[Snail]

Any ship with an intrasystem jump drive doesn't need to use intrasystem gates, but it's still useful: It's harder to track and requires little to no energy on the part of the ship.

[Droid803]

Wouldn't it be easier to track since you know, if they go in one gate they can only come out the exit, whereas a regular intrasystem jump doesn't have these constraints - they could pop out anywhere.

I was under the impression that you need to see a ship enter subspace to track its destination. (Which makes more sense than simply being omniscient about subspace activity in a given system).

If going through a fixed-gate system made it more difficult to track, it would feel very backwards...

[The E]

The problem, if you can call it that, is that gates always expend the same amount of energy for each jump event, regardless of whether it's a fighter that's jumping, or a Destroyer. The sensor net detects the energy expenditure associated with a subspace transit window opening and a "shadow" of the ship moving through subspace. Now, if a ship is jumping unassisted, it's pretty easy to tell what kind of ship is jumping. While you might not be able to tell two Cruisers apart, you CAN tell if the jumping ship is a Cruiser or a Destroyer. When the jumping ship is using a gate however, the sensor net can only tell that someone's used a gate, nothing else.

So, in a strategic sense, ships moving through the gate network are harder to track, as their jump signatures can become obfuscated. This is a major factor in the GTVA-UEF war, since the emplaced sensor net the UEF had prior to the war gave them near-realtime tracking capability across the solar system, and the GTVA had to erode that bit by bit to gain strategic maneuvering space.

[Droid803]

Ah, that sorta makes sense...(though aren't the gates horribly "inefficient" if it expends the same amount of power to jump a fighter as it does to jump a destroyer? Unless of course, the energy required to use the gate is really so low it doesn't matter.)

[The E]

The gates are a bit inefficient, yeah. But energy isn't that much of a problem, and the savings from not having to build intrasystem drives into freighters and other civilian ships (which make up the bulk of the intrasystem traffic) more than offset the expense of operating the gates.

[Mongoose]

I guess putting an intrasystem drive into a civilian freighter really would be the equivalent of sticking a turbocharger on a minivan, wouldn't it?

[General Battuta]

I think NGTM-1R has plenty of good points but there's basically no reason to risk a destroyer in combat when they're more effective as fighter ops platforms and when a corvette team can do everything they can.

Basically wherever NGTM-1R is arguing for a destroyer the BP GTVA would use a corvette team instead. They're more subspace-maneuverable (faster jumps) and have the same firepower.

[General Battuta]

Double post!

Now I think the really interesting question from NGTM-1R's argument is, why does the GTVA face any kind of logistical chokepoint at the node? Surely destroyers can just duck back to Delta Serpentis (or further) to refuel. It'd only take a few hours and would allow the GTVA to run a daisy-chain string of loads of destroyers in Sol.

The answer has more to do with the GTVA's general force deployments across its territory - given its force commitment to anti-Shivan watch it can't afford to do that. There's also some more particular dynamics of the node, navigation, fuel and logistics that we'll probably get into in a techroom entry.

It's been a struggle to figure out how much of the war to put into CBs and fiction and how much to put in techroom. Infodumping like this directly in the campaign can really wreck the narrative pacing, so it's better to find clever ways to allude and put the real depth in the background fluff.

[NGTM-1R]

The GTVA has multiple vital rear-area targets in Sol that must be defended, including but not limited to the node. Those become open to attack. You could counter this by 'strategic sprinting', which is not something we dismissed offhand but something we think about. Unfortunately said sprints tend to turn into cluster****s.

The GTVA is a conquering army.

Either you're suggesting that they have been stupid enough not to centralize their logistics at the node (this is the subspace age, centralize wherever possible, dispersal merely puts more of your ships at risk), or that they in fact have conquered territory that they now feel compelled to defend, which both contradicts your statements below and also is unnecessary. You have already ruled out amphibous power projection and other means of affecting events "ashore", so at this point the GTVA's reduced to two basic objectives: destruction of enemy commerce and space control.

You lose access to those destroyer's fighter complements in other areas since they can't be launched rapidly under combat maneuvers.

So you simply deploy the aerospace group in its entirety before engaging. They can follow along or mostly remain behind; attacking them is a low-reward high-risk strategy unlike attacking the destroyer itself. The solution to this one's really very simple.

You let the enemy know exactly where the destroyer is. When in a secure rear area, where the UEF sensor net has been taken down, the destroyers can move about untracked and even use subspace gates. They can't be easily located.

Subspace tracking from point of origin argues that unless you can completely keep UEF ships at least several light-seconds away from the entry point to the system (an unlikely proposition) then it will be entirely possible to track them through multiple jumps and keep tabs on them. Unless all subspace gates jump characteristics are identical, which is doubtful, and the UEF doesn't have any way of basic timestamping their use, which is absurd. If you intend to claim multiple simulatanous activations, then I counter that the total number of such gates in Sol and under GTVA control cannot be high enough to completely swamp the UEF's recon assets.

As a consequence of the above point, with each destroyer you deploy, you free up a vast number of enemy assets once charged with countering its potential deployment. Worse yet, you let the UEF know exactly where to deploy its artillery and horrifying uberbomber squadrons.

This is true of any form of warfare, but it does not happen that way. If you want to accuse people of armchair strategy, at least develop some basic strategic grounding yourself. First, this is a basic manuver warfare concept: overwhelm the local enemy and move on before the rest can effectively coordinate a counterstrike. Even in the subspace age there is a decision cycle. We've seen it at work in FS1 and FS2. If you end the battle in a single salvo and recharge your drives, you can be gone before significant forces are both deployed and able to bring their firepower to bear effectively.

Also, as noted, you still have your own defensive units. If the UEF wishes to go all-in, you can too, or maul their rear areas. Just because you have commited several destroyers to battle does not mean you have commited all destroyers to battle. The enemy defense is still tied up; particularly if you can effectively manage the manuver warfare bit as discussed above.

You will also let the UEF know exactly where to deploy its assets with any offensive action. This is an argument for making your offensives stronger, so that you get more of them back, and more of them succeed. If the UEF's bomber squadrons and artillery are so terrifying, then deployment of a smaller force is simply begging for it to be defeated in detail.

You do not reduce your casualty rate since casualty rate is a function of enemy assets committed as well as exposure time and you'll be allowing that to increase uncontrollably (or even to maximum.)

See above.

You gain little, you risk much. Behavior does not increase strategic fitness.

Not sufficently demonstrated.

With only 3-5 destroyers in Sol, there is good reason the GTVA elects to rarely deploy more than one at a time.

And as I noted it would be entirely possible to briefly augment this strength to much greater levels via short-term (relatively) deployments. This would at least introduce an interesting dynamic into the story as well, as offensive action by either side would be cyclical.

As for the 'will to fight' vs. 'military victory' war, the GTVA cannot win the battle on the field. It must force a diplomatic solution. It does not have the manpower or ability to occupy the UEF's planets and a military victory risks destruction of the all-important infrastructure. What it can do is threaten massive destruction and force concessions.

Which ignores the tenant of the argument willfully; if you win on the field, you destroy their will to fight by default. If you specifically attack their will to fight, particularly in this situation, you have a very slim chance of being effective militarily or politically.

Now I think the really interesting question from NGTM-1R's argument is, why does the GTVA face any kind of logistical chokepoint at the node? Surely destroyers can just duck back to Delta Serpentis (or further) to refuel. It'd only take a few hours and would allow the GTVA to run a daisy-chain string of loads of destroyers in Sol.

Actually, I'm arguing the exact opposite more or less.

Instead of basing the logistics in Delta Serpentis I'm saying that this is a destroyer battlegroup, it has to be capable of independent operations over a significant period of time or it's not an effective instrument of war. Arbitrarily, we'll call it a month, though this is probably low. This basically means you can deploy from anywhere within the GTVA, spend a week on surge-tempo operations in Sol, leave, and go back to wherever you came from never to return, on the same set of basic supplies.

The answer has more to do with the GTVA's general force deployments across its territory - given its force commitment to anti-Shivan watch it can't afford to do that. There's also some more particular dynamics of the node, navigation, fuel and logistics that we'll probably get into in a techroom entry.

Which is a commitment that they have come to Sol to fulfil, to gain the population and industrial base to fight the Shivans more effectively. Also given earlier prose about people's failure to believe that the GTVA can protect them from the Shivans, this watch is useless in and of itself; what the GTVA needs to do is prove its fighting arm is still an effective instrument. You can't have your tail wagging your dog.

Unless that's the point for story purposes since it lets the UEF pretend it's a legitimate entry into this contest. Which is bad writing, but there you go.

[General Battuta]

Well, we seem to have gone from a friendly debate to 'bad writing, you suck.' Which seems to suggest these discussions are not particularly productive, which is a shame, because I value your input and enjoy(ed?) these debates.

Our analysis is different from yours. Sorry. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with a point-by-point debate. (Though I will say your last paragraph is pretty bizarre; convincing people that your military is useful is meaningless if the military isn't there to stop the Shivans when they turn up. The GTVA is not going to relax its guard, under any circumstances, not for one day.)

And this:

Instead of basing the logistics in Delta Serpentis I'm saying that this is a destroyer battlegroup, it has to be capable of independent operations over a significant period of time or it's not an effective instrument of war. Arbitrarily, we'll call it a month, though this is probably low. This basically means you can deploy from anywhere within the GTVA, spend a week on surge-tempo operations in Sol, leave, and go back to wherever you came from never to return, on the same set of basic supplies.

is pretty much what we've been assuming, yeah.

And this:

If you end the battle in a single salvo and recharge your drives, you can be gone before significant forces are both deployed and able to bring their firepower to bear effectively.

is also a big part of our model. But like I said, the GTVA accomplishes this with corvette teams. Its Hecate destroyers are totally unsuited to this job.

Which is why it bemuses me that you're advocating deploying multiple Hecates to a battle zone when GTVA doctrine argues against deploying even one.

So let me quote a post you seem to have missed:

I think NGTM-1R has plenty of good points but there's basically no reason to risk a destroyer in combat when they're more effective as fighter ops platforms and when a corvette team can do everything they can.

Basically wherever NGTM-1R is arguing for a destroyer the BP GTVA would use a corvette team instead. They're more subspace-maneuverable (faster jumps) and have the same (really superior in most cases) firepower.

All cool?

Oh and heck while I've reverted to point-to-point:

Our subspace tracking doesn't work like you assume. Entry point observation isn't always necessary but some degree of proximity is. Movement in an unobserved zone, especially in combination with jumpgate spoofing, is very possibly and very hard to track (thus why recon flights are valuable.)

And heck:

And as I noted it would be entirely possible to briefly augment this strength to much greater levels via short-term (relatively) deployments. This would at least introduce an interesting dynamic into the story as well, as offensive action by either side would be cyclical.

...you've already seen this happen, oh beta tester! Granted the placeholder writing and stuff at the time probably didn't make it as clear as it is now.

And here:

Either you're suggesting that they have been stupid enough not to centralize their logistics at the node (this is the subspace age, centralize wherever possible, dispersal merely puts more of your ships at risk)

Our tack is actually 'decentralize wherever possible.' Single failure points are bad when subspace is in play. Distribute, distribute, distribute - that's one of the core tenets of our fluff and we've built the dynamics to support it, especially because it produces better gameplay. When overwhelming and hard-to-predict attacks on a single point are possible, you want depth.

So yeah. I'd like to request a de-escalation in this debate, please, NGTM-1R. I know you have strong opinions, but sometimes other folks disagree, and when it gets down to this kind of discussion it starts to hurt morale. Helpful debate and discussion is awesome (and presumably the goal), but after a point it starts to seem like arguing for the sake of argument, and then it crosses the signal-to-noise ratio.

You're just going to have to trust that we've thought things out as well as you would have, even if we came to different conclusions than you did.

[General Battuta]

And hell I'll address one more point:

You will also let the UEF know exactly where to deploy its assets with any offensive action. This is an argument for making your offensives stronger, so that you get more of them back, and more of them succeed. If the UEF's bomber squadrons and artillery are so terrifying, then deployment of a smaller force is simply begging for it to be defeated in detail.

Nonono. The UEF will not deploy its limited, vulnerable artillery and bombers until it knows it is a critical moment, until it can be certain this is not a trap. Only a major force commitment will draw them out.

Using smaller forces avoids triggering that 'o**** big fight' threshold, and lets you get away with mischief at lesser cost. Neither side goes all-in in this war. The cost is too high vs. the rewards.

Basically, the GTVA is gaming the UEF's response hierarchy - like I said, a predator in a position of strength goes for low-risk, low-reward strategies. This is a big tenet of Admiral Severanti's approach to war.

Mind that things could change under a different commander.

As usual I think that a lot of the stuff you're arguing is stuff we're already using (having thought it up in parallel) but you assume that the fact that you haven't seen it means it hasn't been done.

This whole argument has spiraled out of the fact that the GTVA doesn't like to commit its Hecates to fights. I'm not entirely clear on why this provoked such enthusiastic response from you when the GTVA has Bellerophons and Chimeras to send in instead.

I mean, hell, you're arguing here for massive application of force via Shivan-style maneuver tactics when there are whole BP techroom entries about how these corvettes are designed to do exactly that.

And again, I'll plead for some de-escalation in this. So again: just trust us, okay?

[Darius]

Right, I'll take it as a sign of the mod's quality that people are willing to discuss subspace tactics with such fervour and enthusiasm, but I think the thread has served it's purpose here.

Move along please!