RE: Its Doctrine, Scouting and Tactics not Fighters

--- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:

> The attacker is attacking based on his best recon -
> i.e. the ecliptic is empty go in that way.  The
> defender may have sown it with shielded mines or set
> up Beam 4 stations above the ecliptic plane.

If you are so wealthy that you can seed battlestations
to get near total coverage of your system, then you're
so well defended that attacking you is a fool's game
in the first place.

> The scenario design assumes that the attacker is
> attacking for a reason - to destroy the opponent's
> fleet.  You aren't gaming the scenarios where one
> side see's it's overmatched and withdraws.

Contrary to popular belief, it's a pretty unusual
circumstance where a well-thought out strategy centers
around killing an enemy fleet for the hell of it. 
Usually you wish to either invade something, blockade
something, etc.  If you can do your mission without
engaging, anyone except a moron (which there are no
lack of in naval history) would do it that way.
 
> dashing across the board at high speed.  The feel
> would be like WW2 submarines against convoys - you'd
> have an active screening force to the front and
> outsides to catch hidden ships before they got to
> fire.

If the stealth/sensor ratio is the same as it was in
WWII, there would be a radically different way of
fighting space combat.	You'd be running around
slagging bases with surprise nuclear strikes and
hoping he ran out before you did.  Because if you
can't stop lightning strikes, they will be the only
way people do business.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!