Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: NGTM-1R on February 16, 2010, 10:41:58 pm
-
Okay, this is going to be a long one and highly analytic, so let's lay the groundrules. We're discussing organizational failures here, not individual mistakes.
Per the best study of the phenomenon I've found (It's called Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War if you care to look it up) military organizational failure is typically broken down into three modes: Failure to learn from the past, failure to anticipate the future, and failure to adapt to the present. From these three modes arise three types: simple failure, where you only screw up one way, aggregate failure, where you screw up two ways, and catastrophic failure, where you blow it in all three dimensions. Obviously, the more types of failure you combine, the worse the end result is. Simple failure is usually recoverable. Catastrophic failure is going to be decisive.
In The Great War, we have...
Failure to learn is irrevelant to the issue; there's nothing for anyone to learn from that has much bearing on the events that occur.
Failure to anticipate does not refer to an inability to peer into the future; nobody is clairvoyant. Rather, failure to anticipate is a failure to take precautions against a known threat. There is unfortunately a lot od this going around in the Great War.
The Vasudans failed to take precautions against the existence of the Lucifer. This is not wholly their fault, since they had neither time nor means to either destroy the Lucifer or disperse the population of their homeworld. However, it must still be ranked a failure as the existence of the Lucifer, its capablities, and the fact it was targeting Vasuda Prime were known in advance.
The Shivans got in on the action too, failing to take sufficent action to protect the Taranis from capture (a classic example in the end of a recovery), and failing to anticipate that the GTA and PVN would have many surprises to throw at them in terms of new equipment and tactics; each deployment of a new ship or new weapon didn't inspire them to prepare for the next one or behave more cautiously, even several fightercraft and many gun/missile models later. The Shivans should have realized at some point that they had hit the GTA in the midst of an upgrade cycle and made some kind of allowance for it, but they never did. The GTA was deploying a completely different weapons lineup at the end of the war from the one they had at the start with the exception of the Fury missile, and something similar apparently happened with the Vasudans.
The GTA alone is relatively blameless in this department; arguably the attack on Installation Riveria should be included here, but on the other hand a third-race situation was still too far out of context to be considered a "known threat".
Failure to adapt could be considered the story of the Shivan war machine, but for one significant fact; the Lucifer actually did change priorities. We know from the techroom at the beginning that it bombarded some random colony worlds. However once GTA and PVN resistance had stiffened sharply the Lucifer cut the crap and made a beeline for Vasuda Prime, then headed to Earth. This does not seem to have been standard procedure for the Shivans, if the Ancient's Monologues are to be believed; they killed everything and went for the homeworlds last. Similarily, Hellfire from Silent Threat offers tantalizing clues that the Shivans switched from their previous raiding tactics backed by annihilation of key points to a more conventional fleet-action based strategy after the Lucifer's loss. On the opposite hand, the Shivans never demonstrated adaptiblity on the battlefield; despite stiffening GTA/PVN resistence and a technological gap that closed very rapidly, Shivan tactics and deployment remained consistant throughout the war.
The GTA and PVN, by contrast, spent the entire war frantically adapting tactics and technology to combat the Shivans.
Proving the dictum that victory goes to the side which screws up least, the GTA and PVN commited only simple failure. The Shivans worked up to aggregate, and thus lost the Great War.
The Second Shivan Invasion is much more messy.
The GTVA drew lessons from the past, obviously. In the event, however, many of them proved unhelpful. This is not necessarily a failure to learn; there was no way they could have learned about the existence of the Sathanas design or the Sathanas fleet by studying The Great War. Positive lessons were learned and applied to GTVA ship and fightercraft design; AAA beams and flak cannon are almost certainly direct descendants of the discovery that shielded bombers rendered capital craft of The Great War desperately vunerable; the creation of the Artemis and Bakha bombers with their superior speeds and fighting qualities is outright stated to be the result of battle lessons.
Assessing if the Shivans learned anything is difficult. They too deployed AAA beams and flaks, but in numbers and placements suggesting more paying lip service to the lesson than actually learning it...but they continued to commit heavier numbers of fightercraft to escort duties, so there was not quite as much slack that needed picking up. They did however seem to grasp one lesson unequivocally, a similar one to one of the GTVA's: it is dodging the interceptor, not outlasting it, that gets ordnance to the target. This lesson is represented in the Nahema bomber. They also deployed the Mara fighter, which represents a significant departure from usual Shivan design standards of single-role fighters and a step towards the more multirole designs the GTA and PVN deployed in The Great War and the multirole craft the GTVA would deploy against the Shivans.
The NTF appears rather neutral on the subject; they were unable to deploy most of the more advanced craft from lessons learned in The Great War, but probably absorbed battle lessons from it. However at the end they almost certainly should have known the run to Gamma Draconis was suicidal from past experience.
Failures to anticipate are an interesting subject: the GTVA does not, in the final analysis, appear to have commited any such failures. In fact, the decision to evacuate Capella after the first Sathanas was sighted seems truly inspired in retrospect, considering the GTVA certainly had the means to take down one such ship. The existence of the Sathanas itself was not a predictable event; the existence of a whole fleet of them wasn't either.
The Shivans appear to have commited a single failure in this category; the first Sathanas was alone, and they should have reasonably been able to anticipate the GTVA could destroy such a ship if it was alone or lightly supported. Knowledge of the Colossus wasn't actually necessary for this conclusion; the GTVA had enough destroyers to do the job, and had a plan to do just that which they didn't get the chance to actually implement. The Shivans did learn from this, however.
The NTF commited the cardinal failures of anticipation; they started by extending into Deneb, and knowing that the GTVA had uncommited fleets and battlegroups that could easily rupture that front failed to take precautions against exactly what ended up happening. They also appear to have failed to take positive action to defend their fighter corps against the rising tide of the GTVA's second-generation fighters and new slew of weapons, all of which they would know of before the fact; the development of so many new fightercraft and weapons was by all indications already underway before the NTF seceded.
Failure to adapt is again, not apparently commited to the GTVA. They always had a reasonable, workable plan for their current circumstances. It may not have been pretty or a conventional definition of winning, but it was there.
The Shivans adapted their Sathanas deployment tactics to prevent further losses and that was the only pressing strategic concern requiring it. Of tactical concerns, they still were out there busily not adapting in the slightest. The end result is probably neutral.
The NTF, of course, failed to adapt to the Colossus' existence and to the changed circumstances it represented; their kamikaze run to Gamma Draconis symbolizes it. The bottom line was that the war was over, and every NTF crewer and pilot lost after the Colossus smashed the blockades into Polaris died without a purpose as far as we can tell. They failed to adapt ex post facto to the GTVA's second generation fighters and new weapons just as much as they failed to take measures against them before they arrived.
The Second Shivan Invasion demonstrates a different fundemental truth; when the material disparity is so great, screwing up just might not matter. The Shivans managed to reach aggregate failure again, while the GTVA made no mistakes at the organizational level; but it did not matter because there were 80+ Sathanas juggernauts and no GTVA counterforce. The Shivans could have dispatched their juggernauts into Capella singly at one-month intervals and that wouldn't have altered the end outcome in the slightest: the GTVA's forces would have been worn away to nothing before the Shivans had sent in half.
The NTF, by contrast, had no huge numerical advantage to fall back on and so paid the full price of reaching aggregate failure level: the loss of Polaris and the end of the NTF Rebellion as a political movement. The destruction the Neo-Terran Front as a meaningful fighting force occurred when they reached the level of catastrophic failure in the run to Gamma Draconis.
-
A very interesting and informational essay. :)
-
I thought the NTF run to Gamma Draconis was a way to get Bosch into the nebula.
-
I also thought that the suicidal run into the nebula was a deliberate decision by Bosch. He had admitted that the NTF were a herd of stupid cattle, that they would follow his orders despite knowing they would all die. At the end he seemed to have regretted even forming the NTF, that he'd unleashed a monster. I think in his own way he was trying to atone, making sure that the NTF was destroyed wholesale instead of forcing the Civil War to drag on for god knows how long while the last survivors fought to the bitter end. This accomplished both his objectives, to reach the nebula using his considerable fleet as decoys and meat shields, while also helping to destroy the monster he'd unleashed.
At least that's how I interpreted the campaign, but who knows. Either way though it was an excellent essay!
-
I think you are right about Bosch. After all he said something about creating a monster he can no longer controll. Or that history would remember him as a monster and that not even being an unfair judgement along with the "method behind my madness" comment.
As for the Taranis, I'm not so sure about that being a failure. Considering the aftermath it might very well have been a trap all along. The shivans saw that the GTA and PVN go to great length to aquire shivan technology, so they put out a lightly defended cruiser and let it appear as if it is a command vessel to make it even more appetizing (that the Lucifer appeared ony hours later makes it very unlikely that the Taranis really was a command vessel).
And now the allies rush in to capture it and tow it to the most defensibe place closeby. And chances are that the allies put their most important facilities into the most defensibe locations.
So instead of having to ponderously scour one system after the other untill they eventually stumble over that suspected major military installation, the shivans could not just attack the place much sooner, but also achive the element of surprise in the attack. And all that by sacrificing a few figher wings (something the shivans have plenty to spare) and a single cruiser, which they most likely got back in the attack.
Which would turn the failure of protecting the Taranis into a success in adapting to GTA and PVN tactics and utilizing their weaknesses to the fullest.
The Lucifer though, was clearly overconfidence in their own superiority and invulnerbility.
-
In pondering my own Shivan theories, one thing about the Lucifer's actions bugged me: Why did it follow you to the Altair jump node? There were no warships with you, only a few wings of fighters/bombers, a science cruiser, and a pair of transports. If the Shivans knew about the Ancient subspace/knowledge repository, why didn't they scour the planets of the Altair system more thoroughly to begin with? Then, of course, after the fact, why didn't they send any forces into Altair, rather than (seemingly)expect the Hammer of Light to stop the Omega transports?
Pre-Colossus, the NTF seemed to be doing pretty well for itself, at least outside of Deneb(which according to Return to Babel's Command Brief, was where Bosch learned how to power up the Knossos, so while seemingly of poor judgment, was also necessary for Bosch's agenda). With the abundance of Orions, Deimos and Aeolus cruisers the NTF had, trying to dislodge them from any system they were well established in would be(and indeed was) quite costly by any means(whether capship or bomber attack), which is why the Colossus was finally needed to break the stalemate, as both a tactical and strategic asset.
The NTF appears to have had at least small amounts of Harpoons, Stiletto IIs, and Herc IIs, and a fair number of Myrmidons and Medusas, so in addition to the Lokis and Herc Is, they weren't too bad off for fighter and bomber assets.
It took the nebula system to give the GTVA back the Prometheus-S(everyone, except the SOC, had only the Subach/Mekhu and Prom-R as 'serious' fighter primaries up until King's Gambit, which was after the Knossos 'suicide run' had begun), at which point the Tornado and Artemis had also only been recently been fielded, so except for the Perseus(which was also nearly brand new), the GTVA didn't have much in terms of definitive advantage in fighter quality until after the NTF had already been broken by the Colossus and the GTVA as a whole.
-
I thought the NTF run to Gamma Draconis was a way to get Bosch into the nebula.
Sure, but the run to Gamma Drac also destroyed the NTF. Regardless of the final objective, it still resulted in the self-destruction of the organization. Set aside Bosch's goals; focus on those of the NTF itself. They could have set up a situation where the GTVA was forced to negotiate a peace with them as far as they knew. The Colossus would render it all moot, but they didn't know that.
Bosch was clearly a detriment to the organization, sure, but the organization should not be compromised by the failure of one man.
-
Bosch might even have been intentionally letting the NTF be destroyed, for whatever reason. The game describes him as a strategic genius. A suicidal run on Gamma Draconis, losing at least 3 destroyers along the way, is not "strategic genius" by any stretch of the imagination.
-
I thought the NTF run to Gamma Draconis was a way to get Bosch into the nebula.
Sure, but the run to Gamma Drac also destroyed the NTF. Regardless of the final objective, it still resulted in the self-destruction of the organization. Set aside Bosch's goals; focus on those of the NTF itself. They could have set up a situation where the GTVA was forced to negotiate a peace with them as far as they knew. The Colossus would render it all moot, but they didn't know that.
Bosch was clearly a detriment to the organization, sure, but the organization should not be compromised by the failure of one man.
I always assumed the NTF was a authoritarian regime, much like Nazi Germany in WWII, where one man had ultimate control. So I don't think it's beyond reason that if Bosch said we're gonna run for the nebula, no body was really going to question him.
-
Sacrificing 3 destroyers, no matter whose in charge, requires second thought I think.
-
You'd be right if the NTF was based on some kind of even distribution of power, but if Bosch is the ultimate head of government, then there's no one that can really challenge him aside from some sort of assassination plot. NTF Ideology seems to be so fanatical that no one would want to question their grand leader, if the actions of Rear Admiral Koth and the captain of the Belisarius are any indication. I'm sure that Bosch would have given a rousing speech, and a very well laid out plan (or at least it would appear well laid out) as to why his rush toward the nebula was both necessary and the correct course of action. Hell perhaps they even knew it was a lost cause and still went along with it, fanatics rarely give into any kind of rational thought process.
And as for Bosch's motives, as I said before I'm pretty sure Bosch wanted the NTF to be destroyed, after all he'd finished ETAK and opened the portal to the Nebula, his primary motive for creating the NTF seemed to be a cover to plunder ancient relics from Vasudan controlled worlds. That was now complete, the NTF fleet was no longer necessary, he just needed to get himself and his most trusted advisers to the nebula so they could communicate with the Shivans. His monologues referring to the NTF were all very negative and sounded very regretful. Either that or he was simply an idiot, but I think that's unlikely given how successful NTF operations appeared to have been up to that point. The near take-over of Epsilon Pegasi and Deneb, as well as holding off what must have been very concentrated and coordinated assaults on his key systems for over eighteen months, would seem to suggest he had at least some Strategical planning skills.
-
Too bad we'll probably never find out what happened to Bosch...
-
Bosch might even have been intentionally letting the NTF be destroyed, for whatever reason. The game describes him as a strategic genius. A suicidal run on Gamma Draconis, losing at least 3 destroyers along the way, is not "strategic genius" by any stretch of the imagination.
Yep, the question is how much did Bosch tell NTF command?
With Rear Admiral Koth dead it wouldn't have been that hard for Bosch to have put things on a need to know basis.
But then again I've never had a particularly high view of the intelligence of those defecting to the NTF (especially in the later stages of the war).
-
You'd be right if the NTF was based on some kind of even distribution of power, but if Bosch is the ultimate head of government, then there's no one that can really challenge him aside from some sort of assassination plot. NTF Ideology seems to be so fanatical that no one would want to question their grand leader, if the actions of Rear Admiral Koth and the captain of the Belisarius are any indication. I'm sure that Bosch would have given a rousing speech, and a very well laid out plan (or at least it would appear well laid out) as to why his rush toward the nebula was both necessary and the correct course of action. Hell perhaps they even knew it was a lost cause and still went along with it, fanatics rarely give into any kind of rational thought process.
Bosch is the public face of the rebellion that we know, but the assertion that he was completely in the driver's seat is ludicrious. What we know about the NTF, the early "regional dominio effect" says political groundwork, and that says civilian sector leaders. Bosch gave the rebellion intial muscle but he could not give it power enough to stand for eighteen months. We know Bosch because he was our enemy. He was the military's enemy. But any assertion he was the only enemy is groundless, particularly when Bosch himself says he can no longer control the direction of the NTF.
Furthermore effective military organization is, of necessity, based on distribution of power. That's why officers exist. The GTVA shows every sign of being a well-developed organization willing to promote individual initative on the part of both junior and senior officers. The NTF military is directly born of the GTVA's. You cannot erase that kind of environment instantly, and you could only begin to have done so in eighteen months. Bosch was the paramount commander, but he was not required to lead the assault on Epsilon Pegasi; Bosch was the paramount commander, but the GTVA didn't know he was in Deneb or commanding that assault either. There was clearly power-sharing going on. Bosch may have been a sort of first among equals, perhaps even the most senior commander, but he was not the only one, and lesser commanders did have license to think for themselves.
-
Many of Hitler's generals (hate to drag in WWII here but I think there's a good deal of similarities) had individual initiative to act alone as well, but for many of the major strategic decisions, such as the Invasion of Russia and his decision to try and take Stalingrad and Leningrad, fell to Hitler. When Rommel requested tanks to deal with the allied forces landing at Normandy, Hitler refused to send them. In contrast Eisenhower and the planners of the Operation Overlord, all had to report to a higher authority (Supreme Allied Headquarters in this case) where the major political leaders usually had a say (Roosevelt, Churchill).
I am just going off of cutscenes and ingame info, but Bosch seemed to me to be that same kind of Authoritarian figure. He held the reigns with all the important decisions, he didn't need to spearhead the invasion of Epsilon Pegasi himself but he probably ordered Koth to do it or Koth came up with the plan and asked for Bosch's okay. On a tactical level individual initiative is a good thing, but if on a grand strategic level people are deploying entire fleets and system wide invasions without the OK from a higher authority your going to find yourself in a situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There needs to be a central authority in order to effectively fight a large scale war.
I'm not saying Bosch was behind every single tiny little operation that ever took place in the war, I'm saying he controlled the overall strategic command. He appears to be head of state for the NTF as well, in Rebels and Renegades Snipes command briefing states that Bosch is moving to Regulus and installing his provisional government. He had the political and military backing to do whatever he wanted to.
At least I can't think of any other plausible reason for why the NTF decided to do the suicidal run to the Gamma Draconis. If there were other leaders that counterbalanced Bosch's control why didn't they stop him? Why proceed with the absolute destruction of the NTF?
-
If there were other leaders that counterbalanced Bosch's control why didn't they stop him? Why proceed with the absolute destruction of the NTF?
I'm of the opinion that Koth must have been Bosch's 2nd in command, with him removed Bosch is a position to do anything but its important to note that to Bosch the survival of the NTF is irrelevant, he considers them a tool and we know he created the movement to draw attention away from his excavation of ancient artifacts and development of ETAC.
We also have to consider the reason the NTF military was given to rush to Gamma Draconis before we judge their actions, there must be a logical reason for them to have done it that was supported by the rank and file or at least the majority of the officers because fanaticism can only do so much. If they werent given orders that made sense in the big picture then they would have simply surrendered to the GTVA the moment the Colossus showed up and what we see from the game shows that the NTF commited everything to the rush for Gamma Draconis.
As NGTM-1R said the war was over for the NTF due to the Colossus deployment, I do not agree that they failed to adapt to the Colossus because I think its more that their options of dealing with it are severely limited. They know the GTVA has reserve fleets and are not depending solely on the Colossus so they cannot simply commit everything they have against it without also losing the war, they know the Colossus's capabilities after it annihilated their fleet, they attempted to cripple the Colossus through attacking its supplies but failed.
At this point the NTF could only do two things, either stay on their strongholds and wait as the Colossus would simply move to their positions and smash them one by one OR seize a target of such importance to the GTVA that it would force them to the negotiating table before the Colossus could cripple them. Something like the capital of the GTVA would be a obvious target but heavily defended and at this moment we know and obviously so did the NTF that the only other thing of key importance to the GTVA at the moment is the Knossos portal.
This must have fitted into Bosch's plan or forced him into accelerating his plans but either way, he ordered the NTF to rush to the Gamma Draconis system and the logic given must have been that by seizing the Knossos they could bring the GTVA to negotiate with them, would it have worked? Possibly because the chance to reopen the Sol node and stabilize many others would be so great that the GTVA politicians might be willing to grant the NTF their independence.
But to Bosch it didnt matter at all as long as he got into the nebula.
-
Many of Hitler's generals (hate to drag in WWII here but I think there's a good deal of similarities) had individual initiative to act alone as well, but for many of the major strategic decisions, such as the Invasion of Russia and his decision to try and take Stalingrad and Leningrad, fell to Hitler. When Rommel requested tanks to deal with the allied forces landing at Normandy, Hitler refused to send them. In contrast Eisenhower and the planners of the Operation Overlord, all had to report to a higher authority (Supreme Allied Headquarters in this case) where the major political leaders usually had a say (Roosevelt, Churchill).
It's a valid parallel; but it's also wrong. The Wehrmacht was built at the level of the general/flag-grade officer. (And it's important to note that every professional officer who served as Chief of Staff of major service save for Doenitz was eventually fired for arguing with Hitler.) Its majors/commanders and colonels/captains were competent, but highly constrained by orders in most situations. Its junior officers, outside of parachute units and some of the panzers, were not allowed initative or independent operations.
The NTF demonstrates a degree of operational flexiblity in the missions we fly that belies making the same assumptions. Love The Treason... symbolizes it. The NTF attack on the Sunder was a meeting engagement, but see how it developed; unlike most meeting engagements, it was not because two forces were headed to the same place. NTF units responded rapidly to a call for help. They came spontanously; the responses were too quick to have been coordinated at high levels, but were chosen by individual squadron leaders and ship captains who were not commited to active combat.
As noted, it also matters not what Bosch was; the NTF is composed of people who came from or were trained by those who came from the GTVA. The GTVA demonstrably is willing to grant great freedom to junior officers in accomplishing their mission.
Either way you look at it, there has yet to be a force in the history of the world that allows such latitude to junior and middle-level officers but denies it to flag and general-level ones. It simply doesn't work. Freedom of action flows from the head down. Bosch is a genius but he is only one man; he cannot have successfully managed the entire war. (Just as Hitler ultimately bungled the war against Russia by attempting to do just that.)
I am just going off of cutscenes and ingame info, but Bosch seemed to me to be that same kind of Authoritarian figure. He held the reigns with all the important decisions, he didn't need to spearhead the invasion of Epsilon Pegasi himself but he probably ordered Koth to do it or Koth came up with the plan and asked for Bosch's okay. On a tactical level individual initiative is a good thing, but if on a grand strategic level people are deploying entire fleets and system wide invasions without the OK from a higher authority your going to find yourself in a situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There needs to be a central authority in order to effectively fight a large scale war.
See, that's mutually contradictory stuff. Let's break it down.
An authoritarian figure cannot, by definition, allow authority into the hands of others. We were talking Hitler earlier but a more useful parallel would probably be Isoroku Yamamoto, because not only did he have actual military training, he issued detailed operational orders...and ultimately presided over the destruction of his service as a meaningful force at both Midway and Guadalcanal. As Commander In Chief Combined Fleet, Yamamoto originated the plans for every major operation of the Imperial Japanese Navy until mid-1943 when he was killed, save two. Most of them; Pearl Harbor meant that Japan's strategic vision of bringing the United States to the bargining table would never happen, Midway destroyed the Japanese carrier fleet while they were isolated from any meaningful support, Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomons destroyed Japan's cadre of highly trained carrier aviators from prewar days, the surface and air actions off Guadalcanal snapped Japan's logistical backbone and left her cruiser and destroyer forces set up for knockouts that would be delievered later in 1943 and further up the Slot. But he did have a few good days. The raids on Ceylon and Darwin, the early actions around the Phillipines and Java.
Yamamoto was known to be an authoritarian officer with a penchant for seeking ways to enhance his personal power. He pushed the Pearl Harbor attack through with a threat to resign. Midway was forced on Imperial General Headquarters in much the same way. In essence he stole the planning perogatives of higher headquarters for himself; given half a chance he also stole those of lower headquarters. If there was a chance to take credit or tag along on a major operation so he could be there, get his name on it, he would.
Bosch exercising absolute direction ends the same way. He can't allow his juniors initative if he's a basically authoritarian figure. He has to be able to delegate, over Epsilon Pegasi if not over Deneb. Evidence is, though, that he did for both.
I'm not really arguing about the strong central authority; initative is as I apply the term giving junior or other officers the tools and a goal, not the tools, goal, and how they're supposed to accomplish it.
We cannot assume the state of the NTF at the end of its tether (where we saw it) approximates that of the rebellion all along, either.
I'm not saying Bosch was behind every single tiny little operation that ever took place in the war, I'm saying he controlled the overall strategic command.
Then ultimately, you're agreeing with me.
He appears to be head of state for the NTF as well, in Rebels and Renegades Snipes command briefing states that Bosch is moving to Regulus and installing his provisional government. He had the political and military backing to do whatever he wanted to.
We don't know why Bosch is setting up a provisonal government in Regulus. Odds are as good as anything else it's because the civilian government fell when either it or the citizenry saw the writing on the wall. That he assumed full power does not mean he always had it.
At least I can't think of any other plausible reason for why the NTF decided to do the suicidal run to the Gamma Draconis. If there were other leaders that counterbalanced Bosch's control why didn't they stop him? Why proceed with the absolute destruction of the NTF?
Personal loyalty. A good officer can lead his men into the mouth of hell and they will follow...but by the same token, he typically will not do so simply because he can.
-
Guess I just misread your argument as being that Bosch didn't intentionally lead the NTF to it's demise and that it was all some kind of horrific strategic miscalculation.
-
NGTM-1R I think you are concentrating too much on the ill-chosen real-life parallel Sarafan mentioned. Because for me it looks like he pretty much meant the same thing you did, that Bosch wasn't controlling every little detail of the NTF military.
Just because he delegated tasks doesn't mean he has no say in overall strategy though. After all the was able to bring the entire remaining NTF military along into an operation that was doomed from the beginning. Allthough we will probably never know wether they followed him due to loyality alone or wether Bosch had to convince them first.
Either way Bosch didn't need to have full controll of the NTF. All he needed them for was to grant him access to the Ancient artifacts and keep the GTVA looking elsewhere while he and his men are working on ETAC. And with all that work I doubt he would have had the time to micro-manage every single operation of the NTF in the first place.
-
So... we're all agreeing with each other?
-
NGTM-1R I think you are concentrating too much on the ill-chosen real-life parallel Sarafan mentioned. Because for me it looks like he pretty much meant the same thing you did, that Bosch wasn't controlling every little detail of the NTF military.
Hey, he used Authortarian without understanding what it meant. :P
-
First, allow me to say congrats. I love to see when someone is that much dedicated to his craft.
The Shivans appear to have commited a single failure in this category; the first Sathanas was alone, and they should have reasonably been able to anticipate the GTVA could destroy such a ship if it was alone or lightly supported.
Well, I am asking more experienced people here: if a Sath can take down a destroyer with one shot, how could they destroy it without the Colossus? It would require incredible losses regarding capital ships or such a huge bomber attack that, theoretically, is more than possible (like the Colly cutscene with the insane amount of wings in its hangar considering the numbers we see ingame), but ingame, not so much?
-
The GTVA actually did develop a plan to kill a Sathanas with three destroyers (presumably a rear-upper quarter attack with heavy bomber support) and it's mentioned in the briefing for the mission "Speaking In Tongues" that you're trying to lure the Sathanas into posistion for such an assault.
Plus I think it's a safe assumption the GTVA has about twenty destroyers total (or more?) and so they can presumably overwhelm even a ship of the Sathanas' size and fighting qualities...it's just going to hurt a lot doing it.
So in both ingame practice and in theory they probably could have got the job done.
-
They could always just knock out the engines, have the destroyers jump in from behind and have them + bombers pummel from behind the ship, preventing the forward beams from being used.
-
The GVCv Maahes was able to do a fair amount of damage to the Sathanas while you were scanning its subsystems. One Vasudan corvette took off at least 10-15% of it's hull integrity, IIRC(not that it carried over to any later missions).
Technically, there is the matter of the "Supercap" flag being needed on any weapon used to actually kill it, so it's impossible for anything except non-'overdriven' Terran beams(BFGreen, LRBGreen) to actually destroy a Sathanas in-game. Not even the MjolnirBeam or even the Sathanas' own BFReds is 'canonically' capable of killing a/nother Sath.
-
Knocking out a Sathanas' engines? That takes a LOT more firepower than destroying the four beams....
-
The Sath has 6 engines, doesn't it? Five at the very least.
-
6, yeah. 4 on each arm, 2 at the back.
-
And then you have to take into account its fighter complement, and the fact it may call in more cruisers and corvettes to reinforce it should it come under attack. (Although, we haven't seen this used to excess with the Shivans.)
I think the original plan could've snowballed into a massive Fleet on Fleet engagement, which, I have to admit, would look mighty cool.
Plus I think it's a safe assumption the GTVA has about twenty destroyers total (or more?) and so they can presumably overwhelm even a ship of the Sathanas' size and fighting qualities...it's just going to hurt a lot doing it.
Even though the possibility of GTVA Space ceasing to exist was there, I don't think all twenty destroyers would've been mustered to attack the Sath, unless the Alliance was in some very, very, serious ****. Taking into account that destroyers provide about 7/8 of most of the fighters and bombers in any given system, from what we've seen in-game.
-
Yerr, with the exception of the Sath and the Luci, big ships in FS are basically scenery//aircraft carriers.
-
6, yeah. 4 on each arm, 2 at the back.
:eek:
-
He means one on each of its four arms.
-
Jump in below the sath (and a little to the back), as close as possible, with 2 Orions and open a barrage on it's lower beam cannon and fighterbays.
Then warp in 2 more destroyers above it and let the beaming commence.
Basicly flank it - top, below, left, right - so it can't turn - and keep moving.
-
You're forgetting about the other Shivan assets in-system that could respond to a call for help from it. Granted, this QRF may be composed of cruisers mainly, but still.
-
I'd probably try working around jump nodes, specifically.
Broken semi-illogical supercap flag notwithstanding, there are the Mjolnirs. I'm sure that if the Sath had penetrated far enough, they'd have set up a fair amount at a node, King's Gambit style, and it'd probably work once(if not, it would at least force the Sath to wait until any remaining accompanying/screening forces remove the RBCs), with a couple of Orions or Hatshepsut(+ some Aeoli or Deimos/Sobeks for additional firepower and/or anti-fighter cover) jumping alongside to finish what was started.
Another(additional?) thought might be to go the Derelict route and try placing a bunch of Meson bombs at the node. Anything to soften it up significantly beforehand should give the GTVA a good shot at finishing off the Sath in a reasonable amount of time before reinforcements can ruin things. Again, wouldn't work more than once, but the stated goal here was to kill one Sathanas, not the yet-unknown whole fleet.
-
You're forgetting about the other Shivan assets in-system that could respond to a call for help from it. Granted, this QRF may be composed of cruisers mainly, but still.
Isn't that ALLWAYS the case? :wtf: There could allways be more shivan assets.
Anyway, any tactic I use can be summed up like this:
(http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6208/tactics.jpg)
Why? Action and reaction. At some point, I'm gonna throw more bullets at you than your defences, however advanced, can handle.
-
What if I'm a virus or microscopic organism?
-
All we can go from is canon. In canon, the Sath was apparently traveling relatively alone, and appears to have had a lead-in force upon leaving the Nebula of only a few-dozen fighters(A Flaming Sword). Presumably, the Beleth was trailing behind somewhat.
Canon also suggests that there were no reinforcements held in reserve to assist the Sath, to speak of(of course, it might just mean the Shivans had nothing big enough, and/or had only cruisers that they were unwilling to waste throwing up against the Colossus, at the moment).
Arguably, there are a few plot holes here(failing to destroy the Beleth doesn't cause it to reappear in High Noon, and leaving some of the Sath's main beams alive in Bearbaiting allows it to destroy some "line of defense" the Alliance had set up in Capella, which isn't mentioned in briefings when all the cannons are destroyed); the former perhaps suggesting the Shivans really don't care at all about the loss of one Sathanas, which is perhaps relevant.
-
Jump in below the sath (and a little to the back), as close as possible, with 2 Orions and open a barrage on it's lower beam cannon and fighterbays.
Then warp in 2 more destroyers above it and let the beaming commence.
Basicly flank it - top, below, left, right - so it can't turn - and keep moving.
Yeah no.
You can shoot beams at specific subsystems all you want in FRED but canonically it's never been that precise. I'l give you the Sathanas' fighterbay could be specifically targeted, it's bigger than most cruisers, but a surgical hit on the LRed? Never happen.
-
Jump in below the sath (and a little to the back), as close as possible, with 2 Orions and open a barrage on it's lower beam cannon and fighterbays.
Then warp in 2 more destroyers above it and let the beaming commence.
Basicly flank it - top, below, left, right - so it can't turn - and keep moving.
Yeah no.
You can shoot beams at specific subsystems all you want in FRED but canonically it's never been that precise. I'l give you the Sathanas' fighterbay could be specifically targeted, it's bigger than most cruisers, but a surgical hit on the LRed? Never happen.
Except in the remake of Their Finest Hour :p.
-
Jump in below the sath (and a little to the back), as close as possible, with 2 Orions and open a barrage on it's lower beam cannon and fighterbays.
Then warp in 2 more destroyers above it and let the beaming commence.
Basicly flank it - top, below, left, right - so it can't turn - and keep moving.
Yeah no.
You can shoot beams at specific subsystems all you want in FRED but canonically it's never been that precise. I'l give you the Sathanas' fighterbay could be specifically targeted, it's bigger than most cruisers, but a surgical hit on the LRed? Never happen.
Of course you don't see such precision in the retail game. The player has got to do something in those capship battles. But it's completely illogical claiming it can't be done.
A beam cannon is a gun. Point it in the right direction, it will do the rest. Especially if you fire 10 beam cannons at the same target. One of them should hit.
-
Still disagree.
Trashman, go back to gunnery school. Or rather, the gunners of direct hit beam cannons haven't been there.
-
Of course you don't see such precision in the retail game. The player has got to do something in those capship battles. But it's completely illogical claiming it can't be done.
A beam cannon is a gun. Point it in the right direction, it will do the rest. Especially if you fire 10 beam cannons at the same target. One of them should hit.
You've never actually fired a gun before, have you?
-
Yeah, let's compare a 10 cm handgun to a massive beam cannon too big to even fit on a modern battleship and in need of a reactor even bigger.
Anyway, while it is possible for capships to hit enemy subsystems ingame, both with their beams and blobs, if you are above, below, left or right of the Sathanas, you simply don't have the right angle to be able to hit the main beams, no matter how accurate you are. To hit those you have to be either in front of between them. Neither option is a really healthy one.
On a sidenode, Blobs and missiles seem to specifically aim at turrets, but do too little subsystem damage (at least the retail ones) to have any significance against the high-hp subsystems and turrets of the Sathanas.
The best anti-subsystem capship I saw so far was the UEFg Karuna (about the sice of the Iceny) from Blue Planet. Just for the Hell of it, I put 5 of them behind a Sathanas to see what happened. While they needed a little under half an hour to destroy it, they completely stripped it of any back- and sidewards facing weaponry long before that with their anti-ship torpedos.
But even though they took out two of the engines on the arms, they didn't hit one of the main beams a single time.
-
I'll have to agree with trashman here
There is no reason why a weapon that fires a projectile at the speed of light (aka, no leading is needed) shouldn't be able to precisily target subsystem. Its not as if freespace craft go very fast. Not to mention advance targeting systems they might have in the future.
Comparing these situations with present day gunnery is silly.
-
Yeah, let's compare a 10 cm handgun to a massive beam cannon too big to even fit on a modern battleship and in need of a ractor even bigger.
A 10cm handgun is, in fact, an artillery piece. 100mm. That's tank gun ante.
For that matter, the basic issues of fire control remain the same regardless of size. It's a valid question. If he thinks hitting a target is easy, let him prove it with the most sophisticated fire-control he has access to; himself.
Or I could tell him to code up and build a computerized FCS. I mean, I'd offer to loan him a ship and a Mark 1 Able Gunfire Computer to test his theories with, but those are kind of hard to come by.
-
Yeah, let's compare a 10 cm handgun to a massive beam cannon too big to even fit on a modern battleship and in need of a ractor even bigger.
A 10cm handgun is, in fact, an artillery piece. 100mm. That's tank gun ante.
For that matter, the basic issues of fire control remain the same regardless of size. It's a valid question. If he thinks hitting a target is easy, let him prove it with the most sophisticated fire-control he has access to; himself.
Or I could tell him to code up and build a computerized FCS. I mean, I'd offer to loan him a ship and a Mark 1 Able Gunfire Computer to test his theories with, but those are kind of hard to come by.
TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders, but the plan for taking out the Sath in the nebula was to TAG specific subsystems and then nail them with destroyer beam fire.
-
TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders
No they don't, they target vertice to vertice for slash and single vertex for straight shooter. Unless that's been changed? (And that would mean slash beams would rule the world, which they don't.)
, but the plan for taking out the Sath in the nebula was to TAG specific subsystems and then nail them with destroyer beam fire.
Uh, the only part of the Sath taking down in the nebula that was actually explored was the part about luring it into posistion. This is logical enough, but I don't see it actually stated in the briefing or the background for "Speaking In Tongues" so what's your source?
-
TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders
No they don't, they target vertice to vertice for slash and single vertex for straight shooter. Unless that's been changed? (And that would mean slash beams would rule the world, which they don't.)
Dear Lord!
You make "arguments" like this and then you have the gall to call my arguments flawed!! :lol:
I can't believe you're actually trying to use how the game engine handles targeting as a argument for a fluff discussion! :wtf:
And vertex targeting? Aren't turrets also made of out vertexes? Subsystems too (technicly).
I...really.. I'm rendered speachless.
Beam cannons are capable of taking out subsystems and turrets. They do that sometimes in retail. They can certanly do that in both FRED and in other campaigns. There's even the AI profile setting for them.
Not that AI profiles or FRED or other campaigns have anything to actually do with the argument, but you seem to think tehy have....
-
Misc. twaddle removed. Argue the merits or get out of the game, Trash.
I can't believe you're actually trying to use how the game engine handles targeting as a argument for a fluff discussion! :wtf:
Actually, that would be Battuta bringing up how the game engine targets, not me. I presume you actually did notice I was quoting someone, right?
Now, if it did actually target subsystems, that would be important to a fluff discussion since it means subsystem damage is inevitable. If somebody blows out the weapons subsystem, it has an in-game effect, so it needs to be accounted for.
And vertex targeting? Aren't turrets also made of out vertexes? Subsystems too (technicly).
Subsystems are handled by a seperate system from the raw model, unless I'm completely misinterpreting the system used to define them in the modding tools. This means you could in theory cheat on their placement and make it so a straight-firing beam will never hit a subsystem, but I doubt that any canonical model does this, or that anyone's actually tried.
Turrets are handled as subobjects as anyone with cursory experience in modding FS knows, which would seem to indicate a seperate handling from the same model. I've never, in years of playing, seen a direct beam hit on a turret that was not scripted into the mission in FRED. Considering on a model like a retail Orion the turrets have a very high proportion of the total number of vertices on the model, that would seem to militate for turret vertices not being considered as points to fire against.
Beam cannons are capable of taking out subsystems and turrets. They do that sometimes in retail.
The mere fact it's only sometimes is more or less proving my point, since that means they do not target subsystems or turrets delibrately in retail. Otherwise it would be an "always."
They can certanly do that in both FRED and in other campaigns. There's even the AI profile setting for them.
Capablities outside of retail useage are irrevelant to discussion of canonical capablities. Wait, you actually knew that. You said so in the very next sentence. What's your point?
Not that AI profiles or FRED or other campaigns have anything to actually do with the argument, but you seem to think tehy have....
Cite source for this statement. I have always, and only, said exactly this.
-
Are TrashMan and NGTM-1R at war or something? if so, STOP IT! this is taking the discussion nowhere
-
Are TrashMan and NGTM-1R at war or something? if so, STOP IT! this is taking the discussion nowhere
I'm not exactly sure what Trash's problem is, but he also sent me a PM that basically consisted of calling me names.
I really am trying to keep this on-point here, personally.
-
Actually, that would be Battuta bringing up how the game engine targets, not me. I presume you actually did notice I was quoting someone, right?
Eugh...that is just two posts up, you're not fooling anyone.
Here:
TrashMan's actually correct: we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders
No they don't, they target vertice to vertice for slash and single vertex for straight shooter. Unless that's been changed? (And that would mean slash beams would rule the world, which they don't.)
Who is the one bringing up the exact method of how the engine targets?
Don't try to incriminate GB for that.
This of course, renders all that rambling about vertices pointless. Beams that hit turrets destroy them. Beams can hit turrets. Beams that hit subsystems destroy them. Beams can hit subsystems. Period.
The mere fact it's only sometimes is more or less proving my point, since that means they do not target subsystems or turrets delibrately in retail. Otherwise it would be an "always."
Why would it be always?
The fact that you CAN target something doesn't mean you HAVE to target it always. The captains and gunners decide what to shoot at.
I'm not exactly sure what Trash's problem is, but he also sent me a PM that basically consisted of calling me names.
I really am trying to keep this on-point here, personally.
:rolleyes:
-
Misc. twaddle again removed.
Eugh...that is just two posts up, you're not fooling anyone.
Thank you for pointing out (again) for me that I was quoting Battuta, who first brought up the mechanics of how the game engine targets.
Who is the one bringing up the exact method of how the engine targets?
Is "it targets subsystems" not exact somehow?
Why are you moving the goalposts? Your original post said "I can't believe you're actually trying to use how the game engine handles targeting as a argument for a fluff discussion!" Which Battuta did first, as you've demonstrated for me. Now you want to add "preciseness" to the list, which wasn't required by your original post, but still doesn't help you anyways.
This of course, renders all that rambling about vertices pointless. Beams that hit turrets destroy them. Beams can hit turrets. Beams that hit subsystems destroy them. Beams can hit subsystems. Period.
Explain this conclusion. You're not actually making an argument here, you're just stating a conclusion. Without presenting evidence for it, I have no reason to believe you, nor does anyone else.
Why would it be always?
The fact that you CAN target something doesn't mean you HAVE to target it always. The captains and gunners decide what to shoot at.
If you have the option to severely degrade your enemy's ability to hurt you every time, and you aren't taking it every time, something is very wrong with you. Do you now propose that all captains or whatever commands the ships from all sides are morons now?
-
I'm just going to lock this one too and it seems the arguments from the other thread have simply moved over.
I'm not exactly sure what Trash's problem is, but he also sent me a PM that basically consisted of calling me names.
Feel free to report that PM. I tend to take a very dim view of people doing that.
-
Wasn't this locked? Oh well...
One note, GB never brought how the engine targets specificly. She said:
we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders
FS shuips are quite capable of taking out a subsystem or two during retail battles. Lucky shots? Maybe, maybe not.
But point is, that if you point enough guns at a target, even innacurate ones, you are going to hit it sooner or later.
After all, aren't soldiers capable of targeting the head of their enemies? Yet they usually go for the center of mass. By your logic, we must conclude that soldiers are incapable of targeting heads.
So I'm gonna cut this short and simply conclude that you have provided no evidence that beam cannons are INCAPABLE (key word) of targeting subsystems.
How does this relate the GTVA fighting strategy? A little. The GTVA certanly is capable of bomber surgical strikes, so beam barrages to cripple subsystems aren't necessary for such strategies, but they sure as hell help.
Bomb the rear beam cannon and you're set.
One could also try to load a Fenris with a Meson bomb or two and jump in next to a Sath, then ram it.
-
Holy crap guys. Is it too much to ask to be civil to each other? It's a game. Get over it.
The whole argument can be summed up thus:
"Beams target subsystems."
"No they don't! They target other stuff."
The only thing I have to ask is if beams don't specifically target subsystems and turrets, why do we get those weird beam shots that hit the very tip of a ship spike?
-
I'm still pretty sure that one of the FS2 missions around the Sathanas' arrival specified TAGging specific subsystems. Somebody should check that out.
-
If I recall correctly the briefing only mentions attacking "weak spots" with destroyer-grade beam weapons. No specifics as to how.
-
One note, GB never brought how the engine targets specificly. She said:
we canonically know that FS capital ships can target subsystems with their main beams. Not only do they do it by default if given attack orders
How is that not specific?
Why is specific required when your original post did not specify it?
FS shuips are quite capable of taking out a subsystem or two during retail battles. Lucky shots? Maybe, maybe not.
But they don't take out the subsystems that matter. Oh sure comm and nav and maybe an engine or two...never weapons. Almost never turrets. If you can actually target a subsystem that will consistantly improve your chances of surviving the engagement, why aren't you?
After all, aren't soldiers capable of targeting the head of their enemies? Yet they usually go for the center of mass. By your logic, we must conclude that soldiers are incapable of targeting heads.
Meaningless comparison. Either will be immediately effective. This is not true for FS spacecraft.
So I'm gonna cut this short and simply conclude that you have provided no evidence that beam cannons are INCAPABLE (key word) of targeting subsystems.
How does this relate the GTVA fighting strategy? A little. The GTVA certanly is capable of bomber surgical strikes, so beam barrages to cripple subsystems aren't necessary for such strategies, but they sure as hell help.
Bomb the rear beam cannon and you're set.
One could also try to load a Fenris with a Meson bomb or two and jump in next to a Sath, then ram it.
[/quote]