Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through June 11, 2002	25		06/11 04:21pm
	Archive through January 29, 2003	25		01/29 03:31pm
	Archive through May 15, 2006	25		05/15 03:31pm
	Archive through March 07, 2008	25		03/07 03:08pm
	Archive through July 05, 2013	25		07/05 07:44pm
	Archive through December 07, 2018	25		12/07 02:16pm

Mark Steven Hoyle,

I can't agree with your statement about no-one giving Dresden a second thought. There was considerable debate within Bomber Command, and one of the Staff Padres, John Collins was a key founder of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament after the war. Churchill also had second thoughts about Dresden (after the fact admittedly) but Bomber Harris convinced him to withdraw the memo he issued for something less opposed to the ways the Allies had been conducting air operations. We spent a bit of time discussing this in Staff College (I am a retired RAF officer); an unpleasant business (much like Hiroshima or Nagasaki) that at the time was felt it had to be done. Harris remains a controversial figure in the UK, and there was considerable opposition to both a memorial for him and the crews of Bomber Command.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Gentlemen.

Intelligence has learned that the enemy is planning to assault Kaldor V.

As you know, our defenses there are weak. The enemy is planning to use their 49th Marine Assault Brigade as the major ground force in this operation. The 49th MAB is currently still on garrison duty at Crislak II, where it was the primary ground component in seizing the colony, and it remains 33% under-strength at this time as a result of casualties.

The enemy is going to bring the 79th Brigade of their army forward to assume the garrison mission, and the convoy carrying that brigade will also bring forward a replacement battalion for the 49th MAB. Once this replacement is complete, the enemy will attack.

Intelligence has learned the timing of the movement of this troop convoy through communications intercepts, which also indicate that while the troop convoy will have escorts, they will be minor ships as the convoy is both behind their lines and they are unaware that we have intercepted these messages. If we wait until the replacement is completed, the convoy will be moving forward under the protection of the enemy's assault echelon of warships.

It has therefore been decided to act on the gathered intelligence and launch a deep strike to hit the convoy before it reaches the Crislak system.

Your operational goal is the destruction of the troop transports. This will:

Prevent the relief of the 49th MAB by eliminating the 79th Brigade.

Keep the 49th MAB from becoming offensively operational by eliminating the replacement battalion.

Tactically delay enemy offensive operations by depriving them of an assault ground component.

Strategically delay enemy offensive operations by eliminating these troop transports.

Provide us more time to fortify the Kaldor V against assault.

Commander Pold will brief you on the details of the operation. Good luck.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Tactical Advice: Getting within 50,000 kms of the convoy with a facing down shield may end in disaster.

The scenario probably needs a clock of either a turn limit or arriving enemy ships to force the raiders to attack aggressively.

You also need to determine scale. Is this a pair of troop ships (possibly with standard or armed freighters taking care of other supplies for Crislak)? Maybe throw in another ship carrying combat vehicles.

If you want to make it dangerous this is one scenario I could see the defender using a monitor as a convoy escort with the intent of using it to garrison Crislak while the troop transports hook up with new escorts. Maybe a small aux carrier in the escort carrying replacement fighters to the front? Add in a frigate and/or a police ship or two?

Attacker is maybe a light dreadnought in use as a raider with war cruisers and/or war destroyers in tow depending on escort strength.

Modified victory conditions with a bonus to the raider for every BP or variant and ground vehicle destroyed?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

Sorry I was unclear. I was not proposing a scenario, but noting a circumstance in which an attack on a convoy of troop transports could occur.

Under normal circumstances there would only rarely be a convoy composed solely of troopships. More likely a typical convoy would include one or more. A small (or Jumbo "assault") troop transport can typically carry roughly two battalions, while a large, Jumbo, or heavy troop transport might be carrying a large (four battalion) brigade.

Most Commando Cruisers only carry a battalion (roughly), while smaller Commando ships (frigates, war destroyers) might carry a weak (two company) battalion.

Tugs vary depending on the pod combination, but Light Tactical Transports (depending on empire) might manage one battalion, or two battalions.

You also get into the problem that troop ships might not have troops at all, i.e., might be going someplace to pick troops up rather than currently transporting troops. Or might be packed to the proverbial gunnels with personnel, but those personnel are "ship and/or base" personnel. That is to say a troop transport might not be transporting "ground combat troops." (Does not make it any less of a target in the convoy as, sadly, eliminating those trained personnel will have impact on enemy operations, war is as noted "horror").

Thing is also that in the background the troop transports could just be moving civilians for any number of reasons (evacuating the women and children from a colony for example, and before anyone scoffs, remember that at least one ship loaded with children being evacuated from England for the duration of the war was torpedoed with heavy loss of life). The troop transport might even, and all unbeknownst to the attacking player, be moving "prisoners of war" (as happened in the Pacific theater) when it is attacked (again, war is horror).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I have mentioned this before in other topics, but I will mention it here as an incident that gave me nightmares.

I had a copy of "Fifth Frontier War" by Game Designer's Workshop. I played it a lot with a friend of mine at Fort Benning. We eventually came to realize that as much as we liked the game generally, it had (at least at our relative skill levels) two fatal flaws: One side could not win, and the other side could not lose.

The first time we played the game we both thought that the attacker had to take a particular system in order to win the game, and failing that, could simply try for a draw. When we began what we both believed was the "decisive battle," I had worked out a trap. Eventually, as the battle raged, I found it necessary to order my troop transports into the battle line, where they were destroyed, but their crews had done their duty. My opponent shortly thereafter ordered his troop transports into the battle, where they also were destroyed.

In the game scale, five divisions comprised a corps, and five corps comprised and army, and a troopship (each troop ship counter was actually a "squadron" of troopships) could carry an army plus one corps i.e., six corps, comprising 30 divisions.

When I ordered my troops ships into the line, none were carrying troops, and I accepted the loss of their crews as necessary to "win the war."

My opponent's troops ships were almost all fully loaded with ground troops who were simply slaughtered aboard the ships as they were destroyed.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 03:46 pm: Edit

If I may, in the scenario that originated this thought line, "Supply Fleet," all of the convoy escort forces in the chart detailing suggested forces made use of at least a Mobile (or Light) Carrier.

At this point, however, I think we may have moved quite a ways from that starting point...

Imagine this; in current U.S. Navy CVBGs, they have a small (I think three ship) Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) with its on board battalion (the Marine Expeditionary Unit, Special Operations Capable, or MEU(SOC)) attached.

As a possible eqivalent, I'm picturing a Commando Cruiser (or smaller ship) or a tug with troop transport pods leading a small group of auxiliary troop ships. I would also expect there to be (at least) a couple small, pre-war ships that had been replaced in front-line service with larger, more powerful units (ships like the Federation FF, which had been largely replaced with DWs, or Klingon E4s, which had similarly largely been phased out of service with the DSF).

Would there also be an auxiliary carrier to provide quite the number of GASes (or, potentially more likely, GBSes or tank carrying HASes)? I think so.

This group, were it to actually go in with the group assigned to eliminate space dfenses for the targeted planet, would tax the command rating of the flagship WITHOUT being able to contribute much to that phase of the operation.

For that reason, I would imagine any major operational planner would keep them well "Off Map."

Still, it has a light contingent of semi-obsolete escorts nearby, "Just in case..."

I'd imagine the plan would been to have them move in AFTER the orbital battle was completed. Who knows; maybe the enemy ground forces general, once being reached via subspace communications and informed on just how impossible his situation was going to be might be reasonable and not sacrafice his command, just to delay us.

What the REMFs in command of the theater hadn't figured on was a small raiding unit stumbling on to this lightly protected ARG/MAU, and now the light escorts have to work out the same miracle as did the DDs and DEs of Taffy 3.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 04:00 pm: Edit

Jeffrey George Anderson:

"Would there also be an auxiliary carrier to provide quite the number of GASes (or, potentially more likely, GBSes or tank carrying HASes)? I think so."

I fear you would be thinking in error; rule (S3.25) prohibits replacing fighters with shuttles.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 04:10 pm: Edit

There was a mention in one source that I cannot remember about mounting a troop transport pod and a carrier pod loaded with ground combat shuttles onto a single tug to provide both troops and lift which achieves a similar effect all on one ship.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

History provides that some "carrier pods" were in service earlier than fighters and were in fact used at that time to carry shuttles to assist in planetary assaults. Typically, these are the Klingons and Kzintis. Also, history records that "Hangar Bay Augmentation Modules" were used prior to the development of fighters to simply add shuttles to a base. But Auxiliary Carriers, and virtually all other carriers, have no such historical footnotes pre-dating the existence of fighters. So you cannot set a scenario in Y177 and say that the AuxCVL is carrying shuttles in place of some or all of its fighters (it could replace its normal admin shuttles with GAS or other shuttles as any other ship can, but not its dedicated fighter boxes). And a Klingon or Kzinti hangar pod converted to the carrier role after fighters are deployed is under the same restriction.

Note that even before fighters were developed some "survey ships" had rather large shuttle bays and could swap those admin shuttles for GAS shuttles to support a ground assault, but that is not swapping fighters for shuttles.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Hrmmm, perhaps a rule should be added allowing an AuxCVL to replace its fighters with GAS, GBS, and HAS shuttles, if paired with two F-TL equivalents of troop carriage ability. This should limit it to major landing operations, and reflect the limited availability of AuxCVLs.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 06:37 pm: Edit

I'm curious as to why the S3.25 prohibiton exists. Is it simply to prevent players from using carriers in an ahistorical manner? I could think of some reasons why you might legitimately want to replace fighters with shuttles on a carrier - such as an evacuation prompted by a natural disaster - fighters would be useless in that situation but additional shuttles could greatly speed the evacauation.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 06:40 pm: Edit

A. David Merritt:

I do not think so.

If you are going to attack a planet, the last thing you want is a relatively slow auxiliary.

In any case, the first step in trying to seize a planet is to drive off any defending ships.

The second step, which might be done in conjunction with the first step, but in either case should be accomplished is to silence any orbiting bases.

The third step, which again might be done in conjunction with the first step, or with the second step, is to silence any ground based weapons.

Within those steps, you are going to be bothered by defense satellites, which you cannot engage unless they engage, and if one does you should try to take it out if you can. They are the most annoying aspect, because they can suddenly be ordered to open fire on a shield you have lowered to land troops, and could just quietly keep orbiting waiting for that moment.

But once you have accomplished the above steps, then it is time to use the assembled transporters of your assault force to land troops on one (1) hexside of the planet to concentrate maximum force to destroy the enemy ground forces. Shuttles are not really "transport," so much as "supporting armor." While if there are no remaining defenses left they can be used to land troops, and HTS/HAS shuttles might be used to land tanks, you can land troops faster by transporter, and place them in the "Remote Area" of the objective you are going to assault until you have the numbers to overwhelm the defenders. You do not generally have to attack all six hex sides of a planet at one time, so you should in the end have fewer casualties then the defending ground troops as a whole because much of their force will be "immobile" and out of the battle until you have won the fight in one area and can use your transporters to move your troops to the next area.

Klingon and Kzinti tugs use the "one troop pod and one shuttle pod" configuration simply because the tug's themselves have only two shuttles, compared to even a small troop transport that has a shuttle, two GAS shuttles, and two HTS shuttles.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Friday, December 07, 2018 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Seems inefficient to me to haul along another hull. In addition to deploy the ground troops you would have to beam them or shuttle them over in any case. I think your best bet if you are using auxiliaries instead of a commando ship is to replace a couple of admin shuttles on your escorts with GAS shuttles rather then bring along another slow hull.

You also have a logistical problem. You have to pull an auxiliary carrier off its normal duties to have it tag along, off-load its fighters somewhere, ship forward a bunch of ground assault shuttles with their pilots from somewhere, launch the attack, and then bring the ship back to normal use. Seems a big cost for minimal gain.

I would also add that most combat landings with an auxiliary troopship will probably not be "hot" and you probably already have space supremacy (or you would probably use a real commando ship) and there is probably not as big a rush to get shuttles loaded with troops down en masse.

Edit: Oops, that will teach me to refresh before posting.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Saturday, December 08, 2018 - 01:22 am: Edit

So, after pounding my head on my keyboard, I refresh some aspects...

(Like most of them?)

Seriously, SPP, I didn't know that rule at all. DEFINITELY a "Mine bad" for that one.

So, then, instead of GASes and HASes on a heavy fighter auxiliary carrier, the ARG would have a small auxiliary carrier operating standard fighters as a part of their force.

Most likely, the fighters on board would NOT be top-of-the line models (HAAS instead of TADS, Federation F-18s would have no bloody A, B, C, or D) and be tasked with escorting the GASes from real troop ships (should any enemy fighters appear), dropping cluster bombs, and/or using rail mounted ground attack pods to support the Leathernecks.

At least, that would have been the plan from the REMFs.

When Mister Bad Guys show up, they'd be thrown into the defense of the ARG just like the less-than-top-of-the-line Wildcats on Taffy 3 were at Leyte.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, December 08, 2018 - 05:40 pm: Edit

There is/was a shuttle convoy rule somewhere (not under the J or P sections) - still leaves CLs and SSJs to search …

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, December 08, 2018 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Stewart; D15.52 for shuttle convoys.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, December 08, 2018 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Ah, right, marine rules … forgot that

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Sunday, December 09, 2018 - 12:17 am: Edit

Stewart, my friend, with the game we share being SO expansive, it is VERY easy to forget small details...

(Goodness knows I do...)

(...WAY too often...)

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 12:48 am: Edit

Okay, it's been two years since I made an absolute fool of myself in this conversation thread; perhaps it's time to try again.

I had the weirdest thought regarding a scenario; the head of the police for a major sector has discovered that the pirates have taken over a colony world and turned it into one of their "Hidden Fortresses."

The Sector Police Commandant decides to use his own forces, rather than call in "Big Fleet" to deal with the problem; this can be because s/he feels it's too time sensitive to push through the interservice bureaucracy or because s/he believes there is a mole in "Big Fleet." Regardless, s/he has put together a fleet of police ships to assault the planet.

As I'm picturing it, this scenario can be a showcase for the FLG; the planet has a small minefield (plus GBDWeapon stations), the main pirate base will have ground troops, an orbital observation/scan needs to be done to determine WHICH is the right base, and so on and so on. These are all things right up the alley of the FLG.

It can also serve as a low BPV for such a major action type of scenario, and one that can shine a glory spotlight on ships that seldom see it.

Any thoughts?

(I mean, any thoughts besides the obvious one that I need to have my head examined... )

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 10:03 am: Edit

Taken over...
Or occupied, like a Resistance Group...

Throughout SF history there have been colonies that
allowed Pirates, Resistant groups (other areas), smugglers sanctuary etc... That didn't interfere with the colony etc operations...

Bit of background to consider on whether the Police should intervene at all....IMO

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Good point, Mark.

Much as I'd LOOOOOVVE to go on a rant about resistance groups occupying centers of law or government, I know I'd be fed to a couple very annoyed alligators for doing so.

It does bring up the question of "What is the Greater Good?" How much harm is being done to the planet in question by the pirates? Is there actually a BENEFIT for the planet for the pirates operating there? If there is a benefit, to what cost to other worlds is there for this one world to have these benefits.

Good meat for fiction writers, but really outside the framework for creating a scenario, IMO.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Sunday, December 06, 2020 - 07:25 pm: Edit

The obvious reason not to call in the fleet is that it's a police matter. You don't call in the army to deal with the Mob, no matter if it controls the city government. The police chief is probably rather embarrassed that things have got this far and he knows he'd better deal with it himself or face the consequences.

And of course, evidence needs to be gathered, either by board-and-capture, H&R or old fashioned Lab work.

By Michael Bennett (Mike) on Wednesday, December 09, 2020 - 01:16 pm: Edit

The National Guard has been known to be called in to respond to mob violence. Why not a nearby Planetary Guard force?

But this situation just seems to me to be a matter of Big Fleet involvement. How could it not be? Pirates taking over an entire planet and making it into a fortress installation? The Big Fleet government couldn't ignore that.

Those pirates would have to know they couldn't get away with something like that in the long run. My understanding is the pirate cartels have a status quo relationship with the Big Fleets and insurers of freight traffic. A major loss of manpower and resources in an operation like this would set them back so much that a Big Fleet government might have second thoughts about letting them hang around. It would be too good an opportunity to be rid of an ongoing thorn in the side.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Wednesday, December 09, 2020 - 03:58 pm: Edit

I imagined a situation where one of the Cartels had a front man as the leader of a third world... World. His/her "Personal Guards" were the thugs keeping the locals in line. While such a thing would never fly in the Klingon Empire (I seriously doubt the ESS would tolerate that for a second), in the Federation, the figurehead would complain bitterly over the "Interference in our planetary sovereignty" any time a claim was made about what was really going on.

I also guessed that the Cartels would most likely expect this to be, at best, a non-permanent situation and would have plans to pull out (and abandon their patsy to his fate) if they got word that the cops were on to them.

HOWEVER, all of it was really more of an excuse to have a fleet action of small ships; something that I don't think has yet been done as a scenario. Is it realistic? Probably not. Would it be fun?

Don't know, but if it is, then this is, in my opinion, a worthwhile exercise.