Actually another point to consider, is that since this is a post-Y180 scenario, our shuttles are actually advanced types.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Interesting quandry. A suicide shuttle does not require warp power to hold. And I cannot find anything in (S3) that warp power is required to be holding a suicide shuttle at WS-II or WS-III (as one of the prepared special shuttles). Does this imply that a unit without warp power (eg a ground base) could start a scenario with an armed suicide shuttle?

Also, I cannot find any reference, but is it legal to purchase extra shuttle craft. Given these are ground bases, there isn't really a problem putting them somewhere, although they'd have to wait for one of the ground bases to launch its own shuttle if it wanted any sort of service.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 07:06 pm: Edit

SPP: Ok. Got me. sorry, I clean forgot about the need for AWR's. (funny, most fed ships don't have that problem...just not used to ground bases...)

Still, For a Federation Battalion not to have atleast one PHoton battery seems almost out of character, somehow!.

Besides, the primary suggestion was for scatter packs and extra drones to use with them...the after thought of the Suicide assault shuttle was only an after thought to get additional use out of the Admin shuttles, besides, at 2 BPV's each, they could be purchased and an extra phaser 3 would still come in handy. Especialy if operated as an adhoc squadron. (just a thought...)

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 07:49 pm: Edit

David> (S4.12) and (S4.13) allow one or two shuttles (respectively) to "be prepared" for a special role. If the unit in question is incapable of preparing a shuttle for a given role, then it cannot be prepared as such. Nice try

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:09 pm: Edit

Advanced Shuttles. I have already called for these several day ago. Our shuttles will be of this type.

I prefer to keep the GBDP-4. They fire every turn and are considerably more powerful at close range.

A SS Shuttle wouldn't make it anyway.

Scatter Packs are indeed an option but my priority is to deny basing rights to the enemy. If an enemy chooses a bombardment mission it well could be to divert forces to this sector. That is not the best option and we MUST foil such an attempt.

Among the population are some artist of celebrity status. They will not leave and preserving their lives is a matter of moral. Thought the population is small it is valuable to the Federation. Destabilizing this system is of considerable value to the enemy. Diverting forces is of considerable value to the enemy. Possible establishment of a base on Cassadra IV is of considerable value to the enemy.
We cannot let them bombard us, capture us, force redeployment of local forces, or destroy us (which would lead to a failier of all previous assinements).

Leaving any one portion of Cassadra IV unprotected could allow an enemy force to gain an easy foot hold on the planet. Not acceptable.

So far I haven't recieved any compelling reports to change my original deployment patterns. There is still a few hours left. I will wait until then.

I do appreciate the input I have received. Thank you all.

<Note to players> I set up the planet population and back story so as to provide texture and also to provide something to protect with out having the planet it self effect the cercumstances of the game. There will be no support from the populating so there is nothing at issue except for our base and mission. It was meant to simplify the situation. Please note that Cassandra 3 is not an issue (asside from another reason not to loose. Cassadra 3 is not a good choice for a base for either the Federation of the Klingons. There is little of value to the Orions as well.) and Cassadra 4 is our main concern. Please don't let my back story clutter the goals of the process. Thank you.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Kaptain K'eremy Kray, DSF Marine Force.

A quick line to let you know that I did not ignore you in passing. But I want to keep something of an air of suspense for the garrison before they discover what is coming. Give them an opportunity to consider the options. Klingons, Orions, or the real surprise enemy . . .


Andromedans (Evil Laughter).

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Col. Knight>

I reccommend the reinforcing element for the HQ garrison consist of a fourth GCV attached to Lieutenant LeBlanc's Platoon, as well as two additional platoons of Marines supporting the Manuver Company based at the GMG. While additional GCVs would provide more firepower, the need to reassemble them after transport leaves them vulnerable and not well suited to rapid redeployment. Also, the additional infantry would mean the garrison has more pallets of transporter artillery assigned to it.

OOC: Basically, I recomment the GMG's CO points (4) be spent on a GCV (1) and six additional boarding parties (3). Note that (R1.28G) provides one round of transporter artillery for each BP at the base, including all extra purchased for it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Alex Chobot:

Ahem.

The rules for Transporter Artillery only allow you to purchase as many rounds as you have "originally assigned boarding parties" (E20.32), so even if you added the eight boarding parties that the GMG could purchase with Commander's Option Points (I know you are only adding six), it would NOT gain any additional artillery rounds. The GMG COULD purchase a maximum of 12 rounds using three of its four points of Commander's Options. It already does have 12 rounds automatically (R1.28G) at no cost as you noted.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit

SPP> Am I reading (R1.28G) wrong? It says "The GMG has one round of transporter artillery for each boarding party (including extra BPs)." Does the paraenthetical only refer to additional BPs bought as overall force? As it reads, I figured extra BPs, either force total bought or CO bought, are "extra BPs" and come with a round of transporter artillery.

By Donovan A Willett (Ravenhull) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:39 pm: Edit

How much would all of this be affected by the presence of a moon? I could see, if it was a Phobos/Deimos sized moon that maybe a Ph-4 base or two on it.

But what if the planet had something like Luna? It would be large enough to sustain several ground bases, but it gets to the point that you either put a few bases that you are willing write off to a possible ground attack, or you put another full regiment on that moon.

Also, assuming that the moon is like Luna and always has a single face towards the planet. Would you be allowed to mount three direct fire ground bases on the three adjacent faces away fromt the planet. And would you want to? And would you put a fighter ground base on it, or keep them on the planet where they might be shielded by the atmoshphere?

Just a few random musing looking over this. I hope this might be the basis of a stategy article in CL.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Well, Luna would be more than 100 hexes away and any attacking force would probably time their attack for when the moon is on the far side of it's orbit.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 10:55 pm: Edit

To:Col Knight, 429 PDB.
From: Maj Wile, 429 PDB.
Re:Combat readiness and drill schedules.
Stardate:20224.1

Sir: with the Formal activation of 429 PDB within the next few hours, did you wish to begin with remedial training to "blow the rust off" or start the tactical drills immediately?

With regard to Operational Planning, did you wish to rely on the ground based warning systems or will you require fighter CAP?

I would suggest that Maj Wells will have an opinion on the deployment of his 'birds'.

As the Destroyer,USS Sargon is still listed in orbit, could we request a recon sweep of the neighborhood beyond the s1 range of the Ground warning stations?

At this time, HQ is not receiving concurent reports of sensor logs from the USS Stanley.
Thank you.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:10 pm: Edit

To:Col Knight.
Sir- With all due respect. The timing of the OPFOR movement is up to the OPFOR Commander.

Suggest you make a decision with regard to the Moon. I had raised the point earlier and not received an answer. My personal recommendation would be to place forces on the moon and let the enemy decide if he wants to attack when it is in range or not. If it is an option suggest missle base with type H drones and 'pop' for the extended range on the munitions.

The OPFOR commander could choose to attack the moon then your challange would be do you send fighter support, or order 'Guns' to fire for effect.

If he disregards the moon, then its his problem, not that of the fighting 429th.

Sir- on a side note there have been several reports that the enlisted personnel are beginning to refer to the 429th as 'Knights killers'. The public affairs attache(a junior yeoman on her first assignment) is quite worked up about it, may I suggest that it would be appropriate for the CSM Plana to handle this?

Thank you.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:15 pm: Edit

Staff: Please excuse the CO as some how he got stuck...SNAKING OUT HIS DARN TOILET DRAIN!

yeeeeuk!

By Donovan A Willett (Ravenhull) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Hmmm.... they would still have to take care of it eventually. Also, in SFB, how far would it be then? Course, I'm heading for the nitpicking zone, so I'll shutup now.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Loren, actually Luna would be 38 (on the average) hexes out.

TO: Capt Stovell
FROM: Lt Frazier
SUBJ: Additional provisions

Sir, As I understand we will be on our own, I would request an additional Platoon of Marines possible one with heavier support weapons along with a vehicle for transport [HWS + 3 BP + truck = 2.7 COI (leaving 0.1 left for general purposes)] for the Battery-3 [Encino]. I would recommend the same for Battery-2 [Chico]. Since Battery-1 [Annapolis] is co-located with Headquaters, a reinforced platoon (4 squads plus 3 trucks) should suffice. If a HWS is not available, perhaps a GCV in its stead (I'll even take an understrength platoon [2 squads]?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Col Knight:Your options concerning stuck drains.

1. Mechanical means...(plunger, snake and (horror) physical disassemly of the throne in question (yuk).
2. Explosives. (M80 does WONDERS) (you don't live in an apartment building, do you?) (GRIN)
3. Compressed air. If the drain pipes are plasitic the joints are possibly good to 100 psi. (Iron upto 2,000 psi) (course I'm only guessing!)
4. The american way, (CALL A PLUMBER!)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Another thought occurred to me. Most military families in a time like this (where the CO is probably deployed off planet with his unit) would handle this emergency differntly. The spouse remaining with the family unit deals with it.
(sounds of body dropping and rolling out the door and foot steps quickly leaving the premises!)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:54 pm: Edit

As all the options are in fact available to me (well, it would take a couple hours to round up option two) option one is the one I took. Big on self reliance.
Option 4 was clearly out done by the need to use those funds for ADB purchaces. (Way spend it when you can do it your self and send the money to ADB...sheesh, I would think you'ld know that!)

Job done, clean up and a shower forthcomming. VICTORY!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:18 am: Edit

Lt. Frazier. Yup, 380,400 KM. Thanks. I shouldhave double checked BEFORE posting. Anyway, 38 hexes on the far side would rendure is mostly useless and on the fore side of an enemy attack would be simply destroyed first. Probably before the fighters could reach there and the the fighters would be lost (and they would HAVE to go and answer the moons destress call). Only ships could protect both installations. Besides Cassadra's moon is is an unstable ice ball at more than a 500,000 KM orbit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 12:29 am: Edit

The 251st Commander says they were delayed by a unusually strong dust storm and asked me to send the deplyment report first thing in the morning. Thank goodness since I was so rudely delayd myself.

All commanders options requests and deployment suggestions will be duly considered. My report will be sent by 1100 hours (ADB time or rather Galactic standard time) tomarrow.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 02:41 am: Edit

I think the various strategems are in place. I will attempt to improve on space control since much of the focus has been on the aftermath of a successful OPFOR landing. If I can devise anything by morning, I will post same.

Regarding Maj. Wiles query on fighter deployment, I would suggest keeping the ready fighters on the planet but having them be stationed at the same base. The bases would alternate supplying the ready fighters. This would minimize vulnerabilities when surprised.

While the fleet assets are here, it may be valuable to accompany USS Sargon with half of our fighters until the fighter bases are fully readied. This would permit the fighter squadron to closely examine the asteroid belt and outlying planets for surprises plus familiarize pilots with the system.

Edit: OOC: While it will have no effect on the scenario, a complete system survey just seems to be prudent.

By Donovan A Willett (Ravenhull) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 03:19 am: Edit

Has anybody considered replacing a few admin shuttles with F-7s? Yeah, they are obsolete in space battles, but downsides of the F-7 over admins (no SP or WW) is negated by the tactical situation.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 03:50 am: Edit

Colonel Knight, I regret to report to you that your records regarding my squadron are incorrect. I know the manifest lists F4C's, but that's not what we've got. I don't even know what we've got - I'm investigating just what we do have and will advise soonest.

Major Harding

======================

(R1.F8) states that fighters that got the C-refits are listed as such in their description, and there is no such note in (R2.F6) - in fact there is a specific note stating no C refit. Both entries are in Module J, 1991 and there is nothing for these sections in the errata.

If four type-I per fighter are needed, the only way I can see to mount these on the F4 is to use megafighters, which add two type-I rails.

Net additional cost is 2.5 points per fighter:
+ 3.5 megafighter upgrade
+ 1 drone speed upgrade on two extra Type-VI*
- 1 no C-refit
- 1 no WBP

* because the F4M carries a total of 4 I, 2 VI instead of the F4C's 4 I

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 03:52 am: Edit

I'd love to have a few F-7's (or even F-7C or F-7M) around, but the shuttles are probably needed for day to day use - I'd be surprised if any have been replaced.