So an ODB would be a Batle Station sized base with no repair facilities and Starbase equivalent weapons. Ouch, that would be a painful egg to break. But I think a full BATs would be better in the end because it can use its repair capability on itself. It might not have the raw punch of a ODB at first, but it would be able to outlast one in a fight.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 08:22 am: Edit

Geoff> I'd disagree. A DefSat is an unammned platform, all weapons, power, computer, and stealthing, and no other capabilities (well, transporter repeater).

The original ODP proposal, at least as I understood, was a manned unit, with the full array of capabilities you'd find on a warship (tractors, labs, etc), filling out an EAF, etc. Non-moving ship with positional stabilizers pretty much is a base, even if it is one without strategic support abilities.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 11:07 am: Edit

There are existing bases without strategic support abilities (depending in part on how you define "strategic support").

The Commercial Platform has virtually no strategic support abilities.

The Systems Activity Maintenance Station provides limited strategic support in that its special sensor could be used to watch for enemy forces.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, January 17, 2003 - 06:25 pm: Edit

Geoff Conn:
You may dispute the point, but the point exists.
As I noted before, DefSats are in theory already as big as they can be and be DefSats, i.e., benefit from being fairly undetectable unless they open fire. Once you exceed that point, it is not a DefSat any more, but simply a target, in effect an orbital installation which can be destroyed with relative impunity. The fact that it lacks "strategic repair capability" or any of a number of other functions of a normal base is large irrelevant. There already exist a number of bases in that category (ComPlat, SAMS, any Ground Based Defense Weapon placed on an asteroid where a ship could dock).
You can argue the term "base", but the fact is that once something grows large enough that it cannot benefit from being a DefSat, it is a base so far as targeting is concerned (oh, it might benefit from the small target modifier, but that is largely irrelevant).

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Ok we're really splitting hairs now, but a Base to me is an immobile object built for the express purpose of strategic support (repair, supply, etc.). It needs to defends itself and possible the area it is in, but that's about it.

An ODP would only fulfill the latter role, and therefore under the above definition would not be a base.

The distinction may be drawn differently as SPP indicates, I never considered that a compl would be considered a 'base' for instance, but merely an orbital platform.

Anyways, as an ODP does fulfill a role currently open (a platform/base devoted to defense only) there is room for it in the SFU.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Geoff Conn:

You can split hairs all you wish, but the fact remains that the ComPlat and SAMS bases exist, and are bases, and do not have (except for the SAMS special sensor) "strategic support" abilities. Their rules specifically prohibit them from being used in such manner, i.e., adding a Repair Module or docking a Repair Pod to a SAMS base does not turn it into a fleet repair asset.

Further, their firepower would allow them to at best fend off a few fighters, but a single PF, or a flight of four to six fighters, would rip them apart, which pretty much says that they do not ". . . defend itself and possible the area it is in."

And as noted, so far all proposals for ODPs are little more than "targets" for easy destruction. Ground Bases with their advantage of atmosphere protecting them from being targeted outside of their own effective ranges are grossly superior.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit

But would such a unit be able to mount special sensors that aren't blinded by its weapons fire (no engines, so it should be able to)? Would it be able to take advantage of the base self-lending and enhanced MRS support rules? Would it have a shuttle deck? The proposal as noted included positional stabilizers, only found on bases. In otherwirds, pretty much a base.

And if it isn't...then we have a warship with no engines, which means it has to be tugged to where ever it needs to be. At that point, you'd be better off with a monitor or a destroyer squadron.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 20, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit

The above is not to say that I am opposed to Orbital Defense Platforms, simply that I find myself caught. In one sense, Orbital Defense platforms already exist, they are called "DefSats" (and to some extent, Command Controlled Captor mines, although they do not orbit). Ed Grondin who began this discussion (this time) is looking for a "manned" version with possibly heavier weapons. The problem I am having is "where do you go".

I cannot make myself believe that any such "manned orbital defense platform" is going to be able to operate under the rules for DefSats, i.e., they will be capable of being targeted at long range and destroyed. Nor can I see making a DefSat larger or better armed than it is (it is obvious to me that they are already as large as they can be and still operate under their own special rules, otherwise they would already be larger and better armed). If they are "exposed to enemy fire", then clearly they need a capability to resist enemy fire (back to my comment about the minimal size and just 14 damage points to put it out of operation).

So where do you go without inventing a new and cumbersome rules set, and not simply redesigning a Base Station?

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 11:42 am: Edit

SPP

The original idea was to have different sized ODP's. Ranging from something roughly Frigate sized up to something roughly Battleship sized. For the FF sized ODP I could see something like this:

16 shield all around.
2x Torp 360
2x Drone/ADD/Plas-D or 1x ESG
2x Admin Shuttle
12x Fighter Hold
6x Hull
4x Cargo
2x Phas-4 1 LS, 1 RS
4x Phas-1 2 LS, 2 RS
2x Phas-3 360 (exception hydran 1x Phas-G)
4x Lab
2x Batt
2x Tran/Trac
2x Brdg
1x Emer, Aux Con
20x APR/AWR

With no ship docking capabilities. This sized ODP could attach 2 augmentation modules. This size would be considered size class 4. It would not be intended to operate as an independent base. It is designed to augment an existing base, or to replace Ground Bases. They could also be used to temporarily defend a planet while a base is being built and/or upgraded. I think if the design is done right they could be modularized and therefore could be placed by tugs in much the same way an MB is.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 11:58 am: Edit

The main tactical problem is one that SPP has already touched on: they don't have DefSat/gound base targetting restrictions, so they can be reduced pretty easilly by a fleet at long range. Anything larger than what you have there (i.e. with more internal fortitude) is going to be expensive to the point where an actual base or warship is a better deal.

Second is the strategic concern. During wartime (when you're actually wanting to build and use such units), an empire's tugs are gonna be stretched pretty thin already.

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Alex agreed. I posted the stats so that SPP would have a better idea as to what exactly I was proposing. However the point has long been made that there are several other feasible alternatives to this. And I definitely did not want a Heavy DefSat.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Duh, didn't noticed the SPP tag at the start of your post Never mind me.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:38 pm: Edit

I don't think it would be outside the realms of possibilities for some of the races to build "Combat" versions of their bases. i.e. A BS with the repair and logistics support replaced by increased combat ability.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Ed Grondin:

So let me get this straight, you want to build a base that has 7 fewer internals than a Base Station (without the repair boxes).

It has the same number of weapons (albeit, somewhat different in their capabilites, i.e., four less phaser-4s, one less phaser-3, but an extra torpedo, an extra drone rack/plasma rack/ESG, and four phaser-1s) with more restricted firing arcs (180 as opposed to 270).

It has more labs, one less tractor, and 60% of the hull, 40% of the cargo volume, and a full 12 fighter internal hangar bay.

It has only two less points of power than the Base Station, but by declaring it to be "size class 4" it picks up 1.5 points of power not spent on housekeeping. It spends only 13 points of power to recharge all of its phasers and normal load two photons versus the 15.5 needed by a base station to recharge its phasers and normal load its one photon, giving it another 2.5 points over the base station, or meaning in essence that it will effectively have two more points of power than a Base Station, and it does not have to operate any special sensors.

Shielding is five boxes less on each shield facing than an unrefitted base station.

This is NOT a Frigate. If it is Size Class 4, it is a "destroyer". It is too big to be a frigate. With the ability to operate a full fighter squadron, it is questionable that it is size class 4 at all.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

I have to disagree.

Sorry, but the purposes of bases is to support the fleet. That means being able to repair and supply them.

A "pure combat" base is a waste of resources as any ships supporting such a base would have to go elsewhere for repairs creating a tactical liability.

Feel free to disagree, but on this, I stand.

By Ed Grondin (Ensignedg) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 01:34 pm: Edit

SPP

Sorry that was a poor example. It should have 6 fighters assigned not 12. And yes it probably would be the DD sized version of the ODP. But that was what the general idea was.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Ed Grondin:

And we are also back to the basic problem.

What, precisely, is the advantage in this unit?

Support for other orbital bases?

Maybe by basically drawing fire.

Bases are in orbit principally because they need to be able to service starships, few of which are able to land on planets for resupply and repair. I can provide better support with ground bases.

At a cost of 168 BPV I could have a dozen ground based defense phaser-4s, placing two per hexside on the planet the base orbits, which means at worst six are in arc at any given time, and the enemy must close to near pointblank range of the planet to silence them. A range so close that in order to get their shot at the very least a heavy cruiser is going to be crippled.

Where is the advantage of the orbital defense platform? At thirty hexes range (assuming it is a Federation one armed with two photons) it will average about seven points of damage. An attacking Klingon squadron of three D5s will average 12 points of damage from DERFACS Disruptors alone at that range, and 16 points firing all phaser-2s and phaser-1s (i.e., firing all six phaser-2s and all six phaser-1s at that range will add about four points to the total damage).

Sure, it will take time to wear the orbital defense platform down, but in three turns half of its shields are down to tissue paper (assuming battery or power reinforcement used to save some of them), in three more turns all the shields are down. Three turns after that the orbital defense platform is heavily damaged, three turns after that it is crippled, three turns after that it is destroyed.

Change the range to 15 hexes, the phaser-4s average 6 and 1/3rd points, the phaser-1s average four points, and the phaser-3s about 1/3rd of a point, so call it 11 points, plus four points for a proximity photon for 15 points. The three D5s average 24 points from disruptors, 6 points from phaser-1s, and 3.67 for the phaser-2s for a total of about 33 points. So in three turns (assuming no weapon hits from the internals scored by the Klingons) the Orbital defense station will damage three different shields on one D5, while the Klingons rack up about 45 internals on the base. On turn #4 the base may score a few internals on the Klingon ship, but the Klingons will score enough internals that the orbital defense station is effectively out of the fight, and the turn after that they will destroy it.

Note: All of the above assumed that the base hit with a photon torpedo every turn, i.e., a photon was fired every turn rather than both every turn, and every photon fired on a proximity fuse hit. Further, it was assumed that the orbital defense station was always able to bring all of its weapons into arc. Obviously since the damage was kept to 'averages', maximum damage (always more impressive) was ignored (i.e., the proposed orbital defense platform could conceivably score 26 points of damage at range 30 assuming it rolled straight ones, and 40 points of damage at range 15 assuming again straight ones. Of course, assuming straight ones for the Klingons would net you 36 points of damage at range 30 and 66 points of damage at range 15.

So I am just not convinced that these things would be a good investment. I have to have orbital bases because I have to support my ships (repair, resupply, etc.). If it was not for that, under the existing rules I would not put any bases in orbit because they are too easy to kill. Dispersing them over the planet's surface seems the better idea. But all an Orbital Defense Platform is to me is an expensive investment in something for the attacker to destroy for little return.

Yes, you can claim that pretty much applies to a Base Station, but the Base Station can conduct repairs and resupply, and can be supported by ground based defenses which will cause the enemy more trouble than an adjacent orbiting target.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 04:31 pm: Edit

I think its a real stretch to call a commercial 'platform' and a sams a base, for lack of a better catergory to place them in though its not that important.

What is important is making the ODP not be an instant target. To that end;
What if the ODP could use the hidden placement rules but with fewer restrictions?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Yes it is important because, according, to the SFB rules, that is exactly what they are. Maybe not large enough to act as an F&E supply point in and of themselves, but a solid network of ComPlats and SAMs are undoubtedly part of what what help underpins an F&E supply grid.

Hidden placement wouldn't be very helpful. First you'd have to explain why it's easier for the ODP to be hidden than a ship. Second, you have to guess right, or it ends up being on the other side of the strategic point being assulted and unable to meaningfully contribute.

Third, and more importantly...do you want to be part of the crew assigned to this thing, knowing you are goin to essentially be on slight running and unable to leave the thing for months at a time, at least?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Well, if increased firepower was the desired effect, on a Ground Base.

What about a "Medium Defense Base", similar to what the Planetary Control Base is to having PFs and Fighters, but this is exclusively weapons and Marines.

As the Planetary Control Base, is a combination of Fighter Base, PF Base, Ground Base Phaser-4, and Ground Warning Station. This is a combination of Ground Hvy Weapons base, Ground Marine (?) Base, and Ground Phaser-4 bases.

As example:
24Shields
6Hull
12-14APR
2FH-P4
4FH-P3
1-2FH-Hvy Weapon (like 2 Disr or 1 Plasma-S)
1FH-Secondary Hvy (like 2Drone, or 1 ESG, or ADD's)
1Tractor
3Transport
3-4Battery
2-3Control
4Shuttles (1HTS, it still needs cargo delivered)
6Cargo

Say 20Marines, and 2GCVs to defend it.

Now, I also have to say, I don't know what the transportation limitations are, of moving larger, Medium Ground Bases as the GPC bases.

Imagine positioning one of these on a moon, pointing down towards the planet, protecting it if/when ships try to get close enough to land troops.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Geoff Conn:

If it is that big, it could only use initial placement under the hidden initial placement rules. Now, how many habitable planets would remain habitable very long if they existed in asteroid fields? You do not get "hidden placement" in "open space", and planets subject to asteroidal bombardment do not remain habitable.

I do not think asking for a change to the rules to allow something this large to use Hidden Initial Placement in what is effectively open space is going to be acceptable (you can try running it by SVC).

If these things could, then virtually anything could.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 06:13 pm: Edit

If you really want an orbital defense platform, just drag in a big asteroid and slap a couple of P4 ground bases, a missile base and a small ground fighter base on it. Rinse and repeat. Cost, 52 + fighters + drone upgrades, plus 25 for the rock itself if required under G10.821 (SPP?). Add a ground warning station for 22 BPV if you're feeling rich.

The attacker has to get to R5 to hit these things, which is going to get pretty painful. Once he does get R5, the bases are in trouble, but they'll have paid their BPV. Note that a small ground base on a rock has 360 weapons, so you can't hide.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Jim Davies:

See (P3.4), read the introduction carefully.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Alex, I was saying it wasn't that important to argue further whether it would be considered a 'base' or not.

Steve, if a ship can drop warp engines and then sub light evade, an ODP with no warp should be able to hide in some form as well. Thus hidden placement came to mind.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Geoff Conn:

So by your logic, Starbases use Hidden initial placement? Or are you saying that ODPs would have no warp whatsoever? If so, you would be wrong.

An ODP would have warp for the same reason a Commercial Platform does.

No warp, no positional stabilizer. No positional stabilizers, all the enemy need do is pull up, slap a tractor, and push the ODP into the atmosphere, BANG. No ODP, and some number of damage points scored on the planet's surface under "general bombardment".

The ODP (if one gets designed) is going to have AWRs. Sorry.