SPP-

Sorry, I don't have a military back ground and don't Know what "s4" signifies (unless it is signal corps?!?)...

I realize you don't want to tell us what duties Capt. Tenhoff should be attending to are...is he in charge of the ground warning station?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 09:57 pm: Edit

We should not lose sight of the possible intruders...

we could be looking for a single company of klingon marines, 30 to 39 individuals, or a single commando squad of 5 individuals, or a dagger team...

There is a puzzle here, and I am not seeing it.

From the back ground, we know that the Klingons had occupied the planet previously...but since there is no large population group and no industry it would seem unlikely that there is anything native to the planet or population that would interest the klingons...that had plenty of opportunity to take anything they wanted during the occupation.

I keep coming back to just 2 main options, either the klingons are preparing a gound assault on one or more of the ground bases (or possibly a sneak attack on the fighter bases to disable or destroy the fighter group on the ground)...

or 2, there is someone or something that a dagger team or commando team has been assigned to.

Can anyone suggest a likely target for such a mission?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:04 pm: Edit

Col Knight:

I have investigated and not been able confirm a hardware or software problem.

(I have requested a level '3' diagnostic, the results should be available within 6 hours.)

after interviewing the officer, I suspect your 2nd option to be correct. Extra duty has been assigned which consists of running random "drills" of various facilities planet wide.

One benefit of doing so will be to reduce the "boredom" factor as all bases will be subject to "unscheduled drills"

Thank you.

Major Wile

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:58 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile: A little after I posted the piece about the Tug, SPP corrected me and informed us that we arrived via several freighters.

Captain Tenhoff is Battalion Quartermaster.

I'm going to try to give a list of orders for each person on Staff but tis will take a while.

Captain Justin Howell is the Battalion Intel Officer. He going to be pretty busy!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 12:15 am: Edit

Marc Baluda: I don't think an invasion is comming very soon but your concerns are warrented and I agree with your precausions. For now, I'm concerned about more insertions and I want the fighters to be able to react instantly. Other long ranged patrols will be in order but these will be in addition to CAP. I will request an increased presense by Starfleet to patrol the area as well but the war is raging and don't expect much support here. I imagin I can persuade the local police to do some long range scans for us. I'll see if our commercial friends can't be persuaded to spend a little extra time scanning for us too. Perhaps the Governor would be willing to ease up on teriffs a bit to aid persuasion. Maybe you could talk to him?

By Raymond Ford (Raymond) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 12:30 am: Edit

Jeff Wile:

I believe that the 30-39 people on the G1G includes the 25-34 person crew. Also, the G1G moved away after dropping off whatever it dropped off, indicating that the crew remained on the PF. If both of these statements are true, then only 5-10 people were inserted on the planet. This eliminates a company of Klingon marines as a possibility. Unfortunately, a commando team or Dagger Team might be just as bad.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 01:31 am: Edit

Raymond: All Ground Assault PFs can carry 10 BPs or about 50 troops in addition to their regular crew. However, it is unclear whether the supposed G1G managed to carry a full load of troops plus the various decoys that were deployed. Places an upper limit on the forces that might be met and a reasonable requirement for the size of forces that should be sent after any site that seems to have possible intruders.

We do face the problems of the sheer scope of the landing area. With 4 GCLs and a search radius of 100 km, the region needing to be searched is almost 1% of the area of the continental US. Plus similar search areas would be needed around settlement. Quite a lot to search with our limited assets. Any hostile more than 100 kms from a important site will take so long to get there to be unimportant or make an obvious trail to move rapidly or meet with a collaborator with a vehicle. (If they intend on simply hiding and watching operations from a distance, they will be no different than if the intruder an automated sensor in orbit.)

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Possible targets of SMALL (5-10 being) commandos, evaluated in terms of probable attractiveness.

1) "bridge" or the phaser banks of our firing batteries, especially Battery 1.

2) GMG (my station) as it is key to transporter relays. Loss of transporter capability would greatly reduce our tactical flexibility. Note that the GMG also is base to the GAS.

3) Either base in area Dallas. Loss of the GWS or fighter stockpiles there would make our defense extremely difficult.

As a tactical option, if this type of assault is being made as a prelude/initial strike of a major planetary raid/invasion, the strike team may well have orders to SURRENDER once their tactical objective has been met. If they think they will be liberated soon by follow on forces, they would be safer as prisoners than holding a shrinking besieged perimeter.

Capt. Mike Grafton, General Defense Company, commanding.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Hmmm...Quartermaster...

Loren, if (and this is a suppostion) supplies are a factor, perhaps we should "preposition" enough supplies for each ground base' militia (I mean those personnel who can be turned into militia parties after their primary task or responsibility is no longer necessary?)

the Deck crews no longer have a duty to perform once the fighters are destroyed, perhaps we should verify that the procedures for arming militia boarding parties with the weapons, supplies and other equipment they need in the event it becomes necessary?

Other than that, I can't think of any special tasks the quartermaster corp would need to perform in anticipation of action...

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 12:03 am: Edit

Major Wile:

Move supplies on occasion. Those places on base will be secured but in open supplies are to be moved. I don't want an observer to be able to record and send the location of important supplies to the enemy.

Confer with base security to place extra guards where the would be most effective.

Regarding Deck Crews: They should be adequately supplied with phaser rifles in addition to standard issue side arms (at least two per group of five). Try to procure some on the next supply run if we need to. They should be drilled in their use to freshen up their skills. (not your job though).

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 03:22 am: Edit

I think we are getting a little too Pearl Harbor in the focus on possible saboteurs.

Transported BP could identify 1,000 different sites in slightly over a day if an examination could be done in under 10 minutes. [Short transit durations help.] Only 5 BP would ever be out of position allowing the shuttles and fighters to remain available for use against space attackers or responding to a located hostile. Bad news for the BP that does stumble on an ambush though, so should only be used for the likely sites of imminent threat. [Evaluating the number of threats would depend on planetary terrain conditions that the characters should know but I don't.]

Instead of dispersing larger forces to cover each outlying base, could we rotate rested BPs from the Marine Garrison for the tired BPs assigned to each isolated ground base? That should leave enough rested BPs to cover the Marine Garrison until the sleeping troops can be roused without further compromising what litle concentration of forces we have.

Outlying isolated bases should not respond to any localized emergency. Emergency response should be handled from the Marine Garrison. Decoy operations using captured civillian vehicles could well be expected. Along the same lines, if possible, military and civillian transporter use should not be commingled. No reason to make a boarding attempt easy through a coopted civillian transporter. (The preceding is predicated on scaterred civillian sites requiring long range tranportation to link the colony together.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 10:44 am: Edit

Col Knight:

On a separate subject, I would like to recommend cross training of our 7 admin shuttle pilots with F16 duty.

IIRC the "ghost light" scenario had a squadron of fighters lying stationary on a long endurance patrol.

If we had 19 pilots keeping a passive watch at 100,000 Klicks (10 hexes) 2 fighters at a time on either 12 hour or 24 hour rotation...we would be able to keep all admin shuttles in normal duty while a CAP could be maintained. (on a 24 hour schedule, the pilots would 'pull' duty on average 1 time every 9 days).

In the recent G1G encounter, since the approach appeared to be random, a pair of fighters would have had a 16% chance of being on the approach course and a 48% (or so) of being with in 10 hexes (at closest approach) of the intruder.

With the manuver of the G1G to be able to reach all planet hex sides, the G1G would have been "sandwiched" between the Def Sats and the CAP.

It is closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, but if the Klingons try to repeat the same tactic, we could expect a base 50% chance of two fighters to be in a position to hit the target with gatlings, dogfight drones and standard drones. added to the Def Sats it would improve the opportunity cause damage to the enemy.

By staying on passive fire control, for an extended time, the fighters would gain +2 to ECM until FC is activated. (not to mention the small target modifier.)

Also, by having the Fighters deployed, it would allow our sensor/scanners watch officers more experience in searching for and identifying small targets.

this proposal would give our fighters a 16% chance to "sucker punch" an intruder, as well as having an equal chance of being blocked by the planet on an intruders approach...if he approaches the planet and empties his weapons on the Def Sats and ground bases, the fighters would have an unopposed shot.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Note:

We started this exercise back in February.

at that time, we were informed that the convoy bringing the 429th had been attacked and one of the hanger bases (with fighters) had been destroyed.

How soon will the replacement unit and fighters arrive? an F&E turn is 6 months long, so it could be at any time now...I would suggest that the Klingons intelligence effort may be very aware of the turn around time, and will be aware (now that the G1G had scanned the planet and verified our weaknesses) that the "window of opportunity to hit us while our fighter strength is down 50%.

That said, I would suggest that we verify the ETA of the replacement fighters is...that would give us a time line of when to expect the Klingons to "drop in"...

We should also notify Starfleet Transport and Police escort that the convoy bringing our replacement fighters in would be a priority target of the Klingons...if they could intercept it and destroy the freighters they could extend our exposure by a further 6 months.

I expect quartermaster corp would be the dept responsible for handling the inquiry.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 01:33 pm: Edit

We should have had a "good" sensor and scanner lock on the G1G as it approached the planet...from not only the Def Sats but also both Early warning stations...

Has anyone thought to count the number of crew units on board as it approached transporter range (ideally 50,000 Kilometers) and at the point where it departed?

In theory, that should give a "count" on how many "bodies" we are looking for...

I would have to examine the rules on Tactical intelligence, but since the G1G closed to within the orbit of the Def Sats...and we had multiple bases engaged, our level of tactical intelligence would be quite high...too bad we didn't have a F16 "on the pad" with a probe drone...the extended time scanning and the close proximity might have revealed more information.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 07:07 pm: Edit

Major Wile: Proceed with that analisys.


SPP: Will you provide the computer results?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Computer: "Working"

"Data compiled by DefSats:

"A Klingon G1G gunboat with operating warp booster packs" was detected.

"Status of crew levels: Unknown.

"Data compiled by ground bases

"A Klingon G1G gunboat with two heavy phasers, identified as phaser-2s when they fired, was detected.

"Status of crew levels: Unknown.

"Data compiled by ground warning stations

"A Klingon G1G gunboat hull #A389 was detected.

"Status of crew levels: Unknown.

"Analysis: High Level of ECM combined with limited scanning time makes determination of crew levels aboard the G1G at any time prior to possible insertion of Klingon personnel impossible to determine. DefSats were heavily impacted by the ECM level due to their limited ECCM suites, see files (R1.15C) and (D17.142). Ground Stations were impacted by the EW status of the G1G, no order was given to provide maximum ECCM, see files (D17.123) and (R1.14C3). Ground Warning Stations were stable on observation, but were ordered to switch to OEW on approach of G1G, see files (R1.14C3), (D17.12), (D17.121), (D17.122), and (D17.123).

"Finding: Without extensive scanning over time and /or reduction or countering of EW jamming to favorable levels, determination of the crew status of the G1G is not possible.

"Anaylsis Ends."

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Computer:
Report all known encounters with Klingon gunboat hull # A389.

Cross reference those Klingon forces known to operate with Klingon Gun boat hull #A389.

Please report on last known Commander of Gun boat hull#389.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 10:37 am: Edit

Attn: Col Knight

Request for Transportation.

The Quatermaster Company request the usage of 3 Administrative shuttles for maintence/reloading of the Drone Defense Sats. With the launching of drones by the Satellites and expenditure of said drones, the Sats need replenishment.

If my memory serves me correctly, Storehouse Gamma could possibly have some vintage (yet usable) Sensor/Recon Pods located in it.

These could be used temporarily by the F16's for surveliance of any outlying terrain on the return trip of standard CAP patrols.

Cpt. S.Tenhoff

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Computer: "Working.

"G1G hull number A389 has eight entries.

"Stardate XXXX detected in Plonia system near Plonia II on similar mission profile.

"Stardate XXXX detected in Valdosta system near Valdosta III on similar mission profile.

"Stardate XXXX detected in Rhin'talk system near Rhin'talk VII on similar mision profile.

"Stardate XXXX detected during raid by Zhukov Carrier Group on Klingon Battle Station Shudos. Departed station to avoid combat.

"Stardate XXXX detected as part of convoy attacked by USS Naken.

"Stardate XXXX detected as part of raid by Klingon PF force on convoy XG97.

"Stardate XXXX detected in Sal'tar system near Sal'tar IV on similar mission profile.

"Stardate XXXX detected in this system.

"Working.

"There are no known Klingon units normally associated with G1G A389. The unit goes where it is needed. Units of this type are not normally permanently operational with any one Klingon ship or combat group. G1G A389 operates as part of the Klingon Western Fleet in sector Gamma V which encompasses the listed systems and several hundred more.

"Working.

"There is no known commander of G1G A389.

"Report Ends."

(COMMENT: While I used Commander Krault, he is a rather lowly Lieutenant and his assignment to a PF is simply not something that would be picked up. The only real way you would find out that he was in charge of it would have been to capture or destroy it, or perhaps when reviewing records from the Klingon High Command that are subsequently captured.

Note that all of the above Stardates are technically within the last three months, but I did not have the time to list them. G1Gs like any PF do not have long life spans.)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Computer-

Correlate all sensor and scanner logs from all sources during the G1G flypast.

Is it possible to derive a crew count using the entire database rather than two separate estimates at 50,000 kilometer range as we requested previously.

(note this should allow the computer to use the Tac intel abilities at the BEST range rather than limited to 2 separate observations at 5 hexes range.)

Please indicate the hex location the G1G was in at the point where the crew count was effective (assuming the change in programing results in an actual number)

(Coach, its my last attempt, hoping that we can get a CU count after the transporter activity occurred. If there are fewer bodies onboard the G1G as it departs than would normally be aboard would be an indication that a detachement could have landed...full strength would indicate that either personnel or cargo were picked up rather than dropped off.)

Computer, review database records, at anytime during the G1G pass, was there ANY activity on Klingon tactical frequencies or a landing party beacon activated during the transporter activity of the G1G?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Stepping out of character as the computer, I tried to give you enough rules references to see that there is no way for the limited sensor suites available to the 429th PDU to determine a crew count aboard the G1G. The G1G came in with six points of jamming, which shifted all readings up two levels against the two points of ECCM the DefSats and Ground Bases have normally. No one at any time gave an order for any of the stations to go to full ECCM. There was an order for the GWS to generate OEW, and this was taken into account when the G1G had to fire its two phaser-2s at full strength rather than half strength to destroy the drone launched by DefSat A.

Even had such an order been given (for the GWS to use maximum ECCM to scan the G1G, or for any of the Ground Based Phaser stations to use maximum ECCM, or the GMG to use maximum ECCM), the maximum level attaninable was Level L as no station or DefSat (and the DefSats can only have their built in two points) can have more than six points of ECCM, which merely cancels the six points of ECM the the G1G had.

So the DefSats got Level K, shifted up two to Level I information.

The Ground Bases got Level L, shifted up two levels to Level J information.

The Ground Sensor Stations got the same level of information as the regular ground bases on Turn #2, but during Turn #1 they got Level L (assumed to have four APRs providing ECCM to a sensor set on Tactical Intelligence for general sweeps, pluse the two points built-in).

Without either a positive EW shift (which none of the bases or DefSats had), or prolonged observation (from the moment the G1G was spotted for active scanning to the moment it disengaged was only 96 impulses, and it was only in the Level L intelligence level for a total of about (without checking an Impulse Chart) ten impulses there is just no way to acquire the data you are seeking.

In short, the computer already gave you the data it could based on the closest approach made by the G1G. It cannot give you more than it already has. I will answer any question you think pertinent from Level L on up (which is the maximum you could have gotten, and is indeed what you got, it is why you have the Hull Number of the G1G which is Level L information), but nothing is going to give you Level M information. The sensor suites are simply not capable of it without a positive EW shift or prolonged observation. Now, if the planet had had a SAMS station in orbit and used its sensor, then yes, the SAMS could have gotten the data (assuming some lent ECCM from one of the GWSs). But there is no SAMS.

As to transporter activity: I fear you need to read the article noted. Also check G1G SSDs. There is no transporter. Quite literally a group of space-suited Klingons were dropped using HALO (or maybe they were not dropped) and a mass of decoys were dropped (or maybe only a mass of decoys was dropped in a sort of harrassment mission designed to tie down more Federation resources around this planet). The G1G has no capability to pick up anything from a planet on which it cannot land, unless your own transporters allowed it to, i.e., are you suspicious that someone in your GMG is a spy who beamed something up during the operation?

So a computer review looking for a transporter Beacon is going to turn up: Nothing.

By Raymond Ford (Raymond) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Advice: There are a few locations listed where the G1G had a similar mission profile. Someone may wish to ask about activity at these locations after the G1G left. Specifically, if assets at these locations were later attacked by Klingon ground forces or if Klingon personnel were found after the G1G left. This information could help further define the potential threat if anyone was actually inserted by the G1G.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Raymond Ford: As the typical mission might include dropping Infiltrators or pretending to(in order to tie up resources) and that that mission could change at any point from one to the other, I don't expect that much could be gained by such information. However, it isn't likely it would hurt and the effeort would be small.

XO: Have some one contact the above Systems and report on this units history. This is low priotity but I want it sometime this week.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Raymond Ford and Loren Knight:

While a way to go about it, it is inherently short-sighted.

What makes you think that G1G A389 is the only G1G that has performed such missions, for example? You might as well ask

"Computer, how many G1Gs have performed this mission profile in the last six months?"

Response: "Working: Thirteen different G1Gs have been detected running this mission profile."

"How many were confirmed to have delivered a raiding party?"

Response: "Working: In 124 missions recorded, seven missions have been confirmed as having delivered a raiding party."

"How was confirmation developed?"

Response: "Working: In two cases the raiding party was detected by planetary defenses. In four cases the raiding party was detected when it attacked assets of the planetary defenses, in one case the raiding party was discovered through information gained by agents inside the Klingon Empire."

"Of the 124 missions, how many were confirmed as having been purely dummy drops?"

Response: "Working: Of the 124 missions recorded, 16 have been confirmed as dummy drops due to information gathered by Federation intelligence sources within the Klingon Empire."

"Of the 101 missions not identified as real or dummy, what is the likelihood of any one of them being real?"

Response: "Working: Insufficient data for an accurate determination. Insufficient data for a probability analysis. Insufficent data."

"Of the thirteen G1Gs involved in these operations in the last six months, how many have been destroyed?"

Response: "Working: Six G1Gs were destroyed. One destroyed while approaching Shivak II in the Shivak system, one destroyed while attempting to escape after commencing its drop run into Rotan IV in the Rotan system, and one destroyed while attempting to disengage from the Narvak system after completing its drop on Narvak V. Three G1Gs have been destroyed in other operations not consistent with this mission profile. Seven G1Gs remain operational. This includes three G1Gs that arrived in sector during the specified six month period, and four operational during the whole of the six month period."

"Have other PFs performed this mission profile within this sector?"

Response: "Working: 15 missions have been performed by Orion Buccaneer-G PFs."

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 04:20 pm: Edit

SPP- Sorry I did not make myself clear, when I said i did not have my rules with me, I should have stated that I didnt have my SSD's either. Now that I have returned home I will dutifully study the indicated rules sections.

Thank you for explaining the context of the G1G encounter.