Loren Knight:

Problem: If the planets are as you say they are, what is the economic reason we want to defend them with this expenditure? If the planets are such as you describe them, and we need to plant a base there to support fleet operations, then the fleet support mission requires that they be actual bases, not planetary defense platforms.

Put Simply, the United States began construction of, the Confederate States of America occupied, Fort Morgan in Mobile, Alabama. No work like Fort Morgan was constructed at Meridian, Alabama because it had no value commensurate with the cost of constructing such a work.

There was a work similar to Fort Morgan constructed on "Shark Island" by the United States to use as a "Fleet Support Structure", even though there is no civilian occupation, no shipping (shipping PASSES the post on Shark Island), no nothing there otherwise. But that work was ultimately a logistics work.

So, I come back to the question. What is it about this planet that makes it worth building any defenses at all? As you have defined these different geologic or atmospheric conditions, you have simply created things that the fleet does not need to defend.

Fleets defend the wealth of the Empire, its planets and Commerce.

How many divisions would you deploy to defend the Gobi desert? How many ships will you post over the Marianas trench? The answer to both is you would not as there is nothing of value to the empire in those areas.

You do not build defenses where there is nothing to gain. If there is something to gain, then there is a population gaining it, and if there is a population gaining it, then you can put ground bases there.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 07:36 am: Edit

How about this:

WARS. War Station

Take a BATS and make the following changes to each of its three Modules/Outer Sections:

Reduce Repair to 10
Add 6 APR
Add 2 PH-4

Still has the same logistical support as a BS, but with double the firepower of a BATS.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 08:04 am: Edit

However, in F&E terms, that leaves it unable to repair a cruiser in one turn, a major liability.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:28 am: Edit

Depends. In a strategic sense, the goal of attackers would be to take out the base; if the planet still had active Ph-4s, it doesn't really matter. A Base with 6 more Ph-4s and 18 more power than a BATS will have a higher rate of survival.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:49 am: Edit

The 18 power would allow for more shield reinforcement, yes. But unless it's adding no more than 6, it's not firing some of those ph-4s, and those ph-4s Don't make the base any more resilient, just more dangerous. Which can be accomplished by six GBDPs on the planet or on asteroids towed to the base site. And those GDBPs _are_ more resilient (have to close to range 5 to engage), and don't compromise the BATs repair ability (part of its fleet support mission).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:13 am: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

And the War station is not an "orbital defense platform", it is a base. It is also likely to be more expensive than a battle station and less capable of the primary mission of a battle station.

Bases are armed because they are subject to attack. But they exist to provide support to the fleet.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:22 am: Edit

SPP: In reply...

A planets poor geological conditions doesn't mean that there isn't dilitheum or deuterium or whatever on the planet. Sure you would have a mining colony but putting a military base there might well be considered punishment. (And perhaps it should be.) Also, the planet may be a resource RESERVE. (Reserve? We have had many Oil Crisises but have always had enough oil to compleatly solve the problem albeit temporarily. We kept them in reserve because the situation hasn't been bad enough. I submit that there would be resource reserves in all the Empires.)

The majority of political reasons I can think of would only be tolerated in the Federation and Gorn Confederation (I suppose the ISC might be included) where cultures are respected. If pressed I can't think of any reason (politically) why the Klingons, Romulans, Kzinti, Lyrans, and Tholians would care and would prefer to have ground bases as a means to pressure the population.
Hydrans might do such a thing so that as Methane breathers they can monitor and protect a non-mathane planet (again not requiring a full base).

So you have a planet with firm religious convictions that provides a fair measure of trade but are back from the front line and don't need to provide logistical support for the Fleet (there is already Logistical support in the area 500 parsects away). They demand protection but you can't desecrate the soil with alien blood. Pirates are the primary threat.
A prison planet does not need to provide logistical support either. These both would need to provide a level of commerce support and should have some repair capability (perhaps on the level of a repair pod).

Survivabilty: Would be nearly as good as a BS as it could have (with the proper BAM) fighter support and/or PF support that can take the fight to the enemy at longer range. It can generate EW and cannot be towed.

I can think of many situation where a heavy attack is not expected but a deterent is desired AND building on planet is not the best solution.

One last point: Say your planet IS wourth defending with a Ground Base system but to provide commerce support you need a commercial plateform. Yet you don't want the CP getting blasted as they can be seen from afar and can do little to defend themselves. The given situation is not so important as to provide a full base but you need to be NOT asking the pirates to "Please come raid my Colony?". So I can see some possability for both a small Ground Base System and a ODP.

My solution is certainly not a final one but could be a start as it is not SO small and not as expensive and a base. I'm sure that a new design would be needed.

There was a module comming out with some new bases right? Maybe there is already one there that will do this mission.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:28 am: Edit

So what, the pirates wait till the convoy leaves system and the protection of the ODP before they jump it?

See also: Why not just have a frigate or destroyer or three just hang out in the area?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:43 am: Edit

Maybe a MON would do the job in that case. But it wouldn't also provide commece support.

It doesn't matter what is at the planet then. Pirates will always wait until the convoy leaves. I mean, come on. Ground Bases, Star Base, what ever. The idea is to keep the Pirates from raiding the planet itself (which any instalation could do). Also, it's a place where a convoy might retreat to.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 11:49 am: Edit

One problem with GBDP helping to defend Bases is that the range from Enemy to GBDP and Enemy to BS/BATS is different. A smart enemy will take advantage of the difference in range brackets, an example being when using Range 15 where Scout Functions become key.

SPP. Yes, its a base, not an orbital defense platform. I was thinking of a creative way to get more firepower on a base without giving up all of its logistical capabilities. I admit that it would not be a common "upgrade" but for areas where warships are scarce and where slowing down the enemy is important, I think such a base could see some positive use.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Loren, my bad, I misparsed Colony as Convoy. But, generally speaking, building facilities on planet _is_ the best solution. Logistcal bases in orbit/open sapce are, as have been repeatedly noted, a concession to the fact that they have to service ships not capable of making planetfall.

Andy, how do you know that that situation is gonna develop? That the BATS over here won't have supporting ships and the enemy is going there, but this one will have supporting ships?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Alex, and you now have assisted me in making my point. I agree with you and I suppose that what I proposed is more of a heavily armed Commercial platform.

In SFB this idea may well not be needed. This game is more about combat than running an Empire.

I would like to hear SPPs reply as I always do with great interest. But I'm not really willing to push for this one. Game wise, it's easier to just use a BS.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:27 pm: Edit

SFB already has one base that sacrifices part of its fleet support capacity to improve localised defenses. The Fed SB trades in 4% of its docking capacity for extra fighters. Can other races justify similar trades?

Tholians can repair almost the entire fleet at their 3 Starbases and with the F&E restrictions can withdraw any ship to a SB. The various BATS are not needed as repair points and the focus will be on combat ability.

Romulans (and Orions and Paravians) with the older ships that can land on planets should be placing larger bases on the planets. However, once these races transition to ships that can't land on planets, the base located on a planet no longer can use repair systems. May as well remove the repair systems and augment the weapons on the base stuck to the planet.

For the remaining races, at least it has been my F&E experience, that many times a MB upgraded to a BATS will not conduct repairs. The repairs were handled by a nearby FRD park. Losing unneeded systems to prevent raiders from easily cutting supply lines by destroying the base may be very useful.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 01:13 pm: Edit

>>> Maybe a MON would do the job in that case. But it wouldn't also provide commece support.

So maybe what we really need is a "commerce Support Pallet" for a monitor.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Andy Palmer, I do not see how you are going to take advantage of range 15 in an assult based on Scout Functions. Even if you can, then the same can be done to independent orbital bases unless they are in the same hex as the primary base, in which case the explosion of each secondary gives me a nice little christmas present if I am the attacker!

Planet based Ph-4 are imune to your attack if you put them at range 15 and the base at 16, so the only advantage to doing so is that you can blind individual planet Ph-4 bases while you work on the (out of range of OEW) orbital base. Big deal, no single ground base is WORTH 6 power to blind. And my orbital base, the one target worth 6 OEW is out of your range.

If OTOH you put yourself at 15 from the base and 16 from the planet, you can blind my orbital base (assuming all your ships have 7+ ECM of their own), my orbital base can blind your ships, and the planet based Ph-4 have clear shots to attrition away your scout.

Nor am I clear how either of these situations is all that much worse than an attacker putting his scout at 15 and the rest of the fleet at 16 from your suggested co-located orbital bases.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Loren Knight said: A planet?s poor geological conditions does not mean that there is not dilithium or deuterium or whatever on the planet. Sure you would have a mining colony but putting a military base there might well be considered punishment.
REPLY: If the miners can survive and extract materials worth the cost, then it is possible to build the bases. The bases are still a cheaper and more cost effective defense than an orbital defense platform. It might be a "hardship posting", but still cheaper and effective.

Loren Knight said: The majority of political reasons I can think of would only be tolerated in the Federation and Gorn Confederation (I suppose the ISC might be included) where cultures are respected.
REPLY: There might be "political reasons", but "economic reasons" would tend to trump those. Orbital bases are major investments.
Loren Knight said: Hydrans might do such a thing so that as Methane breathers they can monitor and protect a non-methane planet (again not requiring a full base).
REPLY: It does not require a base to do this. A few "spy sats" to keep tabs and call the needed Hydran ships if the natives are getting "uppity". There is just no need to build a base for this. If the Oxy Breathers are producing trade goods the Hydrans want, the Hydrans would trade with them, and perhaps sell them planetary defense systems. Who are they going to trade with but the Hydrans, so shooting at the Hydrans rather than Orions would not make any sense, so there is no need to build a base. Now, if the Hydrans decided that this was a good location for a Fleet Support facility, then they would build a full base, not a bunch of Defense Platforms.

Loren Knight said: So you have a planet with firm religious convictions that provides a fair measure of trade but are back from the front line and do not need to provide logistical support for the Fleet (there is already Logistical support in the area 500 parsecs away). They demand protection but you cannot desecrate the soil with alien blood. Pirates are the primary threat.
REPLY: If their religion is that primitive, it is doubtful they are producing anything of value to the empire beyond raw materials. Our concern would thus be Orions raiding the material stockpiles. So provide the natives with guns and let them defend themselves. What is the problem?

Loren Knight said: A prison planet does not need to provide logistical support either. These both would need to provide a level of commerce support and should have some repair capability (perhaps on the level of a repair pod).
REPLY: Prison planets as seen in SFB to date depend more on "isolation" than "orbital defenses". The only scenario ever written for such a case (written by John Berg if memory serves) used a modified Commercial Platform or Systems Activity Maintenance Station. Escaping from such a planet is pretty difficult in most cases. You have scan the surface to find out where the prisoners are, get contact with them, sort out your "captured crew beings" from the "general prisoners of the larger political structure" (all while a reaction squadron is rushing to the station that called for help), get them to start marshalling, etc. All of which probably is not to bad for the Orions, but what are you going to do with those 200 murderers you rescued from the penal planet?

Loren Knight said: Survivability: Would be nearly as good as a base station as it could have (with the proper base augmentation module) fighter support and/or PF support that can take the fight to the enemy at longer range. It can generate electronic warfare and cannot be towed.
REPLY: Sure, and it would be EXPENSIVE. Where is the value of it? And ground bases are MORE survivable with their atmospheric protections. In a cost benefit analysis, if you are not using the base for fleet support, it is cheaper and more survivable to use small ground bases on the planet?s surface.

Loren Knight said: I can think of many situations where a heavy attack is not expected but a deterrent is desired AND building on the planet is not the best solution.
REPLY: I have, I fear, looked at the ones you have suggested so far, and ground bases backed by DefSats seems in all cases the best solution still.

Loren Knight said: One last point: Say your planet IS worth defending with a Ground Base system but to provide commerce support you need a commercial platform. Yet you do not want the commercial platform getting blasted as they can be seen from afar and can do little to defend themselves. The given situation is not so important as to provide a full base but you need to be NOT asking the pirates to "Please come raid my Colony?". So I can see some possibility for both a small Ground Base System and a orbital defense platform.
REPLY: If you were an Orion LR, and my planet had a Commercial Platform and six Ground bases Defense phaser-4s, would you raid my commercial platform? At least three of those phasers are going to be in arc, and at six hexes range (the range where you can reach the Commercial Platform by transporter assuming it is in a radius one orbit) they will inflict an average of 42 points of damage (including the phaser-3s). I think I have deterred the LRs at that point, and the DWs probably as well even if their shields are up. Part of the problem is that you are thinking like a "raider" and not like a "pirate". A Pirate does not want to destroy the Commercial platform. He wants to board it and loot its cargo. He might destroy it on the way out, but on the way in, he does not want to destroy it before he has looted it. A raider just wants to destroy everything it can. Double the number of ground based defense phaser-4s, and even a raiding war cruiser will think twice about tangling with the defenses.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Douglas: Avoiding range 15 from the ground bases avoids any attempt at OEW from the ground base or jamming local ECM drones. I can't see how you expect the planet to be closer than the orbiting base; if the base is behind the planet, the base can't be shot at.

The liability for ground bases is the reduced effeciency of that veritable forest of phaser-3s because of the increased range to protect the orbiting base.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

Clarification. The fort on "Shark Island" is Fort Jefferson. It is practically at the very end of the Florida Keys.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 10:26 pm: Edit

SPP: Well, I conceed that in SFB there isn't a need. I can imagin reasons for something less than a full base and more than a comecial platform giving the many, many different planets and situations. Perhaps these planets build their own with their own duckets for their own reasons. But that would require too many SSDs.

Anyway, that boat don't float.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:11 am: Edit

I have never been a big fan of having bases orbitting planets. IMO, it makes them far too vulnerable.

All the opponent has to do is approach from the blindspot and take out the planetery defenses, unhindered by the DF or scout capabilities of the orbitting base. Then, the attacking fleet can easily come from behind the blindspot and get a Range 2 Overload shot on the base. Result: dead base. Given an equal BPV attacking force, IMO, they will always defeat a base orbitting a planet.

My preference is to place the base 15 hexes from the planet. This allows for solid scout support between the two while preventing the blindspot of the planet to be used to great advantage by the attacker. The range is such that even an Admin shuttle can travel between the two in 5 turns (12.5 minutes?) so should not be a problem logistically and fighters and other attrition units can easily support either installation in time.

In this scenario, having a base with almost SB firepower and the logistical support of a BS makes more sense, especially since Repair can always be supplemented by RepMod and Repair Freighters.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:21 am: Edit

I always felt the reason to put a base in orbit was so that it would be within transporter range.

Hmmm, question, when a base is in orbit do the Positional Stabilizers keep it in position realative to the planet as it revolves around the sun and if not in orbit the base wouldn't stay with the planet being stabilized realative to the star or something else?

SPP or SVC???

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

Loren, (G29.25) indicates a unit with active stabilizers may still orbit. Stabilzation doesn't necessarily fix it's position relative to any given point (as it can still orbit a planet orbiting a star orbiting a galatic core flying through space away from the Big bang point), but prevents it from having its orbital vectors changed i.e. can't be towed. It also "fixes" the unit in space-time such that a stasis field cannot affect it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:44 am: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

So, if I understand you correctly, you feel it best to sacrifice half of the planet and save the base?

This is what you are saying.

Position the base where it is not in orbit, and the "shadow of the planet" you are expressing concern about simply dooms that side of the planet.

Now, if the attacker is a "fleet", this is probably always going to be the case, even if the base orbits the planet. But if the attacker is Orions, the orbiting of the base makes it a LOT harder for the Orions to "loot", and that is (90% of the time) the main reason Orions come.

If the Orions land ships to load with cargo, then when the base comes "over the horizon", the ships will get wasted.

If the Orions simply beam down troops to gather the cargo with the idea of their ships swooping back in to transport the captured cargo, then when the base orbits above the horizon, it will beam down its own troops to assist in fighting off the Orion ground troops.

In short, an orbiting base is a trade off. It does provide SOME defense for all of the planet. Its weapons are close enough to have a devastating effect on any enemy landing force (destroying ships that land, obviously you would not be able to kill their ground troops directly with the phasers or other heavy weapons).

Note that the same situation applies with ground based defenses (see, I am more than willing to admit weaknesses where they exist). But this is true of virtually any "static" defenses, i.e., they are subject to being 'flanked and defeated in detail'. If I put six ground based defense phaser-4s on a planet, I can only use 50% of their combined firepower at one time (assuming the attacker is not an idiot, or a cadet fresh out of the academy). Once the enemy reaches range five, he will begin taking out the stations. Once he destroys the second, he will NEVER have to face more than one station at any given time for the rest of the fight. So the success or failure of the ground based defenses will more or less be decided by the first three engaged. Double the number of stations, and the enemy will face six initially, and after destroying the first four, will still face two from that point on. And so it goes.

And so it goes back to the "Orbital Defense Platform".

If we have base on one side of the planet, and an Orbital defense platform on the other, an approaching enemy will likely face the fire of both on some turns during the approach. But the enemy will design his approach for the optimum effect of taking out the weaker of the two "bases" (probably the putative Orbital Defense Platform) from the greatest range possible (massing his fires). Then he will continue the approach using the planet to mask himself from the other base.

The major differences are that an Orbital Defense Platform can be killed from greater range than Ground Based Defenses, and an Orbital Defense Platform will at least have a few turns when it can combine all of its fire with the base, even if the range will be longer and the weapons thus less effective, while ground bases can always expect that about half of them will be taken out peicemeal.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:27 pm: Edit

SPP. The primary purpose of a BS/BATS is either to provide Logistical support for the fleet -OR- to help with the defense of the planet.

Both the standard BS/BATS and my WARS work meet the Logistical support better by being distanced from the planet.

The Orbital Defense Platforms mentioned by others are a perfect fit for the role of planetary defense that BS/BATS currently orbiting planets provide.

The purpose of the Base and value of the planet dictates the target of the enemy. A Logistical base, orbitting a minor planet is going to be the primary target - depending upon the aggresion of the attacker, they will either attempt long range destruction or closing behind the blind-spot to destroy the base in one turn. As such, removing the latter of the two options from the enemy would seem to be the more intelligent choice.

A base that provides little/no logistical support will only be a target inasmuch as it is part of the defenses of a valuable planet; having such a base orbit to prevent easy invasion would be a wise choice. It is for THIS role that an orbital defense platform would be created, and might also be a use for my proposed WARS, in the case of capitals and other major planets.

By Geoff Conn (Talonz) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:47 pm: Edit

You do not build defenses where there is nothing to gain.

Quite. Like a deep space station at the limit of supply to extend that supply net that much further, or a station at a pivotal point on a zone net like the tholian holdfast or blackfoot pass.

All without a planet.