Alex Chobot:

The Ground Military Garrison has four transporters. The Ground Warning Stations each have one transporter. The Ground Based Defense Phasers and Fighter Ground Base-Smalls do not have transporters. I have been assuming the Transporter Repeaters on the DefSats to be operational. Having attacked (and defended) planets, the inability of the defense to react to a massing of attackers in one area was always something of a bugaboo of mine, which was why I talked SVC into the Transporter Repeaters on the DefSats in the first place.

And the fiction story was "Ghostlight: Day One".

Somebody asked about purchasing Combat Engineers. There SHOULD have been a limit on them, and SVC has just never gotten around to figuring out what it should be (well, he is an engineer).

Someone asked about "Commander's Options" for a scenario like "Kobol's Rock". Technically, you could not get any Commander's Options for such a force. Rule (S3.21) is specific that "ships" are able to use 20% of their BPV. Unit Categories (A3.23) notes that "Ship" includes Interceptors, PFs, Ships, and Bases. Rule (S3.2) then includes the note that fighters are part of a "ship's" BPV, but that their part of the BPV can only be used to purchase fighter supplies. It also notes that Freighters cannot purchase T-bombs, the rules for Small Ground Bases specifically note that they cannot purchase T-bombs.

Now, the thing to understand is that when you are creating a scenario like "Kobol's Rock", you have to balance the ability of the attacking ships to purchase Commander's Options against the TOTAL point value of the Ground Only Force. And your victory Conditions are going to have to account for the difference in the two forces. A C8K with Y175 refit may have a BPV (assuming all type-IF drones) of 258, with 46.8 points available for Commander's Options giving it a BPV of 304.8, but it can still only bring 38 Boarding Parties (its only 24, plus the maximum of 10 purchased, plus two Heavy weapons squads, plus two commando squads), five shuttles, and backed with 24 rounds of transporter artillery to a ground battle. The force it brings to the Ground Battle has a nominal BPV (assuming all five shuttles are converted to GAS and two squads are converted to Heavy weapons squads in addition to the two purchased) of only 38 points. (Ten BPV to convert 5 Admin to GAS, five BPV to purchase 10 boarding parties, two BPV to purchase 2 commando squads, two BPV to purcase 2 Heavy Weapons Squads, one BPV to convert 2 boarding parties to heavy weapon squads, six BPV to purchase 24 rounds of transporter artillery, and twelve BPV is the cost of the ship's standard allotment of 24 boarding parties.) Now, being a DN, it could also convert 18 Crew Units to Militia, which have a nominal BPV of 9 points, so the total cost of the force a C8K could bring is 47 BPV. Now, it could also convert 25% of its drones to Ground Attack drones (total of 27 spaces), nominal cost of about 6.75 BPV (no actual cost is involved in replacing type-I warheads with ground attack warheads), for a final cost for ground combat of 53.75 BPV.

This is the attack value of one Dreadnought. Its only value to the ground combat. Its disruptors and phasers, and tractor beams, and labs, and what all have no value in the battle.

So, when you are setting up a ground only battle (not involving bases), you pretty much just BUY the defending ground forces. Whatever you want for your points. There are no Commander's Options. If you want five GAS shuttles, you pay 20 BPV and buy five GAS shuttles as part of your overall force and your scheme for how the battle is to be fought.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Sir,

I know our G2 will have the classified data, but as a country boy from Kentucky I do know that people not living in big dirty crime infested cities are spread darn far apart, because we can!

3 1/2 million farmers/ ranchers/ fishermen/ hunters/ mystery flora&fauna harvesters or whatever spread over an ENTIRE planet will be darn thin on the ground!

I'm not up on the math, but what's 6.3 Billion (www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop)humans alive in 2003/ the surface area of Earth / 1/3not water in terms of people per square klick???

Assuming our new destination is comparable, our mission here is to protect a population that is about 1/2000th as dense as Earth of 2003! (New York City would have 4000 people, All of Wyoming 300, France 25000 plus or minus, but to heck with france...)

Not having the military, commercial and scientific survey data in front of me is awkward, but if the planet lacks formal bases, I GUESS that interstellar trading is done by the colonists direct to traders via HTS shuttles and transporters (hence the utility of ducktailed and MyMindBlanks freighters) mostly, with perhaps a network of buyers/ assessors on planet acting as middlemen.

I'd be willing to venture that the most valuable concentrated things on the entire planet will be... our bases...

Therefore, Sir
1) I suggest we make a least a token effort to hold identified key terrain (every GCL) with at least a squad. A squad in key terrain, even if it is just a hill overlooking something, has a defensive value all out of proportion to it's actual firepower and armoring (ie the GCL can be given up for casualties etc and if they capture then leave the GCL vacant, we can take it back for free!).
2) I wish I had an idea of how to better compensate for our limited mobility/ transporter capability. Vs most larger scale raiders the action by my troops in static defense positions will have been decided before sufficient reaction forces arrive to swing the tide.
3) The role of my troops is to make it expensive to take positions, the reaction forces get to take it TO the bad guys, either planetbound or in orbit.
4) I think we have to consider any opposition to be in one of several roles:
a) Pirate raider snatch and run
b) Pirate raider swoop and loot (comparatively at leisure) Thus there would be time for our reactive forces to be decisive
c) Pirate Take Over (large scale action with a DAYS long reduction of infrastructure/ population to treasure/ slaves) thus our support troops, right down to the sick, lame and lazy will get mobilized and into action
d) military general destruction (ie bombardment to make the planet uninhabitable or at least disrupt production)
e) military raid to reduce the defenses
f) military ground raid (to accomplish d or e above)
g) military forces to conquer and hold. Might follow d or e with other formations (ie, the elite marine battallion that reduces the defenses is replaced by a reserve formation for occupation/ antipartisan duties)
h) military raid to disrupt the defenses (for example blind sensors during a crucial period in the area...)

I'm sure there are other possibilities..

Captain Mike
(Like the chief says, when in doubt swim down!)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 01:21 pm: Edit

SPP: I have read every thing carefully. But I invite your comments regarding those insights. I'm not too proud to listen.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 01:31 pm: Edit

SPP> Thank you. Ghostlight, my bad, been a little while since I read it.

Col. Knight>

To maintain the maximum flexibility of my company of of other marine elements, I propose the DefSats be deployed in an evenly spaced pattern 20 or 30 kklicks above the planet. This will allow for the rapid redployment of up to 25 Marines into combat situations as they develop.

The GAS platoon I recommend splitting up, maintaining two at HQ for troop carriage as needed to supplement the DefSats (or in case of their loss), and the other two located with the Dallas facilities, to support and manuver troops there.

The GCV platoon, since it is not capable of redployment via transporter or under its own power during an engagement, should be used to reinforce critical areas. As the enemy is unlikely to attempt a serious landing until the phaser batteries have been reduced, I'd suggest placing one at each of the fighter bases and warning stations, as those will be hte OpFor's primary targets once they have landed troops.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Notes on the Why's of my deployment. I invite comments. Remember, we must protact the entire planet. The population is sparse and we can expect no support from it, in a combat situation.

I have been ordered to place the GBDP and GWS evenly accross the planet surface.

The primary instalation is Annapolis. Via transporters Fargo and Biloxi are accesable. Fast response by Banshee flight is also possible. These GDSs are the most vulnerable but are covered by the largest marine force from Annapolis.

The Secondary instalation is Dallas. Chico and Encino are accessable via transporter from the GWS and can be covered by fast response from Ghost flight quickely. Also, these two GDS are covered by the GBDP. Dallas is covered by DefSat Dante'. Chico and Encino can be accessed via trasporter repeaters on Bellos and Franco by the GMG. Ultimatly the entire surface is covered via repeaters.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:02 pm: Edit

SPP: No. Captains Log#22 Encore papers page#110. "Monitors are better than bases, part 2."

Specifically, a monitor would force the OPFOR to deploy against the monitor FIRST.

This would grant an undetermined number of turns of fire by the Ground Based Phaser 4's into (on to?) the OPFOR.

It simply reflects my preference of having the Heavy Phasers hitting the targets without having to deal with counter battery fire.

Also, I wouldnt "mind" having to find a home for the fighter squadron suddenly made homeless by the unfortunate demise of its base (the monitor). Although Major Harding and I have not discussed the subject, I feel morally certain that he would be overjoyed to find homes for the 'Orphans'.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:13 pm: Edit

I would point out that there are no MONs in the sector and there are no plans to deploy one. Of course I wouldn't turn one down but that will not be forthcomming.

Fighters will be able to land most anywhere on Cassadra IV. It is about 40% flat desert. Wind storms are uncommon given the mild climate.

Enough regarding conditions of Cassadra IV. On with deployment issues.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit

To:Col. Knight: Understood, Sir!

Orders? Sir!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:37 pm: Edit

We are not deplyed yet. Hang tight and let me know if you have any other thoughts.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 02:45 pm: Edit

To:Col Knight.

Permission to open recruiting station? Might be good opportunity to recruit local militia and at least run a class thru basic (never know, maybe the OPFOR wont show up for 6 months depending on how much talking we do...)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Colonel Knight:

They are your staff. You will have to sort their advice. For the most part, all will be learning. when you make decisions, I will critique and point things out, not before.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Given that trucks cost 0.2 BPV each (and available in unlimited quantities), I suspect we should be able to spend most of the CO BPV. Trucks are useful for running fully mounted S&D missions (I think BP in a truck qualify for the bonus). They are also casualty points if necessary.

The only points that might not be spendable are the last little fraction from the fighter supplies. There is also probably another 0.1 from each GBPD we do not want to spend (since 1 BP and 1 truck is probably better than 4 trucks:-).

Remember that each unit is, unfortunately, limited to 2 extra GCV. Note that the GCV are a better "buy" than standard BP (3 combat points per BPV as opposed to 2 per BPV for the BP). For the GWS, the question is the whether to buy 2 GCV, 4 BP and 2 trucks or 1 GCV, 1 tank and 2 trucks. In the first case, if desired, one of the BP could be replaced with a pair of transporter artillery rounds (but do you really want us technical types handling such things?).

Regardless of the deployment selected for the GBDP, I would suggest using the 2 GCV, 4 BP 2 trucks for deployment at GWS Dallas (designed to provide additional BP in case the attacker decides to try to capture the ground bases from space) and either for the GWS at Annapolis (note that either the GWS or the GMG would have to buy the tank there if one is desired--we may be able to provide sufficient troops for a signficant resistance there).

The other option to consider would be to replace the Admin shuttle from one or both GWS with GAS shuttles (2 BPV per change). I believe (but need to double check) that this only removes the ability for the GWS to arm the shuttles as suicide shuttles (since they can't do SP anyways)...

Note that the GMG does have the ability to shift one GCV (with crew and 1 BP--three transporter operations total) per turn via transporter (although it must then spend a turn being reassmebled). The GWS are not able to do so, but can shift individual BP.

I'm assuming that the ground units bought by the individual ground bases have to stay at the same GCL as the ground base (at least initially).

The potentially available ground units from CO items are significant. Ignoring the FGB-S (since they may be spending the BPV for extra DC and fighter supplies), we have a total of 19.5 BPV that can be spent on troops (or almost enough to match the Maneuver Company).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Captain Kass. An excelent report and will take your comments under advisement.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Lieutenant Lampert:

Concentration versus dispersion.

The principle problem with your concept of locating two GBDPs in one area, and one GBDP and the GMG in the other area is that you are allowing an enemy to bombard 5/6ths of the planet's surface and never face more than 1 special sensor, 8 phaser-3s, 1 phaser-2, and 1 phaser-4 from the ground bases.

The second location will have its 1 special sensor, ten phaser-3s, and two phaser-4s effectively out of the battle in such a bombardment.

The advantage of the dispersal of the phaser-4s is that they protect the planet from close range bombardment unless the enemy chooses to enter their firing envelopes. In order to bombard more than 50% of the planet, the enemy MUST engage two GBDPs. Admittedly, they do not have to engage them both simultaneously.

As was discussed earlier in this topic, the Planetary Defense Battalion faces the problem that the enemy attacking the planet is not necessarily going to initate a landing. The enemy's mission might simply be bombardment (devastation as opposed to conquest), and your deployment makes it a lot easier to accomplish.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Also, Lieutenant, I will note that such a concentration will allow the OpFor, if they do attempt a landing, to reduce the weaker point in the defenses and send shuttles to the planet surface, then fly nape of planet to engage the other locations. This allows them to deploy tropps to engage the other defenses without exposing their ships to their defenses.

By Justin Howell (Jhhowell) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Captain Howell, reporting. Sorry for the delay - had a long and productive session in the simulators this weekend.

Not much to add, the situation seems to be well in hand by the rest of the staff. I am worried by the reports of a legendary Klingon officer (Kray) being assigned to this sector... Also, contrary to the apparent consensus I would tend to favor a medium fighter base over two small bases. This may well reflect my recent assignment at Starfleet Headquarters, where economic cost has been known to override tactical considerations at times.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 04:47 pm: Edit

To: Col. Petrick, 251 Construction Battalion.
From: Lt. Lampert, 429 PDB.
Stardate: 20224

While obviously I will accept any deployment ordered, I feel compelled to point out that bombardment of at least one half the planet's surface without reply by more than one GBDP is unavoidable under any deployment we might develop.

Dispersal of assets makes the destruction of at least one GBDP more likely. Thus the standard deployment trades a lower risk of having 5/6th of the surface bombarded for a higher risk of having 1/2 the surface bombarded, of having the entire surface bombarded, or of having the entire planet taken.

If bombardment by a force able to engage and destroy a single well-supported GBDP, 12 fighters, and a large shuttle force is the most likely anticipated threat then I submit that the proposed defense force is inadequate to that threat under any deployment mechanism. If on the other hand this is only one of a range of possible situations then I urge that we at least consider that there are substantial benefits to concentration against most possible threats.

Were Cassandra VI the home to a large number of civilian installations of potential military significance (power, agricultural, and mining stations for example) then dispersing the military stations to tie into the various civilian grids and provide global air defense systems would seem desirable. To my understanding this is not the case on Cassandra VI. Is a build up in industry equivalent to the production of some number of mining stations anticipated? Or is it at all likely that a second PDB will be deployed in the near future allowing the symmetric deployment to give its customary advantages?

Are we to consider the bombardment of 1.7 million federation civilians acceptable but 2.9 million unacceptable? I trust that you find both unacceptable. I believe that ensuring any attacker will face the concentrated fire of four bases with mutual power system support before he can accomplish any unopposed bombardment is the best way to prevent bombardment.

It seems to me that in this case dispersal of battalion assets is simply a carry over from the common practice of dispersing assets on more heavily industrialized worlds where an entire regiment or more is available. Were this simply a training scenario I might write off the symmetric deployment as a necessary simplification for the relatively low level of forces involved. On an actual deployment I feel compelled to urge that symmetric deployment be abandoned unless there are additional reasons for using it beyond the slight increase in bombardment security for defense zones B and F.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit

To: Cpt Chobot, 429 PDB.
From: Lt. Lampert, 429 PDB.
Stardate: 20224

Against the standard deployment proposed the OPFOR will still be able to reduce a weak point and fly nape of the Earth against other points.

In fact the weak point will be weaker under the standard deployment, and nape of the Earth attacks will catch the remaining forces dispersed.

Against the deployment I am proposing clearing an entry into the atmosphere will actually be more difficult, and once it is done all surviving assets will be concentrated.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Lt. Lampert, don't forget that the phaser batteries aren't just defending the planet itself, but the space around it as well. By concentrating the GDPs in such a manner, you give opposing ships more area to manuever without coming under fire from multiple batteries.

This is important when you consider that more manuever room means more space, and thusly time, for enemy forces to deal with Major Harding's fighter squadron and the drones they launch. Even if the drones don't manage to score hits themselves, if they can drive the enemy into a place where he is under fire from two GDP's. they have done their job.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Cpt. Chobot, you make a good point.

Additionally it is worth noting that dispersal allows assistance to be rendered more effectively to the civilian population in a large number of (non-military) circumstances.

However: as commander of Battery 1, I find it distressing to consider that Batteries 2 and 3 are to be placed isolated. I am well aware that an isolated GDBP is easily destroyed by any credible OPFOR, additional power and other support from collocated bases is a vital part of what makes a GBDP dangerous to the foe, an isolated GBDP can be destroyed by any OPFOR with 6 drones (i.e. one scatterpack) and a few phasers.

If both the GBDP and GWS locations are considered set then I would still urge the following modification:

GDS Annapolis (A): GBDP (Battery-1), GWS.

GDS Chico (C): GMG (Headquarters), GBDP (Battery-2).

GDS Dallas (D): GWS, FGB-S-2 (Ghost flight).

GDS Encino (E): FGB-S-1 (Banshee flight), GBDP (Battery-3).

This makes every base collocated with at least one other. It somewhat weakens protection for areas A, B, and F, while greatly strengthening area D, I therefor recommend that the array be oriented so that area D covers the maximum population.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 05:43 pm: Edit

To:Col Knight, 429 PDB
From:Major Wile, 429 PDB
Stardate:20224

If not too late for Operational planning, would submit that forward fire zone actions should be a priority. killing OPFOR prior to its acheiving close orbit is task # 1.

Means to acheive this would include:
Maximum throw weight of drones against incoming targets. Fighter squadrons launching firing drones on ballistic course or under active fire control while OPFOR is on converging course to 429 PDB position.

Would suggest max additional drones be purchased to augment Drone stock pile. This would allow use of Scatter packs in increasing the throw weight of drones during the OPFOR approach.

Benefits would include delay of OPFOR closing to effective combat range of 429 PDB thus giving relief forces more time to arrive.

Scatter pack shuttles could be retreived and 'reused' for other missions after DB fire mission completed.

If heavy enough bombardment could be arranged, OPFOR could be damaged prior to acheiving close orbit.

If odd points available, purchase of additional Admin Shuttle requested. If nothing else, a suicide assault shuttle from planet attacking OPFOR vessel would cause delay of deploying enemy PB's plus giving possibility of 18 point damage to enemy ship if attack successful. Would strengthen the swarm attack function if done in conjuntion with Major harding fighter attack. (particularly if done within transporter range of planet. Shuttle could theoretically intercept OPFOR within in 1 turn of launch from planet.

By Paul Stovell (Pauls) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Lt. Lampert,

You make a good case for a non-ACE deployment.
One factor you have overlooked is that a AD deployment actually produces blindspots where NO GBDP are in arc. If planet in 2215 all the even numbered hexes locations in the xx15 rows will not be inarc of any GBDP 2415 for example.
In the era of fast drones this maynot be so critical as OPFOR would really need to be stationary to take full advantage.

The point made by Cpt Cobot of one likely result of a drone launch is of major importance. Much though I like my guns it must be accepted that drones are our primary deefence.

With 8 bases an AD deployment is viable with 4 bases at each location. For a relatively small colony world like Cassandra III such a deployment has merit. However, consider the extra defense for 2215 our main strongpoint is not increased at all.

In some respects the discussion is so dependent on the size and mission of any attacking force that I tend towards the standard pattern. As you say any planetary development or any further reinforcing of the planetary defenses will be much more easily intergrated with the ACE system.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 06:05 pm: Edit

Lt Lampert:

Things to consider.

1.) Why is the Battalion here? I realize that some of you have your own views on the subject (Colonel Knight having his), the reality is that the battalion would NOT have been deployed if there was not something here worth defending. Note that the "cost" of the battalion is equal to a squadron of Frigates, with a comparable investment in manpower (i.e., enough personnel are involved to man three Frigates).

The battalion would not be here if the planet were not worth defending (or attacking for that matter) for some reason. Simple slaughter of unarmed civilians is not a valid reason for the Klingons to attack (occupy, yes, attack, no). Wealth is the principle reason Orions would attack. Something makes this planet valuable.

2. The fact that the planet is worth attacking and defending sort of defines by its nature that the entire planet is worth defending. There is "distant bombardment" and "close bombardment". The effects of atmosphere on a bombardment inhibit phasers (at range five a phaser has a 1/6th chance of doing no damage at all even if the firing ship has used ECCM to cancel the atmosphere and ground clutter bonuses). Phaser fire is always shifted one (legendary weapons officers will cancel the shift, of course).

3. Defense of a planet depends on synergy. The fighters have to support the ground based weapons, the ground based weapons have to support the fighters. If the two do not work together, they will be defeated in detail. Massing on one side of the planet simply leaves too much of the planet's surface open to easy devastation.

Massing on two sides simply creates an automatic weakspot to be exploited, and 5/6ths of the planet open to bombardment at the cost of silencing only one "Gun". If the planet was worth the cost of a defense battalion at all, the effect of a bombardment on any part of the planet is something to be avoided. Force the enemy to silence two "Guns" if he wants to get the job done.

Because this is a "game" as opposed to "real life", the attack force is being limited to strength of the battalion. In reality, you would mass as much power as you could to overwhelm the defense.

The defense is set up to make it as difficult as possible to access as wide an area of the planet as possible without encountering phaser-4s. Putting two of them at one pole means relatively easy access to too much of the planet.

There is also a second part for not massing them. And that is deploying troops. Something most fail to notice is that if you have a ground base in a GCL, you can transport troops into the Ground base at non-combat rates, then on the following turn attack OUT. There is no modifier for troops attacking OUT of a ground base, i.e., (P2.752) does not apply to troops coming out of the base. So if your transporter repeaters are still operable, you can reinforce where a ground base is faster than where there is no ground base. An attacking force risks 16% casualties while trying to break into the base (P2.755).

4. If the planet is truly important, eventually another battalion will be assigne (perhaps with the extra fighter squadron that nominally should be present with this battalion).

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Well, I may just be a groundpounder, but if we ever do get that second squadron, I hope it's some of those new B-2 heavy bombers! I'm sure Major Harding wouldn't mind, either.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Major Wile:

Question.

Where are you getting the warp power (J2.2211) to arm your requested suicide shuttle?

I would guess you are trying to talk Defense Command into converting one of the Ground Based Defense Phaser-4s into a Ground Based Defense Photon Torpedo? That way, if it was connected by a power grid to a Fighter Ground Base, Ground Military Garrison, or Ground Warning Station you could charge a suicide shuttle.

But as the battalion does not have any auxiliary warp reactors as current designed, I find myself somewhat bemused by your suggestion.

And, please to not consider the above as being "mean" or "demeaning". I have noted that this is in part to teach some aspects of planetary defense. This one just noted that you forgot about the need for warp power to charge that suicide shuttle.