Archive through March 04, 2003
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
Orbital Defense Platforms:
Archive through March 04, 2003
A number of comments. These aren't going to be in persona since the commander of the Space Warning and Electronics Company probably doesn't have the time to worry about such gory details.
1) I don't think the MW drones are going to work. They cannot go in SP and IIRC nor can fighters carry them on normal rails (I think they have to be on special rails).
2) As far as I can tell, unlike the ground bases, the fighters' phaser fire will be affected by the atmosphere (if they try the launch from atmosphere trick).
3) The fighters carry 2 turns worth of drone launches (assuming 2xI, 2xVI). Thus they can launch one volley "early" and still have a reserve volley. This assumes that the OPFOR gives them the opportunity. If they end one turn at range ~36 and then come charging in to reach range 5 obviously a long distance launch isn't going to work. But on the other hand, doing so probably leaves them with insufficient weapons to actually kill a GBDP (depending on the size of the force and exact ships). So a more likely pattern is for them to end the prior turn at range 19 (IIRC that's the first relatively safe range from ph-IV fire). A first launch that turn might make sense.
4) If given a chance, we should seriously consider having the fighters go for any shuttles (especially with their phasers). This will not only reduce the mobility of OPFOR ground troops but also negatively impact their combat potential. Note that even if a fighter has already fired its phaser (at a ship), entering into a dogfight with a shuttle is still a viable option (especially since this also provides protection against enemy ship fire). Note that due to this, the fighters will be prime targets for any OPFOR force. Targeting shuttles with defsat phasers is also worth considering.
5) Remember that standard rails can carry type-VI drones. And, as far as I can tell, the type of rail does not matter for the drone launch rate. Thus the F16CM would work equally well for our mission here. We would merely have to specify that some portion of our 200 spare drones are type-VI to have those available. The F16CM has the general advantage of carrying almost twice the firepower if sent on a long range mission (eg drive off the LR that is attacking a supply freighter in the system). Also, they can be used for very nasty scatter packs/or remote control launches--almost as good as a standard shuttle. I'm not advocating we get them (its fun to deal with less than the best equipment), merely pointing out that the putative F4C weren't actually going to limit our drone launch rate (I would have strongly urged the conversion of part of our drone stockpile to type-VI drones).
6) At C and E, I strongly urge putting all two GDS at one GCS (or even all three at the same GCS). This allows the other GCS to be given up as free casualty points in the first round without having to sacrifice the GDS.
7) Putting GDS at B and F does not feel like a good idea at all. We need to place at least 6 BP there to make them effective. Otherwise the attacker specific allocates to kill our infantry units and gets the GDS for free when we can no longer control the GCS. This means that WE then have to face them when we try to recover the GCL. Two at a single GCS might make sense. It would allow us to use 3 BP and fight (and by giving up the two ungunned GCS can still force a significant battle).
8) The bonus for controlling two GCS is actually only worth about two offensive points (and less if we don't have at least 10 other offensive points there). So it isn't a big deal (either for us or for the enemy). Having to hunt down enemy troops at an otherwise empty GCL isn't really any worse than going after them with S&D missions.
9) S&D missions aren't going to be very effective. Look at the penalty and boni charts and what we'll find. Remember that the expected force to encounter is 7 BP. Without our GDS (and GCS to absorb casualties), we probably don't have enough to want to fight the battle on sides B and F (a turn of not fighting is better than the odds we'll face). And given a lack of vehicles there, we're not likely to actually find anything even if we try (no chance for enemy forces less than 6 BP and only a 1/6 for larger ones--slightly better if the OPFOR used shuttles to land the troups--but then expect to see them reinforce whatever we do find). Note that the odds on even A and D aren't much better. By mounting everything--with the tanks, GCV and trucks we should be able to mount a 15 point force--we can get a 1/3 chance (still not great). Note that without the tanks, even here searching would be dubious.
Ahh crud. DKass: I thought of that and forgot to look it up. So when I transcribed my notes I just put it down.
I must say, I feel compelled to use all my options and not sure what to spend them on. I any case...
SPP: Eliminate the MW drones. There is nothing to launch them. Duh...
So that leaves about 8 points of fighter only options.
Re. #6: I don't want ot give up any GCS so easily, especially two. That would give up the control bonus and I want to make it an up hill battle. C and E are based with GBDP-4 and will have BPs and trucks.
Re #7: As I stated before we can reinforce these GCLs easily from A. I'll probably post some trucks and a couple BPs there. That will then be enough to hold off a attack until more reinforcements can be sent (and transporter artillary). I'm hoping their presence there will be scanned and determined to be too much of an effort to take for little gain. All at little cost and the use of force points to bolster ground defenses.
The GBDP-4 were lacking in a good ground defense and I felt they really needed the help. The other bases have better defenses.
8 points...Could get four more ground attack pods or maybe an Ace?
I would get more drones but in a single attack I doubt we will be able to use all we have. We will win or loose before our stores are used or destroyed.
Any sugestions about how to spend the last 8 points. Swordfish?
Hmmm, launch a drones wave with a few in front including two SFDrones. If he launches a WW the sword fish can fire on it early narrowing the gap and the rest might avoid the WWs explosion period. I'd have to review the timing and Fast speed drones actually make that a more difficult tactic.
Col. Knight, it would take at least two Swordfish drones to kill a weasel, and as long as the enemy ship doesn't take a voiding action, drones already in flight will continue tracking the remants of the weasel even after the explosion peroid (and exploding when they reach it).
I would recommend ATG for at least some of the type-I drones, as that will simplify the control situation, especially if bases start getting knocked off-line.
Loren,
I think you should buy some special drones.
I know I've written that before. I have new reason though, to show a complete example it would be nice to have all the tweaky bits.
The only downside is you won't be able to start with 11 half armoured drones on the fighters.
So 8 bpv squeezed from the budget.
I think 20% limited and 50% restricted.
I suggest of 62 type-I's at each base
31 type-I-F standards
6 type-I-F swordfish 0.5 cost total
6 type-I-F with ATG 0.5 cost total
6 type-I-F half internal armour and ATG 0.5 cost total
6 type-I-F half internal armour costs zero
6 type-I-F with extended duration 0.5 cost
1 type-I-F probe drone
total 2.0bpv buy three extra type-I-F drones
You could be sneakier and buy some speed 20 drones and instead of swordfish choose some external armoured drones to match this speed if possible(I don't have drone construction rules to hand)
I realise these drone selections aren't always useful in any of the circumstances the Battalion is expecting but then the monster that can be killed only by a slug drone turns up
Alex, correct. Only after the explosion period can the second wave be launched. I'm just not with it lately. It think SFC has clouded my rules rememberance there.
I cannot even begin to tell you all what's going on here...but real life is kinda suckin'.
Anyway, I'll keep thinking at work regarding what to do with those last few points.
Since we are a stationary base extended duration will have almost nil utility. Even for far off support my target has to be within 35 and sending them out on balistic course that far is not much use. The ATGs could work for an enemy beyond 35. Say Wild Bore but I would need at least 12 ATGs and the enemy is mostly just going a only flinch a little and the BPV is then wasted.
Wild/Tame Boar targeting is only for type-III frames. And ATG for long range harrassmanet isn't that useful, as the drones have to close to 80 kklicks to acquire their own lock ons. My reasoning behind the ATG was more for mid to late engagement, when the enemy has closed to the vicinity of the planet and we've lost bases and fighters (or have some the latter down for reloading), where the number of control channels avaliable starts becoming an issue. We'd still need to be careful of launch angles, as we don't want the drones to be in a position, once they've been released to their own guidance, where then enemy can easily dodge behind the planet.
I agree with Dkass
And respectfully disagree with part of SPPs response (grin).
1) As I noted, I think we are going to be mobility limited badly. If we are transportation limited, we HAVE to maximize the firepower we get from each transporter/ shuttle action. Yes, HWS will take expensive losses and your point on cost per casualty point is well taken. MY point is that we need to assure that we get maximum return on transport. I assume there is a middle ground in there.
2) SPP is ABSOLUTELY right when he says the only defenseless base is one that has been fired on until exploding and then has infantry sift the remains.
3) But, I think that while a NO GDS situation is appropriate for an uninhabited or undefended planet, here we have an entire planetary defense infrastructure being emplaced and unless there is a darn good reason NOT to, the Seabees should be (and as module M says, unless otherwise specified) setting up bunkers and support positions as per SOP. If we are SPECIFYING that this attack is in the initial base settlement period I could easily believe the gds go in last (well it takes time to run all those wires and stuff, and the concrete needs time to cure and the electrician always has to special order some connecter/ panel widget, and the plans always require a few changes...) The rest of the planetary defense infrastructure are prefab. But after a short time there better be defensive works in place or someone is getting a 19 year pension (ie a civilian job as a security guard at Waffle Hut) That's one of the main things that the SEABEE CO, the ROICC and the Garrison CO SHOULD be doing initially.
At ********* ***** Naval Base about 4 years ago (before 9/11), they had a M2 or M60 (at each gate) that could take the gates under fire hidden (well, sorta hidden) from view. And a motorized centrally located reaction force (ie ARMED pre-emptively, before someting happens)! AND, after a couple of minutes, a Seal boat section or 2 (2 = platoon of 16 men) could be ready, they keep 24 hour listening watch on several "security" frequencies. (armory adjacent to the quarter deck, OD has keys and the go fasts are run daily even on stand down). AND a ranger half squad (what is a couple of NCOs and 3-4 privates called?) from the on base army SF company (there to support the green beret teams transferred from ****** after Fort ****** there closed and we completely pulled out)(armory INSIDE bunker like windowless reinforced concrete HQ bldg, NCOIC has combo to GIANT armory safe and keys to motorpool about 30 yards away). And the armed helos from the dets from the 160th SOAR. And the Orions and A4s on the airfield could get warshots readily ("hot" magazine at airfield is manned 24/7 with armorers and there is a prepositioned select assortment of stuff) Of course the ocassional perimeter invader there (NEVER NEVER NEVER at the gates, they'd get shot by an excited 18 year old gate guy!) kept everyone on their toes. Including the invaders that would rush/ boat in and act as human shields for the LIVE FIRE RANGE on *******. And this is a NAVAL base without marines or nucs. Well, the ocassional nuclear sub...
Right after 9/11 ******** MCB had an Armored car (one of the 8 wheeled ones) visible from the gate with a M1 over a little rise out of view of people driving into the base, or to the *** and *** academies that are also there on the MCB. At both of these locations the gates had excellent cleared fire lanes (you really had to stop, go up the rise and look at the sight lines at the MCB, at the Naval Base it was pretty obvious) and this is for bases that are NOT in locations expected to suffer ground attacks.
At both locations the base had armed defenders, with the MCB guards having pistols, the Naval Base navy gate guards carrying M16s (magazine in, no round chambered) or shotguns.
And that pales besides what deviltry the ******** has in store for intruders. The point is decent military commanders are professionally paranoid, because the ones that aren't get a) passed over for promotion because they are bad at their jobs or b) dead.
Paranoid is good. Thus our intrepid base CO would insist on the SEABEES doing a complete job while they are there...
4) finally (at last) we should at least make an effort to require the OPFOR use specific allocation to take each GCS by "buying" our BPs at specific allocation rates (double) instead of tightening up our perimeter so much that he can just use general firepower to make us empty out our positions... By Occupying all 3 GCS and reinforcing them in response to ANY attack, we let him come into a killing ground of our choosing. If he fails to specifically allocate, we take casualties on whatever is cheapest for US (ie militia/gds/gcs if possible, then...) The Last thing to get zapped if WE are choosing will be the final BP, it will surrender the GCS after the GDS are sacrificed and beat feet, leaving the bad guys holding a position he paid lots for, but that tactically we will ignore until he fails to garrison it, when we will jump in and reoccupy. If a hexside has NOTHING we care about, then don't spend more than the minimum defending them, but if we can exchange a couple of BP for a half dozen invaders each combat round because of our use of the GCS and GDS then the GCL there DOES have something we care about...
BUT, I know that we are specifying otherwise here, I just had to (at great length) make my points. Mike
Mike, good points all. Particularly 4. I think you understand me well. I'll add one more note: The OPFOR has limited assault ability. No matter how big the force we must make them pay the most for every inch. Three F5s will not be landing waves of troops. We can make them pay to land. And don't get me wrong. This Battalion isn't the strongest and three F5s are a serious threat but the ground war can be won against such a force. Simply put, our mission against such an enemy is to make it too expensive to be worth it.
Alex: I was at least this time aware of the rules but stated them in a confusing manner. I didn't really intend to use Wild Bore tactics just using that idea to illastrate that extended range would work even if that were possible.
Gotcha
And don't count out a heavy ground assult, we could be seeing an F5L, F5B, and F5G, afterall.
Annapolis Power Grid recommendations:
General Comments:
I do not have my SSDs handy, but IIRC we have 26 APR on Annapolis.
I would have sworn the P4 base had a battery, but checked that SSD last night and it does not. If anyone does have a battery then filling the battery takes priority over everything else.
I do not like EW expenditures except in support of the fighters; no single base is big enough to make it worth it except during long range sniping.
Similarly a WW strikes me as probably a waste, if the OPFOR sends 36 drones at my base I may regret this, but it uses both power and a shuttle.
IIRC shields are listed on the CRD repair table at two points a box. I recommend that we use CDR on any base with shield damage! (Yeh, this means if he kills enough internal boxes we will not be able to recover, but it is equally true that if he blows us into a crater while we still have repair available we will not be able to recover, shields come back fast and protect the other systems.)
Specific power priorities:
Assumes troops already deployed and phaser capacitors hot.
4 Power for shields.
2 Power for special sensors. (Priorities: Drone control, killing enemy drones, tac-intel if in use.)
2 Points for the P4 capacitor if it is empty.
Up to 6 points the fighter base to max out the fighter ECM/ECCM. (Until the EWF is dead we can reduce this.)
5 Points to refill other phaser capacitors.
As many points as necessary to reinforce a base with damaged shields up to normal shields for that base.
1 Power allocated to transporters. (Just in case.)
5 points to switch one channel over to 5 OEW aimed at the largest hostile unit. (Obviously other numbers may work better, but 5 points goes reasonably efficiently with fighters, and the OPFOR has to worry that you may have spent 6.)
All other power is to specific reinforcement on whichever base command feels is most valuable to our mission.
I think we have beat the defense issues to death (especially me!), but what is our final BPV?
I would wonder at the compostion of an OPFOR of equal BPV. I was guessing about 350? Can the invader get a D6G (lots of transporters and BPs) a D5 (ADDs) and another ship? I would guess a D7L (even more ADDs and transporters. ie a sector commodore, his fleet marine landing force and a random cruiser...
Michael C. Grafton:
The best use of Heavy Weapons Squads is in conjunction with other boarding parties. The regular boarding parties serve (sadly) as "cannon fodder" protecting the heavy weapons squads by their presence.
A battle between 20 boarding parties and ten boarding parties and five heavy weapons squads will probably end in favor of the 20 boarding parties. But a battle between 20 boarding parties and 15 boarding parties and five heavy weapons squads will probable end in the favor of the side with the Heavy Weapons squads.
The long and short of it is that heavy weapons squads only really work when the total numbers or boarding parties are about equal, so that heavy weapons squads' higher firepower matters in the outcome. Thus it is more "number of squads" than "firepower" that is the equation.
Having five heavy weapons squads as your "reserve" is not a bad thing, so long as every placy you send them to reinforce already has other troops present. Sending them someplace by themselves tends to just get them chewed up.
Also note that no unit can buy, outright, more than two heavy weapons squads, not even the GMG. The reason is that the GMG does not have the "T" identifier in its notes column, and so is treated as any other non-troop unit for purchasing Commander's Options.
The upshot, if you are going to defend someplace, it is better to spend five BPV to buy ten boarding parties than to spend it buying five Heavy Weapons Squads. The Ten boarding parties have more staying power than five heavy weapons squads, and the same starting firepower.
To: Col Knight, 429th PDB
From:Maj Wile, 429th PDB
Re:Configuration of OPFOR.
We don't KNOW what the OPFOR is or what its mission will be.
It seems (Please correct me if I am in error) that you are assuming the OPFOR will be the previously posited F5Q squadron.
May I suggest we should be looking at Capabilities rather than limit ourselves to three specific ships (F5L, F5B and F5G) or whatever.
Lets define the potential missions the OPFOR may have, and address the 429th reaction (defense) to that mission instead of bet everything that SPP will choose to give us an OPFOR exactly like we expect. (any takers for that bet?)
For example, lets break the options down to Mission parameters, such as planetary assault, planetary bombardment, scouting mission (possibly he just needs 200 points of data on the planet or needs to get to a specific level on Tac Intel charts) capture of one of the F16's from the fighter wing, planetary raid to seize x number of civilians, and I am sure there are other missions that could be the OPFOR mission profile.
This way, no matter what the OPFOR ships are, we will have addressed the 429th PDB's responsibility and a clearer understanding of what needs to be accomplished. One benefit is it makes no difference if the OPFOR is composed of F5 hulls or D5 huls or Orion Raider cruisers.
Fighter Drones;
You have a squadron of fighters, you purchase the drones for them under the procedures outlined in (FD2.45), using (FD10.6) to determine available limited and restricted drones.
The Squadron has 22 type-I rails, and 24 type-VI rails. Of the 22 type-I rails, 11 HAVE TO BE FILLED WITH STANDARD TYPE-I EXPLOSIVE DRONES (you count as a single squadron of 10 or more fighters). The ONLY thing that can be done with these drones is to fit them with extended range (General availability, but costs 0.5 BPV points per drone upgraded). They are all upgraded to type-IF for, essentially, "free" because the year is Y182 and fast speed is generally available, although this counts as part of the total BPV of your force (i.e., they added 11 points to your force, adding Extended Range would add another 5.5 points for a questionable gain in combat ability).
Of the remaining type-I drones, Four can be Limited availability, and seven can be Restricted,
or three can be Limited and eight can be Restricted,
or two can be Limited and nine can be Restricted,
or one can be Limited and ten can be Restricted,
or all eleven can be Restricted.
Or of course none (or one, or two, or three, or four, or five, or six, or seven, or eight,or nine, or ten) could be limited or restricted and all of the rest be standard type-IF drones.
None of them can be type-III frames (J4.233), or have Multi-warhead (J4.2313) or Starfish (FD15.251) modules. Fighters cannot benefit from ECM drones (FD9.16), and given the relatively small drone throw-weight of your fighters, there is little to gain by having a remotely operated fighter have one of these drones. (It could launch all four, but as two are type-VI and one is type-I and one is type-IECM, your total damage output is only 16 points, hardly worth the effort.) Although having some available for use in scatterpacks (where it could protect five other drones) might be worthwhile on some levels, the problem is that a stack of six drones is such an obvious T-bomb target.
So you determine what the 11 "special drones" are going to be.
Once you do that, you compute the total number of drones. Loaded on your fighters are 24 type-VI and 22 type-I frames, for a total of 34 spaces. That totals out to 5 full loads, and one partial load of 30 spaces. For your purposes, assume that the four missing spaces are four type-VI (two spaces), one type-IF, and one type-ISPECIAL. So the 200 spaces of drones will be 65 type-IF, 65 type-ISPECIAL, and 70 type-VIF.
HOWEVER, remember that you pay for the initial loadout, the reloads are free. But the initial loadout is what is on your drone rails and ready racks. So your fighters cannot launch with 22 type-ISPECIAL unless you take the time to unload them (or the ready racks), the non-Special drones that is, move the unloaded drones to storage, then move Special drones back out to the ready racks, and load them onto the fighters.
It can be done, but it is time consuming.
Another thing to consider is: How many spaces of type-VI (or type-I) drones do you want to have available as RALADS? That decision you have to make in the initial drone loadout also. Every RALAD that replaces a type-VIF drone on a fighter launch rail as part of your initial loadout also replaces five type-VI drones in your reloads.
As to setting up an "emergency airfield" (Casual Base).
I have never done this in an actual scenario. The rule was invented sometime after my last significant battle. HOWEVER, I would point out to you rule (G25.22) and (G25.3). It would seem to me that when the enemy appears, rather than burning your admin shuttle as a "scatterpack" you could have a deck crew load it with 4 drone spaces (two type-IF, 2 type-VIF, one Pod) on Turn #1, load two deck crews, and then take off. Next turn, move to any suitable location and land. The deck crews (only one can do this, but you are allowed to bring a "crew unit" and may as well bring two deck crews so that one can be working on a fighter while the other one is unloading) unload the shuttle, and it returns for another load (this time only picking up drones and pods for three or four turns) before returning (you left the two deck crews so that one would be able to work on a fighter while one unloads).
The Enemy will have to figure out where the Casual Base is by the activities of your fighters, and it can be on the side of the planet not yet under attack. So to get at it, he has to expose himself to another phaser-4, and he cannot take care of all of your fighter stores by simply blasting the fighter ground bases and then dealing with your weakened fighters that are not able to get any more drones.
In answer to a question: Sorry, trucks are not "fighter supplies". For simplicity, ask yourself what supplies can be used by a fighter on a carrier, and that is what you can buy.
SPP: I figured but it deserved to be asked.
Re ECM drones. If my F-16EM had any standard rails it could carry one but it doesn't.
I do not wish to convert any Type VI drones to RALADS. That's why I bought the additional ADDs. And to any who wonder why I would suggest considering this. One of the possible OPFORs could be fighter based. RALADs are effective against fighters in that they are DF and cannot be distracted by chaff. If you roll good they can be more effective than a Ph-3! Our F-16Ms equipped with Ph-Gs, one PH-POD, two TypeIF, one RALAD, and one type VI should do considerably well against another fighter squadron.
Major Wile: Come now, you should know better than to think that I'm only considering a limited OPFOR. You've been keeping up on this thread pretty well and should know I have repeatably stated that we must be prepared for any thing. The scope of that particular post, in which you got the wrong impression, was a post regarding a spicific issue.
I have been and will always be trying my best to prepar for any possible OPFOR. And I might add, it dificult. My resources are limited and would be better placed if I knew exactly what was comming like most SFB games but that's not what all this is about. I believe in what SPP is trying to do and am actually more interested in generating a good artical than winning. THOUGH I WILL TRY MY BEST AND WILL ACCEPT HELP THROUGH LISTENING TO THE IDEAS OF MY STAFF. (Affirmation not yelling.)
To:Col Knight, 429th PDB.
From:Maj Wile, 429th PDB.
RE
peration Plans:Various options.
I am relieved to hear you restate it. Was concerned that we were developing "tunnel vision".
The issue is Drones.
The problem is defense posture.
We are allowed to have an active CAP...if the drones on those fighters are not well suited to dealing with the OPFOR you have the option of going into action with less than optimal drone mix or having the CAP return to base to be reequipted...which takes time.
Or all fighters are in the hangers at the time the OPFOR arrives and a decision has to be made as to launch with the current drones or reload them to address a perceived weakness of the OPFOR which (presumably) a new selection of drones would give a relative advantage.
Depending on OPFOR intentions, you can expect about 2 turns to elapse until the OPFOR arrives at the 35 hex range from the planet that demarks the edge of our "Drone envelope". If OPFOR carries thru direct to planet atmosphere, total time insystem will be on order of 3 1/3 turns.(plus any deviations the OPFOR makes away from a direct line form entry hex to planet side.
So, all of the above setting the circumstances, what are your intentions?
Will your orders be the same in all events taking no account of the different ships that the OPFOR may have? or will you keep the fighter planet side until OPFOR commits to definite course of action?
My suggestion would be to set contigentcy orders. if only fighters are detected(perhaps a strike force off carriers or Ficons or what ever) you may want to reconsider the drone loads.
What if OPFOR is only ANDROMEDAN?
If we can have a set of orders set up in advance we can follow the plan instead of trying to react to what the enemy has forced us to. And possibly have the chance to prepare for any potential surprises BEFORE they are sprung on us.
I too, am interested in a good article, but I wouldnt be too terribly disappointed if we won!
One thought I just had is that a Klingon OPFOR might include an old D6K. It isn't much more expensive than a F5L, but has 5 transporters and a significant 14 BP (before COI--and it has enough points to double its forces). Obviously a D7K or even a D7L would be even more impressive (although the D7 doesn't have any more troops or transporters). Combined with a pair of F5K, this would give them 9 transporters and 4 shuttles. That's 18 BP they could send by noncombat transporter rates to a remote location (we would average less than 2 kills from an S&D mission). Add in 9 more the next turn and we'd be looking at a 27 BP force (probably 32 combat points due to HWS) at once.
The pseudo-commando D6/7 of the Klingons is one of their hidden advantages...
I think that ATG for at least some drones would be a good idea. Remember that not all of our ground bases are going to be in sight of the attacking force. And the attacker is likely to limit this even more (not necessarily to limit our drone control but to avoid being under the guns of the GBDPs). While the type-VI drones have builtin ATG, we could still overload our drone control capabilities. And the GWS really shouldn't be trying to control extra drones--their EW is likely to be one of our few advantages and needs to be used as such. Consider changing a few of the spare drones to probe drones (we don't want the loaded to start, but any restricted drone--eg one with ATG--could have its warhead swapped for a probe warhead). I'm not sure they'll be useful in a straight engagement, but against a monster or if we were using tac-int... Likewise a couple of the spare drones could be changed to ECM drones for scatter packs (whether or not we decide to use scatter packs).
Each ground base gets 2 free ECM (R1.14C3) plus one from the atmosphere (P2.51) [too bad we don't also get the +2 ECM from (P2.52)]. Loaning 4 OEW to a target guarantees a +1 shift (Assuming OPFOR does not have a scout) and gives a +2 shift if the OPFOR tries to generate a +1 shift against the incoming Ph-4 fire (assuming no ECM drone). Note that OPFOR fire will also be dilluted by (P2.54).
Note that if the ground bases are lending EW (ie commit to (G24.21) during EA), they do not have to select the target or type of EW until 6B3 of impulse 1 (or a later impulse). This is an important flexibility without batteries. While OEW is the most obvious use, ECCM or ECM could be considered if the situation warrants it. Say that it is obvious that one GBDP is the target since its shield was torn down on the previous turn, lending it 4 or 5 ECM might be more effective. Or perhaps the OPFOR goes full defensive and announces EM, lending a GBDP ECCM might be effective (giving it a clean shot). Fun and games could be had by lending say 2 ECCM waiting to see if OPFOR reacts and then lending another 2 or 3 ECCM (likewise for OEW).
SPP, what happens if one of the GWS attracts (G24.23) an enemy ECM drone? Can the GWS receive the ECM? Does the drone crash upon entering the planet's hex? Before or after trying to pass through the atmosphere?
While it is much too late to go changing things, an interesting deployment variant idea I had was to move the GMG to "Dallas." While it is no longer co-located with a GBDP, the attacher has a very narrow window to hit it without facing 2 GBDP ("Chico" and "Encino"). Furethermore, any attempt to use shuttles to assist ground combat operations will be exposed to both GBDP (or more exactly whichever GBDP the OPFOR did not smash). A ph-IV at range 0 smashes even the heavily armored HAS (not to mention being guaranteed to cripple any fighter and very likely to kill anything short of a heavy mega-fighter). And with 2 guaranteed shots (plus the 8 Ph-3 shots), this is a serious hole in any shuttle convoy .
Thoughts on casual bases
As well as dispersing targets to make it more difficult for any assault. I wonder if casual bases could include forest clearings, quarries, flat spot near large cave ect. In the case that our defenses fail to stop a successful landing some "stay behind" forces could be very useful. Even if only in keeping the assault force pinned to the planet for a few days hunting out our more technological items.
As for setting these up.
Near Annapolis and Dallas our trucks and GCV can be used to move stuff.
For other locations shuttles as SPP has suggested and or our transporters could also be used.
If they aren't involved moving troops and GCV about on turns one to three they could shift 2 type-I two (5 transporter actions[tba]) two type-VI (2.5tba) 2 chaff packs (0.4tba) maybe a ground attack pod (not sure whether this counts as armed weapon and incurs x2.5 penalty it seems likely it should) a couple of crew units and a maybe two deck crews.
A smaller deployement of 1 type-I 1 type-VI (3.75tba) one chaff pod (0.2tba) and 2 crew at non-combat rate (1.0tba) could be done from Annapolis every turn (there would even be space for small objects such a tribbles 0.05tba ref. p41R1)
It could be better to use crew units rather than deck crews for these bases as they are as good as deck crews for kzinti weight lifting team reloading of drones.
Arguably a more formally set-up casual base with deck crews and "spare-parts" could affect repairs to fighters but not sure.
SPP,
One small discrepancy I have found and a query on casual bases.
R1 annexes gives trucks 10 cargo point capascity and a reference to (D15.825) which gives a capascity of only 5 cargo points.
Question
Can casual bases
a. use any old crew units and claim the use of 2 of them for rearming fighters using the imfamous Kzinti weight lifting team rules?
b. Repair fighters
Does b. require any special units/supplies i.e. deck crew ?
Paul Stovell:
All the rules for operating fighters and/or shuttles refer to "deck crew actions", there is no provision for non-deck crews to perform these actions. That is why all ships have deck crews (J4.814), the activity cannot be performed by any old crew unit.
There is no provision in SFB at this level for supplies to be provided to repair a shuttle/fighter. Imposing one on my part at this time would be creating a new rule.
Trucks have a capacity of 10 cargo points, the annexes are correct.
Loren,
From SPP answer the big limit on using casual bases is where you want your deck crews to be. They will be quickest working off the ready racks in the GFB-S but also most vulnerable to going down with the base.
This judgement call is one to make once the composition of OPFOR is known or at least better known.
SIDE NOTE:
Just a reminder to all of you guys that, just because you are "human", that does not mean that your character has to be. Note, this does not mean that just because I mentioned it, you all have to rush out and adopt non-human races.
Discussions of Starfleet ships.
Someone asked if the characters should be discussing ship deployments. The problem is that only a few of you would have access to such information (Battalion Commander, Battalion XO, Battalion S3, and Battalion S2). The reason should be quite obvious. If all of you knew how ships were being deployed, you might talk about it in the local bars, and Klingon agents would pick up the information. Essentially security provides that you are only given information that you "need" to know. The GWS personnel would be notified whenever a "movement" was going to impinge their sensors (so they do not call an alert when friendly ships are the impetus of the signal), but the majority of you are not going to hear anything about the movements of any ships. You may get reports of "battles" and "skirmishes" like "the Exeter was damaged in a fight four light years from the Parkinson's Station colony". "The Constitution destroyed an Orion raider at Pelosi." and so on.
sorry about the duplicate post.