Close Orbit Support (COS) a.k.a. CSS (Close Space Support)

I have been thinking (red alert!) - given my USAF slant, and John A's
cogent thoughts on Ortillery what is the purpose of 1)Ortillery 2)CSS
3)COS and CAS (Close Aerospace Support)?

I differentiate the four as thus:

Ortillery, the process and equipment in DS2 and FT/MT (and by
implication
FB1/FB2 [the last of which I don't own - yet] allowing frigate or larger
Starships and PBMs {Planetary Bombardment Monitors (FTL and perhaps
non-FTL)} to attack positions on a planet.

Ortillery, based on the rules and the current short discussion, appears
to be a system designed more to destroy positions to dislocate planet to
Space defenses, cause rupture of major fortifications or positions of
battalion sized units heavily dug in, cause shock in the defenders (and
terror in their political leadership) precipitating collapse and
surrender of governments.  This is not a typically tactical (as in SG)
weapon, IMO.  Beam use on a planet surface would be a lighter form of
weapon system with the same general intended effect.

These weapons in these usages would be campaign material {or a reason
for
a scenario ("escort the PBMs on a strike on Planet Hothman...")}   but
would be unlikely outside of a specific scenario role (campaign or
special designed) in FT, would fit into DS 2 as specialized, super
powerful (when available) Area Bombardment (WHAT BDA [Bomb Damage
Assessment, Beth] report!?) weaponry.  I liken it to a mass strike of a
flight of B-52's in modern terms except with residual radiation affect. 
Clearly a WMD [Weapon of Mass destruction] in nature and effect that
should be considered an escalation into the borders of Nukes, Chemical
weapons, and Biological warfare.  Using Ortillery on a foe equipped with
NBC (or ABC, depending on your generation) would invite response by WMD
by the defending force.

[Beth; ABC - Atomic, Biological, Chemical; NBC - Nuclear...]

Even in DS2 this should be a rare weapon available, scenario driven,
IMO.
 YMMV

So the opposite end of the spectrum is aerospace support from Starships
carrying fighters.  There might be room to differentiate between the
effects of Standard, Fast, Heavy, Interceptors, Attack, Long Range, and
Torpedo fighters in CAS house rules but I don't think we have discussed
such things on this list in that arena very much.

In between I define CSS and COS.  Are they different?  Well, maybe.

I originally envisioned COS (years ago) as ships in the upper edge of
atmosphere providing PGM [Precision Guided munition] type support to the
guy on the ground [As John knows, that's the area where the Army and The
Air Force have the most divergent views of the application of Air power]
and capable (barely) of air breather (and similar) interception and
where
i envisioned the most likely contact between Star/Spaceship carried
(space capable/specialized for non-atmospheric missions primarily)
aerospace vehicles and planetary "Edge of the Air envelope only"
aerospace Defense forces (Interceptors, fighters, and  (attacking the
PBMs) strike vehicles.

CSS was more the vaguely defined arena where less precise (scatter!) and
more area oriented weaponry was employed beyond the effective arena
where
planetary forces could, at great cost but with great reward possible,
attack the bombardment forces.	It is at this level where I think
non-FTL
Spaceships (due to design and no need to have FTL engines, releasing
more
mass for weapons - Thank you, Traveller) and where the Starships should
be at some disadvantage (additionally) operating in an 'unusual' combat
environment.

Ortillery takes some of my ideas on CSS and COS, applies it to tactical
operations (!) but with weaponry raised on Super Steroids.

Why use Ortillery?

1) You want to hurt the enemy but you don't necessarily want to occupy
the planet (at least long term) in most cases.

2) Planetary defense consume excessive amounts of the enemy's resources
and a strike there would strategically, financially and emotionally
(morale effects) injure the enemy forces/government.

3) The enemy defenses are too great to expend the lives/materials needed
(Invaders are limited to what is carried on ship or captured)  to take
and control/occupy the point (pass, transportation net, resources) but
you want to deny the enemy that access.

4) Friendly casualties (weapons or radiation induced) are deemed worth
the destruction of the enemy elements targeted.  Cold but true in some
cases.

Why NOT use Ortillery?

1) You have to pass through that spot, regularly and possibly with
unprotected troops, civilians, and radiation affected goods.

2) Your enemy has many more WMD (and the will to use them) then you can
defend against and still carry out your mission.

3) Your geopolitical leadership will publicly have you drawn and
quartered for your "Crimes against Humanity".

I invite more thoughts on Ortillery, CAS, COS, and CSS.  I have been
thinking about how to tie FT (Ortillery) and DS 2 together in a campaign
that I like.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.