Re: Space tactics

At 10:45 AM 8/19/98 +0300, you wrote:
>I agree, this is a realistic possibility. But it has one serious
>drawback -- IT'S NOT IN THE RULES. FT mines, especially, are
notoriously
>non-costeffective (and velocity plays NO part in mine damage, FYI).

Agreed.  And _technically_ if the target ship does not END its movement
within 6" of a mine, the mine just ignores it.	(This is from memory,
pardon me if I'm in error)  Although I'm not sure yet if it is practical
or
playable to allow starships to fire during movement, but I think it
entirely reasonable (and necessary) to allow mines (and possibly SLMs
and/or missiles?) to do so.  Even then, standard mines are wimpy; I
would
argue that they at least need SML/MT missile-type warheads.

Also, I don't see any reason why you can't design a mine system which
does
cause damage proportional to the target speed; make up any PSB you like,
all the other weapon systems do.  Given that the target ship can't
outrun a
radar pulse, I think a field of claymore mines with proximity fuses
would
work pretty well for the low-tech crowd.  There's also the
kilometers-wide
nets described in the Aliens-Universe colonial marines sourcebook.  Or
if
you want something a bit more Star Trek/Star Wars-ish call 'em gravitic
mines or whatever.

>I *DO* think the ships should have 
> - limited reaction matter
> - limited max speed to avoid damage from random space debris
>   (tied to hull quality would be a nice touch)
> - a good sensor lock to fire *anything* (including missiles)
>
>BUT THEY DON'T. I'm doing this to point out the logical conclusion
>arising from that fact.
>
>Show me a way, in vanilla (vector) FT, WITHOUT HOUSE RULES, to counter
>a B'n'Z attack (from a freely chosen jump-in point, as per vanilla
>rules again) against a known *immobile* target.

A good place to start is the rules on nebula, dust clouds, meteor swarms
and debris and asteroid.  These rules provide the best precedents so far
for speed limits.

(I glanced through them in a rush this morning and don't have the books
handy, so pardon any errors)

Nebulae and dust clouds impose an effective speed limit of 12" on a
ship;
at speeds of 13+ the ship begins taking 1 die of beam damage.  Not very
impressive, I'll admit, but a start.

Meteor swarms and debris fields are a little more deadly.  For every
full
6" of speed they cause 1 die of damage (I believe this is 1-6 points,
not 1
die of beam damage) to ships passing through them.  So at speeds of 0-5,
you are safe.  At 6+ you start taking hits.  These fields are described
as
being 6" to 12" across.

Asteroids, IIRC are the most deadly; you hit one, you die.  I cannot
remember if the rule is written such that a ship is destroyed if ANY
PART
of it's path crosses the asteroid or not, but that seems logical. 

I would argue that you can extrapolate in several different directions
from
these rules.  

The first direction you can consider is that any or all of these
phenomenon
can/could/would/should/do occur in any sufficiently large volume of
space.
One way to handle the high speed slashing attack would be to roll for
"encounters" with random space phenomenon each turn of the attack run.
"Oops, you hit a meteor swarm at speed 280...lets see, that's 46 dice of
damage.  I win."  The down side is, that the odds of an encounter would
realistically be very low.  (But, then when has realism stopped us?)

The second direction you can extrapolate these rules is that if this
level
of damage occurs at this combination of speed and debris density, then
it
would be logical to assume that a similar effect would be observed at
higher speeds with lower particle densities; micrometeors which a ship
moving at 12" would shrug off or miss entirely start ripping holes in
your
hull at triple digit speeds.  Nebulae are dense compared to
interplanetary
space, but still very thin.  At high enough speeds, you will see to same
effect.  Just assume that all space is a very thin nebulae and impose
whatever speed limit you like.	Essentially this is a PSB effect, I
admit,
but then so are all the rules, ultimately.  Just pick something that
works
for you and run with it.  (Sci Fi precedent: David Weber's Honor
Harrington
-- merchant hulls have a lower maximum speed than military hulls due to
inferior particle shielding.)

The third direction I can think of to take these rules it that of
man-made
obstacles.  In the same section you will find that an exploding starship
produces a debris field of one turn's duration; 2" for escort, 4" for
cruisers and 6" for capital ships (don't remember if that's radius or
diameter, though).

This gives us a starting point.  Let's assume that the explosion
consumes
some, but not all of the ship's mass and that the force of the blast
causes
the dispersion.  It seems entirely reasonable that a similar mass of
man-made debris distributed evenly in a stable (non-dispersing) pattern
would have the same effect.  

Furthermore, one need not expend the same resources on a debris field as
you would on a starship; gravel from a mined-out asteroid would do. 
Just
pick a number you think is reasonable for the mass and another for the
point cost and allow the defender to deploy these man-made debris fields
as
"speed bumps" just outside the normal weapons range of the target world;
say 36" out.  For the cost of a shiny new escort, I might be able to
purchase several escort-sized debris fields, etc.

Some of you may point out that this smacks of the dreaded sandcaster
debate
of several months past.  That is true.	My biggest problems with the
"sand
cloud" concept are dispersion, portability and relative size.  

If you are using sand clouds, I would argue that in game terms they
should
be used as non-moving temporary dust or debris fields; pitch one out in
front of the enemy ship and hope he hits it.  Beyond that, physics be
damned...clouds of dirt flying at triple-digit speeds do not excite me
as
either a sci fi concept or a game mechanic.  

Also, the smaller the particle, the easier to deflect; modern engineers
know that a sheet of metal foil will stop most micrometeorites since
they
expend all of their energy on contact.	For any degree of penetration,
you
need a larger chunk of debris.

I would also argue that using the exploding ship debris cloud sizes as
my
baseline, that sand clouds are impractical in terms of mass as anything
but
a fixed defense.  A volume of sand that you could reasonable transport
for
use as a weapon MIGHT be 1" across.

>No, predictability is exactly the key issue here. That allows you to
>precalculate your attack run so that you spend ONE, and *exactly*one*
turn
>in the "engagement area" before zooming off to the sunset. 
>
>The defender is more hardpressed. To intercept he must not only cross
your
>path, but actually *end* his movement for the turn within firing range
>(which I chose to ignore in the previous analysis).

Why?  The defender can just park his ships in random orbits close to the
planet.  He knows you're coming and where you're going to be.  If you
get
one shot, he gets one shot as well.  Then it all just boils down to a
standard short range furball...one turn long.

And while the attacker has spent 50% of their mass for drive and FTL,
the
defender can buy orbital weapons platforms or big, slow monitors and get
more weapons per ton than the attacker.

Furthermore, IIRC the rules on planetary bombardment at least imply a
low
orbit and not just a close pass.  If you take this as the rule, then a
fast-pass attack would hit the planet, but with an unaimed shot against
a
planet-sized target, even nukes can miss the population centers or
industrial sites you would want to hit. So you are limited to one turn's
attack against any orbital targets.  And they still get to shoot back. 
In
fact, if you are using vanilla firing rules, they may win the initiative
and cap you before you get a shot.

A lot of the arguments you've made in favor of this tactic (and yes, I
realize you are playing the Devil's Advocate and respect that) sound
like
they apply a double standard just because the attacker is moving fast
and
the defender is not.  My contention is that whatever set of game
mechanics
you adopt for resolving this scenario, there must still be a level
playing
field for both sides.  

If you argue that the attacker gets a surprise attack due to high speed,
I
will argue that the defender should be allowed to purchase remote sensor
platforms, enhanced planet-based sensor or even a bloody optical
telescope
since you are, after all, applying continuous thrust all the way aren't
you?  I would argue that this makes you pretty obvious.  

And if you are travelling at a significant fraction of light speed
(270,000
to 360,000 inches per turn or so at the scales most commonly discussed)
then both sides suffer equally from being sensor blind.  And even if you
can accelerate to those speeds with a manuever drive, I would argue that
you ARE running into a hard radiation storm as every atom in your path
collides with you at the speed of light.  ("Lets see: 60,000 dice of
beam
damage...BZZT!...thank you for playing...")

All in all, I don't believe in the unbeatable tactic.  And like you, I
think it is a good idea to kick the possibility around and try to plug
all
the loopholes in the rules whenever we find them.  And while it may be
impossible to fully satisfy all of the armchair physics/rules
lawyer/munchkins in the world, it should be possible to come up with a
common set of basic parameters under which fun and reasonable games can
be
played.

Jeff