Prev: Re: [VV] Gate defence Next: Re: [VV] Gate defence

Re: [VV] Gate defence

From: "Samuel Penn" <sam@b...>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:25:20 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [VV] Gate defence


Oerjan Ohlson said:
> Sorry for the delay; things have been a bit hectic over here :-(

No probs.

> Samuel Penn wrote:
>
>  >>If the mobile fleet on the far side of the warp point is strong
>  >>enough to prevent the enemy  from attacking the warp point, the
>  >>points you've spent on the fixed defences were essentially wasted
>  >>since they didn't participate in the fight. If the mobile fleet
>  >>isn't strong enough to keep the enemy away from the warp point, you
>  >>have set yourself up for a defeat in detail.
>  >
>  >It can be enough to prevent some of the attack scenarios suggested
(the
>  >one ship with a nova cannon,
>
> AFAIK the only one who has suggested using *one* ship with a nova
cannon
> is you yourself, in the sentence above.

Yes, I'm being extreme, so sue me. If you can't reach with one
nova cannon, you can't reach with N. He seemed to be suggesting
that any fixed defences could be weakened to the point of
uselessness with an infinite supply of missiles - to quote
"Repeat until there is a hole in the defenses sufficient for a
manned fleet to move through with impunity" - and that Nova
cannons make this easier.

I'm saying I don't think this is true, and nova cannons
especially are easy to avoid, even if you have fixed defences.
If you have that many missiles, you can weaken any fleet,
mobile or not.

In practise, you have a limited amount of missiles and other
'cheap' ordinance, and they are possible to defend against.

>  >but can used for intelligence gathering, harassment or threatening
their
>  >worm hole or supply chain.
>
> Intelligence gathering is of little use once the enemy has blocked the
far
> side of the WP, because then the now cut-off mobile defenders have no
> means of getting the intelligence to those who need it

Assuming that it is possible to jam all communications. Given
that people are playing around with wormholes, there may well
be forms of communications which are difficult to jam, such
as quantum effects or gravity waves, if radio and lasers can't
get through.

It depends on the available technology.

> Precisely. And since its chances for doing anything useful on the far
side
> of the WP are quite limited unless it is strong enough to actually
stand
> up
> to the attacker's force, this is by far the most common option for an
> outnumbered mobile defence force to take.

Possibly, but it doesn't render fixed defences useless.

Mobile defences are better given a fixed amount of weaponry.
What I assume, is that for the same price (I'm ignoring what
this price is, whether cash, resources or points) a mobile
fleet with provide X amount of offensive power, and a fixed
base will provide XY, where Y > 1.

Obviously, the advantage of mobility that a fleet has means
that Y has to be sufficiently large to counter this. The exact
value of Y is arguable, and I'm not going to argue it beyond
saying that it's not going to be so small that fixed defences
are worthless. I obviously believe that Y is somewhat larger
than you believe it is.

>
> Unfortunately, if ballistic attacks through WPs are possible at all -
ie.,
> if transiting units are able to carry over a significant velocity to
the
> far side of the WP - then you're going to need some sort of physical
> obstacles  "in front of" the WP in order to prevent attacking
starships
> from going through so fast that they'll coast outside the range of
fixed
> defences deployed "behind" or "beside" the WP before the defences can
> destroy them... and any such physical obstacles are at risk eg. from
> ballistically-launched nukes or nova rounds.

If the gate has only one active side, then point it at a planet,
or a star. Anything that comes through quickly better be able
to slow down before it crashes.

But yes, you will need something to stop this from happening.
No solution will be perfect of course, but maybe that's a use
for the million mass asteroid. :-)

btw, this tactic can be used against a fleet as well. Come
through fast enough and you may only be within range of a
mobile fleet for a short period of time, not long enough for
them to do much against you. Whether this is a viable tactic
depends on why you're attacking.

Or, as I said in another post, you stick both ends of the
wormhole on planets (or moons). Run a railway track through
it if you want. A fleet is now going to have to land a ground
force to take control of the gate, then possibly build
starships on the other side to continue the assualt.

It does limit the usefulness of the gate, but a paranoid
nation may decide that it is worthwhile.

>
>  >and will have to spend time accelerating once they come through the
>  >gate in order to reach any targets,
>
> Are you thinking "campaign reality" or FT game mechanics here? In FT
small
> units like fighters or missiles can move in any direction they like,
with
> no worries about how long it ought to take to change course.

Fighters can, missiles are limited to one turn halfway through
their move. Salvo missiles are effectively line of sight weapons.

>  >Wide area defences (such as nukes) against missiles which are
>  >clustered together because they've all had to come through the same
>  >gate might work as well.
>
> Wide-area defences *can* work against trans-WP missile barrages -
provided
> that they're able to reach their targets before said targets disperse,
> which isn't entirely certain.

Hit them on the other side of the gate - by definition, they
can't have dispersed by that point (otherwise they won't get
through the gate).

> If you deploy your nukes too close to the
> warp point, you either have to harden them enough not to fratricide
one
> another (in which case you're basically saying that it would also be
> possible to harden the incoming *missiles* to the same extent, thus
making
> them invulnerable to the nukes);

The counter-nukes could be relatively dumb (dumber than a
missile that needs to locate and reach a target the firer
can't see), so more robust. Second wave of nukes would be
on the home side of the gate, so outside the blast radius.

All assuming that the gate is strong enough to withstand
nukes being exploded in close proximity! Destroying your
own gate would be the most effective defence :-)

But no, no defence is perfect. Some attacks will get through.
The point is to raise the cost of attacking, and to prevent
your own defences being overwhelmed before the enemy fleet
arrives.

>  >Yes, it won't protect a great deal against ships, but then the enemy
>  >has to commit their ships to coming in range of the defenders own
>  >weapons.
>
> If transiting units can carry over a significant velocity from one
side of
> the WP to the other it will give virtually no protection against
ships. If
> OTOH they don't do that (ie., units lose most or all of their velocity
in
> transit),

I don't see any reason why they would loose velocity.

>  >Aren't any big rocks between Earth and Luna. Much easier to set up
>  >relativistic kinetic kill weapons from a long way away.
>
> Are big SHIPS between Earth and Luna. No NEED to set up kinetic kill
> weapons from a long way away since lunar orbit allows plenty distance
for
> acceleration. (Ship without asteroid accelerates much faster than ship
> with asteroid, too.)

Depending on how good sensors are will affect when you become
aware of the attack. If it's just an inert lump of rock (start
accelerating at 100au, stop at 40au), it may be hard to detect.
All this depends on available technology.

Short range attacks of this sort will have much smaller masses
to play with, and be easier to detect.

>  >>>I haven't seen a wargame along the lines of the Earth-Minbari
>  >>>war, where humans get 1000pts, the Minbari get 100,000pts,
>  >>>and both have a goal of wiping out the other (humans don't
>  >>>'win' by surviving for three turns, or defeating the Black
>  >>>Star - they have to win by defeating the entire enemy fleet).
>  >>
>  >>Then you haven't seen any open-ended campaigns, much less
>  >>participated in any <shrug>
>  >
>  >What, so there are games where one person *starts* with 100x the
>  >resources of the other, but both have the same victory conditions?
>
> Maybe not two orders of magnitude (other than the one Nyrath posted,
of
> course <g>), but I've seen upwards of 10x several times and 2x many
times.

Okay, I haven't. Out of interest, how did they play? Were they
interesting to participate in?

>  >*I* don't see this as being unbalanced, as long as everyone
>  >has the same chance to be the one who builds up resources the
>  >quickest (assuming all are of the same skill).
>
> So you'd consider the campaign balanced if one side starts with 2x or
10x
> or 100x the resources of another, as long as they drew lots about who
> would take which side? That would give everyone the same chance to be
> the one who gets the most resources...

Yes, it's balanced, but the 'campaign' becomes everyone roll a
die, and whoever rolls highest wins.

Normally (in my experience) it takes a while to get to the point
where one person has a big advantage, and then everyone decides
to end the game. But the playing until that point is interesting.

Computer based games, where you have dozens of planets and ships
to look after tend to have a balancing factor in that it gets
harder to concentrate on your entire empire, and you (I) tend
to miss small (but important) details. It's not necessarily
enough, but it is there and depends on the game in question.

If you have finite resources to call on, then your 'empire'
will tend to be the ring around the edges, as your centre
becomes depleted. It takes longer to move your fleet to
protect all your worlds because the resource generating worlds
are now a lot further apart. Again, this can be a balancing
factor (to some extent).

[...snip stuff about asteroids...]

Yes, I fully agree with your point that an asteroid base does
not need to cost the entire asteroid. I said this several posts
ago, straight after you pointed out my mistake.

Yes, there are situations where a million mass asteroid is
useful, but they are very limited. I agree that if there is
one situation, you probably have to pay that (game points)
cost, and just get beaten if you deploy it in other situations.
This becomes similar to the GURPS issue of the point system
allowing you to spend points in an inefficient way for what
you're trying to do.

Yes, lots of rock doesn't protect surface features (I agreed
with you on this before), but will offer protection to some
parts of your base. This is going to be of benefit, even if
it's not complete protection. If it wasn't NORAD wouldn't have
stuck their command centre deep inside a mountain.

-- 
Be seeing you,			    --------------------------
Sam.				    http://www.glendale.org.uk

Prev: Re: [VV] Gate defence Next: Re: [VV] Gate defence