While developing my tactics for the Battle Force article in Captain's Log #34, it became apparent to me that defenders were ill equipped to fight a force with EW assets. Had I been the defender, I would have considered replacing some of the ground phaser bases with Small Ground Warning Bases (R1.28H). The problem with this approach is that a GWS can only support a single phaser base. This would reqire that half the bases would need to be GWSs.

I propose that the following capability be added to the GWS:

(R1.28H) ... If a GWS is part of a power grid (R1.28P), it may loan EW to all the bases within its grid. This function is performed in the same manner as a PF scout lends EW to its entire flotilla (K1.751).

I would limit this to just the GWS, and not the other small/medium ground bases with special sensors such as the PF base. (This rule would open up the possibility of a "Medium Ground Warning Station (GWM)", which would have two special sensors and some additional power.)

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 11:18 pm: Edit

John W,

Cool idea. This MGWS would work well with the civilain planetary Ops base in CL# 33. It makes a nice addition to a planet between a mining outpost and a fully developed and heavily defend major planet.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 08:06 am: Edit

John. Ground bases are tough enough to beat without giving them another advantage

GWS are still useful for OEW against the biggest opposing ship.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 08:54 am: Edit

I'm not sure if getting the ability if there is a power grid will help the BPV aspect of the situation. That is your GWS helps whether you've got 1 PH-4 on the surface or 6.

I'ld commend a new kind of DefSat able to relay the GWS's EW to the ground bases, thus the more ground bases you're loaning to: the more BPV you have to spend on relay DefSats.
Plus with Defsats any special sensor equiped base on the surface could loan without a BPV:CAPABILITY blow-out.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 10:50 am: Edit

John Wyszynski:

As Andy Palmer noted, the GWS is quite adept at lending Offensive electronic warfare to a single ship. More developed planets would have more special sensors and would be able to apply that advantage against more enemy targets. I just do not think there needs to be any more added EW capability.

If there is an atmosphere, the small ground bases already have an ECM edge (atmosphere gives a free point of ECM), and all phaser fire is shifted by one as it is (just a natural effect of atmosphere on phasers).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 11:56 am: Edit

Note:

The above reply is not ment to end discussion. It only notes that there is a lot more to the EW equation than simply whether or not ground bases need a boost in that department.

Take the phaser-4s in the last Battle Group article.

Each needs five points of power to fire every weapon and have shields. This leaves them with three points of power. As they have two built in points of ECCM, they will have five points of ECCM easily.

Now, if the target is not going to reach range five, then they do not absolutely have to have shields. And if the target is not going to be at at least 15 hexes range, then they do not have to fire the phaser-3s. So having six ECCM is not much of a problem.

Now the target might have six ECM, and might be using erratic maneuvers to force a shift of two, but if the target is not at range five, it does not matter. (Unless the goal is just general devastation of the planet rather than trying to hit the ground bases.)

If there is a GWS, and the target is within 15 hexes, the target can be lent six (offensive) ECM. If the target is lent six ECM, the ground bases are guaranteed a one shift (a two-shift versus phaser fire) even if they do not put any power into ECM themselves (this does assume an atmosphere). If the bases put up ECM with just one point of power they can guarantee a two shift (three shift versus phasers) in this situation (Two built-in ECM, plus one ECM from the atmosphere, plus one ECM generated, plus the six Offensive ECM lent to the target ship). And the bases can put up one point of ECCM and hold their own shift versus the target to a single point (one point of powered ECCM plus two points of built-in ECCM versus the target generating six points of ECM). Unless the target chooses to do erratic maneuvers.

Now, obviously if there is a scout supporting the target, things get a little more dicey, but the scout itself has to be within 20 hexes of the planet (has to be within 15 hexes of the ship it is lending EW to, and the ship has to be within five hexes of the planet to fire at the ground bases).

If the ship tried to use an ECM drone or a Drogue for EW support, it still has to be within five hexes of the planet and you can guess how long a drogue or ECM drone is going to last under those conditions. An MRS shuttle could lend support at ten hexes range, and again how long will it last.

So I do not see this as a necessary addition at this juncture, but I am willing to listen to the discussion.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Yes, but as the last BG article pointed out, if you swarm the bases with drone-armed remote-controlled fighters, most of the bases advantages are nullified.

I think that there should be a new function for SS to break the remote-control links from CVs. After all, you know that all the races would start madly researching something like this, especially the non-seeking weapon races and there is already the precedence of breaking drone lock-ons. It wouldn't actually kill fighters, but force them to assume uncontrolled status (return to the CV) and help the defenses of the fleet/bases.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Instead of all of this "hoopla" to tie a power station+GB guns together, it would just be simpler to create larger, medium, Ground Base with both Special Sensors and Heavy Weapons. Akin to the Planetary Control Bases, but without fighters and more guns.

Imagine:
Shields: 20
2 P-4
1 Special Sensor
4 P-3s
4 Shuttles
1-2 Hvy Weapons (2 Disruptors/1 photon)
miscellaneous other systems

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:43 pm: Edit

Michael Lui:

Uh . . . and adding to the EW capabilities of the bases fixes that problem exactly how? Remember the swarm tactic works virtually anywhere you can get a big enough swarm to swamp the defense. If you have ten phaser-Gs, you can guarantee that you will kill 20 type-IV drones, but if I launch 21 type-IV drones, the 21st one will get through. All the fighter swarm was is that fact coming forward again. Do we really need to play "adjust the point the swarm attack becomes viable six points in direction A away from media" so that someone else can come in later and complain that the adjustment was too great and needs to be shifted back six points in direction B?

As to Special Sensors breaking Remote Control Fighter Links . . ., if you would research the rules for Remote Controlled fighters you would see that they already do:

"(J15.223) Control over a fighter can be disrupted by special sensors using the "breaking lock-ons" procedure (G24.22). If control is disrupted, the disruption lasts for eight impulses, during which the fighter is uncontrolled (J15.32)."

Michael Lui: I mean no insult by this, I just want to point out that when you post an idea, the LEAST (emphasis, not shouting) you should do is research the rules to see if maybe the idea you are trying to post ALREADY EXISTS (emphasis, not shouting). That avoids wasting everyone's time and effort on discussing a "new idea" that is not new.

Scott Tenhoff: Sorry, but no.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Scottt

Nope, then you couldn't fire the big weapons and use the SS at the same time.


Edit:
SPP

Oops, sorry. I guess I probably should keep my rulebooks next to the computer.

I do wonder why the disruption was only for 8 impulses though. Why not make it return to the CV to be reset?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Michael Lui:

You are only human, and bear in mind I put emphasis on it because you are not the only person who has ever said "X" without looking it up. It happens, and if I was perfect I would not be asking other people to check my own work.

As to blinding special sensors, Bases are exempt from blinding their special sensors (G24.135).

As to your question about only a quarter turn of disruption, the fighter has a much larger computer than a mere drone and is able to reacquire the disrupted signal. That is why the delay is only eight impulses.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 06:23 pm: Edit

OMG, I'm HUMAN!! Actually, I knew that rule but I didn't know if it applied to ground bases or just space based ones. I guess it really doesn't specify so it would apply to all. But as far as bigger bases go, I'd rather have the functions split among several smaller ones than combined into a bigger one. After all, the more targets available, the more of a chance that there will be wasted damage.

The computer on the fighter is bigger but there is also two-thirds less of a signal since 1 channel is controlling 3 fighters. I was just wondering why the play-balance suggested that it would only be 8 impulses. After all, we can always put any techno-babble reason we want on the explanation (No insult intended on this).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Michael Lui:

None taken (insult that is), but consider it an outgrowth of the UAVs of today. If (despite the growth of UAV tech) drones are still dumb enough to be fooled (due to their much smaller electronic brain), the remotely controlled fighter has a much, much, much larger one (consider that the entire cockpit is filled with additional computing power formerly taken up by a humanoid . . . well we have to make an exception for the Hydrans and Tholians, but you get the point . . . pilot). It is far easier for it to scan space for the signal and crunch numbers with all the computing power to say "yea, that is my signal", i.e., it can sort through the jamming and do it quickly. The drone cannot and needs a stronger signal to start with. There is, afterall, a reason why you cannot plug in remote control during a scenario, it takes time to get all that computer power into the cockpit, and it is a lot more finicky than that anti-matter bomb you are loading into the admin shuttle to make it a suicide shuttle.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 07:42 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I was just wondering why the play-balance suggested that it would only be 8 impulses.

---

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Michael Lui:

I do not know at this juncture. Module J2 was published a couple of years ago now (2002), and I may have actually gotten a good night's sleep at least once in the intervening time period (we will not count the brain cells I have killed driving too and from Origins). For now, it is the rule, and there is no real reason to change it, i.e., it works.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff, don't worry. They say no now, but it'll be yes later.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Yes, all you have to do is keep SPP and SVC from sleeping well for a few years and then propose the base you want.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 09:59 pm: Edit

As part of my tactics for assault a planet with four Phaser-4 ground bases per side, I chose to use scouts. I found that I could park a scout at 18 hexes from the planet and be very safe. I did this by generating six points of ECM and four points from self-protection using one of special sensors. The best ECCM level that each of the bases could generate is six points. This means the scout would still have four points of ECM, or a +2 shift. This means that the average damage from each base drop from 1.66 points to 0.5 points; for twelve bases it drops from 20 to 6 points. Unless the bases roll a bunch of ones, the scout can count on being able to reinforce its shields against this damage.

Taking the side of the defender, I was looking for a way to overcome this tactic by changing the mix of ground bases. I looked at swapping a GWS for a phaser-4 base. This would allow one of the phaser-4s per side to overcome the shift. This would raise the average damage from the bases up to 8 points per turn. This isn't enough of a change to overcome the shield reinforcements.

While this might appear to be a good deal, now considered the effect it has at five hexes. Suppose the scouts are protecting ships so that they have ten points of ECM at as they reach five hexes. The twelve phaser-4 bases inflict an average of 126 points of damage; nine phaser-4 bases and three GWS, the avaerage damage drops to 113 points (including the phaser-3s).

So while this switch helps some at longer ranges, it is not helpful at closer ranges. Considering the GWS has a BPV of 22, while the phaser-4 base costs 14 BPV. For the extra 8 points, there should actually be some advantage. Under the current rules, the GWS is just a bad deal.

The proposal is intended to actually make using a GWS would actually improve the ability of a planetary defense force. So from the ECCM point of view, the proposal would make using a GWS worthwhile.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 11:03 pm: Edit

John Wyszynski;

As I see it, the purpose of the GWS is indicated by its name - it's a Warning Station. Yes, it can use that Special Sensor for EW functions once combat actually begins. but the real reason the base exists is to make sure that the planet isn't caught by surprise by approaching enemies. So it may be a bad deal in a scenario with a defined starting weapon status, but a good deal in a scenario (or campaign) in which the planet has to roll for weapon status.