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

[Jerry W Barrington]

On 10/5/07 5:45 AM, "Richard Aiken" wrote:

> On 10/4/07, Jerry W Barrington <jursamaj at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 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.  :)
> 
> But what about all the other areas you stripped of mobile defenses to
> build up that huge force?  Not to mention that building such a force
> in and of itself tells your enemy you're about to do something major
> to him.  It won't tell him exactly when and where you plan to do it,
> of course.  But he can't have all that many systems in the probable
> strike area that are *worth* your 1000-ship fleet.

No need to strip defenses.  Most of these ships would be purpose built for
this sort of assault.  If need be, you pull the ships in *small* quantities
spread all over your empire.  Pulling 1% of any system's strength has
negligible effect on any attack there, but 1% of the empires strength is
enormous.  And it's all done thru secret, non-public channels, such that the
enemy doesn't know it's being built up.

And please remember, all numbers are nebulous.  "1000 ships" isn't the
point.  Much bigger attack fleet than possible defense is.



On 10/5/07 5:45 AM, Timothy Little wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:14:17AM -0400, Jerry W Barrington wrote:
>> Yes, it could have more defenses.  But you can set limits on *how
>> much* more by tracking like this.
> 
> What prevents a full-scale sector fleet from jumping in to the system
> in the intervening 2 weeks?  One week for the courier's jump time,
> another week for your fleet's jump time.  All your information is at
> least 2 weeks out of date, remember.  They probably don't know where
> your huge fleet is, but you don't know where theirs is either.

The whole point of the initial spying setup is to have a good feel of where
the enemies forces are overall.  Navies in general follow pretty predictable
patterns.  Even the deviations have certain maxima.

Sector fleets don't just pop out of nowhere, unless you are doing something
like I propose.  They have to *be* somewhere, gather together, and travel in
convoy.  Much of their purpose is "showing the flag", i.e. being *seen* as
an impressive force.  They can't do that if they are rushing around a lot.
They'll spend a week in Jump, then at least a week in any system worth
showing off in.  If they spent all their time in jump, yes they'd be fast,
but who would be impressed?  The spy network is more like the J6 x-boats
we've discussed, designed for max information speed.

> The worst case would be where the mainworld is deep inside the stellar
> jump limit.  In order to get close enough to detect the defending
> ships, you may have to risk getting too far inside the jump limit to
> escape.

The couriers are not the gatherers.  Elements in place disguised as
legitimate businesses, diplomats, etc, gather info and pass it to couriers
well outside detection, let alone jump limits.

This is a reason why the Zho should defeat the Imperium.  Zho can and do
travel and do business in the Imperium (during times of cease-fire).
Imperials very rarely travel in Zho space, and then the Zho would be spying
on the telepathically to prevent such espionage.  :)

>> Suppose you take out all of your enemy's shipyards & naval depots?
> 
> Now we're talking about a much smaller set of strategically-valuable
> systems to defend than the hundreds of indistinguishable systems
> implied earlier.  Are you sure you can muster a large enough
> jump-capable force to overwhelm the defenses there?  Jump drives are a
> major expense in both production cost and volume that the defenders
> don't have to pay.

Even though the defenders have that economic advantage, They still have to
defends 100's of such sites throughout the Imperium.  I only have to attack
a few at a time then get to the next set faster than news can travel there
to warn them.  I don't even have to take them all out, just cripple the
network sufficiently.

>> 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.
> 
> Remember we're talking about whether there are any possible naval
> tactics beyond "stomp every system into dust and run away to the
> next".  I'm arguing that there are.  In a war of annihilation, there
> may not be - but I can guarantee that they will be incredibly
> infrequent compared with lesser conflicts.  If for no other reason,
> than that even "winning" such a war against one opponent will mean
> losing the next war against a different one - so any given state gets
> only one of them.
> 
> So most wars will not be of this form.  Nutcase heirs aren't that
> common and even when they do turn up, they don't always stay in power
> long enough to commit their realm to bloody suicide.  Without even an
> attempt at conquest, the question "what's in it for us" is not so easy
> to answer in a way that keeps people loyal to your rule.
> 
> A full-scale war of conquest is possibly just as insane, but it's
> rather easier to get powerful people on-board with the idea.  Even
> losing such a war will likely be better for those in power than
> winning a pyrrhic victory.  It's not a "tacit agreement", it's basic
> self-interest.

In the long run, many rulers will view the matter simply.  Any government
not under our control is a threat to us.  If we can't quickly consume them,
wipe them out.  As long as they quickly do this with each new state they
come in contact with, I don't see how your "win now, lose next" logic
applies.

>> 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.  :)
> 
> You win at that one system that week, yes.  If you had split into five
> fleets of 200, you could have won at *four* systems that week at the
> cost of having to avoid engaging at one.  You could come back to that
> one next month.
> 
> If one side is winning at one system per week, and the other is
> winning at four, which is making better use of their forces?

A.  I repeat, the numbers are nebulous.  The point is to make sure each of
your attack fleets is almost certain of winning, by whatever margin you feel
is appropriate.

B.  I'm forcing you to defend.  If I stomp X of your systems this week and
you send reinforcements 2+ weeks later when I'm gone, you still lost the
assets in those X systems.  You can't send your fleets to MY systems,
because you need them to do something about my fleets in YOUR systems.  If I
do a sufficient job of it, for the 1st few weeks your Command doesn't even
know it's happening.

C.  Number of systems is irrelevant.  Don't attack every little system, they
don't matter.  Take out the shipyards, depots and existing Navy.  Once you
control the spaceways, by default you control the planets.  Oh, you may have
to siege each one if you want to go down and install your own Governor or
whatever.  But as long as each world is isolated & trapped on the surface,
you have plenty of time for that.