The HUGE PROBLEM with Space Stations in Star Wars
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 08. 2022
- Marvel shorts channel: • Secret Wars could be a...
Space Stations are a big part of Star Wars Legends, but they have some serious issues, which is probably why we don't see them more frequently turn the tide of battle. We'll take a look at the deficiencies and what could be improved.
Golan Model (thumbnail) by FractalSponge:
#starwars #starwarslore #starwarsexplained star wars, star wars battle, star wars hoth
Music by Unfound - Home / Heaven / Without
***
🔵 ASSETS 🔵
Intro/Outro Music: Home - Resonance
Outro meme'd by: / freightmytrain
Music Playlist: goo.gl/YRzmaZ
🔵 SOCIAL MEDIA 🔵
Twitch: / eckhartsladder
2nd YT: / eckstoo
Twitter: / eckhartsladder
Discord: / discord
Instagram: / eckhartsladder
Merch: www.teespring.com/eckhartsladder
🔵 SUPPORT ECK 🔵
Patreon: / eckhartsladder
Paypal: www.paypal.me/eckhartsladder
Sub: goo.gl/vBao71
Join: goo.gl/5G4Xr8
🔵 SEND ME STUFF 🔵
PO Box 3271, Station East, Dartmouth NS, B2W 5G2
You can address any mail to Justin - Zábava
Thanks for watching! Music and thumbnail art (Golan by FractalSponge) linked in description!
The Golan looks so fricking sick man
I think the real problem is they use them for planetary defense instead of setting them up at or near hyper space lanes
Yoo Echk, not sure if you've gotten this message before. But what if cruise missiles were used(or popularized if used already)? And what effect do you think they would bring into the universe and naval combat? Would it ruin naval combat in star wars? Or could it add another level of strategy? Also, since you're on the topic of planetary defense, what are your thoughts on ballistic missiles? Thanks for reading this if you get the chance.
hey Eckharts, what was the name of that TIE fighter scene you were playing at the end there?
I am starting to dislike your click baity titles recently.
I think the "advantage" of a Golan defense platform not being subject to being called away to another system is a valid one, if you think about it from the perspective of a planetary governor. If some admiral wants added defenses for his fleet, or more resources for his attack group, he could easily recall a Star Destroyer from planetary defense to aid his own fleet. If you're the governor of a planet, you likely don't have a say in the matter (unless you're the governor of a planet like Kuat), and seeing your only line of defense from Rebels or pirates suddenly being pulled away without notice would leave you feeling really exposed. But if you had a space station in orbit, it can never be recalled. It may be decommissioned eventually, but it'll never leave you suddenly without warning, making it a more desirable form of defense than a Star Destroyer or a Bulk Cruiser. It's less flexible and less capable, but what it lacks in capability it makes up for in general security.
That is a very good point/idea
Good point, hopefully Eck sees this because I think he was seeing it from more of a fleet perspective and not from security and the actual planet’s perspective like you did, I still think both points are valid tho as these are 2 different scenarios both of you portrayed
This of course only works if your military is heavily fragmented.
If you have a centralized military that needs to accomplish objectives tying down resources in stations that are not going to see use can massively hamper a faction.
I think the benefit is that hyperdrives and engines for a colossal 2km starship are very expensive. Plus you don’t have to design a stationary station to be able til move, so strength to weight ratio doesn’t matter, and your just looking at strength to cost.
@@alack3879 Possibly true, but hypothetically speaking (I am no expert) If put in a high priority location where defense is critical, it could be built to have the same defense of a large ship, but at a much reduced cost/maintenance because you would need much smaller engines since it won't move much and it wouldn't need any form of ftl. Now this all depends on how it is constructed and where it is positioned along with the cost of certain technologies/tech available for each scifi universe. I would imagine these being most useful for planets with in hospital environments that make a ground station less than ideal, plus you won't have the planets shields (if any) and the planets weather/atmosphere interfering with weapons fire power and targeting. In times of peace it could be used as say an emergency evacuation facility if a weather system is moving in that would make something like strip mining the planet too dangerous to do. Again depending on the tech of your scifi these could be towed to a system that could use them and only have enough engines to remain stationary above a fixed point on the planet or move itself to other places around it. It may also be used to refuel and repair ships that wouldn't want to land on a hazardous world if required(not ideal because in this hypothetical they are focused on planetary defense not as a repair/medical facility)
Honestly golon platforms are much like real world coastal defenses.
They are a known quantity and can be prepared for, however with a mobile fleet you can back it up and use them optimally. In addition it is meant more to delay the invasion until more ships can arrive
Imperial Rome had a similar concept during its height. Comitatensis and Limitanei, C being the actual army that did all the heavy lifting & the L being the frontier troops who would deter the enemy or resist for long enough for the "real" troops to arrive.
@@Aabergm it’s called elastic defense.
Basically the defense is meant to hold out just long enough for response troops to arrive.
Eks was gauging this to defense in depth, where the defense you see is all you get, you break past and your home free
these days coastal artillery is mostly missile launchers mounted on trucks.
@@deriznohappehquite true
I do miss the days of grand structures tho.
I worked at San Felipe del morro, the largest castle in the US nation parks. This thing shrugged off battleship rounds in the Spanish American war and was only bypassed due to the defense being told that the war was no longer their problem due to Spain granting their independence
Still, it’s gorgeous and I do enjoy walking along the walls overlooking the port entry
Agreed, they are most effective as a permanent picket that buys enough time to get the planetary shields online. They just have to be a credible enough threat to slow the invasion.
I get that in a game the Golan's can't be OP, and boy am I glad they are just a speedbump when attacking a planet. It seems to me something that large would have insane shielding capability and hull integrity though.
try the Remake mod in EAW
In your more realistic scifi settings, the primary way to avoid dying is to either have so many copies and such distributed capacity it takes a thousand hits to kill you, or to simply not be where the attack is going. Any immobile defense suffers the single tragic problem; in space, orbital mechanics and acceleration allow enormous amounts of force to be brought against anything that can't move, making stations a non-issue unless they are defending something the attacker wants to keep safe.
In Star-Wars, up until the most recent trilogy, this wasn't the case; any attack, up to and including ramming of a starship and even a star going supernova, could conceivably be absorbed by sufficiently powerful shielding and armor. And now... its canon that triggering a hyperdrive to ram a victim at FTL turns a modest starship into a weapon capable of obliterating the most powerful capital ship out there by hurling it at the victim at relativistic speeds, even causing momentary backlash that destroys nearby ships as well.
Frankly, as of now, there is no logic behind the construction of any military vessel in star-wars other than the small droid-piloted hyperspace-capable shuttlecraft used by the CIS during the clone wars. A few of those could kill a Death Star.
On game settings. In Stellaris, you can make space stations way stronger than fleets in the early game and still keep them at least equal to a single late game fleet.
The fact that they don't have engines and are already in space means that more power from the reactors can be devoted to shields and weapons, plus they would be the perfect staging area for your squadrons of starfighters and other attack craft.
@@duloth5518Anything moving at relativistic speed SHOULD do that. As such I see hyperdrives/warp drives or whatever the setting are calling them as a way to cheat the laws of physics. The ship doesn't move at relativistic speed but the bubble the ship exist in does. As such a collision should as such be a rather modest crash but the sequel trilogy are after all an abomination created by clueless people. Actually encountering masses in hyperspace lanes are a way to disengage hyperspace travel. Pirates wouldn't place massive object into the hyperspace lanes if it didn't work. If the ships just smashed into the objects there would be no point.
I think we need to keep some things in mind regarding planetary defense in Star Wars when discussing space stations especially. Mainly that while the defense of a world like coruscant, corellia, or Earth would require us to defend the entire sphere, it seems to me that most worlds in star wars are massively low in population comparatively. I don't remember who made this point, but it must be reiterated that Earth irl would be among the most populous worlds in the star wars galaxy when ignoring ecumenoploli like coruscant. Most worlds may only have one hemisphere with any meaningful population concentrations, in which case just park the Golan roughly center and enjoy the carnage. Even if the enemy invades by starting on the other side of the world there's no reason to think that a golan couldn't conduct orbital bombardment on hostile ground pounders. I could be mistaken but I don't recall there being any need for a specialized space to ground turbolaser battery. I imagine that invading most worlds in Star Wars somewhat resembles trying to invade Australia, you can either try taking the few parts that matter or declare yourself master of the barren, inhospitable, and outright hostile majority of the landmass.
I thought similarly, unless your planets key points of industry or important civilian centers are scattered all over the place, you could just park a few golans or other defense platforms above these places and dare an enemy fleet attacks or if they try to land forces on some empty part of the planet...only to have said ground forces obliterated by the golans above their targets from sustained orbital bombardment!
Exactly. The idea of “just go around” has always existed on Earth, but countries build fortifications, walls, bases etc at key places. For example, key cities, river crossings, roads - you can’t defend everything so build where you need to. Thus I don’t see a problem with space stations at all. Position them over key planetary objectives, near hyperspace lanes, moons, etc.
Why not place an equivalent number of weapons on ships?
Even the ISS need to be able to move from time to time. As such ALL space stations should to an extent be considered space ships. They are probably slow about it but a space station weapon plarform should be able to hit targets anywhere on the surface or in orbit so landing an invasion "on the other side" will not help for long.
@@Daedric16 The Chinese built the Great Wall to defend against the Mongols but eventually they where STILL counquered by the Mongols.
Rogal Dorn: "Your space Stations needed more fortifications for they are insufficient."
"The greatest Offense is a good defense." Rogal Dorn
Engineer: Yes m'lord! **installs more reactors to power stronger shields and wields double "durasteel" plating onto the existing durasteel plating.**
@@msmith1890
To be honest golans and other defense platforms should be ridiculously overpowered in their firepower and defensive abilities!
*laughs in Perturabo*
With out comparing fire power/ shield strength of a space station, I don’t know how you can just say space stations are a waste because they are mobile. If a space station has comparable strength but half as much crew and half as much price they are certainly worth it. Not the mention the logistics of having a staging platform for resupplies for good going to the planets or leaving it. I imagine small transports going to planet surface and back to a space station is way cheaper and faster then landing capital ships.
additionally you can also likely store ships on golans like the 3 model mentioned.
enemy: I built a powerful station that will destroy your fleet what are you gonna do about it?
me: "attacks from a slightly different angle"
enemy: :(
@@theeviloverlord7320 that is not how starwars works. With hyperspace lanes you always know where they are coming from.
@@bobpope3656 ehh, we know microjumps, reorientation, and return allow for arrival at a different angle. Happened in the Rogue Squadron books. You're not wrong that hyperlanes are the only FAST and reliable routes between systems, but it is circumventable. I'd argue that the absence of a hyperdrive and (to a lesser extent) sublight mobility allows that energy to go into armor and shields, as if the thing isn't meant to move no amount of speed reduction is a concern. I'd prefer mild sublight engines and/or alternative benefits like grav well generators or a cloaking device. If the enemy doesn't know you have defenses, they can be caught with their hand shoulder deep in the trap.
Defence platforms do provide superior levels of firepower and protection as they don’t need engines or hyperdrives for the same size and cost of an enemy capital ship. they are not supposed to be the only line of defence in a system. There should be several layers with Frigates, Corvettes and starfighters stopping smugglers or pirates on the periphery, Golans stopping large Fleets closer and the planetary shield as a final line before invasion.
All these defences are there to force the enemy to send a much larger force if they want the planet which hopefully will take longer and be more noticeable giving you time to respond, which is the main thing Golans provide, Time. Time to summon new fleets, time to make plans, time to infiltrate or undermine the enemy.
Even if the enemy can make a hole by destroying a few Golans this limits the activities to just this areas of space and the other Golans can provide a place for your fleets to repair and rearm between sorties against the enemy fleet. This is especially useful for starfighters that can launch multiple quick bombing or missle runs a day against an enemy fleet that is trying to wear down the planetary shield or support a limited landing.
True. Entering planets in star wars usually have single point entry. Thus reasons for planetary blockades. Similar exits such as shown in Rebels show where commander Sato had to sacrifice for the rebel fleet to escape. They are just about as large as the Lucrehulk from episode 1 but are cheaper and sturdier. Also Golan 8 if im not mistaken has hyperdrive.
I think poor use is an issue here. If they were used as a base for multiple heavy strike fighter groups or armed with long range artillery or kinetic munitions which could be angled and slung to hit far flung targets, anywhere in gravity well being dangerous they would be more useful. Think this is a SW problem. Interdiction capability and long range strong tractor beams would help too.
That was my first thought, why not have interdiction generators on defense platforms like golans to basically prevent any ships from leaving unless authorized and in the case of incoming attack pull all enemy vessels out at the same point in space, facing literally walls of fire power from golan stations or other defense systems.
@@navilluscire2567 In that vein, it could be used like the Thrawn Pincer Maneuver, but in reverse, forcing incoming ships to manifest in a place of the system's choosing, surrounded by Golan's, and then have to check in and fly the rest of the way.
I also still believe in Planetary Guns as a valuable form of defense, which could add to this setup. A Planet has as much potential as a Death Star, if not more, for power generation, shielding, weaponry, and fleets.
@@shorewall
That would be cool! Though one limitation of this is that yeah, people would definitely try and scout things ahead before sending fleets more often. Also interdiction tech can't anticipate an attack beforehand so the defending force with the stations would have to have alot of advanced warning of approaching enemy forces to get the most out of this setup.
My immediate thoughts jumped to defensive fighter groups and long range heavy hitters, but also why not large ion weaponry? The whole point of a static defensive emplacement is to provide full power to weaponry, life support and shields without compromising mobility, so why not bring in the big guns to properly repel capitol ships?
If Hoth-sized ion cannons lose enough energy over distance from the ground to bump them down the list as a planetary defense weapon, then move em up into space on a big stonking space station, or whatever size of cannon the station can power at ideal capacity. Remove the atmospheric interference, increase the range, and buff that Golan station properly
Why not park asteroids with weapons on the asteroids of sufficient mass to interdict ships?
That’s why in Star Trek, the space stations are often space docks. Most ships can’t function in atmosphere and it’s much easier to build space ships, in space. However, like Deep Space 9, they function as Neutral places for diplomats and also commerce, free from planetary law.
For a station to be more effective, it would have to offer a higher armor, shield, and firepower rating to compensate for the lack of mobility. It's not hard to imagine that it would be easier to bolt more armor onto something that doesn't have to move, and that the same reactor can give you more power to shields and weapons if it doesn't have to power engines. That doesn't necessarily make them more economical though.
I think they kind of function as the shield in a shield and one handed sword combo. Make your foes contend with the shield and then strike with the sword, in this case represented by a mobile fleet. Having the two together, when used correctly, makes for an overall stronger defense.
Remember that engines are big, heavy, and they aren't cheap, while they are also going to be the most exspesive part of the ship to maintain, and most importantly buying a ship requires you to work with a large ship maker, who will upcharge you for that, while your average planet could use transports and such craft to make use what they can build on world, rather then having to ship them, which also decreases the risk of parts getting intercepted by pirates or rebels, while cutting costs, also space stations being more stationary means that you could get people to live there for there entire lives, rather then on a ship which is a temporary posting, it's easier and cheaper to get people willing to live with a family (that comes out of there paycheck when they need to eat and drink)
One aspect of SW battles is they unrealistically put everything in visual range.
Turbolasers should have a theoretical unlimited range. Even if the bolts move slowly enough to be avoided at some range, they still act as an obstacle and hazard to opposing ships.
They could also be dormant torpedoes and missiles launched by railguns/mass drivers that only go active when close to a ship.
Defensive stations would probably be fine for defending small fixed locations. Ex: the maw installation. Or if you need to protect, say a single city. They would also work for, in effect, police stations/checkpoints to deal with hit and fade attacks, especially if they can carry fighters (think shield gate at scarif).
There is one huge advantage of space stations that isn't mentioned here. It's precisely _because_ they lack a hyperdrive that gives them this advantage. They're not considered to be starships and thus they do not fall prey to the same treaty restrictions starships were subject to due to the Reformation. Their inability to travel intersystem allows them to avoid the pitfalls of disarmament and the effective dissolution of a cohesive Navy that affected the Republic during this time. Being operated by sector defense forces also means less financial responsibility to the Republic and, advantageously, presents the Republic to the galaxy as a policing force rather than a fighting force.
Defense platforms really show their merit as political tools rather than as a combat unit.
@@urlauburlaub2222 Also what about using the tractor beams to move retired ships around that could be overloaded with a power core for guns and shields.
Mobile shield cannon platforms, operated with droids and you don't even need much in the way of consumables.
so if you have a planetary shield like the one at scariff you concentrate your golans around the shield gate(s) to buy more time for your fleet to arrive. they are a force multiplier.
I do wonder if the Ruusan Reformation might have played a part in the relative popularity of defensive space stations like the Golan. In the same way Kuat and other worlds made massive dreadnaughts with limited hyperdrives to skirt the limits of the reformation, defensive space stations could have been an easy way for a Republic world to field a military asset with disproportionately high firepower. I imagine the Golan's in pre Clone Wars times would have been a match for entire fleets.
Agree
It would fit that since a Golan isn't a "starship" it can flaunt the limitations of the ruusan reformation on capital ships.
It all depends on relative costs. If a Golan is cheaper than a Victory, and is more powerful than an Imperial, then that matters, especially if you need to defend a fixed target.
Like imagine if the empire had 3 Golan IIIs and 30,000,000 credits worth of other stuff, and an ISD instead of two ISDs defending the shield gate at Scarif.
The two ISD-1s basically acted as defensive stations, so your point is proven. ;)
Despite this being 8 months old, ill respond anyway. Although technically true, something you are missing is that the ISDs in Scarifs orbit were very likely not just defending Scarif. It is very likely that those star destroyers were defending their own sector, acting as a quick response force (likely in conjunction with other ships) and scarif just happened to be a convenient important world where they could be stationed. Although Golans would be better for defending Scarif, they would be unable to respond to threats to other worlds, which is why Golans can only be realistically used for worlds like Coruscant
@@upintheclouds9511 I would agree, and I would also say that it is relative to the value of objective, and if we’re thinking outside of just Star Wars, perhaps the “value density” of the setting.
Things like Halo’s ODPs make sense in that universe because a single star system can often produce tens of ships per month.
@@upintheclouds9511 In Star Wars specifically though, strategic resources like major shipyards, ecumenopoli, etc. that have permanent garrisons could benefit from much cheaper, canonically, space stations.
@@deriznohappehquite for sure, well said
The huge advantage of static defenses are they are super cheap compared to a similar sized mobile platform.
Maintenance, operating costs, staffing, all of this is reduced by a space station AND more guns or shields or ammunition in lieu of engines and navigation equipment.
With a little expansion they should also be used for starfighter training and launching facilities.
Have yourself a frontier world naval academy turning out a steady number of trained pilots as well as experienced mechanics.
When we were playing the RPGs back in the day, the Golans were always stationed at the hyperspace entry points for a system, that way it could police the area easily and do customs work conveniently. It was always a challenge to scout new nav points for a planetary strike without the BOSS probes.
golans specifically seem more for firepower, as there are other stations that make quite functional waystations. Maybe in a group? But even one golan isn't a small investment...
fun fact, many space stations in star wars did have sublight engines and hyperdrives. Usually slower than normal, but in some cases they were practically mobile bases of operation. (and in some games, ships like the Super star destroyer were classified as space stations due to their size)
A dreadnought without a hyperdrive would probably be better. It can protect the system and might be able to dodge some incoming fire
I think this is what a space station should be. A tiny sub light drive would remove all the problems of the golan
You don't need to protect the entire system, just the industrial centres.
@@schwarzerritter5724 Realistically the capital city is going to get the best coverage followed by the military, then heavy industry.
Assuming there's any budget to go around in the first place, lots of dirt poor planets out there.
Honestly, I think such installations are useful, especially when they’re stationed accordingly. Remember those videos you & Cory made about blockades primarily blocking hyperspace jump points? Same with those space stations. They’re primarily customs checkpoints that most, if not all traffic must pass through &, if need be, provide protection until all retreating non-military ships gets into the planetary shield. Granted, I do agree on the Strategy of placement, however I honestly do believe that they’re deliberately placed so that IF a platform has a malfunction & misfires, it’ll not strike another platform…
I absolutely agree. They are the first line of Defense after all and should be reinforced by other means. They are always present and thus make an ambush a lot harder to pull of.
I think it's inability to move can actually be an advantage. All the space and energy used by the hyperdrive and thrusters can be used for weapons, shields, hangar space etc.
I think stations work quite well to defend specific points, like shipyards or shieldgates (like at Scarif).
And the fact that they can never be called away is also an advantage. Take the intro mission in EaW. The rebels attack a target to lure away a Star Destroyer from their actual target. That can't happen with a station....
Though I think stations are a lot more useful as, well, stations. Trading hubs, Fleetyards, supply bases. Those things. They can of course double as a defense station, but that's not their primary focus....
As was pointed out, because it is a frontline defense platform, it being immobile means that an attacking force can attack out of range of the station and head straight for the planet. In your hypothetical, it actually makes the plan less complicated because the Rebels could send in their entire force at one position rather than having to split it up. The best the station would be able to do is give a warning to the planet.
The Problem?
The CIS made a Space Station one of their main Carrier Ships.
It's called the Big Donut Boi.
To be honest, just remove the HUGE sublight engines and replace the hyperdrive with another BIG reactor and BAM...you have a pretty powerful defensive platform for any planet that comes with generous cargo capacity that could easily accommodate large squadrons of fighters for screening enemy craft.
*"Lucrehulk battle station"* has a nice ring to it!
@@merafirewing6591 I stand corrected
@@navilluscire2567 that's what's up
I think like most stationary defensive systems they are more of a deterrent than an actual threat. They prevent minor incursions, aka pirates and what not but in heavy combat their primary function becomes bullet sponge.
or just to slow enemy and gain time for mobile force react
*I know I might sound like a broken record* but this is what ticks me of about defensive space stations in Star Wars like Golans. For starters isn't the whole point of such orbital platforms that they don't have to worry about supplying power to things like HUGE arrays of sublight engines like that of Imperial Star Destroyers? With the power saved on stations with around the same levels of power generation could be put towards more powerful shields and either more powerful turbo lasers or just have much more turbo laser batteries than an ISD or capital ships of similar size and power generation. I think its dumb that golans or other defense platforms can't 'move' at all when technically anything in orbit around a planet would have to be moving, and doing so at relatively INCREDIBLE speeds too, I would just ignore that part of the lore.
*Plus technically these stations could still move if only, realitvly slowly through the use of some repulsor arrays or similar anti-gravity tech* that again without having to worry about powering large, bulky, sublight engines should be very much possible for a station with a similar level of power generation to a capital ship would have *(could potentially fit even more reactors in a station!),* thus giving it some maneuverability, basically making it a type of very *large orbiting repulsor craft.* I believe a singular golan or other type of defensive space station should be able to outgun and *"out tank"* several ships of a similar size class to them.
Also wouldn't mind seeing several types of defensive space stations, each focusing on different areas for planetary defense. Think of one variant of say golan thats focused on basically being *damage dealing focused,* putting most of its power towards HUGE canons that couldn't be fitted to capital ships unless they themselves were heavily specialized. Then *a type of defensive platform that basically acts like a shield projector* but for other nearby stations, basically think of the *shield bunker from Endor but in SPACE.* Then you have the *"hive station"* as I'd like to call them thats basically nearly nothing but hangars apone hangar bays for stuffing as many fighters and other crafts as possible, would put its remaining power not going towards the hangars' atmospheric force fields would go towards this station's shields which would still be able to take considerable punishment. (when compared to a capital ship of a similar size)
Lastly, why not...have a station...outfitted with, and say it with me...a *ION CANON! (a couple if possible..)* Like it seems so obvious, having *orbital weapons like an ion canon on a space station* could benefit from the near abundant power supply of a defense platform that doesn't make to divert power to HUGE sublight engines, AND could still be moved either via a station's repulsor arrays to new positions in orbit around a planet depending on need OR just have a few towing ships equipped with strong tractor beams, almost like an artillery crew but with BIG stations and space ships.
Actually think of it like the *"self-propelled artillery vehicle"* we see in Attack of the Clones during the initial battle of Geonosis...but in SPACE.
Honestly *I just wanna see a golan that's like 60% BIG gun* that can chew through even an SUPER Star Destroyers shields in a few dozen hits! (ok maybe with a couple more similar BIG gun golans this would be possible so it doesn't become TOO "overpowered..")
A lot of the things you mention go for the planet as well. A planet has the same potential, if not more, as a Death Star, with power generation, weaponry, fleets, etc.
@@shorewall
True, I suspect why such things aren't done atleast from a meta perspective is because then cool SPACE ships would get overshadowed by BIG bad SPACE stations or even planetary defense systems alot more in the series. Imagine a planet's HUMUNGOUS turbo laser canon (probably orbital) that just tears even the biggest capital ships apart in one or a couple of blasts!
If stsr wars was real that's pretty much the way it'd be. But they handicap planet defenses to make it more cinematic. As just a few star forts would've destroyed the entire fleet at hoth without any landings at all. Or any other planetary battle would be a slaughter without 8 dreadnought to every star fort.
Stations have the advantage that they can devote more of their mass to weapons/shields/ECM/Targeters than an equal-massing Warship. The problem is that a Defense Station cannot be moved to another system easily.
So what you can have is one multi-system entity attacking another multi-system entity, and if one of them has spent too much on defenses then it cannot send its fleet to support other systems. However, spending too little on defenses means the opponent can perform raids while your fleet is away. Getting the right value between too much and too little defense is a fun exercise for strategic planners.
The difficulty is SW is space fantasy, not science fiction with realistic weaponry.
What makes sense from a tactical perspective might be completely impossible in SW.
A few examples
- very rarely are mass driver weapons like coilguns and railguns used
- turbolasers should have a near infinite range
- proton torpedoes should be THE weapon of choice against capital ships
First (possibly)
Space stations are cool, I think they deserve more of a place in all sci-fi
Don't know if Star Wars could have one, but I would think a System Monitor of some kind, a ship with no hyperdrive, limited amenities, but tons of armor/shields, weapons, and maneuvering thrusters, would do nicely in the Star Wars universe.
The Golan has a logistical advantage for most planets. Not only is the upfront cost likely lower than an equivalent capital ship but in the long term you don't have to be fueling a huge hypermatter reactor for a hyperdrive.
Bingo Eck is fogetting fuel costs even and engine idling cost fuel.
This reminds me of Deep Space 9, after running simulations to defend against a Jem'Hadar attack force:
O'Brien: "Major, I'm the last one to say it's hopeless, but given DS Nine's structural limitations, our available power supply, and the difficulty of defending a stationary target against a heavily armed mobile force, I'd say two hours is optimistic."
Regardless of the setting, you have a stationary object that *has* to "tank" the fire of any force while trying to defend itself. Size, shape, armour and armourment are going to help it, but at the end of the day it is stationary. It can't dodge. If it's built around one big gun, it has to pivot to get that gun in place. Armour/shielding can only help so much and eventually everything will take damage/be overwhelmed.
This is where, in a lot of settings (Babylon 5, for example) fighters come in, to distract and divert enemies and their fire so the station can get those shots in it needs to.
But, in the end, almost all SciFi settings *show* that any "defence platforms" or "stations" need a fleet to work effectively. Fighters can't do enough damage/don't work, the shields/armour aren't impenetrable...they need the reinforcements of a fleet to divert attention, do damage to the enemy while the station/platform takes its big weapons and pot-shots the enemy fleet.
Then, it becomes a cost/value equation.
How much armour do we need on these stations? How many reactors? How many weapons?
Because it only needs to hold out until reinforcements arrive, be it 30 minutes or 6 hours, and they are a first-line defence of key strategic places with the sole purpose of holding out that long.
Except SPACE stations aren't stationary, not like ground based facilities, *they move alot actually, at incredibly speeds infact,* especially around a planet, and *the advantage of space is that there's no drag,* which means all you need is a few retro rockets to change a station's position. (you could esily calculate interception orbits with hostile space craft too) To be honest by the conventions of star wars stations like golans should be ridiculously overpowered, they are typically larger than most capital ships and should have way more power generation than ships of a similar size, especially since such defense platforms don't have to invest power into HUGE sublight engine arrays or even hyperdrives and thus can use that power that would be taken up by such things and put it towards things like stronger shields or more potent weaponry. And again for movements, a few arrays of rockets or even repulsors should be more than enough to move a station to a new position above a planet's atmosphere and again, could easily calculate orbital interception points and once at these points could easily enough 'stop' themselves because it doesn't take much foce to move objects in space, even HUGE ones like golan stations.
I still think enough sci-fi doesn't use cheaper droid fighters/drone platforms/remote guns to offset the threat of a mobile warship.
The problem is you are analyzing this from the emperors point of view not from the people who decided to build the space station's point of view.
If you build a ship that is mobile and the emperor needs a ship, then you don't have any defenses. . .
Plus it's the ultimate fall back position in case of rebellion. The planet can't be hostile to the station or it will eventually batter down the planetary shields on it own like a siege weapon.
It must be taken or destroyed or half the planet could be bombarded and the other half suffering the ecological effects of the opposite side being bombarded.
I think another issue they have is orientation. Usually, golon platforms are depicted facing hostiles with their narrow sides. Putting the large flat top of the station toward the enemy seems more logical. A huge armored bulwark able to absorb fire while things like civilians and damaged friendlies shelter beneath it until reinforcements can arrive, or a small hole in the planetary shield opened to let them escape to safety. If properly implemented they could theoretically function as a bit of hard cover for your ships to use to aid their own survivability, while keeping them able to then quickly lash out at hostiles attempting to exploit the Golon's immobility. As a sole line of defense, they are rather hopeless, but as a part of a larger defense plan, they could prove invaluable, even if only as a stall tactic to buy time for reinforcements to arrive from the next system over.
A golon platform above the scarif shield gate for example could be arguably more effective than the star destroyers, especially as then anything trying to get down to the surface would have to fly directly past it, opening them up longer to incoming fire from the defenders before they could sneak under the shield. And then it could possibly lower itself through the shield using the spike to rest on top of the shield gate, protecting the facility from hostile fire while also making sure that hole was well and truly plugged, because at that point even if you wrecked the golon and boarded the shield gate to open the shield, you couldn't really send anything to the surface as you'd have the wreck of a golon defense platform plugging the hole.
I’m now imagining a side-on Golan rotating itself Galactica-style in order to have its armored top face an incoming fleet. xD
Combine this with your point about covering friendlies’ retreat, and another comment about mounting a planetary ion cannon on a Golan, and I can now imagine a Hoth-style evacuation, in which an incoming fleet is stalled by the broadsiding Golan, whose armored bulk serves as a shield to cover the movement of ships leaving a gap in the planetary shield. As soon as evacuating ships reach the jump point, they go into hyperspace, safely covered by the Golan. Anyone who tries to flank the Golan gets hit by powerful ion guns, leaving them easy pickings for turbolasers & fighters.
Because the enemy's gate is "down"
One advantage, specifically for the empire, is that these stations can fire in two directions, up *and* down. And having a station means you have a dedicated imperial garrison on your planet that can land with a few moments notice.
I think your description of the battle of Bilbringi glosses over the fact that one of the Golans was targeted from inside the shipyards by Talon Karrde's smuggler coalition. The book doesn't say what kind of damage was done, but the distraction clearly made the station vulnerable enough to go down to a sustained attack from the New Republic fleet. Without the smuggler attack, this might not have been the case.
So the honor Harrington Books dealt with this a bit. Their "Forts" were essentially massive sublight ships. They were slower than Super Dreadnaughts (the main capital ship of the universe) but they didnt have the star drives, and all that extra mass not used for a star drive is given to extra/more weapons and missile control links. Also, they're used an crucial "worm hole junctions" where they can't know when/if an enemy can pop through. Their job is to essentially keep the enemy busy for as long as possible while the carvery mobilizes.
I'd say one benefit is buying time- when fleets arrive from outside system hyperspace jumps they always approach from one side of the planet, one hyperspace lane. Having Golans protect that side would force the enemy to slowly move around the planet. In that time you can try to organize evacuation from civilian targets, scramble fighters and capitalships docked on the planet's surface, charge planetary ground-to-space cannons, turn on the planetary shield (it always take a long time).
Also having a stationary defense has also a benefit of never leaving your systems defenseless. Let's say an enemy fleet wants to lure your fleet away from the system and send 1 capital ship to wreck your shit. They're gonna think twice if you pack a golan 2 or 3.
Have to disagree Eck. I see the problem as defense platforms being misused in all these scenarios. Stations like the Golan would be best used in my opinion far away from planets protecting jump points. Imagine having a Golan or two at the exits from space lanes where any attacking fleet simply couldn't avoid them. and if you do place them protecting some other orbital station using them as depicted at Bilbringi is the worse way possible. A part of the fleet should have been broken off to support the stations.
So, you especially underlined that fleets can move to respond to the enemy. THAT'S the reason to have defensive structures over your main planets. The enemy can't lure them away by attacking some another of your planets and then surprise strike an undefended world. So that's not a problem, that's a feature and a really good one. The enemy commander will unavoidably have to deal with the fact there are Golans around the planet he wants to assault and he have to sacrifice some part of his fleet to break through to the planet atmosphere, so every rebellion/remnant/[insert faction name] admiral will think twice before attacking a world which has Golan space defenses over it, unless he has a shit load of capital ships and fighters and don't really mind the losses, but in that case stationary defense fleet will do no better (even worse, given Golans are, as you've mentioned, cheaper than ships of comparable firepower) than battle station defence system.
A common alternative to immobile stations is a "system monitor" warship, lacking FTL and certainly not intended for maneuver warfare, but able to reposition itself within a system as needed, using any space or resources freed by the underpowered engines and lack of hyperspace capacity used for additional armor, shields, or firepower. Stations make far more sense to me as space-based hangars for system defense squadrons. They'd be akin to the island airfields in the Pacific Theater of WWII which proved an often invaluable supplement to carrier-borne aircraft.
I think it's important to understand, with static defenses especially, that oftentimes the real value of a piece of military hardware isn't in the fights that they won, but rather the fights that they prevented from happening in the first place.
Of course a determined enough enemy can find a way to defeat or circumvent a static emplacement. BUT, who says the enemy is determined? Every piece of effort and resources that the enemy would have to expend on defeating your defensive installation is effort and resources that they cannot use elsewhere. Meanwhile, by opting for a cheaper static defense rather than the more expensive mobile ship, you've freed up more resources that you can use elsewhere.
Having the cheaper static defenses available means that your mobile forces don't have to worry so much about your planets being attacked while they're away on the offensive. It's not that it's impossible, but it makes it more difficult and time consuming and that, in turn, means the enemy is less likely to do it, especially when it could leave them open to a counter attack.
The point of static defenses isn't to be impenetrable in their own right, it's to force the enemy to commit a disproportinate amount of resources to defeating them compared to what you spent creating them, and thus allowing you to either exploit the fact that they've committed so many resources, or stop them from committing them in the first place out of fear of a counter attack.
Idk Eck. One benefit I can see for space stations is extra reactor power to shields and weapons. A space station probably just has some stability thrusters for maintaining stable orbit around a planet; it doesn't have to power large capital ship engines or a large hyperdrive (both of which require significant energy draw from the main reactors). Lacking those things also provides extra space for things like hangars or armor plating, while also lowering costs by a lot (engines and hyperdrives are some of the most expensive things on warships).
So an ISD sized station with an equally large reactor can now put more energy into weapons and shields, while having space for an additional hangar and extra armor plating where the engines would have been if it was a mobile ship. Since there's no engines or hyperdrives on it, construction and maintenance costs go down considerably, and there are less engineers and other personnel (required to maintain engines/hyperdrives) which reduces casualties if the station gets damaged or is destroyed
You know, every few months or so I come back to this channel and it amazes me how we will talk about battles and technologies and prominent people in Star Wars as if it all was real history and not just some story in a book or video game. Not trying to be negative, just interesting to notice.
I see the purpose of them being to protect shield gates on planets. Imagine 2 golan 3's at the battle of Scarif protecting the shield gate. It would of allowed the defenders use of the gate to get supplies in during a Siege. While cheaper and stronger than using Star Destroyers. That battle might of ended a bit differently if they where there.
Something I think a lot of people misunderstand about space stations and golans generally is they are more coast guard then naval assets.
I’m not 100% certain but they guard the hyperlane approaches to a planet which has it server as customs and anti piracy operators. It’s also very good at defending installations such as shipyards. It’s also cheaper then a similiarly capable ship due to lack of engines which you can give extra armor/shields.
Granted any military fleet can likely easily counter it they could also do the same against a similarly sized ship which can flee but it’s same effect. Also in EU they can wreck smaller ships up to frigates (see Rogue Squadrons invasion of Coruscant.)
For those wondering, the scenes at the end with the tie fighter are from a short called Starwars Squadrons: "Hunted"
Seems to me that part of the downside of immobility could be reduced by keeping the stations in fast orbits instead of geo-stationary. If you had 4 Golans each orbiting the planet on different paths to minimize blind spots you could get a very dynamic battle scene too. The attackers would have to plan their assault within a tight window when they could shoot down one station and get through before the next station comes zipping over the horizon.
I don't get why the space stations don't just have ways to move themselves from position to position without always relying on a tug, it always feels like settings have this weird need to make space stations completely immobile when in reality in an environment like space some ability to maneuver is intrinsically necessary for normal operations. If you want to take the real world example of the ISS it can't exactly take a trip to the moon or anything but it can change it's orbit and inclination in a somewhat significant way and needs to make adjustments as part of it's regular operations sometimes to avoid orbital debris or to otherwise dock with other craft.
If you translate that ability to a Sci-Fi space station you get something that has enough impulse to change it's orbit and potentially close gaps or respond to situational changes but isn't going to be able to move to defend a nearby planet, frankly even that is a bit unreasonable as there isn't any reason for something as intensive as a Golan 3 to have some way to make a (very slow) trip to other planets or moons in a system for maximum flexibility, it can have far less thrust to mass than even the bulkiest slowest freighter and still add an astounding amount of flexibility.
I feel like most of the time, Stations arent use correctly.
Throw a few near the Hyperspace exit, add interdictors to them, and now they control who can enter or leave a system.
In the thrawn duology it’s states that Disra tried to get the golans from Muunilinst moved to Bastion. So it’s possible to move them. Maybe it’s just extremely difficult
I just love your outro. Great song, great doggo.
Another good point is that in a wartime situation with massive fleets at Golan platform isn't effective. However they are a strong deterrent to pirates, bandits and general lawlessness. Plus they represent an imperial presence that is separated from the planet's surface. It's like comparing an invasion by a military and trying to defend with the local police department. Your resources are simply limited. However for day-to-day operation and not planet-wide invasion, they are an effective and inexpensive tool. And the heavier golan 3 could potentially act as area denial to even a capital ship.
“A disadvantage of a space station is that they’re often located too far from a planetary shield.” - So what happens when a station is backed up by an Endor-style planetside shield generator??
The same thing. They would still be outside of the shield. Han, Leia, and their crew still had to wait for the shield to come down to let them in.
@@HistorysRaven But the whole point of the planetside shield generator (& the station it's protecting) is to STOP ppl from coming in. :P
I think I remember from your planetary shield video that shields took an not inconsiderable amount of time to raise around a planet, part of why echo base may have had local shields only. in this case having a fairly dangerous and durable outer defensive line from the stations is a huge benefit. holding off an attack while you bring up the shield. If you claim that some major planet has the recourses to keep a full shield up all the time well they then are so big and important a power that they can easily afford the added defense of the Golans as well in comparison to the cost of that shield so might as well.
Another point to think about, amongst others, a golan could be used as a staging ground. A safe point for friendly fleets to land, and act as a rallying point when/if rescue comes. On its own it might not do much, but remain a holdout point and be a problem you have to work around.
coupled with the point that a planetary governor might view a imobile station to be a god/ better investment than a ship that very easily could be recalled/levied for the local flavour of warlord.
Awesomely chill and data oriented informative art piece, sentimental amazee Eckharts "Justin" of the Ladder.
The defense stations vs. an ISD might be more favorable to the station than you might think-
A station could have several times the power of an ISD- lots of generators and no engine power output requirements.
They're shields might we'll be far stronger than any starship.
It might be that the Golan stations are far above a planetary shield.
They sure could have used a Golan at Druidia.
Maybe you could talk about robot technology in Star Wars, their means of locomotion, artificial intelligence, and technology in general.
ExhortsLadder I love your videos I recommend you should do a video about the old Republic and the sith wars that will peak people's interests
As usual great video and very well thought out...on a side note what was that mod for Empire At War at the beginning of the video, looks fun
In our role playing games we typically gave a golden thread the defensive and offensive capabilities of an Excelsior at the cost of a victory but immobile. Similarly we put the golden 2 as combat equivalent to an empty star one at the price of a light cruiser. We also used a golden one as equivalent to a victory star destroyer 1 but at the price of a corvette.
I think the advantage of a go on station system is that they're so cheap as compared to capital ships. Not just an empty star for the price of a victory but a superstar destroyer for the price of a victory.
I feel as though you could use the golen very well in combination with a scarif like planetary shield by placing them around the only shield entrance. With a defensive fleet. As well with the Golens shielding the entrance with the fleet able to maneuver around them for defense.
Nice video. What EAW mods are you using for this video?
There are certain points by which you can go into hyperspace. And if you secure those points, then you have a good defense. So falling out of hyperspace everywhere and attacking the planets from everywhere doesn't work. So before you can fly around a planet, you have to get through the defenses. That's why the ion cannons are aimed at a specific point in space. Aiming them somewhere else wouldn't make sense either, because the enemy can't come from there.
The lack of mobility simplifies their engagement options, which you saw as a negative, and it certainty can be, but I think the simplification can also be a massive advantage (with much less space and personnel devoted to engines and navigation) making it better able to fill the same roll as a capital ship, being a fortified centre to fight from, and only scarifying strategic movement (capital ships being relatively slow enough that tactically they are pretty similar).
It can also tarnish their performance record if it's not properly taken into account, which I'm not sure you did the best at with all the comparisons to stardestroyers.
It can't go anywhere, so for any engagement it's involved in, it has to either be on the winning side or get beaten down, no retreat, no drawing it out of position, no taking out it's engines causing the defenders to have to come up with a new plan on the fly.
There is no false lead, no bait, no trap, no diversion that can make a space station leave its post. That makes them very valuable for planning defences and even nearby offensive operations, as you know of a fortress that nothing short of it's destruction will move.
So for the engagements you referred too, 'maybe' swapping them out for something with more mobility could have turned the tide, but I don't think a pair of Star Destroyers would have done a better job at holding Thrawn back. It was the green New Republic commander that Thrawn ultimately exploited.
As for the four stations protecting the shipyards, they don't seem so much to be the weak point, but the necessary point to get through with the goal of attacking the shipyards.
Yes the rebels focused on them, but I don't think that's a case of them being the weak point in the defences, like how bank robbers focusing a lot of effort on the vault doesn't mean the vault is the weakest part of the bank, rather it is so effective and strong you have no choice but to attack it head on or not try at all.
What video is that tie interceptor from? Looks really cool.
You made a great point with defending using a combination of planetary shields and a sector fleet. Adding in a small anti-piracy task force on each planet would probably be the most well-balanced defensive strategy.
These stations also offer a convenient way for crews to be ferried to & from the planet's surface while a ship is worked on. Star Wars doesn't have teleportation technology.
In real life a US carrier doesn't just dock to ports they have boats that ferry sailors into port. One of the things that the navy advertises is that you get to see the world, maybe that would be something the empire offers to poor back water communities. If a threat comes up the imperial navy would tell their crews to get back to port to be loaded up onto a ship.
For even more in-depth info about the reasons to choose building ships over “forts”, you can actually check out Drachinifel’s 210th dry dock episode. I don’t remember where exactly in the video he talks about this but it’s within the first 3rd of the video.
Extra cool video. Tbh I guess I would be termed a casual with Star Wars as I had never heard of a Golan. I love this type of content on CZcams, especially this channel for Star Wars.
Good points.
Think about castles placed to defend cities: very few singular castles because there's very few towns/cities with a single route of approach. Single castles in or near cities were instead for defence of the noble or royal family or specific treasury or navigation of a river. Cities were instead defended by a wall system and citizen militia, or later by systems of outworks and small forts.
EckhartsLadder, are you gonna do more versus battle and how much longer are you gonna do CZcams for?
until people stop watching
Where did you get that clip from 8:45 - 11:40? It was captivating lol
I would guess a space station would also be a base of operations for you space defense force starfighters, cutting back on mobilization time for them. As opposed to something like Naboo where they kept their forces in a hanger in the capital on the ground.
Kinda hard for an enemy tank to shoot down your fighters when they’re already parked in orbit! ;D
They make more sense if you place a station in front of the hyperspace lane entrance so that anything entering the system is coming in within weapon's and tractor beam range of the station.
Great video. And you do make good points. But, when I think of defensive space stations, I think of how Deep Space Nine could tie up whole fleets, causing significant damage, while waiting for reinforcements. I can see Golans doing the same thing in multiple places around a planet, especially at the hyperspace waypoints.
And I don't see why Golans don't have some maneuverability. While they don't have hyperdrives or sublight engines, they would still have thrusters and repulsorlifts to position themselves in orbit and rotate as needed to protect damaged sections and bring weapons to bear.
One of the largest and most useful use for space stations like Golans is being completely overlooked. Supply station. Acclamator class ships were *special* for being atmospheric capable. From the ISD-1 wiki page, "The ship however was not suited towards planetary atmospheres, in which full power was required to stay aloft. Any interruption in the power supply in atmosphere could be catastrophic to the vessel, despite all vital equipment being shielded."
An ISD isn't going to be able to land, and a ship that big is going to need a huge amount of supplies to keep running. Considering that the ISD was often used as a single ship fleet, you no longer have the support vessels to ferry supplies. Imagine the amount of trips a smaller ship would need, say, a Gozanti, to completely resupply and replace crew on an ISD. Golans offer a solid platform to house large amounts of men and materials, that could easily be thrown over into an open hangar, allowing for much faster supply than it would to have dozens of ships continuously dock and go down to the surface.
What was the fan animation at the end of the video called?
Using the same power plant as a ISD, without the need to use part of the power for mobility, should have gave the golon a longer lasting shield and stronger or more turbo lasers to fire. It was a perfect opportunity to actually have a battle station that maybe worth 2 to 3 ISDs combat in firepower and combat sustainability.
Golan defence platforms were introduced (like many things) by Zahn's original book trilogy (Heir to the Empire et al). The XQ platforms were introduced in the 90s video game TIE Fighter where they were a major gameplay element, its predecessor X-Wing only had ships so the best they could do to simulate a "base" was to stack up a bunch of containers. The Cardan class were introduced in "Empire At War", I think. The Essential Guide to Warfare probably neglects them because they're mostly (though not exclusively) a feature of video games.
good video one later model of the golan space defense platforms was the model 8 which had a hyper drive on it
Being stuck in place is more beneficial than you might think. Civilian morale is a vital aspect to warfare, since they are the ones that will be maintaining the war effort with bodies, material, and other resources. If the planet is defended by a mobile battle group, its ability to reassure the civilian populace is transitory, since it can only reassure them if they are in system. With fixed defenses, the civilian populace can remain confident in their safety even if the battle group of ships is called away.
Now fortifications aren't a permanent solution and should not be expected to hold forever. With enough firepower and will, even the most powerful stations will be destroyed.
You mention an advantage of a Golan II or Golan III is that they are relatively cheap. I would argue that they are much cheaper than mobile battle groups while mounting similar firepower. You could build mobile battle groups but then you have the problem of cost once again. An ISD is 150 million credits, three times the cost of a Golan III. So for the price of a single battle group you can build a sizeable number of battle stations that will provide enough resistance to allow the planet to hold out until reinforcements arrive.
When it comes to a defensive strategy, you have to accept imperfect solutions in a lot of cases. If a battle group powerful enough to defend a planet against most any attack will cost you 350 million credits and buy you an ISD, 3 Vindicator Heavy Cruisers, 6 Lancer Frigates, and 10 Tartan Patrol Cruisers. Or you could spend the money on 8 or 9 Golan IIIs or 12 Golan IIs or 13 Golan 1s to cover the same strategically important planet, requiring you to build fewer warships and instead focus on nodal reaction forces. After all, the Golans will be able to cover a planet far more easily than you assume. After all, there's nowhere for the enemy to hide in space and they still have to come within your weapons range if they want to do anything. Not to mention the ability to support the Golans with starfighters and surface weapons platforms. And, because you are taking up volume with engines or hyperdrives, there's more power available for weapons and shields (which I noticed you didn't mention). So while a Golan may only have a similar number of Turbolasers to a Star Destroyer, those turbolasers would be able to fire more powerful blasts and would be protected by much stronger shields, to say nothing of the ability to make the armor much thicker since you don't have to worry about moving it.
Space stations in star wars are like ww2 coastal sea defense forts...they provide recon and protection for the mainland as well as they can battle incoming attacking ships and planes
I can see them being useful if they are in geosynchronous orbit of your capital or other important sites so a fleet cant bombard it, this would force attacking forces to go around it perhaps giving more response time. Or, place them near standard space lanes so those using those route drop out under the station's guns
The video gives some food for thought, but I find it inherently difficult to theorycraft viable tactics, strategies and doctrines for universes like Starwars or Star Trek due to their habit of playing fast and very loose with the rules - especialy with space flight and space combat.
The two facts that travel time between two stars is usually "whatever my plot needs it to be today" and that ships can jump in and out wherever and whenever they want alone make coming up with viable tactics rather difficult.
That said, I would explore the concept of the Costal Defence Ship for potential use IN SPACE!
Costal defence ships were used on earth by various nations from the beginning of the use of steam engines in ships to WW2.
Often used by smaller nations that couldn't affort full sized dreadnoughts but wanted something more substantial than just torpedo boats.
They were usually rather small, slow ships (though some could - at least in calm waters - keep up with a dreadnought) with very limited endurance and seakeeping that carried substantial armour and armament. Usually two turrets with capital ship sized guns (single or twin turrets) plus a few smaller guns.
While they couldn't stand up to a true battleship, they would outgun pretty much everything smaller.
Since they didn't need all the stuff for long oerseas voyages, they carried substantially more firepower and armour than a ocean going vessel of similar size, and they were relatively cheap.
Translated to the SW universe, I would immagine a "Orbital Defence Ship" to be considerably smaller than a Star Destroyer, have no Hyperdrive, relatively weak sublight engines, few crew accomodations (as crews could be rotated in and out pretty much all the time) and no fighter complement (I would sugest using dedicated fighter bases in orbit to provide fighter support for the orbital defence ships).
Those ships would instead carry heavy armour and a small nuber of heavy turbolaser turrets. Capable of matching smaller ships one-on-one or ganging up on a Star Destoryer sized warship.
They would be cheap and have low crew requirements but would be a lot more flexible than orbital fortresses.
Have fancy infrastructure that you don't want glassed at the first sign of fleet action? Plop a space station over it. Sure it can't protect the whole planet, but it can give you time to get the shields up over the asset and it'll keep pirats and the random lookyloo away.
Have an orbital construction platform you can't move anyway, fortify it with a few dedicated stations, sure it isn't the best option, but it forces more resources to be spent (in theory) to take down the target.
Given the stations ought always be cheaper than the ships they are built to defend against then for every credit you can spend on stations the opposing fleet must have spent more on the force to take them.
Can they be planned around? Yes. Can they be out mounuvered? In some cases yes. Can they be stripped off to feed the nearest warlord's personal crusade? No. And that is important too.
Another potentially important point is that since they aren't warships, they may not be subject to the same restrictions as other options under various treaties.
Are they perfect? No absolutely not, but they serve an important roll in the "you must bring a fleet this big to play" kind of way. They're also helpful in limiting the kinds of engagements foes can take. It's a bit like banning a particular map or unit choice in a competitive game. "No you can't attack here, or if you do you have to deal with the advantages I have in cheaper firepower" "No I don't think I'll let you land anywhere near my important facility, if you want it you're going to have to try and take it on the ground." None of these prevent the attack all together, but can make it an unpalatable choice.
One final thought: you've mentioned before how you can blockade a system/planet, by parking your fleet near the hyperspace lanes, if you have Golans out there then so long as they are they're the enemy fleet isn't.
what's the background video that was at the end section, was it a game cutscene or a fan film?
I can't help but think about the knight/general in Fire Emblem while listening to this video. Speed and mobility is much more valued than raw damage and armor in both Star Wars and Fire Emblem for a very good reason.
Interesting, thanks for the video.
Maintenance costs should also be considered beyond just initial purchase IMHO. A ship like the ISD needs a whopping 37,000 crew members (not counting ground troops and vehicles), as well as routine maintenance to all systems including hyperdrive and propulsion, plus regular restocking, refueling and possibly dry dock time rendering the ship unavailable for a while. A Golan 3 only needs 1,100 crew, less maintenance and suffers far less wear and tear.
Nothing to scoff at, not even by the Empire.
I’d say a Golan would be a very attractive option for independent systems that are affluent enough to attract pirates, raiders and other unwelcome visitors, but not rich enough to afford a capital ship, let alone a sizeable fleet.
Golans are relatively cheap, sturdy, pack a lot of punch, have starfighter escorts and can be parked at each hyperspace lane exit point, making them hard to avoid.
Lack of propulsion isn’t a problem for such a system, either. The Golan won’t be called to action anywhere else.
Never knew about this, but watching the video I imagine these type of stations works as a midway point sort of thing. If you have vessels that are too large to land on the planet (or very costly), but you want to land and resupply from whatever it was put in orbit.
Very sorry if this was answered elsewhere, but what was the footage with the Tie Interceptor pilot near the end from?
"Planetary shield cannot be extended on station"
Is its really? Isn't like... Whole plot of destroying Drath Star II was around of destroying exactly shield generator on planet that protect station on orbit? And in Vector Prime also was station that projects shield on spaceship. So there IS a way to extend shield on station trough station
I'm dead serious when I say this, I just discovered that Lamborghini made tractors
The idea of static stations is quite well supported by classical strategic theories. Sun Tzu said “throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve”. That links straight into the idea of ‘dedicated crew who know they might be the first casualties’ point from the source book: they are dedicated, at least in part, because running is not an option.
This is the corollary of Sun Tzu’s advice that “when you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard”. The attacking commander cannot do that when faced with stations rather than ships.
When you look at battles throughout history (right into the 21st century) it seems to bear out this thinking. It’s all down to whether you’re willing to send troops into a desperate struggle, and able to maintain the level of morale required.
The Golans suffer from the same issue every stationary defense suffers: being immobile. Comes with being stationary.
However having a Golan in your orbit gives your defense fleet a safe area they can rally around if necessary.
From having that alone is a big morale boost. Also, they give you good overview of the battle as they also carry sensors.
And lastly, they are an obstacle the enemy HAS to deal with, which means: unless that enemy has the strength necessary to take down a Golan, they cannot attack.
What was the tie fighter footage from at the end of the video? Ive never seen that before.
What was that footage from? That space battle at the end of the video. I've seen it once a long time ago and would like to watch the whole video but don't know what to search for. Thanks Ecks.
Golan stations are proof that even in the Star Wars universe; there are great salesmen and dumb politicians
I think a good use of these stations would be to use them as a star-fighter hanger and maintenance facility. Being in space reduces the response time for star fighter deployment. And the damaged fighter does not have to risk entering the planets atmosphere for getting repaired. The station can then use its sensors to aquire the targets and it's communication array to coordinate it's fighters. Paired with a strong station shield it can be a good defence option. Using it this way it can also be placed under the planetary shield.
8:33 what's this video with the TIE interceptor from?
Where did you get the Tie film at the end of the video?
an important element is whether the golan can be put into geosynchronus orbit with a critical bit of ground infrastructure. Maybe the enemy fleet can go to another area of the planet, but if they try to siege the key area, they won't have orbital support, and the golan could be used to give the defenders orbital bombardment capabilities.
Also, the Golan is like a castle or a fort; it will deter all but the most daring raids, and slow the progress of an invasion long enough for help to arrive. they are not the solution, just the stop-gap