Re: [VV] Gate defence

On Friday 04 February 2005 18:58, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Samuel Penn wrote:
>  >>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).
>  >
>  >Fixed defences doesn't mean only fixed defences. You could
>  >have a mobile fleet on the other side.
>
> If the mobile fleet on the far side of the warp point is strong enough
to
> prevent the enemy  from attacking the warp point, the points you've
spent
> on the fixed defences were essentially wasted since they didn't
participate
> in the fight. If the mobile fleet isn't strong enough to keep the
enemy
> away from the warp point, you have set yourself up for a defeat in
detail.

It can be enough to prevent some of the attack scenarios suggested
(the one ship with a nova cannon, or a fleet just armed with an
infinite supply of missiles), but can used for intelligence gathering,
harassment or threatening their worm hole or supply chain. If it can't
do anything useful, it can pull back to the home side. At this point
you have given over the initiative.

>  >If it acts like a doorway (which I have been assuming) and attacks
can
>  >only come along a limited vector, then fixed defences can hide to
>  >the side or behind where they are difficult to target
>  >directly from the 'away' side.
>
> Limiting warp transits to specific vectors only protects you against
purely
> ballistic projectiles (eg. rocks). It won't help much, if at all,
against
> more advanced units

It cuts down on many of the cheap options for attacking the gate,
such as mass drivers or long range beams. More intelligent
bombardment attacks (such as missiles) are more expensive, and
will have to spend time accelerating once they come through the
gate in order to reach any targets, giving more time for defences
to shoot them down. Wide area defences (such as nukes) against
missiles which are clustered together because they've all had to
come through the same gate might work as well.

Yes, it won't protect a great deal against ships, but then the
enemy has to commit their ships to coming in range of the defenders
own weapons. Most of the original discussion was that this was not
necessary, that an attacking fleet would just sit a long way off
and bombard the defenders with infinite supplies of missiles.

>  >This is probably the important issue with fixed defences -
>  >how do you stop someone destroying your homeworld if they can
>  >jump in at the Oort Cloud and hurl rocks at you?
>
> If I were you I'd be a lot more worried about kinetic
> bombardments from *short* distances - like eg. half the distance
between
> Earth and Luna.

Aren't any big rocks between Earth and Luna. Much easier to set up
relativistic kinetic kill weapons from a long way away.

>  >In Monopoloy everyone
>  >starts the game exactly the same, and have exactly the same
>  >chance of landing on any particular square. The only
>  >difference is who starts first, which gives a small advantage
>  >at the start.
>
> This seemingly small initial advantage can rapidly snowball into a
*big*
> advantage:

Okay, I've never noticed this. In my experience it was always my Dad
who seemed to win, regardless of how everyone else teamed up or who
went first... :-(

>  >I haven't seen a wargame along the lines of the Earth-Minbari
>  >war, where humans get 1000pts, the Minbari get 100,000pts,
>  >and both have a goal of wiping out the other (humans don't
>  >'win' by surviving for three turns, or defeating the Black
>  >Star - they have to win by defeating the entire enemy fleet).
>
> Then you haven't seen any open-ended campaigns, much less participated
in
> any <shrug>

What, so there are games where one person *starts* with 100x the
resources of the other, but both have the same victory conditions?

I've played in open-ended campaigns where everyone starts more or
less the same. The fact that one person is able to build up
resources quicker than another, and therefore gain an overwhelming
advantage is common. *I* don't see this as being unbalanced, as
long as everyone has the same chance to be the one who builds up
resources the quickest (assuming all are of the same skill).

>
>  >>>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 -
>  >
>  >Yes, that's what I meant. You just wrote it better :-)
>
> Other parts of your posts very strongly suggest that it *wasn't* quite
what
> you meant. More on this below.

I believe all this stemmed from someone's comment that FT is pointed
on weapon systems, not mass. The million point asteroid was an example
of why this isn't true. I think. It may have been seconded into another
use since it's inception, but the issues about its point cost stem
from that.

>
>  >>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.
>  >
>  >That's my point - those 1,000,0000 hull points are worthless
>  >unless they're backed up with serious firepower (it was in
>  >response to the point that in FT, you pay for weapons not hull).
>
> No, they aren't "worthless". If the base has 1,000,000 hull points,
its
> PDSs are *extremely* well protected.

PDS aren't very useful against a fleet that sits at 7" and bombards
the base with beam weapons. It's not worth a million points in most
situations. If it's fixed, you can probably ignore it.

As I said above, it's an example of a bad design which I don't
consider to be cost-effective in points. This is getting seriously
close to the various 'point costs are broken' discussions on the
GURPS groups... The points system is designed to give everyone the
same opportunity to build balanced fleets, but doesn't ensure
that you actually do.

>  >>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", 
>  >
>  >Very true. But a lot of the hardware (reactors, heat sinks,
>  >computers, crew, fighter repair bays etc) can be hidden deep
>  >in the asteroid behind millions of tonnes of rock.
>
> Sure, but in "real-world" terms the fighter bays need bay doors or
launch
> tunnels which transport the fighters to the outside of the asteroid
[snip]

Which was why I didn't mention them in the list of things which are
hidden. In game terms, it should give some advantage to threshold
checks or something for certain systems. You could have salvo launch
systems on/near the surface, with the magazines deep in the asteroid
where they can't easily be taken out.

Of course, there are always Meson Guns.

>  >The point is, it's cheaper to hide stuff in a rock than it is to
hide
>  >it in a spaceship, 

>  >I'm not talking points value - I'm talking real world economic
costs.
>
> No, you're mixing the two up. Let's look again at what you wrote:

>  >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.
>
> Here you most definitely *are* talking about the FTFB battle-balancing
> points value,

You're misunderstanding entirely. What I'm saying is:

1) It's cheaper (economically) to hollow out an asteroid than it is
   to build a ship hull out of the latest composite materials where
   you have to worry about mass and volume limits.

2) FT charges the same whether it's an asteroid or a spaceship.

3) Therefore FT doesn't work if you want to model real world economics.

I'm well aware that FT point system becomes the 'effective economics'
if that is all you are using in a campaign, but you can't use it if
you want to bring real world economics into the campaign.

I'm mentioning the FT point system (in 2) not because I want to use it,
but because I'm questioning it's validity in the scenarios I'm talking
about (in 1).

I think we're both agreeing on these points.

>  >>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?
>  >
>  >Hey, I don't :-)
>
> Then you must've stopped doing that since your last few posts, because
in
> them you certainly were <shrug>

Huh? I've never said I planned to use any point system. The only
thing I've ever said I planned on doing was building an RPG
background where I'd use FT for space combat, and that was in a
different thread entirely.

I've only ever mentioned the FT point system when I've been saying
that I don't think it's useful for what I want.

>  >>>>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
>  >
>  >As I said elsewhere, regardless of rules and physics,
>  >irrelevant if half the people discussing them are unaware of
>  >those points.
>
> Bullshit. If a car runs over you from behind, it'll maim or kill you
when
> it strikes you regardless of whether or not you were aware of it
coming.

Um, what has this got to do with anything?

> This is precisly why I, John and several others have told
> the rest of you to go and read those books/play that game before
pushing
> this discussion much further - ie., to MAKE you aware of them.

There is a big difference between adding to the discussion based
on your prior experience (and pointing out where that experience
came from so that people can follow it up if they have the time
and resources), and telling everyone to shut up because you know
more than they do.

The latter is what John did, and that is what I objected to. You
are doing the former, and I don't have any problem with that.

-- 
Be seeing you,				   http://www.glendale.org.uk/
Sam.					jabber: samuel.penn@jabber.org