a bunch of missiles. Against a weaker foe
it's the different tech levels. Against a foe that you have parity with, it
all depends on if you bring what you need to crack the nut to the table. And
even then you'll pay the butchers bill one hundred fold.
> small seeker weapons to wipe out the minefield, then a bunch of
What stops other NUKEs from being sent back through at you?
> Conversly, mobile fleets are far less vulnerable to this type of
And they have to be there to do the job. They're also more expensive. Which is
back to where my point of fixed defense platforms would be cheaper for the
same tech level and more armor and weapons.
> I would think the best way to defend a gate point would be to have
Personally, I'd build some hulking huge asteroids that are in some kind of
stationary defense around the jump point (gate), Some smaller ones in from the
the FTL limit from the star and then some more in from the most likely transit
point from the Jump point (gate). There would also be a number of hulking huge
asteroids at the various Lagrange points around the system for additional long
base sensor resolution and as refueling points for system patrol craft and
fighter basing. Then there would be the home fleet and the core planet
defenses.
The basic Hulking huge asteroid is bigger than a dreadnought has super strong
hull, no drives, no ftl, lots of armor and more beam
weapons, fighters and missiles/torpedos/screens than you can stuff in
anything remotely mobile.
A 200 mass station with no drives and engines has an additional 60 mass left
over assuming you give a 200 mass ship NAC style mobility (Thrust 4) and
average hull with 140 for weapons. Ramp up the integrity to Super and you have
100 points for weapons, but 100 damage points. Sure it can't maneuver, but
it's like the NSL ships, why maneuver if you can pound your foe senseless when
he gets into range? The only trick is that with a station you have to place
weapons on 360 mounts or pay more for all around protection. But, given the
preference for not giving the enemy a base to fire at you with, when you're
guarding a wormhole junction, you'll have your closest stations with arcs only
on the wormhole to prevent them being used against your other stations if
they're captured somehow.
Pay a bit more for more mass and armor and you can build some freaking huge
stations that don't move, but pack a whallop. The amount of damage they can
soak up is staggering.
> You and I or someone else (John Atkinson) need to play a game of
Or put it on a FT table. You'd want to have an Alderson Point instead of an
actual gate station, otherwise the defenders are going to say "I could spend a
billion credits now on a defense fleet, or I could spend a thousand
credits now on a self-destruct for the gate, and only spend a billion
later if I need to build a new gate." Call it a 10mu diameter circle.
Ideally you'd have an umpire to decide targeting for
through-the-wormhole
shots.
> Personally, I'd build some hulking huge asteroids that are in some
I'd be inclined to add a MD1 to the Dreadrocks, to shift arcs as needed and to
move around a bit and throw off enemy targeting.
There's a bunch of wonderful defense ideas here. Thing is, if you build
defenses like this and I'm the opponent, I build my much smaller, cheaper
mobile fleet and launch periodic minor attacks. Then I just wait for the cost
of maintenance and staffing to bankrupt your government and move in after your
civilization has collapsed. Sure, you can build *something* that can't be
beat, given near infinite resources and time. Where do you get infinite
resources and time though? The Magninot Line *could* have been extended to the
coast and probably would have worked. If Germany doesn't attack for the next
25 years though, you've just built the biggest boondoggle of all time!
Eventually Germany just *buys* the bankrupt French government. The biggest
problem with "The Mote in God's Eye" is that eventually the human governments
are going to have something happen to them and not be able to hold the line,
and the Motie's are going to get out.
grant
> At 11:27 AM -0500 2/1/05, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
> At 1:14 PM -0500 2/1/05, Grant A. Ladue wrote:
A bunker cost less than a tank to maintain. Less fuel costs too. :-)
> Sure, you can build *something* that can't
Proximity to logistics helps. In Gibralar's case it was a logistics base.
> Where do you get infinite
Note, the Germans didn't actually attack the Maginot line. They went around.
They did have to attack Eban Emael, but the Belgians ignored some developments
and their position commanders didn't show sufficient initiative in conducting
the defense. If the Belgians had done 2 things, the German gliders would have
had a greater problem. 1 mines on the roof and better training of their
garrison troops (house them near the guns blast it!) and officers. Oh, more
machine guns to cover the close in.
> If Germany doesn't attack for the
I don't see the US going bankrupt from the Nike Zeus bases, the older Shore
forts or such. Britain didn't go bankrupt from the defense of England
fortifications they build. Germany would have however lost big time due to
their lack of planning for sealion (logisitcs and
> Eventually Germany just *buys* the bankrupt French government. The
Minde you I'm advocating that fixed defenses are a good multiplier for mobile
forces that cost less than the same firepower of mobile forces. Defending an
entire frontier is hard. Defending a specific point like a worm hole junction
or a straight or such is far far easier. Note, the Germans had to take Eban
Emael because of the geography of that particular area.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> I still say though that any "wormhole" or "gate" system that would
To reiterate one of the points I made in my previous post: the big difference
is that the attacking force is mobile (otherwise it can't attack), whereas the
fixed defences are not.
Sure, the defenders could send weapons through periodically just in case
there happens to be someone on the far side of the warp point... but unless
there actually are any attackers close to the warp point when this happens,
those weapons are wasted.
In order to be effective, the defenders' counter-weapons need to be sent
through *just before* the attack is intended to go in (because that's the
only time there are any targets for them to hit) - but in order to time
the
counter-strike correctly the defenders need advance warning of the
attack... and in a warp-point setting, they're not very likely to get
that advance warning. The pickets on the far side get destroyed or driven away
long before the main assault begins.
> You and I or someone else (John Atkinson) need to play a game of
You need to play a game - or better still, a campaign - of StarFire with
fixed defences, and you will see the problem of expecting fixed defences to
survive (much less be economically viable) against warp-capable
automated weapons.
Sure, Gibraltar with modern defences worth an equivalent of *one* modern
task force would certainly be a hard nut for *one* modern task force to
crack - but it won't face just *one* task force. If the enemy decides to
storm it it'll face two, or five, or twelve task forces at the same time
-
and the point is that the enemy *can* concentrate forces in this way. He
could also sail those forces around Africa and attack the Suez Canal instead,
thus bypassing the Gibraltar defences entirely, if he thinks that the Suez
defences are weaker than the Gibraltar ones. Sure, the canal is
more constricted - but if its defences are easier to crack, why not use
it?
That's the basic problem with fixed warp point defences, really: while you
might be able to build *one* impenetrable defence, you usually end up
having to defend *several different* spots simultaneously - which means
that you need equally strong everywhere, and that's expensive.
> What stops other NUKEs from being sent back through at you?
Nothing, except that once again the hit rate against mobile targets which you
don't even know are anywhere close to the warp point is far smaller than the
hit rate against fixed targets which can't leave the warp point.
(Of course, if you don't send the counter-strike missiles through until
the attacker's missiles have already arrived you're probably too late anyway.)
> Conversly, mobile fleets are far less vulnerable to this type of
Not exactly. A mobile fleet also has the option of fighting a running battle
instead of trying to block the warp point itself; a fixed defence
can't do that. A mobile fleet can also fall back if it risks being outflanked;
a fixed defence can't do that either.
> Personally, I'd build some hulking huge asteroids that are in some kind
> for additional long base sensor resolution and as refueling points for
OK. How many warp points did you say your star nation has to defend? How
would any one of those warp point defences fare against a mobile fleet worth
as much as *all* of your star nation's warp point defences (in
*all*
your systems) taken together?
> The basic Hulking huge asteroid is bigger than a dreadnought has super
...is still not very likely to defeat *two* enemy SDNs of mass 200, and not
much cheaper than one of them (particularly not when you start counting the
costs of the mobile shipyards needed to build them and/or the tugs
needed to tow them into position).
> Sure it can't maneuver, but it's like the NSL ships, why maneuver if
Because if you can't manoeuvre and your enemy can do so, he can either
side-step you instead of fight you or else choose the range that gives
him the best ratio between his and your firepower. Neither option is good for
the fixed station.
> But, given the preference for not giving the enemy a base to fire at
That means that they're useless the instant a mobile attacker manages to
get *away* from the warp point. How many layers of stations can you afford at
each warp point?
> Pay a bit more for more mass and armor and you can build some freaking
> they can soak up is staggering.
And you'll have to build one or more of these stations at *each* of your
threatened warp points, whereas the enemy can concentrate against any
*one*
those warp points.
This post got a bit repetitive. Sorry 'bout that - but this
much-repeated
point really is the key to warp point defences: fixed defences can't move to
reinforce other threatened warp points, so if the enemy can threaten more than
one of your warp points simultaneously he'll usually be able to outgun the
defences at the one point he decides to attack in earnest (as
opposed to merely driving in your pickets).
Later,