 August 6, 2010 - 1:24pm | Ref: digitally remastered KHs pages 95-96 Item 1 They quote the old maxim that shore batteries have the advantage over ships cause they cant be sunk and because any weapon that can be put on a ship can be built bigger for a shore battery. Planetary batteries can destroy a ship at the edge of its atmosphere but not beyond. What if the planetary battery is built on an airless moon? would it not have the same reach as a laser weapons for ships? so isn't the atmosphere's limit a bit too limiting? The book suggests that they are bigger and more powerful and that ship based lazer weapons cannot hurt ground tragets since their area of effect is so small. The book also suggest that Planetary defenses include missiles, which weapon would you say these are? With the ability to launch ships into space why would a missile cease to function beyond the atmosphere? I understand that the writers didn't want to let PCs be able to bombard and hold whole planets hostage from space, in fact the book says this explicitly, however some of these limitations seem all wrong? If the UPF could build big cannons (of the like seem in Empire Strikes Back ) that could shoot beyond the edge of the atmosphere and you combined that with mine fields around a planet, you could run planetary seige scenarios. the beseigers must first clear the mine fields and snipe at other orbital defenses from beyond effect range of the planetary defenses before commiting the landing shuttle wave. I'm thinking that atmosphere should have some sort of a range diffusion effect that prevents shooting beyond 6 hexes for battery weapons and 4 hexes for cannon weapons. Not sure what to do with the missile weapons suggested in that section. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 August 6, 2010 - 6:26pm | And what if the ships start dropping rocks down on a planet? The game has been written as if it expects player to limit themselves to their ships lasers and missiles for planetary bombing. I think any missiles a planet has are most commonly intercepters for shooting down ships bombing with torpedos and seeker missiles. So I'd guess planet based missiles used most of their fuel climbing out of the gravity well. Lasers have the atmosphere to deal with from the planet but that door should work both ways, making ships firing laser into an atmosphere the same problem to really be fair. Once again making planetary bombing with rocks a more desirable thing. They might intercept some but if you really go at it hundreds of rocks they can't possibly hit them all. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
August 6, 2010 - 6:56pm | The book says a planet has an unlimited number of ICMs so that the chance of an torp getting through is 3% Your right if the atmosphere plays hell with planetary defenses then it does the same for attacking ships. I was just thinking about some house rules that might make planetary seiges a viable and fun encounter. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
August 6, 2010 - 8:56pm | Well I agree with you that a planetary battery being much more powerful than a ship's should be able to fire at ships slightly beyond orbit. You could also have ships do quick fly-by of the planet in attemps to snipe at planetary positions, a ships's laser cannon won't effect a wide area but should still be able to try hitting targets on the ground while trying to evade the planet's defenses. A nightmare dash to the crew of the ships. Think of it as ships dive bombing the planet with lasers and maybe other things and pulling away after they fire. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 August 6, 2010 - 10:52pm | I like the idea of peppering a planet with high-intensity weapon fire (as well as weapons designed for sensor-disruption in the Atmo) so aerospace fighters and bombers can slip through the defense net and bomb key targets of the network - the batteries, sensor arrays, command posts, and such. Once you cripple one area, more fighters can slip through the gap without cover-fire, and takeout more locations. If you can cripple the network over key areas, ground forces can be deployed more safely - this is where the next phase comes in: Planetary Assault. On the other hand, nuking it from orbit (such weapons do a lot more damage in the Atmo) is a lot more quick and effective - and the only way to be sure!  |
August 7, 2010 - 3:17am | I like the idea of peppering a planet with high-intensity weapon fire (as well as weapons designed for sensor-disruption in the Atmo) so aerospace fighters and bombers can slip through the defense net and bomb key targets of the network - the batteries, sensor arrays, command posts, and such. Once you cripple one area, more fighters can slip through the gap without cover-fire, and takeout more locations. If you can cripple the network over key areas, ground forces can be deployed more safely - this is where the next phase comes in: Planetary Assault. Good ideas, how would you suggest gaming this? On the other hand, nuking it from orbit (such weapons do a lot more damage in the Atmo) is a lot more quick and effective - and the only way to be sure! Almost sounded like a quote from Aliens I'm not saying this sort of thing should be gamed this way but if planetary defenses could shoot beyond the atmosphere with some range limits imposed for defraction by the atmosphere. defense planners would also employ mine field around a planet and maybe there is also a station (armed or fortified) plus a few militia hulls. This gives an attacking player a tricky problem. He can stay beyond the effective range of the planetary defenses and smash away at whats in orbit but time is not on his side as the longer the game goes Strike Force Nova could show up. He could go for a minor victory by destroying the station and all the civilian hulls that are trying to hide within the effective perimeter of the planetary defenses. or he could go for the major victory by smashing through to and destroying the planetary defenses. Letting the planetary defenses shoot beyond the atmosphere takes them out of the realm of tacked on rules at the back of the KHs book and puts them in the realm of the standard rule mechanic used for ships, a plus if you're going to tinker with the rules. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 August 7, 2010 - 5:24am | There was a show on the History Channel about space combat not to long ago. As I recall, they suggested that the best way to attack a planet was with huge telephone poles launched with a mass driver. These would be long and relatively narrow with no warhead, making them difficult targets for an ICM or laser to destroy. With enough mass and launched at a high speed, their impact would be along the lines of a nuclear bomb in magnitude. They could be launched from beyond the effective range of planetary defenses but at the cost of accuracy. But when your talking something that hits like an A-bomb, close is good enough. Note: Of course I'm not considering taking out hardened targets like individual defensive batteries with near misses, but cities, industrial centers, large swathes of cropland, and the like could be wiped out. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of
the strong. * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi |
 August 7, 2010 - 10:05am | My new starship combat game includes mass driver weapons in a section called strategic weapons and would be capable of doing this very thing. It's a critical damage weapon with limited ammo and ltd rate of fire but does huge damage to its intended target if its able to hit home. |
August 7, 2010 - 5:04pm | The thing to consider if you're going to make mass drivers for SF is what HS of a ship the mass driver can be mounted on. Of course there could be different sized versions of them, a mass driver for a destroyer and the monsters a battleship can carry. I've heard of the titanium telephone poles having been called the "God Rod", and these would not only be good against planets but orbital fortified stations as well. Fighters aren't the only thing that can dive bomb a planet, assault scouts could perform this as well. I've even consider letting firgates and destroyer by getting close to orbit, fire off a few shots and pull away before they even hit the atmosphere. Obviously the more ships you hit the planetary defenses with the greater chances of success. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
August 8, 2010 - 12:08am | I seen that show. To me, "God Rod" sounds like a euphemism used by the worlds worst narcissistic a*hole, who has a d!ck as big as his ego (or at least clam as much)! ...just saying. ;P |
August 8, 2010 - 6:30am | With enough mass and launched at a high speed, their impact would be along the lines of a nuclear bomb in magnitude. They could be launched from beyond the effective range of planetary defenses but at the cost of accuracy. But when your talking something that hits like an A-bomb, close is good enough. Note: Of course I'm not considering taking out hardened targets like individual defensive batteries with near misses, but cities, industrial centers, large swathes of cropland, and the like could be wiped out. Its generally called kinetic strike and the physics are the same for how the destruction happens. at the initial impact you get a shock wave that creates overpressure that radiate out from ground zero at a certain point the shock wave looses momentum and the vacuum that has been created at ground zero reverses the direction of the shock wave sucking it back in. This is where building come down and flying debris and glass shred things and the people who stood there staring at the mushroom cloud in awe wondering what it means or what they should do all die. those who thought to dive into a ditch, culvert, basement etc may survive. Dust will be thrown into the atmosphere and in large enough concentrates it could bring on an ice age. The big difference is the lack of a fire storm and the radiation. That is not to say that there wont be fires from disrupted utility lines and such. There will be a higher % of people who survive much closer to ground 0 than with a nuke. Many will have lacerations from glass and other debris. Some will be trapped in colapsed building- good luck to them getting out of that. Its thought that just dumping big rocks into a planet's gravity well will produce this too but certainly a god rod with its greater kinetic potential will make one hellacious crater and have a massive shock wave. But the wielders of the god rod will pat themselves on the back with how humane they are to have used this weapon. Adventure Idea: PCs are in city x for some reason when a kinetic strike hits. Fortuitously they are underground when the building above them colapses. They need to effect their own rescue, and get out the devestation and get to their ship that is somewhere else. During all of this the planetary government has capitulated and the benevelent storm troopers are being landed and starting to consolidate their control of the planet. Possibly you could complicate the PCs lives by having an NPC they must keep from the hands of the storm troopers- "I have your droids, I'm here to rescue you, I'm with Yaz-kenobie." I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 August 10, 2010 - 10:37am | I've given planetary assault a lot of thought and I think there are two very very important factors: 1) As many people pointed out, the attacker can anhilate the planet's surface from far away by dropping high speed and/or high mass objects on it. This would be very straightforward to do and there wouldn't be very much the defender could do about it. 2) As my brother pointed out to me, a planet can carry as many fighters as it wants. That statement is also true for any ship HS3 or smaller. That statement is also true even if we don't have giant batteries or planet launched missles or moon bases or whatever else, and we don't have to invent any new in game tech to make a planet very very heavily defended. Given those two conditions I think attacking a planet would have to work like this: Plan A) Bring the equipment to bombard the planet. Make sure the defenders know you have it and make them believe you have the will to use it. Convince them to surrender. Plan B) Blast the planet with "Rods from God" or asteroids or whatever. If plan A doesn't work, and you were bluffing about Plan B, you have plans C & D to fall back on. Plan C) Sabotage planetary defenses allowing your troops to land in relative saftey. You would pre-insert your agents months ahead of time, or you can try to HALO drop a bunch of commandos undetected. This would be a major undertaking because you may have to simultaneously strike dozens of locations planetwide to have the desired effect. Plan D) Assault the planet and take tremendous casualties. Each of these plans requires that you have a fleet capable of defeating however many fighters and scouts the planet can launch at you. And regardless of the teensy weensy 'militia' fleets described in Knighthawks, I see no reason a planet would not have dozens or hundreds of fighters to launch at you. They have the resources (and tax dollars) of the entire planet, and I presume they have a will to defend themselves. If you don't have this fleet, proceed directly to plan E. Plan E) Go home. |
August 10, 2010 - 11:20am | Regarding the original question: I'd largely agree with the KH rule that beams are ineffective against planets. I agree with your observation about using the same weapon without atmosphere it should go farther. I suggest that for simplicity the large planetary battery would have the same range (and diffusion) as the similar ship weapon if there is no atmosphere to diffuse it. I also think that could be done on an orbital weapon platform instead of a moon. By the same logic you could probably stick one on some kind of spaceship, maybe it could be a sathar super weapon like a mini death star. Some suggestions for planetary defense missles: 1) Systems equivalent to a rocket battery with only enough range to shoot targets within the atmosphere, these would be the last line of defense against incoming assault shuttles. 2) Ordinary torpedo with a booster rocket to get it out of the atmosphere. 3) A booster rocket that carries several torpedos. The torpedos can be targetted from a control station on the ground, or a computer on board launches them at the nearest ship. I think 5 incoming torpedos would ruin anybody's day. 4) A rocket booster that releases mines into orbit 5) A rocket that releases seeker missles into orbit 6) A HS5 super nuke, equivalent to a shatter drone. I think the goal of the torpedos would be to hit enemy transports before the shuttles can be launched, so range would have to be appropriate to that goal. How far away can you launch a shuttle from? Mines would make it extremely hazardous to get your shuttle to the planet. Launching a few shatter drones could possibly disrupt an entire fleet, but only if they're polite enough to fly in close order. In my opinion though, I think the biggest investment in planetary defense would be in a large contingent of fighters and other small ships that could be based on and launched from the planet. They could shoot down incoming shuttles just as well as missles and batteries could, but they could also be deployed to attack the enemy's fleet so he can't just bombard you from 3 AU's away. |
August 10, 2010 - 7:30pm | Fighters are expensive. Since the First Sathar War, most planets would be paying a good chunk of their defense budgets to the UPF for the upkeep of Space Fleet. I've always felt that a planet's best defense would be seeker missiles. They're cheaper then fighters and could be launched into orbit with a cheap booster - or better yet, assembled in an orbiting factory ship and deployed by a fleet of (conscripted) shuttles. (The need of a launcher for such a self contained weapon system is utterly ridiculous, IMHO, but if you must follow the rules then the factory ship has a launcher). Perhaps the best form of taking over a planet would be biological and chemical warfare triggered by sleeper agents. Concentrating strikes against defensive weak points could make a hole in the defensive net large enough to land an invasion army. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of
the strong. * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi |
August 10, 2010 - 8:05pm | I think the point of the original statement in the rules about shore batteries was that the KHs game was to be about ship to ship. The designers didn't want PCs to be able to hold a planet hostage from orbit as it changes the scope of a game. I like the idea of rocket batteries that can saturate waves of incoming shuttles . boosters are certainly possible and using them to deliver mines, torps and seekers is good Certainly waves of fighters and robotic drones is possible too the big trump that could prevent you from keeping the spirit of the rules is the "god rod" technology that is considered possible. I would think that nukes would be out lawed in the Frontier for the word go and anyone who used them would face the combine wrath of Space Fleet and all the local militias Would not the "god rod" also be declared illegal due to its near nuke like destructiveness? so with consequences being so huge for using it planetary assualt boils down to 'the hard way' In fact in the modern Frontier I think you'd end up with a treaty called the Dramune Protocol or the Laco Protocol, named for the first time a 'god rod' or asteroid was dropped on a planet and the protocol calls for massive and overwhelming response by Space Fleet. Its purpose is to reign in mega corps or pirate regimes that masquerade as legit planetary governments. Theres an adventure idea: someone is trying to get PGC blamed for using a planetary kinetic weapon (PKW- god rod or asteroid) PCs are the ones hired to do this or the PCs are trying to prevent it or figure out who did it. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 August 10, 2010 - 11:33pm | One fo the great things about Star Frontiers is that it was designed with the rules as "a general guideline" for running a campaign. This frees a referee to address most in-game situations logically. If we're talking planetary invasion with the PCs being involved as the attackers, if the ref wants to give the PCs a chance to invade (or threaten to invade) that's fine. Whatever firepower the PCs can get, the NPC defenders can match. Sort of like the tactics of a medieval castle seige. The attackers comes up with a method of attack; the defender comes up with a way to defeat or negate that attack. All in all, I personally don't see a group of PCs ever finding enough money, ships, and tech to threaten an entire planet... but if the referee has decided to allow a chance of that happening in his campaign, then the details are just...well, details really. There's always a way to attack, and most times, there's always a way to defend. My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
August 11, 2010 - 4:28pm | More of a situation where the PC would participate in either an invasion or defense. Can't see PC running the whole thing as they'd need to be a planetary leader or top fleet officer to run such a thing. Not unless it's some small colony world that wouldn't have much in the way of any major defenses, but then those would be more open to raids and no one is just going to bomb such a planet into submission. Why would they if there aren't any major defenses? Just land troops and fight them on the ground, which would still be a part of any planetary invasion. Just like in the Starship Trooper's novel the raid on the Skinnies city at the beginning, land PA and smash the area, then go in for a pick-up. But then most PC that have played the entire Volturnus have played that kind of planetary defense when the Sathar returned. In a bigger defense they just might be the fighter pilots trying to stop the enemy from landing troops or targeting defenses on the ground or in orbit, however you want to do this. Or if they're on the invading side they can be in the powered armor dropping down or flying the shuttle or even on a frigate giving close support fire. There are any number of things you can play this. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
August 11, 2010 - 8:47pm | I was just combing the rules for a half remembered reference and found this in zebs guide on the subject of planetary bombardment: timeline entry 83FY says that the sathar through agents stole a capellan sacred icon and the original copy of "Reflections of the Humble Servant" which is the difinative work of dral philosophy and that the populations form 2 Frontier worlds were forcibly evaced and moved with the above to OutPost #1 to ensure that Outpost 1 could not be taken by orbital bombardment. This suggest that orbital bombardment is not surgical and that it is devestating ie nukes or kinetic strikes. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
August 12, 2010 - 11:34am | Fighters are expensive. Since the First Sathar War, most planets would be paying a good chunk of their defense budgets to the UPF for the upkeep of Space Fleet. Size 1 Hull: 75,000 (worst case) Class A Engine: 400,000 (worst case) AR Launcher: 20,000 estimate 200,000 for everything else (which is probably too much) Say about 700,000 total. Is that about right? It's hard to know what the value of a credit really is, but based on the value of unskilled labor being 20cr/day or 2cr/hour, that puts it close to the federal minimum wage in 1975. And based on the cost of equipment and the time period when this was written, 1975 dollars might be a good frame of reference. According to this site: http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ 700,000 in 1975 dollars would be something between 3 and 6 million in todays dollars. Compare that to an F-16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon) which is $26 million in 2009 dollars, and Lockheed manufactured 4400 of them. So the point of my ranty rant is that while Star Frontiers fighters are expensive for individual player characters, they are extremely cheap for a government. Even with their contributions to starfleet I think that planets could afford a few hundred fighters to defend themselves with. All that said, I do think a flood of seeker missiles would discourage anybody from getting too close to you. It might be a different discussion, but I wonder how much programmability a seeker missile could have. Like if you knew an enemy fleet was inbound on a certain course, could you have seekers accelerate to 10 hexes/turn and just coast towards the enemy then go active when they get to a certain range. Basically I'd want to deploy them like a cruise missile. |
August 12, 2010 - 4:25pm | Size 1 Hull: 75,000 (worst case) Class A Engine: 400,000 (worst case) AR Launcher: 20,000 estimate 200,000 for everything else (which is probably too much) Say about 700,000 total. Is that about right? Nope, as you only listed the core components, and you listed the cost for two different Centers. They would only be built at Class I and II Centers, as Class III Centers don't make atomic engines or military craft. After some number crunching, I found that each Fighter with all the necessary equipment (sensors, computers, ammo, and such) cost between 800,000 to 900,000 credits (numbers are rounded-up; the first number is from a C-1 center, while the second number is from a C-2 center). They are somewhat pricey, but it sounds right for military attack craft. |
August 12, 2010 - 7:17pm | You are both forgetting the premium attached for military technology, that extra knowledge that gives a fighter the ability to ignore the build rules and keep all of its ADF and MR as well as 3 extra hull points. (Fighters do have 8, right?) This technology could easily double or triple the cost of a fighter. Plus you need to train and retain quality pilots, not an easy task considering the canon rules prerequisites. Any way you slice it, fighters are way more expensive then seekers. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of
the strong. * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi |
August 12, 2010 - 8:26pm | That would require following the rules, and I find that I get nowhere doing that, so I find its best to just ignore them. |
August 12, 2010 - 8:56pm | Talking about planetary invasion, I'm wondering about the Earth's 'defense shield' in the 1980-ish t.v. version of Buck Rogers in the XXV'th Century. What kind of brain scratching tech, not to mention massive power source, would you need for a combination Albedo/Inertia screen that envelopes an entire world? It would pretty much squelch any PC intentions of invading planets certainly, but would ruin the good fun of blockade running scenarios.  My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
August 13, 2010 - 8:34am | This technology could easily double or triple the cost of a fighter. Plus you need to train and retain quality pilots, not an easy task considering the canon rules prerequisites. That's true, but even if a fighter is 2 or 3 times more expensive than that, or even if it's 4 times more expensive than that, all that does is move it from being cheaper than a modern jet fighter to being on par with one. And there have to be tens of thousands of those on Earth. Which makes a few hundred to defend the planet with a small investment. Training combat pilots does take years. But you could do it. Any way you slice it, fighters are way more expensive then seekers. Sure, but modern fighters are also more expensive than modern cruise missiles. We still use both. |
 August 13, 2010 - 5:14pm | Item number 1 "Fighters are expensive" US Budget 1975 According to "Federal Reserve Archival System For Economic Research" 238,721,965,000 Dollars. US Population in 1975 According to peoplemaster.com (the Census Bureau is to hard to navigate on the web) 215,973,000 people or About 1105.33 Dollars Per Person Assume a similer Tax System for say... umm White Light with a population in the tens of millions "Warriors of White Light" Just for Giggles lets call it 1 credit is 1 dollar and an even 50 million people, using the same ratio that would be 55 billion 266 million 622 thousand 448.17 or $55,266,622,448.17$ OK So I think they could afford as many fighters as they need to defend thier Star System. How many Seeker missiles and Minefields do you want? Yes Ships are Expensive FOR PLAYERS, but players don't generally need to defend a whole planet or Star System; Governments do. If they only use 10 percent of thier budget for military purposes thats still 5.5 billion. No Bake sales for B-52s Here. As to giving most of the military budget to the UPF: Considering the dinky little UPF Fleet... I hardly think they Give that much to the UPF for Frontier defense and Star Law, IF White light does.. they must be it's biggest contributer, Or nobody else is giving very much at all. Wich I find Hard to believe. Or Somebody in the UPF is syphoning the money away. Seriously The Whole UPF should have a Fleet at least double its size as described in KH rules. Maybe there are Treaties gonverning the sizes of Militia, Even then, I doubt any self respecting government would be without a good compliment of fighters. The point is even if fighters cost 20 million each; with the resources of a Planet at thier disposal it is not far fetched that they could put a hundred or so fighters into space if someone tries to bombard the planet into submission. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
August 13, 2010 - 7:02pm | Yeah, fleet size also annoys me to. Frigates should be escorted by Assault Scouts; Light Cruisers, Assault Carriers and Mine Layers should be escorted by Destroyers; and Capital Ships (Heavy Cruisers and Battleships) should be escorted by Light Cruisers. There are no enough ships to form combat elements. Hell, they don't even list logistical ships (like medical ships and the like) beyond Assault Transports - even an advanced fleet like the UFP needs logistical ships to keep things running smoothly. Now that I think of it, I remember not seeing much about fighters when writing up the Clarion Royal Marines on the SF Wiki. Major space stations should have fighters to beef-up defense. |
August 13, 2010 - 7:22pm | Adamm, obviously you want to defend your planets with fighters, that is your choice for your SF universe. Just don't ignore what is going on even within our own military today. Remote drones (i.e. robots) are slowly taking over the job that used to belong to manned aircraft. Why? They're cheaper, can be operated by less trained personnel, and don't put a living being in harms way. Manned fighters will probably be around for the next 50 years simply due to inertia, even though they will be obsolete within the next 20. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of
the strong. * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi |
August 13, 2010 - 7:26pm | I just wanted to pop-in and say I love that Wikia-fu that you do, do. :-) I'm typing up a classified for it as you read this post. Anything you want to add? Send to Submissions@StarFrontiersman.com |
August 13, 2010 - 7:28pm | And with outdated manned fighters don't forget that outdated phrase "man up". It's now "robot up". Shizzel my nizzel home slice!  |
August 13, 2010 - 8:40pm | I really dont care if the fighters are manned or unmanned. The point remains the same Governments have far more resources than individuals. I assume they also would have Anti-Shipping Rockets of some kind that pack as much of a wallop as a KH Torpedo even if it has to be bigger to escape atmosphere Something comparable to the Powewr of a KH torp and or a Titan IV. And I also think that they would Have Large beam weapons to fire at ships. Seeker missiles, you bet! Orbital Defense platforms of some kind? Sure. A Modern (for SF) highly trained Ground Defense Force (Army) Absolutly. Assaulting a Planet with troops is not something to take lightly. Attacking a planet might be like peeling an onion stripping away all the outer defenses and then getting in for the assault. Or like Smashing the onion with a Sledge Hammer (orbital Bombardment as mentioned in several posts previous) It depends on what the attacker wants, subjegate or destroy. It apears that the Sathar have always invaded and caused great damage in doing so. In any case If I were the defender, I would want to destroy the invader as far from home as possable. Others may want to invite him in for an up close and personal ground fight. It depends on where you think you have the best chance to win. On a small colony of less than 10,000 populaion it might be best to run away and wait for the spacefleet to arrive and drive the bad guys away. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
August 14, 2010 - 4:43pm | Yes, very good points Dmoffet. It would be preffered to destroy an enemy fleet or at the very least rob it of most of it's striking power before it gets into a position to threaten the planet. I don't think the game designers ever really put as much thought into how large of a fleet would be needed by both sides in this task, it would most likely be a fleet bigger than the KH game presents. Probably a ring of smaller stations armed to the teeth with as many weapons as can be mounted as well, mostly automated to cut down on costs. A automated gunsat doesn't need lifesupport after all. We could go nuts expanding the SF KH game with all the things we could as into it, and fleet sizes would just grow when you think about it. I mean if you intend to land troops and 1 HS 10 troop transport only carrys 1000 troops ( it does not specify if these are normal or powered armored troops) you are going to need more than 10 troop transports to put a respectable number of troops on the ground to take a planet. So just think of how many destroyers and frigates you'll need to escort and protect them and how many ships a planet will need to stop such a fleet. The numbers start getting very big, much bigger than the number of ships the KH game has counters for. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
