Dynamics of system defense and other thoughts
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
of course. that has always been true of any defense. defense usually amounts to a small delaying force gaining time for the response force to arrive, but in traveller response time is measured in days and weeks. if you have a ruleset that allows a small naval force to seriously delay or block a larger for days or weeks, then efficient defense is possible. if not, then cover-all-the-bases defense isn't possible without a huge expenditure of resources.
One other thing: in this scope, the only sub-12-day help possible is already in system or en-route.
Defenses are extremely limited in reaction ability.
Anything worth defending is worth mining; anything else is best deleted...
Take those honkin' big snowballs, and herd them into the GG's. That's what tugs are for, right?
Collect those asteroids into shoals, and frame them together into large agglomerations... and then mine the * out of them...
a few dozen years' project results in centuries of security...
don't forget: except for TNE, Traveller tech is advanced enough that, starting at TL9, system engineering becomes possible; under CT/MT/T4, it may even be practical by TL12
Defenses are extremely limited in reaction ability.
Anything worth defending is worth mining; anything else is best deleted...
Take those honkin' big snowballs, and herd them into the GG's. That's what tugs are for, right?
Collect those asteroids into shoals, and frame them together into large agglomerations... and then mine the * out of them...
a few dozen years' project results in centuries of security...
don't forget: except for TNE, Traveller tech is advanced enough that, starting at TL9, system engineering becomes possible; under CT/MT/T4, it may even be practical by TL12
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
of course. that has always been true of any defense. defense usually amounts to a small delaying force gaining time for the response force to arrive, but in traveller response time is measured in days and weeks. if you have a ruleset that allows a small naval force to seriously delay or block a larger for days or weeks, then efficient defense is possible. if not, then cover-all-the-bases defense isn't possible without a huge expenditure of resources. </font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I'd still drop a few mines and things around. The idea of minefields IIRC is area denial rather than casualties. The invader has got to take the same precautions against 2000 mines as against 2 billion. If the defence causes the enemy to waste proportionally more time and resources than you waste, it is successful IMO.
true. if you have a mine ruleset that 1) is compatible with an existing traveller ruleset, and 2) is sufficiently effective that it makes an attacker worried about casualties, and 3) enables a minefield to be deployed on a terrain feature as big as a gas giant while remaining affordable, then yes, mines can deny an area. but the only "mine system" I've ever been able to come up with that meets those criteria is an SDB.
RandyT0001
SOC-13
So far I and others have been talking about some things which can affect the defense of the system. Maybe it's time to shift the talk to the potential composition of the 200,000 dton raiding force, what numbers of what ships, potential targets of the raid (such as disruption of the mining operations, disruption of the gas giant fuel tanker fleet, disruption of the industrial complex, etc.), and methods/tactics to conduct such operations.
Comments?
Comments?
For disruption a single carrier. (something like an Azhanti high lightning). Jump into system, act as a mobile fighter base. Target sensor nodes for destruction, harass everything possible via fighters to evaluate defences, regroup to strike at a weak point (including the mothership) or just disappear again.
Always be ready to jump out again (the mothership should always be outside any jump limit if possible) as this is the only way to outmaneveur the faster system defence ships in the mothership. This involves abandoning fighters in system, so they need a plan if that happens. Probably ditch on the mainworld and destroy the fighter. Alternatively have a couple of small jump ships that loiter in an unexpected location for a secondary exit rendevous. You still lose the fighters, but you do get to keep the pilots, important for moral at least.
Since the incoming ship won't be able to outmaneveur the system ships I would cut its legs off in exchange for more firepower and fighter space. The fighters on the other hand may have the option of running from most contacts.
Always be ready to jump out again (the mothership should always be outside any jump limit if possible) as this is the only way to outmaneveur the faster system defence ships in the mothership. This involves abandoning fighters in system, so they need a plan if that happens. Probably ditch on the mainworld and destroy the fighter. Alternatively have a couple of small jump ships that loiter in an unexpected location for a secondary exit rendevous. You still lose the fighters, but you do get to keep the pilots, important for moral at least.
Since the incoming ship won't be able to outmaneveur the system ships I would cut its legs off in exchange for more firepower and fighter space. The fighters on the other hand may have the option of running from most contacts.
good luck manning _that_ operation.
fighters will wind up engaging merchants on terms that approach equality. that's not the goal, the goal is for big raiders with big computers to plaster that civilian traffic from afar with big weapons. big raiders can also carry some big screens, and don't necessarily have to run from a handful of SDB's - they at least have a chance, if they must stand and fight. J5 is for maneuvering to a system with weak defenses. M3 is to overhaul the merchants so they can't run away. and keeping everything on large raiders means nothing has to be abandoned just because some SDB's show up.
Hey, maybe I've been watching BSG to much lately, but at the moment I prefer the fighter fleet over the monitor fleet.
The idea would be to only jump out if absolutely nessersary, ie. the system defence fleet had put enough firepower on the incoming force to seriously threaten it. On an armed 200kdTon J4 carrier with 30,000 to 50,000 dTon of fighters on board that needs to be a quite large fleet. A couple of SDB's is not something to jump away for. A half dozen spinal equiped pocket monitors is.
Depends on which ones. Obviously a small ship universe isn't going to have 200 kdTon raider vessels.
I use T20, which should come out with similar limits to some of the other systems (HG2 in specific I beleive). But most things should translate OK.
Keep in a real world/abstract level of thought and you don't even need a system as such.
I use T20, which should come out with similar limits to some of the other systems (HG2 in specific I beleive). But most things should translate OK.
Keep in a real world/abstract level of thought and you don't even need a system as such.
Scott Martin
SOC-13
<can of worms>
A huge amount, especially if C-Fractional rocks are allowed
</can of worms>
Even without opening that particular can of worms, T20 aparrently makes anything larger than a meson-bay armed CL "meat on the table" for a meson-bay armed "swarm". HG heavily favours fighters through certain TL ranges, and fighters in TNE approach total uselessness (but at least ton-for-ton they're real expensive).
If you are running a hard SF universe with reaction mass required, raiders need a much more logistical support. This is again "system dependent" since only TNE and pieces of T4 (and possibly GURPS Traveller) user reaction engines.
As a result, raiding forces are unlikely to use ships that are "ineffective" within their (game) systems, so a lot of this discussion must be dependent on specific gaming system.
Personally if I were to wreak havoc as a raider I'd be dropping high velocity KKM's at industrial targets where I could predict their positions exactly months (or years) in advance. Nothing says "you're FUBAR" than returning to your depot with a damaged fleet to find that it's incapable of repairing itself to operational levels... oversized jump engines at the max my TL would allow (to allow jump of the hull and drop tanls of the same size as the hull) M-1 and Lots of cargo space for missiles and other consumables. Jump and Dump...
This would quickly result in fairly static battle fronts with mobile repair bases altering course on a weekly basis...
Scott Martin
ok, so lets summarize some of the thoughts involved...
Resource denial is not practical in any large numbers against a gas giant. The best potential in this case seems to be to have craft maintain low or submersive atmospheric hiding strategies to attack an invading fleet while it manuevers with refueling ships. One would almost have to wonder why one doesn't just up-armor smaller tonnage ships - say, 200 dtons, place extra reserve fuel in it, and then place its crew in low berths with an automated system for keeping the ship operational for 10 months at a time.
As for "fortification" style weapons - it would almost stand to reason that the enemy fleet is going to be wary of any moonlets in orbit around a gas giant fearing that they might be meson gun pits waiting to open fire on them. Treating these moons as buffered planetoids probably makes them tough to handle. As has been mentioned earlier - the concept of adding a few thruster plates to a few moonlets would mean that a star system should be able to "tow" these moonlets into orbit as defensive positions. Sprinkling a few missile pods using alternative energy sources migth make for some practical and cheap defensive mining options. As mentioned, the idea isn't total denial - it is to make the enemy cautious. Now, throw in a few "surprises" such as exploding sand canisters that unexpectly explode near an invading ship. What is that sand cloud hiding? Is it a ruse to make the enemy slow down, or does it hide something else? What other "surprises" can you think of that is "thinking" outside the box? During the Spanish Invasion of England, the English used a tactic known as "fire ships". What would the Traveller Analog be of such ships?
How long does a defending fleet have to respond to signs of invasion? Would an invading fleet take the chance of appearing in normal space slightly dispersed (ie, not all arrive at the same time or even on the same day!) near an enemy defensive force, or would it likely appear a distance away such that it is no more than 2 weeks travel from its intended target? Come to think of it, if there is a 1 day delay in exiting jump space, that "window of travel" had likely best be less than 2 weeks out. Much like bombers of world war II - fueling the attacking ships is going to be difficult to permit them to maintain equal "operational durations" if they all fueled at different times, or use fuel at differing rates etc. So call it no more than a 10 day operational travel time to the intended area of operations.
So, we assume that space defense command will write off trying to cover more than say, one or two targets of importance?
Resource denial is not practical in any large numbers against a gas giant. The best potential in this case seems to be to have craft maintain low or submersive atmospheric hiding strategies to attack an invading fleet while it manuevers with refueling ships. One would almost have to wonder why one doesn't just up-armor smaller tonnage ships - say, 200 dtons, place extra reserve fuel in it, and then place its crew in low berths with an automated system for keeping the ship operational for 10 months at a time.
As for "fortification" style weapons - it would almost stand to reason that the enemy fleet is going to be wary of any moonlets in orbit around a gas giant fearing that they might be meson gun pits waiting to open fire on them. Treating these moons as buffered planetoids probably makes them tough to handle. As has been mentioned earlier - the concept of adding a few thruster plates to a few moonlets would mean that a star system should be able to "tow" these moonlets into orbit as defensive positions. Sprinkling a few missile pods using alternative energy sources migth make for some practical and cheap defensive mining options. As mentioned, the idea isn't total denial - it is to make the enemy cautious. Now, throw in a few "surprises" such as exploding sand canisters that unexpectly explode near an invading ship. What is that sand cloud hiding? Is it a ruse to make the enemy slow down, or does it hide something else? What other "surprises" can you think of that is "thinking" outside the box? During the Spanish Invasion of England, the English used a tactic known as "fire ships". What would the Traveller Analog be of such ships?
How long does a defending fleet have to respond to signs of invasion? Would an invading fleet take the chance of appearing in normal space slightly dispersed (ie, not all arrive at the same time or even on the same day!) near an enemy defensive force, or would it likely appear a distance away such that it is no more than 2 weeks travel from its intended target? Come to think of it, if there is a 1 day delay in exiting jump space, that "window of travel" had likely best be less than 2 weeks out. Much like bombers of world war II - fueling the attacking ships is going to be difficult to permit them to maintain equal "operational durations" if they all fueled at different times, or use fuel at differing rates etc. So call it no more than a 10 day operational travel time to the intended area of operations.
So, we assume that space defense command will write off trying to cover more than say, one or two targets of importance?
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi folks !
Guess its quite complicate to get a complete picture about such a complete topic.
Though discussion single or partial aspects is very interesting, the only reliable way to get answers here is to run simulations = games based on a defined set of conditions = rules.
Perhaps we really should write a piece of software for that, but I guess copyright stuff prevents advancement here ...
regards,
TE
Guess its quite complicate to get a complete picture about such a complete topic.
Though discussion single or partial aspects is very interesting, the only reliable way to get answers here is to run simulations = games based on a defined set of conditions = rules.
Perhaps we really should write a piece of software for that, but I guess copyright stuff prevents advancement here ...
regards,
TE
TE?
You're going to smoke a turd in hell for suggesting we should write a program for that - and then not write one yourself
Having said that - if we can get that little bit of mechanical chicanery running on spreadsheet or on Visual Basic for keeping track of ships within a star system, we can do just that - run a simulation.
So here is what I propose:
Can you create a spreadsheet application that will tell me where a planet is at any given time given the following:
Where the planet was at 00:00 hour
How much elapsed time since 00:00 hour
Planet's mean speed
Can we do this? If so, I've already figured out how to do the recording of ship and/or missile motions. I should be able to create the method for keeping track of velocity changes. I will need to figure out just what limits to impose on how close a ship can approach any given star, as well as how close it can approach any given planet with an atmosphere based on a given speed. In other words, at what point in time does a starship's excessive speed turn it from a ship whose hull gets too hot as it enters an atmosphere but survives, versus a ship that just turned into an expensive meteor?
You're going to smoke a turd in hell for suggesting we should write a program for that - and then not write one yourself
Having said that - if we can get that little bit of mechanical chicanery running on spreadsheet or on Visual Basic for keeping track of ships within a star system, we can do just that - run a simulation.
So here is what I propose:
Can you create a spreadsheet application that will tell me where a planet is at any given time given the following:
Where the planet was at 00:00 hour
How much elapsed time since 00:00 hour
Planet's mean speed
Can we do this? If so, I've already figured out how to do the recording of ship and/or missile motions. I should be able to create the method for keeping track of velocity changes. I will need to figure out just what limits to impose on how close a ship can approach any given star, as well as how close it can approach any given planet with an atmosphere based on a given speed. In other words, at what point in time does a starship's excessive speed turn it from a ship whose hull gets too hot as it enters an atmosphere but survives, versus a ship that just turned into an expensive meteor?
Hal, it appears you have applied the touch of death to this thread.
Does this matter? The level of detail you are talking about makes this a very specific problem that is highly dependant on rulesets. It also makes it highly dependant on system details.
If you wanted to do that, then you may as well talk about Sol system defence in 2200.
Does this matter? The level of detail you are talking about makes this a very specific problem that is highly dependant on rulesets. It also makes it highly dependant on system details.
If you wanted to do that, then you may as well talk about Sol system defence in 2200.
true. if you have a mine ruleset that 1) is compatible with an existing traveller ruleset, and 2) is sufficiently effective that it makes an attacker worried about casualties, and 3) enables a minefield to be deployed on a terrain feature as big as a gas giant while remaining affordable, then yes, mines can deny an area. but the only "mine system" I've ever been able to come up with that meets those criteria is an SDB. </font>[/QUOTE]I like the image of that. SDB gas gaint denial duty has got to be some of the best, your not out in the open, or the worst, your ship is constantly being tossed about by gas giant winds.
