[TML] Distances/Times To Solar L4/L5 Points

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 10/1/07 11:36 PM, Timothy Little wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:05:16AM -0400, Jerry W Barrington wrote:
>> with pretty easy watch on naval activity, you can narrow down where
>> most enemy ships are pretty well, thus knowing when the enemy can't
>> possibly have enough defense in system to stop your attack.
> 
> Remember that all your information on your target system is
> necessarily at least two weeks old by the time you arrive - and
> probably more than a month.  A system you were reliably informed had a
> certain defence strength when your courier jumped out could well have
> a very different strength by the time you arrive.
> 
> That's even assuming you have reliable information.  Not every threat
> you might face will be out in the open while you're looking.

Yes, it could have more defenses.  But you can set limits on *how much* more
by tracking like this.

>> And the enemy can't defend *every* system as heavily as you can
>> attack *1* system, so you win.  But they can do the same thing back
>> at your worlds.
> 
> The question is, what will they do at that one system?
> 
> They could certainly maintain space supremacy for a few months.  They
> could destroy major production facilities - perhaps even sterilize
> inhabited worlds.  A war of mutual annihilation could proceed quite
> rapidly in the manner you describe, with major forces popping out of
> jumpspace anywhere and obliterating worlds with horrifying weapons.
> Even then, a force that jumps four times to neutralise four nearby
> systems in a row is being more effective than a force that jumps four
> times between each system attacked deep in enemy space.

Suppose you take out all of your enemy's shipyards & naval depots?

> Successfully *occupying* a major world would require a huge amount of
> logistic support over a long period of time.  In a war of conquest,
> those with the shorter supply lines from their production centers
> would have a major advantage.  Hence I think it more likely that such
> a war would proceed with a fairly clearly-defined "front" of contested
> systems, with some strikes behind the lines to hamper the efforts at
> the front.

Oh, you definitely don't want to use this technique to occupy.  The
"lightning strike and disappear before counter-attack can arrive" is the
whole point.

> Also likely is the possibility of a limited war, with specific
> objectives in specific systems.  Most likely, these systems will be
> near the borders.  Both sides, recognising the severely detrimental
> effects of a full-scale war of conquest even to the winner (if there
> is one), may tacitly agree not to escalate the conflict outside the
> limited domain of the disputed systems.  Here, too, the theoretically
> unlimited range of a starfleet is no great advantage - especially if
> the conflict is over one way or the other before many ships can
> arrive.

Yeah, civilized enemies may abide by such guidelines.  Then the nutcase heir
to the throne decides to do what he wants.  Never rely on tacit agreements,
rules of war, or even negotiated treaties.  When it means winning, there's
yet to be a nation that wouldn't discard every one of those things.

> Also, is it wise to send a major fleet (say 1000 ships) to attack one
> system (which may have 10-100 defenders)?  Or does that mean that 90%+
> of your ships there were just wasting their time?

Not at all.  They are the overwhelming force which insures that even if
there happens to be an extra fleet of 200 ships in port this week, you still
win.  :)