> From: [email removed] (Bertil Jonell)
> Subject: (2575) Re: Planetary Invasions Revisited
>> From: "Robert S. Dean" [email removed]
>> Subject: (2555) Planetary Invasions Revisited
>> Dogfight Phase: I think that this would be the phase of deci-
>> sion, and that it would be quite possible for the defender to win
>> here. I phrased my suggestion the other way, so I could offer an
>> opinion on the 'mop up'. I do think that it would make more
>> sense for the defender to put everything that will fly into the
>> air as early as possible, because I think that the pace of opera-
>> tions will make any imbalance grow rapidly.
> It depends on if we are using modern air-war as the analogy or
> if we compare the orbiting ships to modern artillery, and the
> grav-crafts to modern ground forces. It makes sense for the
> defender to stay under cover as long as the attacker is out of
> range of their weapons. I also have my doubts about the effec-
> tiveness of small grav-crafts when used against naval vessels.
> Pounding on the big ships are the tasks of the SDBs, the meson
> pits and the other space defence installations. The purpose of
> the grav-crafts and other small crafts is to engage the attackers
> small crafts and grav-crafts when they appear in the atmosphere.
> As for why the attacker would risk his small crafts before the
> defender is totally neutralized, I can only offer two reasons:
> o They would want the war over with within a resonable time-
> frame (To begin invading the next world presumably)
> o It is hard to determine *if* the defender is neutralized
> unless he is forced to react to something the attacker does.
Well, in my initial post on this subject I was assuming that the
heavy planetary defenses, meson gun sites and what have you, would
be the main reason that you wouldn't leave your fleet hanging in an
orbit within firing range of the ground. Instead, you'd send in the
troops and small craft to either force the defenders to respond (and
be destroyed when identified) or track them down and destroy them
one at a time. Since I figured that the attacker would _not_ have the
substantial orbitting fire support in the early phases of the operation,
so as to keep them from being decimated by the meson guns, I felt that
it would be to the defenders advantage to come up and fight.
>> Mop-Up: Are we agreed that infantry would only be used for
>> 'low intensity' portions of the operations? And that ground
>> forces would be devastatingly outmaneuevered? (Making the TL12-
>> 13 tracked tanks in 101 Vehicles a little silly...)
> Hmm, I tend to include grav-tanks and lift infantry in 'ground
> forces'. If we assume that it is easier to aquire a target in
> free air than one hugging the ground it would be possible to have
> something looking like ground combat: Both the attackers and the
> defenders grav forces can't use their entire potential because if
> they ventured too high, they would be blown away. The defender by
> the attackers orbiting ships, and the attacker by the defenders
> space defence lasers installed on every roof.
> [Gives a whole new dimension to 'Home defence':)]
See above on orbitting attackers prior to neutralization of the heavy
defenses. Maybe it would be profitable to think of these things for a
moment as 16" coast artillery, helicopters and helicopter carriers...
I am not including grav equipped forces in with the 'ground' troops
unless they are dismounted infantry. I only mention 'pure' ground
troops at all because of the existence of TL12+ tracked tank designs
in the <somewhat less than adequate> 101 Vehicles book from DGP. If you
are willing to go even a little above NOE you can still get around pretty
fast and therefore avoid having the enemy concentrate against you with
superior mobility to defeat you in detail.
> From: Cynthia Higginbotham [email removed]
> Subject: (2578) more from Steve
> Re: tried and true vs. "modern" stuff.
> BTW, to digress (AGAIN?!?), how many of you have noticed that the
> history of the Darrian people, as published in the Darrian mod-
> ule, makes no sense at all? The assumption that the TL16 star-
> ships of the Darrians lasted 2000 years is ludicrous. There are
> rules for TL16 ships, and longevity is not mentioned. Therefore
> the Darrian TL16 squadrons were built in the present era, and
> Darrian has been a FUNCTIONALLY TL16 culture for centuries, at
> least...
I hate to be an apologist for the rules, because I think that
some really stupid things have been done over the years, but Darrians
was produced before the MegaTraveller rules, with the first ever TL16+
design information available to us, was on the market. As a result,
it doesn't have, uh, total forward compatibility. TL16 was *magic* in
the good old days, much like we'd think of TL21 as we play the game
now...
Steve H.
(and the kibitzer kibitzed on...)