Invading Star Systems/Defending Them
- Thread starter RainOfSteel
- Start date
Rupert Boleyn
SOC-12
Supplement 9: Fighting Ships says in the notes for the Tigeress that one of the reasons for the fighters being in the bustle in the back is that it keeps their flight paths clear of the meson gun's beam in the front. Also, the Tigeress has a massive armoured shield that is lowered for firing - hardly something you'd need if there was no meson decay or matter interaction short of the burst.
IMO this shows that there is some sort of 'leakage' - minor, but still dangerous to lightly armoured or shielded objects. Such a line could be traced.
It says the same of laser communicators, and it's not totally true of them, either. Also a meson communicator is much weaker than a meson gun.
IMO that's a simplification for game purposes, and probably assumes the guy at the other end has his craft inform you of its manoeuvres so you can aim your tight-beam comms systems accordingly.
This applies to any sort of weapons system in space.
I don't think anyone's saying finding a deep mount is easy, just that it should be doable if you observe enough shots.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Stuff snipped
I was unclear when I posted my visualization of the meson burst: I envision the burst as being a linear "line of fire" =out at the target.= I don't envision a "line of fire" going from the meson gun to the target, just a linear series of explosions (starting small, building up, and then fading out) in the immediate vicinity of the target, with (hopefully) the biggest part of the line of explosions happening inside the target.
The short length and duration of this "line of fire" would make it difficult to use for triangulating on the DMGS, but you might be able to do so if you got enough data. Of course the only way to get that data is to give that DMGS something to shoot at.
You do realize that optical sensors are passive EM? Optical sensors are perfectly effective from planetary surfaces. </font>[/QUOTE]Sure optical wavelengths are passive EM. But the reason stars "twinkle" at night is because atmosphere distorts them. That's why the Hubble telescope is outside (most of) the atmosphere.
And how are you going to get a range solution from optics? You could use a laser, but then you just told the attackers *exactly* where your sensor array is...
Rupert
Yep it says beam. So how exactly does a beam pass through ALL matter and still be a danger to fighters. Perhaps its actually just muzzle fire from a meson or PAW. The fighters launching from the back to keep armour between the bays and the oncoming enemy. The armoured shield protects the weapon when its not in battle per the Fighting Ships.
Rupert
Yes, I realize there is a large power difference.
That wouldn't mean it would leave a trail because there is more power. The meaning of lasers (which do interact with surrounding matter) not being able to be intercepted is realtively different.
The OZ
You envision? Great its in YTU. I hold to the canon facts;
1.MT states many worlds survivors were the meson crews (otherwise, tough to hit),
2. Calling something a beam in one paragraph does not mean it becomes visible or has any decay along the linear path. Canon says its an advanced version of the PAW that sends subatomic particles and does not interact with any matter, ships, or armour before hiting the intended target. The damage is explosions and radiation.
3. Common sense: Keeping fighters away from the muzzel of a spinal mount is not a justification for rapid decay.
4. Canon states that Mesons are accelerated to relativity to lengthen their longevity. No mention of bleed, or bursts or trails.
5. Common sense: a population would not bury DMGs in its world if meson explosions (however small) were coming from the ground towards orbit. Meson explosions are radioactive. If canon had intended it we'd have a "meson just hit me cause I was in the line of fire, ouch" damage chart.
***
YTU would be more believable if you called it a minor, non-harmful, subatomic, not-visible bleed. But you would need meson sensors for that. There might be an TL21 solution. Once again Meson trails, lines of blasts, and bleeding are not supported by canon. If you want to detect a DMG you need Densitometers (see earlier discussion).
Questioning the political rhetoric in canon is perfectly fine but be carefully when you start changing canon physics. Your loosing a very nice weapon system.
Savage
Rupert Boleyn
SOC-12
I expect that some (very) small fraction of the beam actually doesn't decay in at target point, but decays along the way - or that there's some minor interaction with matter along the way (or both). Therefore you need to lower the shield to fire or there's a nasty little spray of radiation inside the ship. Probably nothing too bad, but enough to put anyone nearby in hospital for a couple of weeks and to fry adjacent electronics.
No, but it does mean that meson comms are harder to detect because they'd leave a much smaller trace.
I don't think anyone's saying that the DMGs are easy to find. Just that it can be done, and that it's probably from charting the shape and other characteristics of the bursts.
Alright, why does the Tigeress need to open her shield when firing her meson gun? If mesons don't interact with matter she doesn't need to open the shield (in fact she doesn't need the special shield in the first place). Also explain "this arrangement prevents them [her fighters] from entering the meson beam when it's in use." Looks like the IN believes they interact with hull-armour and fighters, and I submit that they'd have a fairly good idea of what does and does not work round meson guns.
Canon says that meson guns can be found and destroyed, but that it's very hard. No one's saying otherwise. Nor has anyone said that they're so easy to locate that they're not worth having. I actually suspect that were such a weapon to exist in RL it'd be much easier to spot than anyone's been advocating - according to FF&S a meson gun discharges 20% of its input energy, so even a fairly small gun produces a lot of waste heat that ahs to go somewhere. I bet such a gun would have a pretty strong EM signal when it fired, too.
In the interests of canon I'm willing to assume these issues have been overcome, leaving the one of the pulse's shape - I do not believe that a system like a meson gun will be so perfect that its bursts will be perfect spheres, and that if they're not that their irregularities are random (and thus provide no insight into the direction of the source).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
My understanding of meson guns is that you have two particle accelerators firing particle beams which intersect to generate the mesons. Now there is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine so I would assume a small amount of the particle beams are not converted to mesons and therefore remain a threat to smallcraft flying into these beams. DSMGs wouldn't need to worry because the surrounding planetary crust will absorb the partilce beam residue and protect from civilian casualties.
One question then, do the particle beams converge inside the meson gun or externally? I have always assumed outside for some reason?
One question then, do the particle beams converge inside the meson gun or externally? I have always assumed outside for some reason?
True there is no such thing as a 100% efficient TL8 or below machine. True that 2 particles collide to form a meson.
Meson guns are very long. It could be assumed that the waste occurs in the creation of the meson packet not the delivery. When it reaches its target via its very short lifespan the meson decays resulting in dangerous particles and radiation.
In your world DMGs are very very dangerous.
Still no mention of trails in the canon I've read.
1. This is the only ship with a meson armoured shield. It protects the meson gun while not in use, per supp 9.
2. Not having fighters launching from the front protects them from oncomming enemy vessels. And
I would assume (because canon says nothing either way) that your WASTE energy is muzzle fire.
3. Several different canon books (CT, MT, TNE) state that they don't interact with matter on the way to the target.
Would anyone else like to toss in 2 cents on this topic? Perhaps some canon better than whats been introduced with the Tigress.
Savage
Meson guns are very long. It could be assumed that the waste occurs in the creation of the meson packet not the delivery. When it reaches its target via its very short lifespan the meson decays resulting in dangerous particles and radiation.
In your world DMGs are very very dangerous.
Still no mention of trails in the canon I've read.
I already have:
1. This is the only ship with a meson armoured shield. It protects the meson gun while not in use, per supp 9.
2. Not having fighters launching from the front protects them from oncomming enemy vessels. And
I would assume (because canon says nothing either way) that your WASTE energy is muzzle fire.
3. Several different canon books (CT, MT, TNE) state that they don't interact with matter on the way to the target.
Would anyone else like to toss in 2 cents on this topic? Perhaps some canon better than whats been introduced with the Tigress.
Savage
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Savage,
I never said that a meson gun left a trail all the way from the gun to the target. I even specifically came back to say that I envisioned the burst of the decaying mesons =at the target= to be linear. My justification for this is the canon description of how the meson gun works plus my extrapolation from the concept that it'd be practically impossible for all the mesons in one burst to be accelerated to =exactly= the same velocity. As a result, some will decay a picosecond or two sooner or later than the majority. As a result of that, the burst will have a somewhat linear appearance at the target. How linear depends on just how accurately the gunners can control the speed of the mesons. Presumably at higher TLs the speed of the mesons can be more accurately controlled (which might help explain why higher TL meson guns are more dangerous; more of their mesons decay closer to the intended "burst point") and the linear characteristic of the burst is lessened to a large degree, making high TL meson guns even more difficult to locate via this method.
As Rupert has also said, we are not arguing that DMGS are easy to locate and destroy, they are in fact the most difficult of planetary defenses to target and we're not changing that; we're merely trying to to think of ways within the canon descriptions of TRAVELLER technology (and our understanding of how the real universe works) that an attacking fleet might be able to find those pesky DMGS.
I never said that a meson gun left a trail all the way from the gun to the target. I even specifically came back to say that I envisioned the burst of the decaying mesons =at the target= to be linear. My justification for this is the canon description of how the meson gun works plus my extrapolation from the concept that it'd be practically impossible for all the mesons in one burst to be accelerated to =exactly= the same velocity. As a result, some will decay a picosecond or two sooner or later than the majority. As a result of that, the burst will have a somewhat linear appearance at the target. How linear depends on just how accurately the gunners can control the speed of the mesons. Presumably at higher TLs the speed of the mesons can be more accurately controlled (which might help explain why higher TL meson guns are more dangerous; more of their mesons decay closer to the intended "burst point") and the linear characteristic of the burst is lessened to a large degree, making high TL meson guns even more difficult to locate via this method.
As Rupert has also said, we are not arguing that DMGS are easy to locate and destroy, they are in fact the most difficult of planetary defenses to target and we're not changing that; we're merely trying to to think of ways within the canon descriptions of TRAVELLER technology (and our understanding of how the real universe works) that an attacking fleet might be able to find those pesky DMGS.
Rupert Boleyn
SOC-12
But why does she need to open it to fire?
According to Supp 9 it's also to protect the fighters from the beam.
As for waste heat pouring out the front of the meson tunnel - don't you think that's make for a nice 'hot spot' where the gun is if it's in a deep mount?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Found it
.
The reason I always thought mesons are generated outside of the ship.
JotTAS no 13 page 8, article by David Emigh
" A meson gun is actually two very high energy accellerators, one of which accelerates electrons and the other positrons. Both of these beams are directed to a point in space, and the two collide.
One of the by-products of this collision will be mesons, produced in such a way that most of them will travel in the direction of the target."
Using this as a guide to how meson guns work then:
open the blast doors or you will have an electron beam and a positron beam impacting the inside of your ship
;
don't fly smallcraft through the particle beams or the other products of the meson forming reaction for that matter
.
The reason I always thought mesons are generated outside of the ship.
JotTAS no 13 page 8, article by David Emigh
" A meson gun is actually two very high energy accellerators, one of which accelerates electrons and the other positrons. Both of these beams are directed to a point in space, and the two collide.
One of the by-products of this collision will be mesons, produced in such a way that most of them will travel in the direction of the target."
Using this as a guide to how meson guns work then:
open the blast doors or you will have an electron beam and a positron beam impacting the inside of your ship
; don't fly smallcraft through the particle beams or the other products of the meson forming reaction for that matter
Rupert Boleyn
SOC-12
Well, well. Looking at this, it becomes that if it's canon there will be a detectable trace "… most of them will travel in the direction of the target."Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Found it.
The reason I always thought mesons are generated outside of the ship.
JotTAS no 13 page 8, article by David Emigh
" A meson gun is actually two very high energy accellerators, one of which accelerates electrons and the other positrons. Both of these beams are directed to a point in space, and the two collide.
One of the by-products of this collision will be mesons, produced in such a way that most of them will travel in the direction of the target."
However if this is taken as canon DMGs won't work, or will have to have huge evacuated chambers at the gun's muzzle - if they don't they won't be able to fire as the beams will run into rock, with "undesirable" consequences. This being the case, IMO the whole description is probably suspect.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Well it's only as official as any article in the Journal ever was i.e. suspect, as you say, but it is the only full description from CT materials I can find and it does explain those supplement 9 problems 
.
Fast foward a few years to TNE and FF&S. The description there states the mesons are generated inside the weapon
, but then again in TNE you can have 2000t ships with spinal meson guns, parallel mounts etc.
Just choose which canon you want
(sorry, I couldn't resist that one).
.Fast foward a few years to TNE and FF&S. The description there states the mesons are generated inside the weapon
, but then again in TNE you can have 2000t ships with spinal meson guns, parallel mounts etc.Just choose which canon you want
(sorry, I couldn't resist that one).
This meson discussion has been going on far too long. Its obvious your both sticking to whatever you want for your campaign.
As for me and MTU meson's travel through matter without interacting until the point of planned decay per the rule books I have read,
1. Supp9 also says that fighters are in the back to protect them from oncoming enemy craft...the Tigress has a few differences from other meson spinal mount weapons.
2. "rule" books state that mesons don't interact.
I prefer following rule book cannon to 1 ship inconsistency in 1 book.
3. T4 suggests that a decay spread can occur if the gunner fires beyond the weapons range (Not Before).
4. Challenge 25 mag ==> Attack the sensors and power plants to silence DMGs. They give off energy signatures. I've suggested two defensive workarounds for the defender.
a. Geothermal energy for power
b. sensor lots of sensors. As you loose some turn others on...
5. There are plenty of suggestions, in rule books, that meson SMs have extremely long tunnels. None suggest multiple tunnels for multiple beams. So,
I must assume that the canon multiple beams meet inside of the tunnel where they convert particles into the subatomic meson beam. Perhaps the JTAS article author was watching too much Star Wars that weekend.
6. MT: DMG site crews were some of the last survivors of worlds during the rebellion.
7. There is no reason not to assume spinal mounts don't have muzzel fire of some sort. And I would recommend to all PCs. "Do Not Stand Here!"
-Its also been suggested that meson fire from ship mounted spinal mounts is easier to detect. Hmmm energy signature of a tunnel wpn firing perhaps.
-Would a DMG get hot. Duh. It would definately require a cooling appartus.
-Either way, Tigress is the only ship with a barrier for its meson wpn. And it opens it before firing.
Lets ask it the other way around. How would I kill a DMG site.
- Know my enemy, Suprise comes once.
- Send in covert teams to learn everything they can. Let them turn up trouble when we have a knowledge of the world's military infrastructure. Heck, they might be dumb enough to map the locations of their sites the way US citizens pop nuke missile sites on the web.
- When attacking, Strike fighters w/ fire and forget missiles taking out sensors and powerstations as they appear to our sensor sweeps.
- Low-level densitometer scans. Feel free to target structures that look as if they go deeper.
They'll need to get crews, air, food and replacement parts into those DMGs.
- Look for bad gunner shots that "over shoot" their targets range. Where the mesons really start decaying randomly. Heck, tease em'.
- Land troops to take key installations related to DMGs.
Good luck guys. I have a game to run. And no time to waste re-quoting the same rules.
Savage
As for me and MTU meson's travel through matter without interacting until the point of planned decay per the rule books I have read,
1. Supp9 also says that fighters are in the back to protect them from oncoming enemy craft...the Tigress has a few differences from other meson spinal mount weapons.
2. "rule" books state that mesons don't interact.
I prefer following rule book cannon to 1 ship inconsistency in 1 book.
3. T4 suggests that a decay spread can occur if the gunner fires beyond the weapons range (Not Before).
4. Challenge 25 mag ==> Attack the sensors and power plants to silence DMGs. They give off energy signatures. I've suggested two defensive workarounds for the defender.
a. Geothermal energy for power
b. sensor lots of sensors. As you loose some turn others on...
5. There are plenty of suggestions, in rule books, that meson SMs have extremely long tunnels. None suggest multiple tunnels for multiple beams. So,
I must assume that the canon multiple beams meet inside of the tunnel where they convert particles into the subatomic meson beam. Perhaps the JTAS article author was watching too much Star Wars that weekend.
6. MT: DMG site crews were some of the last survivors of worlds during the rebellion.
7. There is no reason not to assume spinal mounts don't have muzzel fire of some sort. And I would recommend to all PCs. "Do Not Stand Here!"
-Its also been suggested that meson fire from ship mounted spinal mounts is easier to detect. Hmmm energy signature of a tunnel wpn firing perhaps.
-Would a DMG get hot. Duh. It would definately require a cooling appartus.
-Either way, Tigress is the only ship with a barrier for its meson wpn. And it opens it before firing.
Lets ask it the other way around. How would I kill a DMG site.
- Know my enemy, Suprise comes once.
- Send in covert teams to learn everything they can. Let them turn up trouble when we have a knowledge of the world's military infrastructure. Heck, they might be dumb enough to map the locations of their sites the way US citizens pop nuke missile sites on the web.
- When attacking, Strike fighters w/ fire and forget missiles taking out sensors and powerstations as they appear to our sensor sweeps.
- Low-level densitometer scans. Feel free to target structures that look as if they go deeper.
They'll need to get crews, air, food and replacement parts into those DMGs.
- Look for bad gunner shots that "over shoot" their targets range. Where the mesons really start decaying randomly. Heck, tease em'.
- Land troops to take key installations related to DMGs.
Good luck guys. I have a game to run. And no time to waste re-quoting the same rules.
Savage
Hello Folks,
I'm coming into this thread a bit late, and I apologize if I'm pointing stuff out that has already been mentioned, but I figured I'd point a few things out before I tried to wade through another 7 pages worth of stuff
1) any highly defended site defending against a high speed incoming attack force has a few benefits to consider:
a) any ship that wants to land on its surface has to come in fast, flip over, and decelerate or burn up in the atmosphere. This makes for a reasonably predictable course and a set of parameters that HELP the defender.
b) any high speed missiles inbound from out of range of a planet needs to contend with that really nasty spectre of high speed collisions with smaller objects. A few sand canisters in the way of these high speed missiles will do wonders for destroying them.
c) when the target point is known, any movements that are directed at said target point MUST come within a relatively easily predicted cone of probable transit. This makes aiming at the high speed targets relatively easier than if you didn't know their probable point of inpact.
d) we're talking about a defense in depth here. That means that the invading force must co-ordinate its staging zone, manuever to such a point where they can launch attacks. This means they have to undergo other defensive fires before they can even stage an attack on their points of interest. If you are using HG rules - all you need to get for a mission kill is fuel tanks ruptured. Without fuel for the reactors, the ship becomes unpowered.
e) ranges for Meson Guns *are* in fact listed by Canon rules: specifically in MAYDAY. There, it lists ranges for close range and out of range. Close range is up to 5 light seconds, long range is beyond 5 light seconds up to 15 light seconds. Beyond 15 light seconds, nothing in High Guard may hit (extreme long range).
f) High population worlds have large numbers of system defense boats along with other various weaponry. It would not be difficult to create automated system defense "bunkers" that are not ships, but orbital floating missle bays on automated platforms. Since this is non-canonical (ie no warbots etc) I'm not sure if these automated defense systems would be something anyone would permit in their traveller universes. Needless to say however, SDB do not have to be a mere 400 tons, 200 tons or what have you. They can be 1000 ton ships and such.
g) each of these worlds are considered to be strategically important as specified by the original poster. This means then, that these high tech high population worlds are going to be more important than 25 worlds combined within their sector. This also means they will have a VERY large fleet presense hanging about. In reading all I can from Fifth Frontier war along with the Rebellion Source book etc - DEPOT type systems are NASTY. THey have the manpower and material to force a major problem against any invading force.
h) the biggest problem here is the fact that people have neglected to mention one thing at the beginning of this "thread" and I didn't see mentioned here at the end of the thread. I'm assuming someone brought it up in the middle. If not, then... Fuel Giants are going to be one of the most heavily guarded/protected pieces of stellar estate possible. The Defenders *want* to defend the gas Giants because it is a natural choke point that the attackers (unless they brought along tankers!) *must* go to. Furthermore, the attackers generally tend to use refueling craft to get their fuel rather than refuel directly. This implies then, that you need only mess with the gas nozzle instead of the armored fighting vehicle in order to render such a weapon system immobile (using hydrogen as gasoline analogy and the fuel shuttles as gas nozzle at a gas pump analogy).
I) and finally: when your enemy has massed large numbers of ships in a small region, it becomes easier to nail an enemy ship. While the analogy isn't perfect - that is how muskets killed during Napoleon's time. They weren't aiming at individual soldiers - they were aiming at formations.
In summation? Head on assaults generally tend to require far more manpower than the defenders have. Even assuming that the attacker manages to gain a 2:1 favorable exchange rate against fixed defenses versus mobile attack units - are you willing to presume that the attacker can afford to lose those "mobile" units for such a time in the future when they will wish they had the lost ships instead of sitting over a world they've captured (intact?) and will have to defend *without* the benefit of the original layered defense the defenders had spent years creating? If you've ever played Star Fleet battles - invasion scenario: even winning a sector produces felt attrition like casualties. You have to garrison those areas successfully captured in order to keep what was taken.
As for myself? I'd like to see a "team" of players get together for both offense and Defense. Select one game system ruleset such as High Guard or GURPS TRAVELLER (yes, I'm letting my bias show <g>) and have at it. Design the weapon systems. Design the stellar system. Set up the defenses in depth and put out the pickets and such. Determine how well the invading fleet manages to stage before launching its attack. Then, have the big granddaddy of a donnybrook and see what happens. Here the victory conditions won't just hang on the exchange ratios of defender ships/weapon systems versus offensive units - but on mission accomplishments.
I'm coming into this thread a bit late, and I apologize if I'm pointing stuff out that has already been mentioned, but I figured I'd point a few things out before I tried to wade through another 7 pages worth of stuff
1) any highly defended site defending against a high speed incoming attack force has a few benefits to consider:
a) any ship that wants to land on its surface has to come in fast, flip over, and decelerate or burn up in the atmosphere. This makes for a reasonably predictable course and a set of parameters that HELP the defender.
b) any high speed missiles inbound from out of range of a planet needs to contend with that really nasty spectre of high speed collisions with smaller objects. A few sand canisters in the way of these high speed missiles will do wonders for destroying them.
c) when the target point is known, any movements that are directed at said target point MUST come within a relatively easily predicted cone of probable transit. This makes aiming at the high speed targets relatively easier than if you didn't know their probable point of inpact.
d) we're talking about a defense in depth here. That means that the invading force must co-ordinate its staging zone, manuever to such a point where they can launch attacks. This means they have to undergo other defensive fires before they can even stage an attack on their points of interest. If you are using HG rules - all you need to get for a mission kill is fuel tanks ruptured. Without fuel for the reactors, the ship becomes unpowered.
e) ranges for Meson Guns *are* in fact listed by Canon rules: specifically in MAYDAY. There, it lists ranges for close range and out of range. Close range is up to 5 light seconds, long range is beyond 5 light seconds up to 15 light seconds. Beyond 15 light seconds, nothing in High Guard may hit (extreme long range).
f) High population worlds have large numbers of system defense boats along with other various weaponry. It would not be difficult to create automated system defense "bunkers" that are not ships, but orbital floating missle bays on automated platforms. Since this is non-canonical (ie no warbots etc) I'm not sure if these automated defense systems would be something anyone would permit in their traveller universes. Needless to say however, SDB do not have to be a mere 400 tons, 200 tons or what have you. They can be 1000 ton ships and such.
g) each of these worlds are considered to be strategically important as specified by the original poster. This means then, that these high tech high population worlds are going to be more important than 25 worlds combined within their sector. This also means they will have a VERY large fleet presense hanging about. In reading all I can from Fifth Frontier war along with the Rebellion Source book etc - DEPOT type systems are NASTY. THey have the manpower and material to force a major problem against any invading force.
h) the biggest problem here is the fact that people have neglected to mention one thing at the beginning of this "thread" and I didn't see mentioned here at the end of the thread. I'm assuming someone brought it up in the middle. If not, then... Fuel Giants are going to be one of the most heavily guarded/protected pieces of stellar estate possible. The Defenders *want* to defend the gas Giants because it is a natural choke point that the attackers (unless they brought along tankers!) *must* go to. Furthermore, the attackers generally tend to use refueling craft to get their fuel rather than refuel directly. This implies then, that you need only mess with the gas nozzle instead of the armored fighting vehicle in order to render such a weapon system immobile (using hydrogen as gasoline analogy and the fuel shuttles as gas nozzle at a gas pump analogy).
I) and finally: when your enemy has massed large numbers of ships in a small region, it becomes easier to nail an enemy ship. While the analogy isn't perfect - that is how muskets killed during Napoleon's time. They weren't aiming at individual soldiers - they were aiming at formations.
In summation? Head on assaults generally tend to require far more manpower than the defenders have. Even assuming that the attacker manages to gain a 2:1 favorable exchange rate against fixed defenses versus mobile attack units - are you willing to presume that the attacker can afford to lose those "mobile" units for such a time in the future when they will wish they had the lost ships instead of sitting over a world they've captured (intact?) and will have to defend *without* the benefit of the original layered defense the defenders had spent years creating? If you've ever played Star Fleet battles - invasion scenario: even winning a sector produces felt attrition like casualties. You have to garrison those areas successfully captured in order to keep what was taken.
As for myself? I'd like to see a "team" of players get together for both offense and Defense. Select one game system ruleset such as High Guard or GURPS TRAVELLER (yes, I'm letting my bias show <g>) and have at it. Design the weapon systems. Design the stellar system. Set up the defenses in depth and put out the pickets and such. Determine how well the invading fleet manages to stage before launching its attack. Then, have the big granddaddy of a donnybrook and see what happens. Here the victory conditions won't just hang on the exchange ratios of defender ships/weapon systems versus offensive units - but on mission accomplishments.
Hal,
Great points all.
- The gas giant defenses were mentioned
- There is always the mystical gravitics for coming if fast. Although you do have to hit the re-entry window correctly. Then hit the anti-gravity before the ground.
- Do you really thing its a 2:1 trade for invasion forces (assuming similar TL)? I'd say it varies depending the strategic importance where a Depot 10:1, sector capital 5:1, subsector capital/navy base 3:1. I suppose sector wealth, world wealth also come into play.
We use to do something similar to the planetary assaults you discussed with Trillion Credit Squadron. Good fun.
Great points all.
- The gas giant defenses were mentioned
- There is always the mystical gravitics for coming if fast. Although you do have to hit the re-entry window correctly. Then hit the anti-gravity before the ground.
- Do you really thing its a 2:1 trade for invasion forces (assuming similar TL)? I'd say it varies depending the strategic importance where a Depot 10:1, sector capital 5:1, subsector capital/navy base 3:1. I suppose sector wealth, world wealth also come into play.
We use to do something similar to the planetary assaults you discussed with Trillion Credit Squadron. Good fun.
When I mentioned a 2:1 ratio of exchange, I was deliberately being "nice" in the sense that the attacker got to nail 2 ships for everyone one he lost - a rather "optimal" exchange rate right?
As for the assault on a planet - what I was pointing out is that a ship's approach to a planet is going to be "predictable". Such predictability is likely going to work *against* a planetary assault rather than for it.
All things considered? If a faction goes to war and does all out war against a planet - such a faction knows that its enemies will do the same to it. You REALLY don't want to make such an assault of planetary destruction unless you are willing to deal with it for your own worlds (shudder).
Final comment - while digging through the Imperium game rules, I discovered that "Monitors" and other slower than light ships were moving at a rate of 90% light speed! Near C rocks as weapons is "logically" viable based on the Imperium game rules - unless you make a STRONG effort to divorce the Imperium game from any canonical rules for Traveller!
