Will there ever be a sourcebook for Star Ttrek ground combat? with info on tanks and apcs and such for combat campaigns?
Printable View
Will there ever be a sourcebook for Star Ttrek ground combat? with info on tanks and apcs and such for combat campaigns?
I'm not very official, but I would say no since they aren't too popular amongst the public here, but that is another story. If you want one your best bet is to write one.
Get a team together and start brainstorming from canon and then expand and extrapolate into assumptions. Snowball it and then release it for the General Public to use.
My two cents....
There are rules for vehicle in Steve Long's excellent Dominion War sourcebook, available in the computer core of the main site. These are Icon rules, but should port easily enough into Coda.
Now I really feel stupid. I am working on Vehicle Construction Rules for CODA that allow you to make tanks, apcs, and atvs. I guess it was too late last night or something. :o
Try looking at some of the FASA supplements.. i remember that one of the Next Generation supplements (not the First Year sourcebook) had info on ground equipment, like canons. I believe its called "Officers Manual". If you're good at converting FASA stuff to Icon then maybe you can try this as a start.Quote:
Originally posted by Typhonis 1
Will there ever be a sourcebook for Star Ttrek ground combat? with info on tanks and apcs and such for combat campaigns?
You're not 'too late'; see:
The soucebook in question was written (IIRC) under either LUG or Spacedock rules, so your CODA ones would still very much apply/be wanted, dare I say needed.
FASA never came out with a supplement on Starfleet Marines, though they had intended to.
The adventures Where Has All the Glory Gone? and A Doomsday Like Any Other has some details about FASA's version of Starfleet marines.
We may eventually do an Away Teams and Landing Parties sourcebook, though nothing is on the schedule yet. Probably won't have anything like "marines" in it though, given that Starfleet is not really a military-centric organization.
I don't want to seem touchy Jesse you being an editor and all :) but,
1.) Word of warning, as TrekRPG (i.e. membership) has not settled on the existence of marines or any other military ground force for that matter we here to consider the M issue as part of YSYR phillisophy i.e. "Your Series, Your rules" law of game management. Your simple statement could invite a devastating repsonse from M and Ground force supporters
2.) The existence of Starfleet based/associated/attached Ground forces is canon as several episodes of DS9 refer to them. As did the approved version of the Dominion War source book so I would say that they do have a place in any official RPG line to what degree there place and fucntion is could be debated at length and has been.
Now as to my opinion on the subject at large. I have tried a long time ago to get a sourcebook started but it fell apart. I have a lot of bits and pieces laying around my computer core on the subject of ground forces (history, profesion, organization, abilities etc..) for both Icon and CODA. I have been waiting on the Ops manual, Starship and Equipment books to get going on new stuff for the GF.
BTW a search on my user name will brining up several thread I started on the subject and items related to it as well.
Actually, I'm not an editor -- I'm the line developer. Means that I handle creative direction, which is a bit more glorified than editing. ;-)
The "hoo-rah" marine stereotype doesn't mesh cleanly with Star Trek. While Starfleet certainly has officers and enlisted personnel involved in various combat roles, the idea of a main-combat specialty branch designed with the philosophy of "God loves us because we fill His Heaven with souls" doesn't sit well with the ideology of Star Trek. Starfleet is first and foremost an exploratory organization and its military capabilities stem from its need to protect Earth (and later the entire Federation) against aggressor species -- which doesn't typically involve invading their planets and killing them.
If you want to have ground forces specialists in your games you can certainly build a security officer in that direction. The Special Forces elite profession can help in this regard as well. I probably won't be using the word "marine" in any sourcebook, though. (The RRTs and Hazard Teams will most likely remain pseudo-canonical.)
J. H.
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric R.
I don't want to seem touchy Jesse you being an editor and all :) but,
1.) Word of warning, as TrekRPG (i.e. membership) has not settled on the existence of marines or any other military ground force for that matter we here to consider the M issue as part of YSYR phillisophy i.e. "Your Series, Your rules" law of game management. Your simple statement could invite a devastating repsonse from M and Ground force supporters
2.) The existence of Starfleet based/associated/attached Ground forces is canon as several episodes of DS9 refer to them. As did the approved version of the Dominion War source book so I would say that they do have a place in any official RPG line to what degree there place and fucntion is could be debated at length and has been.
To use your own terminology for a moment: "His game line, his books." ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Eric R.
Your simple statement could invite a devastating repsonse from M and Ground force supporters
The original question was would there be a sourcebook for ground (marine) combat? I think Jesse is the only person who can answer that (and he has).With all apologies to Steve Long, the DWS never went through the development or approval processes at VCP to my knowledge. That is to say, it is not an official product; there's no telling what VCP would have kept or deleted. In any event my point is that you can't point to the DWS and state that marines are part of Starfleet canon now...Quote:
2.) The existence of Starfleet based/associated/attached Ground forces is canon as several episodes of DS9 refer to them. As did the approved version of the Dominion War source book so I would say that they do have a place in any official RPG line to what degree there place and fucntion is could be debated at length and has been.
Also, to restate the position of VCP as it has been explained to me and I'm sure Jesse, "marines do not exist in Star Trek." It's their playground and their ball; we just use them when allowed.
I have created a modified version of the basic starship combat rules modified for ground vehicles and have now incorperated the SOM's Operate Vehicle skill into it and I created maneuvers using other rpgs (like d20 Star Wars) for example. I would love to see Lt. Cmdr. Matt's rules, hint hint ell tee. That covered the vehicle aspect like the AOV in nemesis. As for ground forces I used the material from the sourcebooks which work well for this. I have even borrowed from Deciphers other fine rpg LotR. which has pretty good rules covering small unit tactic and large scale ground battles.
I think I got the hint there. As I have stated, no one sees the rules until I have Starships and the SOM. I have the SOM so now I need Starships ;) :pQuote:
Originally posted by buck rogers
I would love to see Lt. Cmdr. Matt's rules, hint hint ell tee. That covered the vehicle aspect like the AOV in nemesis.
Jessie, I have to agree with your aassessment that the 'Marine' (by which, I assume, the US Marine Corp) stereotype does not really fit into Gene Roddenbury's idea if the Star Trek universe. Dont forget that Gene always believed that by the 23rd/24th Centuries, man would have 'evolved' beyond the need to settle matters through war and conflict - something at the heart of many of the very best Star Trek episodes.
Saying this, who says that there has to be a dedicated Ground Force arm within Starfleet? In the episode Chain Of Command, Georgi complained to Riker that Captain Jellico had reassigned a large number of his Engineering staff to Security. Maybe Starfleet Enlisted Personnel are multi-tasked trained to fill ground force roles in such instances (O'Brien originally was a Tatical Officer on the USS Rutlidge before becoming an Engineer). Certainly I recall that when I was in the Territorials (Britain's equivilent to the National Guard) it was always drilled into us that we were riflemen first and specialists seconds (I was a signaller in an artillery unit).
However, I do like the idea of a dedicated Awat Team and Landing Party sourcebook:D given the emphasis that such bodies are given in both the RPG and the relevant TV Series/Movies. Is this a definite Decipher project or one that is likely to appear as a Netbook?
Actually, Hadley, that would make some sense...
If you notice that ops, tactical/security and engineering are all the same "branch" in the late-24th C. Starfleet, its clear that they are "technicians." That means that they're technical specialists, and their "basic maintenance" job description makes them suited to handling repairs to a variety of pieces of equipment. Junior enlisted, especially, are probably interchangeable between the three sections.
It's also supported by at least one bit of on-sceen evidence...Ensign Sito Jaxa, who was a security officer, was being considered for a promotion to Lt(jg). This would have entailed her transfer to Ops (Data's seat), and there was apparently nothing odd about it - it seemed fairly routine. More importantly, it seemed she could simply slot into the role whenever necessary.Quote:
Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Actually, Hadley, that would make some sense...
If you notice that ops, tactical/security and engineering are all the same "branch" in the late-24th C. Starfleet, its clear that they are "technicians." That means that they're technical specialists, and their "basic maintenance" job description makes them suited to handling repairs to a variety of pieces of equipment. Junior enlisted, especially, are probably interchangeable between the three sections.
Whether this means she had cross-training in Ops as well as security, I am unsure.
However...it is also important, I feel, to note that Ensign Sam Lavelle (who was Command branch, and apparently a Helmsman), ended up being promoted after Sito's death...and went straight into Ops.
My memory fails me as to whether he was wearing red or mustard at the end of the episode, but it does support the view that most SF officers are fairly thoroughly cross-trained. In game terms, I look at it as they all have the Systems Operations skill - just a variety of specialties, and there's no problem having a "red shirt" occupy a position normally held by a "yellowjacket".
Mind you, in my game there is no "Operations" sub-branch. I have "Operations" as an over-arcing classification which covers both Security and Engineering...and everything else wearing yellow! :)
Data being "Operations Manager" meant two things: he was the senior officer whose most common station was "Ops" (power management, life-support maintenance, sensor operations, etc), plus he also held the title: Operations Manager. On ships in my campaign, the Ops Manager is always the ship's second officer, and he is responsible for both Engineering and Security.
Thus, going from the top-down in my campaign, the chain of command on the E-D was something like:
Picard (CO)....Riker (XO)....Data (2nd Off)....
and on "equal terms" (not rank, but responsibility)
....LaForge and Worf.
In other words, Geordi may have been Chief Engineer, and Worf may have been Chief of Security, but they both reported directly to Data, and thence on to Riker or Picard.
I've never been able to get around the idea of their being an "operations" branch - it seems to artificial a distinction. If you wear yellow and your job is to fix something, operate machinery or otherwise interact with the ship directly, you're Engineering. If your job is carry a phaser and beat people up, you're Security ( :) ).
But if you wear yellow and do any of those things, you're Ops.
This is, of course, all just in my campaign. YMMV.
Hope this isn't too unclear...:D
Well this is a weakness in the Federation that needs be addressed a ww2 German Infantry platoon would have SLAUGHTERED the Jem Hdar at Ar 577 or ar 588 .A SINGLE machine gun would have made that choke point unpassable two would be a slaughter.
one other thing why didnt they use there phasers on wide angle??
Well, as to the first point...Quote:
Originally posted by Typhonis 1
Well this is a weakness in the Federation that needs be addressed a ww2 German Infantry platoon would have SLAUGHTERED the Jem Hdar at Ar 577 or ar 588 .A SINGLE machine gun would have made that choke point unpassable two would be a slaughter.
one other thing why didnt they use there phasers on wide angle??
An MG-38 might well have slaughtered the Jem'Hadar (assuming they didn't use their shrouds...:) ), but so would a heavy mounted phaser on continuous fire. Why didn't the Federation forces use one, you ask?
Answer: The same reason the German infantry on D-Day didn't have MG-42s with unlimited ammunition every five metres for a 20 kilometre stretch of beach.
They didn't have enough. AR-558 was about a cut-off unit, desperately trying to survive with heavy casualties and minimal supplies.
If you've seen the mini-series Band of Brothers the closest WWII approximation would have been the Allied forces at Bastogne, at Christmas 1944, where many units were down to a single round per man in terms of ammunition.
AR-558 was not a typical engagement. In a typical engagement, where power cells for phasers were in plentiful supply, I'd like to see how a Panzer or two stacks up against phasers on level 16. My bet is you'd have a couple of piles of molten slag within a few seconds.
As to why they didn't use phasers on wide-angle setting. IIRC, that can only be done on stun settings, and has a very limited range (around 10 metres, I think?).
The ultimate reason for how AR-558 went, however, is the simple fact that two roughly evenly-matched forces in the 24th century provide just as bloody results as those in the 20th. Mano-a-mano, with small-arms, the siege of AR-558 was nasty, bloody, destructive and frightening.
The point being, I think the writers were saying, was that from the Grunt's perspective, wars ain't gonna change much.
Aldaron, I could not agree more. The German forces on D-Day did not have sufficent resources to defend the Normandy beaches; that was why General Erwin Rommel was so eager to plug these gaps through the use of landmines and underwater obstacles to foil any possible landing attempt in that area. Also, the Germans were still convinced that Normandy was a diversion to draw the Panzers away from the Pas-de-Calais area where the invasion was always belived to occur (at least in the German's mind - check out The Longest Day).
The reason why the Germans did so well in defence on D-Day (particularly on Omaha Beach, as depicted in Saving Private Ryan) was that they had the high ground atop the bluffs at St. Laurent, like Sisko and Co. had in the episode Rocks and Shoals .
Just to point something out, the Marines that are posted on USN ships are not all necessarily "ground-pounders". A lot of them perform ship security functions, which can be seen in canon in ST IV. So, exactly what is it we want to see when we use this word "marine"? I'm just trying to get an idea. It seems logical, especially during the Dominion War, that the UFP would need to hold planets and retake planets. Although a starship goes a long way, ground forces are important to prevent loss of territory. However, I don't see the need for an independent ground force from Starfleet. It seems to me that it would be just another job that required more personnel detached from a starship. Starfleet crews are highly-disciplined, intelligent, and motivated; probably the three most important things in any military force. Give them some ground tactics and heavy weapons training (3-6 mos) and look out. Just an idea.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally posted by arndog1975
Just to point something out, the Marines that are posted on USN ships are not all necessarily "ground-pounders". A lot of them perform ship security functions, which can be seen in canon in ST IV. So, exactly what is it we want to see when we use this word "marine"? I'm just trying to get an idea. It seems logical, especially during the Dominion War, that the UFP would need to hold planets and retake planets. Although a starship goes a long way, ground forces are important to prevent loss of territory. However, I don't see the need for an independent ground force from Starfleet. It seems to me that it would be just another job that required more personnel detached from a starship. Starfleet crews are highly-disciplined, intelligent, and motivated; probably the three most important things in any military force. Give them some ground tactics and heavy weapons training (3-6 mos) and look out. Just an idea.
My opposition to the concept of "Federation Marines" is not a philosophical one, based on the idea that "marines are not in the spirit of Trek."
My opposition has always been purely pragmatic. I don't see that large numbers of ground troops are relevent any more in the 24th Century.
I've stated it before in various threads, but let me sum up...
Transporter technology means that nowhere on a planet is inaccessible, and everywhere is accessible within seconds.
Deflector shields and transport inhibitors can block localised areas - not large areas.
A starship in orbit can target very small areas with its phasers. Even in the 23rd Century, the E-NBABCOD managed to hit Apollo's temple only metres from the landing party.
With these facts in mind, it is apparent that the most vital part of 24th Century warfare is controlling orbital space. If you don't, you can't hit ground targets, use your ships sensors to track occurrences on the ground or beam troops (security forces, ground forces, whatever) down to the location of a problem.
What is the purpose of ground troops today?
1) To eliminate "dug-in" enemy troops unassailable by air-strikes.
2) To capture and secure vital locations - C3I, transportation, etc.
3) To maintain a "presence" - show the flag, if you will.
4) To prevent disorder and violence from either civilians or (as in Iraq today) enemy troops masquerading as civilians.
In Star Trek...
1) No need. Beam them up or target them from space.
2) Necessary. Key locations must still be held - communications and replicator nexi, government buildings etc.
3) Necessary, but with greatly reduced numbers (see point 4)
4) Necessary. However, with reliable, real-time communications and sensors watching from orbit coupled with transporters, it isn't necessary to garrison thousands of troops to do the job. Whereas a division or two (say, 30 to 40 thousand troops) might be necessary today, 24th Century technology would allow the same job to be accomplished with far fewer than a modern-day police force.
Out of all these, Point 1), digging out enemy troops, is the most costly in terms of manpower. Since it is no longer relevent, that immediately and drastically lowers the number of troops necessary.
Now, considering shields and transport inhibitors can only affect small areas, I can't see why the key locations from Point 2) cannot be held by relatively small units, using shields and inhibitors, while the rest is protected from orbit.
I guess the main thrust of what I'm saying is that large forces of troops on the ground without orbital support - or worse, with hostile orbital control, are just great, big, unmoving targets.
For this reason, I believe that ground forces in Trek are used to capture the key locations which may be protected by transport inhibitors, while any enemy troops wandering about the country-side or in the cities will simply be beamed up - or worse.
As a modern-day example, one only need look as far as Iraq. Despite being considerably outnumbered, Coalition forces were able to (literally, at times) run and fly rings around the Iraqi forces because they had excellent real-time communications and complete control of the air. It's an example of how a much smaller force can outmanouvre and outgun a (on paper) much more powerful force.
Now imagine the same scenario in the 24th century, except that now the Coalition has access to constant orbital surveillance, transporters and replicators.
Supply lines? Hey, we have replicators, we don't need no stinkin' supply lines! :)
You spot an enemy formation? Beam a RRT strike-team into their command bunker vicinity (assuming the bunker itself is shielded or inhibited) while using your shipboard phasers to destroy their heavy weapons emplacements.
My belief, however, is that this wouldn't happen, because nobody would be stupid enough to try an field a huge ground army. You're better spending the resources on starships to control the high ground, because without them, your huge ground force is a big fat target and little else.
YMMV, of course! :D
I agree with your points. What the hell is E-NBABCOD?Quote:
Originally posted by Aldaron
its phasers. Even in the 23rd Century, the E-NBABCOD managed to hit Apollo's temple only metres from the landing party.
In my game I have Marines, although they are officially named the Federation Defense Force but that takes too long to say :D, They are not part of Starfleet and use the different ranking system then Starfleet does. On the Starbase in my game there are about 50 total troops. Of those fifty nine are always stationed on the Support ship whenever it leaves dock. The other 41 stay around so that in case a large incursion hits the Starbase they will be well equipped with the nifty guns and know how to use them.
I don't believe that in the 24th Century you need all that many to have a large contingency. Fifty I consider to be standard for this smaller starbase. On each ship during a wartime there might be less then 15, even on the biggest ships. (The Pinnacle is a Saber but right in the middle of a war so that is why there are nine always stationed to her.)
I don't believe they would be used in any time except for a war time.
Your Mileage May Vary though :)
Aldaron,
I couldn't agree more. I always wondered why anyone would bother with the creation of large infantry formations when a starship could simply vaporize (or stun) them from orbit.
With technology of this caliber, the creation of regular army units has become obsolete.
In the cases where some troops are necessary, they certainly wouldn't be large enough to attach anything like a "division" keyword to them. They would be glorified security forces.
Those 50 troops sound more like a security detachment meant to keep the peace inside the starbase.Quote:
Originally posted by Lt Cmdr Matt
In my game I have Marines, although they are officially named the Federation Defense Force but that takes too long to say :D, They are not part of Starfleet and use the different ranking system then Starfleet does. On the Starbase in my game there are about 50 total troops. Of those fifty nine are always stationed on the Support ship whenever it leaves dock. The other 41 stay around so that in case a large incursion hits the Starbase they will be well equipped with the nifty guns and know how to use them.
Would you consider Worf and the Enterprise security teams (which surely number at least 50 total) to be marines?
Enterprise-No Bloody A B C or DQuote:
Originally posted by Ineti
What the hell is E-NBABCOD?
I think what I said was wrong and I was not awake nor feeling particularly good after severe dehydration last night. IN any case, what I mean to say was the Marines are there to protect the Starbase's planetary interests, and to be used as boarding teams, etc. Security could be used for this and they are, but during a wartime these extra trained marines are sent in so that things can be dealt with easier. In essence they are highly trained Security personnel, I just prefer to call them the FDF or Marines.
:) Sorry...Quote:
Originally posted by Ineti
I agree with your points. What the hell is E-NBABCOD?
Enterprise - No Bloody A, B, C Or D
:D
Hitting a stationary target is easier than a sensor jamming ,moving target that could be shielded. Think armored and heavily armed shuttlecrft that hugs the ground. Not since TOS have they shown the ability to stun a target from orbit also transportes as easily stoped funny ores in the hills ECM shields .
True, but the technology can only get better. If Next Gen era phasers can be modified for drilling, they should be able to certainly stun a large area of ground.Quote:
Originally posted by Typhonis 1
Not since TOS have they shown the ability to stun a target from orbit
Sorry, but if phasers can hit a shuttle moving at impulse speed - tens of thousands of kilometres a second - they're not going to have any problems hitting a vehicle moving along the surface of the world.Quote:
Originally posted by Typhonis 1
Hitting a stationary target is easier than a sensor jamming ,moving target that could be shielded. Think armored and heavily armed shuttlecrft that hugs the ground. Not since TOS have they shown the ability to stun a target from orbit also transportes as easily stoped funny ores in the hills ECM shields .
An armoured or heavily armed shuttle hugging the ground would possibly be a threat to ground forces...but it is simply a sitting duck to something in orbit.
Stunning? Who's talkinga about stunning? I'm talking about vaping a battalion at a time! :D
Transporters can be stopped in numerous ways, which I pointed out in my original post. The rub is, however, that it can't be done over a large area.
Sure, you can hide out in mountains lined with kelbonite. Terrific. Let's assume I'm the Dominion, and you're the Federation defending Betazed. I've destroyed your starships in the system.
You have, say, a million ground troops.
I have, say, 10,000 Jem'Hadar. I want to capture government facilities, communications nexi, power distribution grid nexi, etc.
Now stop me.
Go ahead :) Show me a way you could prevent me taking those areas. Remember that transport inhibitors and shields are localised. You can protect small areas, maybe even up to a kilometre or so in diameter with them.
For my part, I'm going to sit in orbit and scan for signs of shield use or transporter scattering fields. When I find them, I'm going to hit them with concentrated phaser fire and photon torpedoes.
Once this is done, I'm going to pick out the key locations I need to capture and scan them at high-resolution. As soon as I detect weapon signatures, I'm going to beam the individuals up and scatter their molecules into space.
Then I'm going to beam down teams of around 100 troops to secure each location. If there is any resistance, the troops on the ground will provide local defence, while my phasers carve up any approaching forces from orbit. Any vehicles approaching the location will be vaporised.
Now...how are you going to defend? :D
you do realise that by blasting the areas you are after like that you stand a good chance of destroying what you will need in occupation ok fine first off ground batteries to defend the planet kinda hard to blast something when you are being shot at . Both phjaser and Photon torpeo the phasers can be the nice mk12 variety supplied by there own generators abnd the torp launchers can have nice big magazines ready for them .
An examplere of a ship in orbit firing and hitting a moving target i n Trek would be nice but ok the tanks and apcs are disperesed located in sensor protected alcoves near key areas this can be done in Trek
Pump out large amounts of ECM this will also work look at what it did on the founder homeworld in TDIC if you cannot use your sensors to target things you cannot hit them and spotting from the air is hard THESE days
OK your troops beam down and some of them whip out tricorders to scan the area. After using those nice active scanners some simple mortar shells land in there general area
At this point ground forces close with your own and the chance you will kill your own troops from orbit increases
Look orbital fire is nice but isnt the only way to do things Fine you phaser the enemy troops slaughtering them all and destroyuying the local infastructure in the process. How long to replace it even if you replicate it?? what about the parts that can`t be replicated????
Also arent there transport inhibitors that can be worn by troops?
Hey, Typhonis!
This is KEWL! :D We should figure out a way to actually game this out over the net!
Okay...
you do realise that by blasting the areas you are after like that you stand a good chance of destroying what you will need in occupation
Mmm...thought of this. There is certainly going to be collateral damage, but there are two points concerning it.
1) We're talking phaser fire within metres - and that was 23rd Century targetting.
2) Much of what is damaged can quickly be replaced with replicators
3) Unless the shield generators are inside the actual buildings I'm after, I can still target them separately. Massive fire onto the shields, overwhelming them and then destroying the generators.
ok fine first off ground batteries to defend the planet kinda hard to blast something when you are being shot at . Both phjaser and Photon torpeo the phasers can be the nice mk12 variety supplied by there own generators abnd the torp launchers can have nice big magazines ready for them .
Hmm...okay. I wasn't really considering them as I was talking about already having orbital superiority...but I'll take it on anyway. :)
Yep...I'm gonna take casualties. I think it's impossible to say exactly how many without actually gaming out the scenario, but I'd hazard a guess that mobile starships - many of them - have a distinct advantage over ground-based defence platforms. Going back to the WWII example, big land-based guns could do a lot of damage to fleets, but ultimately they were vulnerable to air-strikes and counter-battery fire from heavy battleships.
An examplere of a ship in orbit firing and hitting a moving target i n Trek would be nice but ok the tanks and apcs are disperesed located in sensor protected alcoves near key areas this can be done in Trek
Okay, but this goes back to the problem of hiding the troops in kelbonite-rich caves. Sure, I can't see them while they're in the alcoves, but the minute they move out to do anything I get a free shot at them. Unless you're talking about excellent stealth vehicles, which changes the whole ball-game.
Pump out large amounts of ECM this will also work look at what it did on the founder homeworld in TDIC if you cannot use your sensors to target things you cannot hit them and spotting from the air is hard THESE days
Okay...check your response below. Those ECM generators are also pumping out exactly where they are. Even if my sensors can't pinpoint it from one ship, I only need two to triangulate exactly where the ECM is coming from - and blast away...:)
OK your troops beam down and some of them whip out tricorders to scan the area. After using those nice active scanners some simple mortar shells land in there general area
Who says tricorders are active? There's plenty of on-screen evidence for tricorders being used in covert scenarios - I'm sure they have an active mode, but they most certainly have a passive mode.
Besides...I'd simply datalink the tricorders to the orbiting ships and use those scanners, then feed the data back to the tricorders. :)
At this point ground forces close with your own and the chance you will kill your own troops from orbit increases
Ah yes...I'm not saying there won't be any ground combat, remember. Just small-unit stuff. If I'm occupying a localised area, even if you throw a division at me, they can't all attack at once. There are reserves, artillery units, air units - most of the firepower of your division, in fact, which cannot close. This is what I'm going to be targeting.
Besides...this is where I just start beaming your troops into space...;)
Look orbital fire is nice but isnt the only way to do things Fine you phaser the enemy troops slaughtering them all and destroyuying the local infastructure in the process. How long to replace it even if you replicate it?? what about the parts that can`t be replicated????
Yes, this is a potential problem. But remember, we're talking about winning the ground with minimal troops. It's certainly possible I could destroy what I'm trying to capture...but my whole point with this is that because of the massive casualties you'll undoubtedly take, I don't think you'll have fielded such a huge army in the first place.
You'd take your million troops, train maybe 50,000 as ground troops - and the rest of your resources would be far better used to build and crew starships to stop me getting orbital superiority in the first place! :D
Keep it up, though...this is excellent stuff, Typhonis. And it's definitely finding its way into my campaign when we get to the Dominion War! :D
Thanks...
course that was against a strructure with Kirk giving directions
Ep number 12 Too short a season Data uses his tricorder to scan an area on a covert mission
Within minutes the team is being attcked .
Ground based defenses can be larger and nastier than ship mounted ones ,point defenses can be set up to deal with air attacks also the planet can have attack suttles of there own .
If transporter inhibitors can be worn then you cannot beam enemy troops up also you will not always be guranteed space superiority
Now I'll have to start calling it the Enbab Cod. Or should it be ENBABCDOE? Enbab C Doe? Is that someone's name? :DQuote:
Originally posted by Aldaron
:) Sorry...
Enterprise - No Bloody A, B, C Or D
:D
Don't fogget the possibilioties of the enemy fleet showing up to pulverize you as youre slowly taking your time to selectively destroy/beam enemy ground positions and troops. As while as the potential of them slipping through and occuping another 4 or 5 systems while your fleet is concentrated in one spot. Just another fleet being in the nieghborhood can sevearly alter an entire campiegn such as what happen at Gudalcannel in World War II. Or the Impact the Italian fleet had in the Med on Royal Navy operations through most of 1940-43. The US Navy got a sevear bruising off Okinawa in 1945 because it stayed around the Island and presented the Japanese with a sitting target, as also happen at Iwo Jima. In both cases this was a fleet with emense capabilities which did and could react effectively but if the Japanese had a substancial force it could have made more strategic responses to the invasions.Quote:
Originally posted by Typhonis 1
Ground based defenses can be larger and nastier than ship mounted ones ,point defenses can be set up to deal with air attacks also the planet can have attack suttles of there own .
Arrgh! :(
And thus Aldaron falls victim to that old military axiom:
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." :D
Thanks for this, guys - Dogsoldier and Typhonis especially. You've really given me something to chew on. I'll have to rethink my position on this...
Edited to add a question:
Are there personal transporter inhibitors? The only time I can remember anything to do with transporters were the pattern-enhancers (the trio of posts set up on the ground to help beam stuff), and the garden-lamp-post-like inhibitors they used in Insurrection.
I do give you fair warning, though: if it's in VOY, I don't consider it canon! :D :D
(Any more than millions of sentient holograms and Borg cubes that fall before Intrepid class light explorers! :D)
Thats a nasty thought a small enemy force leaves as you enter the system you start up planetary assault operations and the fleet and planetary defenses catch you in a crossfire