OTU Only: Regina's Fleet - your thoughts

[wbyrd]

I understand the concept, but not why it applies here. surely the primary objective is the planet itself?

Yes but, there are secondary objectives, platforms, depots etc...with monitors instead of arming every station outpost etc...you can have mobile resources to counter attacks on secondary targets.

but they have to approach to achieve their military objective, certainly? and if one side is in range then the other side is in range too.

In theory yes, but ground batteries are not able to fire at targets blocked by the horizon. In order to fully cover the planet you would have to build hundreds of gun batteries. With monitors or other mobile vessels you could build batteries to cover key areas, and use your monitors to engage ships hovering in gaps in the defensive gun coverage.

I've been running some vector games, and the "obstructions" seem irrelevant in the presence of m6 and vector.

I'm not familiar with M6 and Vector... at least not those terms.

Asteroids provide cover for ships concealing them, and if ships close to weapons range defending ships can put the object between themselves and the firing forces as long as they had similar thrust.

An object thousands of Kilometers in diameter is a substantial obstacle. In addition SDBs and monitors could be sheltered on the surface, in concealed shelters until they need to be deployed.

 

[agorski]

A related thought: the 4518th Lift Infantry Regiment (Duke of Regina's Own Huscarles) has 4 SDBs, presumably based at Regina.

 

[flykiller]

if the battle is against the planet itself

... then the attacker will lose the war, because while they're eliminating dispersed civilians the planetary defenses will be eliminating the attacking fleet.

But those moons are in "fixed" spots, so only being able to cover several parts of the orbit

this will be on a case-by-case basis, but most gas giants will have more than one moon. now. draw a gas giant and several moons. to scale. there re not many blind spots relative to the moons.

Yes but, there are secondary objectives, platforms, depots etc

certainly. but most of those should (or certainly could) be on the main planet itself, or perhaps on a similarly defended location such as a gas giant moon.

but ground batteries are not able to fire at targets blocked by the horizon.

mesons and missiles most certainly can.

In order to fully cover the planet you would have to build hundreds of gun batteries.

cheaper than building hundreds of monitors. the cost of one monitor could pay for ten spinal mounts on the ground.

Asteroids provide cover for ships concealing them

so do planetary surfaces. and planetary surfaces are located where the primary targets are, not wandering randomly out in some hinterland deep space void which may or may not have a military value.

I'm not familiar with M6 and Vector... at least not those terms.

maneuver 6, agility 6. vector is the speed/direction laid on after applying maneuver.

In addition SDBs and monitors could be sheltered on the surface, in concealed shelters until they need to be deployed.

now this I like. sallying forth to defend the castle walls when desperate all-out assaults have damaged the primary defenses.

 

[whartung]

Without monitors, it is easier for an invading fleet to interdict in system traffic, if there is any meaningful amount. Some systems simply may not worry about this, others, say those that move strategic materials from the outer system to the main planet routinely, will have a problem.

Planet based defenses, given typical Traveller space combat ranges, should have no real issues keeping the space lanes open to the 100D limit to allow jump traffic in and out of the system, unless your system is masked by the primary star.

Seems to me though that the only viable surface based defenses are missiles and meson guns, as neither lasers nor PAs work particularly well in atmosphere. At that point, the benefit of an M-Drive on a weapons platform outweighs the costs and compromises of engineering for one, so static orbital defenses don't make a lot of sense to me.

So, given that, Monitors/SDBs may be the go to tech for system defense, since missiles simply aren't that great (through there is something to be said for volume), and meson guns are more rare due to their high TL requirements. Monitors/SDB can always be imported into a system.

The canonical 400t SDB doesn't seem to have much of a role in a Big Ship TU. I don't know if there are any canonical 5-10K ton Monitors.

Are there any write ups of combat against planets? Do you just treat them as 6 (one per hex side) very large ships with no agility and +2 to hit? "Yes, I have 10,000 factor-9 missile batteries -- and 1 pair of dice."

 

[flykiller]

At that point, the benefit of an M-Drive on a weapons platform outweighs the costs and compromises of engineering for one

weapon for weapon, sure. but credit for credit? no.

 

[rancke]

Weapons on the ground would be under the Army, and we can't have that, ask any admiral.


Hans

 

[wbyrd]

... then the attacker will lose the war, because while they're eliminating dispersed civilians the planetary defenses will be eliminating the attacking fleet.

If they are interested in depopulating wolrd, and wiping out cities they never even have to enter weapons range..almost every system has an Oort cloud and asteroid belts...with no one to interfere they can simply tow a few billion ton rocks out of orbit and aim them at the planet....no ground battery can stop a rock the size of skyscraper moving at 40k mh

certainly. but most of those should (or certainly could) be on the main planet itself, or perhaps on a similarly defended location such as a gas giant moon.

A lot of resources in system arent placed ideally for defense. Asteroid mining, Ooort cloud harvesting, etc...are a pretty common feature of most sci-fi settings. Also facilities for large ships cant be planet side. a 10k ton freighter, or 20kton Cruiser is not exactly something you want trying to land to refuel and off load.

mesons and missiles most certainly can.

I'll coneed the missile swarm defense...a few thousand Surface to high orbit missiles might give me a reason to think about how to approach the problem a bit. But you have to have a pretty high each level to build hundred or thousands of Meson cannons.

cheaper than building hundreds of monitors. the cost of one monitor could pay for ten spinal mounts on the ground.

Yep, I'll give you that. But the sacrifices made in mobility, strategic and tactical flexibility, and area of coverage IMO dont seem worth the savings.

Defense in depth, and maintaining a viable maneuver force is part of almost every military defense strategy. Even when a nation has powerful coastal defense, and huge army they maintain a strong navy and coastal patrols.

so do planetary surfaces. and planetary surfaces are located where the primary targets are, not wandering randomly out in some hinterland deep space void which may or may not have a military value.

And that's part of the usefulness of monitors and other mobile weapons platforms...if you drive straight toward the planet while squadrons of Monitors are lurking out there you either have to split off forces to deal with them..depleting your assault force.

Or fight a battle in two directions, or more at once.as you try to engage the planet guns, the monitors and other vessels move in to flank your group.

maneuver 6, agility 6. vector is the speed/direction laid on after applying maneuver.

ah, thanks...

To that my answer would be simple..if you have ^s and the other guy has ^s he can counter every move you make and keep behind cover unless yu split your forces and try to fierce him into exposing himself..at which point he can concentrate fire on one half your force, instead of taking it all on at once...and if that lovely hunk of rocks has guns of it's own all the better.

now this I like. sallying forth to defend the castle walls when desperate all-out assaults have damaged the primary defenses.

that's why castles had Sally ports, hidden tunnels, and outlying strong points. to allow people to slip out and run amok.

A squadron or three of concealed Boats and monitors can slip out and raid your supply ships and transports....all sorts of nasty things they can do to an enemy concentrating on the main defenses.

 

[flykiller]

But you have to have a pretty high each <tech?> level to build hundred or thousands of Meson cannons.

nah, just a reason to import them. consider louzy - tech 8, but it's 1) pop A, 2) industrialized, and 3) adjacent to efate. major industrial hub and imperial interest right next to the zho border. you can bet louzy is loaded up with all sorts of imported defenses, and can afford to pay for lots of them itself. not to mention train all their engineers and scientists on this imported tech ....

Defense in depth, and maintaining a viable maneuver force is part of almost every military defense strategy.

completely agree. I just don't think monitors have much to contribute to that in the traveller setting.

almost every system has an Oort cloud and asteroid belts

... and we're back to near-c rocks ... again .... I think we should limit the conversation to actual ships.

 

[Spartan159]

The problem with near C rocks, or any other "black war" attack, is retaliation. I am pretty sure there are conventions on warfare in known space that would tend to avoid such. Up until Lucan's madness it was just was not done. Just my 2 credits.

 

[wbyrd]

nah, just a reason to import them. consider louzy - tech 8, but it's 1) pop A, 2) industrialized, and 3) adjacent to efate. major industrial hub and imperial interest right next to the zho border. you can bet louzy is loaded up with all sorts of imported defenses, and can afford to pay for lots of them itself. not to mention train all their engineers and scientists on this imported tech ....

fair enough. Since they would have to import most of their systems defenses anyway. in that case a limited ground based system would be a better idea..since those space going defenses would require more highly trained techs to maintain.

completely agree. I just don't think monitors have much to contribute to that in the traveller setting..

I can understand your arguments..I am just a fan of keeping something mobile around to give you a few more tricks up your sleeve. I usually don't include custom built monitors if I am planning out a system squadron...more along the line of second line, and reserve vessels, that are no longer fit for fleet service and have been re-tasked. that's always made more sense to me.

... and we're back to near-c rocks ... again .... I think we should limit the conversation to actual ships.

No problem just meant to mention them in passing not focus on them.

 

[rancke]

Reality check

I didn't take the time to reality-check my figures before posting. Having done so now I'm going to have to revise my answer.

I arrived at a naval budget sufficient to support a fleet worth MCr2,257,920.

According to FS, a 30,000T light cruiser costs about MCr18,000, a 50,000T cruiser costs around MCr28,000, and a 75,000T cruiser costs around MCr47,500.

Which means that Regina could support 125 light cruisers or 80 medium cruisers or 47 (and a half ) heavy cruisers (If it didn't spend anything on anything else).

So my figure of 100 cruisers was wildly overblown. Even 16 light cruisers (two squadrons, MCr288,000) would be a healthy chunk (13%) out of a planetary defense budget, since their primary purpose would be to leave the system and go gallivanting around the universe.

So I'm going to change my answer to the canonical two squadrons of cruisers and make them light cruisers.

I'm also going to assume that Regina spends more than the average 3% of GWP on its military. Perhaps 4%, perhaps 5%, maybe even 6%. The roll of a D6 tells me that it's 6%. YMMV on that.

Then there's the Army/Navy split. Does the bigger budget get split 40/60? Or does most of the increase go to planetary defenses? If almost all of it goes to the navy, the split would be 20/80. A random die roll to choose between 40/60, 35/65, 30/70, 25/75 and 20/80 told me that it was 30/70. YMM also V on that.



Hans

 

[McPerth]

if the battle is against the planet itself

... then the attacker will lose the war, because while they're eliminating dispersed civilians the planetary defenses will be eliminating the attacking fleet.

I'm afraid I didn't explain as well as I intended here. As the rest of my post says, when I talk about battling the planet itself, I didn't mean attacking the population as primary target, but attacking the deep meson sites or, if they are out of reach, their power or sensor sources.

nah, just a reason to import them. consider louzy - tech 8, but it's 1) pop A, 2) industrialized, and 3) adjacent to efate. major industrial hub and imperial interest right next to the zho border. you can bet louzy is loaded up with all sorts of imported defenses, and can afford to pay for lots of them itself. not to mention train all their engineers and scientists on this imported tech ....

And we're once again i nthe maintenance problem. While a monitor can be taken to Efate (to keep in your example) by a tender to perform maintenance, the planetary mesons cannot, and I'm not sure how much expensive can it be to have to contract the maintenance form a nearby planet (aqs well as having to transport all the spare parts).


And for all the reasons you gfive us, why are all nations' armed forces investing in fighters instead of just in fixed SAM sites. Fighters are more expensive, both to build and maintain (aviation gas is not cheap), and their anti'air power is mostly missiles not unlike those SAMs...

 

[McPerth]

A related thought: the 4518th Lift Infantry Regiment (Duke of Regina's Own Huscarles) has 4 SDBs, presumably based at Regina.

I'm not sure the 4518^th (and its SDBs) can be counted as part of Regina's armed forces. As I see them, they are the Duke's own, not part of Regina's planety forces.

To point to an example of the difference than means, I guess the Duke can use them without Regina's approval nor being seen as Regina declaring war.

 

[rancke]

I'm not sure the 4518^th (and its SDBs) can be counted as part of Regina's armed forces. As I see them, they are the Duke's own, not part of Regina's planety forces.

I think that's correct. Indeed, I think they're not even part of the duchy or Imperial forces until and unless they are imperialized. They're the duke's personal forces.

To point to an example of the difference than means, I guess the Duke can use them wihtout Regina's approval nor being seen as Regina declaring war.

True, although I think that Regina's Imperial charter prohibits Regina from declaring war in any case. That would come under foreign policy, which I think the member worlds have turned over to the Imperium.


Hans

 

[The Oz]

Perhaps part of the reason monitors are also used in planetary defenses is to complicate the job of the attacking admiral. If monitors are not present, the invader can focus on the planet, knowing that his rear area is safe from attack by major enemy units. If monitors are part of the defenses, the invader must deploy major combat units to defend against their sudden appearance.

Putting it another way, having some of your heavy firepower in a mobile form gives the defender more options.

That said, monitors do cost more than DMGs (Deep Meson Sites) and so only wealthy systems (which Regina is) could afford them.

 

[robject]

....So I'm going to change my answer to the canonical two squadrons of cruisers and make them light cruisers.

I'm also going to assume that Regina spends more than the average 3% of GWP on its military. Perhaps 4%, perhaps 5%, maybe even 6%. The roll of a D6 tells me that it's 6%. YMMV on that.

I think (personal opinion) that it could be as high as 15%, so 6% is not unreasonable.

Then there's the Army/Navy split.

Another great matter that likely is different from world to world.

 

[Ishmael]

based on T4's 'Imperial Squadrons' wargame, Regina would start with 12 SDB squadrons and 1 starship squadron ( assuming no resources, culture or infrastructure mods which could even bring this number lower ). Other forces would come from outside sources.

Its defense battalions combat factor would be 120.

 

[robject]

based on T4's 'Imperial Squadrons' wargame, Regina would start with 12 SDB squadrons and 1 starship squadron ( assuming no resources, culture or infrastructure mods which could even bring this number lower ). Other forces would come from outside sources.

Its defense battalions combat factor would be 120.

Thank you Ishmael. That tracks with previous posters' suggestions so far.

 

[flykiller]

I'm not sure how much expensive can it be to have to contract the maintenance form a nearby planet (aqs well as having to transport all the spare parts).

cheaper than maintaining a ship. not to mention building a ship ....

And for all the reasons you gfive us, why are all nations' armed forces investing in fighters instead of just in fixed SAM sites.

because fixed sam sites can't engage targets at light speed out to 4 light seconds.

 

[McPerth]

cheaper than maintaining a ship. not to mention building a ship ....

Not so sure about that. In any case, the rules and costs for building and maintaning of deep meson sites have not been developed in any versión I know. I agree with you that building them would be cheaper than ships, but maintaining on a planet that has not the capacity to build them, I'm not so sure.

because fixed sam sights can't engage targets at light speed out to 4 lights seconds.

I'm afraid I don't understand your answer here...

Or maybe I was not clear that I was talking about real world, seeing the fighters vs SAM sites akin of the monitors vs deep meson sites...