Re: [VV] Gate defence

Ryan Gill wrote:

>>...but in the end, the advantage still lies with the attacker simply 
>>because he can choose where to strike while any fixed defences have to
be 
>>spread out to cover multiple avenues of attack.
>
>In some respects isn't that the very nature of holding the initiative
in 
>any event (Mobile - Mobile or MNobile - Fixed)?

Very much so. However, relying on fixed defences means that you're 
voluntarily handing over the initiative (on that front, at least - you 
could of course be on the offensive along some other warp chain).

***
John Atkinson wrote:

>Point One:
>You're all talking about multiple FTL methods, right?

Not in this particular sub-thread, no. If we had been, we wouldn't have 
this discussion at  all for exactly the reason you describe!

>[...] Just as no one really has armed and armored trains.

...nowadays. They did see quite a bit of action in the 1910s and 1920s 
though, and not just against rear-area infiltrators :-/ In our context, 
armed/armoured trains would roughly correspond to mobile-defence ships 
which are unable to FTL without WPs - they can rush to any threatened 
systems very quickly and would probably be quite powerful in tactical 
combat compared to fully FTL-capable warships of the same size, but
they'd 
be effectively unable attack systems.

>Point Two:
>Some people are filling my mailbox arguing (largely ignorantly) about
>TACTICS when you havn't even nailed down precisely how the PHYSICS
>work.

Which actually *is* kind of relevant, since in this case the physics are

largely dependent on game design considerations. That is to say, while
it 
is a bit backwards it isn't *completely* backwards <g>

Thing is, it *sucks* to carefully design background physics only to
realize 
that they lead to an unplayable game (eg. because your only FTL
mechanism 
is warp points leading to hysterically costly WP assaults, or because 
FTL-capable ships can appear anywhere so planets become effectively 
indefensible, or something else)... so we need to figure out what kind
of 
game (including what kind of tactics) we want the physics to allow or 
disallow BEFORE we can nail down all the details of the physics
themselves. 
And then we need to be d*mn careful so the physics don't give any 
unexpected and easily-exploitable side effects which lead to *new* kinds
of 
weapons or tactics...

>Point Three:
>Stop thinking in terms of equal point battles.

Yep. Cf. my comparison of Gibraltar vs. two/five/twelve task groups
instead 
of a single one
:-/

>Point Five:
>If you haven't read at least two of the Starfire novels AND/OR played a
>dozen warp point assaults in the Starfire game system, please shut the
>hell up because you're rehashing points that are made in those places
>with a good deal more coherency.

Very much so. FWIW I helped playtesting the StarFire scenario module on 
which "In Death Ground" and "The Shiva Option" were based (yes, those 
novels are based on the scenario module "ISW4" - not the other way 
around...), and also helped writing most of the StarFire rules for 
automated weapons to make those scenarios at least somewhat playable :-/

It is also noteworthy that Weber (who created most of the StarFire game 
background) decided to add a non-WP FTL concept when he created his next

space opera series, ie. the Harrington books :-/

***
Samuel Penn wrote:

> >Point Three:
> >Stop thinking in terms of equal point battles.  Those are
> >(historically speaking) about as common as two-headed calves.  If you
> >are trying to think in terms of a universe's reality, then ignore the
> >game convention of equal point battles.
>
>...any game system is going to be (vaguely) balanced.

No, it won't. Most game systems can be completely *un*balanced; some
game 
systems are even deliberately *designed* to be unbalanced - Monopoly
being 
the best-known one. Unfortunately most empire-building campaign systems 
have quite Monopolistic tendencies: the strong will be able to grab even

more resources and thereby grow even more powerful; the weak might be
able 
to resist for a while but will almost certainly go under sooner or
later. 
(There are exceptions, eg. the old Civilization boardgame - not the one 
based on the computer game, that is - where big empires eventually split
up 
due to civil wars, but in my experience they are just exceptions.)

>An asteroid
>with a base built into the middle of it is going to be relatively
>cheap from a physics standpoint, but will have thousands of points
>of armour/hull (possibly millions). A game system which costs
>according to hull strength (as FT does) is going to break as soon
>as you bring in fixed defences like this.

No, the *game system* won't break. The *points system* might break if 
you're trying to use it for some purpose it wasn't meant to be used for
- 
eg., the FTFB (ie., NPV) points system was designed only to balance
ONE-OFF 
battles and might therefore be inappropriate for a campaign setting; the

CPV system is even better for one-off battles, but is *definitely* 
inappropriate for campaigns.

Eg., you're assuming that an enemy faced with a 1,000,000 Mass asteroid 
armed with a few PDSs and fighter bays will have to inflict a million 
damage points on it in order to destroy the base. Thing is,
realistically 
all he'll shoot at are the immediate neighbourhood of the PDS
installations 
and fighter bay doors (neither of which can be buried deep inside the 
asteroid); once those areas are pulverized the asteroid has no more
combat 
capability. In game terms, the *base* built on the asteroid has a far
lower 
"hull integrity" than the *asteroid* - and you only pay battle-balancing

points for the *base's* "hull integrity", since that's the only thing
that 
matters for the game balance. To take an extreme example, if your enemy 
builds a ground base on Earth you don't need to blow up the entire
planet 
in order to destroy the base!

(...'course, if the asteroid is on a collision course with your home
planet 
you *will* need to inflict a million points of damage on it to vapourize
it 
before it hits - but then the enemy will have to spend huge resources on

putting it onto that collision course in the first place; he hasn't just

paid for building a base :-/ )

So, you have to ask yourself: why do you plan to use a battle-balancing 
points system for a campaign game, instead of designing a
campaign-economic 
points system?

> >Point Five:
> >If you havn't read at least two of the Starfire novels AND/OR played
a
> >dozen warp point assaults in the Starfire game system, please shut
the
> >hell up because you're rehashing points that are made in those places
> >with a good deal more coherency.
>
>Irrelevent. Those places aren't this place. Different rules
>and different physics.

No, *extremely* relevant to any discussion assuming that WPs are the
only 
available means of FTL travel - which, as you noted in your post, this 
discussion does. The difference in game mechanics are irrelevant, as are

the difference in physics details; but the tactical considerations 
resulting from forcing all FTL travel to pass through very well defined
and 
predictable small volumes of space are virtually identical - and those 
tactical considerations are what we're discussing here.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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