Proposed: A Ground Base Mine Magazine to be added to Planetary Defense Units(bomber bases). By Jeff Wile, Kansas.

During the Orbital Defense Platform discussion (and ensuing conversations) it was pointed out that PDU's did not have Transporter Bombs or small mines to use in tactical situations.

It should also be pointed out that certain non ship units have the ability to carry and deploy mines (either 2 transporter bombs or a single NSM) such as the Fed B52 Bomber (see rule R2.F15 in Module J2) which limits the max that a bomber base may have to six spaces of mines. (each TB is 2 spaces of mines, while a NSM uses 4 spaces).
and, such mines must be "paid for" separately as part of the force.

At 6 spaces per bomber base, the entire alotment could be carried by 1 1/2 bombers... which is far less than the organic capacity of the bombers.

Pro's- increases the offensive combat power of bombers ability to inflict damage upon enemy units. the mines could be used to establish a temporary mine field... or even a temporary terrain defense redoubt behind which the bombers could fight if caught away from the home base/planet PDU.

materially improves the defenses of the PDU if the mines could be effectively deployed in the face of an enemy attack.

Could also use mines tactically if deployed agains convoys or other civilian ships/units. (the mines could be used to "herd" the freighters into killing zones).

Cons- Expense, mines cost points and if not used effectively, could result in an uneven battle where the bomber using race is unable to exploit a tactical advantage using its mine capacity.

Fratricide. Kill the bomber, you kill the mines it carries (along with any drones or other weapons).

The actual construction of the Magazine would vary with the number of bombers assigned to the PDU.

If there is 1 squadron of bombers (6 units) with a 6 space capacity for mines, the magazine would add enough Transporter bombs to allow the full squadron 1 "load of mines". (that is to say 2 TB's per bomber, 6 bombers or a max total of 12 TB's.

Therefore, the small magazine would have room to store 18 spaces of TB's, or a total of 9 TB's.

The small mine magazine ground base would have 1 cargo box, Added to the Bomber base to represent thet additional capacity of Mine Storage.

It would add 1 cargo box to the bomber base, no additional crew, power weapons or systems beyond the cargo box.

The added cost of TB's (9 of them) plus 1 BPV point (for the additional SSD box) is the price for upgrading the bomber bay to reflect the increased magazine capacity.

Prohibitions:
1. ONLY the most important Planets or PDU's would receive this feature. as an absolute rule, such magazines almost never appear on nonstrategic low population colony worlds.
2. an exception to prohibition #1, only bomber bases at or in the combat zone where encounters with enemy bombers can be expected would receive added mines for use in bomber vs bomber combat. (and then only when such encounters are expected to reoccur). if the threat disapears or the enemy retreats out of range, the magazine would be removed for normal operations.
3. Major worlds within range of enemy attacks or clearly understood to be at risk of such attacks would be so reinforced, the risk of using such weapons being judged acceptable in the context of possible enemy actions.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:36 pm: Edit

The above assumes that a normal cargo box capacity is 50 points, and small mines capacity at 2 points each (for Transporter bombs), is well within the ability of the cargo box to store such items. (information taken from Annex #7K, G1 page 32.)

I dont have G2 yet, but am assuming the information had not changed.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 11:24 am: Edit

Jeff Wile:

First question: How often have you taken out a bomber squadron where you desperately wanted to have even a single T-bomb, much less a full load? How often have you even felt this need when you were operating a squadron of F-111s prior to bombers showing up?

If you had a special scenario where a squadron of bombers was fully loaded with mines to drop them in an enemy shipping lane for purposes of harrassment you could assume that the mines were made available for the mission, it does not requier any special ground base.

Major Comment: NEVER, let me say that again, NEVER write a proposal implying that something is "for everyone" when only two races can use it. It tends to prejudice some people against the proposal from the start. While you, yourself, noted that the "Federation B-52" has the ability to carry mines, you then went on to express your idea as if all bomber bases could use this idea. In fact, only the Federation and Gorns would be able to use your idea as only the Federation designed bombers with internal bays (B-1, B-2, B-52, FB-111, F-111) able to carry mines, and only the Gorns were allowed to build copies of most of those bombers (G-2, G-52, and GB-111). No other race has bombers that can carry mines, and thus could not use your proposal. Indeed, the use by the Gorns would be pretty limited as most of their bombers are going to be the ones they built for themselves (BMR-A, BMR-B, BMR-C, and HBM) rather than the copies of Federation bombers.

No one else can use it in the proposed "this is something for bombers" mode.

As I do not see a real need for the Federation to have this (as I just do not see bombers generally carrying full loads of T-bombs or NSMs or a mix of the two in normal missions) I do not see this. Trying to lure enemy bombers into running over mines is an inefficient use of the space. Carrying more offensive weapons, i.e., drone spaces, to hurl at the enemy bombers makes more sense to me if I am going on a counter bomber strike mission.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 01:11 pm: Edit

A clarification:

I do NOT think that Jeff Wile was trying to sneak something by, I just think he forgot in actually assembling his proposal that only Federation designed bombers had internal bays and could carry mines, which is why he used the more general "bomber bases" as opposed to the more specific "bases used by Federation bombers (and those Gorn bases using Federation bombers) could use this . . ."

I do, however, think that Jeff's defined tactical need is irrelevant. The fact that any of the bombers COULD be carrying a mine does not mean that all of them HAVE to have a mine available to carry.

As noted, in general if there is some special mission where the bombers are arriving on the map with their bays full of mines it can be be assumed that the mines were provided for that mission. But tactically and operationally the carrying of a T-bomb or an NSM or three is just not going to be that common simply because of the difficulty in placing the mine in combat conditions without the bomber being destroyed and in a place where it will truly "do some good". In general, the bombers are going to carry ranged weapons.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 02:09 pm: Edit

It seems to me the way to approach this would be to have a separate "Small Ground Mine-Laying Base" that might look similar to the FGB-S but the 6 fighters would be replaced by 4 mine laying shuttles, one transporter, and an additional cargo box. The transporter could only lay T-bombs on its side of the planet unless the planet also had Defsats (transporter repeaters).

By completely severing the Ground Minelaying Base from bomber functions, you eliminate the "only Feds/Gorns can use this" problem. Of course, if the planet with a Ground Mine Laying Base also had a Fed/Gorn Bomber Base, the Mine Laying Base could serve as the source for any mines loaded on the bombers for longer range use. But any race that had mine laying shuttles could use this base as part of its planetary defenses.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 04:17 pm: Edit

That is an interesting solution to the problem Alen but there is an issue that goes further into the situation.

I think we are stuck on the idea that the only ground bases are small ground bases and they need a special ability to handle mines because4 they lack that ability and its very useful.

But here's the thing. If a planet needs that much protection in can have a ground BASE STATION. (A BS on the ground). That unit CAN have mines (as well as ground based BATTS and SB's).

It does beg the question though...

SPP, can the transporter repeaters on DefSats be used to transport T-Bombs by a Ground Base Station?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Sorry, but ground mining stations has been considered and rejected.

We are not going to add such stations to PDUs, nor are we going to designate Ground Military Garrisons as in essence the PF leader of their "flotilla" and let them have one (or more).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 10:32 pm: Edit

SPP:

Thank you for the consideration.

To all: thank your for the comments posted.

Mea Culpa: I apologise for inadvertantly missleading anyone, It was not my intent to "sneak something by"... It was (in a clumsy way) an attempt to spur discussion, not an attack or attempt to improve any one or two races verses the other races portrayed in the game.

Please close the thread, nothing further appears to need be said.

Thank you.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Nope, I've still a question pending for Petrick.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 11:24 pm: Edit

You could cross post it to another thread... and let this one die a merciful death.


that is, of course if you feel charitable?!?!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:33 am: Edit

Loren Knight:

No.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:23 am: Edit

So a Ground Base Station could only transport t-bombs over it's regular "special" firing arc. To get T-bombs on the other side you'd need MLS or some similar units (or naturally a ship).

Thanks SPP.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Loren:

To be clear, the problem is that the use of a Transporter Repeater is effectively a movement under (G8.113) [which is referenced in the Transporter Repeater rule (R1.15H1)]. Transporter Artillery is specifically excluded from this in the rules for Transporter Repeaters (R1.15H3)(allowing it to be dropped on any hexside of the planet), but the double jump function is otherwise prohibited for explosive ordnance (G25.3) as given by the last sentence of (G8.113).

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 06:32 pm: Edit

SPP,

Thanks for clearing this up I was confused by this situation also as (R1.15H1) and (G25.3) seemed to allow it. I didn't notice the last sentence of (G8.113).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Ya, and that makes sense too since the repeaters are probably very simplified devices that "aim" only down at the planet. Hence, you can transport anywhere ON the planet and TransArt just gets transported short of the ground.

I'm the sort of guy who needs both rules and technobabble explainations since I like to write fiction. Tech descriptions are also useful for RPG when possible to give.

Thanks.