Conventional fighters

[FedComGirl]

Designed in 1942, which is before the point where the BattleTech timeline split from real life. That means it exists as-is in BattleTech. It's an amphibious vehicle that, were it put onto the battlefield, would be obliterated by something as simple as a Machine Gun (the weapon found on BattleMechs, not the generic class of weapons). When you see something like the Amphibious Chassis Modification having a minimum tech rating of C that does not mean you have to have technology that would be futuristic to what we have today. What it does mean is if you want to build an amphibious vehicle that can survive the rigors of combat in the BattleTech universe then you do need the greater level of technology.

What?

Whether the amphibious vehicle is meant for combat or not it's chassis still has to have a minimum tech level of C. That tech level isn't available during WWII. That time period is listed as Tech A.

If Combat vehicles so greatly outclass support versions, why does the Combat VTOL have a lower tech rating? Wouldn't a Tech C VTOL outclass a Tech B VTOL?

For other examples you have Environmental Sealing (seen on the M1A1 Abrams in 1985), STOL (seen on the Westland Lysander in 1936), and VSTOL (Yak-38 in 1971 - excluded experimental aircraft that date back to the 1950s). All Tech C, all predate their expected minimum tech rating, and all would be outclassed by their BattleTech counterparts. Bumping to Tech D you get Ultra-Light, a modern example of this would be the shift from the Audi V8's steel frame to the Audi A8 aluminum frame. Lighter, more expensive, purely an example of materials science improving existing tech. Bump it up again to E and you get omni. Bobcat Skid-Steer (http://www.bobcat.com/loaders/skidsteer/) offers seventy different attachments. That's omni technology found in 2011, according to your arguement shouldn't be available until the Star League comes around. But it is here, and like everything else listed above would get creamed if it somehow showed up on the BattleTech battlefield.

I'm away that there are many vehicles that are listed as Pre-space. I've pointed many of them out. But they can't be built because the technology isn't available. We even have autocannons Lasers and other high tech equipment like you said, but our reality isn't Battletech reality. You can't build a 20th century omni vehicle because omni technology didn't exist at the time. To say you can breaks the rules.

And not everything built now would be creamed by "modern" battletech equipment. They'd be greatly outclassed but they'd still be effective. Also some Battletech equipment has introduction dates of PS and they're still as effective.

However what is being missed is that once something of one tech level exist doesn't mean everything automaticly switchs over to that tech level.  There are going to be some things of a higher tech level before a world has truley moved to that tech level.  Because there must be a transition period

True, there will be an adjustment period but that means that the technology is improving or becoming more widespread. Internal combustion engines have been improving for centuries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_internal_combustion_engine   yet they're listed as Tech B (Late 20th Century) Why isn't there a Tech A Internal Combustion Engine?

And the tech intro dates tell you if the tech level is available. For example:

You want to build an actual WW2 submarine, requiring Tech B submersible chassis modifications and Tech B ICEs. Were those Tech B items available in 1941? Checking a BT sourcebook (like the House Kurita SB, which touches on WW2), yes. Clearly, those elements of Tech B were available in 1941. Proceed to build your 1941 submarine with Tech B equipment.

Except Tech B is classed as late 20th Century. Even if allowed as a "transition period" WWI submarines still could not be built.

No, but you are the one who is badly misunderstanding why eras are given with tech levels. I am one of the writers who was involved in setting the tech levels and assigning them to equipment, and I'm trying to explain tech levels.

Is there some way I could explain tech levels so you do not erroneously relate tech levels to an era like this...

Then as one of the writers why didn't you put the tech levels of items at the level in which they were available? If Internal Combustion Engines are available before WWI, why aren't they tech level A? If Amphibious Chassis are being tested during WWI, why aren't they tech level A?  If the technology can support it, let it. If vehicles are going to be available, let them be available. If an item is prespace let it be able to be built with pre-space technology. That's 1950 or before. And please if a class of vehicle is going to be available, don't have different tech rating for combat and support.

You're correct, you can't have Tech A vehicles with combustion engines, but if you want to play WW2 then you can use Tech A, Tech B, and Tech C, since elements of all of those tech levels were present in WW2. Most WW2 (and WW1) combat vehicles and their supporting industry were Tech B, so feel free to build WW2 vehicles with Tech B combustion engines. Their introduction dates clearly show such Tech B items were available at the time.

I mean, you know that tech levels often overlap, right?

And WWI vehicles? How would I build them? What you're basically saying is to move Tech Level B back 50 years. That would bump Tech A back before 1900. But what about other items that were available then like VTOLs and Amphibious Chassis and Environmental Sealing. I know Battletech history doesn't have to follow ours exactly but shouldn't they also be tech B as well? How about Electric Vehicles? They used to be more popular in the mid 19th Century but they're rated Tech C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car  Shouldn't there be Tech Level A and B electric engines?

I am looking at page 357... it doesn't say that.  It says that unless otherwise noted, all the bomb munitions can be carried by conventional fighters, ASFs, and aircraft properly equipped.  The only note I see on 357 is the tag in the AAA missile detail box that said aerospace units...  now, are you interpreting them as only aerospace fighters?  In that case, all the air to air missiles can't be lifted by conventionals...  all you need is the right number of hard points.

It's on page 358 in my book. I don't see where it says its only used by aerospace fighters though or can't cross into orbit.

[Lyran Archer]

I really like conventional fighters like the 'MechBuster. Most planets should be able to build such conventional fighters in great enough numbers to deter even ASFs and bomb the heck out of 'Mech forces.

A 'MechBuster and Corsair are both 50 tons. The 'MechBuster costs about 700 000 C-Bills while a Corsair costs about 2.1 million. The laser varient of the 'MechBuster is only 500 000, so conventional fighters, on average, should outnumber ASFs 3 or 4 to 1.

I think BV reflects that as well with the 'MechBuster BV being 417 BV and the Corsair being 1190 BV. The conventional Medium Strike Fighter is even lower at 259 BV and there are even cheaper fighters than that.

Whether in BV or C-Bills, defending planets should be able to build and field enough conventional fighters to seriously deter ASFs and BattleMech forces. I'm actually surprised they are not mentioned more often in the BattleTech Universe.

[Korzon77]

Whether in BV or C-Bills, defending planets should be able to build and field enough conventional fighters to seriously deter ASFs and BattleMech forces. I'm actually surprised they are not mentioned more often in the BattleTech Universe.

Remember that a core conceit of the Btech universe is that militaries are vastly, *vastly* undersized for the size of the economies and populations that are supporting them-- it's true that even a small world should have hundreds of conventional fighters, but equally true that your typical house supported invasion should be numbered in terms of how man Army groups and Corps, not how many regiments of mechs it's using.

[A. Lurker]

Remember that a core conceit of the Btech universe is that militaries are vastly, *vastly* undersized for the size of the economies and populations that are supporting them-- it's true that even a small world should have hundreds of conventional fighters, but equally true that your typical house supported invasion should be numbered in terms of how man Army groups and Corps, not how many regiments of mechs it's using.

*nod* We don't even need to look at fighters for that. Given the bottleneck that any prospective invader has to squeeze their forces through (numbers of available Jump- and DropShips and thus transport bays), any planet with a significant population should be able to swamp such a pitiful force with just cheap tanks.

Of course, that'd mean that worlds would rarely if ever actually change hands in the fiction...and perhaps more importantly, it clashes with the conceit that our small-scale tabletop skirmishes can still actually matter to the larger BT universe. "It's nice that your valiant company of defenders and hundreds of others like them that you never saw on the board but that were nonetheless there managed to drive off the vastly outnumbered attackers as usual" just...lacks a little something. ;)

[Khymerion]

The bottleneck was an aesthetic choice made by the early designers.  While I hate to keep bringing it up but Renegade Legion handled it better at the time with integrating the small scale skirmishes with the larger planetary levels of conflict.  While RL would die an ignoble death, the curse of trying to produce two sci-fi games at once...

Many of the lessons of RL would filter down into BT and other FASA products.   As Battleforce, Battlespace, and the scale of the game have spiralled upwards, it became possible to actually show the massive struggles that could be possible.  Unfortuantely, unlike RL, BT is stuck trying to live in the past of a company or battalion of mechs is enough to secure a world.  It still wants to have it's mecha riding chivalric knights.  It is still saddled with a rule set that is determined to stay with everything is inferior to the twin pillars of creation (ASF and Mechs)...  which is about as far from the orbital bombardment from tactical support satellites and support destroyers, nuclear weapons, effective heavy armor and integrated powered infantry units, and other unspeakable acts that pretty much were standard fare for RL.

Wait...  that actually did come about.   Funny huh how the Jihad actually felt more like RL than anything.

Yeah...  perhaps the game does need to shift the emphasis from the elite company/battalion/regiment being all that is needed to secure entire worlds to these battles are merely the skirmishes of far larger conflicts with armies that are actually in scale with the sizes of their realms.  All the tools (except for one) are there for it.   We can run a full invasion from arrival to the regimental sized clashes on planet side, the Jihad actually showed that it is capable but at the same time paradoxically nuked the setting back down to where it wasn't feasible.

So yes, there should be Aerowings of effective Conventionals smashing against ASFs during an operation overlord level invasion... instead, we are stuck with maybe a RCT if we are lucky and they have been organizationally broken apart these days.

[Nebfer]

IIRC at times it mentions that while a battalion of mech might be able to take a world it needs a few regiments of infantry to secure it.

The Clan Wolf source book mentions that many worlds in the Wolves invasion corridor had two or so brigades as their militia forces, with some evidence that theirs three regiments to a brigade. A noticeable number of worlds had two or so Divisions of militia forces, but no real idea on what comprises a division. The Fed Com civil war book mentions that theirs 2 or more regiments to a brigade and two or more brigades to a Division (it of it self no a common formation). Which would indicate that theirs between 12 and 18+ regiments of militia on thoughs worlds. And then theirs a number of worlds with 3 or so regiments as their sole defense.

This applys both to the FRR and Lyran side of the Fed Com (The jade falcon book makes little mention of militias).

The Forth succession war atlas when it listed conventional forces gave some what similar numbers, for the Combine and Laio worlds. The third wave of the 4th succession war mentions that the fed suns sent between 10 and 20 regiments of militia to secure the worlds of the first two waves (18 worlds in total).

[Stormfury]

The problem with the "Well, what about the MILLION BILLION regiments of militia per world, huh? HUH?!" line of reasoning is that said militia have to work exceedingly hard to rise as high as the level of target practice for invading forces.

Militia might be useful for disaster relief or last-ditch reserves for the defending forces, but the reality of the situation is that only the House Regulars (or state equivalent thereof) actually matter. Everyone else just gets mowed down like chaff.

[Korzon77]

The problem with the "Well, what about the MILLION BILLION regiments of militia per world, huh? HUH?!" line of reasoning is that said militia have to work exceedingly hard to rise as high as the level of target practice for invading forces.

Militia might be useful for disaster relief or last-ditch reserves for the defending forces, but the reality of the situation is that only the House Regulars (or state equivalent thereof) actually matter. Everyone else just gets mowed down like chaff.

Which is where we get into the conceit of the syste-- because if you have 10 regiments of light infantry with SRM's, for every regiment or heck company of house troops, those house troops will die
-- and in any case there would no  possible way you could actually successfully occupy the world-- it would be like running Vietnam with only one US armored division and a few Divisions of South vietnam forces.

The two conceits are both needed--1. military forces are very, very rare.  2.  Most people just *don't care* who rules thier world. It's quite simply impossible to get the level of public involvment in that can support a general uprising or defense.

[verybad]

Lack of nationalism is a symptom of Monarchy and Nobility.

The people not involved in government have very little interest in who does unless the ruler is excessivly brutal.

Battletech wars aren't usually between nations, they're slapfights between nobles that don't like each other. The battletech universe is stagnant for the most part.

Most people are essentially peasants, no matter what their jobs are, and all governments are extremely inefficient, corrupt, and meant to preserve the status quo rather than help the governed.

Look at it this way. The FedSuns is like Libia, but it generally takes a month to get a message to someone on the far side of the nation unless you're willing to pay a hefty C* fee, and that costs a lot. Most people have never left their home planet, technology and schooling are vastly different on different planets. To many people the Clan invasion is a series of rumours- potentially of it beign an alien invasion, mechs are never seen, and the planetary government has much more input into their lives than the House government.

Uprisings are generally going to be limited to a single planet unless they are sponsored by an interstellar power simply because communication is such a huge bottleneck

I still think house armies or their equivalents could be squared and still be undersized, but I do think they would be much smaller than the equivalent sized forces under more modern government and communications forms. The technology is possible in battletech, but the will (of the people) isn't. Nationalism is dead except in a few house units and some major worlds.

Even remaining a single nation is a huge feat for the succession states.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

The problem with the "Well, what about the MILLION BILLION regiments of militia per world, huh? HUH?!" line of reasoning is that said militia have to work exceedingly hard to rise as high as the level of target practice for invading forces.

Militia might be useful for disaster relief or last-ditch reserves for the defending forces, but the reality of the situation is that only the House Regulars (or state equivalent thereof) actually matter. Everyone else just gets mowed down like chaff.

  In that respect you are quite wrong -The only difference between most militias and regular units in the BT universe is that regular units leave their home system more often. Quality-wise, militias have the same range of quality as regulars -From Green to Elite. Sure, regulars are often better equipped, militia and home guard units are nothing to sneeze at.

  Yes, militias are seldom so prodigiously accoutred as the average, House regiment but as defenders, they have considerable advantages over an invading force, such as knowledge of the terrain and the option of going to ground. In over two decades of Battletech play, I have seen infantry units evolve from almost useless units to invaluable elements in any campaign. They may be easy to kill but give a squad a radio and off board artillery and I can put a serious hurt on any opponent. Give me a city and I'll trade away 'Mechs and vehicles for infantry and make the enemy pay for every block.
 
  Whenever I've played Clans the greatest flaw has always been a lack of sufficient infantry assets -They never have enough and they can't afford losses.

  As far as conventional air power is concerned, they may not be able to hold their own against similar numbers of Aerospace fighters but considering their lower cost, they are a viable alternative to a force with a budget. Conventionals shine when the opponent doesn't have air supremacy -Just last week a pair of Guardians executed a bombing run on a column of vehicles and inflicted serious casualties in a campaign game, where those casualties carry to subsequent scenarios.

  I've taken down dropships with conventionals because that's what I had. I took losses but it cost the enemy a Union full of 'Mechs.

[Stormfury]

And yet there are zero examples of a militia fending off invading forces that I can think of (especially during the Clan invasion, which is about as disporportionate in their favour as you can get) and precious few that were able to organise a resistance that was able to later displace them.

What the tabletop rules allow you to do and what the fiction repeatedly demonstrates are two very different things.

[FedComGirl]

The Xosha militia armed with Locusts and Blackjacks drove off a Kuritan attack. (TRO3025)

Grayson Death Carlyle lead militia to drive back several attacks from "pirates' an Trellwan, eventually forming his own merc unit from the troops and captured mechs. Desicion at Thunder Rift. 

I'm sure there's more examples but I'm too tired to look right now.

I also think most planets aren't as populated as earth and even earth has lots of space for an invading for to land in relatively unopposed. LA would have a lot more troops to defend it than Antarctica, for example. Every man woman and teenager may be in the militia but if you're population is only 2 mil and they're spread out over an entire planet that leaves very few to engage enemy forces when they come.

[Stormfury]

The Xosha militia armed with Locusts and Blackjacks drove off a Kuritan attack.

Those forces were Draconis March Militia- a House Regular formation, not a planetary militia.

Grayson Death Carlyle lead militia to drive back several attacks from "pirates' an Trellwan, eventually forming his own merc unit from the troops and captured mechs. Desicion at Thunder Rift.

And the attacking forces in that battle were not House Regulars. The troops Grayson lead incorporated Carlyle's Commandos.

Militia may be enough to ward of piracy or the like, but when the big boys come out to play they have no effect on proceedings.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

And yet there are zero examples of a militia fending off invading forces that I can think of (especially during the Clan invasion, which is about as disporportionate in their favour as you can get) and precious few that were able to organise a resistance that was able to later displace them.

What the tabletop rules allow you to do and what the fiction repeatedly demonstrates are two very different things.

  The disconnect between the fiction and the game has always existed -Anything can happen in the fiction because the fiction is molded to serve the writer's intentions and may or may not be determined by the actual game. Since we are not discussing the fiction, which is limited by the writers' imagination and other set parameters separate from game such as prestigious Mercenary and House units, the issue is moot -When CBT players start filling up militia units you might see militia units mentioned in the fluff and fiction as more than the occasional speed bump.

From BT 35014 - War of 3039: The AFFS forces that landed on Matar consisted of the First Kestrel Grenadiers, the First Kathil Uhlans, reinforced by two regiments of mechanized airborne infantry:
"Matar had what was generously considered a regiment of militia armor, but also a population near-fanatically loyal to the Combine, including many who enjoyed hunting the world’s plentiful wildlife—and had the firepower to do so. Major General Cunningham was forced to request the Twenty-third Federation Primary Relief Infantry Brigade—a force six regiments strong—to aid in the suppression of Matar. Even their arrival did not bring victory, however."

Many of the War of 3039 records show that planetary militias were no match for front-line forces but more than one militia accomplished its purpose -Keep the invading force busy until relief arrived. Some militia units only lasted days while others held out for months and still more acted as needed augmentations to regular units in battle, often acquitting themselves well.

Does the above fluff mean anything to game play? Not really but unlike many earlier accounts the writers of BT35014 mentioned militia actions in most of the world invasion descriptions and how they fared. 

 

[rlbell]

The people not involved in government have very little interest in who does unless the ruler is excessivly brutal.

Battletech wars aren't usually between nations, they're slapfights between nobles that don't like each other. The battletech universe is stagnant for the most part.

Most people are essentially peasants, no matter what their jobs are, and all governments are extremely inefficient, corrupt, and meant to preserve the status quo rather than help the governed.

I think that the populace of the Inner Sphere is supposed to be like the populace of Gaul during the long decline of the roman empirer.  Due to a lack of coinage, taxes were paid in the form of requisitions.  Each household had carved into the lintel of the main door what the local military commander could  show up and take.  The few literate barbarian leaders were quick to notice that if they limited their raids to taking what was listed, and kept other raiders from killing the goose, the locals would not even put up a token resistance.  It should be noted that the only difference between the local roman garrison and a barbarian raiding force was the sworn loyalties of the leader.  The local roman garrison were barbarian mercenaries in the pay of Rome, and barbarian raiders were in business for themselves.  From the point of view of the locals filling the requisitions, so long as there was no violence and mayhem during the collections and further raping, looting and pillaging were prevented, the system worked-- taxes paid for protection.

[verybad]

In it's simplest interpretation, government is a protection scam...

I see there beign a huge separation from how the leaders of the inner sphere, the movers and shakers, view the universe, and how the average person views the inner sphere.

Wars in the late succession war template don't affect the common people very much. Government is largely a myth except on the local and perhaps planetary levels, and the nobility are fighting wars over slights 300 years ago.

As the inner sphere states seem to have the same economical systems by and large, and they're all monarchies, with more or less trappings of constitutions that are ignored by the powerful if needed, they don't have an idealogical reason for fighting.

It's personal.

[VilleVicious]

Well BT writers aren't the only ones strugling with the scales of interstellar empires. One can check out TVTropes for a list of examples.

Sticking with published numbers the 4th Succesion War killed 100 million and wounded 600 millions. Thats bit more than WWII and in half the time even, but the thing is in 1939 terra had about 2.3 billion people an in 3028 Inner Sphere had propably few trillion people. There are propably more traffic casualities a year in the IS than died because of the 4th SW. (And even then beacause the armied are so wery tiny a huge part of the causalities have to be civilians.) So wars as slap fights between nobles is very fitting image.

[Nebfer]

The Battle corps story Dixie has a planetary militia of about 5 lances of battlemechs (and an unknown number of other forces) fend off a battalion of Marik battlemechs.

The Thing is even if you have 20 regiments of militia, that dose not stop the attacker from sending an RCT or so of troops, it also dose not factor in the fact that they can concentrate his forces and defeat the defending forces peace meal. Invading forces have considerable amount of strategic mobility in their dropships, something planetary militias generally lack or have little of. So a Militia force is often spread out protecting various locations where the invader is free to go where he pleases.

Edit:
The 4th SW atlas mentions that if planet X had 20 militia regiments the Davions and or lyrans would send a an RCT or two, or the equivalent of, to take the world.

[truetanker]

On an average raid, one can see a minimum of a Lance / Star being fielded. But to conquer a planet, one must have, at the very least, a Company / Trinary. Bigger is always better, unless your a Clan, in which case the lower the better.  Which it's wise to have a large militia on hand, even if it's just reserves and green cadets abundant. Most planets that can, will afford at least a reinforced Lance or two, if not those then massed conventionals and infantry in the thousands or the half million mark or so to defend with. Agreeing with Nebfer on the idea that it is hard to defend a place where you can't be all the time.

TT

[Korzon77]

R$emember that Btech isn't about taking ground, it's about taking objectives.  You go after teh base/factory/city rather tahn the land-- because most worlds have vast amounts of empty land, even today.  So the otherside runs into the Bush-- who cares?  It's like someone retreating into the Arizonian badlands when you want LA. 
Also, the above comment about drop ship mobility is well put-- dropships give you the mobility we need helicopters for (actually far, far more) only far more durable, and carrying a lot more equipment-- it's a bit like if the LHA WASP could fly and land wherever it wanted, along with its marines. 

[Khymerion]

The thing here is the whole idea of defense.  With the idea of 'shore batteries' (Sub-Cap or Capital weapons in fixed or mobile carriages),  the old idea of landing the dropship near a target, rushing the defenders, and escaping starts to look less and less desirable or feasible.  It can't be that unknown because in both MechCommander games (Apocrypha, I know), there are missions to hunt down mobile and fixed ground to surface cannon.

Perhaps back water BFE doesn't have them but especially in the Jihad and later days, these would almost have to be standard around most critical instillations (the things we are wanting to raid in the post scarcity days).  This means the raider force will either A) Have to weather withering ground fire, most likely losing a dropship and thus the ride home B) Perform a dangerous orbital insertion and watch that precious Battlemaster or MadCat land headfirst in the mud or have the legs snap off a Turkina or have bravo lance land in Hazard county while the rest of you are over where you are supposed to be (and don't lie, if you have done this on company or larger actions, you know this happens more than you like) or C) Land somewhere outside the reach of the defense guns and have to slog their way in on the ground.  Even a battery of two guns really makes someone think twice knowing that if there is any permanent damage to the transport, there is no going home for the crew or the raiders.

Yeah, then you do have to worry about the defenders scurrying away into the woodwork.  He's not fleeing into the Amazon while you advance on LA, he is moving into hills, radioing in to his buddies and preparing to jump either your supply train of repair vehicles or catch you running out with the goodies.  If you land a hundred Kilometers (or what ever kind of orbital denial your ground guns can provide) from target and have to walk in knowing that you are going to be harassed the whole way in AND out, it might make things look a bit different.

Then again, I might enjoy watching a flying LHA burn and fall as a wreck due to some anti-ship artillery we brought along with to deal with arrogant commanders (note to self, figure out how much cargo is needed to pack a few semi-mobile Sub-Cap cannons to do so).

Maybe the flying LHA example works great for helping explain how worlds could be conquered by a single lance (with transport) and held by a company (3 Leopards, not 1 union) in the old days... but I think this newer outlook really is nice.  I enjoy the idea of actually having protracted military campaigns for an objective or world and not just the 'valiant mega-knights have their honor duel over who gets control of yonder peasant village and ye olde factory'.

[Korzon77]

How much does it cost to emplace your subcaps?  yes they exist, but every such installation is money that isn't going to mechs. Now, we again run into Fasanomics, since logically with the small number of mechs being ;produced you should be able to turn every world into the death star without impacting your offensive forces, but i'm going to use the Fasanomics fairy to handwave that away, and assume that the two are coming from the same pool, be it money or techs or factories. 
Some worlds will have such defenses, it is true, and those worlds will be getting hit with the big multi-regiment offensives.  Many others will have a few or none, and such fixed bases aren't as powerful as they might seem-- a few aerospace fighters flying nap of earth afterentering atmosphere on the other side can hurt them badly-- or force them to divide their attention.  Equally, worlds might choose not to have them-- I'm certain nearly every major world in the First Succession war had such defenses-- which might explain why so many got visited by mr. Nuke bang-bang.  in the modern era, citizens might actively work against the ideas to make fortress  fill-in-the-blank in favor of a quick raid or war of manuver that ends with everyone having to break out the old flags and wait until the world changes hands again.

[Khymerion]

Korzon, perhaps the bottleneck isn't expenses.  Maybe it just is production capacity.  I know, I know... fasanomics.  Don't lynch me yet.

I dunno...  trading a lance of locust production this quarter might be a fair trade for a quartet of Medium Sub-Cap Cannon doesn't seem too bad honestly.

Yeah, a c-bill spent on a fixed orbital defense gun is a c-bill not spent on a mech or tank or fighter.  Maybe it is something akin to there just being enough extra production in one field, say... the sub-caps or left over capital guns from a cancelled or salvaged warship (as yards started vaporizing) but there isn't enough slack left in the 'mech lines to up production.  Or in the attempt to keep some specialized subdivisions of companies going (note the nuclear submarine program), due to desire to rebuild or maintain the remaining warships in the future, a certain number of these massive guns get made and not all of them are immediately ear marked for operational or under construction warships.  These are the guns that get shipped out, thus avoiding the c-bill not spent on mechs problem.

Yeah, Aerospace fighters could strike the guns but that is hopefully where the defenders are not idiots and leave them unguarded, leading to a neat ASF vs ASF or ASF vs Conventional + Ground defenses chain of scenarios.  Defender wins, attack is forced to land farther out, making the raid or invasion more difficult.  Attack wins and the guns neutralized, less distance needing to advance.  Might be more interesting than just watching a wedge of attack dropships or an overzealous destroyer captain (with their accompanying ASF) sweep aside the air defenses of a world and land immediately, knowing there are a few (or more masked) really heavy guns waiting for drop them.

Now, you are right.  There is the fact that some people might be seriously opposed to the idea of PDFs in their back yard (to avoid the almighty nuke or a real battle wagon laying waste to the countryside), prefering to just change the flag periodically after a tiny skirmish...  but I think if it is something important and the people patriotic (or zealous enough), the investment in the defensive power of planetary defense fortresses might seem worth it.

[Korzon77]

Oh I think you could do that--and it would become more common as you move out of 3025-- the important thing to remember is that it was the *jihad* that lead to a lot of destruction of infrasctructure, but from 3025 to ther jihad, planets and industry changed ahnds, but wasn't in general destroyed. That's a major issue, because no matter who won or lost pre-jihad the total amount of IS industrial might was moving upwards, so building fixed planetary defenses became less and less difficult-- and as the warship and dropshipo fleets grew in size, more and more important.

[iamfanboy]

One of the factors that gets ignored in this whole 'planetary militia' debate is this:

Would SW-era Lords WANT 'their' planets to be able to fight off any invasion?

Wouldn't that military force give a planetary government ideas about becoming an independent world and not paying fealty to the higher government?


Were you a Successor State Lord, it'd make a lot of sense to restrict the militaries to forces you DIRECTLY control, or that at least are controlled by lesser lords you know and trust, rather than giving a local governor the means to throw off any invasion - including your own.

So you 'give' a local militia just enough equipment to make the planetary government feel better, to act as a speedbump for an invading force, and to make sure the planetary government doesn't go into business for itself making weapons - and you stamp down HARD on anyone who starts.

[iamfanboy]

In fact, conventional fighters fit very well into that sort of scheme - you gift the planetary government with a squadron of twelve, the parts to maintain them, all the while knowing that they'll likely die if they come up against serious ASF opposition, but hoping that they'll take a few ASFs or one of the invading DropShips with them.

Oh, and knowing that if you have to, you could send in two dozen ASFs and obliterate the lot.


Remember, folks, it's not just about keeping someone else's oppressive boots off your worlds - it's making sure that YOUR oppressive boots stay ON them.

[Khymerion]

Maybe if I was a noble house, I would adopt that philosophy but there is just that part of me that wants to fight tooth and nail over every inch of soil and make them bleed for it.  If I can't stop them in orbit, I want to make them pay while landing or arrogantly gallivanting about the planet (concealed mobile orbital guns) and every kilometer they advance (Conventionals)...  if my populace knows I am willing to defend them, they might not just accept the changing of the colors flying in front of the capital because a pair of warhammers, a phoenix hawk, and a locust showed up with a pair of corsairs flying cap.

[Fireangel]

Conventional fighters are one of those things that are assumed to exist in the background along with militia ASF assets. Really; there are representative conventional fighters for all successor states (IIRC, I don't have my books with me at the moment), yet we barely see them represented in canon units of any type.

[Jellico]

Maybe if I was a noble house, I would adopt that philosophy but there is just that part of me that wants to fight tooth and nail over every inch of soil and make them bleed for it.  If I can't stop them in orbit, I want to make them pay while landing or arrogantly gallivanting about the planet (concealed mobile orbital guns) and every kilometer they advance (Conventionals)...  if my populace knows I am willing to defend them, they might not just accept the changing of the colors flying in front of the capital because a pair of warhammers, a phoenix hawk, and a locust showed up with a pair of corsairs flying cap.

Or they might decide they don't like the nut job who is making them bleed for every inch of soil. Especially once that Locust captured the water purifiers.

[iamfanboy]

Maybe if I was a noble house, I would adopt that philosophy but there is just that part of me that wants to fight tooth and nail over every inch of soil and make them bleed for it.  If I can't stop them in orbit, I want to make them pay while landing or arrogantly gallivanting about the planet (concealed mobile orbital guns) and every kilometer they advance (Conventionals)...  if my populace knows I am willing to defend them, they might not just accept the changing of the colors flying in front of the capital because a pair of warhammers, a phoenix hawk, and a locust showed up with a pair of corsairs flying cap.

That's because you're thinking at the level of ruling a single world, not of dozens of worlds scattered across parsecs of space. If you lose a world because it wasn't defended to an insane degree, hell, you can always try to take it back in a few years. Better to have it in the hands of a fellow Successor Lord than let it be free and give... ideas... to other worlds.

Historically speaking (in Battletech), nationalistic patriotism rising up in the breasts of common peasants HAS happened; a Coordinator was trapped on a planet taken by the FedSuns and whipped the populace into a frenzy that almost managed to throw back the Suns forces until reinforcements arrived. Also, I'm remembering how Phelan got sent in to conquer Tyra Miraborg's father's world single-handedly because he was handing out SRM and Inferno launchers to everyone and the entire world's populace were prepared to spend their lives dearly to drive back the invaders.

But it's rare as hen's teeth, because that kind of fervent patriotism would be far more likely to apply to a local government than a distant planetary lord.

If you're a monarch in a fealty-based system, the thing you fear most isn't outside invasion; it's rebellion, plain and simple. Whether it be someone like Michael Hasek-Davion betraying you to take your place or a single planet deciding to rule itself and having that seed of self-rule grow across the interstellar depths (remember, it may be weeks before you hear about a rebellion but the nearby worlds would hear about it nearly right away if they have HPG stations), the challenge to your power is what you cannot abide.


It's the reason that medieval lords didn't teach each and every peasant village to create hedgehogs and train each man to use braced and massed pikes against mounted knights: Sure, they might throw back an enemy knight, and bandits would be powerless to raid the village, but you wanted them as defenseless as possible so they would rely on you for protection.

As mentioned above, a government, in its most basic form, is a protection racket: "Be a shame if somethin' happened to this nice li'l village ya got here, head-man; if ya give me 20% of yer grain I'll make sure nuffin' DOES happen." *picks teeth with a sharp dagger*