Strolen\s Citadel content. 
Scrasamax's comment on 2011-09-22 10:32 AM


Only Voted


Go to Comment
Phaidros's comment on 2011-09-23 01:19 PM
Beautiful description, and a well thought-out concept, but what is MADDS? I feel a link is missing. Otherwise, a full 5/5. Go to Comment
valadaar's comment on 2013-04-23 11:47 AM
Only voted Go to Comment
Nafar's comment on 2011-09-21 12:15 PM
Only voted Go to Comment
hylandpad's comment on 2011-09-23 02:36 PM
I will make sure MADDS is Codexed Go to Comment
Scrasamax's comment on 2011-09-19 01:13 PM


Concept is solid but it feels like it is creeping up on being munchkin. If you get through the automated defences and droid fighters and stuff in orbit, nigh invincible terminator cyborgs are going to be dropped on you, and they have rail guns and mini-gattling gun hands. For the tone of the material thus far it is good. But, and I have to say this, they are too bad-ass. They need to have some sort of weakness, something that mitigates their value or deployability.



IMHO they either need something that limits their numbers in deployment, such as high cost, long time to build, or some similar issue, or they need an achillies heel. I don't know how a PC group is going to do anything against a concerted unit of these other than die badly, unless they are armed to the teeth with alien gear and hypertechnology weaponry. (I have a few ideas, but I want to make them into submissions evil laugh)


Go to Comment
valadaar's comment on 2011-09-19 08:30 PM


I agree with Scras's comments, but I have no idea the size of these things.  It seems implied that these are human-sized - or close to it.  If thats true, high-rate-of fire weapons are probably not the best choice for logistical reasons. If they carry a large amount of ammo, then it will compete for space within the presumably very expensive armored interior, or if externally carried, a dangerous weakness.



I'd think for this application, and with a fusion reactor to boot, they would be armed more with energy weapons.



 



 



 



 


Go to Comment
hylandpad's comment on 2011-09-21 09:55 AM
Update: Took advice from Scras and Echo, made the VD-TD significantly less uber.
Added a section about Dispatching VD-TD threats.
Amended it's physical appearance and defense capabilities.
Changed the way it's jump jets appear and function. Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
Scrasamax's comment on 2011-09-18 01:39 PM


I want to play against you in a wargame, you have no idea. I want to stage a raid between a mobile fleet task force and a target defended by a MADDS system, it will be like Kerensky and the SLDF retaking the core worlds.


Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
Scrasamax's comment on 2011-09-18 08:56 PM
I understand completely, but keep in mind that sci fi and tech stuff generally gets a cool reception. The citadel likes its swords and sorcery. Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
Scrasamax's comment on 2011-09-22 05:19 AM


Just to toss some cold water on the fire, I think that MADDS greatest strength isn't in it's scale or coordination, ability to handle threats, or destroy enemy forces. I think it's real strength is that looking at it from an attackers perspective it's scary as hell. When you go after a world defended by one of these you're going to take losses. Lots of losses.



Combine MADDS with something like a drone operated shadow fleet, coordinated with conventional manned fleets, and thats something impressive. FTL communications could be used to transmit and recieve combat data from a battle back to the nearest unoccupied MADDS world and a remote fleet could benefit from the same coordination bonuses. There could be smaller fleet scaled MADDS systems that coordinate a smaller number of conventional warships and fighter escorts, piggy backing onto the existing electronics systems and such.


Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
EchoMirage's comment on 2011-09-21 01:56 AM


An interesting take on planetary defense. I really suggest you read David Weber's Honor Harrington series on a treatise of fleet vs. planetary fortress warfare.



Basically, the main issue is this: a planet cannot dodge. Neither can a fortress. In the case of a planet, the foe will exactly know where a planet will be. In the case of fortresses, he can predict it (they will be guarding access vectors from closest systems, wormhole openings, and surround planets and important stations).



The mainenance of a fleet becomes a necessity when you consider that an unhindered enemy fleet can lurk around the star system, shoot up anything not covered by the MADDS, and launch distant asteroid strikes or swarms of dumb nuclear warheads at the planet. Hidden in an asteroid swarm, no less. Because, if useful planets are not ine in a million, denying a foe an asset he invested so heavily in is almost as good as claiming it yourself.



On a different note, I am intrigued by the concept of the cryo-cyborg. Care to explain further?


Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
EchoMirage's comment on 2011-09-21 10:02 AM


Well, what I wanted to point out is that yes, a MADDS can survive an attack, and prevent a foe from taking the planet. But it cannot survive a siege (siege weapons in space have unlimited range), nor sufficently protect its prize without a mobile fleet. Fleets will need their own leadership, because a communication delay imposed by the speed of light between the MADDS in mid-orbit and a fleet in outer space is unacceptable. Unless you have FTL radio in your setting - then, a MADDS could concievably coordinate a fleet in its system too.

Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
EchoMirage's comment on 2011-09-21 02:49 PM


Actually, the argument is flawed in several important respects. Let me elaborate.



Space is huuuuge. Actually so huge that light takes several hours to reach the edge of the solar system, if my calculations aren't totally off.



What does this mean? First of all, if you do not have Faster-Than-Light comms, then anything that happens out there takes several hours to be relayed to you if, and only if, you detected it. Meaning, you have to have probes out there. Meaning, you have to cover a sphere with a radius of 50 AU.



Now, with our technology, we are still discovering the things the size of planets. Inside the solar system. Like, Eris. A ship is way smaller than a planet, usually. Meaning, unless you have a sensor grid out there, you will know diddly about what is going on in your solar system. If you do have a sensor grid, you may learn something... six hours later. Now, if this sensor grid does active sweeps, or is in any way detectable, an enemy appearing out there will know it is there, and where it is, and shoot it up. Thus, you learn that an enemy is there, perhaps even something about his forces. Then, you again know diddly. And, unless you have FTL in-system drives, anything you send out there will again take six hours to get there. And of course the foe will be long elsewhere. Meaning, yes you can fire from a MADDS at an enemy fleet you detected at a system's edge. Which will do exactly nothing, because your foe is not a retard to sit there. Whereas your planet is prety predictable about where it will be in a few hours. Along with the entire MADDS, of course. Meaning, you cannot really shoot back.



Now, if you send some combat vessels out there, there will be a several hour communication delay between the vessel and the planet. Meaning, you cannot communicate and have to use live crew. Who are of course fighting without the support of the MADDS. Because it is six freaking hours away. Six light-hours, that is. And if you leave the foe unengaged, he will plunder your system, shoot up the transports and sensor grid, cost you billions of credits and go away without taking a single shot. Once you rebuild, if he lets you, he will do the same again.



Of course, if he lets you, because a few warships can inflict a heavy toll on transport vessels.



So the likeliest scenario is: you invest a truckload of money into a MADDS. Your foe builds some warships. Your MADDS cannot go to his system to mess him up, but your foe can go to yours, and will. And he will make sure to make your life a living hell, and if he grows bored, he can always bombard the orbit from space without really harming the planet. Think gravel, at near light speed. Of course he can also toss a shitload of cheap nukes, if he feels nasty.



Point made? (the Echo is really trying to help)

Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
EchoMirage's comment on 2011-09-21 04:55 PM
They're not pointless ... they have to be well-thought out, and supported by a fleet. Very much like a castle will eventually fall unless it can a) sally out b) an army drives the foes away.

If you have wormholes, then you can have forts within firing range of the opening. If wormholes are the sole means of FTL travel, this will be an efficient defense, though you have to consider - your foes will come prepared for a fight then - but you don't know when.

Modern troop deployment should flow like water, and orbital defenses are but a piece of the puzzle, and not the most important one. They are static, with a sole purpose, and reactionary in nature. Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
EchoMirage's comment on 2011-09-22 04:54 PM
With an FTL communication method, it becomes feasible. Still, you need that fleet. Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
valadaar's comment on 2013-04-09 09:36 AM
I think the problem with the sub is the voice puts it on a pedestal as if it were a sales brochure, as opposed to a factual description. As Echo and Scras have pointed out, there are weaknesses in any static defence - terrestrial or otherwise, unless you somehow _are_ able to deal with arbitrary numbers of planetoid-sized projectiles with little notice.

I've thought about this myself, and figured perhaps the best adjunct to this would be a ridiculous number of x-ray laser mines. These mines would be essentially high quality AI's that would work autonomously in conjunction with an even more ridiculous number of detector mines. The detector mines would be arranged in a static grid, run very passively, and would paint whatever they detected with a laser unless iff frequencies were present. The killer mines sensors would be good enough to detect the painted targets and then blast em. The static grid is important to allow them to detect gravitational disruptions in case someone is using some form of stealth.

Of course, the number needed and the matter required to construct a usable number would be extreme.



Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
valadaar's comment on 2013-04-09 09:58 AM
Only voted Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
hylandpad's comment on 2011-09-18 01:50 PM
I haven't done much Sci-fi work. But I really like the way this sub came out. I don't have a fleshed out world or setting like I do for my "New Terra" stuff, but I think I'm gonna do more stuff like this on the side because I have so many cool high-tech ideas that I want to use, but just won't fit on Greatland. Go to Comment
Mid-Orbital Active-Defense Deployment Systems (MADDS)
Systems  (Combat/ Warfare)   (Defining)
hylandpad's comment on 2011-09-18 09:15 PM
yeah. Understandably. I have a couple more subs I could post for a MADDS codex. Maybe I'll just do those and see what happens from there. Go to Comment
Total Comments:
183

Join Now!!




Fatal error: Call to undefined function top_menu() in /home/strolen/public_html/lockmor/application/views/citadel/vfooter.php on line 2