Build a Fleet!

SWM wrote:So Oyster Bay has nothing at all to do with attacking a factory on a planet. Under the Eridani Edict, orbital bombardment onto on a planet is allowed ONLY IF:
1) the attacker controls near space
2) the attacker can land troops on the planet
3) the defender has no hope of relief from nearby forces
4) the defender must have refused to surrender when asked.
5) the target must be purely military target, with a limited definition requiring it to have immediate, tactical applications and capabilities
6) the attack must be of targeted measured force which does not give the appearance of deliberately causing more civilian casualties than necessary.

Well summed up. Points 1 and 2 are relevant to where my premise stands - that if a planet develops sufficient ground-to-space weaponry(eg. 10,000 dispersed MDM launchers) to interdict its nearspace and shoot down any attempted troop landings, the Edict will be broken, not fit for purpose anymore.

An attacker who wishes to compel surrender will be forced to violate the Edict in order to gain control of that planet's orbits and land troops.

If equivalent CM and PD installions are added, the attacker ends up stuck between the options of saturation bombardment or imposing a long-distance blockade beyond range of the planet's missiles(which may be a long distance indeed, if the defenders develop Apollo and are able to use ballistic flight phases).

SWM wrote:The comparison to Operation Oyster Bay does not hold. Oyster Bay was a completely different situation. First of all, the targets were orbital facilities, not planetary facilities. The only restriction the Eridani Edict has on targeting orbital facilities is that it cannot deliberately endanger people on the planet. The Eridani Edict says NOTHING about attacking orbital facilities.

Second, the orbital facilities attacked in Oyster Bay were not merely civilian or manufacturing facilities. They also had navy ships docked at them, which made them legitimate military targets even under the restricted rules of the Eridani Edict, if the Edict applied to orbital facilities.

Third, Oyster Bay was not conducted by an attacker who controlled near space. Under the Eridani Edict, attacks on a planet from orbit are not permitted under any circumstances if you do not control near space--but attacks on orbital facilities are permitted.

Lucky there wasn't a large city or two on the planet that was obliterated by this. Oh, wait...

kzt wrote:

SWM wrote:The comparison to Operation Oyster Bay does not hold. Oyster Bay was a completely different situation. First of all, the targets were orbital facilities, not planetary facilities. The only restriction the Eridani Edict has on targeting orbital facilities is that it cannot deliberately endanger people on the planet. The Eridani Edict says NOTHING about attacking orbital facilities.

Second, the orbital facilities attacked in Oyster Bay were not merely civilian or manufacturing facilities. They also had navy ships docked at them, which made them legitimate military targets even under the restricted rules of the Eridani Edict, if the Edict applied to orbital facilities.

Third, Oyster Bay was not conducted by an attacker who controlled near space. Under the Eridani Edict, attacks on a planet from orbit are not permitted under any circumstances if you do not control near space--but attacks on orbital facilities are permitted.

Lucky there wasn't a large city or two on the planet that was obliterated by this. Oh, wait...

And David explained why that is not an Eridani Edict violation. But, again, that has nothing to do with an orbital strike targeting an undefended factory on a planet.

munroburton wrote:

SWM wrote:So Oyster Bay has nothing at all to do with attacking a factory on a planet. Under the Eridani Edict, orbital bombardment onto on a planet is allowed ONLY IF:
1) the attacker controls near space
2) the attacker can land troops on the planet
3) the defender has no hope of relief from nearby forces
4) the defender must have refused to surrender when asked.
5) the target must be purely military target, with a limited definition requiring it to have immediate, tactical applications and capabilities
6) the attack must be of targeted measured force which does not give the appearance of deliberately causing more civilian casualties than necessary.

Well summed up. Points 1 and 2 are relevant to where my premise stands - that if a planet develops sufficient ground-to-space weaponry(eg. 10,000 dispersed MDM launchers) to interdict its nearspace and shoot down any attempted troop landings, the Edict will be broken, not fit for purpose anymore.

An attacker who wishes to compel surrender will be forced to violate the Edict in order to gain control of that planet's orbits and land troops.

If equivalent CM and PD installions are added, the attacker ends up stuck between the options of saturation bombardment or imposing a long-distance blockade beyond range of the planet's missiles(which may be a long distance indeed, if the defenders develop Apollo and are able to use ballistic flight phases).

No, I don't think the attacker would have to violate the Edict. I believe there is one other situation in which a ship can fire upon a planet--I am certain that if a ship is fired upon by a ground-based launcher, the ship is permitted to return fire, whether or not they control near space, without violating the Edict. David has never explicitly stated this, but the ability of a ship to return fire in any situation is implied in other text and infodumps.

Maybe we go a Little bit back to the Topic!

My questions is, why even think BIGGER?

Battleships and normal Dreadnoughts are no longer in use in a batlle wall, because they are to weak for it, could not survive Long enough and have not enough firepower like the now used Superdreads!

So, why not create ships that are even bigger than Superdreads? An, just call it "Ultra Dreadnought", with the double mass of a Superdread would need in my eyes less than the manpower as two Superdreads! I think maschines with the double power wouldn´t have the double size, so, in the end, you save Manpower and space and can use it for more armor and more weapons to make the newest "big one" much better than the wallers before!

Maldorian wrote:So, why not create ships that are even bigger than Superdreads? An, just call it "Ultra Dreadnought", ...

As long as Impeller Drive is needed to get respectable acceleration, Warships are limited to around nine or ten Megatons. (Merchant ships can go a bit bigger because the don't need very high accelerations; but even they are limited to around twelve megatons unless they're willing to accept acceleration of 100G or less.)

Maldorian wrote:Maybe we go a Little bit back to the Topic!

My questions is, why even think BIGGER?

Battleships and normal Dreadnoughts are no longer in use in a batlle wall, because they are to weak for it, could not survive Long enough and have not enough firepower like the now used Superdreads!

So, why not create ships that are even bigger than Superdreads? An, just call it "Ultra Dreadnought", with the double mass of a Superdread would need in my eyes less than the manpower as two Superdreads! I think maschines with the double power wouldn´t have the double size, so, in the end, you save Manpower and space and can use it for more armor and more weapons to make the newest "big one" much better than the wallers before!

Because speed drops drastically. There are also several logistical issues with making ever larger ship types.

What certain people talking about massive fleets are forgetting is that super-dreadnoughts cost money. There's not much point of increasing your military manpower if you can't afford the ships you have the theoretical capability to man. Remember that at the beginning of the second Havanite war, the Manties were literally building as many super-dreadnoughts as they could afford simultaneously, not as many as they could physically man. And they have the highest GSP per capita and most efficient shipbuilding industry in the setting.

Weird Harold wrote:
We apparently have different ideas of what constitutes a "proper defense." You seem to be advocating a "Force Projection" navy -- AKA a Conquistador Fleet. I don't propose to create an offensive force and do acknowledge the prior existence of a Nodal MDF force (and have made provisions in my force structure to participate if invited.)

What part of MUTUAL do you have problems with?


You don't have to create an offensive force to have a proper defensive fleet. Not having many hyper capable units seems like a serious weakness, you are basically hoping that someone will come and rescue you because there is little you can do without uncovering all of your other systems which are weak to begin with. Unless your 20 systems are a backwards bunch that have limited potential and are not really a target for anyone you wont be able to get away with this because you will be defeated in detail.

Someone shows up with a SD squadron or two with BB/BC support,LAC and Screen and your defenses will eventually succumb and you will end up with no means to retake your system nor would you be able to reinforce the rest of your systems.

Weird Harold wrote:


The Ship types I specified are capable of standing up to a 1922 vintage GA SD(p) for a total hyper-capable defense against up to 20 SDs if given a chance to consolidate forces in a single system -- especially when backed by the Spider-LACs and Huacha superpods of the defending system.

Great, IF given a chance to consolidate which would leave the other 19 or so systems nearly completely defenseless. Your strategy would mean that you can concentrate all your forces to defend one system while they take everything else and all you will have is a system with mediocre defences awaiting someone else to come and free them.

Weird Harold wrote:


IOW, I have no intention of invading anyone, and the primary defense of member systems is non-hyper-capable Spider-LACs and Huacha superpods.

That may not depend on you, the purpose of your military is to defend your systems and to take the fight to an enemy should they decide to attack you. You are basically having a light anti-piracy force that will be cut to shreds with a modest attack force and if one or more systems should fall there would be no recourse but to beg the GA or its successor for help.

Weird Harold wrote:
I did specify that the Renaissance Factor might become a concern in the future, and if they do become a threat, the strategic assumptions will change and the force structure will change with them. Likewise, the MDF Node will probably change with changing Strategic assumptions, and the available level of assistance against aggression will change my assessment of whether I need something with more offensive punch than a BCL(p) loaded with Apollo equivalents for my in-house QRF.

That seems a dangerous assumption, something like the UK’s 10 year rule, what if you don't have years to build up a wall of battle? Where would you go to get the ships of the wall if others have the same idea as you?

Sigs wrote:Someone shows up with a SD squadron or two with BB/BC support,LAC and Screen and your defenses will eventually succumb and you will end up with no means to retake your system nor would you be able to reinforce the rest of your systems.

Who would show up with a squadron of SDs?

My initial strategic assessment was that the only SDs in the sector belong to the Nodal MDF. Are you suggesting that I should be concerned about the MDF turning Conquistador?

An unstated assumption is that I have a competent ONI and other intelligence assets. I assume that I will have adequate warning of any neighbors building SDs to re-evaluate and build or buy sufficient additional strength.

Sigs wrote:Great, IF given a chance to consolidate which would leave the other 19 or so systems nearly completely defenseless. Your strategy would mean that you can concentrate all your forces to defend one system while they take everything else and all you will have is a system with mediocre defences awaiting someone else to come and free them.

You are quick to discount the non-hyper assets as worthless. ONE Huacha Super-pod can launch and control 1000 FTL controlled SD-MDM; there are more than one Huacha in each system.

I didn't specify how many Spider-LACs were in each system; I did specify that each S-LAC had the sensor return of a grain of sand and that they are armed with Mk16G equivalents (capital-weight warheads on a cruiser-weight missile.)

Anyone attempting to conquer one of my systems had better bring his whole Navy and I won't NEED to call in reinforcements until he does. A competent ONI and other intelligence assets will let me know as soon as anyone with a Navy big enough to worry about is feeling aggressive.

Sigs wrote:That seems a dangerous assumption, something like the UK’s 10 year rule, what if you don't have years to build up a wall of battle? Where would you go to get the ships of the wall if others have the same idea as you?

If others have the same idea as me, I have nothing to worry about -- I have no Conquistador aspirations so someone with the same ideas wouldn't either. I don't need more force projection than is required to deal with a pirates nest or slaver depot -- whether unilaterally or as a component of the Nodal MDF.

Believing there is going to be an MDF is utopian panacea. For such a force to be present, you have to believe that the entire galaxy knuckles under and kowtows to Manticore/Haven/GA.

Yea, that is not going to happen.