Re: Space tactics

laserlight spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> > 1. You'd need sensors that exceed your speed by an order of 2 to 10 
> > times - otherwise you'd be foolishly risking your ships by such 
> > velocity - and that would give warning of your arrival. 
> 
> No argument, but note your sensor platform need not be your weapons
> platform--nor do they need to approach with same vector.

True, but the lag might well make this option unfeasible. Any lag 
might be unacceptable in weapon-sensor cases. (Now with non-moving 
targets.... its a different story). But if your scouts are observed, 
you can bet I'm not about to ignore them.  I'll assume they may 
presage an attack.

> Who cares about the minefield value?	It's the target's value we're
> interested in.  If I lose a few cruisers to mines (or anything else),
but
> take out your main naval base, then I've succeeded.

You may have, but unless your ships are crewed by automata, you don't 
get much support for a plan which boils down to 'drive in, hope you 
don't get killed, and if you do, it doesn't matter as long as not 
many of you do, then attack his base'. The word mutiny comes to mind.

Risks are a part of any soldiers creed. Stupid suicide isn't. 

  I do think minefields
> are one of the best defenses against this sort of tactic, I just quail
at
> the thought of how many mines we'll have to place to cover everything. 

Or deploy when your out system sensors detect incoming ships along 
their probably vectors. Smaller area to cover. 

> Consider a sphere at least 37MU radius--what is the surface area? 
Times
> however many sq km per square MU.  And don't forget to deploy in
depth. 
> This is why I think a mine-layer missile (or high speed drone) would
be a
> good idea.

Whats a mine worth anyway? If  mines are not too expensive, then 
deploying even thousands of them might not be a big deal. If they 
just sit there, require little maintenance, etc. then its not such a 
big deal really. (Of course, only important sites would have deep 
minefields and OWPs).  

> > Plus the political consideration that if you do it to them.... they 
> > do it to your worlds too. Most governments have the sanity to
realize 
> > what this means. 
> 
> There may be classes of weapons that are restricted (Thou Shalt Not
Use
> Antimatter Bombs On Planets or Stars; Thou Shalt Not Drop an Asteroid
on
> Thy Neighbor), but I can't see anyone feeling too confined about using
> normal weapons with different attack profiles, ie high velocity
> raids--unless the defenders can find a way to make them too expensive
for
> the benefits.

Hmmm. Civilian casualties seem to cause lots of political turmoil in 
most modern governments. Therefore unless your modern weapons are 
really surgical (and they can be argued to be or not be depending on 
your opinion of ortillery and beams and missiles), then you're going 
to kill civilians in racks by this attack method. That opens you up 
to the same risks, and these are your taxpayers and electorate. Don't 
think they won't notice or have it pointed out to them by someone.  

> > I don't think this attack is the 'be all and end all' in space 
> > combat,and I think kamikazee captains whose speeds exceed their 
> > ability to manoevre or their sensor ranges would get yanked by an 
> > Admiralty board so fast it would make your head spin.
> 
> And I think captains who insist on waddling in, giving the defenders
time
> to prepare, would also get yanked, if they survive the party.

Agreed. There is a happy medium. 

>  You do whatever works.

IF it truly works. And that means consdering the possible counters 
and the implications. 

>  The way to deal with a tactic we don't 
like is not to
> stubbornly say "That's stupid because I don't like it" [despite the
fact
> that political leaders, and sometimes generals, do it all the time]
but to
> find or create reasons it won't work.  Minefields, strict application
of
> sensor rules, limited jump points, and restricted fuel are all
> possibilities.  No doubt there are more.

I would agree that 'because I don't like it' is a poor justification. 
But the fact that a body politic or an admiralty board might find it 
repugnant might have something to do with it. And the fact it is 
suicidal to outrace your sensors might weed such tactics rather 
quickly. And the fact that your crews aren't going to like the 'go 
ahead and chance the minefield, even if it is deadly, we won't bother 
sweeping it because we're in a rush' might be a factor too. Captains 
may disengage sooner ("We had engine problems, Sir") from such battle 
plans. Note that I too totally concur that solid tactics and 
technologies should make this impossible or problematic if one does 
not want to see it in the game. OTOH, ignoring human factors would be 
silly too. They probably have more to do with shaping what militaries 
can and cannot do than any single technology or tactical plan. 

Tom.