Archive through April 23, 2005
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Orbital Defense Platforms:
Archive through April 23, 2005
Message to Col.Knight
From: Captain S.Tenhoff S-4
Re: Consumables update
The following is the latest database download of the conditions of the consumables at each of the fighter stations.
1) Drone maintence, 95% of all drones located in each stockpile have been maintained as of the end of the last duty cycle. The remaining 5% shall be serviced within the next week. While this 5% should work at optimal efficency, it is not guarenteed, the actual chance of one of these drones being faulty is extremely low, less than 1% each via the manufacturer. So any drones availabe should work within parameters during any offensive operation.
2) Fuel Stockpiles: Each fighter station has enough fuel onsite to refuel each fighter 4 times, this is normally large enough to keep the fighters flying for 6 weeks of routine patrols insystem.
3) Maintence parts and facilities. Each fighter station has it's normal allotment of repair pieces and assemblies and all Ready Racks have not suffered any breakdowns recently.
4) Fighter Control Stations. Each of the fighter station currently has one of it's remote control stations configured for pilot training and shall take approximately 15-20 minutes each to reconfigure it to control an air/spare borne fighter. If these stations are required please notify each base commander to change the stations.
5) Defense Satellites. Each Satellite has been serviced within the recommended duty cycle and the onboard munitions have been fully inspected at that time. All onboard electronics were operating within 95% of recommended specs, and no critical failures have occured since last inspection. The next Defense Satellite to be serviced shall be DefSat Charlie(3) via shuttle within 3-5 days.
Support Crews are being assembled from their homes and barracks and should be all on station within ten minutes.
Captain Tenhoff
William, Jeff: IIRC, the target for a bombardment drone can be set as a range of size classes and hull types. Frex, a drone could be set to pick out the DW-hull from a gaggle of FFs despite them all being size-four targets.
So, we can probably expect some of the drones to include size 6 targets in their targeting parameters in the hope of attriting the defending fighters, and possibly some will accept size-five targets (for the ground bases), but in all likelihood those drones will also either include the planet (are planets size 0?) as a target, or have a final course that takes them through the planet's hex for general devastation.
Reality check:
Are we "missing something?!?!"
In one of SPP's posts above, the sentence included:
"In truth, if they had both F-16 squadrons, they would be in better shape"
maybe nothing, but just "a week ago" we had a fly by of the G1G that was plenty close enough to note the size and type (I think) of the ground bases that compose the 429th PDU.
Without being overly critical... the "klinks" know that we didnt aquit ourselves well... the G1G managed to complete the mission without taking damage (yet if you look at the archives)... G1G's conducting the same type of mission were damaged and on one event IIRC the G1G was destroyed by apparently an exceptionally alert PDU.
Possiblity #1
the "klinks" think the Drone Bombardment is sufficently strong to destroy all or most of the 429th PDU, and devastate the planet. (and coincidently providing a ghastly example why the Federation can not be trusted...so join the Klingon empire and live with the winning side!)
Possibility #2
the mission is exactly what SPP told us it was... and the Klingons are just examining Federation Star Fleets readiness and response time.
Possiblity #3
A diversion that we cant possibly ignore... so that the Dagger team that the G1G deposited on Cassandra IV last week can execute its mission with the least posibility of interference from the 429th as most every one is involved in dealing with the Drone mission.
Any one care to support the claim that SPP is totally straight forward and would never stoop to subterfuge or tricky tactics to "win"?!?!
Frank DeMaris:
As I have noted before, the rules do not allow for a bombardment drone to accept a ground base if it was LAUNCHED from five or more hexes range (this also applies to the submunitions of a scatter pack or Multi-warhead drone launched outside of that range). None of the ground bases can be targeted by the drones. For "fiction" purposes we might allow a couple of hits, but it would be a rules violation being done for the sole purpose of "drama". But there is no way the bombardment will materially affect any of the ground bases.
As to other targeting, SVC has previously answered that the drones can pick between types of ships of the same general type, i.e., if presented with three DWs, one of which is a DWD, one of which is a DWS, and one of which is a DWE, the drones can have been told to specifically look for the DWS. Or they can have been told to specifically look for DWs, or they can have been told to simply look for anything in Size Class 4, or anything in size class 3 or size class 4, or anything not in size class 6 or less.
What they cannot be told is "Look for a DWS, and if there is no DWS, accept any DW, if no DWs, look for anything Size Class 4, if no size class 4 targets, look for anything size class 6, et.al."
You can either tell them to look for one specific type of ship (DWS), one specific class of ship (DWs in general), one specific size class (size class four ships in general), or multiple size classes (in which case it attacks the first target meeting its engagement parameters).
Major Wile:
While the data from the fly by may have been used to refine the targeting of the bombardment, as noted it cannot result in destruction of the battalion's ground bases.
General Comment:
OOC
Each F-16M could carry 1 phaser 3 pod or some other type of pod (cargo ECM etc).
As noted previously pods should not be used to replace drones on any drone rail.
Unless opposition is expected from Klingon ships or attrition units, Recommend that each fighter be equipped with a phaser pod. (optional for the F-16EM...carrying a phaser pod in place of one of the preloaded ECM pods would lower the F-16EM effectiveness... but 1 more drone killed would be helpful.
12 extra phaser 3's (if all 12 killed a drone) would account for some 3% of the 360 drones targeted on Cassandra IV.
All in all, i want the drones dead before they reach the atmosphere.
Steve Petrick:
I understand that.
The point I was getting at is that the G1G gave the klingons the chance to verify that we have (at best) a single PDB (reinforced, maybe) but still just 3 phaser 4 ground bases, a single fighter squadron, and a count of how many Def Sats are in service (based on the drones that they launched at the G-1G).
They may not know all of the names of the officers and men or whether Col Baluda has a cat or dog... but they know enough to guage the size of the drone strike needed to be effective against the 429th.
All I am suggesting is that we can not presume that the Klingon commander is intentionally wasting the entire drone bombardment package on Cassandra IV.
He (well, you) know what the 429th is composed of...and that we are not exceptionally alert (not saying that we could have killed the G-1G last "week"... but It had been done before so ergo, if we had responded correctly we "could" have killed the G-1G.
The BPV of a drone bombardment such as we have headed in to Cassandra IV is going to add up to a significant price. fast (speed 32 ) drones upgrade is 1 point per drone, isnt it? thats 360 BPV. then there is the cost of the IIIXX drones themselves... since they are (I suspect) the double sized ones... there should be an upgrade cost also..
a significant investment to shoot at the 429th.
I can see the wisdom of breaking it into 6 separate groups to complicate the possibility of interception... but I'm still thinking about the wisdom of dividing it into 6 separate planet sides... as it stands, (depending on what Col Knight decides) we might be able to defeat the drones...its the "joker" in the deck that keeps bothering me... what mission on Cassandra IV would justify the cost and (potential risk of loss) of a Dagger team (if there is one) and when added to the value of the Drone bombardment... that would benefit the Klingon war effort?
If there is a Klingon "pick up" ship skulking around... then I think a ground side security alert is in order. (and I wouldnt be real surprised if it turns out that the G-1G is making another "stealth" approach on Cassandra IV timed for the height of the drone raid (with the drones set to ignore targets of the G-1G size Class)
SPP: Really? I was under the impression a drone launched under either the wild boar or tame boar options could acquire a ground base as a target once it was within five hexes. Since I am apparently wrong, that makes ... well, almost no practical difference. The fighters are still the primary drone killers, and they can be targetted as size class 6 targets.
Note, however, that what we can expect is for any drones that can accept size 6 targets to be included in the earlier waves, assuming some noticable dispersal of the drones in time. After all, it does little good to kill the fighters with the last 12 drones of the bombardment, right? Also, assuming some earlier drones will accept size 6 targets, it may be a good idea to set any scatter/shatterpacks to blossom at a range of only 4-5 hexes from the leading Klingon drones. That would make the shuttle a valid size 6 target for any bombardment drone within range 8 that is scanning for size 6 targets, and might allow a shatterpack (for example) to thereby "kill" more then 12 incoming drones.
You know that this whole mission is a test to see what Cassandra4 can handle, and if F16s are present, verses F18s present.
So if we need to be deceptive on what equipment we have, we should try to hide the fact that they are F16s instead of F18s if we can. (IE firing 2P3s+Phaser pod+Megafighter pack = max 4 on an F18B+M)
I just had a thought...
Any chance that some or all of our fighters (other than the CAP, which is already manned and assigned a mission) could be equipped with remote control?
If yes, then the fighters can violate the normal drone launch restrictions, knocking enemy drones down faster.
The downside to this is that those fighters so equipped must remain within control range of the planet...
Unless the wave is grossly understrength (in which case spliting it into six groups from different directions indicates that the Klingon commander is insane) we do not have the option of trying to understate our fighters by having them fire less than their maximum. The Klingons know approximately what we have and will kill thousands of additional civilians with every drone that gets through. I doubt that they planned a wave that we can stop with one hand tied behind our backs.
Douglas, richard, Scott and Frank.
Unless the idea of the drone bombardment is intended to kill our fighters, as the first part of the conquest (excuse me, reconquest) of Cassandra IV.
We have been told that replacement fighters will "eventually" be provided... we have no idea when that will be.
so long as the 429th is short a squadron, we will be (IMO) a priority target of the Klingons since we represent less challenge compared to other PDU's in the region that are at full Table of Organization strength.
The question really wasnt if the Klingons would attack...weve known all along that we are vulnerable... the question is how much the Klingons are going to hit us with, and from how many different directions.
Jeff:
Fair point on the fighters. I had realised the possibility of mixing drones targeted at fighters in the drone waves and that my suggested tactic left the fighters very vulnerable just as I got in the car following my previous missive. (Well, better than during play.) I want to take advantage of the opportunity to kill an extra 100 drones but would prefer not to lose all the fighters in the process.
I would suggest an offset approach by the fighters so that any drones that are programmed to target fighters will clearly diverge from flying towards the planet. During the chase segment, as drone waves pass by the fighters, the fighters might try dropping the chaff pods during the period when the phasers can not be fired and many opposing drones are within 8 hexes. If the Klingon commander can time the drones to start searching for fighters after the fighters dropped chaff, the Klingon commander deserves his win.
We also may want to send a GAS into space. This might give a chance for an extra effective phaser shot. The GAS could also prove a target for any drones targeted on shuttles instead of just the planet. Bad for the shuttle crew, but getting drones to divert makes the defense of the planet easier. (But this decision can be deferred for about 10 turns; time enough for other facts to become available.)
Richard,
You want GAS shuttles?
I got 6 of the little buggers.
Personally, I thought I'd put them all into space, or at least into the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
John: I would use all 6 GAS shuttles as phaser platforms if no attacking ground forces are expected. Think of all the alternate groovy things you can do with your squadron. You may have superior suggestions. (I am trying to get into the role of XO without being as much of an impediment as the real XOs I dealt with.)
I am considering a more dubious strategem to place a GAS about 3 hexes from the planet to give every drone looking for a shuttle a single valid target. Why GAS? Well, the admins will be turned into shatterpacks and the tactic does not work unless the defenses can be sure about which drones no longer target the planet. With the atmosphere delays, the shatterpack might not get far enough away from the planet before releasing drones.
It appeals to my sense of defeating an enemy that was too clever by half. But it does require sacrificing a shuttle and possibly the crew as well. Saving the crew by sending it out as a psuedo seeking shuttle cuts down on the phaser shots if the Klingons are not planning on shuttle hunting. Would be handy if the shuttles were AGAS, the chaff pod might improve survival.
Richard, so long as the GAS (or AGAS) is within range of one of hte Def Sats (with the nifty transporter repeater) we will be able to save the GAS crew, if needed.
I will have to review the rules on type IIIXX targeting.
for example, what happens if a IIIXX accepts the GAS as a target... (say at range 8 hexes) and the GAS "ducks behind the planet" (say in a fast orbit...of 1 hex skimming the atmosphere) and the type IIIXX loses line of sight to the GAS (because the planet got in the way)... does the IIIXX accept the planet as the target...or does the drone go innert due to losing its target?
It accepts the planet, Jeff.
Too bad planets can't have wild weasles, eh?
I would like to mention that drones should be able to be targeted at the defsats if the defsat fires... (Well, I'd guess)
General comment:
OOC
We very badly (IMO) need some tac Intel about this drone strike.
We know that 1/6 th of it is going to hit each planet side.
I would be curious to know if it is a "stream" of drones (say 60 counters long) that would impact over the course of 2 32 impulse game turns... or if it is 1 mega drone stack 60 counters "high"... or even (this would be more difficult to handle, but potentially 'do able') 10 ranks of 6 drones each in "line ahead" formation (abreast of each other) say each rank 2 hexes apart...it would minimize loses to T bombs, since the Klingons may not know we don't have any its is certainly possible that the would plan to minimize their exposure to potential TB's.
Once the ranks of 6 IIIXX drones get with in ATG range of the planet... they then begin to have converging courses assuming the planet is the only target they detect or if they are programed to only accept the planet as target.
Thus instead of 6 Groups of drones... we could be in an ever shrinking concentric circle of drones with Cassandra IV in the bulls eye... and if that is what SPP has in mind for us... we could conceivably kill all of the drones in the forst and scond ranks... with the shatter packs taking a third... but we would be out of effective shots...while waiting for the various phasers to recharge...and it could all be over in the midst of a single 32 impulse turn...and no need to worry about dastardly turn break tricks.
It would make a difference in how the defense should be conducted.
John Trauger:
Uh . . . you do not have six GAS shuttles. You have three GAS shuttles, each with a two man crew (pilot who flies the thing and gunner who operates the phaser and the shuttles ground assault systems).
Richard Wells:
The warning came in good time to allow Colonel Knight to order any preparations he wishes short of things that are absolutely illegal. He cannot, for example, order Captain Tenhoff to break T-bombs out of the supply stocks for ships and modify an Admin shuttle to lay them. He cannot order Captain Tenhoff the break that shipment of F-18C fighters that are in storage to be used as replacements for a CVS that might need them out of their crates and made operational.
He can order that the Admin shuttles be moved to the fighter bases, loaded with type-I or type-VI drones and launched as ballistic scatter packs, and he CAN define that when the Klingon drones break the 100 hex barrier (chosen only because the phaser-4s can fire at that range or less) that the scatter/shatter packs be "X" number of hexes from the planet, AND STILL MOVING even if they are moving at speed 1. [You cannot order a scatter pack to move "X" number of hexes and then stop. If they launch from inside the atmosphere, they would crash immediately after launch, but you CAN launch them at speed "1" so that they move slowly enough to reach a particular "starup" hex. And they will stop after they release their submunitions. And if they are not subsequently destroyed, you can recover them either by transporting a crew aboard (if they are within range of a transporter or a DefSat with line of sight to a transporter on the ground and the shuttle), or by sending a GAS shuttle with a spare pilot to dock to the shuttle and transfer the pilot, or to tow the shuttle back into range to transport a pilot aboard.]
But basically Loren is free to do whatever he wants in terms of setting up the fight. He defines what it is he wants, and the rest of you "roleplay" your actions in response to his set up. Take off in a fighter and stay in the atmosphere to wait for the drones, or go out and intercept them at the 300 hex range mark or what have you in the case of the fighters. Use the GAS shuttles to move people around (doctors, patients from the civilian hospital, bring in civilians from outlying farms because there are just too many to move them all through the limited transporter net. Move squads of boarding parties or even "militia" fromed from crew units to help shepherd panicky civilians to designated shelters. Have the GAS shuttles do that and then at some point take up the role of phaser platform out of atmosphere (a risk as has been noted if some of the drones are looking for shuttles), which might have them right out side the atmosphere or some number of hexes away hoping for more than one shot with their phasers.
Captain Grafton might be getting updates from his various security detachments at the ground bases that they are locking things down in case a "Dagger Team" tries to sabotage the bases.
Captain Stovell, when he reaches the command post, might be getting updates from his firing posts on their status.
Lt's Frazier, Conn, and Lampert might be runnign systems check. Maybe one of them has been having problems with the energy feed to one of his phaser-3s. Maybe someone is missing (has not reported to his duty post) in one of the bases. "Where is Gunner's mate Sims?" And run with it as vignette.
Captain Kass may be riding roughshod over Sgt "uknown" because he does not think he is getting Getgen's GWS base running full sweeps fast enough (Getgen has not yet been relieved as SDO that I know of to go to his own base). Lt Kasper might be trying to get his shuttle warmed up (maybe it was undergoing routine maintenance when this started) in case it is needed (he might be thinking moving civilians if the order has not come down to send it to a fighter base to be prepared as a scatter/shatter pack).
And so it goes.
I mean, if you have the SSDs for your ground base, you should be able to make up your own plot lines.
Just imagine the chaos Knipfer and Fant are going through as they marshal the deck crews to get the fighters fueled and armed for the mission!
Jeff Wile:
Hunh? What makes you think you know 1/6th is going to hit each hex side? They are coming in from all six directions, but to my knowledge no one has yet asked for information specifically regarding whether the number of drones in each approaching group is the same. It takes 50 drones to Devastate a hex side. Assuming 350 drones, there is no reason that five of the hex sides could not be targeted by 55 drones and the last one by 75 drones.
Worst case scenario, the bombardment was conducted by three Tug-As with drone bombardment pods. That would be capable of putting 1,305 type-IIIXX drones out, although it would take them a smidge over 72 turns to do it.
Next would be three transport tugs wtih drone bombardment pods. This would be capable of putting out 1,251 drones but would take a smidge more than 83 turns to do it.
Next case would be three D5Hs (or D5Gs) with one drone bombardment pod each. This would be capable of putting out 726 drones, but would take them 121 turns to do it (which, as you can see, makes them unlikely to use for this mission).
Next case would be three D5Ds (this would assume that the other two cruisers are probably a D5S and a D5P due to the special sensors) which would put out as many as 516 drones over 57 turns. The data for the DWD is identical, except of course that a group of three of them would not need other units carrying scout channels.
Next case would be three D6Ds which would put out 462 drones over a little more than 51 turns.
At that point, you get into combinations of the above that would give you different numbers of drones. I mean, if you launched for 50 turns, one D5H (or D5G) with a drone pod would give you about 100 drones (the rest of its capacity would have to be used for something else, but it is doubtful that continuing the bombard a target with two drones a turn is going to have much effect) to the bombardment. If combined with a D5D or D6D over that 50 turns, each of those could kick out 150 drones. A Tug-B with two drone bombardment pods could kick out 250 drones in 50 turns, while a tug-A could kick out 300. Of course a Tug-B with just one drone bombardment pod could kick out 150 drones in 50 turns, and a Tug-A with one drone bombardment pod could kick out 200 drones in 50 turns.
The only other Klingon drone bombardment units are the conjectural (and therefore not considered) DDP, and the D5DX (I just do not want to consider X-drones in the bombardment mission at this time).
SPP
OOC
Oh my ache'n head...
some body toss me the Advil, hunn?!?
Valid point.
Ok,
"Computer- please report on the drone bombard ment wave that Star Fleet advised us (the 419th PDU) has been targeted at the 429th PDU and Cassandra IV (Calendonia).
note specifically unit counts, speeds (especially if one group is moving at a different speed than the others) and note the number of way points the drones have already completed (if any).
Second request, computer, compare prior drones strikes made on other PDU's in the last 12 months. does the current pattern of the drone launch match with any prior strikes? please report specifics if there are any matches.
third request, in the last 12 months, has there been drone strikes launched by similar cruiser groups as reported in the current alert by star fleet? What were the ships names and tactical designations reported by Naval Intelligence in prior encounters?
4th Request, please review the after action reports of all PDU's that have been targeted by such a drone bombardment as the 429th is currently experiencing, over the last 24 months, and list the 3 most common deficencies reported, and also the 3 most common recommendations in dealing with a drone strikes.
thank you.
Even if all groups are the same size we don't KNOW that every drone will target the closest hexside until they don't sideslip out to hit their last waypoint about two hexes out.
Major Wile:
By the way, while you as a character might wish to hammer Captain Kass and his mean in the SPACE WARNING AND ELECTRONIC SUPPORT COMPANY for the flyby because they did not provide enough warning or data for Captain Stovell's FIRING BATTERY to knock down the PF, you should be aware that you are, as a person (out of character for a moment here) acting on "assumptions".
If you go back to the incident, I think you will find that I had the PF commander indicate that it was not the first time he had ever done the mission. He was a veteran of previous such flybys.
Further, the other battalion that succeeded in knocking one down might have done so out of either sheer blind luck, or because the PF crew "made a mistake" and were perhaps not aware that they had been spotted.
The success in one being knocked down could have been (and in all likelihood was) simple random chance combined with good training to take advantage of it.
For example, what if when that PF made its run, there was a patrol outbound (which you will note was part of the reason my PF pilot chose to make his run), but there were two other pilots taking off to do a recon mission, and when the PF came around the planet he found himself faced with four drones from those two fighters (two type-VI and two type-Is launched from within the atmosphere). Having emptied his phasers to down a drone launched by a DefSat, he wound up eating these drones, and the resulting damage to the engines from the booster packs did the rest.
Another example, one of the Ground Based Defense Phaser-4s had a problem. It had been repaired, but a full "warshot" was needed to proof the repair. The base's capacitor was warmed when the PF appeared around the horizon, and a point blank shot (less than three hexes range) rippled through the PF's shield and . . .
So it goes.
What year are we talking about and also what is the weapon status of the planet.
It makes a difference as to the number of hexes travelled. With fast drones the III-XX drones could travel 3200 hexes, with slow drones you would be launching at a range of 1200 hexes.
This said - Tac Intell level S5 would report the attack coming at a range of 300 hexes. So the planet would only have 9.4 turns for fast drones and 25 turns for slow drones (speed 12). If I read the strategic levels paragraphs correctly - the planet will not know that the drones have been launched until level S5 when all "units" would be known.
Now if the launch platforms are going to spiral in from the maximim launch range there would be a possiblity to hit all 6 sides of the planet with the drones waves.
Back to the issue of timing - with fast drones and only 9.4 turns to do something. The first turn is used for the first energy allocation and warming up, assuming WS-0. The second turn would be to launch the fighters and they move on Impulse #32. Turn 3 the fighters climb to the atomosphic flight level. Turn 4 the fighters can exit the atmosphere and begin attacking the drones. This leaves the fighters with at best 5 turns to deal with the drones before some of them could start hitting the planet.
This does lead to another question I posed a long time ago - what are the actual ranges for the other strategic levels. This is especially important for "fog of war" campaigns.