STGOD2k6 Discussion Thread

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-01 04:35pm

Kinetic strikes never go out of style. Especially when it's a large enough swarm descending at once.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-02-01 04:38pm

SirNitram wrote:Kinetic strikes never go out of style. Especially when it's a large enough swarm descending at once.

Yes, but look at what you get afterwards. A big crater is impressive, but a glittering molten world makes a much better impression.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2006-02-01 04:45pm

If you throw the rocks fast enough, you get *both.*

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-02-01 05:07pm

Vice-Grand Admiral Asdvadz doesn't approve of using rocks. It's so... impersonal. Bombardments are so much more enjoyable when done by your own ships from low orbit. With rocks you don't get the same "Now I've become Death, destroyer of worlds" feeling that you get when you're setting a planet on fire with your own weapons. And that feeling is the best in the world when you are a crazy semi-psycopath like Asdvadz.

I will properly introduce my crazy military genious as soon as the Republic goes to war.

Thirdfain wrote:An immobile defense is no defense whatsoever without a mobile force to back it up. Whether this mobile force is provided by a domestic starfleet of sufficient size or diplomatically chosen allies, mobile units force the enemy to deal with planetary defenses rapidly with the threat of reinforcements. Without that threat, the attacker can sit back and use c-fractional kinetic strikes, accelerated asteroids, or simply destroy all your un-fortified assets elsewhere.

In the words of Sun-Tzu: If your enemy has an unbreachable fortress, make sure he stays there.

That is pretty much why I went and got all of 0 points in stationary defenses. Maybe with more points available to spend, but as it is I want all of my armed forces to be capable of moving around.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-02-01 05:20pm

And people complain about me being blood thirsty...

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-02-01 05:26pm

I still fail to see how tossing rocks will be useful when they'll simply be vaporized against planetary shields at best, and at worst will be blown to dust by a single destroyer several lightyears out from the intended target.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-02-01 05:51pm

Matt Huang wrote:I still fail to see how tossing rocks will be useful when they'll simply be vaporized against planetary shields at best, and at worst will be blown to dust by a single destroyer several lightyears out from the intended target.

Destroy all ships around your planet by superior force (worst come to worst, even a Regional could beat a Regional that spends points on defenses heavily). Have tons of rocks launched at relativistic speeds to hit in rapid sucession on the shields.

Shields drop, even if the rocks don't go through, and then the ships have a field day.

The modern catapult, so to speak.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-02-01 06:13pm

Perhaps that would be feasable if you chucked an asteroid belt at the shields at once, but barring a massive expenditure of a hostile nations resources to set up such a feat, the shields would recover far faster than any asteroid impacts would deplete it. No, the only way to bring em down without spending points on a one-time use weapon is an old-fashioned slugging match between the planetary defense grid and a hostile fleet.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-02-01 06:16pm

Matt Huang wrote:Perhaps that would be feasable if you chucked an asteroid belt at the shields at once, but barring a massive expenditure of a hostile nations resources to set up such a feat, the shields would recover far faster than any asteroid impacts would deplete it. No, the only way to bring em down without spending points on a one-time use weapon is an old-fashioned slugging match between the planetary defense grid and a hostile fleet.

So you're saying that your shields could take multiple multi-ton 0.75c+ velocity impacts and remain up? If so, are all of our cruisers and escorts wielding Star Wars-level firepower, or is my estimation of relativistic kinetic energy much overappraised?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-02-01 06:24pm

Matt Huang wrote:Perhaps that would be feasable if you chucked an asteroid belt at the shields at once, but barring a massive expenditure of a hostile nations resources to set up such a feat, the shields would recover far faster than any asteroid impacts would deplete it. No, the only way to bring em down without spending points on a one-time use weapon is an old-fashioned slugging match between the planetary defense grid and a hostile fleet.

Unfortunate that a mobile opponent will be better able to concentrate against a static defence then, isn't it...

Static defenses require mobile forces to relieve them, unless you have one planet, and a significat portion of your points in protecting it.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-02-01 06:27pm

MRDOD wrote:So you're saying that your shields could take multiple multi-ton 0.75c+ velocity impacts and remain up? If so, are all of our cruisers and escorts wielding Star Wars-level firepower, or is my estimation of relativistic kinetic energy much overappraised?

Sure. If pumping that much energy into an asteroid can be performed without an expenditure of points (which, unless I'm mistaken, reflect the resources put into / military capabilities of items such as warships, special-payload missiles, megaweapons, etc.), I fail to see why they would pose a threat to anything with a point value at all.

Otherwise, they would become a means of free attack, and anybody with a fleet could wipe out anybody else regardless of relative tiers of power.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-01 06:52pm

Matt Huang wrote:
MRDOD wrote:So you're saying that your shields could take multiple multi-ton 0.75c+ velocity impacts and remain up? If so, are all of our cruisers and escorts wielding Star Wars-level firepower, or is my estimation of relativistic kinetic energy much overappraised?
Sure. If pumping that much energy into an asteroid can be performed without an expenditure of points (which, unless I'm mistaken, reflect the resources put into / military capabilities of items such as warships, special-payload missiles, megaweapons, etc.), I fail to see why they would pose a threat to anything with a point value at all.

Otherwise, they would become a means of free attack, and anybody with a fleet could wipe out anybody else regardless of relative tiers of power.

They would require ships to accelerate them, which would be an attack fleet, which would be thus factored in.

Duh.

The Moderators here are not idiots. And we are factoring in the completely logical problems a static defense faces against a determined attacker.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2006-02-01 09:31pm

Of course, it takes a long time to tow a bunch of asteroids up and toss them with your ships, a time during which your vessels are much more vulnerable. Hence the usage of your own fleets to defeat such an ugly seige maneuver.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-02-01 09:54pm

There's also the bit where defenders can see the asteroids comming from far off and deflect or destroy them with far less effort than it takes to accelerate it up to c-fractional velocities over a period of time long before any coordinated attack.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-01 10:42pm

Matt Huang wrote:There's also the bit where defenders can see the asteroids comming from far off and deflect or destroy them with far less effort than it takes to accelerate it up to c-fractional velocities over a period of time long before any coordinated attack.

Hyperjump on top of them while they're deflecting.

Or do my trick as the Overseer: Time the bombardments to all arrive at the same time.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2006-02-02 12:42am

If the point value of attackers are more then double the point value of defenses, the defenses are toast. Doesn't matter if it's multigigaton nukes, rocks or spitballs. A 1000 point spitball is going to collapse a 500 point planetary shield.

Edit:

Any posts regarding the allocation of national resources to any form of spitball bombardment programme or the deployment of such will be extremely frowned upon.

Also this thread is winding to a close, we'll be starting the main thread...soon.

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2006-02-02 04:42am

Personally, throwing asteroids around is a bit of a Rube Goldberg device as far as siege engines go. The article "Rocks Are Not Free, Citizen" comes to mind. Sure, it is possible to accelerate a rock into a high-speed collision course. It's also possible to fire your weapons, and probably more easy too.

Oh, and here's a map. I got lazy and knocked off half minor worlds I previously claimed, I hope nobody minds. The black square is the capital, Eden Tower. The red square is the other major world, Stone Tower.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-02-02 02:16pm

Spyder wrote:If the point value of attackers are more then double the point value of defenses, the defenses are toast. Doesn't matter if it's multigigaton nukes, rocks or spitballs. A 1000 point spitball is going to collapse a 500 point planetary shield.

I would think that at best it would be a mutual kill, since a 500-point planetary defense grid performs at 1000 points overall.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2006-02-02 03:27pm

*shrug* Enjoy your planetary defense. It's still a waste. The strategic immobility an over-spent defense affords is greater than the bonus effect it creates.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-02-02 06:15pm

Only when mobile assets outrange static defense. Which isn't really true in this scenario, since asteroid-chucking and assorted other previously mentioned methods of attack are all a ridiculously easy to foil ways of trying to attack somebody.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2006-02-02 09:40pm

Matt Huang wrote:Only when mobile assets outrange static defense. Which isn't really true in this scenario, since asteroid-chucking and assorted other previously mentioned methods of attack are all a ridiculously easy to foil ways of trying to attack somebody.

That bullshit is getting tiring. Let's have some advantages:

1. Time.
An attacking fleet essentially owns space outside of the immediate range of the planetary defenses. This means that they can spend weeks accelerating asteroids or other such nastiness, right up to the edge of the planetary defenses' envelope. The ammount of kinetic energy a towed asteroid could accumulate in that time is such that even amazing defenses would have trouble intercepting it. What are you going to do? Shoot it down? Now you have a thousand tiny asteroids instead of one. Send tugs to slow it down? The asteroid has been accelerated by enemy warships for weeks, and it'll be within the range of the defenses for minutes or hours at most. Stop it with planetary shields? Effective, but a planetary shield can only take so many impacts.

In other words, by giving the enemy a great deal of time in which to prepare their attack, they can take the advantage.

2. Tactical Mobility.
In long ranged combat, such as a missile duel, the planet is an incredibly easy target. It can't be hidden with decoys, it can't be mistaken for something else through ECM, and so on. In other words, it's vulnerable to long range missile attacks. A missile aimed at a moving, dodging starship will need to be powered for much of it's flight. A missile aimed at a planet need only be powered during it's attack run, when it needs to dodge defense fire and deal with ECM. The advantage at range goes to the mobile forces. Additionally, powerful direct fire weapons whose ranges are hampered only by issues of accuracy (pretty much any projectile weapon) don't have those problems when firing against a planetary target.

There are some other issues which I won't bring up, as I hope to use them to my advantage later.

3. Strategic Mobility
This is the big one. Why do turtlers lose in any serious multiplayer RTS? Because it limits the turtler to the resources he has within the fortified zone while ceding the rest. Long story short, the Avalonians will find in any serious conflict that their major centers of fortification are ignored, at least at first, while all their colonies are stripped away. The merchant marine, too- that can't be protected by planetary defenses, except by grounding it- which is just as good as shooting it down. A lone system, no matter how well fortified and defended, is just a lone system, and will find it's production drop off sharply without the resources provided by the colonies. Some of the most heavily inhabited ubersystems might even be net importers of food- a problem with clear ramifications.

Also, mobile defenses can't threaten the enemy's worlds or shipping. Each point sitting in a defense gun is a point an aggressor doesn't have to worry about defending his own worlds against.

Now, the first two might not pan out depending on the precise game mechanics we see put into play, but the last one is the really important one.

Long story short, while I might not be 100% confident taking a 2000-point minor into combat against the a nation which, like the Avalonian League, has spent almost half it's points on immobile defenses, I would feel supremely confident doing so with another 4000 point power, and then without even commiting my whole force to the endeavour.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-02-02 09:51pm

Indeed, it isn't even required that you fight the Avalonian Defense Network at all, as Thirdfain mentioned in his 3rd point.

If the Avalonian fleet leaves port, destroy it and then interdict the space lanes. If it doesn't, interdict the spacelanes. Avalonian Ships stuck inside Defense Shields on systems unable to supply them will starve. If Avalonian Ships are capable of being supplied under the Shields, it is more problematic, but still solvable.

You may not be able to penetrate the Avalonian Defense Shields, but you can certainly make sure that each planet is an island surrounded by your patrols. Any buildup would have to be from a single planet's resources underneath the shield, so any sort of new assembly of navy is impossible under most conditions.

Now, proceed as usual. The only problem is you have a bunch of hostiles stuck inside your midst who are too tough to crack, so you must commit resources to guarding their planets and keeping them from forming a viable interplanetary trade/supply method.

Essentially, you would be playing Uber-UK to the Avalonian Nazi Germany, containing them within their lands. You sure can't penetrate the Atlantic Wall without the help of America (Major/Grand Power), but the Nazis have no capacity to invade or even have their navy leave port against the RN.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2006-02-02 09:57pm

Never mind that you can concentrate your fleet to eat up all the little colonies first, so our Germany is a fair bit smaller than when it began.

If you are *really* evil, just threaten to bomb the colonies into dust if the enemy doesn't give in to a beneficial peace deal (the attacker as the one who's benefitted, of course.)

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-02-02 10:02pm

Thirdfain wrote:Never mind that you can concentrate your fleet to eat up all the little colonies first, so our Germany is a fair bit smaller than when it began.

If you are *really* evil, just threaten to bomb the colonies into dust if the enemy doesn't give in to a beneficial peace deal (the attacker as the one who's benefitted, of course.)

Quite. Naturally, also, the principle of Overwhelming Force comes into play here. If I, a Major that has 90% of its point in its Fleet presence, were hypothetically to commit to a war with an enemy like Avalon, I would immediately strike all of their "neither-important nor middling" worlds in a rapid, multi-pronged offensive to medium-sized but not uber-important planets to destroy them.

Then, a secondary offensive would destroy all of the lesser targets. With their major worlds beseiged and that many worlds captured or more likely bombarded into submission, I cannot see how any reasonable enemy would not surrender. Further, even if they continued to fight, they would be completely impotent. Even if liberated, with the loss of their colonies, they would be still quite crippled.

Such a plan would likely work against the Khar, too, actually, but the major ease of the plans rests on the fact that a 50% points spent on Fleets is much, much easier to kill than 90% or vice versa. Khar fight like a peculiar mix of blitzkrieg and Soviet Barbarossa Defense, abandoning territory and grinding enemies into dust through overwhelming attacks after enemies have advanced and spread themselves out.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-02-02 10:37pm

I'm not saying that a defensive emplacement is invulnerable against a much larger attacking fleet, but a massed conventional assault with overwhelming numbers is the least convoluted and most effective means of attacking heavily defended worlds.

An attacking fleet can spend weeks accelerating asteroids, but then they'll be doing so on the defenders home turf. The attackers are in a position where they can be detected and dispatched while they're still occupied with acclerating asteroids weeks out from the intended target. The defending fleet is further aided by the fact that while accelerating the asteroids, the attackers are effectively stuck at sublight while proceeding with this Rube Goldbergesque course of action, leaving them to be picked off by the defending fleet while the attacking fleet is separated and finding suitable asteroids to chuck.

With regards to tactical mobility, the point-value method of resolving combat we're using makes this a rather moot point. It could be rationalized in any manner of ways, but point-for-point, stationary defense is twice as effective as most forms of mobile assets.

And in the strategic sense, the Avalonians, like any other regional / minor power, would be screwed regardless of point-allocations in a serious conflict against any major or grand power. Nothing that any regional or minor power can individually do will change that fact.