Why Planteary Defense Weapons are Suicide

[Edraii]

I've seen some mentions of planetary anti-ship weapons mentioned here and I'd just like to say how much of a mistake such weapons are, if you'd like to not be glassed that is. If we operate under the idea that glassing a planet is discouraged and can have severe diplomatic repercussions (aka, it's the nuclear option) then having any form of planetary weapon is tantamount to suicide.

First of all since planets are stationary targets, you can blast planetary defenses from an endless distance away provided the right computing, they simply cannot dodge once revealed. You might get a few surprise shots on an orbiting fleet but that's it, after that the fleet can quickly pick them off. This is however the secondary reason, the primary? It's suicide, It's tantamount to hanging a giant "Glass me" sign on your planet. Planetary weapons give a legitimate reason for orbital strikes as it's making a legitimate military target of your entire damned planet. It's the same thing as launching missile strikes from the middle of populated cities but on a global scale.

So, in short planetary weapons are nothing but an impractical last ditch defense and likely suicide in face of an overwhelming orbital force. At the very least the presence of such weapons should give you casus belli to blast the planet into submission.

 

[ParagonExile]

It would make more sense to have heavy defense installations in orbit of planets or stars, with smaller supportive platforms on the surface as supplemental defenses against planetary invasion which would not justify overwhelming force. The stations would in turn be supported by picket fleets of vessels and the main combat fleets at more critical areas, which would constitute the first and major line of defense. Static defense would be secondary.

That's how I see it, though the concept of space stations with weapons and engines to maintain their orbit is sorta iffy, as by that point they are effectively ships.

But this is all pretty moot; as long as there is some sort of in-universe explanation (extremely powerful planetary shields?) that makes sense it would be acceptable imo.

 

[Velorian]

It depends on a few things:
1) Does the planet have some sort of planetary shielding technology?

2) Is it supporting a fleet or on it's own?

If it's supporting a fleet then it's in less immediate danger. Bombarding the planet while fighting a fleet is inconvenient and probably considered bad manners. It's assumed glassing the planet isn't the goal, if it was you could just do it from way outside the solar system.

Regardless of weaponry a planet should be allowed to surrender before being subjected to bombardment. Otherwise it's going to be a feeble excuse diplomatically.

 

[ringhloth]

It depends. Planetary installations can be far larger than their ship counterparts, since there aren't any limits on the power supply, and a number of things are easier to do in an atmosphere than out. So if you could get the missile or beam out of the atmosphere, then you're going to do a lot of damage. Obviously, a fleet can be far more useful, but it's like saying that putting cannons on a fort is pointless because they can just hit you with cannons back.

 

[Edraii]

It depends. Planetary installations can be far larger than their ship counterparts, since there aren't any limits on the power supply, and a number of things are easier to do in an atmosphere than out. So if you could get the missile or beam out of the atmosphere, then you're going to do a lot of damage. Obviously, a fleet can be far more useful, but it's like saying that putting cannons on a fort is pointless because they can just hit you with cannons back.

Ships can move out of the way, a plannet cannot, it's really that simple. Such a huge installation is also a huge target and a perfect justification for bombarding a planet.

As mentioned above, I see it in three stages of escalation.

1. When space superiority is secured (destruction of platform and fleet assets in the system) the planet should be given the choice of surrender/peaceful occupation. If any common code of war is in effect in the game (say, federations) then bombarding the planet should prior to securing space superiority should be frowned upon. In case of the planet engaging with or powering up anti-space weaponry these weapons and their surroundings are legitimate targets at any time.

2. If the planet refuses to surrender after space superiority is established and you are forced to invade, bombardments are acceptable. You really can't give a lot of time here, given the nature of space an enemy reinforcing fleet could arrive quickly so if they refuse surrender the gloves should come off.

Granted this is probably impacted by pops, I imagine the pacifists would be horrified by planetary bombardment while most citizens would likely be fine given you can justify it, say, they had giant anti-space weapons.

 

[aruon]

Ships can move out of the way, a plannet cannot, it's really that simple. Such a huge installation is also a huge target and a perfect justification for bombarding a planet.

As mentioned above, I see it in three stages of escalation.

1. When space superiority is secured (destruction of platform and fleet assets in the system) the planet should be given the choice of surrender/peaceful occupation. If any common code of war is in effect in the game (say, federations) then bombarding the planet should prior to securing space superiority should be frowned upon. In case of the planet engaging with or powering up anti-space weaponry these weapons and their surroundings are legitimate targets at any time.

2. If the planet refuses to surrender after space superiority is established and you are forced to invade, bombardments are acceptable. You really can't give a lot of time here, given the nature of space an enemy reinforcing fleet could arrive quickly so if they refuse surrender the gloves should come off.

Granted this is probably impacted by pops, I imagine the pacifists would be horrified by planetary bombardment while most citizens would likely be fine given you can justify it, say, they had giant anti-space weapons.

yeah... i think if an invading force is going to use planetary defenses as a pretext to bombard indiscriminantly, it was going to happen anyway. "oh your going to defend yourself against invaders? welp time to die then!". and really only the the most pacifistic of societies wouldn't put at least some kind of defensive emplacement around a potentially endangered planet if they could afford it.

now the defending planet could simply just offer to surrender once defeat is certain (much more likely with pacifistic societies) and let defense installations be occupied. or fight to the bitter end, which in the case of defending against xenophobic and dictatorial and maybe religious eventually (meaning much less opposed to small scale genocide) enemies, is more than likely the only option against enemies like halos' Covenant or star wars' galactic empire.

 

[ringhloth]

Ships can move out of the way, a plannet cannot, it's really that simple. Such a huge installation is also a huge target and a perfect justification for bombarding a planet.

As mentioned above, I see it in three stages of escalation.

1. When space superiority is secured (destruction of platform and fleet assets in the system) the planet should be given the choice of surrender/peaceful occupation. If any common code of war is in effect in the game (say, federations) then bombarding the planet should prior to securing space superiority should be frowned upon. In case of the planet engaging with or powering up anti-space weaponry these weapons and their surroundings are legitimate targets at any time.

2. If the planet refuses to surrender after space superiority is established and you are forced to invade, bombardments are acceptable. You really can't give a lot of time here, given the nature of space an enemy reinforcing fleet could arrive quickly so if they refuse surrender the gloves should come off.

Granted this is probably impacted by pops, I imagine the pacifists would be horrified by planetary bombardment while most citizens would likely be fine given you can justify it, say, they had giant anti-space weapons.

It's better than nothing. Yeah, one planetary emplacement would get killed by one ships. But what about a hundred thousand emplacements against a fleet of 50? They might be able to destroy 5 or 10 ships, which would be more than enough to make a fleet turn tail and run, unless the civilization has no other fleets. Besides, there has to be some sort of ablative materials that can be used to shield the turret, silo, or whatever they are using.

 

[King Travis]

Thats why you put them on the moon. I'm sure there would be fighter bases too, probably makes more sense to put them in orbit and some ground base ones for invasion defense.

 

[King of Malta]

I'd put them in less populated areas or make mobile Anti-orbital platforms. It would certainly make a planet harder to conquer outright. Maybe in game they would add to the space battle modifiers if the battle took place around orbit of a planet or like "sieges" in crusader there is an invasion phase and the fleet needs to be a certain size to successfully invade the planet.

Speaking of invasions of planets I think taking over lightly populated colonies will be a lot easier than going for more populated core worlds.

 

[Velorian]

Bombarding planets should always have negative diplomatic consequences. Killing millions of people would be frowned upon even if the military has some justification.

 

[Velorian]

It's better than nothing. Yeah, one planetary emplacement would get killed by one ships. But what about a hundred thousand emplacements against a fleet of 50? They might be able to destroy 5 or 10 ships, which would be more than enough to make a fleet turn tail and run, unless the civilization has no other fleets. Besides, there has to be some sort of ablative materials that can be used to shield the turret, silo, or whatever they are using.

Realistically they could back off to a few million kilometres away and demand surrender or face destruction. After refusal they start driving huge comets into the planet.

 

[ringhloth]

Realistically they could back off to a few million kilometres away and demand surrender or face destruction. After refusal they start driving huge comets into the planet.

So they deflect the comets? If they have weapons that can destroy space ships, they can have weapons that can deflect comets from the planet.

 

[Velorian]

So they deflect the comets? If they have weapons that can destroy space ships, they can have weapons that can deflect comets from the planet.

Big comets moving at relativistic speeds? Not easy to deflect by any means.

 

[King Travis]

So they deflect the comets? If they have weapons that can destroy space ships, they can have weapons that can deflect comets from the planet.

All it takes is a giant tennis racket.

 

[King Travis]

Big comets moving at relativistic speeds? Not easy to deflect by any means.

Also, you usually invade a planet so that you can take it over. glassing a planet is probably not an option. Maybe bio warfare?

 

[Velorian]

Also, you usually invade a planet so that you can take it over. glassing a planet is probably not an option. Maybe bio warfare?

Depends on whether you think the natives have value or if they really are just filth that is in your way, that may live if they surrender but otherwise no great loss.

Maybe removing the planet from enemy control is more important than getting any value out of it yourself as well.

But sure, getting the planet intact would probably have value to most species.

 

[DC123456789]

Big comets moving at relativistic speeds? Not easy to deflect by any means.

It's not that hard to knock it just a little bit off course so that misses the planet entirely. Space is a huge place.

 

[Velorian]

It's not that hard to knock it just a little bit off course so that misses the planet entirely. Space is a huge place.

They can guard it until it's almost next to the planet making it nearly impossible to deflect if the planet doesn't have extremely advanced technology.

 

[DC123456789]

Unless it's some minor outpost, planets will probably have much more resources than any fleet to disarm those defenses.

 

[Velorian]

Right, but then it's a planet and a fleet. Unless it's just missiles they are sending, but those would be easy to pick off until the fleet gets pretty close to the planet.