The naval base in the living room

[Carlobrand]

So, here's the thing. The naval base at a mainworld is a juicy target. Groundside elements might defend themselves from bombardment with point defense systems and be defended by the world's troops, but the orbital elements are going to be in trouble if an enemy drives friendly forces out of the orbital space. They're either going to be boarded and taken, and milked for anything useful, or they'll be destroyed. That ain't a starport, that's a military asset.

Question is: how would you prevent that? You could make the orbital elements jump-capable, they could do a short in-system jump to deep space until the system's secured, but they're in a gravity well. You could station them outside of the 100-D limit, but they're vulnerable there. You could make them atmosphere-capable and take them into the ocean, but you lose the flexibility of a dispersed structure, and that's not an option at Macene. Jewell's base likely can be defended, but Mirriam's base is an open target. How do you defend your assets?

 

[Matt123]

Good question. Thinking out aloud, once the base had fulfilled its military obligations to resist as long as practicle, I would expect the crew to evacuate to the planet surface while setting off the demolition charges.

Ships supported by the base are a different story though and their actions will likely be determined by fleet strategy if jump capable, or hiding in the oceans or system belts if not.

Of course that may bring up questions around what can or should the stay behind ships do in the face of an attack fleet.

 

[Timerover51]

It depends on what you mean by "defend".

If you mean keeping them from all harm in a war, that is not possible. If you mean making the enemy analyze whether the benefit to him of the naval base's destruction is greater than the losses he will take in destroying it, then that is a possibility.

Any military base is a target in wartime, and in the Imperium naval bases are going to be prime targets. The attacking force is not really likely to try and board any orbital facilities, but destroy them as soon as possible, when they can. Depending on the base location, the announcement that the war is starting might just be a massive 50 gigaton nuclear weapon being detonated near the orbital facilities by a non-descript freighter. Try defending against that. You put it two or three bases in the border sub-sectors, stockpile replacement modules for the orbital units that you can, and hope that you can survive loosing a couple of bases.

 

[Condottiere]

if attack is probable and defence likely untenable, then any important facilities and functions should be preemptively moved to the surface.

It could still be reinforced and keep attacking forces distracted from other targets, as long as possible.

 

[mike wightman]

Don't think Naval Base, think Naval Fortress.

An IN base is going to be bristling with weapon bays, point defence turrets, repulsor batteries, damper and meson screens, a black globe and enough spinal mounts equivalents to give an invading fleet a very hard time.

Some elements are likely to be mobile, either with m-drives that can carry them away to the outsystem or even jump drives for emergency relocation.

 

[BlackBat242]

Not to mention the addition of a few planetoid monitors in high orbit, with spinal mounts etc.

If I was setting up a planetary defense, I'd include a set of those - 6 or so 50kdt+ ones like in Supp 9 (CT) should make a tough nut to crack.

 

[nobby-w]

The real answer is defences - make it cost-ineffective to take or destroy the base. The specifics of the technologies are detailed elsewhere, but will include deep meson guns and other static defences, monitors and other system defence forces and so forth.

Orbital naval facilities can be placed far enough from commercial shipping lanes so that traffic on orbits bound for these facilities cannot masquerade as commercial traffic. This might mean places like lagrange points of major satellites or even the trojan points of the primary itself. If you consider a surprise attack from Q-ships to be likely then you can use this placement to make it harder to get in range of the station undetected.

One could embed the facilities in an asteroid towed into place or perhaps a small moon (such as Phobos) if one is available. Availability of suitable real-estate might be an influence on the choice of locations for a naval base.

Unless the base is in some critically strategic location, then the economics of attacking vs. the cost of defence come into play. If the value of capturing the base exceeds the cost of the assets needed and expected losses (or at least what the enemy would consider to be acceptable to achieve some strategic or tactical goal) then the enemy may attempt an attack . Otherwise, they would not attack the base except out of desperation.

So, the base doesn't need to be impregnable, just sufficiently well defended to render it unworthwhile to attack. If the Imperium (or owner of the bases) doesn't have sufficient resources to do that to all of its strategic assets, then its options boil down to three basic approaches:

• Spread your forces too thinly but cover all your bases, as it were, hoping that you can present the show of enough force, or bring reinforcements up quickly enough in the event of an attack.
• Prioritise defences where you consider the most likely points of attack to be.
• Withdraw from the territory and consolidate your forces to regions you can defend.

 

[Timerover51]

Don't think Naval Base, think Naval Fortress.

An IN base is going to be bristling with weapon bays, point defence turrets, repulsor batteries, damper and meson screens, a black globe and enough spinal mounts equivalents to give an invading fleet a very hard time.

Some elements are likely to be mobile, either with m-drives that can carry them away to the outsystem or even jump drives for emergency relocation.

Now, all you have to do is get the Imperium to pay for it.

 

[Carlobrand]

Don't think Naval Base, think Naval Fortress. ...

In the era of effective meson spinal weapons, another name for Naval Fortress is, "Deathtrap". You have to eliminate mesons from the game for that to be viable, and that creates its own complications given the armor rules and relative weakness of spinal particle beams.

...Some elements are likely to be mobile, either with m-drives that can carry them away to the outsystem or even jump drives for emergency relocation.

That's what I'm thinking. Maybe a dispersed structure which functions as little more than transitways between elements that, when the situation requires it, disengage and then go to ground or jump away. Nothing of real value on the main structure, and if it's destroyed the base can still be brought back on line once the enemy's driven off - they'll just need to take shuttles back and forth until the main structure is rebuild. So, the dock for that ship is a streamlined enclosure that can detach and go hide in the ocean if things get bad in orbit, and/or the base has a Jump-1 drive to jump away in the systems where the mainworld is an asteroid, or it hovers out at the 100 diameter limit to jump immediately in those systems where the mainworld lacks adequate defenses. And, of course, replacements are available somewhere because losses are inevitable.

An issue is the base as described in some sources as lacking its own defenses: "The naval base is not a tactical unit. It has no battle forces
of its own." (MT Imperial Encyclopedia) Of course, one is free to ignore that and assume a reasonable force of planetoid monitors is stationed where needed.

 

[aramis]

An issue is the base as described in some sources as lacking its own defenses: "The naval base is not a tactical unit. It has no battle forces
of its own." (MT Imperial Encyclopedia) Of course, one is free to ignore that and assume a reasonable force of planetoid monitors is stationed where needed.

The SDB's aren't part of the base; they're System Fleet assets.
The bases on the 3I maps are not System Fleet assets, but IN assets.

Local forces also can have anywhere from nothing to major fortress-level offenses and defenses.

 

[Carlobrand]

The SDB's aren't part of the base; they're System Fleet assets.
The bases on the 3I maps are not System Fleet assets, but IN assets.

Local forces also can have anywhere from nothing to major fortress-level offenses and defenses.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was referring to the suggestions to have the IN place planetoid monitors to discourage casual attack. Won't stop a determined attack, but it would prevent the base from getting sacked by a raiding cruiser in those systems that lack adequate defenses. Seems like a logical solution.

 

[Condottiere]

A cruiser probably would do a stand off missile barrage.

A monitor as defence does make sense, since you can always run if the odds aren't in your favour.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was referring to the suggestions to have the IN place planetoid monitors to discourage casual attack. Won't stop a determined attack, but it would prevent the base from getting sacked by a raiding cruiser in those systems that lack adequate defenses. Seems like a logical solution.

realistically, its the only solution.


forward naval bases are, quite simply, too vulnerable for anything else. they suffer the same problem as all fixed defences, which is that a enemy can concentrate against them in isolation, or manoeuvre around them and let them wither on the vine.

the forward bases in the marches are within jump range of zhodani territory, and if the Zhos want to knock out these bases in the opening stage of a war, it wouldn't be hard. They could concentrate against one, bring overwhelming strength to bear against one of them, smash it into the ground, and then withdraw before any reinforcements could arrive 2 weeks later.


so, it doesn't make sense to build defences against that sort of attack unless you think you can fortifiy the base well enough it can stand off the majority of the Zhos jump capable warships in the Marches. Your best defence is the Navy ships that are in port, and if they cant stop the attack, the base infrastructure is a write off. System ships to stop light raiders and such make sense, but "fortress" approach isn't going to work. Instead, as you suggested bring as much down onto the ground as possible, keep as little as you can in space, and accept that if the enemy wants to clear orbital space, he can.

 

[Enoki]

The naval base itself is largely irrelevant. It would be a collection of shops and buildings designed to support naval starships and such. Destroying the naval base in a system does nothing, nada, zip-point-$h!+ to destroying the local defense systems (which might be very extensive) or any naval ships that happen to be within it.

 

[Carlobrand]

The naval base itself is largely irrelevant. It would be a collection of shops and buildings designed to support naval starships and such. Destroying the naval base in a system does nothing, nada, zip-point-$h!+ to destroying the local defense systems (which might be very extensive) or any naval ships that happen to be within it.

Canonically, the naval base is a center for maintenance and repair of naval ships. I doubt you'll find parts for a meson spinal in the typical starport, nor personnel with the knowledge and clearance level to repair it. I doubt there are too many starports that could do major repairs on a 200 kt ship, much less a heavily armored one. I really think the IN wouldn't set up a naval base if it were irrelevant.

 

[Enoki]

Canonically, the naval base is a center for maintenance and repair of naval ships. I doubt you'll find parts for a meson spinal in the typical starport, nor personnel with the knowledge and clearance level to repair it. I doubt there are too many starports that could do major repairs on a 200 kt ship, much less a heavily armored one. I really think the IN wouldn't set up a naval base if it were irrelevant.

It's relevant to maintenance and repair of ships. It is largely irrelevant to the defense of the planet. Destroying the naval base simply means the ships have to go elsewhere for maintenance and repair.

So, for system defense having or not having a naval base really would make little difference. What makes the difference are what defense systems are in place. These can be extensive regardless of a naval base or other military base in the system I'd think and more in line with the population, economic importance, and position of the system relative to other important systems.

From what I can see analyzing subsectors is that each will have between about 2 and 5 systems that are really important. There will be another 2 to 5 second tier ones while the rest are largely irrelevant to anything.

So, the defenses of that subsector would be concentrated in the important systems while the second tier ones would get some defenses and the rest are left to their own devices.

The exception might be a system with a naval or military base such that it is likely the only thing of importance in the system (otherwise low pop, low tech, etc.). This sort of system would also have good defenses I'd think, at least so long as it was close to a hostile border.

 

[kilemall]

I would think the none shall pass line would be either Naval Depots or major IND worlds that produce the bulk of your build capability.



Those you make into fortresses with patrolling navies and knock down drag out total war, and fight vicious battles in the surrounding 10-15 parsecs to not allow a large force to make it to major targets, or worse split defenses between two or more such targets.



Else, forces of dissuasion and evacuation.


A third consideration is the capability of building a base up from scratch, like USN bases in the Pacific during WWII. Having a capability of setting up forward repair and resupply in hitherto 'empty' or low use systems would be a major strategic system to deploy.


Got to be more expensive then operating at an A starport world with a healthy pop to operate all those space industries, but in war logistics at the right time and place makes all the difference over normally prudent economic sense.

 

[whartung]

Well this always begs the question whether fixed defenses are viable for planet defense anyway, vs active ships in space.

Are 15 meson tubes buried in the ground better than 7 in space (or whatever the ratio is). Are land based missile batteries better than orbital ones.

Unfortunately, the combat systems never really properly explored the phenomena since they never really delved in to the details of interface combat.

What disadvantages do a land based meson tube have? What advantages do they have? Do they have sensor clarity of space based systems? (Talking "normal" worlds here, rather than vacuum worlds.) Does the planet "get in the way" for tracking?

What about with missile batteries? Laser, Energy, and PA weapons are all compromised by atmosphere. Land based missile batteries should certainly be one up on space based systems if for nothing else than just sheer volume. "1000 Factor 9 Missile Bays please...oh look, they hold 25 ready rounds each!"

But, then, if I take a power supply, a computer, minimal crew, station keeping drive, and make 100 1000 dTon "Missile batteries" and stick them in orbit (and some support ship to dock them). Does that buy me anything? They don't even have to be heavily armored. Saturation bombing at it's finest.

Anyway...musings.

 

[Condottiere]

It's circumstantial.

While Imperium worlds are permitted to war against each other upon occasion, you can bet that if that naval base is colocated with the local starport it has a zone of immunity.

If it's in the context of a clash between major powers, that naval base would be near the frontier, and would have greater or lesser defensive systems depending upon their value to those navies.

 

[Carlobrand]

It's relevant to maintenance and repair of ships. It is largely irrelevant to the defense of the planet. ...

Agreed, but the question I put forth was: how do you keep the naval base from being destroyed? The fate of the naval base is presumably irrelevant to the folk on the planet, who would just like the enemy warships in their orbit to go home and not bomb them, but it's the issue I'm focused on.

What I have so far is: land them or put them out where they can jump away. Base elements located, say, a half day's flight from the mainworld, equipped with 1G maneuver drives to keep moving about so their position can't be predicted and a fleet jumped in on top of them, equipped with Jump-1 drives and adequate fighters or escorts to watch for inbound attackers so the element can jump if someone tries to get at them through normal space, they'd be pretty hard to destroy, and they'd remain functional even if the mainworld was besieged. Probably also a good idea to have dispersed and redundant assets, back-up elements in deep space just in case one of the elements is destroyed.

Might also be useful to give them a few monitors under their own command to keep the occasional raider at bay, if the base is at one of those worlds that don't have enough strength to do that job but, if they're sufficiently hard for the enemy to catch, that's not needed.

...Destroying the naval base simply means the ships have to go elsewhere for maintenance and repair. ...

That can be a significant strategic achievement. Making a fleet take two or three jumps to get back to a repair center would seriously handicap that fleet's offensive operations.

...So, the defenses of that subsector would be concentrated in the important systems while the second tier ones would get some defenses and the rest are left to their own devices. ...

That sort of defense strategy leaves a salient like Jewell vulnerable to being pinched off. Take Nakege, Lysen, and Mongo, and Jewell is cut off. Certainly Jewell could stand on its own with enough defensive forces, but the locals might wonder why they're bothering to stay in the Imperium after a couple of decades of having no contact with them. The fortress system's a good starting point, but you still need a powerful force to re-open the routes to them, and that force is going to need bases close enough to the front lines to serve their needs.

Well this always begs the question whether fixed defenses are viable for planet defense anyway, vs active ships in space...

I'd vote for yes. Fixed defenses are cheaper, for one thing, so more bang for the buck. That can mean a lot in the opening round of a fight. A second issue is, as you pointed out, "Laser, Energy, and PA weapons are all compromised by atmosphere." Ground-based defenses don't have to worry about being degraded by attacks from those weapons. Third - if you accept canon descriptions of deep meson batteries - those batteries are out of reach of opposing weapons. Likely the associated computers are as well, buried with the weapons. Most of the electromagnetic-frequency sensors can be targeted if spotted but, if they have neutrino detectors as described in MegaTraveller, those sensors are buried with the gun and out of reach as well. Mass detectors are vulnerable but may be impossible to find; there's no reason to believe they'd need something like dishes that could be visible from orbit to do their jobs. (You could come up with some rationalization for requiring mass detectors to have exposed elements if you felt the deep meson was too deadly otherwise.)

Power can be located and targeted, but they can be buried beneath the reach of weapons besides meson batteries, and if you disperse the power plants - imagine a 1200 EP power plant as 1200 1-EP power plants scattered over a wide area so that only one can be killed at a time, and a couple hundred extra plants to keep the weapon operational while the first few plants are being destroyed. That's something a ship can't do because everything has to be inside the hull. It's much easier to silence a gun in orbit than to silence one buried beneath your reach and powered by a well-dispersed network of power plants. Frankly, I can't see how you'd win such a battle except by landing troops in numbers sufficient to overwhelm the local army and then using your troops to dig out and kill the power plants and such. Stuff in orbit is just so many clay pigeons.

Missiles aren't as useful once dampers show up, but you're right - the image of a thousand batteries opening up from sites scattered all over the planet's
surface would certainly be daunting, especially to the troops being landed in boats and APCs.