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.
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.
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.
@@Galdenberry_Lamphuck 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
@@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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Yes, but DS9 also acted as a defense platform during... I think it was during one of the Dominion attacks? Again, the space station (even though it only defended one part of Bajor) was still a military target that had to be struck. Imagine trying to exert control over Bajor with a hostile force on DS9; it wouldn't be tenable. That, and with DS9 being right next to the wormhole, it being captured was a necessity for the Dominion. So in other words, DS9 is actually one of the perfect examples of why you can (and should) use space stations for defense
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
*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
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.
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.
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.
8:10 - Layered defense and combined arms is a thing. If continent "A" is home to my primary military and industrial production facilities and continents "B" and "C" are more focused on mining and food production, I can focus my orbital defenses over A while concentrating other assets to defend B and C. Sometimes the objective of the attack is time-sensitive, or can only be achieved by means of a more direct assault against the main defensive line. The Hoth shield and ion cannon only protected a small portion of the planet. If the Rebels had more capable anti-armor artillery, anti-walker mines, or more effective atmospheric air support, they would have been able to hold out far longer than they did. In other cases such a strong static defense may be used to force the enemy to fight somewhere else on terms more favorable to the defender. This of course assumes the defending force has competent leadership and doesn't tick off important allies just prior to the battle (Maginot Line).
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
None of this has ever made sense. Since a space station doesn't need to power huge engines, it should be able to divert a *lot* of power into deflector shields. Which, in Star Wars, can explicitly be strong enough to "deflect any bombardment" from star destroyers. Given their size, they ought to be able to contain huge reactors to generate enough power to support such heavy shielding, as well as heavy weapons that would normally be ground-based.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
10:10 I've been wondering for a while. What would happen if that TIE had just barely made it to the hangar? If it's still floating loose, would it still count as "inside" the ISD when it jumped? Or what about if it were only halfway in?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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??
I always thought those stations were built for political issues like the ruusan reformation, it makes sense if you use it as a way to tell the people of the planet that they are protected, it's also a way to keep the people of the planet employed, it's easier work in a local station than in a ship that can go from the system
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.
#AskEck was it ever explained why in late season 3 and early season 4 of the Clone Wars why there was so many Original Trilogy characters appearing in a row (Tarkin, Chewbacca and Ackbar).
@@michaelandreipalon359 They did not appear in this stretch and we know Bail was active in the Clone Wars it is odd that those three appeared in episodes that followed each other.
@@ZananoQuinito yeah normally they wouldnt put as much armor because its too heavy to move but if its standing still the inside just needs to be self sustaining and you'll have endless defence i do agree that not having them everywhere is a pain but in places like directly above a major city would make enemies have to think twice about a direct assault
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.
One star destroyer can keep one star destroyer from attacking a planet. Hundreds, maybe thousands of Golans would be required to keep a single star destroyer from attacking a planet. Unless they are assigned to defend a single, tiny point in space, space stations are just bad (at least Star wars ones, with minimal range). Planets are WAY too big to defend with something that can't move.
Eck covered this in Star Wars there are predictable points of entry at more or less specific points. So a fleet traveling along a hyperspace lane will exit in the same area. Unless they map a new route which has been deemed super dangerous, expensive, and time consuming
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.
They would probably want to set that up as a multi-generational project to use droids and tractor beams to assemble and process a whole solar system's asteroid content, maybe a moon or two as well, into such a space station. I think it would be cool as hell as a kind of civilizational project, like the positive inverse of the old sci-fi trope of the extrasolar or extragalactic predators who simply turn inhabited planets into raw materials because fuck those guys. Instead it could be a cultural institution, with a significant ongoing investment from the whole society and a practice of what is effectively a modest civil engineering conscription that everyone participates in after their education. Turning unneeded and potentially hazardous materials into what can eventually serve as a replacement home planet if it is ever needed.
I'm sure there's plenty of real-life military tacticians who have studied the value of static defenses and whether they're worth it in a particular situation.
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.
@@FertonFletcher That's one way to view them, but then ships like the Venator were more akin to a carrier, while still having the same sort of heavy cannons as a Golan, and still being able to move much faster at sub light plus enter hyperspace. I think the analogy they wanted was old earth Naval forts, vs sailing ships, but really that only works if your "battle station" is an array of planet based weapons fortifications firing into orbit. That would be a very tough nut to crack, hidden behind shields no star ship could breach like at Hoth. A space station logically has similar shields and weapons to a star ship of equal size.
I started writing this reply with rebuttals to individual arguments. That is not the failure in this review. The failure here is not seeing the point of a station like the Golan. It is Part of a defense network. No single defense is 100% perfect. The planetary shield can be overwhelmed. Unless the attack ships are encouraged to leave early. For that you need a damage dealing force outside that shield. That is where the Golan belongs. Unable to be diverted by a different threat or bluff. It will remain. Each loss of a Golan mentioned was not a small force simply neutralizing them like they were nothing. It was a massive overwhelming force. A force that would not be needed if there were no defense platforms. You could cause all that damage with a far smaller fleet. The defense platforms are good enough in that they force an attacker to really commit to an attack. Want a metaphor? Your house, the door and the locks that is your planetary shield. You just raised the bar on people to break in. Not much but some. The defense platforms are your dogs in the fenced off yard on chains. They can't be lead away so they have to be neutralized to get access to the door and house again. Calling for a fleet is dialing 911 and hoping the police get there before your door is kicked in.
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.
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.
"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
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 UA-cam, especially this channel for Star Wars.
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.
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.
The main problem is, that the Golan´s are developed for games and that´s why they way underpowered (game balance). A Station bigger as an ISD but less firepower? Not a chance. The mobility of a starship is it´s biggest advantage but also it´s biggest weakness! The main factor for every vehicle is : "mass"! The more mass, the more energy you need to move it, simple physics. A space station don´t move. Well, titanium armor of a space ship is expensive, steel weight more, but is cheaper. Weight doesn´t care for a space station, so, we take steel and we take a lot more of it. Space stations don´t have engines. Engines are the main energy consumer on a space ship and also something that takes a lot of space in the hull. A space station with the same size of a star ship could use the space of the engines for an extra reactor plus the extra energy that is not needed for the engines gives you an extreme amount of energy for shields. In my eyes, ten times the hull / shield strenghtof a star ship of a simliar size looks absolut realistic and that would make a defense station an absolute horror enemy. It would also explain, why the empire build dreadnought class ships like the executor. They need a mobile platform with enough firepower to handle a real defense station.
The patchwork lore is a problem here. The Golan II is larger than an Imp Star Deuce, doesn't lose space or power output to propulsion, and doesn't carry a huge complement of troops, planetary vehicles, etc. Its hangar is even smaller. The Golan II just isn't as heavily armed as it should be. Only 35 turbolasers on a structure that size is ridiculous. They were deliberately made to be much weaker and less capable than they should be.
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.
@@Galdenberry_Lamphuck 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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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*
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.
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
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).
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.
Yes, but DS9 also acted as a defense platform during... I think it was during one of the Dominion attacks?
Again, the space station (even though it only defended one part of Bajor) was still a military target that had to be struck. Imagine trying to exert control over Bajor with a hostile force on DS9; it wouldn't be tenable. That, and with DS9 being right next to the wormhole, it being captured was a necessity for the Dominion.
So in other words, DS9 is actually one of the perfect examples of why you can (and should) use space stations for defense
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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
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
For those wondering, the scenes at the end with the tie fighter are from a short called Starwars Squadrons: "Hunted"
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.
First (possibly)
Space stations are cool, I think they deserve more of a place in all sci-fi
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.
8:10 - Layered defense and combined arms is a thing. If continent "A" is home to my primary military and industrial production facilities and continents "B" and "C" are more focused on mining and food production, I can focus my orbital defenses over A while concentrating other assets to defend B and C. Sometimes the objective of the attack is time-sensitive, or can only be achieved by means of a more direct assault against the main defensive line. The Hoth shield and ion cannon only protected a small portion of the planet. If the Rebels had more capable anti-armor artillery, anti-walker mines, or more effective atmospheric air support, they would have been able to hold out far longer than they did. In other cases such a strong static defense may be used to force the enemy to fight somewhere else on terms more favorable to the defender. This of course assumes the defending force has competent leadership and doesn't tick off important allies just prior to the battle (Maginot Line).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
None of this has ever made sense. Since a space station doesn't need to power huge engines, it should be able to divert a *lot* of power into deflector shields. Which, in Star Wars, can explicitly be strong enough to "deflect any bombardment" from star destroyers. Given their size, they ought to be able to contain huge reactors to generate enough power to support such heavy shielding, as well as heavy weapons that would normally be ground-based.
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
Maybe you could talk about robot technology in Star Wars, their means of locomotion, artificial intelligence, and technology in general.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3:21 what is that ship called. It looks like a boxy, mini assault frigate.
What was the fan animation at the end of the video called?
Pretty sure that was star wars squadrons
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.
10:10 I've been wondering for a while. What would happen if that TIE had just barely made it to the hangar? If it's still floating loose, would it still count as "inside" the ISD when it jumped? Or what about if it were only halfway in?
Physics. It would have been hit hard due to inertia, but otherwise remained fine.
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.
Because the enemy's gate is "down"
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.
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.
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.
“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
Awesomely chill and data oriented informative art piece, sentimental amazee Eckharts "Justin" of the Ladder.
I always thought those stations were built for political issues like the ruusan reformation, it makes sense if you use it as a way to tell the people of the planet that they are protected, it's also a way to keep the people of the planet employed, it's easier work in a local station than in a ship that can go from the system
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.
#AskEck was it ever explained why in late season 3 and early season 4 of the Clone Wars why there was so many Original Trilogy characters appearing in a row (Tarkin, Chewbacca and Ackbar).
@@michaelandreipalon359 They did not appear in this stretch and we know Bail was active in the Clone Wars it is odd that those three appeared in episodes that followed each other.
I just love your outro. Great song, great doggo.
Less power to engines should allow more power to shields though?
Less focus on maneuvering would imply more focus on armor and shields, yeah
@@ZananoQuinito yeah normally they wouldnt put as much armor because its too heavy to move but if its standing still the inside just needs to be self sustaining and you'll have endless defence i do agree that not having them everywhere is a pain but in places like directly above a major city would make enemies have to think twice about a direct assault
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.
One star destroyer can keep one star destroyer from attacking a planet.
Hundreds, maybe thousands of Golans would be required to keep a single star destroyer from attacking a planet.
Unless they are assigned to defend a single, tiny point in space, space stations are just bad (at least Star wars ones, with minimal range). Planets are WAY too big to defend with something that can't move.
Eck covered this in Star Wars there are predictable points of entry at more or less specific points.
So a fleet traveling along a hyperspace lane will exit in the same area. Unless they map a new route which has been deemed super dangerous, expensive, and time consuming
Planets might be too big to defend but the known hyper space lanes that lead to the planet are easy to keep secured
If you can blockade a planet with a small fleet, you can defend it with a small group of stations.
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.
Technically would it be possible to make a space station so big that it has its own gravity?
Yes but then people look at it and say that’s not moon that’s a space station
They would probably want to set that up as a multi-generational project to use droids and tractor beams to assemble and process a whole solar system's asteroid content, maybe a moon or two as well, into such a space station. I think it would be cool as hell as a kind of civilizational project, like the positive inverse of the old sci-fi trope of the extrasolar or extragalactic predators who simply turn inhabited planets into raw materials because fuck those guys.
Instead it could be a cultural institution, with a significant ongoing investment from the whole society and a practice of what is effectively a modest civil engineering conscription that everyone participates in after their education. Turning unneeded and potentially hazardous materials into what can eventually serve as a replacement home planet if it is ever needed.
@@Brass_Monkey
What if it was regular or shaped like a pyramid?
Just slap a few interdiction generators on them and BAM...no ships leave and all incoming ships have to dump out to were you want them to.
I'm sure there's plenty of real-life military tacticians who have studied the value of static defenses and whether they're worth it in a particular situation.
The only huge problem is that you haven’t hit 1 million subscribers yet
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.
I never saw the point of battle stations in Star wars. its just like a star ship but less mobile, which makes it a rubbish starship.
I always saw them as space aircraft carriers rather than an overtly mobile fighter craft.
@@FertonFletcher That's one way to view them, but then ships like the Venator were more akin to a carrier, while still having the same sort of heavy cannons as a Golan, and still being able to move much faster at sub light plus enter hyperspace.
I think the analogy they wanted was old earth Naval forts, vs sailing ships, but really that only works if your "battle station" is an array of planet based weapons fortifications firing into orbit. That would be a very tough nut to crack, hidden behind shields no star ship could breach like at Hoth. A space station logically has similar shields and weapons to a star ship of equal size.
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
nice
I started writing this reply with rebuttals to individual arguments. That is not the failure in this review. The failure here is not seeing the point of a station like the Golan. It is Part of a defense network. No single defense is 100% perfect.
The planetary shield can be overwhelmed. Unless the attack ships are encouraged to leave early. For that you need a damage dealing force outside that shield. That is where the Golan belongs. Unable to be diverted by a different threat or bluff. It will remain.
Each loss of a Golan mentioned was not a small force simply neutralizing them like they were nothing. It was a massive overwhelming force. A force that would not be needed if there were no defense platforms. You could cause all that damage with a far smaller fleet. The defense platforms are good enough in that they force an attacker to really commit to an attack.
Want a metaphor? Your house, the door and the locks that is your planetary shield. You just raised the bar on people to break in. Not much but some. The defense platforms are your dogs in the fenced off yard on chains. They can't be lead away so they have to be neutralized to get access to the door and house again. Calling for a fleet is dialing 911 and hoping the police get there before your door is kicked in.
Lets go first ever!!
Love your videos
cracked
@@SebasGarza_Prod Did you just compliment yourself?
@@ItsWazzza haha no it’s for eckhart!
@@SebasGarza_Prod lol
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.
Early for this one
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.
EckhartsLadder, are you gonna do more versus battle and how much longer are you gonna do UA-cam for?
until people stop watching
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.
I'm dead serious when I say this, I just discovered that Lamborghini made tractors
"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
Guess it's a good thing that they never developed Traveller style Meson guns...a couple deep site meson guns would ruin the invader's day.
Care to educate on what those are?
What video is that tie interceptor from? Looks really cool.
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 UA-cam, especially this channel for Star Wars.
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.
8:33 what's this video with the TIE interceptor from?
I believe it’s Star Wars Squadrons
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.
The main problem is, that the Golan´s are developed for games and that´s why they way underpowered (game balance). A Station bigger as an ISD but less firepower? Not a chance. The mobility of a starship is it´s biggest advantage but also it´s biggest weakness! The main factor for every vehicle is : "mass"! The more mass, the more energy you need to move it, simple physics. A space station don´t move. Well, titanium armor of a space ship is expensive, steel weight more, but is cheaper. Weight doesn´t care for a space station, so, we take steel and we take a lot more of it. Space stations don´t have engines. Engines are the main energy consumer on a space ship and also something that takes a lot of space in the hull. A space station with the same size of a star ship could use the space of the engines for an extra reactor plus the extra energy that is not needed for the engines gives you an extreme amount of energy for shields. In my eyes, ten times the hull / shield strenghtof a star ship of a simliar size looks absolut realistic and that would make a defense station an absolute horror enemy. It would also explain, why the empire build dreadnought class ships like the executor. They need a mobile platform with enough firepower to handle a real defense station.
Where did you get that clip from 8:45 - 11:40? It was captivating lol
The patchwork lore is a problem here. The Golan II is larger than an Imp Star Deuce, doesn't lose space or power output to propulsion, and doesn't carry a huge complement of troops, planetary vehicles, etc. Its hangar is even smaller. The Golan II just isn't as heavily armed as it should be. Only 35 turbolasers on a structure that size is ridiculous. They were deliberately made to be much weaker and less capable than they should be.
What was the game playing on in the background? In the first few minutes that is