Archive through February 27, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Orbital Defense Platforms:
Archive through February 27, 2003
To:Col Knight, 429 PDB
From:Maj Wile, 429 PDB
Re:GDS situation.
Recommend go the max on GDS. (Of course, My personal religion in this subject is along the lines of 'Victory thru superior Firepower!')
If not too late to make a recommendation on defending position Biloxi and position Fargo, Definitely place GDS and pre assign independent ground forces:
Reasons:
1. Hate to cede any territory to enemy forces...easier to keep territory than it is the have to retake the realestate later.
2. With minimal forces in theater, less chance that OPFOR will devote ship resources on fire support missions on positions Biloxi and Fargo.
3. If enemy does try to "flood" positions Biloxi andFargo with tranport at noncombat rates, defending units will inflict casualties all out of proportion to the initial cost and relative combat power.
4. If OPFOR is successfull in forcing landings on planet, gives troops logical rally point in case of overrun. (outside scope of exercise but still relevant fall back position if needed.)
I have a moment before heading out again.
I made references repeatably about the GCS only for the feel for the paper. I didn't feel that a RW Colonel would make reference to a Ground Combat Location. If was for fictional purposes and I figured you would get it. I'll make note of such things in the future so as not to require any time figuring out just what I mean. "Is this fiction or does he really want that?" I'll put definitions in brackets as a norm.
GCLs...I'm sorry, I got confused by our earlier discussions regarding GCS and GDS with regards to deployment around bases. Please let me review the rules and I'll post a clear definition of what I want. Probably will be a standard pattern at each hex side. I do want to keep the BPV down and I do realise that they will produce no Comm. Opts.
Briefly, I chose to use the two small bases because I could devide the squadron. The overall effort to capture the total fighter base will be harder as well. Destruction from space will take longer exposing (more shields and more internals) the force to more GBDP fire (particularly the Dallas instalation).
Re. Prime Teams: I didn't feel attaching a Prime Team would be a good use of such tallents and for the cost the oppertunity to use those tallents would be minimal. I don't expect them to have any oppertunity to beam abord any enemy ship and their use in ground combat is better replaced by that which I could buy otherwise.
By for now, I might not be back until tomarrow. (maybe tonight but RW is pressing in for today).
SPP: I will review D15.0 today.
To:Col Knight, 429 PDB
From: Maj Wile, 429 PDB
Re:Work load.
I realize that you are swamped with command decisions, how can I best assist?
Colonel Knight:
Additional things needed.
You have spent none of your Commander's Option Points for any "special drones", please confirm this decision.
Second point. Under (J11.13) your fighter squadron has a certain number of free pods. We know that you had 24 EW Pods for free with the two bases, you have bought four more (total of EW pods now 28). You then purchased 12 phaser pods, and one drone control pod. Now, from (J11.13) we know you have 12 cargo pods, and as we know that there are only two kinds of auxiliary pods, we can be certain that 11 of the 12 FREE auxiliary pods are also cargo pods because you can only have one Sensor Pod, and I assume it is the 12th auxiliary pod. Now, you bought 12 phaser pods and one seeking weapon control pod, all well and good, these are combat pods. However, what are your 12 FREE Combat pods?
I would tend to vote for minimal comitment to defense of areas B and F. (I am sure this is not a shock to anyone given my expressed opinions on concentration.)
We could easily end up spending resources on GDS for those areas comparable to the cost of another two DefSats or even a third fighter base with some old F-4 fighters.
Our deployment is already above nominal establishment in ground forces but significantly below a typical batalion deployment in fighters (albeit the capabilities of the F-16M compensate for some deficiency in numbers).
Douglas Lampert:
"Our deployment is already above nominal establishment in ground forces"
How so? Explain please. So far it is within, and arguably only less depending on GDS. As noted previously, any single base can be a GCL by itself, and having GDS would not be out of character.
Are you arguing that a Battalion should have no ground troops at all? Are you arguing that no ground troops should be purchased as Commander's Options?
How is the battalion above "nominal establishment in ground forces"?
I am not trying to give you a hard time, I really do want to know what caused you to make this statement. Something I missed that defines the ground force elements of a battalion as smaller than given? (Possible, I have not claimed perfection.)
Oh, one other thing.
As has bee noted, the reason I went with only one fighter squadron was to have the ability to shift the action back to earlier years.
So as noted, I do not have a problem with Knight adding a reasonable number of GDS to his defense. Remember, part of the battalion's mission is to repel attacks to sieze the planet, and having these would make an "over the horizon" ground attack against the bases harder.
Steve Petrik, Per Loren Knight's post of Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 01:46 am, all commanders options are ground forces except those specific to the fighters (and even there, the additional deck crews allow additional milita to be formed). Additionally we have purchased one HWS and several GDS as part of our forces above the default. Nominal establishment strength would (AFAIK) be the standard for these bases without CO purchases.
Culling from the post in question we have:
+15 BP, +4 transporter artillery, +1 HWS, +9 GCV, +2 Tanks, +11 Trucks, and +2 GDS
That is a heck of a lot of ground forces when the bases already have their own BP and one of the bases is a standard GMG in the first place.
One effect of this substantial emphasis on ground forces is that the fighters are spending their commanders options on extra Deck Crews for their bases.
I am certainly not claiming we should have no GCE at all, nor am I claiming that none should be purchased as comanders options, simply that a full set of comanders options for all our bases + their default marine contingents ought to be enough. Additional GDS without additional space defenses strikes me as overspecialization for ground combat.
Douglas Lampert:
Please define your statement :'minimal comitment' to defense areas B & F. are you suggesting no GDS in areas b and F?
My suggestion is not to devote significant forces to the B&F locations, but if the enemy wants them, he should have to work for it and not just walkin at non combat transporter rates.
I would be over joyed at a tank, 5 bp's and 2 trucks available for local operations in each area, but suspect that may be an unattainable option.
My ideal would be zero, why should we spend any forces on GDS that the enemy can bypass?
If zero is not considered practical, I would like the force commited to be as small as is required for whatever mission the unit is expected to preform. AFAIK no mission has been specified for these forces beyond a 'show the flag' mission of do not let them have the location for free.
What is the mission? Forcing the OPFOR to not use noncombat transporter rates? IIRC he can always simply transport to remote areas at noncombat rates and then walk into the GCL. Observation? What additional Inteligence do we expect to gain? Simply forcing him to fight? But if we try to fight everywhere we will be easily overwhelmed everywhere, even if he can take the locations for free, to hold them he must leave forces in place (weakening his attack) or we can take them back with equal ease.
IIRC the mission is to defend the entire planet from all threats. Abadoning 2 of the six hex sides makes sense in a non populated world, but unfortuantely, there are political considerations. The population tends to be educated and highly connected to several special interest groups, (see Col Knights breifings for details).
I don't know what Col Knights opinion will be on this (yet) but you are counseling political suicide on the capital budget front. If significant casualties among the civilian population happen, and it is reported that the 429th didnt even attempt to protect said civilians, Col Knight (also all field grade command officers) can kiss off any future promotions that need to be endorsed by a vote in the Federation Council.
The cheap and tawdry arguments aside, it is the assigned duty of the 429th to serve and protect the civilian population.
Speaking for myself, I intend to carry out my duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability and that includes protecting the civilains population of this planet.
Thank you.
Currently, the forces available have the potential of moving a total of 17 BPs supported by 5 shuttles into either unoccupied hex side. Unless the forces fixed to each hex side sustantial increase the value of our mobile forces, we leave the planet vulnerable to having most of our forces easily picked off in penny packets or easily ignored. I expect the current planetary constabulary to be more than capable of handling any looting after the departure of the attacking force.
Any resources planned for expenditure on defense stations on hex sides without bases would be better on additional shuttles and extra boarding parties. Any affordable source of additional transporters would also be valuable.
Quick note, I do not intent to allow an enemy force a free foot hold on Cassadra IV. Say fror instance we leave nothing is B and F. THe enemy can simply land there and establish a foothold that, under any circumstance, I must eventually repel. I is unacceptable to allow the enemy to make a presence on this planet.
SPP: OK, sorry but I'm not understanding this pod thing now. I thought the description for the FGB-s over rules the standard rule for carriers alotment of free pods. If it does not the I must make considerable ammends.
I reviewed closely (D15.0) and have come to the descision that I need some GDS to make capturing GCSs and actual effort. I may have to divert considerable ground forces to ward off an attack somewhere else. It would then be little effort to start taking GCSs. I can only buy additional moble forces via Comm. Ops. but being able to buy GDSs with force points is still available. I need to not be asking for a large force so I need to ask you (just to be sure), can I deploy odd numbers of GDSs in any pattern?
Here is what I'm thinking. GCLs A and D have considerable defences already. At a moments notice Fighters, shuttles, GCVs and Tanks can replel an attack. But GCLs B, C, E, and F are less protected. The GBDP-4s are also at some disavantage. B, C, E, and F is where I would like to deploy GDSs. Three each (24 Force BPV). The others (A and D) would have Ground Control STATIONS 
deployed around the bases and would have to capture two to gain the bonus and enter the bases from the ground. (In (D15.0) this seems a fair requirement.)
Also, no special drones is correct. Given the value of ground forces my space forces in space combat will be facing a superior force. It is not likely I can defeat an enemy that is of equal value to my ENTIRE force in a space born battle since a large portion of that force is grounded. I must endevor to win by making the enemy fail in it's mission. The process will have to be to make it too costly to be worth it to continue. This CAN be accomplished against many threats. I don't see really being able to utilize special drones to an acceptable effect for the cost. I have to defend the planet, I don't have to destroy the enemy.
Especially as these fighters are not capable of handling multi-warhead drones or their ADD equivalents.
Story Line:
=============================
Cpt. D. Kass.
I would like you to arrange to have Lt. G Getgen and Lt. J Kasper design a system separate from Subspace communications over which I can communicat between Annapolis and Dallas. Then tie that system to transmit via carrier wave into our scanning frequencies. It should be easily read but garbled. Code name this Opperation Shadow.
Thank you.
===================================
==============================================
To: Major Wells, 429 PDB
From:Maj Wile, 429 PDB.
Re: Defense posture, positions Biloxi and Fargo.
Sir: If the planet were, to be honest, properly garrisoned, we would have 3 more phaser 4 ground bases, 2 more small fighter bases, 12 more fighters possibly 6 photon ground bases and 6 ground base phaser 1 units.
Unfortunately, we are it.
The issue of deployment of zero forces or mobile light forces to positions Biloxi and Fargo comes down to two options, defend or not to defend.
If yours and D Lamperts (capt) opposition is military expediancy and the question of effective resistance to potential enemy invasion, I must confess that I am sympathetic. If there were no civilian population or (inthe case where our forces were occupying a hostile world (such as a klingon colony) I would be proud to support your position. Actually I would endorse your suggestion in an unqualified manner.
However, This planet is Federation Territory. Our obligation is to defend it to the best of our ability. More importantly, for the well being of the cause, Every step that is taken MUST BE SEEN AS WORKING FOR THE BEST INTERESTS of the civilians under our care and responsibility.
Unfortunately, in this instance, where military judgement and professional expertise may warrant a tactical retreat to maximize the potential margin of victory in other defensive positions, the political cost of doing so is prohibitively expensive.
Please remember the briefing information that Col Knight provided, and the additional details provided by the 251st. This planet had been occupied by Klingon forces previously. We have recently moved in, and now senior officers of the 429th are advocating ceeding the territory back to the Klingons without a shot fired. This will not sit well with the civilians of Cassandra IV
This is the main reason I have advocated from the begining getting civilians involved with the defense of Cassandra IV. This is their home. Even if all we did was mobilize a few boarding parties, they would have been ideal for assignment to positions Biloxi and Fargo. It would have reinforced the spirit of comradship so necessary for the Federation to not only be successful in this war, but in the peace that follows.
The issue is not a GCV, a GDS, some trucks and a few boarding parties. The issue is wheither the Federatipon is serious about defending the planet only due to the strategic concerns, or whether the Federation cares about the people that live on the planet.
You are looking at the military realities. Sometimes the people must come first.
It may be that Col Knight will agree with you. If that is the case, I will salute, and follow my orders to the best of my ability. That will not change my opinion that it would be the wrong thing to do.
I thank you, Major Wells. Up to now, I had been following my instincts on this question. You have forced me to reason it out and support my opinion with the data and facts. I appreciate the opportunity to present this argument.
To:Col Knight, 429 PDB.
From:Maj Wile, 429 PDB.
Re:Forward Area Defense, Planetary Approach battle.
Concerning your response to SPP. Please sir! use the Special allowance of Drones! I agree entirely withyou that the chance to defeat the enemy in the approach battle is slime (to say the least) but the battle begins 101 hexes away from the planet, timed and practiced correctly we should absolutely be able to get off 1 salvo of drones, 2 salvos with luck and if the OPFOR approaches cautiously or does a flyby, we could easily get off 3 or more salvos before the OPFOR closes to the planet.
The point is not if we can destroy the enemy, the issue is how much damage we can inflict before he takes the High orbitals away from us.
If we can cause sheild damage, perhaps the DefSats will beable to take a bigger bite before they also are destroyed. damaged enemy ships would be an easier target for Major Wells fighters to get to grips. I suspect he would prefer killing ships instead of only damaging them with his phaser gatlings.
The Phaser 4's will penetrate a shield at close range, but if it hits a previously damaged shield the phaser 4 will be doing internals not just shield damage.
Please sir! Give the lad's a chance to do meaningful damage to the OPFOR early. If we wait until they close to the planet, they will have all of the advantages that an attacker historically expects, but if we can attrition them during the approach battle, we can defeat the enemy in detail.
This is Why I made the point about the scatter packs! if we can saturate the OPFOR drone defenses with waves of DRONES it increases the chances of one or more drones actually getting through! Its is absolutely urgent that we complicate the OPFOR approach as much as we can for tactical as well as strategic reasons.
If we can delay the OPFOR approach while he deals with the Drone waves, each turn purchased brings the releif forces that much closer! We are buying time with drones.
If you ignore the Approach battle option you will in effect be trading lives of our ground forces for the time for the releif forces to arrive. Every moment we can delay the enemy from being able to deploy on the planet is absolutely necessary for the layered defense strategy to work properly.
If you will not make a decision, could I beg you to defer it to Major Wells? The largest drone fire capacity we have is represented by the Fighters of the Ghostlight wing, plus any shuttles that we can cycle through the Fighter Ground bases. I flat promise you that there are pilots that would be willing to salvage a shuttle for a chance to launch 6 more type one's into any Klingon ship they could reach. (and I suspect that the shiny brass medal may not even be necessary!)
If nothing else, I volunteer my services sir. I'd rather die knowing I made a difference in defending the Federation than hiding in a hole in the ground listening to reports of our bases being destroyed by the OPFOR as it prepares to take the planet.
The final argument that I can offer, is that there is a chance that a cautious commander may be intimidated by a spirited defense...if he expected to approach the planet unopposed, the sheer volume of drone fire may cause him to call for reinforcements. I admit it may not be much, but by this stage of the war the fire eating klingons have either died or learned caution. Atleast we can give them the option of dying for their nation in orbit or on the planet.
(Conversation between Major Wile and his yoman at OPS Center)
"Yeoman! Chase down Major wells, I dont care if you have to commandeer a shuttle craft! Tell him from me that he needs to get ontop of the Special Drone allotmant ASAP."
"You, Smith! get on the comm board, find out where CSM Plana is hanging out, I may need to get him in volved on this, MOVE!" The Specilist Tech Grinned and hauled his butt out the door at a rapid pace.
Story line-----------
Email to Lt's Christopher Fant and Daniel G. Knipfer, small ground fighter bases.
CC: Major Wells.
For operational Planning Considerations, would you please prepare, as an exercise, what special drones you would recommend arming the fighter wing with. Assume you have the standard percentages available and the established budget for the 429th PDB to work with. Please forward yuor response to my office ASAP for programming into the similators.
Thank you.
Story line-----
"Has anyone found CSM Planna yet?"
"no!?!?"
What do you mean 'no'! United Federation of Planets Marine CSM's just don't fall off the planets (not unless they have some sort of assistance acheiving the required excape velocity!
"Smith, haul your derierre down to the Senior Cheifs mess, find out if they know what his plan of the day was. Jones! lay aft to the CO's office, find out from the Yeoman if she has any idea where the CSM is. do it quietly, I dont want a brass band on this!"
Story line--------
Email to Captain Andrew Palmer: (Battalion Signals officer) Just a follow up here. The OPs Center log indicates that there have been no messages received within the last 12 hours. This is a departure from the logs over the previous 72 hours.
There is a rumor floating around that there is Jamming coming from some where...Can you confirm or deny? Make sure you address this in the next Battalion Conference.
Thank you.
Maj Wile, Operations.
Story Line---------------
To:Captain Justin Holland, Batt Intell officer, 429th PDB
From: Major Wile, 429 PDB Operations officer.
Re:Intelligence summary.
Justin, Your daily intelligence assessment is not posted on the Battalion Database. Is there some difficulty? If you are in need of assistance, please advise. My office stands ready to assist in any capacity...
The situation is getting tight now, we don't need any SNAFU's. Get that report out ASAP or explain what the difficulty is.
Thank you!
Maj Wile.
Major Wile: Special drones will cost us numbers. It is far more important to me to keep the size of the wave than have a smaller wave of expencive special drone types shot down to no effect. The 251st was refering to Special Drones (i.e. Spear Fish, MW etc.).
Requisitioning those drones will lessen my numbers.
Until the pod situation is fully defined things will stay as they are. If I find I have extra options then I may look to purchasing armor modules for the first wave. Might be a good surprise for an attacker. We'll see.
Sir, Armour and EW are effectively free modules. Several others have an almost nominal cost. I implore you to request a variety of drone warheads in order to complicate enemy defence planning - none of the likely opponents have strong drone identification capabilities and by varying the drone types uses we can make their drone defence less efficient.
This will be OOC because the character Maj. Wells should be far more knowledgeable about the in and outs of combat than I am. And while my military service did include a number of Battalion XOs who made public their inexperience, I would rather not have the character suffer the same fate.
On specialty drones: I am not completely up to date on all the recent changes to fighters but if I understand correctly few specialty drones benefit the defense. Our fighters can not operate 2 space drones; each fighter launches too few drones to benefit from mixing an ECM drone with it; armoured drones are of limited utility against our expected Klingon opposition.
Picking up 2 ECM drones to support the scatterpacks might be useful though with random targeting not very effective. (The ECM drone would be in the scatterpack loadout making it just a little tougher to kill the entire swarm.) Maybe adding externally armoured drones to scatterpacks that don't carry ECM drones might be useful to disperse the drone swarm.
A few probe drones would be a reasonable addition for a defense force similar to the one postulated but those would have no use in combat. Some ground attack drones would be handy with the entire ground combat focus but again they would be unlikely to be used since we need to have fighters remaining after the opponents land. Of course, in reality, the defense force would pick up every extra drone that supply could be convinced to give up. Got some speed 8 slug drones, we will take them. (Well, if we didn't have to pay BPV for them.)
On ground deployment: In general, the brittle defend everywhere system proposed fails in practice. Certainly failed in World War 2 and often in SFB. The anticipated attack force (Klingon frigate squadron with small troop vessel) should be able to drop about at least 30 offensive points into a single GCL and thereby blow up 3 defense stations and an entire platoon easily. Unless we can mount in excess of 20 points on each hex side, we are likely to be trading companies for enemy platoons merely for political points. And that is just the initial attack after landing before we can reinforce; with weak forces on otherwise empty hex sides, we lose the forces there and wind up basically in the same situation as not having had any forces on the hex side.