By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 - 04:13 pm: Edit |
Klingon D6GP Ground Assault Tender
NOTES INSERTED BY STEVE COLE
Looking for a ship to support the new G1G ground assault gunboats, the Marine command staff looked to leverage the next ground assault ship being built. Originally planned as a D6G Ground Assault Cruiser, the IKV Skullcracker was chosen to be modified during construction. The new design was to rely on using gunboats to land its troops instead of shuttles or transporters. In order to accommodate both the ground troops and gunboats, some of the equipment standards were greatly reduced. In particular, the ship had only a single transporter and shuttle, and was short on weapons. It proved to be a worthy design, but never generated enough support to have a second ship built during the war. SVC DOES NOT THINK IT NEEDS TO GIVE UP THE TRANSPORTERS OR SHUTTLES.
The SSD for the D6GP is based on the D6DP in Module R9. Replace drone racks 1 to 4 with 4 cargo boxes. Replace the original cargo boxes and drone racks 5 and 6 with six barracks boxes. The boarding parties match the D6G, adding crew units to the total. It has the same special ground units and vehicles as the D6G, and the same supplies for the gunboats as the D6P except it does not have any drone storage.
The normal gunboat complement is six G1Gs, although one or two may be replaced with G1Cs to support the landing of heavy equipment. On several occasions when ground assaults were a low priority, it operated as a gunboat tender with a standard flotilla. SVC DOES NOT THINK THAT WOULD BE PRACTICAL BUT IT IS UP TO SPP. On those occasions, the boarding parties were reduced to 12, and the ground vehicles storage was used for drones instead.
By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 12:29 pm: Edit |
Interesting and a fairly natural evolution of the concept.
1) What kind of Transporter Artillery Rounds would it carry? SPP WILL DECIDE
2) Why would this be a Klingon thing more than a Lyran thing as "inventing race?"KLINGON NEED TO CRUSH REBELLIOUS COLONIES
3) Special Sensors? Pro or con? I can see LOTS of arguements that they aren't needed. OTOH most ships with full compliments of PFs have them. SVC VOTES NO
4) YIS? WHATEVER PETRICK THINKS
5) Why would you need all 6 PFs to be commando versions? Why not at least one or two cargo versions loaded with tanks and other goodness? Or 2 commando with the troops, 2 with tanks etc and 2 escorts to deal with any local moblile defenders? ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION SAID SOME WERE CARGO TYPES TO LAND VEHICLES.
By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 01:57 pm: Edit |
A D5G with the (R1.R1) mech-link refit and a PF pod could carry 5 ground assult PFs. 1 Special Sensor to keep it from becoming surprised. Big shuttle bay. 5 Transporters. I could see this being effective.
I COULD ALSO SEE THE KLINGONS DOING THAT
The limiting factor becomes only having 44 BP (including 10 from CO purchases). Those G1G PFs have 4 barracks each!
SPP POINTED OUT THAT THE BARRACKS BOXES DO NOT DEFINE HOW MANY BPs THEY CARRY. SPP CAN CALCULATE HOW MANY BPs THE SHIP HAS.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 03:31 pm: Edit |
If troop count is vital take the P-T3 (troop pod). You can still add the two G1Gs (you'd lack repair), but you will have seven shuttles (of which one is a HTS and four are GAS), seven transporters, and 74 BPs).
The G1G's can carry 10 BP, or 5 BPs and one GCV (with crew), or two GCVs (with crew). The four GAS carry 2 BPs each (4 for non-combat drop), and the HTS carries another 4 BPs (8 for non combat drop). So the nominal drop off would be 32 by shuttle plus seven by transporter = 39 plus what the two Admins can carry if you wish to commit them (I'd save them for special missions in space, personally.) The next turn your GAS can return to pick up more OR, participate in combat.
post is about adding the P-T3 to the D5G, BTW
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 05:32 pm: Edit |
Pointed out that D6s were in production through Y185 and plenty were available for conversion.
By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 06:54 pm: Edit |
Tos Crawford:
You need to read the rules for Commando PFs. There may be four "barracks boxes" on the G1G, but it cannot carry more than eleven boarding parties, one of which is the defensive boarding party which is always part of the PF crew. It cannot carry more than that, is specifically listed as not being able to pick up more than that.
So one G1G can carry eleven boarding parties at one time (or six boarding parties and a GCV, or one boarding party and two GCVs).
Two G1Gs can carry twenty-two boarding parties at one time (the lift of boarding parties and GCVs has too many combinations to list, but basically for every five boarding parties not carried on a given G1G one GCV can be carried, although each G1G will always have the ability to carry the defensive boarding party).
Three G1Gs can carry thirty-three boarding parties at one time (the lift of boarding parties and GCVs has too many combinations to list, but basically for every five boarding parties not carried on a given G1G one GCV can be carried, although each G1G will always have the ability to carry the defensive boarding party).
Four G1Gs can carry forty-four boarding parties at one time (the lift of boarding parties and GCVs has too many combinations to list, but basically for every five boarding parties not carried on a given G1G one GCV can be carried, although each G1G will always have the ability to carry the defensive boarding party).
Five G1Gs can carry fifty-five boarding parties at one time (the lift of boarding parties and GCVs has too many combinations to list, but basically for every five boarding parties not carried on a given G1G one GCV can be carried, although each G1G will always have the ability to carry the defensive boarding party).
Six G1Gs can carry sixty-six boarding parties at one time (the lift of boarding parties and GCVs has too many combinations to list, but basically for every five boarding parties not carried on a given G1G one GCV can be carried, although each G1G will always have the ability to carry the defensive boarding party).
The above should not be take to imply either support, or rejection, of the proposal on my part. It is only intended to remind people that you need to check the rules for a unit before commenting on the unit's capabilities.
By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 07:20 pm: Edit |
It seems kind of odd myself. If it went full G1G Floatilla then such a ship sounds like it'd have almost no ability to deal with any sort of space raiders. ESCORT SHIPS COULD BE ASSIGNED? Now if you took Mike's suggestion up above with some possible twinking on the floatilla you get a Commando Ship that can crush any rebellious planet, or any occupied planet's resistance, and still not just get totally waxed on the off chance an Orion shows up, or an enemy coming to clear off the garrison there.
Course at any point where you'd need this to take down ground forces couldn't you have done it with any ship really? That's the stumbling block I run into because I usually do campaigns more than the one off scenario. Trying to figure out why I'd need this and build this rather than just a troop freighter. THAT IS A QUESTION PETRICK CAN ANSWER.
The obvious answer seems to be Raids themselves. Finding myself in a situation where a real Hit and Run type raid wouldn't work and I'd need to crack into some base/facility the hard way and had to get back out with my skin in one piece. (I remember a "Klingon Beer Run" scenario against Romulans in some product fitting what I'm talking about here, maybe Y1?) I'm not sure historically how many such raids might have occurred by the time PFs were out and how viable that is in that aspect.
Still think it'd probably need a Combat Variant in the floatilla. Perhaps something like 4 G1Gs, 1 Cargo PF, 1 Standard. Sitll very much a ground assault floatilla but not entirely hosed if something scarier than a Cutter shows up. COULD BE CUSTOMIZED FOR SPECIFIC MISSIONS.
EDIT: I'd like to add this almost sounds more like a Gorn thing than a Klink. But then when I think Marines in SFB I always think Gorn.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 02:28 am: Edit |
To start with, this ship uses a different tactical premise than the traditional commando ships in the game. It really doesn't matter how many troops you have if they die before they can put their boots on the ground. It takes only a modest number of ground defense bases or a small group of fighters to chew up a group of shuttles. And to land them with transporters requires the ship to get within 5 hexes of the planet and drop the facing shield; any base phasers are going to take the opportunity to rip it it.
The base tactic of the D6GP would be to get just within 15 hexes of the planet, just close enough to give EW support to the flotilla. The G1Gs then go in for the landing together. While a couple may get shot up by the ground bases, they can lose alot of systems and still land those troops. They're also going to get a shot at the ground bases with their phaser-2s. Of course if they enemy has massed too many defenses, you don't bother anyways.
Re: Transport Artillery. As a commando ship, (E20.31) should probably apply. But with only one transporter, I'm not sure this makes sense.
Re: Why Klingon? The D6 hulls seem to lend themselves better to than many others, and I patterned it after the D6DP. It also requires a CA size ship to have the space for both PFs and ground troops. Some of the NCA hull might be good choices too.
Re: Special Sensors. Given the base tactic I described about, the special sensors provide a critical edge for the EW of the G1Gs. Combined with ECM generated by the G1Gs themselves, they should have a +2 shift in their favor.
Re: YIS. About Y181, two years after the G1G.
Re: Mixing the flotilla. I did include in the original post, include some G1Cs for heavy stuff like tanks. In general (K0.324) prohibits mixing in combat PFs. But it does say the ship description could override that.
Re: D6 in Y181. The history does establish that D6s continued production throughout the GW. Most would have been variants like D6S, D6D, D6M, and D6P.
Re: D5G with PF pod. The D5G description doesn't allow that. Besides I don't like using tugs and LTTs as front line combat ships. It just seems wrong to me; those special pods should be for defensive purposes.
Re: Adding PFGs to a commando ship (or commando tug). You can do that anyways. Just not the same effect.
Re: Dealing with space raiders. It is no different than a lot of other ships, including every other commando ship.
In terms of the troops for this ship, I was taking the view that barracks on the ship were the housing for the G1G troops. Part of the function of any PF tender is provide the housing for the PF crews. There isn't enough space on board to support a full crew for more than a few days at a time. It PFG is far worse; can you image 80 guys (including the PF crew) crammed into the space of a PF for more than a few hours. Any I should have written that different.
New crew rule: The D6GP has 46 crew units and 12 BPs, including 2 commando units and 4 heavy weapon squads. It has 4 GCV. Additional troops come with the G1Gs that are purchased, either 10 BPs or 5 BPs and a GCV (which are stored on the (G1G). G1Cs may be purchased instead, and their cargo holds filled with other ground equipment (paid for separately).
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 11:22 am: Edit |
"D5G with PF pod. The D5G description doesn't allow that."
Was (R3.53} updated? My version from module R3 says, "The D5G had the tug capabilities of the D5H. It can carry one pod of any single weight type."
The PF pod is a single weight pod.
Further, the D5H (not G) description (R3.54) opens with, "A typical mini-tug often used with combat pods."
The D5G and D5H are intended to be used in combat.
Before sending in the troops all ground weapons bases should be reduced. A basic Ph-IV ground base will take out a PFG entirely as soon as it reaches the R1. That's one dead PF per unreduced GBDP, coming in. One dead going out.
With the defenses reduced PFG's don't offer much more safety than shuttles. What they provide is rapid deployment of lots of troops and cargo.
They might make a mission against light defenses faster. But does that warrent the heavy ground attack then?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 12:05 pm: Edit |
I don't have my SFB rules with me, I will have to check tonight. It was my recollection that the D5H is limited to using a cargo, troop, or carrier pod (loaded with GAS, not fighters). It could drag around another pod, but not use it.
I do have my F&E rules with me, and (516.32) is consistent with the limitation.
You are wrong about a PH-IV ground base taking out a PFG so easially. With a +2 shift provided by the tender's special sensors, the base will be lucky to score 30 points between the main phaser and the PH-3s. After a few points of reinforcements and blowing off the front shield, that leaves about 15 internals. A lot of damage for a PFG, but far from killing it. It should still be able to land those troops as long as it doesn't get hit a second time.
By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 01:04 pm: Edit |
John Wyszynski:
(EDIT: John, apologies, as in rereading the below, the "tone" sounds "condescending", and such was not my intent. I am not quite sure how to change that, and the point I was trying to make is valid and I think needs to be said in response to your observation about the G1G surviving the damage, so I have left it. But I only intended to illucidate on the difference between "destroyed" and, in essence, "mission destroyed".)
I think you need to become familiar with the term "mission kill". With only two hull, the remaining 13 internals are hitting on the "B" column of the PF DAC (K5.1).
A single die roll of 1 and a single die roll of 3 can effectively destroy the G1G's (assuming warp packs) entire left and right engines (K1.63), and the average (for thirteen damage points) would be four hits on the left warp engine (die rolls of 1, 1, 2, and 2) and two hits on the right warp engine (die rolls of 3 and 3). So a pretty good chance the left warp engine separates from the PF and goes flying off someplace, and the right warp engine will on average be hit twice and at the very best (only one extra damage point is rolled for each damage point) be reduced to two boxes. Without the warp packs, however, the average distribution of the die rolls would automatically destroy both warp engines (the fourth "Left Warp" hit would move to column D and become the third "Right Warp" hit).
Even if you ignore that, the "average" damage spread is going to give you at least two "5"s and two "6"s, which would destroy three of the G1G's barracks [(K5.2), note at the bottom], assuming the first or second "5" is scored on the ADD rack, and kill half the boarding parties (R1.PF3) (If you do not score one of the "5"s on the ADD, then you lose all four barracks and all ten boarding parties therein).
The two die rolls of "4" (with an average distribution) will destroy the battery and the APR.
That leaves the "wild card" 13th damage point. And it has a 33% chance of destroying the last barracks box (or the ADD if you have already destroyed the barracks box).
In essence, five damage rolls of "5" or five damage rolls of "6", or any combination of five damage rolls that that are either "5" or "6", will strip the G1G of its mission package.
So, yes, thirteen damage points are NOT going to destroy a G1G, but they have a very good chance of leaving it an impulse-powered wreck (albeit one still armed with two phaser-2s), or stripped of its mission package (albeit one still armed with two phaser-2s), or both.
By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 01:21 pm: Edit |
Oh, yes, I did make a mistake. My apologies that it has been far too long since I mounted an assault on a planet or conducted a raid.
A Commando PF can only swap out boarding parties for a GCV once. The GCV replaces the HWS that is allowed. I.e., a G1G can carry nine (ten if you count the defensive one) boarding parties and a heavy weapons squad, or six boarding parties (seven if you count the defensive one) and a GCV, note that one of the boarding parties goes with the GCV and is lost with it if the GCV is destroyed while on the G1G.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 02:19 pm: Edit |
I'll also point out that one Ph-IV does about 20 damage to a PF, effectively mission killing a unit carrying ten BPs worth of ground combat stuff. That same phaser fired against a shuttle totally kills it instantly but only kills one or two BPs.
Landing by shuttles means more targets against limited numbers of weapons. If you concentrate you units into larger units then ground base defenses befome more effective.
Ground defenses must be reduced first. At that point the advantage of PF-Gs is fast moving of lots of ground offense. This is good for forming a strong beachhead against a well defended GCL. However, GAS have a strong advantage in that after landing troops, they can become part of that beachhead (participating in combat).
The only way to land troops through live ground base defenses is with troops ships that can land. A Free Trooper can do it but it's still pretty risky since it's a small ship (a Free Trooper X would fair much better). I think most troop pods can do powered landings, but their shields are very weak and the process of dropping and landing takes a very long time (three turns?). Others are the Fed CMC (land only), the Romulan Commando Eagle and COH, Tholian CMC (not sure if it can land with the T-P), and others. Seems like the Gorns and Seltorians should have landable Troop ships. (Maybe Gorns detatch their troop pods in the atmosphere?)
[edit] I forgot for a moment how many shuttles and transporters Selt ships normally have.
By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 04:29 pm: Edit |
I know there are players who believe in making "opposed assault landings" and simply accepting that the ground defenses will destroy some number of their troop carrying shuttles, or strip some number of their troop carrying PFs of their troops, or inflict some additional internal damage on warships within five hexes of the planet with down shields to use their transporters.
I just never understood it.
By and large, the only defenses I am willing to accept casualties on my landing forces from are DefSats. And that is pretty much because I cannot kill the DefSats until they open fire.
But my tendency is scour the planet of any defending guns, destroy or otherwise pushback any defending ships.
Only then do I commence landing operations.
By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 05:23 pm: Edit |
Only exception I see to that logic Steve is in specific scenarios, some rule/objective about capturing a base intact or doing some raid. By and far why I'm surprised I see so many "Fight my way to the planet/Opposed landing" proposals.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 05:36 pm: Edit |
I cannot help to view things at a real life angle and can't see sending in troops without doing everything possible to reduce casualties, so I relate to SPPs post. Strictly from a game perspective there are othre tactical options because no real lives are at stake. But insomuch as SFB is a simulation game, I have to tend towards the real life perspective... at least when considering unit developement.
I think there are possible instances where "opposed assault landings" are inevitable, but currently in SFB there is no way to hide space reaching ground defenses from space based attack. This leaves only one real life choice; you must reduce all space reaching defenses first.
If you look at a situation like Iwo Jima, the ships pounded the island for quite some time, but the island didn't really have any bases that threatened the ships themselves (if there had been, they would have been destroyed) and the ships couldn't do much to the entrenched ground defenses. Likewise, the Japanese couldn't stop the landing craft either, once they started, although they hit them at the beach.
Doing a planetary ground assault seems to be like Iwo Jima.
(on a side note, when I play Star Craft, I actually feel bad when my guys get killed (except for robotic units and zerglings). My typical strategies are to build defenses and preserve my forces. I then must stand against the initial enemy attack waves. Once they start to resource out, I can attack and win. Sometimes it is a losing approach because if well timed early and with the right force, I get wiped out. But generally, its a pretty narrow window of vulnerability. Even though its a computer game I can bring myself to just throw units into the line of fire. Goofy, huh?)
Back to SFB, quick raids might be a situation that you might put forces on the ground without reducing all the space reaching defenses. It seems to me that such a raid would be with a very small force, or even just a Prime Team and then you'd use a ship combat ship and not a troop ship.
By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 05:58 pm: Edit |
I do the same thing in starcraft Loren. It's why I always played the Terrans (Not to mention I always like the Human Side in my sci-fi.) Always felt horrible putting my units on the line without support and bunkers. It's why I could never play the Zerg, just hated that Alien Wave of Cannon Fodder type style.
And yeah, for a Quick Raid I'd rather have a space combat ship myself. Never used Prime Teams so I'm not sure how well that would work out. And for a "I have to take something intact" scenario (Important research station? Hostage taking/rescue effort? Orion Prison Break?) I'd rather have a ship that can just land on the planet. I think the old Fed Commando Cruiser based on the Light Criuser hull (I still love the old Light Cruiser and think it gets nowhere near the respect it should) could. And I'm sure there's a romulan troop ship that could.
Which is why I can see this working as a one off idea. The Klinks, to my knowledge, don't really have a ship that can pull off that sort of assault on a fortified position without a huge fleet of ships. Might be an economy of force thing, just one PFT and a specialized flotilla rather than pulling a full squadron/fleet off from somewhere to accomplish this mission. And it seems the Klinks never throw a ship away, at all. So once such a thing got designed and the refitting done to it, it could have stuck around until it fell apart.
Trying to find reasons why rather than why not.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 07:16 pm: Edit |
If the Klingons did do this once, they might have just used a D6P together with a troop ship to fill a flotilla of G1Gs. If the troop ship is simply fitted with mech links, that whould be the method by which you load the G1Gs.
(There might be a rule that prevents this; I don't recall.)
(When I play Zerg, I take on a sort of psycotic mother role. I play Protos with the same attitude toward casualties as Terrians.)
By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 07:35 pm: Edit |
Hmm, if I wanted to test this concept, I think I like the "Prison Break" scenario idea. Something where you need to get in there, and get some prisoner out before local police/security/naval forces show up.
I remember there was a scenario printed with a similiar concept involving an Orion prisoner aboard a Klingon Ship. Any chance there's a ground version out there?
Just want to see how well this might do On the Board. Wouldn't want a troop ship there (Why tie yourself down to such a slow moving unit like a Troop Freighter, and if you're using a Warship Commando version why need the flotilla?), maybe with nothing more than a ground base or two and some DefSats in orbit.
By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 08:36 pm: Edit |
Loren Knight:
A phaser-4 is not likely to score 20 points of damage under the conditions John Wyszynski defined.
The PF has two built in points of ECM, and two swing points of EW it can apply to ECM, giving it four points. Even if it does not use any power to generate additional ECM, John assumed that the PFs would be a Flotilla, and his D6GP design would generate six points of ECM and lend them to the PFs. As a ground based phaser-4 cannot have more than six points of ECCM (in general), that means a shift of two (Six lent plus four built-in gives ten ECM, minus six ECCM of the ground base leaves four ECM, result is a shift of two).
At three hexes range the ground base as only a 33% chance of scoring 20 points of damage with its phaser-4 at that point, and a 33% chance it will score less than 15 points of damage. The average damage will be just 14.8 points for the phaser-4, i.e., barely dropping the shield. The four phaser-3s at three hexes range will on average score about one point.
Now, obviously the phaser-4 ground base wants to cut loose at range 1 (the PF has reached the edge of the atmosphere). There is no change in the damage from the phaser-4, but the four phaser-3s are now scoring an average of 10 points of damage, for a combined total of about 24.8, round up to 25 points. Assuming the PF did not have the shield refit, that is about 16 internals (less the battery making 15 internals), if it has the shield refit, it is 13 internals (less the battery, or twelve internals). And with the warp packs, in either case it might six or seven points of shield reinforcement, so eight internals unrefitted, or only five internals if refitted.
The second shot while the PF is trying to descend through the atmosphere is going to be the decisive point (and the phaser-3s will score an average of about two extra points of damage).
What it boils down to is that one phaser-4 ground base will probably mission kill one G1G given two shots at close range, but it will not stop two (or more). Two phaser-4 ground bases will probably stop two G1Gs, but will not stop three.
So in the cold calculus, you lose ten boarding parties before they reach the planet's surface for each PFG trying to land.
Now, GAS shuttles have it worse and better in some ways.
If you drop the GAS shuttles just ouside the atmosphere, the phaser-4 will autokill one, the phaser-3s of the base will probably kill a second and cripple a third. Next turn the GAS shuttles are descending through atmosphere, and the same thing more or less happens, except the phaser-4 kills one, the phaser-3s kill one, and finish off the cripple. So you lost five GAS shuttles and ten boarding parties (same loss in boarding parties as the PFG). Any GAS shuttles above five will likely land safely, and the ship can add additional boarding parties with its transporters since the ground base will not be able to fire before the ship turns new shields to face it.
The cost of the Operation?
Well, five GAS shuttles are pretty cheap because the Command ship comes with some free, and other ships can just replace some admins pretty cheaply. The boarding parties (drawn from available troops) cost nothing. So the Five GAS shuttle assault is vastly cheaper than the 25 BPV commando PF, and ultimately you overwhelm the enemy with troops beamed down from the ships rather than landed by shuttle or PF.
It is all esoteric, a question of mathematics and what losses you are willing to sustain.
For me (as an actual ground pounder), it is not so esoteric, and I will blast the phaser-4 ground base out of existence with naval weapons fire before I start the first assault shuttles down to the planet's surface.
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |