[CT27]

Just for fun, I was thinking about ways the war could end and just for fun came up with this range (these are assuming no GTVA civil war or Shivan appearance):

1-Massive UEF victory (GTVA totally kicked out of Sol, with the UEF maybe having a beachhead in Delta Serpentis and GTVA has to pay massive reparations and whatnot)

2-Standard UEF victory (status quo ante bellum, maybe GTVA has to pay some reparations)

3-Status quo (the war ends as is...GTVA gets 'something' in Sol since they hold up to Jupiter currently)

4-Pyric GTVA victory (GTVA forces a surrender barely but faces a devastating quagmire)

5-Heavy GTVA victory (UEF surrenders after being beaten convincingly with relatively little insurgent/terrorist operations)

Is that a good gamut of options? (#5 admittedly sounds like wishful thinking but I couldn't think of anything else for the "best case scenario" for the GTVA)

[FireSpawn]

You forgot the one where Laporte gains control over the entire Terran population with her highly popular series of lesbian pornos and erotic writings. Due to the manner of victory when the shivan Sathani came, the terrans just ejected from their ships and punched through them with their super strong right arms.   

[Colonol Dekker]

 

[Qent]

You forgot the one where Laporte gains control over the entire Terran population with her highly popular series of lesbian pornos and erotic writings. Due to the manner of victory when the shivan Sathani came, the terrans just ejected from their ships and punched through them with their super strong right arms.   

That really depends on whether her partner makes it to Part 2.

[LordPomposity]

You forgot the one where Laporte gains control over the entire Terran population with her highly popular series of lesbian pornos and erotic writings. Due to the manner of victory when the shivan Sathani came, the terrans just ejected from their ships and punched through them with their super strong right arms.   

Making campaign, brb

[CT27]

Well, I was referring to endings by conventional military means, not ones involving psychic, emotional space lesbians. 

[FireSpawn]

Well, I was referring to endings by conventional military means, not ones involving psychic, emotional space lesbians. 

That's unconventional?! It's settled, once I become overlord of the universe, this shall be the only way all wars shall be fought...... With lesbians! And oil! And LESBIANS!

(Did I mentional the lesbians?)

[CT27]

Oookaayyy...

While I'm not necessarily opposed to talking about lesbians in this thread, I kind of meant this thread to figure out ways that the GTVA could win.  The lesbians in your scenario help the UEF. 

[FireSpawn]

Oookaayyy...

While I'm not necessarily opposed to talking about lesbians in this thread, I kind of meant this thread to figure out ways that the GTVA could win.  The lesbians in your scenario help the UEF. 

Which (I believe) would ultimately help the GTVA in the end, if only in the aesthetics of their ships.

[Qent]

Yes! Hence my strategy of immediate, unconditional surrender.

[CT27]

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=76500.0


This is the thread that I sort of got the inspiration for this thread from.  I wanted to figure out what options the GTVA has.

[mmm99]

lesbians aside...

I think Steele would be wise to use Fabian tactics and just wear down the UEF.

The UEF has about 6 months worth of supplies to keep its ships going. If Steele were to back off on major offencives and focus on smaller sorties that didn't put any important assets at risk but just slowly wore them down the war would be won in 6 months.

also i could see the Mars colony defecting to the GTVA 'cause the only thing Byrne and the elders are worried about is keepin' Earth, safe stuff the rest of Sol

[Aardwolf]

Surrendering maybe, but not defecting. I don't think that's too likely either.

[Dilmah G]

The UEF has about 6 months worth of supplies to keep its ships going. If Steele were to back off on major offencives and focus on smaller sorties that didn't put any important assets at risk but just slowly wore them down the war would be won in 6 months.

This works in terms of principles if you reverse your logic.

If a side has only enough supplies that if the rate of decay is x, they will will be expended in six months, you defeat them in less time by increasing the rate that their supplies decay to x>. By mounting larger offensives against this side that cause greater losses than the current rate, the strain on supplies becomes such that the rate of decay becomes x>. This is as opposed to reducing this rate by mounting less often sorties. The key here is that stuff has to die.

The UEF can avoid this by using a Fabian strategy that minimizes the potential decay of their supplies (i.e. the loss of fighters, warships, and logistics vessels along the MSR) to ensure that the rate of decay = x.

To defeat the UEF, all the GTVA must do is maintain their current operational tempo for 6 more months. Whether this is possible, is another question entirely.

[mmm99]

I see your point about more intensive sorties but i still think that quantity of attacks over quality, so to speak, is the best way to go.

and when you say that stuff must die I think that a frigate constantly being attacked and therefore constantly having to be repaired would consume far more supplyes and equipment then no frigate at all. I know the ultimate objective is to destroy it but in this instance when you want supplies consumed as fast as possible making sure you don't completly destroy it is a great strategy.


oh and go Tev's

[Scotty]

I see your point about more intensive sorties but i still think that quantity of attacks over quality, so to speak, is the best way to go.

and when you say that stuff must die I think that a frigate constantly being attacked and therefore constantly having to be repaired would consume far more supplyes and equipment then no frigate at all. I know the ultimate objective is to destroy it but in this instance when you want supplies consumed as fast as possible making sure you don't completly destroy it is a great strategy.

I don't know about you, but a dead frigate, even one that isn't taking up supplies, is still a frigate that you never have to worry about again, and one less piece on the board that can intercept and **** up your moves.  That's always desirable.

[Dilmah G]

I see your point about more intensive sorties but i still think that quantity of attacks over quality, so to speak, is the best way to go.

and when you say that stuff must die I think that a frigate constantly being attacked and therefore constantly having to be repaired would consume far more supplyes and equipment then no frigate at all. I know the ultimate objective is to destroy it but in this instance when you want supplies consumed as fast as possible making sure you don't completly destroy it is a great strategy.


oh and go Tev's

This is great if we take a very narrow view of the affair, a simple 'How does the GTVA maintain its operational tempo for 6 more months?' statement, but we have to look at the campaign we're undertaking here, and how this piece of the puzzle fits into it. And that's not meant to be a condescending introduction, but merely a fact, that the supply issue is only one part of the campaign.

Now, the campaign has a strategic objective: the capture of a planet, let's say. Now in this, the GTVA must commit a number of Offensive Operations: OFFOPS to achieve the strategic objectives. These consist of things like the denial of a tactical or strategic asset, or the acquisition of an entrance or facility. Opposing this, is the UEF's ability to commit its own OFFOPS and DEFOPS. The two most relevant factors that facilitate the execution of these operations are Fleet Integrity, and Supply.

And so looking at the relationship of the operations, fleet integrity and supply tells us that whilst the integrity of the fleet falls, the supply is more evenly distributed amongst the remaining vessels. This is a bad thing when we look at the war as the simple statement I begun with because the rate at which supply decays falls, but interpreting all of these factors tells us that a decline in the integrity of the fleets means a decline in the UEF's ability to wage successful operations (increased probability of an operational failure).

But, a ship's contents of beans, blankets and bullets also represents a slice of the overall supply in itself. By destroying a vessel, the GTVA not only hampers a fleet's integrity, but also the overall state of supply.

Thus, the most favourable outcome from GTVA OFFOPS is the destruction of UEF warships. Even better than this, are transport vessels.

[bigchunk1]

I don't know much at all about Naval warships, but I don't think that losing ships is more cost effective than not losing ships. There were American battle ships first laid in world war 2 which were used in the first Iraq war. Ships can be converted and reconverted much more easily than gathering the natural resources and providing the factory time to forge a brand new hull. Worse comes to worse, a logistics manager would make the call and decomission the ship for scrap metal and reassign her crew. Counting on the tevs being bad at math does not seem like a good strategy.

[Drogoth]

If you destroy all of the enemy ships, then whatever supplies they  have left over are useless, since there won't be ships for those supplies to service.

[QuakeIV]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the last few posts if I read them correctly.

Its bad for the UEF if they start losing their supplies.  But the ultimate objective in a war is to destroy the enemies ability to fight.  Whether that means blowing up their infrastructure, eating away their supplies faster than they can be replenished, or blowing up their ships.

Though its true that fewer warships means that per capita the fleet is better supplied, they still lost some of their ability to fight therefore it is still bad for them, and good for the Tevs.