Re: Bombardment and Beams

TomB> So, I suggest that the specialized ortillery ship
TomB> is in fact called for (and lo and behold, the rules
TomB> provide!). [...suggested outline...]
::applause:: The outline for the Ortillery/Assault support craft looks 
pretty sound, IMO, and appears to agree with/sum up most of what's been 
said, as well as giving meat to the assault ship/group protection
scenario. 
 Any actual designs, TomB (I have to ask)?

TomB>I think ground assault requires specialized assets which
TomB>are nigh on useless in space.
I couldn't agree more apart from, possibly and obviously, some types of 
missile systems (e.g. not the FT "anti-ship/homing" SMs which might have
to 
be heaviliy modified).

TomB>A true planetary invasion had better involve one side taking and
TomB>holding the planet and the space around it for a fair distance
[...]
TomB>I think if you really have not truly established local space 
superiority, you
TomB>have no real business landing troops. And if you can't hold it, the

troops
TomB>you have landed are in a lot of trouble....
ias>If you are not strong enough to attack and hold, but you are strong 
enough
ias>disrupt, and the target is valuable enough to disrupt, you would be
a 
fool
ias>not to...
Absolutely.  To both.  Without Orbital Superiority you are certainly at 
risk, though even without it there is room for SG-style incursions (your

aversion to it accepted, ias), or maybe even the deployment (risky) of a

small, dispersed force - but it seems to me that both forces would be at

risk or would have to be dispersed to avoid the orbital weaponry from
their 
opponent.  It all depends on the importance of the the target and why
the 
assault was being contemplated in the first place - a classic
risk-reward 
situation which, I think, you were highlighting, ias.

Tim Bancroft