Dynamics of system defense and other thoughts
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
Well I'm going to throw in a few chunks just for laughs.
1) Deep meson sites are of limited use, as mentioned earlier, because if your deep meson sites are in range of the enemy, the enemy is in range of your population and industrial centers. While it may be viable to ignore "fractional C rocks", it's not valid to ignore simple deadfall ordnance from orbit, even high orbit, and the catastrophic effects they can have on the surface of the planet. If all you want remaining is a barren world with deep meson sites, then feel free to build as many as you like.
2) You can not stop a fleet in transit to its target in deep space. The only time you can have any real chance of engaging an incoming fleet is during deceleration. It is very difficult to close and match vectors with a fleet that is closing on you, especially if they're not particularly motivated to engage you, and even more difficult if they're moving fast. You will have some matter of engagment, but it's going to be very short as the fleet flies by coming quickly into and out of weapon range.
But if they're going to slow down at their target, that pretty much implies that they'll BE at their target. And once at their target, the target is in for a bad day. They are not required to shoot back at the defensive ships.
3) Systems defenders have essentially NO advantages over the attackers, save being able to heavily armor potential, planet based targets. There's no home turf advantage, no territorial advantage, no hills for the attackers to climb up and no moats for them to cross. There may be some light surprise assuming the attacker flies in to "static" defenses, but, again, odds are those defenses will be at the target, the exact wrong place you want the attacking fleet to be.
Simply put, the problem with defending against an attacking fleet is you're trying to stop a speeding bullet. With all of the problems that entails.
Orbital facilities tend to be fragile. Planetside facilities have pesky civilian targets.
If fleets have any control over arrival time within a system, then they will be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the exact system configuration (i.e. planet orientation, facility orbital periods, etc.). Given that kind of control of time, they can enter the system at their favored position (outside the 100D limit), then vector their ships appropriately to set up a fast attack run to the target(s). They do not have to stop at the target, they simply need to take in account their attack vector, gravity, etc., and then compensate with appropriate vectors for their ordnance to reach the target as they fly by.
Simply put, say they want to saturation bomb a Capital City. They know the orbital period of the planet, they know the rotational period of the planet, axis tilt, etc. They know EXACTLY where Capital City will be in 3D space at 5PM GMT on November 10, 1224.
They need merely enter the system within whatever the error for Jump trips is, "aim" the ships to plot the attack, and "pull the trigger" by entering the system. The only way to stop the fleet from hitting Capital City with whatever they
wish at 5PM is to literally get in their way.
There's nothing that says the attacking fleet needs to come in from the same spot. Nothing that says that all of the ships need the same vector. Nothing that says that any of the ships share a common vector or ever intersect.
If the ships enter from jump space, again with any accuracy, they can pre-plot their entry vectors to match their attack runs to hit the target where they KNOW it's going to be, pop in to the system at the 100D limit of the target, fly by, deploy their ordnance, and jump out when they leave the 100D limit.
If their vectors are long enough, it will be very difficult for a reaction force to even maneuver in time to engage the fleet, particularly if they're parked and waiting.
The attacking vectors can be quite long, yet the ship can easily correct the vector enough to still reach it's launch point within the parameters of it's ordnance. 1 or 2G of thrust can move a ship quite a bit, even with a long attack vector. If the attack ordnance has 6G of manueverability, the ship can come anywhere within that 6G correction bubble to launch it's ordnance.
It may be difficult to hit a ship in space, but fixed targets in known orbits are a piece of cake, and those tend to be the vulnerable bits that folks most likely want to protect.
Even if none of those options about jump in are available, the attacking fleet simply starts their run farther out, with enough margin to make the attack. If the fleet can not be destroyed within that margin, then basically the target is going to get pasted. And if the attacking fleet appears scattered through out the system, attacking their target from all directions, destroying that fleet is going to be very difficult.
You don't need thruster plates for this. This can be done with TNE drives.
The long tail is being near a friendly system for refueling, or they can be supported by tankers. Any ship with fuel for J2+ will work so they can jump in and jump out without tanking.
Happy defending.
1) Deep meson sites are of limited use, as mentioned earlier, because if your deep meson sites are in range of the enemy, the enemy is in range of your population and industrial centers. While it may be viable to ignore "fractional C rocks", it's not valid to ignore simple deadfall ordnance from orbit, even high orbit, and the catastrophic effects they can have on the surface of the planet. If all you want remaining is a barren world with deep meson sites, then feel free to build as many as you like.
2) You can not stop a fleet in transit to its target in deep space. The only time you can have any real chance of engaging an incoming fleet is during deceleration. It is very difficult to close and match vectors with a fleet that is closing on you, especially if they're not particularly motivated to engage you, and even more difficult if they're moving fast. You will have some matter of engagment, but it's going to be very short as the fleet flies by coming quickly into and out of weapon range.
But if they're going to slow down at their target, that pretty much implies that they'll BE at their target. And once at their target, the target is in for a bad day. They are not required to shoot back at the defensive ships.
3) Systems defenders have essentially NO advantages over the attackers, save being able to heavily armor potential, planet based targets. There's no home turf advantage, no territorial advantage, no hills for the attackers to climb up and no moats for them to cross. There may be some light surprise assuming the attacker flies in to "static" defenses, but, again, odds are those defenses will be at the target, the exact wrong place you want the attacking fleet to be.
Simply put, the problem with defending against an attacking fleet is you're trying to stop a speeding bullet. With all of the problems that entails.
Orbital facilities tend to be fragile. Planetside facilities have pesky civilian targets.
If fleets have any control over arrival time within a system, then they will be able to predict with reasonable accuracy the exact system configuration (i.e. planet orientation, facility orbital periods, etc.). Given that kind of control of time, they can enter the system at their favored position (outside the 100D limit), then vector their ships appropriately to set up a fast attack run to the target(s). They do not have to stop at the target, they simply need to take in account their attack vector, gravity, etc., and then compensate with appropriate vectors for their ordnance to reach the target as they fly by.
Simply put, say they want to saturation bomb a Capital City. They know the orbital period of the planet, they know the rotational period of the planet, axis tilt, etc. They know EXACTLY where Capital City will be in 3D space at 5PM GMT on November 10, 1224.
They need merely enter the system within whatever the error for Jump trips is, "aim" the ships to plot the attack, and "pull the trigger" by entering the system. The only way to stop the fleet from hitting Capital City with whatever they
wish at 5PM is to literally get in their way.
There's nothing that says the attacking fleet needs to come in from the same spot. Nothing that says that all of the ships need the same vector. Nothing that says that any of the ships share a common vector or ever intersect.
If the ships enter from jump space, again with any accuracy, they can pre-plot their entry vectors to match their attack runs to hit the target where they KNOW it's going to be, pop in to the system at the 100D limit of the target, fly by, deploy their ordnance, and jump out when they leave the 100D limit.
If their vectors are long enough, it will be very difficult for a reaction force to even maneuver in time to engage the fleet, particularly if they're parked and waiting.
The attacking vectors can be quite long, yet the ship can easily correct the vector enough to still reach it's launch point within the parameters of it's ordnance. 1 or 2G of thrust can move a ship quite a bit, even with a long attack vector. If the attack ordnance has 6G of manueverability, the ship can come anywhere within that 6G correction bubble to launch it's ordnance.
It may be difficult to hit a ship in space, but fixed targets in known orbits are a piece of cake, and those tend to be the vulnerable bits that folks most likely want to protect.
Even if none of those options about jump in are available, the attacking fleet simply starts their run farther out, with enough margin to make the attack. If the fleet can not be destroyed within that margin, then basically the target is going to get pasted. And if the attacking fleet appears scattered through out the system, attacking their target from all directions, destroying that fleet is going to be very difficult.
You don't need thruster plates for this. This can be done with TNE drives.
The long tail is being near a friendly system for refueling, or they can be supported by tankers. Any ship with fuel for J2+ will work so they can jump in and jump out without tanking.
Happy defending.
Nice post Whartung.
For the same tonnage equivalent TL system boats will nearly always prod the buttocks of jump capable vessels. At equivalent TL (depending on design parameters) the boats probably only need to be 25-50% of the size of the attackers for an even engagement.
Even at disparate levels the boats have advantages. A TL15 jump fleet would be crazy to take on an equal tonnage of TL11 system ships, though the engagement is far less unequal compared to the previous example.
So far we've been looking at destruction/disruption types of attacks, and the concensus seems to be that it would be really hard to stop/intercept/minimise. Anyone have any thoughts about invasion stopping instead?
They have at least one that does need to be noted.
For the same tonnage equivalent TL system boats will nearly always prod the buttocks of jump capable vessels. At equivalent TL (depending on design parameters) the boats probably only need to be 25-50% of the size of the attackers for an even engagement.
Even at disparate levels the boats have advantages. A TL15 jump fleet would be crazy to take on an equal tonnage of TL11 system ships, though the engagement is far less unequal compared to the previous example.
So far we've been looking at destruction/disruption types of attacks, and the concensus seems to be that it would be really hard to stop/intercept/minimise. Anyone have any thoughts about invasion stopping instead?
However, if the attackers want a dead planet, the defense has to win before the attackers can do this anyway; besides the fact that all of your ordnance will be shot down. Especialy if the attackers follow your number two, which would leave lots of stuff still alive to shoot your odrnance.
As for 3, the defence has the huge advantage of the (I don't know how much this depends on the system) huge time differences between the arrivals. They also can have the advantage of letting the attackers take the planet and attacking them at their system.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yep, within the OTU carpet bombing civilian targets seems to be a tactic only used by the early Vilani, and the black war period of the rebellion.
The Zhodani laid seige to worlds during the frontier worlds, but didn't bomb them into the stone age.
Similarly the Solomani Rim war appears to have been fought with some rules.
I have long suspected that there have to be treaties between the powers in the OTU to limit the destructiveness of their wars.
The Zhodani laid seige to worlds during the frontier worlds, but didn't bomb them into the stone age.
Similarly the Solomani Rim war appears to have been fought with some rules.
I have long suspected that there have to be treaties between the powers in the OTU to limit the destructiveness of their wars.
That all depends on the war.
Some wars? Certainly.
Reason. Everything happens for a reason.
Reasons for wars:
Expansion (biological)
Agressor needs more space. Defender is weaker, and has inhabitable system. If the agressor can use the defenders infrastructure, then non-destructive attacks would be prefered. Virus bombs, neutron weapons. "Pacifist" agressors may settle for sterilisation and patience.
Expansion (cultural)
This could be religious, economic, or otherwise. Agressor does not want to destroy the defender, the civilian population is the goal, rather then an obstruction. Some damage to infrastructure may be warranted, but since the goal is to get the population "on side" widespread civilian cleansing has to wait until the population is being audited for loyalty.
Uncommunication
This is a traditional alien culture impact. Not based on confused communication or propoganda, but by the fact that the two groups cannot communicate at all. Both have to see the other as a final threat, as they are unable to interpret communication. I see it as somewhat fanciful on a realism level, but it works fine as a plot device.
Theft
Resources, rather then people or space, are the key here. That space platform (in the example), if it was the only known source of a cheap rare strategic compound nearby becomes far more of a target then the planet does. Sterilisation of the planet is certainly an option, but is secondary to securing the resources. If the locals are willing to come on side, good, but it is only a secondary goal.
There are of course others. Most of the times that earth has come to having rules of war comes from ideological clashes that fit into the second class, where it may become ingrained and stylised. Feudal conflicts certainly come at this level, the populace is largely uninvolved and is the prize.
Other ideological battles may not be so stylised.
On the other hand if the great herd runs out of worlds, and is surrounded on all sides, then the rules of warfare are very unlikely to be involved The herd needs more planets, and has to take them by force. Any inhabitants need to be stomped flat to make way for more great plains.
Some wars? Certainly.
Reason. Everything happens for a reason.
Reasons for wars:
Expansion (biological)
Agressor needs more space. Defender is weaker, and has inhabitable system. If the agressor can use the defenders infrastructure, then non-destructive attacks would be prefered. Virus bombs, neutron weapons. "Pacifist" agressors may settle for sterilisation and patience.
Expansion (cultural)
This could be religious, economic, or otherwise. Agressor does not want to destroy the defender, the civilian population is the goal, rather then an obstruction. Some damage to infrastructure may be warranted, but since the goal is to get the population "on side" widespread civilian cleansing has to wait until the population is being audited for loyalty.
Uncommunication
This is a traditional alien culture impact. Not based on confused communication or propoganda, but by the fact that the two groups cannot communicate at all. Both have to see the other as a final threat, as they are unable to interpret communication. I see it as somewhat fanciful on a realism level, but it works fine as a plot device.
Theft
Resources, rather then people or space, are the key here. That space platform (in the example), if it was the only known source of a cheap rare strategic compound nearby becomes far more of a target then the planet does. Sterilisation of the planet is certainly an option, but is secondary to securing the resources. If the locals are willing to come on side, good, but it is only a secondary goal.
There are of course others. Most of the times that earth has come to having rules of war comes from ideological clashes that fit into the second class, where it may become ingrained and stylised. Feudal conflicts certainly come at this level, the populace is largely uninvolved and is the prize.
Other ideological battles may not be so stylised.
On the other hand if the great herd runs out of worlds, and is surrounded on all sides, then the rules of warfare are very unlikely to be involved The herd needs more planets, and has to take them by force. Any inhabitants need to be stomped flat to make way for more great plains.
Yes, assuming the system is populated by pure in system ships, a non-jump capable ship is, ton for ton, more bang/buck than a jump capable ship.
But it's not clear that this compensates for the vast advantage that the attacker has. The defender needs quantity, not quality. If there is a single main world, and that's the only target, then the defender can make it quite expensive for the attacker, by massing his defenses there, but can't actually protect the target.
The key thing to note is that the technique essentially works for any fixed target (i.e. anything in a stable, known orbit) within the system, and the attackers have the benefit of knowing the target(s) whereas the defenders do not.
The vector is fairly easy to plot once the ship pops in system, to give a hint what the target may be, particularly if it's a lonely target (say an industrial platform in the asteroid belt), but if it's a planet based target, the vector doesn't do much for you -- it could be most anything on the planet.
If you're having a meeting engagement with the attackers at high speed, the defenders basically get one or two shots at the attackers before they're simply out of range. If the defenders are in range when the ordnance is released, they can choose to try and shoot at that, but since it's deadfall ordnance, things like lasers don't do a whole lot to it. They'd have to kill it before it's final maneuver.
And, of course, this technique works peachy against both military and civilian targets. It does not work well against particularly hardened targets, as it may simply not be that accurate without some terminal guidance.
Regarding actual invasion, you can not invade a planet with large numbers of deep meson sites, you can only blockade it unless your fleet markedly mounts more meson guns than the planet does. If you think ships without J drives are good bang/buck, you should see a meson gun, MFD, and a mount. They're dirt cheap in comparison to a ship. Hardest part is digging the hole.
You can't easily defeat it in detail, as it's very difficult to simply engage some of the mounts on the planet.
But pre-meson mounts, you pretty much don't have any planetary defenses of note on the surface, it would all be in orbit. Missiles would have to crawl from the gravity well, lasers and PA's don't do well in atmosphere. Kind of pointless. Very little bang/buck there.
If the attacker is there to destroy/damage specific fixed targets, then all the defender can to is their very best to make the attack expensive. If the attacker is coming in to the system to "stay", then the only real advantage the defender has early on is potentially quiet, hidden ships, thus hiding its overall strength (at least in ship count).
But if the attacker feels it has reasonably accurate intelligence on the defending fleet, he will simply make the judgement, before battle, whether to even stay and fight at all.
Space combat has not quite, but almost perfect intelligence. You may not be able to detect a quiet ship, but you'll certainly be able to detect a maneuvering ship.
Space combat is also quite mathmatical. The true decision is to engage the ship in to battle at all. After that, there is very little actual skill in involved. Much of it will be very automated, as the reactions and timing necessary are far faster than human reactions. Someone needs to push the "fire ship" button, but it's accuracy and such are mostly based on the system doing the actual firing.
So, morale is important, but I think less so than normal, terrestrial combat. Less human intervention means the human condition has less effect overall.
Weapons are line of site, line of site is effectively beyond weapon range, and weapons are quite lethal. So, it's pretty straightfoward with reasonable intelligence of the opposing force to know up front "who's going to win, and how much will it cost".
If the answer to that question isn't in the attackers favor (i.e. he won't win, or it will cost too much), he'll simply leave. Why stay? The defenders know where he is, and roughly what he has. The attacker has very little surprise over time vs the defenders (assuming the defender is not manuevering all of their ships).
Simply put, there is some luck, but not a whole lot of luck in starship combat. It's fairly decisive and you have a good solid estimate before the ships even engage.
If an invasion fleet arrives in system, it will look to its target (say the home world). If the defender is massed there, the fleet determines if it can win or not. If it feels it can at a reasonable cost, it will proceed in system, and perform the attack.
At this point, if the defender has any extra forces that are not at the target, he can choose to deploy them. He will have to do this in time for them to join the defense forces before the attacker arrives. If they do not arrive in time, then it is effectively a second battle with the new defense forces vectoring in against the victorious, but reduced, attacking forces.
This may well destory the attackers, but it will be at a much higher cost to the defense than if it has simply massed all of their ships at the target (assuming that was practical) and detered the attack in the first place.
Let's perform silly math here. Assume the attacking fleet has 30 ships, and the defense has 2 groups of 20 ships, one at the target, the other hidden.
For simplicity sake, we'll assume that combat is 1-1 tradeoff. So, the attackers will lose 20 ships, and the defenders will lose 20 ships. It's a contrived ratio, but overall there is SOME ratio with large fleets, this just makes the math easy.
So, the attackers destroys the defending fleet, has 10 ships left, and the defenders reaction force engages and destroys the attacker, with 10 defense ships left.
If all 40 defense ships were at the target, or if the attacker knew about them, he may well have not attacked at all. Seeing only 20 ships, he felt it was worth the cost. If he saw 40, he may have turned tail and run. If his task were to simply reduce the defenders fleet, he may have attacked anyway.
But that's the kind of calculus that will take place for fleet combat IMHO. Very clinical, reasonbly accurate, particularly if you have familiarity of the opposing force makeup.
That said, I'd argue that most fleet actions outcomes are known in advance.
If the task is to destroy a fixed target, that is easier than reducing an opposing fleet, and much cheaper. The opposing fleet can't prevent it (unless is simply vastly outnumbers the attacker).
If you want to defend a home world, park a fleet on it that will deter the attacking fleet.
But it's not clear that this compensates for the vast advantage that the attacker has. The defender needs quantity, not quality. If there is a single main world, and that's the only target, then the defender can make it quite expensive for the attacker, by massing his defenses there, but can't actually protect the target.
The key thing to note is that the technique essentially works for any fixed target (i.e. anything in a stable, known orbit) within the system, and the attackers have the benefit of knowing the target(s) whereas the defenders do not.
The vector is fairly easy to plot once the ship pops in system, to give a hint what the target may be, particularly if it's a lonely target (say an industrial platform in the asteroid belt), but if it's a planet based target, the vector doesn't do much for you -- it could be most anything on the planet.
If you're having a meeting engagement with the attackers at high speed, the defenders basically get one or two shots at the attackers before they're simply out of range. If the defenders are in range when the ordnance is released, they can choose to try and shoot at that, but since it's deadfall ordnance, things like lasers don't do a whole lot to it. They'd have to kill it before it's final maneuver.
And, of course, this technique works peachy against both military and civilian targets. It does not work well against particularly hardened targets, as it may simply not be that accurate without some terminal guidance.
Regarding actual invasion, you can not invade a planet with large numbers of deep meson sites, you can only blockade it unless your fleet markedly mounts more meson guns than the planet does. If you think ships without J drives are good bang/buck, you should see a meson gun, MFD, and a mount. They're dirt cheap in comparison to a ship. Hardest part is digging the hole.
You can't easily defeat it in detail, as it's very difficult to simply engage some of the mounts on the planet.
But pre-meson mounts, you pretty much don't have any planetary defenses of note on the surface, it would all be in orbit. Missiles would have to crawl from the gravity well, lasers and PA's don't do well in atmosphere. Kind of pointless. Very little bang/buck there.
If the attacker is there to destroy/damage specific fixed targets, then all the defender can to is their very best to make the attack expensive. If the attacker is coming in to the system to "stay", then the only real advantage the defender has early on is potentially quiet, hidden ships, thus hiding its overall strength (at least in ship count).
But if the attacker feels it has reasonably accurate intelligence on the defending fleet, he will simply make the judgement, before battle, whether to even stay and fight at all.
Space combat has not quite, but almost perfect intelligence. You may not be able to detect a quiet ship, but you'll certainly be able to detect a maneuvering ship.
Space combat is also quite mathmatical. The true decision is to engage the ship in to battle at all. After that, there is very little actual skill in involved. Much of it will be very automated, as the reactions and timing necessary are far faster than human reactions. Someone needs to push the "fire ship" button, but it's accuracy and such are mostly based on the system doing the actual firing.
So, morale is important, but I think less so than normal, terrestrial combat. Less human intervention means the human condition has less effect overall.
Weapons are line of site, line of site is effectively beyond weapon range, and weapons are quite lethal. So, it's pretty straightfoward with reasonable intelligence of the opposing force to know up front "who's going to win, and how much will it cost".
If the answer to that question isn't in the attackers favor (i.e. he won't win, or it will cost too much), he'll simply leave. Why stay? The defenders know where he is, and roughly what he has. The attacker has very little surprise over time vs the defenders (assuming the defender is not manuevering all of their ships).
Simply put, there is some luck, but not a whole lot of luck in starship combat. It's fairly decisive and you have a good solid estimate before the ships even engage.
If an invasion fleet arrives in system, it will look to its target (say the home world). If the defender is massed there, the fleet determines if it can win or not. If it feels it can at a reasonable cost, it will proceed in system, and perform the attack.
At this point, if the defender has any extra forces that are not at the target, he can choose to deploy them. He will have to do this in time for them to join the defense forces before the attacker arrives. If they do not arrive in time, then it is effectively a second battle with the new defense forces vectoring in against the victorious, but reduced, attacking forces.
This may well destory the attackers, but it will be at a much higher cost to the defense than if it has simply massed all of their ships at the target (assuming that was practical) and detered the attack in the first place.
Let's perform silly math here. Assume the attacking fleet has 30 ships, and the defense has 2 groups of 20 ships, one at the target, the other hidden.
For simplicity sake, we'll assume that combat is 1-1 tradeoff. So, the attackers will lose 20 ships, and the defenders will lose 20 ships. It's a contrived ratio, but overall there is SOME ratio with large fleets, this just makes the math easy.
So, the attackers destroys the defending fleet, has 10 ships left, and the defenders reaction force engages and destroys the attacker, with 10 defense ships left.
If all 40 defense ships were at the target, or if the attacker knew about them, he may well have not attacked at all. Seeing only 20 ships, he felt it was worth the cost. If he saw 40, he may have turned tail and run. If his task were to simply reduce the defenders fleet, he may have attacked anyway.
But that's the kind of calculus that will take place for fleet combat IMHO. Very clinical, reasonbly accurate, particularly if you have familiarity of the opposing force makeup.
That said, I'd argue that most fleet actions outcomes are known in advance.
If the task is to destroy a fixed target, that is easier than reducing an opposing fleet, and much cheaper. The opposing fleet can't prevent it (unless is simply vastly outnumbers the attacker).
If you want to defend a home world, park a fleet on it that will deter the attacking fleet.
I ran Whart's very clean post by David Smart, who had some differences of opinion.
So, all of the responses below are from David. I'll be happy to relay rebuttals back to him.
Sorry..I don't buy this one.
Again, I'm not buying it.
So, all of the responses below are from David. I'll be happy to relay rebuttals back to him.
Whoever stated the range of deep meson sites must be less than or equal to the range of shipboard spinal mounts? A planetary body has much, much more volume than the biggest dreadnought and, with a core tap or even geothermal power, much more energy to pour into its gun sites. And this isn't counting the amount of energy available for nuclear dampers and meson screens.
Sorry..I don't buy this one.
Again, what's with the assumptions? No one said anything about "ignoring" deadfall. There's also such a thing as kinetic interceptors. They're called "Patriots" today. Future versions just get more effective. Heck, I've already mentioned in a previous email last month that the U.S. actually fielded an ABM interceptor system called SPRINT that had a 100G acceleration and used a nuke warhead to take out incoming ICBMs.
Again, I'm not buying it.
Agreed. So let them get close and hit 'em with missiles using "grapeshot" warheads.
And massive amounts of territory to base hyper-acceleration missiles and laser emplacements as well as disperse said defenses and sensors.
Except the defenders know where the attackers are going to end up and when. Orbital mechanics doesn't allow for easy dodging either.
Not necessarily. For a few billion CrImps, I can design planetary defenses that can an orbital assault into a Pyrrhic victory.
Incorrect. The problem is that of defending against a massive ICBM launch. It can be done; it just won't be pleasant.
And any planetary defenses worth their money will be able to detect said ordnance from millions of miles away.
Heck, there's nothing to say they have to come in on the ecliptic. Personally, I'd come in above and below the ecliptic just to avoid most of the junk orbiting the star.
Not really. We've successfully softlanded a probe on a small, tumbling asteroid. Yes, that was a special case but it's just going to get easier as the centuries pass and technology improves.
Nope. The goal is not to destroy the fleet but to destroy the fleet's ability to cause damage. Any dreadnought with empty magazines is just a very expensive, inefficient troop transport.
Richard Saunders
SOC-12
Hello.
Just a thought, Time the attack so that all targets are on the same (other) side of the system, then jump in system on the other side from them and acellerate in system with the fleet split up to pace on all sides of the sun.
As the ships pass the sun they release ball bearing armed missiles that continue towards the mainworld on ballistic flight (almost impossible to spot (coming out of the sun any radiation from impacts with surrounding matter would be lost in solar activite)).
Time activation of the missiles will release the ball bearings so they form an expanding cloud (yes several million ball bearings but they will be closing from different vectors)
Any ship they hit will probably die if not from the inpact then the crew will be radiated, any that hit the planet should burn up in atmosphere.
I'm supprised Harrington hasn't used this with time launched missile salvos.
An attack like this should sweep the planetary orbit clean and do no harm to the planet.
The attacking ships then do whatever the wanted to do.
Bye.
Just a thought, Time the attack so that all targets are on the same (other) side of the system, then jump in system on the other side from them and acellerate in system with the fleet split up to pace on all sides of the sun.
As the ships pass the sun they release ball bearing armed missiles that continue towards the mainworld on ballistic flight (almost impossible to spot (coming out of the sun any radiation from impacts with surrounding matter would be lost in solar activite)).
Time activation of the missiles will release the ball bearings so they form an expanding cloud (yes several million ball bearings but they will be closing from different vectors)
Any ship they hit will probably die if not from the inpact then the crew will be radiated, any that hit the planet should burn up in atmosphere.
I'm supprised Harrington hasn't used this with time launched missile salvos.
An attack like this should sweep the planetary orbit clean and do no harm to the planet.
The attacking ships then do whatever the wanted to do.
Bye.
RandyT0001
SOC-13
Lionel,
1. Based upon two week old info you can never predict when all targets are going to be on the other side of the system, IMO. There are ships located all around the mainworld at various distances. They will detect the incoming fleet either by jump in flash or by IR signature of their PP's. It could take up to a day for all of the invading ships to fininsh the jump in. When the first few ships are not seen vectoring toward the mainworld (they are waiting for the rest of the fleet to jump in) the mainworld will quickly come to the conclusion that the possibility of an attack has increased and will alert their units.
2. I think that whenever ships are attacked by missile fire, regardless of the warhead, they are permitted a defensive fire against the missile fire in most Traveller rulesets. Repulsors can stop a million ball bearings just as easily as they stop a HE warhead or a nuke warhead.
IMO
1. Based upon two week old info you can never predict when all targets are going to be on the other side of the system, IMO. There are ships located all around the mainworld at various distances. They will detect the incoming fleet either by jump in flash or by IR signature of their PP's. It could take up to a day for all of the invading ships to fininsh the jump in. When the first few ships are not seen vectoring toward the mainworld (they are waiting for the rest of the fleet to jump in) the mainworld will quickly come to the conclusion that the possibility of an attack has increased and will alert their units.
2. I think that whenever ships are attacked by missile fire, regardless of the warhead, they are permitted a defensive fire against the missile fire in most Traveller rulesets. Repulsors can stop a million ball bearings just as easily as they stop a HE warhead or a nuke warhead.
IMO
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
IMTU patrolling ships rarely cruise around in a fixed orbit, they constantly maneuver as SOP so that their position can't be predicted to allow a long range missile strike.
While they are in transit within a system they vary the maneuver G rating used randomly as well for much the same reason.
While they are in transit within a system they vary the maneuver G rating used randomly as well for much the same reason.
P
Pickles
Guest
I lik to use a lot of unpowered cruising with slingshot-assisted manoeuvre for my silent-running SDBs.
Anyway, that's what I tell my players when they get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar ...
Anyway, that's what I tell my players when they get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar ...
Richard Saunders
SOC-12
Hello
Randy
1. If the ships jump in over two days then all systems have two days warning of any but a hit and run attack, i always just assummed that fleets had a method of jumping together otherwise any jump into a system except out in the far system would be stupid.(far enough out to stop intercept by ships before your ships can group.)
Jump flash Where in the rules??
IR this is why you jump in close to the primary (just out side its mask on the other side of the system, if he has enough ships to be patroling both sides of the system what the hell are you attacking with.)
2. So there are no suprise attacks. To detect an attack you need to know there is an attack or do your ships run around with hot weapons all the time (very expensive in maintanance and dangerous.)
I always thought that repulsors and sand stopped one attack not all attacks per launch up to the usp and only if you hit.
Sigg.
Yes but i would target anything inside the 100d of the planet, if the ships are normaly out side the 100d then just jump a big enough ship in and KILL it, or jump in at the 100d range do a fly by kill the orbital factories and leave, the defenders cant stop you there outside the 100d defence bubble.
So either the defenders are inside the 100d bubble and get hit or they are outside the bubble and are scattered and get taken out piecemeal or they are bunched and it leaves 300 deg to jump in on.
The enemy (me) would know standard operating procedure so would know how the fleet was operating, yes operating procedures change thats why we roll dice.
Bromgrev.
Yes thats the suprise if you dont know there there you cant shoot them.
Bye
Randy
1. If the ships jump in over two days then all systems have two days warning of any but a hit and run attack, i always just assummed that fleets had a method of jumping together otherwise any jump into a system except out in the far system would be stupid.(far enough out to stop intercept by ships before your ships can group.)
Jump flash Where in the rules??
IR this is why you jump in close to the primary (just out side its mask on the other side of the system, if he has enough ships to be patroling both sides of the system what the hell are you attacking with.)
2. So there are no suprise attacks. To detect an attack you need to know there is an attack or do your ships run around with hot weapons all the time (very expensive in maintanance and dangerous.)
I always thought that repulsors and sand stopped one attack not all attacks per launch up to the usp and only if you hit.
Sigg.
Yes but i would target anything inside the 100d of the planet, if the ships are normaly out side the 100d then just jump a big enough ship in and KILL it, or jump in at the 100d range do a fly by kill the orbital factories and leave, the defenders cant stop you there outside the 100d defence bubble.
So either the defenders are inside the 100d bubble and get hit or they are outside the bubble and are scattered and get taken out piecemeal or they are bunched and it leaves 300 deg to jump in on.
The enemy (me) would know standard operating procedure so would know how the fleet was operating, yes operating procedures change thats why we roll dice.
Bromgrev.
Yes thats the suprise if you dont know there there you cant shoot them.
Bye
