I didn't say resistence is futile. I'm saying that any force that is capable of actually taking the fight to the planet (range 5 before ground troops can be landed via transporter or ground bases engaged) will not be deterred by one or two dozen drones launched at long range (20+ hexes). It will, at most, buy us a few turns of rearming fighters to do it again and some inconsequential shield damage. While that maybe be a few more turns towards reinforcements, we have no idea if reinforcements are 10 or 100 turns away.

Drone launch should be done around 10 to 12 hexes. At that point the OpFor is pretty much committed, and will have to deal with drones while coming under significant ph-4 fire. Turning out at that point means we have the chance to at least tear down a shield or two, and means the enemy has that much more trouble dealing with the drones. If they press one, then they press one into the teetch of the ground bases, the fighters second drone wave and, if need be, their gatlings.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:05 pm: Edit

The fighters are not going to do much damage in open space Jeff. Pitty we do not have a airless rock for the fighter bases, but oh well.

If the fighters try to engage in open space, they will be cut down. Staying behind the planete, doing and S curve at max speed, the fighter will be protected and available at a moments notice.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Major Wile Said: Option#1. Squadron launches turn 1, deck crews run to magazine and pull next load of munitions in quantities for whole squadron. squadron exits atmosphere.

RESPONSE: Well first off, the squadron CANNOT EXIT ATMOSPHERE ON TURN #1. This has been noted before. The squadron takes off one Turn #1, gains altitude on Turn #2 but is still in the atmosphere, and on Turn #3 can enter space. This does not, however, stop the squadron from launching drones on Turn #1 or Turn #2, and the drones will move normally as their first movement DOES take them out of atmosphere.

Major Wile Said: OPFOR closes on planet at best speed, (logical since at this point no drones have been fired yet.) moves from range 101 to range 70 hexes.

Major Wile Said: Turn#2. Ghostlight squadron launches 11 drones ballistically at geographic hex# on line between present location of OPFOR and squadron location, use a dog leg and intermediate point where drones will arrive at hex 35 hexes from planet that is on a line between OPFOR entry hex and where they are expected to be assuming least distance and time course plot. Ghost light squadron detaches two-seater and with 11 F16s return to base to reload. Two-seater becomes drone control at point drones reach termination hex described above. Fighter moves at best speed to keep OPFOR in range of 35. If OPFOR continues on shortest distance course between entry hex and planet two-seater can remain near planet, if OPFOR alters course to "dodge back" in effort to cause drones to lose tracking, two-seater moves forward to control drones. So long as OPFOR remains within 35 hexes of fighter and the drone wave, drones remain on board and functional. If OPFOR moves on divergent course drones begin stern chase, moving at fast speed (assuming no armor modules have been installed)

RESPONSE: Opposing force will look at the drone launch, conclude that since the defending fighters cannot have type-III drone frames, that the enemy is trying to do something "odd". Since you are not using type-III frames, and there is no chance that any of the drones will achieve a lock-on [See (F4.2) which notes that ballistically targeted drones cannot accept targets or detonate, see (F4.3) which specifically notes that while type-III drones can be launched ballistically to find a target later on, AND THAT ATG drones do not have this ability and are therefore treated under (F4.2), see (D19.221.) which provides that self-guiding seeking weapons must achieve their own lock-on on launch if launched on passive fire control, and (D19.222) which provides that a type-III frame launched under such conditions could be set to seek a target after moving some distance]. So what you are accomplishing is throwing away a wave of drones. You cannot launch drones with any chance of attacking a target UNLESS that target is within 35 hexes range, you do not have any type-III frames, and nothing on the planet is capable of using a type-III frame. Type-III frames are specifically excluded from use in scatterpacks (FD7.12), can only be used by fighters with "special rails" (J4.233), and even mega-packs drone rails are "standard" (J4.232) rails, not "special".
NOW, I want to note that IN A CAMPAIGN USING TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE where an attacking force might arrive to attack a particular planet and NOT KNOW for a fact that the fighters are not equipped with "special" or "heavy" (J4.234) rails, the tactic MIGHT have some value (might create some confusion in the attacking force). But in this case, the attackers DO know that you have only got F-16Ms, and they are NOT going to be fooled by launching drones when they are more than 35 hexes from the launching unit.
The presence of the two-seat fighter within 35 hexes of the drones or the OPFOR ships is meaningless, as even if the drones were type-III frames launched to seek targets under "Tame Boar" targeting, they cannot be controlled by another unit after such launch, but only use their own guidance.

Major Wile Said: If I were the drone control officer, I would pick 11 different hexes for the ballistic termination point, one for each drone to prevent the bunching of all drones into one single hex.

RESPONSE: See above, regret to say if you were the drone control officer, you would be relieved of your duties. Sorry.

Major Wile Said: By picking a hex on the line between the OPFOR entry hex and the planet, we have conveniently centered the kill zone into which the OPFOR would most likely maneuver.

Major Wile Said: It is possible that OPFOR will delay closing on the base, but this is unlikely because there is a time limit in which they could complete the mission safely. There are three turns of endurance available for the type-I drones.

RESPONSE: Correct, and launched ballistically, they will all move in a straight line to their "target hexes" and simply keep moving past their "target hexes" until they run out of endurance and self-destruct. They will never engage any "target", will not explode, will not accept guidance from a unit because when they were launched, there was no target within 35 hexes.

Major Wile Said: If the Two-seater fighter can keep the OPFOR at range 35 or less, and assuming the OPFOR maneuvers in an area centered within 35 hexes of the termination point of the ballistically launched drones after completing the dog leg, there is a good chance that the drones could be effective.

RESPONSE: See above.

Major Wile Said: Depending on the make up of the OPFOR, the drone control officer may split his fire on all three ships (assuming F5 squadron as previously suggested) or, if one of the ships is a more attractive target than the other ships in the force might warrant all drones targeted on one ship. Especially if the OPFOR breaks formation for some reason.

Major Wile Said: In any event, the rest of the squadron will be rearming while the OPFOR deals with the drone threat.

RESPONSE: OPFOR will deal with the drone threat by ignoring it. They know you have no type-III frames. And 11 drones is simply no threat to an F5 squadron in any case, particularly if they do not arrive in the engagement zone in a pretty tight formation. Further, at this long range the squadron can EASILY lower non-facing shields from the planet to place a T-bomb to deal with the drones.
NONE OF THE ABOVE IS MEANT TO BE DEROGATORY OR "MEAN". It is all meant to explain a rules interaction and simply why a particular tactical idea will not work under the existing rules and tactical situation. As noted, launching a bunch of drones ballistically if the enemy does not know (the campaign game I referred too above) that there are no type-IIIs in that particular garrison might fool them into taking delaying tactics to deal with the drones, even though the drones will not harm them in any way. In this case, sorry, the enemy DOES KNOW that the fighters at this planet are F-16Ms. (You can assume reconnaissance, reports by spies in Federation Command, Message intercepts, or agents left in place on the planet when the Klingons pulled out.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

The existing rules for DefSats do not provide that they can "hide" again once they fire. The rules text simply says "cannot be fired at unless the fire" (R1.15C). You then have rule (R1.15E) that says in part that a DefSat cannot be "swept" like a mine can, but that you use the detection rules for captor mines (M7.4) for defense satellites. Rule (M7.4) says that a Captor mine can be "locked onto" when it fires with the lock roll made against an assumed sensor rating of "4" (i.e., a roll of 1-4 gains the lock-on). The rules in (M7.4) note that if the lock-on is lost for various reasons (but does not include orbit since captor mines cannot be in orbit, and probably no one thought at the time about a ship orbiting away from a captor mine and behind a planet) it is lost. Since such lock-ons can be lost (even though orbit is not specifically stated) I would (and have in the past when doing such battles) rule that once you lose a line-of-sight to a Defense Satellites, you lose the lock-on.

The above may make clear to all of you in this topic why DefSats are so expensive (20 BPV for a unit that takes 25 points to destroy, has two built in ECCM points and two built-in ECM points, up to six weapons and the power to operate them, AND EFFECTIVELY OPERATES THEM UNDER A CLOAK.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 01:03 pm: Edit

SPP, since you brought it up, Defense Satellites. I had thought up this recently.

What about a future option to customize them to "Build your own" Defense satellites.

Like this, a standard Defense Satellite has:

1 Hvy Weapon (2Disr, 2Plas-F, 2Fus, 2Photon, 2droneB/C/E, 1Hellbore, 1TRL)
2 Phaser Hardpoints (Ph-2, or 2Ph-3) each hardpoint
1 Defensive Weapon (2P-3, ADD-12, Plas-D rack, PG-hydrans)

Of course my numbers might be off there, but just as an example

That way you could possibly "tailor make" your defenses for your planet.

Like:
2 DefSats (Photon, 2P-2, ADD-12)
2 DefSats (DroneE, 2P-2, 2P-3)
1 DefSat (Photon, 2P-2, 2P3)

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Might should create a topic in proposals for that.

SPP: Firstly, thanks. Second: So, to be crystal clear, once the DefSat fires it is no longer hidden (i.e. CANNOT be fired on) and a lock-on is acheived. Once is dissapears behind the planet the "Lock-on" is lost and can only be regained using (M7.4), unless it fires again. However, after firing the DefSat is no longer ever hidden for that scenario (e.g. the enemy hence forthe knows the position of the DefSat in question.)

This makes sense to me as once the DefSat is locked onto it's orbit parameters are known and cannot be changed during a scenario. So you may loose lock-on but you know where it should be (which hex) so it would be, after all, easier to use (M7.4).

So, last thing, can I buy 4 extra deck crews for each FGB-S? The reason I not sure is because in some cases the entire defense is one thing and in others (like Comm. Ops.) they are separate. THere is only one squadron so for some things I can only buy one of such and such (like EWF and Two-Seaters) and can only have one CAP (two fighters) per planetary Defense System. I'm questioning where this falls.

If I can buy 4 extra deck crews per FGB-S then that is definatly a real reason to choose the two small bases over the medium. Don't see why anyone would want to buy the FGB-M.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:09 pm: Edit

SPP-Thank you for addressing my points in detail.

The point seems to be that beyond a certain range from the planet (guessing this is limited to the 35 hex radius from the PDB) there is effectively no action that the PDB of the size being discussed can take to oppose the OPFOR?

(sorry, thats convoluted...) will try to phrase this positively, what options exist for a PDB to contest an OPFOR advancing on the PDB?

If there were a 2nd battalion that was equipped with intercepters or PF's? multiple missle bases (type H drones?) Bomber bases? seems that to get a full range of combat options a great deal more must be spent in BPV's than what was posed for this exercise.

Inorder to get to that point, the value of the planet would need to be very valuable or strategic, neither of which is indicated in the background info for this mission.

If the OPFOR mission is anything other than closing to the planet at point blank range, it would seem the PDB is powerless to contest the OPFOR effectively.

Sorry- am I missing something here?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:31 pm: Edit

It's a matter of thresholds. If the given PDB has X combat capability in total, then any force that can close and match/survive that capability is not going to be readily detered by a segement of the capability being detached and sent against it.

An Orion DW can't reasonably expect to close against our defenses and accomplish anything short of dying, and will find the F16M squadron enough of a threat to make lingering at range sniping at the planet untenable. Thus, the detached force can make it leave.

Now if it's, say, a pair of D5s and an F5W, that force can fight its way into our defences and engage the planet. They'll be hurt badly, and with skill and luck we can foil their mission, but they can force the issue. The F16M squadron, sent forward, will be a nusiance that they can wear down so that they don't present much of a threat when the enemy makes their attack on the planet.

Whereas if we had aditional battalions with more ground based weapons and a fighter/bomber squadron and what not, then our mobile elements would present a credible threat on their own to the two D5s and F5W and out overall defense would be enough that the three ships could not reasonably expect to close with the planet and engage the units upon it without getting cut to ribbons.

Basically, there's three levels of enemy forces (though the lines aren't hard and fast:

1) Insufficent: The DW. This is a small enough force that can't hope to penetrate out integrated defense without being first mission-killed, if not destroyed out right, and that can't stand up to our mobile element. Likely to leave once it realizes it is out classed.

2) Balanced: The D5s and F5W. This is an enemy force that is large enough to not be detered (maybe delayed) by our mobile elements and that can press the attack to the planet, but not in such force that their victory is assured. Hard fought and bloody. Without decisive numerical advantages, both sides are dependent on planning and execution of superior tactics for the edge.

3) Overwhelming: A D7C, D5P, and full Battle Group including a commando ship. We're dead, it's just a question of how dearly we make them pay for doing so. Our mobile elemnt will be brushed aside if sent to engage on its own, and they have the fire and staying power to roll right up and reduce the planetary defenses at will.

So basically, anything that presents a real threat to the planet is best fought around the planet, as otherwise it can easily handle piecemeal attacks against it.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:34 pm: Edit

No. That is the point. A Defense Battalion is there to keep the planet from being captured by a lone Frigate. But, it really cannot do much offensively at all.

Look at it from an F&E standpoint. We have a single PDU. COMPOT 9, 1 EW. So, we can fend off 1 or maybe 2 Frigates with no problem. Anything else is going to take the planet if it really wants too.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 02:53 pm: Edit

But we are not operating in a peacetime climate, its the height of the General war.

the implication is that by investing in frigate squadrons, each squadron could "clean up" multiple PDB's through out the sector without fear of meaningfull damage and commiting serious attrition damage to the Federation economy and infrastructure.

The 2nd implication is that in general, the federation would be far wiser to rely on many patrol squadrons of frigates and fewer PDB's (which arguably cost about the same) yet provide significantly greater protection.)

I wonder, wouldnt make more sense to defend the star system in total than picking and choosing between the disparate planets and moons of the system?

(NOT being cynical here, just asking.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

You would buy fighter ground base, medium for several reasons:

If you were in a campaign where you had to actually MOVE the bases, then moving one Fighter Ground Base Medium is easier than moving two fighter ground base Smalls.

Second, if you are setting up bases on asteroids, then one fighter ground base medium can be set up on an asteroid, but two fighter ground base smalls cannot be set up on one asteroid.

Third, expense. A fighter Ground Base medium is, ultimately, cheaper than two fighter ground base smalls (although only by a nine points), and if you are buying a force on points and have to include the Commander's Options, the fact that a Medium Fighter Ground Base has a maxed out BPV of only 18 points (including its 3 points for commander's Options) versus the 28.8 points of the two small bases. Sometimes you need to save that 10.8 points to get your force. Note: Fighter costs and there Commander's Options are a separate matter

Fourth, power grids. It is easier to tie one fighter ground base into a grid sometimes than to tie in two. Fighter bases are very short on power, which makes it VERY HARD for them to perform any lending function to their fighter squadrons. Both a small or a medium fighter base have only two units of power, one unit of which is used to simply keep the shields powered (you cannot afford to not power the shields if the enemy is that close, they might reach range 5, notice the base does not have shields since you have to announce the fact in Energy Allocation, and knock it out cheaply). It is easier to lend power to one base than to two. That EW fighter is not likely to last forever, and you lose EW pods pretty quickly on the other fighters (if they survive), so being able to operate at full speed (i.e., not dragging around a few pods and losing two points of speed and having EW lent from the base can be pretty important, but the base needs to be lent power to do the lending, and a lot of fighter activity around a planet is within the ten hex range where that lending will be effective).

Fifth, sometimes (it happens rarely, but I have seen it) that extra set of warp booster packs that the medium base has over the two small bases DOES MATTER.

But, normally, I would take two small fighter ground bases to defend a planet.

First; Two small fighter bases allows you to have one on each side of the planet, so your ability to lend EW to your fighters is complete, i.e., it is not possible for the enemy to simply pull your fighters below the horizon of the base so that it cannot lend. This does mean you have to keep track of which base is lending. And it does mean that you have to have planned that lending function in advance, i.e., have tied the bases into a power grid with another base.

Second; Two Small fighter ground bases can control 12 drones, six more than one medium fighter ground base. Drone control is IMPORTANT, and you need to be thinking about it constantly. If you cannot take over control of the drones launched by your fighters, then the fighters CANNOT USE ERRATIC MANEUVERS. They have to control their own drones until the drones hit something. Being able to transfer control of the drones to your ground units allows you the tactical flexibility of having your fighters go erratc.

Third: They can be in separate areas, which allows them to extend that six points. Ground bases on the side of the planet where the medium fighter ground base is NOT cannot control all that many drones, only 9 without a special sensor, and if a fighter gets picked off, and the EW fighter is gone, you could wind up with drones going inert. And again being able to transfer control of the drones allows the fighters to adopt erratic maneuvers as a viable tactic after launching their drones.

Fourth: Two small ground bases actually have more Commander's Option Points than one medium base, although not much (4.8 compared to 3.0).

Fifth: Two Small bases are actually a LOT HARDER to kill than one medium base (70 damage points to destroy two small bases versus only 45 to destroy one medium base in a single turn assuming no shield reinforcement).

Sixth: If the enemy is intent on attacking one side of the planet, your fighters can rearm on a fighter base on the opposite side with some level of safety. The enemy will not be all that eager to send ships to face the phaser-4 battery covering that base while he is still duking it out with the bases on the current side of the planet he has under attack.

And as I noted in an earlier reply, yes you can buy for deck crews for each base. In this they are no different than a Romulan Warhawk squadron which also operates from two different carriers, both of which are, as carriers, able to purchase four deck crews to service their part of the squadron. Deck crews can be bought either with the Commander's Option Points of the base/carrier, or with the Commander's Options of the Fighter Squadron, but no one carrier/base can purchase more than four. And even though you buy them with the squadron's Option Points, you do have two bases/carriers, and so can buy eight total (four for each carrier) because the squadrons points are divided between the two (although, obviously, you could choose to use all of the squadrons points for just one of the bases if you wanted). The EWF is purchased FOR THE SQUADRON, and not the CARRIERS, so you can only have one despite there being two "carriers" for the squadron, again just like the Warhawk group which can have one EWF for the squadron as a whole, but not one on each carrier (and indeed, would not be able to have an EWF at all normally since you cannot have an EWF for a squadron of less than eight fighters and each Warhawk only has five).

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 03:00 pm: Edit

I'd thought that the reference to Captor Mines provided a way to find Defsats that hadn't fired, rather than protecting the Defsat against return fire - serves me right for not actually following the cross-reference. (Sound of grinding follows as I revise my low opinion of Defsats :-)

Is it possible to engage a Defsat against which lock-on has been lost under the normal penalities for not having a lock-on? I presume so, as Defsats do not have the immunity to normal fire that mines do.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Jeff> The reason for the use of PDBs over frigates and DWs is that only a certain amount of ships can be built, total, each turn. PDU production has a per-turn/per site limit, but not an absolute limit (e.g. if the Feds controlled 30 planets, they could raise a PDU on each and every one, but could only still build 14 FFs/DWs. And considering that F&E doesn't even factor except for a handful of planets, the actual number of PDUs being built and deployed are much much higher.

Then there's the fact that those dang Star Fleet types are always wanting to "borrow" this protecting frigate to go and "pin" some enemy unit a few thousand parsecs away so some "task force" can blow up a base. Or some carrier commander going on about how he got his group shot up and "needs" the frigate so he can take it to the 6th Fleet SB and get it turned into an "escort" frigate. You know those Navy types, I'm sure if they could find a way to clip engines onto our bases and use them in the fleet, we'd have to nail the suckers down to keep them.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Andrew Harding:

I would (and have) presume not, because it operates under (M7.4). If it were possible, you would be able to engage a Captor Mine under normal conditions (i.e., without a lock-on), and IT IS STATIONARY and you cannot. One can assume that DefSats are protected by "dummy" DefSats in orbit, and that DefSats and their Dummies have some limited ability to change their orbital paths, thus if you do not maintain a lock-on, i.e., chase the bloody thing around the planet, you lose lock-on and are back to square one waiting for the (expletive deleted) "mobile captor mine" to fire another shot so you can try to lock-on to it again and kill it.

Most captor mines in my experience die due to over-use. Colonel Knight has correctly divined the best time to fire them (i.e., just before their orbit takes them out of line-of-sight), but that is not always an option.

And you can see now why a drone-DefSat is so bloody scary. There you are, fat dumb and happy at low speed dropping your landing force when this "mobile scatterpack" comes by and spits out six type-I drones (over six impulses, of course), and if you were not ready for it . . . You can wind up with one of your shuttles tied up charged as a wild weasel simply because the DefSats MIGHT be drone-armed, and thereby not available to land troops on the planet, and when you pop the weasel, the DefSat will stop spitting drones to save the ones left, and the next DefSat by will start popping its after the explosion period and before you an ready another weasel.

You mean to say you guys thought a DefSat was just SVC's little joke and ridiculously overpriced? You really mean that having to deal with them has not given you nightmares when attacking a planet that had them?

Lord knows, I am just glad that the Photon and Hellbore ones cannot be overloaded, and the photon ones cannot fire at range one or zero, and that all of them can only have two points of ECCM EVER which at least lets me put power into ECM and pray! (Your ECM drones tend to get picked off by point blank phaser-3 fire if you are at range one or two from the planet, and by phaser-2 fire if you are at range four from the planet, the DefSat being at range one from the planet in orbit, and that is with only ONE string of them . . . when they have two or more orbiting at range two, or range three . . .)

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Well, mines have that whole rule section (Mx.x) which talks about everything they do, while Defsats are only treated as mines for explosion damage and detection (R1.15E), so I'd never thought that they got any other mine benefits. It is clear that they don't use all of the mine rules, since they can't be swept - again (R1.15E).

Pretty much everyone in my group read this the same way, the only discussion we'd had was (R1.15C) over whether they were 'drone sized' targets for all purposes - such as the (FD1.52) penalty - or only for the small target bonus.

Standard practice for planetary assualt in my group was, while slowly working in from a fair range (due to possible minefields) to shoot at anything that could be targeted - mobile units, space bases, Defsats that had revealed themselves or just general devastation, in rough order of priority. The situation would have to be pretty desperate for us to attempt a ground assualt before the space around the planet had been secured.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Major Wile:

Captain Chobot has pretty much covered the points.

The fleet cannot be everywhere. The number of ships is limited. The number that can be built is limited. Planetary Defense units are simply there, day-in, day-out.

A planet with no battalion defending it is easy meat even for an Orion Free Trader with its option boxes converted to more cargo to loot the planet better. (It can spend its 6.2 Commander's option Points for 10 more boarding parties and convert two to Heavy Weapons Squads giving it a landing force of 12 boarding parties, two heavy weapons squads, one truck (to use the 0.2 points and help the shuttle move the stolen goods), and two "militia squads". With its two option boxes as cargo it can loot your planet of 700 space cargo points of goods. And it only has three phaser-3s (one of them being on the admin shuttle).

Put a Y160 battalion on the planet, and all Free Traitors will leave the planet alone (no free traitor is going to risk duking it out with a phaser-4, four phaser-3s, an Admin shuttle, three GAS shuttles, and a string of DefSats). Such a battalion has a total value of about 134.4 BPV even if the DefSats are drone-armed (slow speed drones are all that is available). But even a CR or SAL (the largest Orion raiders of that day) are going to think twice about raiding such a planet on their own (partly because the maximum value they can carry off on their own is only 150 cargo points for the CR, and 200 cargo points for the SAL).

In order to raid a planet that has a battalion, more force has to be brought to bear, and like our own fleet, the enemy fleet cannot be everywhere. Sometimes they will mass superior force and wipe out a battalion, that is the cost of doing business. But a lot of times they will not be able to raid a number of planets because of the defenses and their inability to pull together a force to do the deed without it being "noticed" and our own fleet staging a counter force.

Even in this scenario that we have been discussing to this point, this could be one of several simultaneous raids being conducted within a given sector, fleet may not have realized the extent of the effort, and has concentrated forces at other more valuable targets so that most of the raids are ineffectual. The one coming here has been deliberately limited to the BPV of the defending force, and while I would like very much to just blast the planet and leave, in order to make the full point, a landing is going to have to be attempted, because we are looking at the WHOLE concept.

Scenarios are balanced for different things. A scenario might involve the fighters fending off a raider with no mention of ground bases on the planet, it will be balanced for that. A scenario involving a landing operation will, of necessity, include larger forces (both defenders and attackers).

And as noted in the article in CL#22, there is a standard for battalions, but not all battalions meet that standard for various reasons. For example, the battalion here might actually have had its full TO&E when organized, but only enough "lift" was available to initially deliver what is here, the other two fighter bases (and their crated fighters) could not be brought as there was just not enough lift, and when lift was available, they may have been diverted to another planet, leaving your battalion short handed.

Heck, the convoy bringing you may have been attacked by the enemy enroute, and the small Freighter that had your other two small fighter ground bases was destroyed.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

Could I ask that you issue a ruling on DefSats? What you describe is news to me - I thought that once they fired, they are treated as any ship - i.e. you can shoot at them from that point forward.

tx.

By Paul Stovell (Pauls) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:48 pm: Edit

I can see now why SPP only gave us 3 defsats

My experience is similar to Andrew's except we had a division over whether lock-ons were rerolled every turn like a captor or not. We decieded or not but sooo long ago I can't remember the reasoning.

I think this exercise is worth it for getting an official ruling on this alone. I haven't had such an interesting time on th discussion board for ages.

Thanks again for this SPP.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Well, Major Harding, as noted the specific use of (M7.4) does not mean all the rules for mines apply to DefSats, but that (M7.4) does.

And (R0.6) says that a DefSat is a Size Class 7 object (see last line of rule) which is fully supported by their entry in Annex #3 The Master Ship Chart (they are listed under "Bases" so you might have missed the entry), so I do not comprehend why there would be any discussion on the question of whether or not they are drone-sized targets.

They are not, however, "mines" and so when you cut loose with your overloaded disruptor bolts, you are not "sweeping" them and so are not affected by (M8.12) or (M8.52), and while "drone-sized" they are not "drones" and so your are not affected by (FD1.52), and as "small targets", they are covered by (E1.7), so they do not gain any EW for that unles the range is greater than nine hexes when you decide to shoot at them, so your disruptors will only be affected by its two points of ECM [plus, in some cases the five points that (expleltive deleted) ground warning station or other enemy scout lent your ship in offensive EW] at any range less than nine to affect your shot. (VERY SORRY FOR THE RUN-ON SENTENCE.)

So, assuming you put up two points of ECCM to counter the DefSat's ECM (and assuming no one was lending you OEW or that your fire control was not disrupted or otherwise in disarray for a variety of reasons), a roll of 1-6 at range zero will land four overloaded disruptor bolts and remove your problem with that particular DefSat.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda, Paul Stovell:

What ruling? No ruling is necessary. Read the text of (R1.15E) and see where it sends you to (M7.4), then read (M7.4) and explain why that rule would even be referenced if your belief is correct. Rule (M7.4) is consistent with the statement in (R1.15C), i.e., you cannot fire at a DefSat unless it has fired. If it fires, then you get to use (M7.4). If it did not work that way, there would be no reason to reference (M7.4).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Paul Stovell:

As the rule says you use (M7.4) and does not exempt (M7.42) in any sense, the answer is yes, you do have roll to retain the lock-on on subsequent turns.

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Well, based on everybody's incorrect interpretation/misreading of the rules, could we get a CapLog summary or play example of DefSats being targetted over, say, three turns as they orbit behind a planet?

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Or have it included as part of this exercise

By Marc Baluda (Marc) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Yes, although a CapLog example will be easier to produce when someone calls "BS" during a game.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 05:54 pm: Edit

New addition to 429th Planetary Defense Battalion:

Lieutenant Colonel Marc Baluda. Commander of planetary Home Defense battalion.

Composition of Home Defense Battalion:

Infantry Company: 9 Boarding Parties and one HWS squad.
Mechanized Company: 6 boarding parties, two tanks, and 9 GCVs.
Transport Company: 11 trucks.

In case none of you have figured it out, the above reflects all the "ground forces" purchased with Commander's Option Points. There needed to be something in the back story. Now, naturally all of Colonel Baluda's troops, like those of Captain Grafton, are spread all around the planet. They operate in support of the "regulars" which are the battalion, and are in effect the "National Guard" and "Reserves" that live on this planet. Doubtless some of them (but probably not all of them) were members of "the resistance" when the Klingons occupied the planet, and might be a little touchy about taking orders from you guys who were not "there" with them during those dark times.

The point is that the extra troops provided would need to be worked into the story somehow, and this is one way to do it.