Re: [VVerse] Trickier FTL gates

Ryan Gill wrote:

>>   I still say though that any "wormhole" or "gate" system that would
allow
>>  large numbers of unmanned weapons to pass through it effectively
eliminates
>>  the usefulness of fixed defenses.  First you send through huge
numbers 
>> of very
>
>If you can send weapons through one way, I can send them the other.

To reiterate one of the points I made in my previous post: the big 
difference is that the attacking force is mobile (otherwise it can't 
attack), whereas the fixed defences are not.

Sure, the defenders could send weapons through periodically just in case

there happens to be someone on the far side of the warp point... but
unless 
there actually are any attackers close to the warp point when this
happens, 
those weapons are wasted.

In order to be effective, the defenders' counter-weapons need to be sent

through *just before* the attack is intended to go in (because that's
the 
only time there are any targets for them to hit) - but in order to time
the 
counter-strike correctly the defenders need advance warning of the 
attack... and in a warp-point setting, they're not very likely to get
that 
advance warning. The pickets on the far side get destroyed or driven
away 
long before the main assault begins.

>You and I or someone else (John Atkinson) need to play a game of
Dirtside 
>or Full Thrust with Fixed defenses and you run a mobile force. Then
you'll 
>see about the problem of just expecting technology alone to win the
day.

You need to play a game - or better still, a campaign - of StarFire with

fixed defences, and you will see the problem of expecting fixed defences
to 
survive (much less be economically viable) against warp-capable
automated 
weapons.

Sure, Gibraltar with modern defences worth an equivalent of *one* modern

task force would certainly be a hard nut for *one* modern task force to 
crack - but it won't face just *one* task force. If the enemy decides to

storm it it'll face two, or five, or twelve task forces at the same time
- 
and the point is that the enemy *can* concentrate forces in this way. He

could also sail those forces around Africa and attack the Suez Canal 
instead, thus bypassing the Gibraltar defences entirely, if he thinks
that 
the Suez defences are weaker than the Gibraltar ones. Sure, the canal is

more constricted - but if its defences are easier to crack, why not use
it?

That's the basic problem with fixed warp point defences, really: while
you 
might be able to build *one* impenetrable defence, you usually end up 
having to defend *several different* spots simultaneously - which means 
that you need equally strong everywhere, and that's expensive.

>What stops other NUKEs from being sent back through at you?

Nothing, except that once again the hit rate against mobile targets
which 
you don't even know are anywhere close to the warp point is far smaller 
than the hit rate against fixed targets which can't leave the warp
point. 
(Of course, if you don't send the counter-strike missiles through until
the 
attacker's missiles have already arrived you're probably too late
anyway.)

>>Conversly, mobile fleets are far less vulnerable to this type of
attack
>>because they aren't "fixed" near the wormhole and as the volume of
space that
>
>And they have to be there to do the job.

Not exactly. A mobile fleet also has the option of fighting a running 
battle instead of trying to block the warp point itself; a fixed defence

can't do that. A mobile fleet can also fall back if it risks being 
outflanked; a fixed defence can't do that either.

>Personally, I'd build some hulking huge asteroids that are in some kind
of 
>stationary defense around the jump point (gate), Some smaller ones in
from 
>the the FTL limit from the star and then some more in from the most
likely 
>transit point from the Jump point (gate). There would also be a number
of 
>hulking huge asteroids at the various Lagrange points around the system

>for additional long base sensor resolution and as refueling points for 
>system patrol craft and fighter basing. Then there would be the home
fleet 
>and the core planet defenses.

OK. How many warp points did you say your star nation has to defend? How

would any one of those warp point defences fare against a mobile fleet 
worth as much as *all* of your star nation's warp point defences (in
*all* 
your systems) taken together?

>The basic Hulking huge asteroid is bigger than a dreadnought has super 
>strong hull, no drives, no ftl, lots of armor and more beam weapons, 
>fighters and missiles/torpedos/screens than you can stuff in anything 
>remotely mobile.
>
>A 200 mass station with no drives and engines

...is still not very likely to defeat *two* enemy SDNs of mass 200, and
not 
much cheaper than one of them (particularly not when you start counting
the 
costs of the mobile shipyards needed to build them and/or the tugs
needed 
to tow them into position).

>Sure it can't maneuver, but it's like the NSL ships, why maneuver if
you 
>can pound your foe senseless when he gets into range?

Because if you can't manoeuvre and your enemy can do so, he can either 
side-step you instead of fight you or else choose the range that gives
him 
the best ratio between his and your firepower. Neither option is good
for 
the fixed station.

>But, given the preference for not giving the enemy a base to fire at
you 
>with, when you're guarding a wormhole junction, you'll have your
closest 
>stations with arcs only on the wormhole to prevent them being used
against 
>your other stations if they're captured somehow.

That means that they're useless the instant a mobile attacker manages to

get *away* from the warp point. How many layers of stations can you
afford 
at each warp point?

>Pay a bit more for more mass and armor and you can build some freaking 
>huge stations that don't move, but pack a whallop. The amount of damage

>they can soak up is staggering.

And you'll have to build one or more of these stations at *each* of your

threatened warp points, whereas the enemy can concentrate against any
*one* 
those warp points.

This post got a bit repetitive. Sorry 'bout that - but this
much-repeated 
point really is the key to warp point defences: fixed defences can't
move 
to reinforce other threatened warp points, so if the enemy can threaten 
more than one of your warp points simultaneously he'll usually be able
to 
outgun the defences at the one point he decides to attack in earnest (as

opposed to merely driving in your pickets).

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry