Archive through February 17, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Orbital Defense Platforms:
Archive through February 17, 2003
I find I must bow to your reputation. I still feel I'm on to something with regards to my point. (Space based vs. Ground based). However, I'm faced with two things.
One, to continue with cofidence I will need to put it the map and try it from both points of view. (i.e. try it your way then try it my way). I have experience in this matter but it's been some time and I certainly have never directly compaired the two.
Two, IF I prove my point is there already a way, with in the rules, to get what I propose with out designing a new Unit? Posts from others have me thinking this is the case. I haven't yet looked.
I really wish I could face you on this...I've been playing as long (though I sure, not as much...by a long shot). Ultimatly, I couldn't lose, though. I would either win and prove my point or I would lose and learn a lot. Win, win for me. Hardly fair, though. All you get is maybe a good game. I suppose I could offer cash if you win. 
In anycase, I'll take a step back and hit the books. I'll see if I can restate my idea better at a later time. If I seem stubborn, I'm not. I just don't give up until I'm convinced and you did invite me (us) to convince you.
If all you want to have is Fighters available to defend a star system, why not just deploy a fighter base on an asteroid? Its already been designed and play tested and adopted into the game system.
I thought the point of a ODP was to improve the ability of a base to defend itself and the territory it was errected upon.
Even a Commercial platform with power boost modules (pods with APR) using its excess power to selectively reinforce the shield closest to the enemy would do a better job of surviving from a single point threat (single ship for instance), than most of the ideas I have seen posted so far.
There are several mutually exclusive conditions being raised here, and until a coherent plan is decided, the ODP will fail to pass the test of:
1. what is its mission?
2. Can it successfully complete the mission?
3. Can it survive? or does it have a reasonable chance of surviving the mission?
4. Is it affordable, or is it too expensive to be economically deployed beyond one or two test sites?
5. does the increase in capabilities compared to existing bases without a deployed ODP warrant the additional cost of resources used in the construction of the ODP?
6. is the game better for having this system adopted, or will playbility of SFB suffer?
These are just a few questions that come to my mind that will need to be assessed at some point in the development of ODP's.
That said, I still would like to be convinced that a ODP is viable and would improve the Game. I just havent seen what I am looking for yet.
If all you want to have is Fighters available to defend a star system, why not just deploy a fighter base on an asteroid? Its already been designed and play tested and adopted into the game system.
I thought the point of a ODP was to improve the ability of a base to defend itself and the territory it was errected upon.
Even a Commercial platform with power boost modules (pods with APR) using its excess power to selectively reinforce the shield closest to the enemy would do a better job of surviving from a single point threat (single ship for instance), than most of the ideas I have seen posted so far.
There are several mutually exclusive conditions being raised here, and until a coherent plan is decided, the ODP will fail to pass the test of:
1. what is its mission?
2. Can it successfully complete the mission?
3. Can it survive? or does it have a reasonable chance of surviving the mission?
4. Is it affordable, or is it too expensive to be economically deployed beyond one or two test sites?
5. does the increase in capabilities compared to existing bases without a deployed ODP warrant the additional cost of resources used in the construction of the ODP?
6. is the game better for having this system adopted, or will playbility of SFB suffer?
These are just a few questions that come to my mind that will need to be assessed at some point in the development of ODP's.
That said, I still would like to be convinced that a ODP is viable and would improve the Game. I just havent seen what I am looking for yet.
Jeff, a little nervous with the left clicker, huh? 
I feel that questions 1-5 may be yes. It is number six that compairs with number two of my post. It the question I am asking my self before I go on with my proposal. If there is already a way to do what I propose then my work is more along that of a term paper rather than a new unit design.
A seventh question: even if it does not do well in its specified mission are there other plausible missions it can do?
Edited: There have been several different proposals above. Some of them seem to be useful candidates for conditions where having units on planet or in orbit prove impossible, like extra-solar placements.
Loren Knight:
There is always a problem with trying to discuss something over a print medium. As I have noted, it is possible that one of us (and again, I do not claim it to be you automatically, it could well be me) is just not understanding some point of the other. Get face to face, set up a map, and even if no game is played it is far easier to demonstrate the concepts.
Both of us, as it is, come from our own backgrounds and experiences. They color our thoughts and perceptions. It is entirely possible we are talking past each other.
And so I am left where I started. I am not convinced that an Orbital Defense Platform, beyond the existing Defense Satellites, is possible or able to add anything of real value beyond being simply a target. But I am willing to be convinced so long as the requirement is not "Special Rules Applying Only To Orbital Defense Platforms So That They Are Not Simply Targets."
Could you assign a Monitor to the ODP mission?
Just suggesting this for comparison purpose. Instead of using a fighter pallet, use the weapons (from memory, I think it had 4 photons and 6 phaser I's?)
This would give you the ability to test the concept. if a smaller hull with fewer ship systems but the same weapons suite could complete the mission, then we could evaluate the results.
SPP: Well, on every point in your post of 2/11/03 5:16pm we compleatly agree. We have both discussed the problems of the print medium.
I will, when I get time soon, analize the ideas closer and see if I can come up with a new aproach and perhaps see more clearly what you are trying to show me.
Quote: "But I am willing to be convinced so long as the requirement is not "Special Rules Applying Only To Orbital Defense Platforms So That They Are Not Simply Targets."
Just wanted to reiterated my understanding of this. I agree and would not propose such a thing. (and I know you are not implying that I am.)
Jeff Wile:
Well, you had better take a look at just what a Monitor is.
Counting Sensor, Scanner, Damage Control, and Excess Damage, and assuming no repairs were made and NOT adding a pallet it has about 98 internals. Add to this shielding in all directions that is only slight less than found on a fully refitted battle station (36 boxes on each shield facing of the Monitor versus 40 on the refitted BATS). The Monitor also nominally has four more weapons than the BATS (albeit, in a somewhat different type of arrangement, i.e., replace six phaser-4s with six photon torpedoes, six phaser-3s with six phaser-1s, a type-D drone rack with two type-G drone racks, two photons with six phaser-3s, and a base ADD rack with two phaser-3s or thereabouts). The Monitor does lack the base's special sensors, and after paying for shields, fire control, and life support has 6.5 fewer points of power available for operations than the BATS. The BATS has to use power for its sensors, the Monitor has to use power to move. Even without modules, the BATS has more than twice the internals of the Monitor (which is why the BATS is size class two, and the Monitor is size class three), and of course the BATS functions as a fleet supply and repair point, while the Monitor is simply a defense unit.
But the upshot is that a Monitor is simply not a valid starting point for an "Orbital Defense Platform".
Not to mention that the Monitor is a self-mobile unit and capable of (albiet limited) strategic movement. ODPs would have to be scratch built on site (possibly requiring a tug) or towed into position (certainly requiring a tug).
SPP and Alex: I agree. But what I was getting at is a substitute for a platform that has similar charcteristics to the Monitor, but one that is not a selfmobile unit. (simulate this by chosing not to use engines for movement.) this would allow for a test of the concept.
If such a test is successful, then design a platform around the characteristics of a monitor that would most closely conform to what the ODP needs to be.
Bottom line, the ODP needs a weapons suite that would augment a bases defenses, anything less than say 4 heavy weapons and 6 phaser I's wouldnt be necessarily worth the investment or expense. (and may not be able to contribute significantly in a battle situcation.)
SPP: there is historical precedent for the monitor in harbor defense roles, check the history of the Spanish American War, 1898 (so far as I know, there was not actual combat of the Civil war Monitors during the S-A War but they were deployed and ready in the event of a Spanish attack on one of the defended harbors.
There is a book titled "The 50-Gun Ship" by Rif Winfield, Published by Caxton Editions, Caxton Publishing Group, 1997 ISBN 1 84067 3656. The book details a history of ships of 50 guns (4th rates) from 1650 to 1850 AD. The type of ship too slow for general frigate or scout duties and too small to stand in the line of battle. Aside from the various missions these ships had, one was harbor defense. (service hulks, the guns were to be useable in an emergency to defend the harbor (the case in the book was harbor defense of english ports from potential French
attacks.)
To test, I would suggest several rules be imposed on the monitor, can't leave hex that it starts the battle in (but tactical manuvers, rotation and Eratic manuver inside the hex OK. assume the base the Monitor is assisting is inside an established minefield, and the monitor is near the base also protected by the mine field. use 3 monitors positioned in an equalateral triangle around the of the base.
My guess is that 3 monitors, a base and a minefield would be able to successfully defend the base against a superior attacking force equal ato 200% or 300% of the BPV worth of combined total of the defenders. similar to a Kaufman Retrograde tactic, only substituting the mine field for the ability to retrograde.
If successful, the ODP concept would be validated, and design of the actual platform could begin with the monitor giving a baseline of needed system requirements.
Jeff, from F+E, most races start the General War with 3 Monitors total. And can build 1 a Turn (6 month period) IIRC.
Getting 3 into one place would be a miracle.
Erm, that's over 600 BPV or so for the defenders, easy, meaning an attacking fleet of 1200-1800 BPV or more. The defense is meat waiting to happen. The attacker will have such a massive firepower advantage that it can reduce ODPs at range. Especially a fleet with enough long-range weapons that it doesn't even have to breech the minefield.
Scott, Jeff is talking about using Monitors as stand-in ODPs (basically not allow them to move out of the hex they start in) as a test of the ODP concept without necessarilly whipping new SSDs first.
Jeff Wile:
You are changing the discussion.
Orbital Defense Platforms ORBIT. The discussion is NOT about "Base Defense Outworks" which is what you are now proposing.
And this, in any case, gets back to the crux of the matter that I have been to time and again.
I build bases in space because they are repair and resupply nodes, a task planets cannot accomplish because the ships cannot land. Sure, I could orbit a "pure repair station" (read FRD) around my planet allowing the planet to serve as both a repair and resupply node (any well developed planet is a supply node, see Federation and Empire), but the FRD, being in space, is subject to relatively easy destruction. So we build a base, which has repair capabilities and heavy weapons and special sensors to defend itself and/or support other defending units.
If I am not going to function as a repair station, what do I need orbital defenses for? At the very least I should say Orbital defenses which the enemy can easily destroy from long range? (DefSats, being immune to long range fire in effect, are a useful adjunct and support to ground based weapons).
If I am going to function as a repair station, then a battle station serves my needs. If you are going to go to the trouble to build something that orbits your planet with the weapons capabilities of a battle station, why would you not make it a repair station as well? You have already invested a lot in just building this thing that is a battle station with no repair capabilities, you may as well make it useful to support fleet operations and build on repair capabilities.
In short, I am back to "if it is small enough to not be worth mounting repair capabilities, then it is little more than an orbiting target . . . if it is large enough to mount the capabilities of and shielding of a battle station, then what is its value compared to ground based defenses? The only reason to build something that big out of atmosphere (i.e., in orbit) is if it is going to be a fleet support unit (i.e., to service ships that cannot land). What makes this thing better than ground based defenses?
I have not been following everything in this thread but if you are looking for a non-base unit to act a base, or to support a base or act as a support base. Use the monitor idea but modify it to act as base, perhaps to temporarily replace a destroyed base. Say a system needs protection since it base/ fleet support was destroyed, never built etc, and the fleet would like a supply point to add depth to the rear supply areas, and can't afford to move a mobile base in just yet. In F&E terms I guess this would make the system smaller than a minor planet, since the major and minor planet act as supply points already. I guess it would be a sub-minor, or a mini planet. ;
Move in a monitor with a base support pallet. This pallet would have positional stabilizer run off the warp engine of the monitor, 1 special sensor, some very limited repair, and perhaps the ability to dock a base cargo module. taa daa a new base. When the monitor leaves it can just leave the cargo module behind for the new base.
This is just to fill in a gap until a true base can be deployed. or I guess you could use it to bolster an existing base, perhaps one damaged in an attack. It is strategically slower than a tug and mobile base, but useful in certain circumstances. It also allows the use of an existing unit, which is cheaper than building a mission specific unit.
Jim Cummins:
The basic unit you are proposing for use by the fleet already exists. It is called the "Operations Base" which is self-deploying as a "Large Operational Auxiliary", both are found in Module R7.
If the system needed defenses, it takes a tug or two to deliver Planetary Defense Units (i.e., ground based defense battalions) to the planet.
As has been noted, a planet does not need an orbiting base to defend it. An orbiting base is needed as a repair and resupply point for fleet ships. Thus if you were to strip the planet of defenses, assigning a monitor might be a first interim step, but if you want orbital repair capacity, and do not have a tug available to construct a new Battle Station, then you send a Large Operational Auxiliary to provide fleet repair capability. Ground Based defenses can then be added to the planet, their advantages over an orbital base in terms of their combat ability has been noted before. And I again note that the only reason to build an orbital facility on the level of a battlestation is for its ability to repair warships.
Now, obviously a relatively prosperous planet would have one (or more) Commercial Platforms to make servicing freighters (i.e., unloading cargo being delivered and loading cargo to be shipped out) faster and more efficient, but such platforms are easy targets, and better covered by ground bases than the reverse.
A couple of comments:
SPP, first let me say that your trick of having drone-armed fighters loiter in the atmosphere while launching is a very nice tactic. If it hasn't been published as a term paper, it should be. I had never noticed that application of P2.85 until reading this topic. Too bad the trick doesn't work (not well, anyway) with plasma fighters.
Second, how exactly are DefSats immune to long range fire? They just get the small target modifier, right? That's pretty easily overcome with ECCM, and if there's a rule giving DefSats any other ECM or ECCM points of their own I've totally missed it. Which is entirely possible, of course.
On the pure-combat version of a BATS, all I think needs to be said is that the desirability of such a unit is pretty campaign-specific. If there's a campaign rule limiting planetary ground bases (as in fact there is in the campaign I'm playing in), then orbital bases with more firepower do look attractive, particularly if supply and repair have typically not been problematical. However, such a ground base limiting rule is a self-imposed artificial constraint, and is not by itself any reason to try to introduce new units to SFB to get around it. Btw, has the F&E PDU ever been defined in SFB terms? I'm curious just how many GBDP one would expect to find on planets (homeworld, major colony, minor colony, etc.)...
Justin> DefSats can't be engaged until they have fired.
Alex, thanks! I'll have to take another look at the little buggers...
No prob.
Justin Howell:
See Captain's Log #22. It had an article on Planetary Defense on Page #16. A "Battalion" was defined (as of Y168) as three Ground Based Defenese Phasers (while not specified in the article, these might have been phaser-2 or phaser-1 rather than phaser-4, and might have been other weapon types), one Ground Military Garrison, two Ground Warning Stations, one medium or two small Ground Fighter Bases, and three Defense Satellites.
See (R1.15C2) which says a DefSat cannot be fired on if it has not fired, meaning they can be held for that "key" shot at a down shield, i.e., your attacker has to take their relatively weak weapons into account simply because they may hit a down shield at an inopportune time and are hard to get rid of before hand (you can go after them as "mines", but trying to do that while a Ground Based Phaser-4 is knocking on your shields is rather an unpleasant experience . . . once more, synergy). And, of course, if you are using the optional "transporter repeated" function, you MIGHT not ever want your DefSats to fire if the enemy is trying to land troops, as they allow you to reinforce threatened sectors and make it harder for the enemy to establish his lodgement. DefSats add that sorely needed ability to "maneuver" to mass your defending boarding parties rather than waiting for the attacker to mass and destroy each group one at a time.
SPP I just checked R7 thanks.
Loren Knight:
Let me see if this can help.
You are the Battalion Commander of the 429th Defense Battalion of the Federation Armed Forces. Your Battalion consists of one Ground Military Garrison, two Small Fighter Ground Bases each with six F-4C fighters (one fighter of the twelve is an F-4E with only two type-VI drone rails, all have warp booster packs), three Ground Based Defense Phaser-4s, and three Drone-Armed Defense Satellites. With the allowed levels of Commander's Option Points [none for the DefSats, of course, but you do get some for the bases and fighters, although as per (S3.23) the points you get for the fighters can only be spent on supplies for the fighters] you have a total BPV of around 357.
The year is Y182.
You have just been notified that a squadron of F5s under the infamous Threlvin Ketrick (a distant relative of Targis Ketrick, recently killed in an attack on the WYN Cluster), including one F5L and two F5Ks, has penetrated into the defensive zone, and is on route towards your planet. This force has, after accounting for Commander's Option Points nominally available and assuming all drones are merely type-IF) of 339.2.
The Mission of the F5 squadron is unknown.
They may be coming to destroy your battalion's bases and fighters, and will then withdraw.
They may be coming to bombard the planet to inflict "general destruction", after which they will withdraw, but it should be noted that eliminating your bases and fighters would make this job easier.
They may be coming with the intention to sieze the planet (the three Klingon ships without spending any Commander's Option Points already have 28 boarding parties to your 22). And again destroying your bases and fighters can make this job easier.
Do the Klingons have a time limit? Will they strike at you for, say ten turns, and then withdraw in order to avoid being trapped (or perhaps to go on to another planet, or some other objective)?
Is a rescue force, perhaps a heavy cruiser, en route to succor you are will you have to fight the battle by yourself? Maybe the cruiser will not get there before ten turns have elapsed in any case?
Can you see that you are perhaps best served by NOT letting the Klingons get within five hexes of the planet as six disruptor overloaded disruptor bolts and six phaser-1s are pretty sure to wreck a ground base.
So, what are your defensive tactics? How are you going to use your fighters?
SPP: I've been away. I got a glance of this on Sunday but I had to run. (As I missed Valintines Day on Friday, Sunday became the day to go out.)
A most interesting challenge. I've been thinking on this a bit and will post an answer tomarrow. I want to look at a map and the ships in question (you know, the typical review). Of course those a pretty sad fighters but I'll try to make due. I will just assume that the threat of a rescue force will limit the game to ten turns. I'll have a few additional assumptions I'll put in the beginning of the post tomarrow.
See ya then.