LibriumArcana.Games

This is a simple thread topic, that can be answered any way you like. The only rules are self-consistency. How would you conduct a space war? What ships would you have? What weapons systems? What would be the strategic doctrine? Big ships vs plenty of small ships? Fighters vs missiles?

Handwavium or 'realism'? Would your warships be 'battleships in space' or 'aircraft carriers in space' or 'submarines in space' or what?

I don't think I could limit myself to a single style, to be honest. It would depend on the style of storyline.

For example, for my old Seljuk anime game, the primary means of travel was large jumpgates, with only explorer ships and large capital ships being able to generate their own jump points. (A time consuming process, to boot, whereas jumpgates operated pretty much instantaneously.)

So there was the standard paradigm of jumpgates being vital strategic turf, yet also generally inviolate except under dire circumstances. This gave a fixed location in most systems definitely worth concentrating force at and fighting for. The primary ships of war were the large cap ships, utilizing beam weapons. Being an anime game, the technical details were of course rather wonky and unscientific, but fun.

Going for a more realistic feel, space is so large that battles would be an incredible rarity. The prime objective of space fleets would be planetary defense and invasion, and most likely the primary conflict would be in the dection and ECM department, as the intruding fleet attempts to maintain secrecy about its insertion point as long as possible, in order to get the maximum amount of transport through.

Hmm...

I'd have it on a long range (interplanetary) with lots of Modern Naval/Submarine type warfare.

Ships would be about the same size as Star Destroyers via defenition.

I suppose it really depends on the setting, but how would a space invasion take place?

If you have a planet that has a couple thousand, or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people, an invasion isn't so hard to grasp. But what happens when you have a planetary metropolis with billions of people on it, like Coruscant (yes I know it's actually trillions, whatever)?

You would need an Army of millions of frontline soldiers, to say nothing of the extraordinary logistics required to move that many people. It seems to me to be problematic.

So, I figure you either have orbital bombardment with nuclear weapons to 'soften up' the surface defenders, or you just not invade. You stick to 'raids' or 'limited conflict' or whatever you want to call it; short-term actions where your troops have a very specific task in mind and carry it out, and once their deployment is done they head back to the assault landers and vamoose. Orbital habitats like O'Neil Colonies (think Babylon 5 with more people. Like, a LOT more people) would be particularly vulnerable. I favour a similar outcome as almost happened in the classic B5 episode "Severed Dreams" where at one crucial point, B5 is more or less rendered defeated due to overwhelming enemy numbers, and rather than make a fight of it Sheridan almost surrenders - this is pure conjecture of course, as Delenn appeared in the nick o' time to save the day - I have to think this is the most realistic outcome. If all your habitat is is a rotating kilometers-long cylinder, with millions of people living on it, I doubt you'd resist for long till you realised that the enemy is fine with simply opening up your tin can to space.

So I guess the question becomes, would that be the result? Would Space War favour massive casualties (to our minds; afterall, we consider a million deaths to be unacceptable in a war, but we have different standards and values today than we did a hundred years ago; perhaps it's a cultural thing?) or would it involve limited conflict to the point where war is something akin to surgery - to target bad sectors and send in the right dose of troops to eradicate the threat, but not enough to completely change the 'patient' to take the analogy to its end.

Thoughts?

Warfare tends to travel in cycles like that. We have a nasty one like WWII, where civilians and infrastructure are fair game, then we tend to drift back toward keeping it between the professionals, before somebody goes and breaks the rules and targets the civvies again.

Planetary occupation is nigh-impossible without absurdly huge numbers of troops, and even then a guerilla movement could bog things down for decades or longer. However, occupation of key points of infrastructure and vital targets is entirely doable. (Think Vietnam or Afghanistan, where first-world forces held the vital points, and the countryside was controlled by whoever had boots on the ground in a given area at a given time.)

(Enter FM on the topic of planetary occupation. *grins* We were just slinging that around AIM a short while ago.)

FM also made a good point about the maneuver characteristics and sensor capabilties of space vessels being the critical factor. After all, fleet massing and large battles is far more possible in a setting like Star Wars, where consolidated fleets can obviously mass and strike at targets across the galaxy, literally in a matter of hours.

On the issue of ground combat, Mechs and Seige vehicles would prove quite useful in quelling resistance from the native civillian populace, since there's bound to be a riot-version, one that uses stun and nonlethal weaponry in a bid to actually keep the planetary populace alive.

Dakarne wrote:On the issue of ground combat, Mechs and Seige vehicles would prove quite useful in quelling resistance from the native civillian populace, since there's bound to be a riot-version, one that uses stun and nonlethal weaponry in a bid to actually keep the planetary populace alive.

The overly complex systems needed for a mech, would be easy for insurgency forces to target. As well as the limited ground contact and balance would be subseptable to mines and kenitic weapons. Sorry, mechs 'look cool' but are really a liability.


Seige weapons depend on a central defensive postion too, devisify you pos and you overlaping supporting weapons and a 'seige' weapon becomes useless.

On the issue of ground combat, Mechs and Seige vehicles would prove quite useful in quelling resistance from the native civillian populace,

BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Excuse me, I needed the laugh. Kid, a seige weapon is going to be worthless for a anti-gureillia campaign. Be has worthwhile has using tanks in Manhatten. Not to mention they just do the same thing the VC did to tanks in Vietnam, be elsewhere and hit them when they're parked. About has useful has a expenisive armed paperwieght in this situation.

They're not going to line up in neat lines for you and the real guriellas won't engage in riots, they'll just start them and walk away. Naw they'll just bomb the bars your troops relax in and slap mines on the legs of your pretty walking boondoggles.

I'm not opposed to using Mechs in Sci-Fi mind but seriously in real lifeish situation like I'm assuming Stosk wants? Mecha is has useful has a 3rd leg and more expensive. A mecha has more moving parts per square pound, less armor possible and a higher Silhouette than any other known designed even if you make it a low six legger (fuck that makes the moving parts problem worst!) Just stick to a tank, it might not be pretty but it will still be here after the shooting done.

If you want to fight gureillias, insurgents, terrorist and bandits and what not. You need infantry troops good and fast ones. Why? Cause the good gureillas go to where your armor cannot or will not follow. Swamps, jungles, hills any place where a single man can go where nothing bigger can follow. Then they start bleeding ya slow and proving to others they can hurt you fgaining support nice and slow and not just active support, the wide spread passive support of the Poles made resistence against the Nazis a winning situation for the men and women of the Home Army.

In short you picked the worst gear possible for the situation man. I mean that from the bottom of my cold twisted heart.

I can see tanks being useful in an urban-insurgency environment. Out in the jungle, swamplands or mountainous terrain they're going to be worthless, but in already-paved roads I can see tanks being a valuable asset. And they're always great when the squad comes under attack by a sniper. You still need infantry to hunt down those pesky gurillas when they go hide in orphanages and hospitals. It's bad PR to have the tank open fire on those places. (you could argue that it's bad PR to have troops storm those areas as well, but who the hell cares?)

I don't know why tanks get such a bad rep. Honest to god, mechs just look STUPID, and that's leaving aside all the technical difficulties inherent in the design.

As far as a space war is concerned, there are a few things I can say. FOr one, stealth and detection are paramount. If we are concerning ourselves with realism at all, then so much as one weapon puncturing your hull is lethal to the ship, especially when thermonuclear warheads are involved.

The key is stealth, and increasing one's own sensor range. Sensors essentially being limited to lightspeed transmittance such as radio telescopes and light telescopes and infared sensors for passive stuff, and radar for active sensors.

Increasing one's own sensor range, and the length of one's arem without giving away one's position with an active scan would be done with armed manned or unmanned fighter drones armed with projectile weapons and thermonuclear devices.

SHipboard weapons would be projectile weapons, and some sort of magnetically accelerated torpedoe. Defenses could consist of a stealthy design, reactive armor and point defense weapons.

I can see tanks being useful in an urban-insurgency environment. Out in the jungle, swamplands or mountainous terrain they're going to be worthless, but in already-paved roads I can see tanks being a valuable asset. And they're always great when the squad comes under attack by a sniper. You still need infantry to hunt down those pesky gurillas when they go hide in orphanages and hospitals. It's bad PR to have the tank open fire on those places. (you could argue that it's bad PR to have troops storm those areas as well, but who the hell cares?)

Sir I will freely grant you the usefulness of tanks in an urban enviroment, but not siege guns(yes I know you're not agruing for seige guns I'm just saying), there's a big difference there. Course one should note using tanks in a city is like using a sledge hammer around eggs. Alot of crap is gonna get broken. Sometimes that's a great thing, sometimes not. Also Mao pointed out that in a sucessful campaign you don't attack cities until all the countryside is with you. So by that point...

Stofsk wrote:I can see tanks being useful in an urban-insurgency environment. Out in the jungle, swamplands or mountainous terrain they're going to be worthless, but in already-paved roads I can see tanks being a valuable asset. And they're always great when the squad comes under attack by a sniper. You still need infantry to hunt down those pesky gurillas when they go hide in orphanages and hospitals. It's bad PR to have the tank open fire on those places. (you could argue that it's bad PR to have troops storm those areas as well, but who the hell cares?)

I don't know why tanks get such a bad rep. Honest to god, mechs just look STUPID, and that's leaving aside all the technical difficulties inherent in the design.

Even if you give mechs paridy with tanks *giggles* they'll still have the same limitations as tanks. Dense urban area's are a perfect place to destroy tank formations, the tanks and/or mechs would still have to rely on infantry to provide anti-antitank support.

For holding a planet, I'd simply go "fuck the countryside" and hold the key points. Burn away everything within a couple mile radius, and only patrol in force. Make them come to you, and slaughter them on their way in.

The Cleric wrote:For holding a planet, I'd simply go "fuck the countryside" and hold the key points. Burn away everything within a couple mile radius, and only patrol in force. Make them come to you, and slaughter them on their way in.

And that'll work on the short term. But if you're looking for long-term assimilation of a culture, you have to actually be able to move among the populace.

Petrosjko wrote:

The Cleric wrote:For holding a planet, I'd simply go "fuck the countryside" and hold the key points. Burn away everything within a couple mile radius, and only patrol in force. Make them come to you, and slaughter them on their way in.

And that'll work on the short term. But if you're looking for long-term assimilation of a culture, you have to actually be able to move among the populace.

True. I prefer "re-education" for that one though .

For space combat, I would want massive carrier class starships capable of deploying hundreds or thousands of heavily armed, heavily shielded fighters. Fighters would be small, manueverable and designed to engage enemy fighters and function as bombers to attack enemy capital ships. And the carriers themselves would bristle with heavy guns and a huge defense net for incoming enemy fighters.

As to conquering plantary targets, my goal would be to simply replace the government and it's leaders. Obliterate ground resistance from orbit. I'd probably go for the ruthless tactic. The first few targets you assault will naturally organize resistance groups. I'd go for sacrificing the first few planets, laying waste to the entire surface if need be, proving when my forces say "Unconditional surrender or die", they mean it.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:As far as a space war is concerned, there are a few things I can say. FOr one, stealth and detection are paramount. If we are concerning ourselves with realism at all, then so much as one weapon puncturing your hull is lethal to the ship, especially when thermonuclear warheads are involved.

The key is stealth, and increasing one's own sensor range. Sensors essentially being limited to lightspeed transmittance such as radio telescopes and light telescopes and infared sensors for passive stuff, and radar for active sensors.

Increasing one's own sensor range, and the length of one's arem without giving away one's position with an active scan would be done with armed manned or unmanned fighter drones armed with projectile weapons and thermonuclear devices.

SHipboard weapons would be projectile weapons, and some sort of magnetically accelerated torpedoe. Defenses could consist of a stealthy design, reactive armor and point defense weapons.

I'm going off the most realistic FUN Sci-fi universe I know, Alastair Reynolds work.

One hit is not going to kill you, it might cripple, but any real warship is redundent to hell and back, it will be able to survive some hits.

Sensors and stealth, both very paramount, controlling your engine wash from enemy sensors is critical.

Also, I'd split combat, combat inside a solar system is primarily conducted by small 100 meter tops corvettes, while between light system combat...thats invented on the way, actully Redemption Ark has some very fine ideas.

Yeah, but if your ship is detected before you detect them, you are fucked. Because you will take multiple hits.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Yeah, but if your ship is detected before you detect them, you are fucked. Because you will take multiple hits.

That's true of modern day warfighting. Scouting for the enemy is highly important.

Stofsk wrote:

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Yeah, but if your ship is detected before you detect them, you are fucked. Because you will take multiple hits.

That's true of modern day warfighting. Scouting for the enemy is highly important.

I suppose a good tactic would be to have your ships painted jet black, perhaps spotted with fake stars along it's hull as a method of impairing visual detection.

Robert Walper wrote:

Stofsk wrote:

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Yeah, but if your ship is detected before you detect them, you are fucked. Because you will take multiple hits.

That's true of modern day warfighting. Scouting for the enemy is highly important.

I suppose a good tactic would be to have your ships painted jet black, perhaps spotted with fake stars along it's hull as a method of impairing visual detection.

Detectable if your enemy has so much as a light based telescope for a passive sensor

That won't help Rob, because your ship puts out a lot of emissions anyway. Heat, radiation, and so on. Stealth will come from controlling your ship's emissions, however you do that. (Handwavium)

I doubt deep space encounters will be at all that common, so I reckon fights will take place in orbit of planets you want to grab or raid, or other targets, like hiding in the upper atmosphere of a gas giant in wait for anyone who comes skimming for hydrogen, or flying around the asteroid belts/planetary rings and using the rocks as a form of cover (if they're dense like Saturn's rings of course).

Comrade Tortoise wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:

Stofsk wrote: That's true of modern day warfighting. Scouting for the enemy is highly important.

I suppose a good tactic would be to have your ships painted jet black, perhaps spotted with fake stars along it's hull as a method of impairing visual detection.

Detectable if your enemy has so much as a light based telescope for a passive sensor

Why does our military bother with camoflauge then? One would think deep space would be an excellent means of hiding visually this way, particularily at vast ranges...

Stofsk wrote:That won't help Rob, because your ship puts out a lot of emissions anyway. Heat, radiation, and so on. Stealth will come from controlling your ship's emissions, however you do that. (Handwavium)

I specified visual detection techniques, unless you guys are submitting that in space visual detection is not a concern.

But the heat would still stick out. Against the extremly cold space any heat would be easily caught.