Re: Air Power was: REALITY CHECK TIME!

>
>
>Scott Siebold schrieb:
>
>>In the SciFi	ground games I assume that anything that comes into the
>>
>combat > zone that is over 25 feet off the ground is dead. 
>
>It certainly makes for a simple game concentrates on the
>ground-plodders.
>
>Whether it is believable is a different matter.
>
>'Anything' is a pretty wide definition. Does it include artillery
>shells ? Fly-sized drones ? Hyper-sonic planes ?
>'Combat Zone' is equally vague. What does it mean ? Within range of
>small arms ? Within range of artillery ? Wherever weapons, including
>aircraft, can reach ?
>
My base assumption is that the majority of "Air Defense" weapons are 
energy weapons that
operate at the speed of light with computers able to acquire targeting 
information from multiple
sources and process it in real time (real time being millisecond time 
scales or less).

Artillery may be able to saturate a target but it's effect will be 
reduced by "Air Defense". My
argument is still true in that artillery rounds will be dead if shot 
down or not shot down.

If your drones are fly size then the anti drones will also be fly size. 
So far we have dealt with
only recon drones but in the future I suspect that drones will be taking

on additional duties.
How about cheap externally guided kamikaze drones to destroy your 
expensive recon drones.

The problem is that the faster a  plane goes the greater the effect is 
when it is hit. Also the
less maneuverable it is when "Air Defense" opens up with a fire pattern.

I was intentionally vague about "combat zone" because it depends on what
you are playing. If you are in Steve Jackson "Ogre" universe then ranges
for weapons are in tens of miles+ and tactical nukes are normal weapons.

>
>
>
>'SF' could cover anything from Mad-Max type post-apocalyptic worlds
>where you think yourself happy if you have gunpowder to a universe
>where Bolo hypertanks are fielded by the bataillon.
>
I usually do not play Mad-Max type games but I assure you that at one 
time I did.  The problem
with such games is that expendables aren't expendable in such games. If 
you ever play Battlemech
the average games casualties extended to include the takeover of  a 
world will destroy several
YEARS worth of production for each side for each planet taken.

If you have 10 tanks in your whole army are you going to risk their
loss?

>
>
>>This includes flying drones near ground level up to fixed orbit
>>
>satellites.
>
>>If a space ship comes into a low orbit and stays there (as opposed
>>to a single pass and then get out) it to will be reclassified as
>>
>space
>
>>junk shortly.
>>
>
>This requires some pretty powerful and precise long-range weaponry. Not
>something every footslogger is likely to carry in his backpack.
>
But the higher levels of command do carry.  At this time we can destroy 
satellites in orbit and
I suspect that this ability will only be increasing. You may have been 
hit by a missile that when it
gets to orbit releases a dozen small satellites that went off and hit 
you with several hundred
AA size buckshot but you are still dead. The secret is to know where you

are X time (5 minutes,
20 minutes or 2 hours depends on the technology) from now.

>
>
>>The only thing that will allow you to survive over  25
>>feet is:
>>
>...
>
>>	2) You are extremely stealthy and you aren't seen.
>>Please note that sending out transmissions (i.e.. recon
>>drone) is not stealthy.
>>
>
>How is a recon drone 'not stealthy' ? It can use passive sensors
>(optics, IR, thermal, UV, milimetre wave sensors etc.) that do not
>transmit. 
>
>Transmissions can be in extremely tight (e.g.Laser) beams or the drone
>can store the data until it is save from direct attack.
>
It is not stealthy when another drone locks on to it and passes it's 
location over to the
"Air Defense" who start shooting. Yes the other sides "Air Defense" may 
lock on to
the other sides drone and my argument is still true. It then becomes a 
matter of who
runs out of drones first.

>
>
>>	 4) You own the space down to zero feet and can
>>quickly kill anything that doesn't agree with you..
>>
>
>If the enemy has weaponry that can kill a satellite in orbit, you
>probably have something in orbit that can kill a ground installation
>equally well.
>
You do, but if	you stay in low orbit  too long you become a target so I

suspect it's low orbit
to fire then high orbit for safety. I also assume that energy weapons 
have a maximum range
in atmosphere so any ground to orbit energy weapon will be BIG. and 
fixed in place and only
the largest ships could carry an energy weapon that could reach a ground

target..

>
>All a matter of scenarion design.
>
>Greetings
>Karl Heinz
>
>------------------------------
>