Protected Installations

[robject]

Any advice on how to draw up a protected installation -- for example, a baronial estate? I really don't know where to start. How to identify how to make a place (relatively) secure -- enough to interest players who need to invade. Not a military base. Not a Normandy-style stretch of pillboxes along the perimeter. I hope you get the idea...

 

[rancke]

Any advice on how to draw up a protected installation -- for example, a baronial estate? I really don't know where to start. How to identify how to make a place (relatively) secure -- enough to interest players who need to invade. Not a military base. Not a Normandy-style stretch of pillboxes along the perimeter. I hope you get the idea...

Get a friend (preferrably a roleplayer but not one of your players) to draw up an estate and work out security for it.

More concrete suggestions: A main building complex in the middle surrounded by a park surrounded by a forest belt surrounded by a wall surrounded by a no-fly zone. Plenty of underground installations and escape tunnels, including a really tough panic room. And don't forget the anti-aircraft defenses.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Any advice on how to draw up a protected installation -- for example, a baronial estate? I really don't know where to start. How to identify how to make a place (relatively) secure -- enough to interest players who need to invade. Not a military base. Not a Normandy-style stretch of pillboxes along the perimeter. I hope you get the idea...

You might want to check out Buckingham palace, or the royal household for the King of Spain's family. The White House is another good start.

 

[Carlobrand]

The "relatively" part bugs me. Why would someone with the wealth to build a protected installation like a baronial estate make it "relatively" secure, least of all with Ine Givar and Zhodani and Sworder agents out there? If it's good enough to slow down the Zho, it's pretty well impenetrable to your players. If it's got a weak spot your players can exploit, it's child's play for Zho agents. You've got a real challenge there, making something that is believably vulnerable.

 

[BytePro]

The TL will determine a lot, here's some ideas off the top:

Perimeter defenses - walls/fences/chargeable mote, alarms audible and lights, weapons and explosive sensors for visitors, onsite and remote monitoring, traps, guards (animals, sophonts, autonomous), and active measures (gas, incendiary, kinetic, energy).

Depending, active measures will either be non-lethal (animals, guard weapons, active measure trained/designed not to kill) or lethal or a staged combination. Defenses against land and air vessels and ordnance may be in order - anti-air, ground barricades and spikes.

Facility security will include much of the same, as well as armored/NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protected panic room(s) and emergency escape means (launch/tunnels) as well as independent (off grid) power sources.

What's suitable for an 'estate' is really gonna depend on location such as an estate in the countryside vs. in an urban area, and such things as law level and what is really being secured - and how much of a challenge you want to present to Players.

 

[Reban]

You might want to check out Buckingham palace,

The "relatively" part bugs me.

Buckingham Palace is only relatively secure, the Queen of England once woke up to find a man sitting at the end of her bed. he wasn't even a ninja with a grav harness.

As security levels rise, comfort or homeliness drops. Its important to think about whether you want an evil villain's lair or the home of a noble family. And think layers; outer perimeter, inner perimeter, checkpoints to control movement and close protection (body guards) on the principle residents.

Thats another good question, who or what are you protecting? Is it the building itself, something in the building or someone who lives there?

 

[CosmicGamer]

Thats another good question, who or what are you protecting? Is it the building itself, something in the building or someone who lives there?

Definitely one of the questions. If it is a someone or something fairly portable then security needs not be as formidable or fixed. The item being secured can be moved to a more secure location at the first sign of a problem. Panic room. Transported to a military base. Whatever.

As others have said, the setting is another consideration. Is the location open to the public, have occasional large gatherings, are there lots of visitors or business meetings, or is it just friends and family and the same vehicles and people coming and going such that any abnormality would be quick and easy to spot. TL, atmosphere (if there is already a need for domes or underground dwellings), population, law level, government, ... All can play a part. Even individual personality such as how paranoid or well liked someone is.

So lots of factors and as with most things in MTU lots of variety and rarely a one fits all situation.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Buckingham Palace is only relatively secure, the Queen of England once woke up to find a man sitting at the end of her bed. he wasn't even a ninja with a grav harness.

As security levels rise, comfort or homeliness drops. Its important to think about whether you want an evil villain's lair or the home of a noble family. And think layers; outer perimeter, inner perimeter, checkpoints to control movement and close protection (body guards) on the principle residents.

Thats another good question, who or what are you protecting? Is it the building itself, something in the building or someone who lives there?

Not to get too off topic, but I remember that incident. As I recall he came several times to talk with her. Wow. What a creep.

 

[Reban]

I wonder if the more high profile a "secure" building is the more people it attracts who want to get inside. There must be a breakdown somewhere of the number and type of incidents at the White House.

Another security feature then....keep the building low profile. If you're a star, don't live in your planet's Beverley Hills. If you are the Baron of X keep your residence out of the newsheets and hold your public engagements at a public building or townhouse.

If nobody knows where you live how do they invade your space? Okay finding someone in a TL8+ networked society gets a lot easier, but if you're renting a villa and you want security, the first thing you do is rent it under an assumed name or through a shell company.

 

[Vladika]

I wonder if the more high profile a "secure" building is the more people it attracts who want to get inside. There must be a breakdown somewhere of the number and type of incidents at the White House.

Another security feature then....keep the building low profile. If you're a star, don't live in your planet's Beverley Hills. If you are the Baron of X keep your residence out of the newsheets and hold your public engagements at a public building or townhouse.

If nobody knows where you live how do they invade your space? Okay finding someone in a TL8+ networked society gets a lot easier, but if you're renting a villa and you want security, the first thing you do is rent it under an assumed name or through a shell company.

Think South and Central American Drug Lords... Somehow, in spite of the "best" efforts of numerous governments, they remain. They are obviously doing something "right".

 

[Doyle Hunt]

There are minimum anti-terrorist standards for the construction of new Federal buildings. I have a copy, for work, but can't post it here, for obvious reasons.

But things that should be addressed, in general, include:
1 - Identifying who can come in and who can't. That means checkpoints at all entrances, and barriers to prevent people from coming in anywhere else. Checkpoints are usually designed so that a vehicle can't just put the hammer down and break through, usually by including a zigzag approach path.
2 - Means of detecting unauthorized intruders (as opposed to authorized intruders?) which usually means alarms and the best surveillance equipment that tech level will allow.
3 - Appropriate means of responding to intruders. Which might mean guard barracks on-site or fixed gun emplacements, or minefields, or whatever your paranoid Traveller GM minds can invent. It can also mean safe rooms for dignitaries to hide in until it's all over, and communications to call in reinforcements from off-site.

A medieval castle was an excellent design for security, for its tech level. Imagine what a high-tech castle would need, to account for high-tech threats, and you can't go too far wrong.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Yes, figuring out what/who the protectee is makes a huge difference. Some ideas, many repeats of what's already been said (I'm assuming a person of means, here):

• A wall around the compound, with some sort of discrete high voltage along the top (and a single strand of barbed wire above it, so the birdies won't sit on your high voltage line and go all Kentucky Fried)
• Assuming a person with some sense of aesthetics, you want the compound wall screened by trees and such on the inside and outside
• However, on the inside there is a "kill zone" of several meters with absolutely no cover between those trees and the actual compound buildings
• The wall has only one entrance (if you have two - say a service entrance and a normal entrance - then adventurers could incite confusion more easily)
• The entrance is gated, plus bollards, plus a zig-zag or corner of some kind before you get to the gate, plus two guards (minimum), plus surveillance
• The entrance also has a man-gate, and both are alarmed
• The gate will have a multi-scanner (thermal, x-ray, magnetic, densitometer, etc) installed to look inside (and under and on top of) any delivery trucks
• Main buildings have at least alarms on all entry points, including windows (preferably not something easily solved by application of a gum wrapper)
• No windows on the first floor, unless that floor is raised at least 1.5-2m
• No windows into the basement (if there is one - and any good evil lair will have one)
• Central monitoring station, with direct connections to guardposts at the gate, main door, and service entrance
• Any security station/command center should have the chairs facing the entry point of the room
• Infrared, motion sensing cameras with a view of every part of the outside portions of the compound, and all entrances
• A smart security chief will also have some of these cameras pointed into the air over the buildings to catch anyone parachuting in (almost no one does this in RL)
• Definitely there will be a panic room, but the whole place will be constructed such that bullets and such won't penetrate, including interior walls/doors to some extent; once the front door is closed and bolted, you better have a bazooka to get in
• Said construction materials and techniques will also provide maximum protection against earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes, too (should include window shutters)
• Building layouts will be conducive to armed defense, but not to attackers (I want nothing behind which they can take cover)
• Sophont guards will be well-payed for their duties, and their families will be well-taken care of by generous insurance proceeds
• Communications will be hardened - both security comms, and comms into/out of the compound; redundancy will also be built into both
• All ... ummm.... "party accessories" will have a full background check before entering the compound
• The compound should have its own electricity and water supply, if possible; probably should have a septic system, too
• Feed your security solely from the kitchen; those ordering out for pizza should be fired, if not executed

 

[Carlobrand]

Buckingham Palace is only relatively secure, the Queen of England once woke up to find a man sitting at the end of her bed. he wasn't even a ninja with a grav harness.

Buckingham palace is probably not the best example of a "relatively secure" place. The need to allow for tours and hosted events of various sorts appears to impose certain restrictions. The intruder in the above event successfully penetrated the place twice, and at the time his action was not a criminal offense. (Something about the Brits distinguishing between civil and criminal offenses where trespass is concerned. I don't quite understand it.) Some guy dressed as Batman penetrated the grounds and scaled the walls in 2004.

On the other hand, how many people have broken into the home of Bill Gates?

http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/05/inside-bill-gates-home.html

As security levels rise, comfort or homeliness drops...

Why would that be? Seems to me the South American dictators of old - heck, a lot of dictators - seem to live in comfort amidst their guards, walls, sensors and such. In fact, a little research into one of those estates might answer a lot of the questions.

Castles of old served both as homes for the powerful and strategically-placed fortresses. Given adequate funds and manpower, you can have a comfortable little palace inside what amounts to a fully defended army base. Heck, given adequate funds and power, you could be the sole owner of an Empire State Building replica situated at the center of a mile-radius empty plaza equipped with motion sensors, thermal image cameras, ground vibration sensors, and so forth, with an expansive no-fly zone enforced by surface-to-air missiles and powerful lasers, entry through the plaza only to workers as confirmed by retinal scan or some such, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. And I can assure you that the penthouse palace you built into the place would be quite comfortable.

 

[HiverLord]

If you are the Baron of X keep your residence out of the newsheets and hold your public engagements at a public building or townhouse.

Similar to Reban's idea, were I said Baron, I would have two locations (assuming that the situation allows for it, *and* I could afford it, naturally).

One is a public household/venue, for meeting with the constituents, public, reporters, visitors 'not important enough' to warrant a visit to the main estate, major parties involving a lot of 'public' individuals, etc. This one could include the necessary 'secret exit' to allow for easy getaways, etc.

The second location would be (preferably) in a remote area, highly defensible, complete with its own spaceport/small craft landing pad, distant perimeter, well-armed security staff, etc etc. Perhaps the public doesn't know of its existance (listed as a farm/research facility/storage facility/hunting lodge; all the usual deceptions). (It could even be a facility off-planet in some cases).

This could give the players a problem (or several): Which facility do they target? Do they need to hit both? At the same time? Do they even know about the second one (meaning they didn't do enough research/digging)?

 

[Reban]

Why would that be? Seems to me the South American dictators of old - heck, a lot of dictators - seem to live in comfort amidst their guards, walls, sensors and such. In fact, a little research into one of those estates might answer a lot of the questions.

Perhaps the use of the word comfort was poor, what I was trying to convey was that for more security you have to give up a measure of personal freedom and perhaps sanity.

I'm free to come and go from my home as I please, I just shut the door behind me and stroll down the road. If I was a dictator I would share my secure residence with bodyguards and security, electronic systems such as sensors and cameras would monitor my movements around my home just as much as any intruder. If I want to go out, my close protection team will need prior notice to plan a route and I will have to travel with that team, probably in one or more suitable vehicles (not necessarily armored), walking or being in the open in uncontrolled public spaces probably won't be an option.

Its not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Saddam had many palaces but kept moving around them because of the perceived threat to his security. Would anyone like their children to grow up with bodyguards as their playmates? Finally I'll probably never find out but I suspect a solid gold toilet seat is always cold in the morning, of course I could have the bodyguard. warm it up first.

 

[Vladika]

Perhaps the use of the word comfort was poor, what I was trying to convey was that for more security you have to give up a measure of personal freedom and perhaps sanity.

I'm free to come and go from my home as I please, I just shut the door behind me and stroll down the road. If I was a dictator I would share my secure residence with bodyguards and security, electronic systems such as sensors and cameras would monitor my movements around my home just as much as any intruder. If I want to go out, my close protection team will need prior notice to plan a route and I will have to travel with that team, probably in one or more suitable vehicles (not necessarily armored), walking or being in the open in uncontrolled public spaces probably won't be an option.

Its not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Saddam had many palaces but kept moving around them because of the perceived threat to his security. Would anyone like their children to grow up with bodyguards as their playmates? Finally I'll probably never find out but I suspect a solid gold toilet seat is always cold in the morning, of course I could have the bodyguard. warm it up first.

I've seem film of Saddam with 10,000 armed men around him shooting AKs into the air. Any one of them could have shot him. Hitler toured Paris right after the occupation with exactly ONE bodyguard.

Things often aren't what they seem.

 

[Reban]

Hitler was once blown up and is there any reason to believe any of those 10,000 men weren't loyal to Saddam?

But I understand what you are saying however I'm basing my comments on how profession security and close protection plans to protect a principle or a location. There will always be exceptional and unusual cases, both the examples you cite were charismatic leaders/dictators.




Robject we probably need to know more about who and what we are protecting. The best way to find the short comings of any security is to have it attacked.

 

[Carlobrand]

Perhaps the use of the word comfort was poor, what I was trying to convey was that for more security you have to give up a measure of personal freedom and perhaps sanity.

I'm free to come and go from my home as I please, I just shut the door behind me and stroll down the road. If I was a dictator I would share my secure residence with bodyguards and security, electronic systems such as sensors and cameras would monitor my movements around my home just as much as any intruder. If I want to go out, my close protection team will need prior notice to plan a route and I will have to travel with that team, probably in one or more suitable vehicles (not necessarily armored), walking or being in the open in uncontrolled public spaces probably won't be an option.

Its not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Saddam had many palaces but kept moving around them because of the perceived threat to his security. Would anyone like their children to grow up with bodyguards as their playmates? ...

When the alternative is to see the children kidnapped or dead, yes. The rich and powerful are targets, as are their children. Opportunists, criminals, the politically motivated, the disaffected, plain garden-variety cranks - get known, and you grow a bullseye on your back in direct proportion to how well known you become. Must be pretty dramatic, the difference between being the child of a minor politician and being the child of the President.

Sometimes you don't have the choice. You could of course give up the wealth and power, move someplace where no one knows you, settle in to a relatively safe and nondescript common life where you are no more a target than the other hundred million folk. Short of that, however, your reality will include con-men, opportunists, stalkers, and all the other crud that the upper class have to deal with. Let your security fail - well, there's the example of the Lindberghs.

Tell your players not to construct their own ladders.

 

[Doyle Hunt]

More dignitaries are targeted in transit than at home, if I remember my mandatory training properly. Unfortunately, in the real world, they don't have the technology to conduct all of their activities from the protection of their own homes, and there are limits to how secure any vehicle can be and still be mobile.

 

[robject]

Seems to me the South American dictators of old - heck, a lot of dictators - seem to live in comfort amidst their guards, walls, sensors and such. In fact, a little research into one of those estates might answer a lot of the questions.

I think this is the sort of concept I've got in my head. I'll see if I can do some research along those lines.