Andrew Palmer:

Uh, no.

The primary purpose of the base is fleet support. Yes. That is the reason you build them. If they colocate with a planet, part of their purpose is defense of the planet. It has been previously noted that any "space based" system (except for Defense Satellites) is subject to destruction by massed long range fires. But almost any defense, even in the real world outside of the game world, is subject to being overwhelmed.

You might review the original defense plans for, say the Philippines, at the start of World War II. The Americans honestly expected that "the fleet" would arrive and save the day. It was written into our war plans. Our war plans simply did not take into account that the Japanese would eliminate our fleet on day one. History is replete with defenses that were simply overwhelmed.

In game terms, take a Starbase.

No one in his right mind is going to take on a starbase with a Frigate squadron (whether you can sneak up behind a planet or not, and whether you had "surprise" or not). And no Starbase will stand by itself against three War Cruiser Squadrons led by a BCH (at least not very long, and I am assuming a Starbase with no fighter or PF modules). The upshot is that you build the bases where they will do the most good when you can.

Orbiting a planet protects the planet from the usual run of Pirate raiders.

Orbiting a planet creates a "blindspot", but that blind spot works both ways, i.e., defending damaged ships can "dock" to the repair facilities while the base is in the blindspot, as opposed to trying to dock "under fire" if the base is in deep space. This at least means that the enemy has to keep some of his units "exposed to fire" to keep damaged units from getting a free entry to the base for repairs.

Put another way, "if circumstances were different, then circumstances would be different."

If the base is attacked by overwhelming force, it goes down. If the base is attacked by smaller levels of force, but is not supported by friendly ships . . . see overwhelming force.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Geoff Conn:

Excuse me, but do you think you are making some brilliant point?

See reference to fortification named "Fort Jefferson" in earlier discussion.

You are apparently NOT paying attention.

There are now TWO different discussions here, and your rather snide comment indicates that you have not realized that.

Discussion "A" is the original one about building "orbital defense platforms".

Discussion "B" is a branch discussion about the general use of bases.

In "A" it is noted that you are not going to build "orbital defense platforms" or "bases" around a planet if the planet is not providing you something. I.e., if the planet is providing wealth, (look at Fort Morgan in Mobile, or Fort Peterson in Pensacola, or Fort Sumter for that matter) you want to guard that wealth and provide for fleet support (the harbors these forts guarded). The discussion is whether there is such a thing as a planet that you are extracting so much wealth from that you want to defend it, but which has conditions on the surface or in its atmosphere which make it impossible to construct ground bases. My general concept (and I could be wrong, SVC might decide that a given planet does fit the bill for what was proposed by Loren Knight) is that if a planet surface supports the population base to extract the resources, then it supports the ground bases.

"B" is bases in General. Their primary function is fleet support. You do not simply build a base because there is a planet there. Bases can be built for purely strategic reasons, i.e., Fort Jefferson which sits at the end of the Florida Keys and is a structure to rival Sumter or Morgan (it is a beautiful example of the type of construction by the way). Its purpose was to support the operations of the fleet. It did not guard a trade port (sources of wealth) directly, but served as an operations base extended far out into the Gulf of Mexico and thereby supported the operations of the fleet in Gulf waters and in the Carribean.

Would you build an "orbital defense platform" to extend supply? No, you build bases. Blackfoot pass is an example of a "choke point", and as such could be blocked with a "fixed installation" rather than keep mobile fleet elements constantly tied to it.

No one EVER said you ONLY build bases to guard wealth. The quote you pulled even says "You do not build defenses where there is nothing to gain." Blocking a choke point is a gain. Extending supply to attack into your enemy's space is a gain.

Are you claiming that bases would be built where they accomplished nothing? Every base has a purpose when it is built, and they are built in specific places to support those purposes. The gain might be nothing more than rapid movement of fleet elements from point A to point B (which may not require the investment of resources to build a starbase, or even a battle station), or might be the bulwark around which the defenses of a sector will rally to ward off attack by threating attack on the enemy logistics if the base is not destroyed (a reason to have starbases on the border frontiers backing up the battle stations).

But they are not built simply because there is a planet here, or a patch of otherwise empty space there. They are built for reasons, and the primary purpose is to support fleet operations which in turn supports guarding the empire's wealth, which in turn allows the empire to acquire more wealth and build more bases, or strengthen existing ones when a threat is perceived in that direction. If there happens to be a planet that is a strong producer of wealth for the Empire, co-locating the base with the planet to help defend it simply makes good sense, but does not in and of itself mean that you would build orbital defense platforms.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:45 pm: Edit

SPP. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you put a BS/BATS/SB orbiting a planet, I will take it out will LESS BPV than you invested in the sum of planetary defenses+SB. I will face exactly 1/2 of the fixed planetary defenses and will take out the base in one turn (it will get one impulse of fire). I see that as a major problem; I guess you don't.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Let's see:

A BATS with both refits is 230, two HBMs for 20, PAM for 18, that's 268

Fighter squadron, call it 15 each for good fighters with drones and stuff, that's 180, total of 448.

Six GBDPs is 84, total of 532.

How much less than 532 are you taking that's gonna be able to core the base in one turn? And how much are you losing to it in the process?

Optionally, add a rack of DefSats for 100 points, taking us up to 632.

And how do ODP's make the bases's situation that much better? If you're going base busting and the base doesn't have manuverable feet elements with it, you will be able to mass overwhelming and kill the base regardless. You just reduce the ODPs at long range, then reduce the base.

If you're taking out the ground bases first, you still have to manuver to within range five of the planet, where the fighters can easily get you, and deal with 3 GBDPs and a fighter squadron. Yeah, you can take these out, but you _will_ get hurt in the process, and still have a fresh BATS to deal with.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:09 am: Edit

Alex. My point isn't that ODPs make the base's situation better, its that if the base is the target, orbiting the planet is not the best situation for it. For instance, for that same 184 BPV you can 2 DD/DWs or a BCH and do a lot more damage.

Assuming an attacking fighter squadron cancels out the defending fighters (equal BPV), for <400 BPV, I can get a War Cruiser Squadron. I'll take damage to one on the approach, will gut the Base while taking return fire, then will leave, with either 2 heavily damaged CWs or 1 destroyed CW. AT WORST, I'll lose two CWs which is still a trade I'll take all day long. The planets defenses will be intact, but you won't have the logistics base anymore.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:43 am: Edit

We've conceded that if you want to kill the base, then you will be able to kill it by putting enough force there, and it really doesn't matter where the base is. That 184 BPV of fixed defenses don't take from the limited number of warships available to the fleet. While it can't save the base, it does make it a much thornier target for raids, and makes any base killing mission that much more painful. The bases may as well be near the planet for ease of operations and better interlocking fields of fire.

And I still have the base after one run. A BATS has 40 box shields and about 225 internals. Three Fed NCLs doing a full photon overload/ph-1 centerlined alpha-strike at range 4 will average , assuming no reinforcement, 157 internals with no shift, crippling but not a kill. With a one-shift (casually easy for the base), it drops to 116 internals on average, barely a cripple (and with this being one volley, the base will have most of its teeth). With a two-shift (which the base can also do just as easily, and still arm ph-4s), it drops to 69 internals, not even a cripple.

Meanwhile, the base and three facing GDP's ph-4s will open the #1 of two NCLs for 30-40 internals, not counting whatever the base's heavy weapons do.

So you have a base that's hurt but still in fighting trim (most of those 69 internals landing on repair), and two out of three NCLs that really aren't in any shape to make another battle pass.

Note I also forgot to factor in the DefSats fire.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:59 am: Edit

Each DefSat, assuming a disruptor DefSat firing ruptors and ph-2 will add about 6 damage on average at range 4. How many DefSats get shots and at what range is hard to say, all depends on layout and approach. So we'll be generous and just say two DefSats, each firing on one of the two NCLs taking ph-4 fire, for 6 more internals.

They do make closing to range three or closer, where they get a major jump in ph-2 and then ph-3 damage, even more unpalatable.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:16 am: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

You are looking at the game (where we try to make things "fair" either by balancing the sides or creating victory conditions) and "reality" (which the game on some levels reflects in terms of tactical and strategic abilities).

You can destroy any base I build, whether it is a Commercial Platform, or a Starbase, if you can mass enough force to do the job and I cannot counter your force.

Take the putative battle station. Any battle station sitting by itself under attack by a Federation fleet where the Federation player gets to pick his forces is going to die to Photon Bombardment at 30 hexes range.

Take three Federation DD+, three Federation NCL+, Three Federation CA+, one Federation DNG, one Federation GSC, and one Federation NSC+. That gives you eight ships able to fire photon torpedoes with no die roll shift normally, and a plus 1 die roll shift if the battle station goes passive.

Without the 1 die roll shift that means on average (8 x 4 = 32 plus two extra from the DNG for 34 total divided by a 50% chance to hit) 17 proximity photons hitting the battle station every other turn for 68 points of damage. Throw in some phaser-1 damage for spite. If the battle station threw all ofs available power into reinforcing the shield that was hit, it would still take 36 points of shield damage from each such a salvo (and this is assuming the presence of a power Augmentation module), or more than half a shield gone. Note that this is assuming that the battle station commander correctly put all of his power into the shield that was hit except for shields, life support, one special sensor, and 12 points in ECM.

On "Odd turns" we can assume the battle station repairs six shield boxes (no need to reinforce a shield while the Feds are reloading), so on Turn #3 the battle station's weakest shield has a strength of 10. And again, this was without phasers, assumed all power in that shield when it was hit.

The Federation COULD under such conditions volley by half each turn. This increases the total number of photons being fired (since the ships that did not have scout support can have scout support while other ships are reloading) and insures that the Battle station only gets to use the 12 points of battery power effectively once (if you fire every other turn, he can refill the batteries in the turn you do not fire and thus have the effect of 12 more points of power). The Fed fleet has 42 photons (not counting the two on the GSC). If it fired 20 a turn, ten would hit for 40 points of damage. If we assume one of the CAs was a CC, the Feds could also fire 52 phaser-1s (assuming the full volley every other turn system) adding 17 more points of damage per salvo knocking off seven armor the first time, doing 5 internals the second time through an intact shield, and seven internals the third time, fourth time, fifth time, and sixth time, from that point on there are only partially repaired shields, about six boxes on each facing, or 36 on one.

In short, the battle station is doomed. Going totally defensive would make it take more time (i.e., by shutting down fire control you gain a shift of one to the incomming fire, which means only about 11 photons for 44 points of damage hit every other turn, and phaser damage is reduced to a mere eight to nine points), but that is just dragging out the death over a longer period.

In short, in "real life" any battle station can be destroyed if you bring enough weapons against it.

Your theory that you will park the battle station 15 hexes from the planet is itself meaningless in the context as the enemy simply approaching the battle station using the planet to mask their approach until they can destroy the defenses on that side. Then they eliminate the planetary defenses, perhaps by sending "shuttle convoys" through the atmosphere to take out the ground stations on the far side. Then they tac around, and move away from the planet, still using it to mask themselves. Once at the appropriat range, they prepare, get their weapons loaded etc. Then they charge forward, using the planet to mask themselves at first, side slipping at the last moment to get around the planet and approach, in one turn to optimum range to destroy the battle station. The Battle Station gets its one shot, and is then blown apart.

So, how was your "set up 15 hexes from the planet" superior to "orbiting the planet"?

You might claim "well, while they were doing all that, help came", ah but that is a "scenario" which might define that help will arrive in so many turns, and we do that so that there is a reason to play the scenario. No sense playing if all the scenario says is "this incident occurred, records are unclear if the attackers evacuated any of the station's personnel before it was destroyed."

I mean, how "fair" was "Bataan", or "Guam", or "Wake Island", or, or, or, or, . . . .

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:57 am: Edit

The 15 hexes means that the attacking force can't have the same level of EW & Reinforcement that the same force attacking an orbiting planet would have, hence requiring a larger attacking force to accomplish the same mission (or at least more turns when the base firepower can be used).

I understand that overwhelming force will always overwhelm but, if as an attacker, I can destroy a base with equal or lesser force, then I'll have more forces to use elsewhere.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:06 pm: Edit

How's that? If the base is 15 hexes from the planet, how does that make the base more survivable? Why doesn't the attack force just engage the base from the direction opposite that of the planet, drastically reducing the effectiveness of any planetary defenses?

As for the equal or lesser force, I've already shown that won't work against a BATS (at least the one-shot pass you were talking about). I can run similar numbers for BS and SB assaults later this week and see what those look like.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Since a base can't orbit (by SFB rules) at 15 hexes, doesn't putting the base at range 15 just guarantee a permanent blind spot. If what the pirates want is on the other side of the planet--the base can't even hope to come over the horizon before they get what they want and leave...

I suppose there is the interesting "strategy" of putting the base on one side and clustering all of the ground defenses on the other to eliminate any blind spot. But in that case, wouldn't range 4 be even better (slightly larger blind spot--but actually able to shoot down shuttle convoys moving around the planet).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Actually, if a base is placed 15 hexes from a planet it will only be as close as 15 hexes for about a hour. It cannot maintain position to the planet if not in orbit (there is nothing I know of in the rules that specifically states that but that's the logic I get. I suppose an actual ruling might be needed.)

Good ol' Earth orbits the Sun at ~60,000 MPH. For the sake of game play lets slow that down to KPH. That's six hexes per hour. If a turn is about a minute in ship board time then that one hex every ten turns.

Either put the base in deep space or Orbit it around a planet. (hee, hee. Sounds like the title to a country western song.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 01:41 pm: Edit

David Kass

In fairness to Andrew Palmer, he has never said that the base would ORBIT the planet at 15 hexes range. The base, at that range, is obviously (in SFB terms) orbiting WITH as opposed to AROUND the planet. It maintains a stable position either between the planet and deep space or between the planet and the primary, or ahead of or behind the planet in the same orbital plane.

Andrew believes that by being 15 hexes from the planet, the base will be better able to defend itself, whereas if it were orbiting the planet an attacking force would be able to approach along the blind side (masked by the planet) until it could spring on the base at pointblank range, annihilating it in a single overwhelming shot.

The counters to this are simply that, at 15 hexes range the base has no noticeable defensive value to the planet, and weapons on the planet have no significant defensive additions to the base. Both are subject to attack with little interference from the other.

(EDIT) It should be noted that Andrew's theory is that with the base 15 hexes from the planet, a Ground Warning Station could lend the base 6 points of ECM, which would allow the base to apply that saved power (by not having to lend itself that ECM) for other purposes. Destroying such a Ground Warning Station lending the ECM would require the attacker to enter into the forrest of other defenses. Or, as I noted, attack the planet from the drak side, use shuttle convoys to raid the side of the planet facing the station, then back up and charge the station.

Orbiting the planet at least forces an aggressor to come into close range of the planet's defenses to attack the base, and allows the base to make it pretty darn difficult for a single Orion or a small squadron to effectively raid the planet.

Andrew would choose to allow Orions to raid the "dark/non-base side" of the planet with impunity, but be secure in the serenity of his base.

I would choose to orbit the planet to keep it safe until that overwhelming force arrives, at which point my base will be doomed anyway, but at least the isolated raiders will not hit the planet with any effect in the interim.

It is that second "reality" that makes me disagree with Andrew, but it is his own opinion and what he is willing to accept happening to his planetary populations pending the ultimate arrival of the overwhelming force in both cases.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Richard Wells, it is trivially easy to be closer to a planet than to a base that it is orbiting and still fire on the base, if I am in direction A from the planet and the base is in direction C for example. This may be a bad idea for the attacker, but then that was the point of my post.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 04:45 pm: Edit

So the ruling is that a base can orbit a primary set to any speed and so can orbit WITH a planet? That, AFAIK, is not defined in the rules. I may have missed it. It sounds logical though.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:44 am: Edit

The problem with placing a base 15 hexes out is that I'll park my squadron 27-30 (12-15 from the base) hexes out and scrag your base with medium range fire. You've basically thrown away your ground base fire support. EW support from your ground station is no greater than from base channels. It does save the base some power, but then I can always bring a scout.

Then I go after your undefended ground bases. Take my lumps at range 4-5 to blast clean 2 hexsides. Use massive shuttle convoys and ground troops to mop up. If that's not viable, then overload/arm all guns ahead of time, move speed 1 next turn and blast the ground bases while heavily reinforcing facing shields. Repair shields and incidental internals at leisure, rinse, repeat.

Placing your BATS in close orbit forces the enemy fleet to face both defenses at once. There's no leisurely rearm/repair cycle as you sneak up to the next hexside. That BATS is coming around the mountain pretty soon.

We have, of course, tabled the issue of just exactly what the local fighter/PFs are doing, not to mention the minefield.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:50 am: Edit

Jeff. It all depends on why the attackers are there. If they want to take out your logistical base, landing on the planet is not necessary - just come up the blindspot and hammer the base with overloads -OR- sit at medium range, using the delta in range to the ground bases to minimize their effectiveness. i.e. you have two viable options for taking out the base. If your purpose is taking out/capturing the planet, you've still got the blindside to use, greatly limiting the base's effectiveness as a planetary defense unit anyway.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 07:51 pm: Edit

With a base in a 1 hex orbit, the attacker only has a 2 turn window to create the blind spot. They have to close from beyond range 30 to range 5, kill all the bases on three hex sides AND prepare (ie rearm) for taking on the BATS. It will take a very large fleet to do so successfully. At that point, the attacker will have overwhelming firepower anyways and the exact tactic used won't matter much.

I just don't see how a one hex difference in range is that big of an issue. This reduces the ph-4 damage from the ground bases by, what 1 point on average. Sure it could prevent a GWS from loaning OEW while getting the coveted range 15 bracket, but the GWS could lend the BATS 6 ECM or 6 ECCM (allowing it to lend the OEW). And if it takes more than a couple of turns to kill the BATS (very likely at range 15 without overwhelming firepower), the attacker either has to spend power to move speed 16 or so or has to spend some of the time fighting at longer ranges to the base or fight at closer ranges to the planet.

The situation is essentially unchanged for bases in 2 and 3 hex orbits (the planet's blind spot is narrower, but lasts longer).

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 07:20 am: Edit

David. If your target is the base, why even fire at the ground bases?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 08:23 am: Edit

Andrew Palmer:

Well, see, your plan is to put the base so far away from the planet that, in theory, the attacker can ignore any defenses on the planet, with the exception of a Ground Warning Station that might be supporting the base with a special sensor.

Others believe that if the station is in orbit around the planet, the ground defenses will be effective in defending the, requiring a larger committement of forces to take out the base.

Also of interst is, of course, the fact that when a station around a planet is knocked down, the survivors have somewhere to evacuate too when "Catstrophic Damage: Impending Destruction" is declared. Whereas you prefer that mere handfuls flee in any remaining shuttles to be picked off by the attackers at leisure.

If you want to close in an annihilate the base in one shot, which is what you have claimed several times in this topic using the planet as a shield from its fire for your approach, then you are, I say again, ARE going to be pounded by the ground bases, and rather than let them pound you once you have gotten so close, might it not be best to silence those guns? It has already been noted that phaser-4s firing at those ranges are going to wreck ships.

Andrew, you may be the most ingenious tactician in the game, but your presentation of your preferences for base deployment in this topic have so far consisted of little more than constant recitations that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. This might even be true, but you have totally failed to make your case. Ignoring inconvenient facts "If your target is the base, why even fire at the ground bases?" that do not gibe with your view of things is not a valid course of discussion.

You fire at the ground bases because, once you are that close (range five or less) it is a faster way to reduce enemy firepower (each ground based defense phaser-4 has only 12 boxes of shields and about 16 internals) than trying to pound through the mass of a battle station while several ground based defense phaser-4s are pounding on your ships.

Or perhaps you just do not intend to use the planet to shield yourself from the base, i.e., you are attacking the base as you see it, a separate unit floating in deep space away from a planet and so do not need to attack ground bases.

Perhaps you need to fully describe each circumstance, i.e., why fire at ground bases when the base is not any closer than 15 hexes from the planet. But then define what you are going to do when the base is orbiting a planet with ground defenses on it.

By Jeff Williams (Jeff) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 05:28 am: Edit

Well, my whole point was that posting your base 15 hexes away from the planet is self-defeating. You protect neither the base nor the planet this way. That much separation gives the attacker way too much leeway to deal with your defenses piecemeal. He can take out either ground bases or the orbiting base while not taking significant fire from the other one.

A base in close orbit however, forces you to deal with both at the same time, thereby increasing the force size needed for the mission. Trying to come at it from the blind side of the planet is painful. Ground P-4s HURT at range 4. And you only get to ignore the base for 2-3 turns at most as it's coming around with MORE P-4s for you. (Think "The Death Star is cleared to fire.") While you could play "ring around the rosie", you have to deal with a FRESH set of P-4s at close range every time you clear another hexside. Ouch. The shuttle convoy tactic isn't valid in this scenario as the orbiting base can easily chew it up as it passes overhead. Tough to do from 15 hexes out.

Yes, you could eventually take out all the ground bases and then devastate the planet from a standard orbit perpetually away from the base. But you would have to do so at the cost of heavy casualties from the ground bases. While the base sitting 15 hexes over yonder just isn't that much of a threat to even crack shields.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Jeff Williams:

Of course that misses the point of why the attack is going on. A base 15 hexes from a planet under attack remains a base. It can support ships of its race even if the planet is stripped of defenses and "devastated". So why are you attacking the planet, and not the base. There are factors on either side of the equation that all have to be considered.

Note, I still favor orbiting the planet where the base's weapons can support it, but I want to make sure you are all thinking about all the ramifications.

Also, remember everyone that this is the "orbital defense platform" discussion topic. While I am not sure that such a platform can exist in the game with any real value, I am still willing to be convinced.

By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 08:46 pm: Edit

Focusing back on the Orbital Defense platforms, I guess one advantage one would have is that they could be protected by the planet yet still factor in defensively as they come around the planet. Having 6, for example, would extend the battle as the attackers would have to either wait until they have had a chance to destroy them all at range (waiting for them to circle the planet via orbit movement) or suffer the consequences of closing with the ground bases and having the Orbital bases come around and add their firepower.

Not to say that they're a perfect system and would need to be deployed at least in groups of three to be effective.

Perhaps combining PF technology with DefSat technology. Some free EW, ala PF would help, as would the ability for 3 or 6 of them to be loaned EW as a single "unit" . Just some ideas.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 09:07 pm: Edit

What if an orbital defence platform was a fighter base. There would be a base on the ground as well but the ones in space could react faster. So they would station on the platform and move back and forthe from time to time. Being relieved by other squadrons from the planet. There might be some mild defense weapons on it but it would be inexpencive to build. Once the fighters took off the main value would be out flying around. If the platform was lost the fighters could land planet side.
ODP:
One bridge.
Four AWR (maybe six?). These are for the positional stabilizers.
Four hull.
Two Cargo.
Six shuttle (one bay). Can launch all fighters at once as it has a six position balconey.
Two Tractor.
Two batteries.
Two Transporter.
Two Ph-3 (wide arcs).
Two ADD (or Pl-D).
12 point shields X six.(1/2 + 1/2).
Two to Four BP.
Six to Eight Crew units.
Six Deck Crews.

Shifts are beamed back and forth from the planet. OR a carried to and from via HTS. So maybe give it Eight shuttle with a six position balconey.

Orbit two of these around a planet.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 01:39 am: Edit

Loren: That would become close to a pirate's dream catching all the fighters in orbit in an unmanned base. The risk is similar when used against fleets. Such a base would also be a convenient place to send excess DF on any turn. Short life span for a high price and a very easy kill if a Q-ship could be snuck into the system.