Invading Star Systems/Defending Them

[mad13142000]

Never said I wouldn't throw down some ground pounders, just that there would NEVER be a need for large battles - that anything popping up at division level wouldn't live long. Same goes for military bases of all sorts...I tailor my KS for the size destruction I want, and send my happy arrows raining down...

-MADDog

 

[Tobias]

A division of TL 14-15 troops would not be an immobile, static target. It would be very difficult to use heavy orbital bombardment against enemy troops without massively damaging the planetary environment.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Bob Weaver]

MADDog said:
<SNIP>
Never said I wouldn't throw down some ground pounders, just that there would NEVER be a need for large battles - that anything popping up at division level wouldn't live long. Same goes for military bases of all sorts...I tailor my KS for the size destruction I want, and send my happy arrows raining down...

-MADDog
</SNIP>

I have to agree that there would probably be no division-level battles going on. But in order to gain (as opposed to gain access to) the resources of the world, you have to put people on the ground. For every stevedore or accountant you send down, expect to put down some troops to guard him/her and the material that they are after. The locals may not be able to shoot your fleet out of the sky, but they can harrass/assassinate your people, destroy or move goods and generally disrupt your efforts to effect control of the world's resources. There are other forms or resistance to a conqueror besides formal military action. Locally, they'd be known as "freedom fighters". Depending on their tactics, you'd probably call them terrorists.

Just a thought,
Bob

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Bob Weaver:
I have to agree that there would probably be no division-level battles going on.

I'm unsure of this. When you want to nuke them from orbit, you will destroy lots of civilian targets as well. The defending army isn't going to do you the favor of standing still in a desert.
Indeed, I'm fairly sure that it would be impossible to destroy the defense forces of a high-tech, high-population world without also destroying the planetary economy, infrastructure, and population.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Tobias:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I hope the robot brain doesn't roll a failure.

I think this is unlikely. It's not all that difficult a maneuver.

This missile/robot is flying at 70% C. In only 10-minutes, can even a 6-G engine provide sufficient correction (assumning a less than accepable roll by the robot brain)?

Yes, unless I made a major mistake. I did the calculations for this twice, and I allowed for a generous margin of error.
The instructions to be followed by the robot brain would be very simple (turn to X and accelerate for Y minutes at Z Gs). I see no problem here.

Regards,

Tobias </font>[/QUOTE]The TNE rules rate placing a ship exactly on-target (at normal velocities, relatively speaking) as requiring an Outstanding Success vs. a Difficult Task. A robot brain with EDU 15 and Astrogation 5, for target 20, needs to roll 13 or less. That's a 35% failure to be dead-on.

Personally, I'd have no hesitation to say that operating at 70% C would require the robot brain to make an Oustanding Success vs. a Formidable Task, requiring a d20 roll of 3 or less (with my made-up penalty, of course). And that's only with the custom-written Jump program operating.

Regular success would require expending 10% of the fuel needed to attain the current velocity to return to course. Velocity being 70% C, that's going to be tough, and I think it would take more than 10 minutes.

FF&S is around here somewhere, I haven't looked at how high the rules allow a TL-15 brain to go on stats and skills. I'll have to check that out. I should also probably check my Book 8 and T20 rules, but I'm being lazy right now.

Oh, the penalty I was originally thinking of was for CT, really. So it should really be about 75% higher for TNE.

 

[mad13142000]

Originally posted by Tobias:
I'm unsure of this. When you want to nuke them from orbit, you will destroy lots of civilian targets as well. The defending army isn't going to do you the favor of standing still in a desert.
Indeed, I'm fairly sure that it would be impossible to destroy the defense forces of a high-tech, high-population world without also destroying the planetary economy, infrastructure, and population.

No. Not nuke, Kinetic Interdiction Weapons. Think like the GPS guided cruise missles they used in Iraq. Now make them bigger - about the size of a ICBM...Then remove most of the propellant and the explosives, and simply put a big hunk of iron (or whatever non-radioactive metal you desire) then launch them from orbit. The big metal smart-arrow comes through the atmosphere (oh yeah - a thermal protection system like the space shuttle would help...) and impacts a precise target at about 30,000 miles per hour. Big mushroom cloud, BIG explosion, NO radiation...By calculating the size hole you want to make, you adjust the mass you fling down...that way, you avoid destroying things you don't want to destroy...

-MADDog

 

[Tobias]

I was already preparing a wise-ass response as how even the computer I am sitting in front of right now could make the necessary acceleration calculations, but then I realized you were talking about jump calculations (you were, right?)

Well, when talking about jumping, you might well be right. Then again, you can allow for a rather large margin of error by setting your entry point further from the target. But in any case, restricting the jump conditions might be the way to defuse the ISKKM. You might increase the misjump chance dramatically for vessels at a considerable fraction of c.

The acceleration calculations are exceedingly easy. If TNE, or any other rulesystem, claims otherwise, it's in error. You could do the calculations with the computer I am sitting in front of right now. A supercomputer could definitely do them with enough accuracy to ensure exact hits. It becomes all that easier when you take into account that you don't have to rely on a single set of calculations, but can make adjustments during the long acceleration phase.

Btw, in TNE, the ISKKM would be probably impossible anyway, because TNE starships need vast amounts of fuel for maneuver (to the degree that even extended interplanetary maneuvers are not really possible). So if you're a TNE player, there you have an easy solution.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Zutroi]

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zutroi:
Regarding relativistic weaponry, I just realized that I and many others of us MAY have been wrong. They can be defended against. All your planet needs to do is orbit a collection of debris. Debris hit by a relativistic ship will do ENORMOUS damage, up to and including vaporizing the offending weapon. Of course, the ball of plasma that USED to be a ship is still going to hit your atmosphere at a shade under the agreed upon .7c. And you'll produce a lot of radiation when pebble hits ship (hard x and gamma rays are NOT your friends), a mixed blessing since it may or may not scour the life off of the surface of your world (air is a pretty good defense against short wavelengths), it will make the space around the target world very uninhabitable!!

Hello.
If you place a debre field around a planet you make the planet more likle to fall.
The invading fleet needs to only fire small (relativly) kinetics missiles at the planet because the radiation from the impacts with the debry will EMP the planet (no planet will wast the money sheilding all possible electronics on planet) yes the military will but if you destroy the planets infrustructor the people are going to go hungry (imagine if you will the US with no electronics (no comunications, no car, no trucks, no trains, no hospitals, no electricity to factories or homes).
You also have the radiation hitting the planet (yes with warning the people can be moved underground (airraid shelters) but how do you move crops and other plant life underground.
How long is a Hipop planet going to hold out if there is no food (most modern citys have about two yes 2 days food in hand, after the power goes so does any fresh food, its pointless having 20000000tons of grain in Kansas if you cant get it to New York.
You can probably imagine the destruction and chaos after a week and this would be world wide.
All you would need would be 3 or 4 missiles every day for a week then 1 missile every 3 days (stop the ground forces from repairing the network with protected spares).
After about a fortnight you would be down to a midpop world, after a month probably 100's of millions dead and rising fast.
If the planet doesnt have an orbiting debry field you could do the same by firing small high C missiles into the atmosphere yes they may not hit the surpace but think of the radiation, a couple of nucs into uperatmosphere and see EMP above.
I hope someone can find the hole in this, I dont feel safe anymore.
For rocks from space try Robert Heinlein's "the moon is a harsh mistress" or Nivens "Footfall" or was it Pournelle.
BYE. </font>[/QUOTE]Niven or Pournelle? It was both...

Please double check my post. I'd hoped I was clear that you'd need A) A dense atmosphere to screen out radiation, and B) A willingness to lose anything and everything above said atmosphere.

As my late Grandma always said, "If the learner didn't learn, the teacher didn't teach. (She was a teacher, needless to say...)" My inability to make a clear point sometimes is a failing I attribute ONLY to myself - it happens so frequently that I must conclude that either I'm bad at communicating sometimes or everyone else in the world is brain-dead, the odds favor me being at fault, eh?

In practice, no space-faring culture will be willing to risk losing all orbital facilities, etc., I raised the point entirely as an academic one...

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zutroi:
Regarding relativistic weaponry, . . .

<snip>

. . .it will make the space around the target world very uninhabitable!!

Hello.
If you place a debre field around a planet you make the planet more likle to fall.
The invading fleet needs to only fire small (relativly) kinetics missiles at the planet because the radiation from the impacts with the debry will EMP the planet (no planet will wast the money sheilding all possible electronics on planet) yes the military will but if you destroy the planets infrustructor the people are going to go hungry (imagine if you will the US with no electronics (no comunications, no car, no trucks, no trains, no hospitals, no electricity to factories or homes).

<snip>

For rocks from space try Robert Heinlein's "the moon is a harsh mistress" or Nivens "Footfall" or was it Pournelle.
BYE. </font>[/QUOTE]Robert Heinlein's future high tech worlds were also quite different than today, with entirely different advantages and limitations upon society and civilization. In Friday, the milieu's energy source was the Shipstone, which completely replaced electrical energy distribution systems. It's unlikely orbital attacks less than ground-razing would hurt much ("What good is a used-up world and how could it be worth having?" Sting, All This Time).

In Cowboy Bebop, in Fay's origin episode, she wakes up, what, only few decades after being put into cryogenics, and when challenged on her understanding of current tech, points to and describes three desktop appliances sitting nearby in her hospital room. She was wrong in all three cases, not by just a little but, but completely. I think it more than likely that our wildest imaginations can only impinge on what the average citizen of a high-pop TL-15 world, with all it's wealth, would have on hand.

That TL-15 world, seven points above Earth today, would have numerous advantages not possessed by us today. I think knocking out their energy, water, and food distribution would be far more difficult. Emergency food sythesizer boxes, normally used in case of natural disaster, could, running on power sources with endurances that would make our batteries look silly, be able to ingest dirt, water, and air, and probably come up with something fairly tasty (via nanofacture; and since we're talking about non-canon fractional-C weapons, we can talk about nanotech, too). Subduing a population with the conveniences of TL-15 hanging around through conventional starvation tactics through siege might not be possible. Backup systems for civil infrastructure might exist that are unheard of today. Sewage disposal might be handled through highly decentralized partial pre-processing nanoplants that dump, instead the "treated" sewage of 21st century Earth, various processed chemicals and compounds through underground networks to factories for instant recycling. Underground networks bored at the tip of a fusion gun and shored up by walls grown via nanotech. TL-15 first aid kits might easily contain a meldley of all purpose nanotech healing armies, one for general disease, one for healing broken bones, one for lacerations, etc. Even without nanotech, classic SF literature provides us with many examples of hand-held medical devices capable of substituting in a large (but not complete) way for trauma services. Pan-Immune drugs, rapid-heal drugs, auto-docs, etc.

Nanotech could, conceivably, rebuild entire cities just recently devastated. Taken to the extreme, they could rebuild entire worlds. (Although, in this case, the victor can do it, too).

 

[Tobias]

@ MADDog
The term "Nuke them from orbit" was just a generalized term. I, of all persons in this thread, am naturally aware of the possibility of Kinetic Kill weapons

The thing is, these are useful against fixed targets, but probably a lot less useful against mobile targets. A Grav Tank division is essentially several hundred very resiliant, very stealthy armored targets that are spread out over a large area and can change position very quickly. To do meaningful damage to them, you would have to destroy the whole area.

A Grav Vehicle also has the advantage that it needs no bridges or roads, and Traveller fusion plants can live off the land on any planet that has water, provided you have some specialized tanker vehicles with you.
Indeed, I assume that much of the military will remain operable even if the whole civilian infrastructure is destroyed.

Fixed positions are dead, naturally. At least if they're on the surface. If fixed positions are absolutely necessary, I'd build them deep underground, similar to meson gun pits (and better keep their location top secret). On a world with sufficiently deep oceans, underwater is also a good option.

Regards,

Tobias

P.S.: Speaking of underground positions, do you think it would be feasible to build a "tunneling" vehicle in Traveller?

 

[Zutroi]

Originally posted by MADDog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tobias:
I'm unsure of this. When you want to nuke them from orbit, you will destroy lots of civilian targets as well. The defending army isn't going to do you the favor of standing still in a desert.
Indeed, I'm fairly sure that it would be impossible to destroy the defense forces of a high-tech, high-population world without also destroying the planetary economy, infrastructure, and population.

No. Not nuke, Kinetic Interdiction Weapons. Think like the GPS guided cruise missles they used in Iraq. Now make them bigger - about the size of a ICBM...Then remove most of the propellant and the explosives, and simply put a big hunk of iron (or whatever non-radioactive metal you desire) then launch them from orbit. The big metal smart-arrow comes through the atmosphere (oh yeah - a thermal protection system like the space shuttle would help...) and impacts a precise target at about 30,000 miles per hour. Big mushroom cloud, BIG explosion, NO radiation...By calculating the size hole you want to make, you adjust the mass you fling down...that way, you avoid destroying things you don't want to destroy...

-MADDog </font>[/QUOTE]The original concept was called "Thor" and involved orbiting metal rods with seekers on them, deorbit one or two onto a tank and...

You wouldn't want a space-shuttle type TPS, it's too fragile (as we all know now) and expensive by virtue of re-usability. You want something more along the lines of what ICBM warheads use, a simple cone of something refractory. ICBM's like to use thing like depleted uranium, gaining a multi-purpose effect by using it to reflect stray neutrons back into the critical mass, you'd want something hard, dense, non-radioactive... tungsten would probably be a good choice.

So, your missile is a drive, just big enough to nudge you around for zeroing in on your target, MAYBE a comm system to provide better control and BDA info, MAYBE a seeker, all mounted onto a long, hollow, tungsten cone... If you want 'dial-a-yield', you replace the iron filling with iron pellets (nice and cheap) and a dump system that allows the warhead to fine-tune it's mass-at-impact to give EXACTLY the results you want! Accurate, fallout-free, and really, really cheap!!

RW example - at least two of the weapons used in a strike against a certain "Saddam" were concrete-filled practice bombs, fitted with JDAM kits! The intent was to level a target without damaging the next-door neighbors, and it worked!

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Tobias:
I was already preparing a wise-ass response as how even the computer I am sitting in front of right now could make the necessary acceleration calculations, but then I realized you were talking about jump calculations (you were, right?)

Well, when talking about jumping, you might well be right. Then again, you can allow for a rather large margin of error by setting your entry point further from the target. But in any case, restricting the jump conditions might be the way to defuse the ISKKM. You might increase the misjump chance dramatically for vessels at a considerable fraction of c.

The acceleration calculations are exceedingly easy. If TNE, or any other rulesystem, claims otherwise, it's in error. You could do the calculations with the computer I am sitting in front of right now. A supercomputer could definitely do them with enough accuracy to ensure exact hits. It becomes all that easier when you take into account that you don't have to rely on a single set of calculations, but can make adjustments during the long acceleration phase.

Btw, in TNE, the ISKKM would be probably impossible anyway, because TNE starships need vast amounts of fuel for maneuver (to the degree that even extended interplanetary maneuvers are not really possible). So if you're a TNE player, there you have an easy solution.

Regards,

Tobias

I was talking about jump calculations, and my invention of the penalty on successful exit jump positioning was 100% artificial, for the sole purpose of explaining why fractional-C weaponry don't seem to appear in the OTU.

My dicussion on acceleration was wondering whether a 6G drive could exert enough force quickly enough (never mind the computer's course correction calculation capability, that's not what I meant here) to effect a course change in a vessel moving 70% C in less than 10 minutes. I don't know the math to calculate it myself, but since it took a long time to get to 70% C in your description, I can only assume that pushing the course one way or the other would be fairly difficult.

Also, I was sort of wondering, how much time dilation accrues at 70% C?

A search on the net provided the following link (but I have no ability to assess accuracy, could you look at it or provide a better reference (please?).

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

but if I can believe it, then for every 1.4 days at relative local time, a ship moving at 70% C experiences 1 day. That's a huge slow-down, almost half. Anything inside the vessel is going to react considerably slower than normal. When making course corrections with only 10 minutes to spare, is this reaction time speed penalty enough to hurt?

 

[Zutroi]

I've just posted a survey regarding this topic. Personally, I'll take attack over defense.

 

[Tobias]

@ Rainofsteel
Re: Nanotech
Well, Nanotech per se is not mentioned anywhere While neither are my near-C missiles, they are merely an application of given technology, rather than a technology itself.
But the technologies you mention all have very good foundation in Traveller. For example, starships allegedly have closed-cycle water and air systems, and so could emergency shelters for civilians.
Medical technology that can heal you from any condition just short of being smashed to a pulp is also available. The tech tables in the MT Referee's companion (also in Grand Census) give good inspiration for a lot of very high tech applications.
But I think Nanotech that is capable of quickly rebuilding entire cities or similar feats is out of the question, simply because it would be a very unbalancing and abusable technology, similar to Star Trek replicators.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Tobias:
@ Rainofsteel
Re: Nanotech
Well, Nanotech per se is not mentioned anywhere While neither are my near-C missiles, they are merely an application of given technology, rather than a technology itself.
But the technologies you mention all have very good foundation in Traveller. For example, starships allegedly have closed-cycle water and air systems, and so could emergency shelters for civilians.
Medical technology that can heal you from any condition just short of being smashed to a pulp is also available. The tech tables in the MT Referee's companion (also in Grand Census) give good inspiration for a lot of very high tech applications.
But I think Nanotech that is capable of quickly rebuilding entire cities or similar feats is out of the question, simply because it would be a very unbalancing and abusable technology, similar to Star Trek replicators.

Regards,

Tobias

Yes, I think so, too, I'm not deploying a lot of that in MTU, just dicussing it.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I was talking about jump calculations, and my invention of the penalty on successful exit jump positioning was 100% artificial, for the sole purpose of explaining why fractional-C weaponry don't seem to appear in the OTU.

That's a perfectly valid approach, and given that jump drives are obviously affected by gravity, a reasonable one within a canonical framework.

My dicussion on acceleration was wondering whether a 6G drive could exert enough force quickly enough (never mind the computer's course correction calculation capability, that's not what I meant here) to effect a course change in a vessel moving 70% C in less than 10 minutes.

If I didn't make a miscalculation, it easily could. Mind you, for just hitting the planet, that much would not even be necessary, and since you can't hit a specific target anyway due to the planet's rotation, it's probably enough.
The change in "altitude", which is the only thing to correct for due to different jump exit times, is about 5000km maximum. In case of an Earth-sized world, this is even less than the world's own radius.
For time an mass dilution I did allow twice as much time as normally needed.

Regards,

Tobias

P.S.: The concept would be much easier to explain with a drawing. Anybody have a place I could put one to?

 

[Tobias]

@ Zutroi
I chose "Attacker" too, but only because it's more fun being on the offensive

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by BMonnery:
Currently ~75% of C-Sups are artillery rounds and a lot of the remainder is fuel. With battlefield meson sleds and fusion reactors this can be cut down a lot.

True, altough I envision high-TL forces to use a lot of disposable drones and the likes, too. Still you're right, supply will probably last longer in my example.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Tobias:

<snip>

Regards,

Tobias

P.S.: The concept would be much easier to explain with a drawing. Anybody have a place I could put one to? [/qb]

Just provide a url to an external site . . . if you have Yahoo, you have a briefcase where you can store files; and your ISP may provide webspace, mine does.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

My Lords,

Does this tactical conundrum you present assume that you (the defender) has already lost control of the entire system's resources, and its a last stand at the mainworld?