If a Defense Sat could lend EW to another Defense Sat wouldn't that negate that defense sat's stealth effect and make it open to fire? A probably worse trade off than the EW would be worth.

I've seen though that DefSats are actually really great for scaring off single ship raiders. That LR or CR orion captain suddenly thinks twice when he realizes that shield he drops to transport some thugs on down to loot might leave him open to several phasers and heavy weapons. Gets more bang for the buck than a minefield in my experience, unless you got a time limit on the raider, and with hidden deployment can be as effective as ground bases in the earlier years. Before you start loadin' up fighters, bombers, and PFs.


I'd actually like to see Omega DefSats. Other than a few bases like the FRA Pocket Battlestation an Omega campaign is really lacking in defenses other than ships.

By Michael Bennett (Mike) on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 07:02 am: Edit

I wonder whether a planetary gov't. would actually want DefSats in orbit around the home planet. If their control codes fell into the wrong hands...

Or if military personnel with a bent toward takeover and dictatorship had access to them, a planet could be subjugated (or devastated) fairly quickly.

DefSats were to serve as a defensive screen around a planet to make would-be raiders think twice about ravaging the place and perhaps to buy time for a fleet patrol ship to respond to an incursion.

Should they be made into main elements of defense that could be placed wherever desired?

More thoughts:

DefSats would require routine maintenance. I envision them as passive objects until sensors detect a threat. Then their onboard APR/AWR come online. Their power grid would not be designed to run continuously for long periods. After any action they would require maintenance and refurbishing. Putting a bunch of extra weapons on them just doesn't seem to fit with their original purpose or their design limitations.

Hmmm... I have an idea for a new scenario...

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 12:13 pm: Edit

If the Presidential Palace was given protection equal to the Civilian Base Station, a single group of DefSats would not be able to kill the ruler and simply overthrow the government. Now should all the ground bases be subverted, well, the DefSats would just prove a little piling on.

DefSats are not totally passive when not in combat. Have to be aware enough to run the transporter repeater function.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Another option to consider (should anyone care to pursue it) is a quality upgrade to the existing DefSAt designs.

Assuming that the DefSat is "considered to be" Size Class 7 for purposes of (IIRC) rule E1.7 (haven't checked the number , just going by memory and I may have the notation wrong), what if Developed World's DefSats are 50% larger and "better" than the "colonial" DefSats?

Fr example:

RACES	WEAPONS	PH-3s
Lyr_Thl_WYN_KL:	3xPH-2	+3xDisrupter	+3xPh3
Federation	3xPh2	+3xPhoton	+3xPh3
Fed_Kzinti_KL;	3xPh2	+2 Drone B	+3xPh3
Gorn_Rom_ISC	3xPh2	+3xPlasmaF	+3xPh3
Gorn_Rom_ISC	3xPh2	+3xPlasma D Rack	+3xPh3
Hydran	3xPh2	+2xHellbore	2xPhG
Any	3xPh2	+3xPh2	3xPh3

Other changes to DefSats for "developed Worlds" would be a BPV cost of 30 each (instead of 20 BPV as per normal DefSats), 38 Damage points instead of the 25 normal DefSats have, +3ECM and +3ECCM...

Such a change would make the DefSats more dangerous...

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Actually, the larger DefSats are more useful around unimportant planets. For the smaller single ships that tend to be the expected attacker, the increase in damage points exceeds the reliable per turn damage inflicted. This means the larger defsats get additional shots off more than making up for the smaller number of units.

Major worlds benefit more from larger numbers of smaller DefSats because the bigger ships involved are more likely to overkill a smaller DefSat. 25 damage points might not be the ideal size for a DefSat but other sizes start having more of an impact from rules exploits instead of design value.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Richard,

There might be some back ground issues to deal with.

Smaller DefSats (long established in SFU Hihstory) are the standard... integrating a larger DefSatL might be hard to justify durng the General War period or before... but we might be able to justify it afterwards during the Trade Wars and possibly as early as the Andromedan Invasion... Picture 2 worlds a "normal" colony world with 3-5 regular DefSats (call it a Fed World and its the photon variety) would have 6 to 10 photons to chuck against a Andy... while a similar colony world with 3-5 DefSatL's would be hitting with 9-15 photons every other turn... that 50% increase could mean the colonies survival as it might push the power absorbers over the limit... where the "normal" DefSat (plus ground bases) might not.

At max damage, the DefSatL will be churning out a potential 72 to 120 points of damage every other turn.... and can start hitting for damage outside the normal range of phaser 2's.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 03:53 pm: Edit

I'm not keen on the large defsats. Just use 50% more standard ones or spend the difference on mines. Since the standard set provides all the comms (etc.) you need for your colony the extras can be deployed better too.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Andrew, I havent seen where the rules allow for the kind of deployments some people were talking about earlier (IIRC 12+ DefSats around developed worlds).

The deployment limit seems to be 3 to 5 in orbit between 1 hex and a maximum of 3 hexes from the planet.

I'm not one who gets to decide these things, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the point were clarified by a ruling by one or both of the steves that no more that X DefSats can ever be in orbit over any given planet...Its not just a SFH thing... you guys are pushing the limits on the Game system in areas not envisioned by the designer.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Just for giggles and grins, lets consider a "Very Large Def Sat".

RACES	PH-2	WEAPONS	PH-3s
Lyr_Thl_WYN_KL:	4xPH-2	+4xDisrupter	+4xPh-3
Federation	4xPh-2	+4xPhoton	+4xPh-3
Fed_Kzinti_KL;	4xPh-2	+4 Drone B	+4xPh-3
Gorn_Rom_ISC	4xPh-2	+4xPlasmaF	+4xPh-3
Gorn_Rom_ISC	4xPh-2	+4xPlasma D Rack	+4xPh-3
Hydran	4xPh-2	+3xHellbore	3xPhG
Any	4xPh-2	+4xPh-2	4xPh3

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 08:45 pm: Edit

These Def Sats would be 100% larger than published DefSats, and only found at capital worlds!

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 11:50 pm: Edit

What is the advantage of these large defsats over just buying twice as many small ones?

Disadvantage?

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 12:26 am: Edit

The advantage of a double sized DefSat is the difficulty in killing one. Since the dsDefSat does not get crippled, failing to generate a full 50 points of damage means the dsDefSat gets off an extra full salvo on the following turn.

There is also the whole problem of control of the defsats. More defsats active will cut into the various bases abilities to control seeking weapons.

The only disadvantage is that with all that firepower no one will leave a dsDefSat in reserve to conduct tranporter repeater trickery.

The concept has been tried before. A rule for detecting the size of a DefSat would be needed. Having the battle hinge on correctly guessing size of DefSat and assigning weapons fire to match might cut into the fun factor.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 04:09 am: Edit

1. Defense satellites are actually pretty big already considering how stealthy they are. Two phaser-3s, two phaser-2s, and two other weapons is a lot. Where are they getting the power from?!

2. "Only at capital worlds"
a. A capital assault is such a large scenario that, with that restriction, these units would never get played with, or at least very rarely.
b. Capital worlds have, according to the recent cap log article outlining capital defenses, multiple def sat packages of 5 defSats each, ground based weapon bases, an SB (if it is the actual capital and not just a major planet in the capital hex), and the Home Fleet, plus fighters and what have you. Controlling the DefSats does not seem to be an issue. A capital would have to be assaulted multiple times, and each time the attacker is going to damage what he can damage and if he over or underkills a few defsats, it's probably not going to make that much difference over the course of the campaign.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 04:49 pm: Edit

One advantage for the defender is if the attacker doesnt know if he is hitting a DefSat, or a Very Large DefSat... he can either allocate enough fire to kill a normal defsat and hope that its enough, or he runs the risk of leaving a functional VLDefSat around for another turn... and given the weapons loads of these things, that might not be a really good idea!

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Oh the attacker will know once it fires (more than a regular DefSat) or it fires twice (since weapons fire is noted to a defsat...

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 01:50 am: Edit

Which leaves the defending player an interesting choice. Fire all the defsats as per normal weapons as per numbers and types, or let loose with the full weapons packages on the theory that they will simply be destroyed by the attacker in the next turn.

perhaps its just me, but I think I'd like to see the look on my opponents face when I inform him that a) his attack on my defsat didnt kill it, and b) the glint of dawning realization that that same VLDefSat is hitting him again with a second strike of phasers etc... and that c) there just arent that many more impulses left to the end of the turn and that point the surviving DefSats can let go again with fully reloaded weapons!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 09:17 am: Edit

Why are you assuming that the attacking player wouldn't know it was a "heavy DefSat" as soon as it fired even one weapon? If an ordinary DefSat reveals itself by firing a single phaser-3 under the current riles, I know what all of its weapons are, at least if I understand the DefSat rules correctly. Once it reveals itself by firing anything I can look at its SSD, just as if it were a ship.

Or is there some DefSat-specific rule that I am forgetting? I don't play with DefSats very often so I may in fact be forgetting something relevant.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Alan,

I don't have my rules available here. I was assuming that since there are a number of DefSats that share some similar weapons (mostly 2 phaser 3s and 2 phaser 2s IIRC, and a heavy weapon type (plasma, photon, drones, etc) of some sort, the Def Sat could fire the "common" systems retaining the heavy type to confuse the issue.

if the DEfSat (for one example) was used for point defense (against either drones or firing into plasmatorpedos to reduce the warhead for example) you wouldnt need or could use the photons or other heavy torpedos at all.

There is some "fog of war" aspects here, especially if using the D17.0 rule for tactical intel.

But again, Y.M.M.V.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Yes it could fire the common systems. But my point is that, unless you can cite some actual rule I am forgetting, the enemy would still know what the unfired weapons were. You mention the Tac Intel rules. Once you achieve the appropriate level of Tac Intel on an enemy, you know what weapons it carries whether it has fired them or not. In other words, you can tell a Fed DD from a DDG or a DDL even if it hasn't fired.^* SPP is fond of pointing out that you can't do this, that, or the other without a specific enabling rule. And while the Tac Intel rules have some enabling rules for dummy panels and weapons for deception purposes, I believe (though I confess I am not 100 % certain) that those rules apply to ships. There is no comparable enabling rule for dummy weapons/panels on DefSats. This would seem to indicate you know what all its weapons are, at least once you get close enough. It might be true that a DefSat could, under some conditions, fire some weapons at a range at which the enemy would not have a sufficient Tac Intel level to determine the presence or nature of unfired weapons. But I suspect that would be pretty unusual.

^*I believe that distinguishing phaser-1s from phaser-2s is an exception. You can't tell a D-7B from a D-7K until it fires its nose phasers.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Alan,

I am morally certain that the issues were addressed in the rules, but I am unable to access those rules. Perhaps next week, after I can get home.

For some reason, I was under the misconception that DefSats were undetected until they actually fire their weapons. Are you suggesting that DefSats, even when undetected, can be identified/type determined?!?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Jeff,

No, I'm not suggesting that. Note the following, from my initial post in this topic:

---

Quote:

If an ordinary DefSat reveals itself by firing a single phaser-3 under the current riles, I know what all of its weapons are, at least if I understand the DefSat rules correctly. Once it reveals itself by firing anything I can look at its SSD, just as if it were a ship.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Alan, there is a difference between "reveals itself by firing" and reveals what subtype DefSat it is... obviously, it the DefSat fires a Photon, you know that it is a photon torpedo armed DefSat... if all it fires is a single phaser 3, then all you really know is that it has a single phaser 3... just like virtually all known DefSat designs.

But, perhaps you are correct, as I don't have the rules available I can't double check.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 07:59 pm: Edit

They may not be detectable as to type without a lab roll. (R1.15D) points to treating DefSats as command mines and (M7.51) requires labs to detect the specific type or subtype of mine as does (G25.251). Okay, probe or probe drone or any other similar device can identify model as well.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 18, 2011 - 12:40 am: Edit

Richard,

Thank you, for some reason, I was thinking that (assuming rule D17.0 was in use) some level of tacintel needed to be reached to be able to tell a player what information would be known given a specified level of data... be it G,H,J or even L... you have to be either very close or have a serious number of labs and other stuff (probes, shuttles on science mission etc) to reach the needed level of information.

But again, I still don't have access to my rules set so can't check it out.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, March 18, 2011 - 11:37 am: Edit

Jeff: Under tacintel, heavy weapons are countable at Level F (range 16 for ships). The D17 rule for not using D17 has that information at any range. I had starting writing something to that effect before I caught the command captor mine rules. If weapons were not hidden by the mine rules, the weapons would be known at any range the Defsat could fire. (Ignoring attacks by forces comprises of only fighters or PFs.)

The preceding was from memory; I didn't have a chance to double check the rules while composing this post.