STGOD2k6 Discussion Thread

[Stormin]

Defenses are a slight force multiplier. If any of the "nations" decided to go all out against someone one or more steps below them they are going to win no matter what. If the smaller nation has a fair bit of defensive points though they will be able to hurt you/slow you a hell of a lot more than if all the points were invested in just fleet assets.

Being the smallest guy in my neighborhood, my best (and almost only) defense is gonna be being VERY polite to my neighbors and trying to make as many friends as I can

[Thirdfain]

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.

Wrong. The point value system does *not* mean that a battle is resolved with "I have 100 points, you have 70 points, you lose your ships and I'm down to 30." Rather, the point value system merely serves to represent a general description of a vessel's capabilities and overall effectiveness when properly employed. Maneuver, proper mixing and matching of forces, and things like the n^2 law all apply.

For example, the German fleet at Jutland was significantly smaller than the British Grand Fleet. However, the British fleet took much heavier losses (though in the end it won the battle by forcing the Germans to retreat.) Another example would be that battle whose name I forgot in the Pacific between a bunch of huge Japanese battlewagons and a small group of American escort carriers. The surprised escort carriers should have been slaughtered, but through superior maneuvering and a surprise charge by the American destroyer screen, managed to force the Japanese battleships to withdraw.

and wrong. The point-for-point system applies only to the weapons firepower and shielding of the defense. It does not mean that said defense magically defeats all comers of lower point cost.

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.

You'd be in deep trouble against another well-played fleet-heavy Regional, and I'd be willing to give solid odds to a Minor against your power, assuming the minor player turns out to be very good and you turn out to be abysmal (I'm not saying you are, not by a long shot.)

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.

You are missing the point. The very nature of defensive emplacements means that you are far more likely to eventually face that overwhelming fleet, even if it's source is a Minor power.

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.

If a 2000-point fleet is beseiging your capital, even if you have all 1700 points of your own battlefleet in-system, your "Home Turf" only extends as far as the range of the planet's guns. The second you mobilize your warships to counterattack, the enemy fleet will pull back, reform, and smash you where you stand. Well, 1700-2000 isn't so overwhelming that you'd definitely lose, but it's not odds I'd like to go in with.

[Lancer]

The battle in the Pacific Theatre you were talking about was the battle of Samar, and took place near the Phillipines.

Against a fleet-heavy minor or regional, I've got some tricks of my own to play.

I'm using the term home turf to represent the volume of space that heavy sensor platforms unsuitable for use on spaceborne vessels can keep tabs on; it's the region where you can keep tabs on any intruders even if they can't keep tabs on you yet.

The volume covered by a planetary defense networks weapons is more like your doorstep, though there's no reason why it's range needs to be severely limited. Planets aren't nearly as limited in size or amount of the ordinance they expend as warships, they could concievably project their firepower further than the effective sensor ranges of hostile warships, in a similar manner to which ground-based artillery during WWII could be made with ranges that naval-based firepower couldn't hope to match.

[Spyder]

There's a very simple rule to observe, a good offense can be an excellent defense but the reverse is never true.

[Thirdfain]

The volume covered by a planetary defense networks weapons is more like your doorstep, though there's no reason why it's range needs to be severely limited. Planets aren't nearly as limited in size or amount of the ordinance they expend as warships, they could concievably project their firepower further than the effective sensor ranges of hostile warships, in a similar manner to which ground-based artillery during WWII could be made with ranges that naval-based firepower couldn't hope to match.

We are in space. Range is determined by detection. Planets are incredibly easy to detect. You can track a planet effectively by telescope, you certainly don't need realtime updates from FTL sensors like you do vs. a mobile starship.

[Lancer]

That's not quite what I mean. You can't very well detect, let alone evade, incomming fire when it is comming from well outside your effective sensors range regardless of how easy the planet or stationary object housing those weapons is to spot.

[Thirdfain]

That's not quite what I mean. You can't very well detect, let alone evade, incomming fire when it is comming from well outside your effective sensors range regardless of how easy the planet or stationary object housing those weapons is to spot.

A vessel's regular position change at long range is more than enough to thwart lightspeed direct-fire weapons, and missiles are very detectable once they enter range thanks to their engines. Try again.

[Lancer]

That's not quite what I mean. You can't very well detect, let alone evade, incomming fire when it is comming from well outside your effective sensors range regardless of how easy the planet or stationary object housing those weapons is to spot.

A vessel's regular position change at long range is more than enough to thwart lightspeed direct-fire weapons, and missiles are very detectable once they enter range thanks to their engines. Try again.

So, I take it that planet-based missiles equipped with a short-ranged hyperdrive (too big to be fitted onto a warship-mounted missile), coupled with telemetry from planetside FTL sensors, are not being considered (basically smaller, shorter-ranged versions of the galaxy gun)?

Like I mentioned before, planet-based weapons don't have nearly the same payload and delivery-vehicle size limitations as warships.

Oh, and a tangent of sorts. Chucking asteroids at a planet may be an inefficent method of attempting to besiege it, but carefully controlled chucking of asteroids at your own planets could be a great means of resource-aqquisition and processing. It wouldn't have to be a trajectory that impacts the planet, just one close enough that orbital rigs can snare it and drag it into nearby processing facilities.

[SirNitram]

So, I take it that planet-based missiles equipped with a short-ranged hyperdrive (too big to be fitted onto a warship-mounted missile), coupled with telemetry from planetside FTL sensors, are not being considered (basically smaller, shorter-ranged versions of the galaxy gun)?

As a strategic level weapon? Maybe. But you're not gonna target individual ships with such a missile.

Like I mentioned before, planet-based weapons don't have nearly the same payload and delivery-vehicle size limitations as warships.

Size increases energy and time to alter your course. Which means it'll have ridiculously hard times getting close enough to a warship to perform a kill. There's the option of a warehad so f'ing big it'd perform kills without hitting, but that'd be a huge strategic point expenditure.

Oh, and a tangent of sorts. Chucking asteroids at a planet may be an inefficent method of attempting to besiege it, but carefully controlled chucking of asteroids at your own planets could be a great means of resource-aqquisition and processing. It wouldn't have to be a trajectory that impacts the planet, just one close enough that orbital rigs can snare it and drag it into nearby processing facilities.

This can probably safely be assumed to have been regular ever since the Age of Stone; it's a simple trick and doesn't require you to leave the system. It's probable this is how most empires manage their industries: Huge L5 factories where the 'roids and other debris are hurled to.

[Stormin]

This can probably safely be assumed to have been regular ever since the Age of Stone; it's a simple trick and doesn't require you to leave the system. It's probable this is how most empires manage their industries: Huge L5 factories where the 'roids and other debris are hurled to.

Why bother sending the whole rock though? Send an automated factory to go through and carve up asteroids and use mass drivers to shoot the materials where you want them after sticking on a tracking beacon. Most of any asteroid is going to be useless material, it would save a lot of energy to do atleast first-stage processing on site.

[SirNitram]

This can probably safely be assumed to have been regular ever since the Age of Stone; it's a simple trick and doesn't require you to leave the system. It's probable this is how most empires manage their industries: Huge L5 factories where the 'roids and other debris are hurled to.

Why bother sending the whole rock though? Send an automated factory to go through and carve up asteroids and use mass drivers to shoot the materials where you want them after sticking on a tracking beacon. Most of any asteroid is going to be useless material, it would save a lot of energy to do atleast first-stage processing on site.

Depends on the mass of your huge melting lasers vs. the mass needed to give them a push. But that's the Age of Stone; in this period it should be easy to do this.

[Lancer]

depending on your materials processing technology, you might not even need to try and catch the asteroid, simply just zap it with a mass-energy conversion ray sitting planetside.

[Stormin]

Depends on the mass of your huge melting lasers vs. the mass needed to give them a push. But that's the Age of Stone; in this period it should be easy to do this.

Why would lasers be used? An automated rock crusher/refinery with mobility and mass drivers would do the job of sending the materials you want, without having to tag an engine on a big space rock after checking to make sure it won't break apart and change trajectory during boosting as well as other problems related to throwing around asteroids.
There would also be less chance involved financially because you don't run the risk of a particular asteroid having less resources than expected, you would know how much of what would be in the "pipeline" at any given time and be able to have the factories or secondary processing set up for what is coming ahead of time.

[SirNitram]

depending on your materials processing technology, you might not even need to try and catch the asteroid, simply just zap it with a mass-energy conversion ray sitting planetside.

M-E Conversion is wildly out of line with this, especially some kind of beam that lets you fire through the atmosphere to orbit, with no ill effects(You remember the atmosphere is mass, right?).

[SirNitram]

Depends on the mass of your huge melting lasers vs. the mass needed to give them a push. But that's the Age of Stone; in this period it should be easy to do this.

Why would lasers be used?

Melting iron quickly gets the slag out.

[Stormin]

Melting iron quickly gets the slag out.

I don't know. I was thinking more of a big blast furnace/centrafuge thing for materials seperation. You would still need both anyways probably, adding lasers would just add to the complexity, the cost and maintainance requirements.

[Lancer]

depending on your materials processing technology, you might not even need to try and catch the asteroid, simply just zap it with a mass-energy conversion ray sitting planetside.

M-E Conversion is wildly out of line with this, especially some kind of beam that lets you fire through the atmosphere to orbit, with no ill effects(You remember the atmosphere is mass, right?).

Why can't you just use a forcefield to evacuate a path between the beam and the asteroid?

Melting iron quickly gets the slag out.

I don't know. I was thinking more of a big blast furnace/centrafuge thing for materials seperation. You would still need both anyways probably, adding lasers would just add to the complexity, the cost and maintainance requirements.

you would still need something to cut the asteroids into chunks before you can fit them into the blast furnace.

[Thirdfain]

M/E conversion is wildly out of line with the techlevel. I say no.

[Stormin]

you would still need something to cut the asteroids into chunks before you can fit them into the blast furnace.

Cables are used to pull asteroid fragments into the rock crusher. Larger pieces that won't fit are pulled into the front and are broken up with pnumatic hammers.

Geeze people, it's just rock. People have been breaking rocks for a very long time.

[SirNitram]

depending on your materials processing technology, you might not even need to try and catch the asteroid, simply just zap it with a mass-energy conversion ray sitting planetside.

M-E Conversion is wildly out of line with this, especially some kind of beam that lets you fire through the atmosphere to orbit, with no ill effects(You remember the atmosphere is mass, right?).

Why can't you just use a forcefield to evacuate a path between the beam and the asteroid?

Come here so I can smack you around a bit for this ridiculously over-complicated nonsense when you could simply melt them in orbit. This is not Trek, you do not solve every problems with Forcefields and phase modulation!

[Duckie]

Come here so I can smack you around a bit for this ridiculously over-complicated nonsense when you could simply melt them in orbit. This is not Trek, you do not solve every problems with Forcefields and phase modulation!

What if your rock-melting-monopolizing company recieves government subsidies to go to improving the process if it underproduces melted rocks, and then channels the money recieved into CEO perks, thus being paid to melt rocks inefficiently and overcomplicatedly for a profit?

[Adrian Laguna]

What if your rock-melting-monopolizing company recieves government subsidies to go to improving the process if it underproduces melted rocks, and then channels the money recieved into CEO perks, thus being paid to melt rocks inefficiently and overcomplicatedly for a profit?

In other words: "What if you rock-melting company was Enron?"

[Lancer]

Come here so I can smack you around a bit for this ridiculously over-complicated nonsense when you could simply melt them in orbit. This is not Trek, you do not solve every problems with Forcefields and phase modulation!

Hrr? Just because mass-conversion devices are probably similar in function to transporters doesn't mean that it's a glorified one-way Trek transporter. I expect there to be no problems that require modulating the phase variance. Simply aim, a stream of whiteish light hits the target, then it all pulls back to the light source and the asteroid is turned into energy stored inside a (relatively) low-capacity ZPM.

[SirNitram]

Come here so I can smack you around a bit for this ridiculously over-complicated nonsense when you could simply melt them in orbit. This is not Trek, you do not solve every problems with Forcefields and phase modulation!

Hrr? Just because mass-conversion devices are probably similar in function to transporters doesn't mean that it's a glorified one-way Trek transporter. I expect there to be no problems that require modulating the phase variance. Simply aim, a stream of whiteish light hits the target, then it all pulls back to the light source and the asteroid is turned into energy stored inside a (relatively) low-capacity ZPM.

First off, as I had previous said, straight mass-energy conversion is wildly out of line with the tech level here. Need I point out I'm the moderator, and I'd know this kind of thing? We've seen enough abuse of mass-energy conversion tech for one lifetime of STGOD's, thank you.

Second, this level of complication for asteroid mining displays the Star Trek mentality of 'Use the highest tech possible!' when recovering the material in useful amounts is so trivially easy 21st century tech can do it.

[Thirdfain]

Could some kindly mods sticky the major threads of this STGOD? I'm looking for the map with every nation's location so I can make with the diplomacying in my quadrant.