Re: [FT] Operational game

> I'd assume military structures on airless bodies would be sub-surface,
so
> it shouldn't necessarily be all that exposed.  However, for most
planets,
> by the time they get started on lunar installations, they ought to be
able
> to buy/build defenses--my main concern was the frontier planets whose
only
> substantial defense would be their atmosphere plus some light ground
forces

That could make them too cost effective.  I suppose sub-surface
installations could be "dug in" by allowing them to have cheaper shell
armour.  The way to do this would be to use the Phalon armour rules (to
proved descent protection from armour piercing weapons), but the armour
does
NOT require hull space.  It is on top of the instillation underneath of
it.
This will reduce the actual cost by one per mass of armour compared to
space
stations.  It would be even more when compared to ships.

For example, an instillation of any size could have the armour shells of
a
Voth class Great Warrior for 144 points.  While a space station would
pay
144 + 40 (for hull space) = 184 points for the same armour.  Note that a
Voth Class Great Warrior pays 144 points for this armour, plus 40 points
for
the hull space to mount it on, plus 10 points for the hull space of
Vapor
Shroud, FLT Drive, and Main Drive to move it, plus 22 points for all of
those systems (to move and protect that 40 mass of armour, not the whole
ship).	Which means that armour actually costs the Phalon SDN 144 + 40 +
10
+ 22 = 216 points.

This means the total cost for armour (by layer)for an underground base
would
pay 2/4/6/8 for armour, a space station 3/5/7/9 for armour, and the SDN
example 3.8/5.8/7.8/9.8.  Note that the higher the trust rating of the
ship,
the higher the cost for armor.

However I still suspect that Salvo Missiles raid would take out the
structure...  I suppose the main underground base could be surrounded by
a
lot of very small decoy bases to draw off most of the missiles.  Say a
mass
one base with one PDAF and one armour on top of it for a total of 6
point
per decoy.  A space base version would be mass two, costing 7 points per
decoy base.  This means that for 63 points you could have 9 space decoy
bases and only 10% of the Salvo Missile launched would attack the main
base
in the first volley.  Note that they won't do anything to protect the
main
base from direct fire weapons (beams, torps, railguns, submunitions,
MKP's,
fighters, etc.).

An idea to fix the fighter problem is to change sequence of play.
Defensive Point Defense Fire (works just like Point Defence Fire step)
Missile and Figher Attacks (works just like the original)
Offensive Point Defense Fire (New Step - all point defenses that are
within
6 inches of a fighter group and did NOT fire in the Defensive Point
Defense
Fire step may now engage enemy fighters with standard attack roles,
ships
with ADFC can engage fighers out to 12 inches - why you wouldn't have
already have fired those PDAF's I don't know, but the situation could
occur - you could allow fighters to burn endurance to reduce the effect
this
fire, say each endurance expended gives a fighter group the equivalent
of +
1 level of shields from Offensive Point Defense Fire only, and fighter
groups that did not actaully attack enemy ships in the Missile and
Fighter
Attack step get a + 1 level of shields -  why they wouldn't attack, I
don't
know, but yet again, the situation could occur).

All of this is just off of the top of my head.	If anyone actually tries
any
these ideas, I would love to read about how it went.

ias