Aha. Errata (it's not in BS1990).

That accepted, is there a limit to deploying such rocks, and does one have to pay the (G10.821) cost? (G10.821) specifically refers to rocks used as web anchors, which suggests not. But a rock is a rock, so maybe one should.

If you can get free rocks, get free rocks and put a base on each. If not, just put the bases on a planet as normal.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 01:19 am: Edit

SPP, wouldn't (G7.274) prevent you from shoving the unit into the planetary hex? Or does the wording of (G7.323) allow you to rotate the unit into the atmosphere, and then release the tracotr where it can't maintain its position over the planet?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:34 am: Edit

Alex:

The rule as written prevents you from shoving unit directly into a planet. It allows you to shove the unit into the atmosphere, whereupon the tractor breaks and the unit pretty adopts "atmospheric flight". Orbital Defense Platforms do not have warp engines, or impulse engines, and as such are incapable of "atmospheric flight".

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Steve, from my reading of the rules, I can see that for planets with atmosphere hexes that extend beyond planetary surface hexes. But what about your typical 1-hex type M planet whose atmosphere doesn't extend beyond its hex? (G7.274) prevents a tractored unit from being moved into the hex at all, the link breaking before the attempted movement occurs.

Looking closer at (G7.323), it indicates the link is broken if the unit(s) exceed an effective speed of 1 while moving "through" atmosphere, the link breaking before such an offending movement would occur. Would be towed into an atmosphere hex count as such movement through atmosphere?

(P2.442) does specifically allow a unit to be rotated into atmosphere.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just wanting to make sure I have a full grasp of the rules and their interactions and implications.

From what I understand, i can't buzz a unit at high speed, tractor mid turn, sideslip into into the atmosphere and zip away. I have to either roll up to it and drop to s slow enough speed such that our effective speed under tracotr is 1 and push it into the atmopshere with the impulse 32 movement, and then only if this is an atmosphere hex without a planetary surface in it, or else maintain the link over the turn break, win the ensuing tractor auction, rotate the unit into the hex with the atmosphere and let it go, with the latter method being the only way to shove an other unit into the atmopshere of a planet that doesn't its atmosphere extending into hexes beyond the plantery body itself?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Alex:
If the unit is in orbit, and can be tractored, you can break its orbit, and push it into the atmosphere. Doing so breaks the tractor link, but the unit is set on a terminal approach unless it can do something to avoid the effect.

Even if there is no "atmosphere", there is still a "gravity well", and once you stop the station's orbit and shove it into the well . . . well nature will take its course.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 02:50 pm: Edit

With impact not actually occuring til after the scenario?

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 03:20 pm: Edit

So by your logic, Starbases use Hidden initial placement?

No. Too big, too active, and too publicly known.

Or are you saying that ODPs would have no warp whatsoever?

No warp ENGINE, correct.

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

No apology necesary.

A limited form of hidden placement such that they couldn't be targeted until they fired or units came within range 5 would be adequate I would think. The point being that intelligence may well say that the area is defended by ODPs, but due to their general low inactivity, lack of warp and other signatures they are not easily found and targeted by sensors at the onset of the scenario.

I have to admit my interest in this idea is waning considerably.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:11 am: Edit

Message from a "lurker" to this Board. Wanted to toss in my $0.02.

SPP- I acknowledge your points but am curious about how your position would change if:

1. Assume you were the officer commanding Fed Battle station expecting attack from Klingon forces in (choose one) a day, a week or 6 months?
and,
2. Your orders were to defend Federation Territory to the best of your ability to the extent of the resources you command.

The point is, do you obey the letter of your orders (i.e.) use only the conventional systems and ships available, or, being the resourceful and assertive command officer that all Star Fleet personnel aspire to be, do you use every bit of resources available to you to carry out the spirit of the orders you were given?

Suppose that you had available oh, lets say a dozen cargo pods that could be loaded with iron ore. Each pod of the Battlestation has a ship docking point so you in effect could "armor" the Base with 12x25 cargo points of "damage sponge". not perfect admitedly, but better than nothing when one's continued existance is on the line. (the assumption is that both the 'A' and 'B' docking points would be in use if there were no better pods available such as hanger or power boost pods. atleast the most common rows of the Damage Allocation Chart would be covered with the 300 points of cargo boxes.

All of the above was just to illustrate a point about defenses. The proposed Orbital Defense Plat forms would be another opportunity to increase the powerof the defenses of fleet bases.

To be of any use the units (ODP's for short) would have to be cheap and deployable as well as not to easily destroyed as you had pointed out previously.

What if, you as the base commander, had available a small number of small freighters, the resources to make some alterations to "convert" the small freighters to these "orbital Defense Platforms - ODP". would you (asuming the repair shops could make the alterations) the ODP would have the original systems of the small freighter and the 25 point cargo pod. assume (just for illustration at this point, it may be a automatic rejection item because I hadn't checked it yet,) that you could install 5 photons (say all have RX for firing arc) and 20 ARW (auxillery Warp Reactors) and 2 or 4 hull mounted G drone racks, and further assume the Phaser 3 is converted to a special sensor.

One tactic that such a ODP could use would be to "lend itself" 6 points of ECM while at the same time using 6 points of power to generate its own ECM using the normal ECM rules (assuming that a small freighter has the ability to generate 6 pts. Further assume that 2 points of the warp energy from the engines is used for Erratic manuvers thus generating 4 more points of ECM giving a total of 10 points of ECM from all sourceswhile under restrictions of the EM and 12 points for the 1/4 turn when the ship is firing its weopons (I would recomend waiting to fire until the last impuse so as to not blind the special sensor with the weopons fire). (this may allow for what, up to a 4 column shift? since the ODP is going to be inside of the bases mine field probably the closest enemy ships will be shooting from 15+ hex range. That means that for 24 out of 32 impulses (if some Photons are filed every turn) or 56 impulses out of every 64 impulses if the ODP fires every other turn) the EDP will have the benefit of being under cover of the ECM.

If, however, it is desireable to have a non freighter ODP, a better design with improved sheilds could accomplish the same tasks. The problem is still that there will not be sufficient hull for an adequate crew to inhabit the odp, a barracks module will need to be on the planet or base (preferably within transporter range) to allow the ODP to be staffed properly.

I am not convinced yet that this is viable, but if you start with a 12 BPV freighter and it "costs" 20 points to upgrade it to ODP stnadards, then you have effectively 15 photons firing proximity war heads for the same cost of a single fed destroyer.

I will leave this to you judgement, would such a innovation as the ODP materially improve the ability of a Battle station survive?

Thanks for listening.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:27 am: Edit

ODP: Take a Base Station and remove the three docking pods. Put three Base Augementation Modules on it and give it four 360` Phaser 4s. If your race has PFs then by all means give it a PF module. Fighters sure go for it. Can control mines. Has Positional stableizers and isn't a totally new design so the parts are available. No logistical support. Crewed by the minimum crew unless at yellow or red alert.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:28 am: Edit

The nicer planets get one based on the BATTS. Whoohoo!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Alex Chobot:

I was probably remembering a ruling given before Commercial Platforms and Systems Activity Maintenance Stations were changed to have positional stabilizers, as the closest direct rule I have been able to find is in "orbits" (P8.0).

Suffice to say that Commercial Platforms and Systems Activity Maintenance Stations were changed to have positional stabilizers in the Captain's Edition because the notorious Orion Pirate whose name shall not be mentioned (well, yea, it was me) had a habit of running up to such small bases, slapping tractor beams on them, and then dragging them off the map to loot at leisure.

Rather than develop rules for situations where such small bases without positional stabilizers were shoved into planets, we just added positional stabilizers to them. And that is why if Orbital Defense Platforms are done, they will have positional stabilizers because we will not want to deal with creating rules sets for their being tractored and shoved around, or into planets.

Geoff Conn:

Small Ground Bases are not spotted until you get within five hexes range of them. This is because they are "hidden" by being ON a Terrain feature. Whether a planet, moon, or asteroid. Given their small size, I cannot imagine how you are going to make something even larger and "hide" it in orbit. I just cannot.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 01:06 pm: Edit

So SPP, what do you think of what I proposed just above? Too big?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Would I try to find as much "junk" as I could to armor the base?

Sure.

And if an Orbital Defense Platform were actually present would I be glad?

Sure. In the same way a Lancaster Bomber crew is happy to have a Blenheim Bombers included in the bombing mission. I.e., the Orbital Defense Platforms as so far proposed are going to be blown to pieces quite rapidly, taking their poor crews with them, but I get to breathe a little longer.
This does not make the Blenheim crews too happy.

But that gets you back to "why not just have ground bases that the enemy cannot attack without getting in close?

Would I not have done a much better job if I invested all those resources you are expending in building ground stations to back up my base? I mean, if I could, I would disassemble my base and put it on the planet scattered here and there. But I cannot because I NEED to be in a position to repair and resupply ships.

Would I order any avaiable freighter to help in the battle? Yes, if I thought a small freighter's two phaser-3s (one on the shuttle) might just tip the scales in my favor I sure would. If there were three small freighters and a DN backed by a CW squadron was coming would I issue such an order?

No. And I would probably load them with all non-essential personnel before they left. A DN and three CWs means (barring something else) my BATs is doomed, dragging down those three freighters along with my BATS would be little more than murder of their crews.

As to converting a small freighter in the manner you suggest . . . uhm, no. Not technically feasible. If it were, can you imagine what a Q-ship would look like? And why would a New Jersey Class Battlecruiser suffer from "shock" effects when it fires six photons if a small 'freighter' can fire five with no adverse affect?

Also, you design seems to have 25 points of power (four warp engine, one impulse engine, 20 AWRs). Operating the ship will take 2.5 (shields, life support, fire control), operating the special sensor will take 1 point to activate it. Full ECM will take 6 points, Full ECM being lent by the Special Sensor to itself will take 6 points, Erratic Maneuvers will take 2 points, for a total of 17.5 points, leaving just 7.5 points to try to normally arm five photon torpedoes, leaving you 2.5 points shy. Assuming you did not have active fire control, you would still be 1.5 points shy of the power needed to normally load five photon torpedoes.

It is also extremely unlikely that you are going to be able to create a 270 degree photon torpedo that you could simply mount on a ship. Bases do have 360 photon torpedoes, but they ARE bases.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:41 pm: Edit

SPP - Guess I talked too much and didn't stick to the point. Sorry. Will try to do better in future.

With regard to prospective Orbital Defense Platforms, the 2 characteristics that (in my opinion) must be present in the design are that they must be cheap and give the crew a chance for survival.

The design limits for a ODP would seem to boil down to just how small in ship size class terms and what measures are available to offer said unit protection in combat.

Question, if we start with a standard cargo pod, what kind of sheilding could one build into it? with 25 system boxes total available, and if say 10 were AWR, would that generate 10 point sheilds for each hex side?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:43 pm: Edit

SPP - Guess I talked too much and didn't stick to the point. Sorry. Will try to do better in future.

With regard to prospective Orbital Defense Platforms, the 2 characteristics that (in my opinion) must be present in the design are that they must be cheap and give the crew a chance for survival.

The design limits for a ODP would seem to boil down to just how small in ship size class terms and what measures are available to offer said unit protection in combat.

Question, if we start with a standard cargo pod, what kind of sheilding could one build into it? with 25 system boxes total available, and if say 10 were AWR, would that generate 10 point sheilds for each hex side?

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 01:23 am: Edit

Jeff: Single weight pods don't have much in the way of shielding. The Fed Light Battle Pod has 35 internals and 6 box shields. Even with 10 box shields, it won't live long against determined attacker. Plus it is very vulnerable to dispersed munitions as from shotguns or scatterpacks. Easily killed or ignored weapons would instead neutralize the ravelin-pod.

SPP: One minor problem with depending on ground bases is the need for a planet. Most SFB scenarios place the base in space with no nearby terrain. Creating outworks from other bases is the only option in those cases. Whether such bases could be either affordable or effective is a different matter.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:08 am: Edit

SPP; If it can be accepted that ships without a warp engine (but presumably still with awrs if they had them) can sub light evade, then so could an ODP in open space.

Range 10 could work. Double the range at which the aforementioned ground bases could be spotted.

That's how I see it anyways. And if they are classified as bases then their ew capabilities go up considerably (Assuming channels on the unit). I don't see bases being autokills at range, so why would an odp be?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:34 am: Edit

Becauses mosts bases have large amounts of cargo as padding.

ODPs don't, making it much easier to core them and render them a non-factor.

There's also the matter of expense. A BATS, in F&E terms, costs as much as a dreadnought, before youpay for fighters or PFs. A good chunk of that is, undoubtedly, due to the fact that it is a base (posiitonal stabilizers, specially designed EW/special sensor system to allow it base benefits, etc). An ODP would most likely be at least as expensive as a ship of the same size, if not more so, and a lot more vulnerable, and no where near as tactically flexible. If the DD-szied ODP costs as much as two DD's, why not just send two DDs to hang out at the point that needs to be defended, instead of trying up an overworked tug to deploy an ODP?

While it is vulernable to sinpiing at range, it's considered a neccesary trade-of as it has to be in open space to service the ships of the fleet. And that's why bases generally have other things augmenting them already that aren't quite so vulnerable (ground bases, DefSats) or are much more tactically flexible (fighters/bombers/PFs, ships).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

No, you did not talk too much. I just tried to address your concerns and point out where you had gone a little overboard. You are more than welcome to take part in the discussion. It is discussion here, not argument (at least in my opinion).

There is a problem that the smaller something is, the less survivable it becomes. There are few fighters, for example, that could survive a hit from a single overloaded photon torpedo, and no starbase that would be bothered by a hit by a single overloaded photon torpedo.

As this have developed so far, you could simply take a Ground Based Defense Phaser-4, declare its phasers 360 degree weapons and put it in orbit and voila, an orbital defense platform. It would perforce be "visible" and shortly be reduced to scrap, but it would be there. It is just that it would have lasted longer and gotten off more shots on a planetary surface.

Richard Wells:

A base in deep space is different from one around a planet. The discussion is, after all, "ORBITAL" defense platforms. Not even the realtively light DefSat can be placed in "orbit" around a base in deep space.

If you want to start a discussion about "outworks for bases other than minefields", you can do so.

However, to have any effect such outworks are going to be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and much of their expense will be WASTED. The problem is that you have to put your works to defend the base from attack from any direction, and that effectively means that (roughly) only 16% of the works will be heavily engaged (those along the axis of the enemy attack),and once the base is destroyed, the other 84% will effectively have no reason to exist and can be ignored. Leave a frigate or two to take their surrender when they start starving.

In short, such "outworks" would be a huge investment for very little return.

Your simply back to the point that the base is in space because it supports the fleet. Bases that cannot support the fleet have almost no value, and can literally be bypassed and left to "wither on the vine". A base with supplies and repair facilities, on the other hand, is a place where enemy ships can rally, be repaired and rearmed, and strike against the logistics of my advancing fleet. I cannot leave a battle station or starbase (or even a base station) active in my rear. But "outworks" I can ignore wit impunity and be thankful that you poured the money into building them.

Geoff Conn:

Sorry, but no. N O. Nyet, Nein, etc., etc.

Alex has explained why bases are not auto-kills at range to some extent, and there is also the simple fact that if you could bring enough firepower even a large base is an "autokill at range". Firepower and the ability of things to stand up to firepower is relative.

Orbital Defense Platforms are by their nature fixed in orbit around a planet. They are large (much larger than a DefSat) and are going to be seen. You are NOT going to get a special dispensation for them. If you were, it would already exist as a rule for Warbirds and other sublight units, i.e., that if they start a scenario in orbit they begin hidden (or can begin hidden during any scenario even in deep space). Even a Sublight Snipe does not have such a rule.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 05:30 pm: Edit

What if we look at real life examples of harbor defenses? The best example I can remember is Fort Drum in the Philipines, (supposed to be near Coregidor island). Its the one that looks like a "congrete battleship" armed with dual 14 inch naval guns in one turret. the shape was designed to minimize gunfire hits that actually penetrate the concrete by having no perpendicular surfaces exposed to the direction of the most likely surface approaches to the harbor.

(side note, Ft Drum surrendered at the same time wainwright surrendered U.S. Forces in 1942. Apparently the Japanese did not attempt to take the Ft. Directly. When the U.S. Invaded 1944, Rangers rendered it "offline" by pouring gas into the ventilation system. (can we say Prime team?))

What the Orbital Defense Platform needs to be is a "hardened target" that is very difficult to hit effectively with direct weapons fire. It also needs to have enough of a main battery that can dish out punishment to any approaching enemy.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Fort Drum, I fear, supports my comments. Fort Drum, aka "The Concrete Battleship" is located in the mouth of Manila bay between Corregidor (which is at the tip of the Bataan peninsula) and the other side of the bay's entrance. Its two turrets were not 360 degree capable and (if memory serves) were not even able to fire in support of the fighting on Bataan. The upshot being the Japanese never HAD to take it under attack. When Wainwright surrendered after the Japanese landed on Corregidor, they forced him to include Fort Drum in the general surrender as part of the terms.

When the Americans returned to the islands, the main armament of Fort Drum was out of action, reportedly (if memory serves) due to lack of maintenance. The "Garrison" of Fort Drum was reported made up of Survivors of the IJN Musashi, sistership to the Yamato, which had been lost in the Japanese effort to rebel the American landing (which had Climaxed in "The Action of Samar" with the main part of the Japanese Surface fleet engaging an American "Jeep Carrier" force called "Taffy Three").

The US forces destroyed Fort Drum (and its Japanese defenders) by flooding the interior with "liquid explosives" and then detonating them. They did not use chemical warfare agents, i.e., "gas", in the "ventilation system", they blew the bloody thing up.

But Fort Drum was NOT an "outwork" for Corregidor, it was part of the main defenses of Manila Bay.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile said:
'What the Orbital Defense Platform needs to be is a "hardened target" that is very difficult to hit effectively with direct weapons fire. It also needs to have enough of a main battery that can dish out punishment to any approaching enemy.'

Sounds like a bunch of Planet based P-IV's: very hard to hit (need range 5), can dish out punishment since it has the best weapon type in the game.

DougL

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 07:09 pm: Edit

SPP, was my proposal just way too out there or...?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

I did not think you were being serious.

I mean, if you are going to the expense to build this rather large object to orbit above your planet and defend it, where is it better than my planet with its multiple ground based defense phaser-4s?

As I have said before, the REASON to build an "orbital station" is to SUPPORT THE FLEET. If it were not for that little wrinkle, there would be no reason to build them as they are vulnerable to attack.

Yours are much larger (being both a base station version and a battle station version) than some, but still easier to kill form long range than my series of ground based systems.

What, exactly, are you gaining over my ground systems by having these lovely large targets orbiting above your planet?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Well, first I can see how you thought that because of the next post. The "Whoohoo" was about the near non-improvement of the BATTS core over the BS core for this application.

As to a reason there is not a purely military reason that the ODP (I proposed) is better than the Ground base series. The GBS is a good solution. The Reason for using my proposal is for situations where Ground bases might not be applicable. Gas Giants and politically untennable colonies come to mind. Particularly difficult weather patterns or ocean planets or where you don't want to expose the population too much to interferance for what ever political reason. Or the Animal life is just too dangerous or the plant life is Acidic (like in one TOS episode).
The Base version whould be capable of utilizing fighters and PFs (which would be able to react faster being already space based. The shields would be the same as a BS or BATTS so would be as survivable but cheaper to employ.
This would also only be deployed on secondary planets some ways back from the front line. This type of ODP would also have the ability to control a mine field. Perhaps a deterent to Pirates as well, though a good GBS would do that too, once known. There would be some level of space based commerce capability as well. So it has that built in advantage.

I suppose it would boil down to political or geological reasons to not build ON the planet and thus require a solution short of a actual BS or BATTS.