It is laughable that people are even arguing with Ron about this: it is so logically self-evident that you would not be wanting to place defensive emplacements on your planet's surface that I am having difficulty understanding how people are arguing so vehemently against him. These defensive structures are placed in essence to prevent damage being done to the economic and administrative infrastructure: the planet/asteroids. These strucutres therefore serve the double-role of actively defending through weapons-systems as well as passively destracting enemy offensive capacities from the main objective of planetary bombardment.To take resources that could be put into fleet construction, technology upgrades, bombardment resistance, or orbital defensive construction into GROUND-BASED defensive infrastructure represents a nearly inconceivable misunderstanding of what the very purpose and function of defensive strucutres is.

The problems of the atmosphere (not to mention the biosphere.. propelling all these proposed energy, missile, and strike-craft weapons from the surface would probably do more harm than good, essentially bombarding the planet one sought to defend) are self-evident, and if you keep up with this nonsense that Ron's point is somehow inconsistent with sci-fi's general gameplay tennets, you are all missing the point (and making yourselves look like fools); the point of sci-fi is not to BREAK what we know of science now and say 'well, since we have this technology of space-lanes, why can't we have a technology of IGNOIRING GRAVITY, ATMOSPHERIC (that is to say, atomic) REALITY, and generally-known science.. it is to imagine techonological advances, not magical irreverance for basic logic.

If you want fantasy or absurdity, go play Magic -- if you are looking for a realistic sci-fi space-combat simulation (whose logic is basically mounted on that of contemporary naval strategy) that doesn't go too nuts with the whole 'creative liscence', then stop making absurd suggestions and try to pass them off as logical. Otherwise, soon the TEC will employ the covetted 'build without regard for resources' technology, the advent will begin strengthing their energy shields with walls of puppy tears, and the Vasari will begin firing captured enemies in their phaze missile tubes rather than explosives... and somehow they will do more damage!

Planetary defensive emplacements simply do no make sense. Get over it.

btw: plasma weapons are bullocks.

Except you are not using scientific points as justification you are using Internet self proclaimed expertise. DO you have research that shows defenseive weaponry on planets would be a bad idea? Have you done the math and calulations to determine what is best? Do you have military expertise in space warfare? ARe you an Engineer with knowledge of space flight and weapon systems?

It is well known that anybody who uses the "It is so logically self-evident that...such and such" that they dont have a valid argument and simply try to delegitimize the opposition. What is logically self evident is the logical fallacies used in your reasoning. This is called using a double standard. You claim it is so unrealistic and yet have no quams about many many other things far more illogical and unscientific. Please explain to me the reasoning behind phase lanes, psychic technology, autocannons on ships, railguns on ships, Strike craft, Planets not orbiting the star and instead staying still. Lack of fuel, the fact that planetary bombardment is used always instead of invasion, the short range of laser and beam weaponry, wave cannons, FTL travel, and several other things. You cant hold planetary weapons to your standard of supposed realism and science fiction hardness and totally ignore other grievous scientific errors.

First using resources for ground based weaponry hardly makes along term differnce especially when you could do both this and add orbital structures. Why are the problems with atmosphere self-evident? Im afraid not all of us are meteorologists or Engineers (At least im not an engineer yet give me few years )

Second you cant claim we shouldnt ignore science with almost magic like ideas but you completely miss all the previously mentioned illogicalities with sins. Your claim of ignoring gravity is silly and very incorrect. There is no need to ignore gravity you just overcome it. If i wanted Fantasy or absurd so called scientific justifications ill just reread this post. You cant claim realism or lack of realism if you dont actually understand scientific principles or technological development. Many things could get past the escape velocity and become really useful. I also doubt that if this planet was going to be bombarded into oblivion your vehemenace against planetary weapons will dissolve as you find any desperate measure to preserve your life and our society you can get. Mass drivers, particle beams, laser weaponry could all defeat gravity and atmospheric obstacles with enough development. We can already do it with rocket technology. Sooner or later fusion drives or Ion drives will do it much more efficiently. When mass drivers become more doable that will be a great way to achieve orbit. Missiles would be great for this.

If you disgree why dont you find some evidence to back your claims that this is unrealistic and if you do then find justification for all the problems i mentioned otherwise your just using double standards.

weissengel, you apparently have ignored the central premise of my argument. The logic of defences ON planets ignores the rational for putting them in space in the first place. The atmospheric stuff also back up my argument, but is not the centre of it. It just doesn't make sense to put the defences that are meant to protect the planet from bombardment ON the planet.. to be bombarded. When their being on the planet also forces the expenditure of extra energy and the fallout from launches (think what the single rockets we launch into space now do to the atmosphere, and the fuel absorbed trying to simply ESCAPE the gravitational pull of the planet, and then realize that those problems are totally overcome when you put the launch site in orbite..), it becomes apparent that this is a feature that would be added shearly "for features' sake" and not actually add anything meaningful to the game.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings with my post.. just thought that maybe some perspective would be nice. We could also plant defensive weaponry on the face of stars, inside of asteroids, and probably even launch missiles from the bottum of the terran worlds' oceans-- but this wouldn't address any pressing strategic challenge in any meaningful or constructive way. Basing defences on a planet's surface simply draws more attention to the bombardment of the planet... achieving the opposite goal of any defence: to prevent planetary bombardment and loss of planetary infrastructure/lives.

If I haven't got this (one would think simple) fact across to you, and if you continue to think I am simply spuing "logical fallacies" all over the place, that is fine -- I have put my 2 cents in and don't really continue to give half a shit if you think I am promoting double-standards. You want defensive weapons on the planets' surface, I want them in space -- where all the action is... I am happy to agree to disagree and let this irrelevant (because SD is not going to implement this idea, I can nearly guarantee it) argument finally die.

Alright, in my opinion the "Emergency Facilities" planetary upgrade is too weak to justify getting it. All it does is increase the lenght of time it takes for him to bomb your planet to oblivion which really doesn't help the situation much. 

I'd say to give more incentive for people to purchase this upgrade, let Emergency facilities at lv. 2 and lv. 3 have planetary surface based defenses such as autocannons. Yes, these would last until the planet has been completely taken and yes they cannot be focus fired on, as they are inherently part of the planet itself. 

NO, These guns are NOT going to be powerful. At lv. 2 Emergency facilities let them have the firepower equalivant to 2 LRMs and at lv. 3 (the max I believe) equal to 2 Kiodiak Heavy Crusiers (for a very slight Anti-strike craft capability), and give a slight bonsus (10%) to all surrounding obital structures close to the planet.

These effects are going to be very marginal at best but can help out a battle, and could be worth it to draw a enemy to fight close to the planet itself to do some extra dmg. esp at lv. 3 Emergency Facilities since these sources of dmg cannot be taken out until the planet gets taken out. 

This address the problem of defenses in space vs. defenses on the planet. I think this actually helps implement a feature of the game (Emergency Facilities) better and is a decent suggestions. Planetary Defenses are realistic and present in all pop culture mediums: Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. 

I agree it makes sense as to what planetary defenses would be. It is self evident that many others would like to see this feature except a couple naysayers and self proclaimed experts.

i do like the idea of tying the ground based emplacements with the emergency facilities upgrade.

While it is true that space based defenses enjoy significant tactical advantages over their planetary counterparts, most arguments in favor of them overlook a key point, which is that of cost and resources.  Building orbital installations requires the movement of mass from other places in the gravity well (or the planet's surface) to construct them.  The availability of both mass and energy are extremely limited in space.  It is for this reason that even the largest scale projects to date in Earth-based space programs have resulted in installations only slightly larger than school buses.  Even with space elevators (clearly evident in Sins) and massive advances in technology, this still remains a severe limitation.  This limitation is highlighted by the small number of civilian installations or population centers on anything other than planets  (Even large asteroids support only very small planets).  Only the Vasari have the technology, resources or will to create space-born installations that support taxpayers, and even for them, it comes at considerable expense (population upgrades for starbases).  

Planets are able to cheaply produce virtually unlimited supplies of mass and energy weapons and defenses.  Relative to space construction, they are not limited by scarcity of resources, expense of construction, size of installation, size of workforce or safety considerations to the same degree.  Additionally, the size of planets and their density makes them relatively safe from bombardment (which explains why it takes so damn long to take down a fully equipped world).  Defenses can be placed around population and administrative centers where appropriate, but can also be installed at a significant remove from those same.  They can be buried under miles of rock or camoflauged into their environment.  The Cold War on Earth gives an ideal example of this situation; the ability to harden defenses was a significant part of the calculation of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).  The fact that almost 100,000 high yield nuclear weapons were constructed to ensure deterrence is evidence of both the industrial power of planets and of the difficulty inherent in destroying one.  

Planets should be more than capable of constructing powerful defenses, immense armaments stockpiles and vast energy reserves to power their resistance against orbital attackers.  Even with the admittedly significant disadvantages associated with surface-to-space combat (everything from the cost of getting into orbit to firing angle limitations (you can't shoot through your own planet)), they ought to be able to put up quite a fight against most fleets that might choose to engage them.  The question, then, is why don't they?  I think the answer is three-fold.

First, there appears to be significant limitations on the availability and deployability of shield technology in Sins.  Only the TEC have the ability to protect an entire world from bombardment, and even they are only able to do so with orbital installations.  It seems clear that atmospheric interference makes it difficult or impossible for ground based installations to properly protect civilian, economic and administrative centers.  The fact that shields tend to only reduce, rather than entirely block damage from weapons striking them is an added concern (see phase missiles, etc.)  Frankly, as other posters have mentioned, it is difficult to protect civilian populations in the event of a direct attack.  Therefore, it is imperative to prevent enemy fleets from getting close enough to inflict sustained bombardment in the first place, rather than attempt to fight them when the siege cordon is already in place.  Resources are allocated accordingly.   

Second and most importantly, however, is the fact that the planets we are referring to in Sins are in fact colony worlds rather than fully developed planets.  Even extrapolating game time to years suggests a profound limitation on the ability of planets to become the kind of defensive powerhouses some commanders might like.  While Earth might be able to sustain a massive military-industrial effort on behalf of its own defense, a two year old colony in the best of conditions is unlikely to be able to do so, even with advanced technology speeding their development and immigration sustaining population growth.  The fact of the matter is that colonies expend all of their internal industrial output on colony development.  This is why planets never generate metal or crystal that can be used towards fleet production. Instead, they generate wealth, and considerable amounts of it as population sizes increase.   This to our interests as commanders, because if planets were wasting resources building defenses, they wouldn't be doing the important activity of generating wealth to sustain our forces.  The fact that they can even fortify enough to offer some protection for populations on the surface is quite an acheivement given the difficulties facing planetary governors.  

Third and finally, planets do offer a considerable contribution to gravity well defense in the form of the crews, command and energy they provide to orbital facilities and fleets.  As we all know, the destruction of a planet disables all orbital installations which may have survived the bombardment.  While we can assume that this loss of control is related to the loss of command and control at the colony level, it is probably also related to the loss of power and logistical support from the planet (as other posters have suggested).  Wireless transmission of energy to Gauss defenses and other such installations helps keep the cost of orbital installations down (since energy can be generated cheaply on the surface) and frees up orbital resources for other activities.  Only starbases have the energy reserves to supplement or replace what the planet itself can provide, and only then at considerable expense.

All that said, i think we fleet and sector commanders owe some gratitude to the base and colony commanders supporting us from the ground.  They do everything they can to aid us and then some.  Asking more of them is only shirking our responsibilities to protect our worlds.  

The Hoth Ion Cannon, planetary defense gun.  

Planet based Turbolaser W-165 on Corescant. 

Star Trek Planet Based Type 4 Phaser Banks firing into Orbit.

Obviously these weapons are very very large, and building on the ground is much easier than in space. Any disadvantages these guns have are overcome by the sheer massive power of these weapons. 

OK. I have been brought around. I didn't think it was possible, and got really into defending against the notion of ground-based defences... but Dorian's pictures and House's arguments swayed me -- I admit (finally), those would be awesome... but they would need to be expensive, and 'little emplacements' still don't make sense. I think my arguments still hold for the notion of having planets house SC or guass turret-type defences...  but I have been swayed to the belief that really BIG and expensive emplacements would make more sense on the ground. Thank you Dorian and House for patiently swaying me -- Star Wars and Star Trek references have always been the way to my heart!

No matter how massive it is, a planet has enough room. Not all of a planet's resources will be sent away, and by this time in the war. The Vasari are bound to be nearing worlds heavily industrialized. Perhaps nothing like Terra, or the systems nearby, but worlds heavily industrialized enough to spare resources, and build PDCs then ship them in seperate parts.

A point you guys have been argueing is that the enemy would then concentrate on the planets. They already do that. PDCs exist because they safeguard population centers. The enemy attacks them first because they are the only remaining thing that can hurt them, buying time for the civies. Each PDC, even without shields, can take hits that would decimate capital ships.

People saying that the effectivness of weapons launched from the bottom of a gravity well will be degraded, and they will. But does that matter much when your launching nukes, and Terra+Yota Watt level beams?

And the pro-Planetary Defense camp goes wild! 

The_Only_Normal_1 and Ferang I'm going to offer to co-author a new thread that we could start with our ideas consolidated into a proper presentation in a better chance of Ironclad noticing this idea.

What do you guy's say? We'll all write up something send it thru a private message and finalize a version with my pictures and our suggestions!  

Yay! didn't notice his post before mine.

hahaha (what have i done?)

We have seen examples of planet-based weapons in sci-fi. Just as I was reading this post, I thought of the Ion Cannon on Hoth (Star Wars V), able to disable a Star Destroyer on orbit, the Ion Cannon on Stargate SG-1, that did the same to the Goa'uld motherships Ha'tak, the Ancients chair in Antarctica and Atlantis with the guided drones could kill almost anything.

I think it they should be allowed, short-range, obviously, but able to destroy the planet-bombing frigates the AI likes to send, so the planet can defend itself against those pesky invaders.

Actually the SG-1 Ion Cannon didn't just disable a target, it destroyed the target.

There are other examples of ground based defences in many other sci-fi's.

Also a main factor would be that these defense would help support orbital defense structures. While your massive starbase is firing termendous amounts of ordinance keeping the enemy busy. Oops all of a sudden they didnt notice those Nuclear missiles headed there way from the planet and blamo dead invaders.