Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: rubixcube on March 05, 2010, 06:31:23 pm
-
This is just a little query I had. Is the Raynor considered a super destroyer? Because I notice it's always just referred to as just a destroyer, even though it's 3200m long and is much more powerful than a regular destroyer.
-
The GTVA considers the Raynor to be a natural evolution of the destroyer class.
Superdestroyers tend to be gimmicky one-off totem ships built around the ability to WTFPWN things with silly weapons. The Raynor is a production-run vessel that integrates beam, torpedo, and pulse weapons systems with on-board tactical fighters in an effort to create a line combatant that can sustain engagement with Shivan destroyers and juggernaughts. Modifications to the class's systems to support SSM launch and guidance and enhanced jump drives are now in testing.
-
Besides, as a quick and dirty comparison shot shows, the size difference is far less pronounced than you might think.
(http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu320/FabianW/Untitled-5.png)
-
Huh, your right, didn't see that coming
-
Pretty ships are pretty, even in FRED. :)
-
It's still closer to a superdestroyer scale than a destroyer scale :
(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/1954/scalef.png)
-
You may consider it a superdestroyer, but it's ussualy just called destroyer.
It has the firepower to deal with Lucifer and (most likely) Hades, as well as ability to properly engage the Sathanas, so it's likely that it's called a superdestroyer in propaganda, but it's technically a destroyer, just like Lucifer (notice the SD Lucifer, not SSD Lucifer).
I doubt that superdestroyer is an official classification at all, it was just a term coined to describe the Lucifer and later applied to Hades (was it called like that at any point in ST?), which means "something the size of a big destroyer, but so powerfull that a normal destroyer won't stand a chance".
If the Raynor was introduced by the time of FS1, it would be called a superdestroyer, but I think that at the time of FS2 the term might have went out of fashion.
I think that UEF would have called the Raynor a superdestroyer at the beggining of the war (it has Lucifer-like beams, is large and very powerfull, so comparing it to Lucifer won't be much out of place), perhaps some civilians still do it. It all depends on how you define "super".
In short: it isn't technically a superdestroyer, but somebody unfamiliar with military may call it like that.
-
It's still closer to a superdestroyer scale than a destroyer scale
Size is irrelevant. World War II's battleships were the size of World War I dreadnoughts, but they weren't named such.
The Orestes' role is as a destroyer.
-
You mean modern cruisers are the size of WWII battleships.
WWII battleships are technically dreadnoughts, they just stopped calling them that because there were no pre-dreadnoughts anymore (well, there were very few, and it made more sense to make the oddballs stand out). At least...that was the impression I've always gotten :nervous:
But yea, it's intended role, not size that matters.
-
Also, theoretically, a superdestoryer would be the same thing and have the same role as a destroyer, but better (unless FS classification is even weirder than I thought).
But as I said, superdestroyer doesn't seem to be an official designation.
Raynor is a destroyer, whether it's super or not is up to debate.
-
Size is irrelevant. World War II's battleships were the size of World War I dreadnoughts, but they weren't named such.
No they weren't. WW2 battleship designed owed more to the battlecruisers then it did to HMS Dreadnaught's true kin. A minimum of 10,000 tons more displacement and typically half again as long.
You mean modern cruisers are the size of WWII battleships.
Again, that'd be a no. A modern cruiser remains roughly WW2 cruiser sized; the AEGIS Ticos were built on a hull that is about the same length as the Brooklyn/Cleveland/Baltimore hull family of WW2 cruisers. (Admittedly this isn't more than 20 feet shorter than a South Dakota-class but SoDak was a surprisingly compact design; it's significantly shorter than Iowa, the Japanese Nagato, Bismarck/Tirpitz and the Brit KGVs.)
-
Size is irrelevant. World War II's battleships were the size of World War I dreadnoughts, but they weren't named such.
No they weren't. WW2 battleship designed owed more to the battlecruisers then it did to HMS Dreadnaught's true kin. A minimum of 10,000 tons more displacement and typically half again as long.
Y'know, I was in the shower, and I just knew I'd come back and find something from you on this. :p
Ancillary to the point, though.
-
Dude who cares, srsly?
THEY LOOK PRETTY!
-
Well yeah, but geeks like me like to know specifics
-
The designation is role-based, not size-based.
-
I just checked, there's no such thing as "superdestroyer" designation.
Lucifer and Hades are called "destroyers" in tech entries and their designations are SD and GTD, respectively.
Therefore, "superdestroyer" is just a term used to cover destroyers vastly more powerfull than usual and not an official designation.
This classification is non-canon in both FS and BP.
-
Maybe non-canon isn't quite the word. More like unofficial, because (at least in the german version) of FS1 the Lucifer was clearly refered to as a super destroyer in briefings. So it's probably something the shipcrews used, but that wasn't officially endorsed by the leaders.
-
"superdestroyer" was used in the english version as well. my take on it is that in retail it was used to denote a destroyer with some special ability that put it above and beyond the current destroyers. sheilds/beams on the lucifer, shivan tech on the hades.
-
Why don't we just assign the term "Super-Destroyer" to anything that can level planets and collapse star-systems.
... you know, the big important stuff. :nervous:
-
Why don't we just assign the term "Super-Destroyer" to anything that can level planets and collapse star-systems.
Because then we'd have to call bombers Super-Destroyers (and the Myrm too, I guess :P). Harbingers can do that too, remember. (Plus, the Hades and Lucifer couldn't collapse star-systems either. Just the Sathanas that we've seen.
-
We'll limit "super destroyer" to a destroyer-sized ship that has 800 000 hitpoints.
(which both the Hades and Lucifer did in FS1)
-
Or... A powerful warship at around 3 km long
EDIT: Nevermind, the kismat is around 3 km long and it's only a destroyer
-
This is a really silly debate. Ship class types don't have definitions this rigid in the real world; they're often role-based, not size-based. So it is with the Raynor.
-
I've always seen the class of superdestroyers as consisting of one-off ships that aren't as large as the Colossus or Sathanas and demonstrated something that's never been seen on a ship of similar size before. The Hades and Lucifer could both be classified as superdestroyers because the latter was the first Shivan warship to employ beam cannons on the Terrans and Vasudans, and the Hades was the first Terran vessel to successfully mount Shivan-derived beam cannons.
The Raynor doesn't have any outstanding features going for it, and it's not a one-off ship, so I don't think calling it a superdestroyer is appropriate. It is, like what was mentioned earlier, an evolution of the destroyer class.
-
When it boils down to it, Word of God (well, Battuta, who is on the team) said it's not a superdesdtroyer in the BP universe. You could call it that in your own if you want.
-
You could indeed.
It'd be silly, though. The difference between the Raynor and Orion is smaller than that between the FS1 and FS2 Orion, yet we don't call the FS2 Orion a superdestroyer.
Not that I'm arguing with you, Droid, just with anyone who'd feel the need to make that distinction.
-
Why dont designers stick to real world schemes. To someone with an inkling of naval military history, the term for what is today one of the smallest - although capable, fleet vessels as a designation for future space faring behemoths is absurd. They should be designated "battleships", period. Hell, that word is much more imposing than a "destroyer."
-
I'm trying to do it in my mods, but in FS universe he have to stick to canon.
Which means absurd class naming.
-
Well I'm guessing the most contact :v: had with the military was a member or so who'd been in ROTC and lots of wikipedia. But they knew what the Ready Room is, which is good.
-
[V]'s ship size conventions aren't really that confusing for a common layman like myself. I thought their convention's perfect for the game.
-
They're not confusing, they're just wrong.
Also, I'm unsure that Wikipedia existed at the time of FS developement.
-
[V] knew the designations were wrong when they made the game, they've said as much in vartious statements, as well as saying that they had a reason for the system they used. In FS1 they kind of make sense though - I mean, a cruiser in FS1 is of comparable size to a modern cruiser, right? And the only other class of vessel around was something designed to destroy cruisers - a cruiser destroyer, logically shortened to destroyer. I suspect that was close to the logic they used when they made the choices. By the time FS2 rolled around, and they increased the capital ship diversity a little, there was no way to rectify modern classes with the situation they found themselves in, so they picked cool words and used them.
That said, as I understand it the modern definition of words like "cruiser" hasn't remained constant throughout history, and is applied less on scale than on its role within a fleet. Maybe the FS1 cruisers filled the role of a cruiser at some point in the early Sol fleet? And then you're back to the "Cruiser-Destroyer" thing.
-
Ummm...
FS ships are HUGE. A modern cruiser is much smaller than a Fenris/Leviathan. I can't think of a 250m long ship, apart from a carrier, maybe...
-
It's still closer to a superdestroyer scale than a destroyer scale :
(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/1954/scalef.png)
Can I just point out that in this pic the Lucifer is referred to as a SSuperD, which I can only assume is a Shivan Super Destroyer.
Nuff said! :p
-
That's precisely what he's saying. But as we explained the classification is role-based. It's silly to call it a superdestroyer when all your destroyers can do what it does.
It's not 'super' any more.
-
So, the Hades was a superdestroyer by virtue of the fact that it was the only ship at its time to carry beams (Which made it a humongous threat to everything around it) and the Lucy was called a Superdestroyer because it can turn whole worlds into parking lots, while at the same time being invulnerable in real space.
The Raynor, however, has no such unique ability. It is just a regular Destroyer, geared towards ship-to-ship combat, but it doesn't have the kind of overwhelming firepower the Hades and the Lucy had when they were around. As a result, it is classed as a Destroyer.
Again, size does not matter for classification. Combat role does.
-
Why dont designers stick to real world schemes. To someone with an inkling of naval military history, the term for what is today one of the smallest - although capable, fleet vessels as a designation for future space faring behemoths is absurd. They should be designated "battleships", period. Hell, that word is much more imposing than a "destroyer."
See, as a military layman, "destroyer" sounds more imposing to me than "battleship," and certainly far more imposing than "cruiser." What's a "battleship"...a ship that battles? (Or a board game? :p) Just about every ship in the game is a ship that battles. A "cruiser" sounds more like a big old car than a military weapon. But a "destroyer"...that sounds like it can bring the pain.
-
Ummm...
FS ships are HUGE. A modern cruiser is much smaller than a Fenris/Leviathan. I can't think of a 250m long ship, apart from a carrier, maybe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser
-
So, the Hades was a superdestroyer by virtue of the fact that it was the only ship at its time to carry beams (Which made it a humongous threat to everything around it) and the Lucy was called a Superdestroyer because it can turn whole worlds into parking lots, while at the same time being invulnerable in real space.
The Raynor, however, has no such unique ability. It is just a regular Destroyer, geared towards ship-to-ship combat, but it doesn't have the kind of overwhelming firepower the Hades and the Lucy had when they were around. As a result, it is classed as a Destroyer.
Again, size does not matter for classification. Combat role does.
What he said.
-
So, the Hades was a superdestroyer by virtue of the fact that it was the only ship at its time to carry beams (Which made it a humongous threat to everything around it) and the Lucy was called a Superdestroyer because it can turn whole worlds into parking lots, while at the same time being invulnerable in real space.
The Raynor, however, has no such unique ability. It is just a regular Destroyer, geared towards ship-to-ship combat, but it doesn't have the kind of overwhelming firepower the Hades and the Lucy had when they were around. As a result, it is classed as a Destroyer.
Again, size does not matter for classification. Combat role does.
Hey, I think I mentioned that before... :nervous:
-
Good points bear repetition.
-
end of the day the raynor is so powerful because it is more specialised, the titan continues the Orion/Hecate line of general purpose warship where as the raynor sacrificed fighter complement for mounted firepower.
-
Actually, no. The Titan is just as specialized as the Raynor, it's just specialized in a different direction. And as a general purpose combatant, the Hecate (being the carrier that she is) is an utter failure.
The Raynor is what's called a main-line combatant. A ship that can duke it out with other ships over prolonged engagements. To do that, it sacrifices some fighter capability.
The Titan is basically the GTVA's version of the Ravana. Its main job is to sit around and launch fighter wings, but its secondary role is to act as an ambusher, jumping into an enemies' flank to rip it apart with its beams.
As centerpieces of a Battlegroup, this is the basic doctrine: The Raynor engages targets up close and personally, luring them into position so that the Titan can jump in to obliterate them.
-
All that said, headdie's analysis is a good one, and I don't want him walking out of here feeling like a moron. So props for headdie. :yes:
-
...basic doctrine: The Raynor engages targets up close and personally, luring them into position so that the Titan can jump in to obliterate them.
But we all know basic doctrine gets you nowhere (when the lead starts flying).
The trick to effective military tactics, in a nutshell, is to do something your enemy hasn't seen before. Exploit their weak-points, catch them off guard, confuse them.
Sure, a Titan 'beams-blazing' makes things disappear, but an effective enemy learns from their mistakes, and it won't be long before you see your Raynor being outflanked by a prepared UEF force with a cool-headed commander. Oops, there goes the plan.
Hell, if I was feeling really un-creative, I'd jump my Titan in four k's directly underneath the enemy force, and show them we're not fighting in the sea anymore. But tactics/FRED-wise, there are plenty of interesting things a good Commander can do with these babies.
-
Sure, but then we're into Subspace speed chess territory, where you need information about your opponents' deployments. As we've said time and time again, the most valuable asset is a ship not yet committed.
-
I find it a little annoying that battles in WiH may be crudely translated into a classic board game.
-
I find it a little annoying that battles in WiH may be crudely translated into a classic board game.
First off, it's a description of battles in FreeSpace 2, no matter the mod.
Second, 'subspace speed chess' is a description of a situation where the two sides rapidly deploy assets via subspace jump to counter each other's deployments, whether by direct attack or by engaging in areas the enemy has left week.
Third, chess is a game of such incredible complexity and depth (rivaled only by go) that you should be impressed anything can be compared to it. There's nothing crude about the comparison.
Fourth, that post made you sound like a total buffoon.
Hopefully your response will prove you're not a moron. :p
-
Sure, but then we're into Subspace speed chess territory, where you need information about your opponents' deployments. As we've said time and time again, the most valuable asset is a ship not yet committed.
Wha? I don't believe I entered that territory at all. I was getting at the fact there are a million different ways to play a hand in space.
Anyone who's read the history books knows the brilliant commanders always utilise something the enemy hasn't seen before. Everyone, has seen your 2 by 1 flanking maneuver, and subsequently, everyone knows how to counter it. But tell me, how many Officers have seen a Titan attack from directly above, a Raynor attack from directly underneath (forcing the enemy force to separate in two), to have a Deimos or two jump in the centre of the two groups and utilise their broadside firepower to absolutely obliterate the enemy?
-
Considering that Humanity in FS2 has been waging war in space for centuries they won't be surprised by an enemy who uses all three dimensions. If there is any reason to twodimensional mission design, then it's due to the mission creator, not because of any background story.
Unless it is a very broad and flat formation it really doesn't matter if an enemy is coming from above or from the sides in space.
Actually I would think it would be smarter to hit the enemy not form two directly opposit directions, but rather have one group attack from left or right and the other from above or below to minimize the chance of the two groups hitting each other with the shots that miss the enemy formation between them.
It also leaves you the tactical option of uniting the two groups if the situation calls for it. If you have the enemy directly between your groups that's not an option.
Jumping in Deimos in the middle of the enemy formation also doesn't sound all that smart to me, considering that the mainline battleship of the UEF, the Karuna, has quite powerfull broadsides. Jumping them in behind the enemy formation would make more sense to me. Same goes for Shivans. If you jump the corvettes into the middle of the enemy formation they are bound to be in front of some ships. And a Deimos in front of a Shivan ship has a rather short lifeexpectancy.
-
Considering that Humanity in FS2 has been waring war in space for centuries they won't be surprised by an enemy who uses all three dimensions. If there is any reason to twodimensional mission design, then it's due to the mission creator, not because of any background story.
Well, seeing as we've barely seen radical use of the Y axis in most campaigns, retail included, I'd daresay it would still effective. The point was, to use something the enemy has never seen before.
Unless it is a very broad and flat formation it really doesn't matter if an enemy is coming from above or from the sides.
Disagree. Look at FS2 ships, their firepower is focused predominantly forward, broadside, and aft (in some cases). If you can hit the enemy hard before he has time to maneuver his gunners into a position where they have a firing solution, you've got the upper hand. And the intention in my poorly thought-out strategy before was to split the formation up.
Actually I would think it would be smarter to hit the enemy not form two directly opposit directions, but rather have one group attack from left or right and the other from above or below to minimize the chance of the two groups hitting each other with the shots that miss the enemy formation between them.
It also leaves you the tactical option of uniting the two groups if the situation calls for it. If you have the enemy directly between your groups that's not an option.
Uniting the two groups in a three dimensional environment is a no-no in my opinion, because you now become very easy to outflank. But if left and above is a formation that works for you, go for it.
Jumping in Deimos in the middle of the enemy formation also doesn't sound all that smart to me, considering that the mainline battleship of the UEF, the Karuna, has quite powerfull broadsides. Jumping them in behind the enemy formation would make more sense to me. Same goes for Shivans. If you jump the corvettes into the middle of the enemy formation they are bound to be in front of some ships. And a Deimos in front of a Shivan ship has a rather short lifeexpectancy.
Of course it's a stupid idea! It was the product of two and a half seconds of thought! :P
By the way, the Karuna is a frigate, and believe me, far from the most common ship in the Federation.
The idea was, the initial assault has resulted in your enemy commander splitting the force up, to deal with the separate threats, since well, staying as one large group is generally a stupid thing to do, when facing a Titan and a Raynor (and taking into account their firepower and where it is).
This results in your enemy formation now being two formations. Once the gap is large enough (your destroyers are taking it slow, to give the UEF time to move apart to create the gap without opening fire), you jump your corvette pair in here, who then peel off and engage a UEF formation from the rear each.
Here, your destroyers put the foot to the floor, and within about 10-40 seconds, your UEF force is now confused and in disarray. They can't go back, because there's two TSlashes giving them what for. They can't go ahead, or you'll deal with some nasty looking beams.
-
First off, it's a description of battles in FreeSpace 2, no matter the mod.
True, but FS2 makes it very subliminal and look ridiculously simple. BP does the opposite.
Third, chess is a game of such incredible complexity and depth (rivaled only by go) that you should be impressed anything can be compared to it. There's nothing crude about the comparison.
Well, I suck at chess, and I've never actually seen a real chess match taking place, so I do not comprehend its complexity and depth. I'm certain there's more to chess than how I see it, but I've never actually seen it, so I'm not entirely convinced, since I play to lose.
Having played and seen chess only at the surface level, I am a little put off that more intelligent people like yourself hold it in such high regard.
Fourth, that post made you sound like a total buffoon.
That's not too bad. Fury and Goober have used far more direct nouns in response to some things I did, and I certainly have far worse posts under my belt.
-
It doesn't matter what regard you hold chess in - personally I rarely play it and I'm no expert.
What's important is its use as a metaphor: a game where pieces (available forces) must be carefully deployed with regard to the enemy's entire position, not just a single slugging match.
You don't need to go any deeper than that.
I'm just going to chalk this post up to the same kind of run-around-obliviously syndrome that made you think Inferno builds were bad.
-
Disagree. Look at FS2 ships, their firepower is focused predominantly forward, broadside, and aft (in some cases).
We are talking about formations here. I would make a formation with the escorts surrounding the bigger ships on all sides in a way that the most turrets face outwards. Since the setting is space, you don't need every ships "bottom" to face down. Besides rolling is most likely faster than making a trun with a captial ship.
On that account, is it even possible to tell a ship in FRED to roll, without changing course to turn the damaged sides away from the enemy and bring the undamaged turrets to bear?
And chess isn't really that complex. You have a small playing field, few different units and limited movements with each. The difficulty isn't the complexity, but outthinking your opponent. You have to plan your move, anticipate possible moves the opponent will make in response, and then make an accorting counter to it. You have to think far ahead of the actual stage of the game.
I think a spacebattle (or rather battle in general) is far more complex than chess, but it does come down to the same basic principles. Anticipate what the enemy will do, counter that action, anticipate how the enemy will react to the counter and so on. Replan or adapt your strategy if the opponent does something unexpected.
-
On that account, is it even possible to tell a ship in FRED to roll, without changing course to turn the damaged sides away from the enemy and bring the undamaged turrets to bear?
IT IS NOW.
We've got at least one roll-the-ship moment, it's pretty cool.
-
On that account, is it even possible to tell a ship in FRED to roll, without changing course to turn the damaged sides away from the enemy and bring the undamaged turrets to bear?
Yes. There are a few handy little sexps just for that purpose in 3.6.12, ship-maneuver, ship-lat-maneuver and ship-rot-maneuver (Under coordinate manipulation).
-
...basic doctrine: The Raynor engages targets up close and personally, luring them into position so that the Titan can jump in to obliterate them.
I thought the GTVA and UEF both thought that deploying more than 2 destroyers at a single battle was a bad idea?
-
'Tis. In this case you could use corvette strike teams. The two-destroyers deployment would probably be employed for something like a Sathanas (see 'A Time for Heroes.')
-
But with the forward firepower of the new GTVA corvettes (especially the Bellerophon) you hardly need destroyers for shock-jump tactics unless the target really is a Lucifer or bigger.
-
I thought the GTVA and UEF both thought that deploying more than 2 destroyers at a single battle was a bad idea?
I think it's more a case of the fact they don't have that many destroyers to commit. As noted, the main advantage goes to the guy who commits his ships last, so there is a natural tendancy to hold your big guns back if you can get away with it.
On the other hand, concentration of force offers too many advantages to be arbitrarily dismissed like that, at least for the GTVA. The GTVA, conditioned by fighting the Shivans, might not want to present that sort of a target-rich environment, but on the other hand the UEF is not the Shivans. The UEF however has a legitimate concern there because the GTVA and its beam cannon have the option of engaging in Shivan-esque tactics.
-
Well "Do more with less" has a place here. As long as you play the hand 'creatively', you don't have to beg for more cards.
-
Well "Do more with less" has a place here. As long as you play the hand 'creatively', you don't have to beg for more cards.
The GTVA is operating from a natural posistion of strength. They have a superior weapons system, beam-armed capital craft, and if you put a bunch of them together, the UEF doesn't really have something that's up to stopping it. This is basically the same thing that happened with Japan in WW2 with Kido Butai.
As such, dispersal does not pay. It's classic Sun-Tzu. Instead of attempting "subspace speed chess", which is basically the "divinely mysterious" clause, read down a few more to the part about division and concentration. If your enemy divides and you concentrate, you can bring your strength to bear on them better. Even bringing subspace into the equation, the GTVA's best option is still to throw a multidestroyer assault at whatever target's deemed worth being attacked. It's the best way to keep their edge. Dividing up runs the basic risks of division; defeat in detail. Coral Sea to bring the balance to normal, and Midway to lose the node and the campaign.
(If this turns out to be exactly how the campaign works I'm going to be annoyed.)
-
Hey, I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, but the way in which we do it, is what I referred to mainly when I said there were a million ways to play a hand.
-
Well "Do more with less" has a place here. As long as you play the hand 'creatively', you don't have to beg for more cards.
The GTVA is operating from a natural posistion of strength. They have a superior weapons system, beam-armed capital craft, and if you put a bunch of them together, the UEF doesn't really have something that's up to stopping it. This is basically the same thing that happened with Japan in WW2 with Kido Butai.
As such, dispersal does not pay. It's classic Sun-Tzu. Instead of attempting "subspace speed chess", which is basically the "divinely mysterious" clause, read down a few more to the part about division and concentration. If your enemy divides and you concentrate, you can bring your strength to bear on them better. Even bringing subspace into the equation, the GTVA's best option is still to throw a multidestroyer assault at whatever target's deemed worth being attacked. It's the best way to keep their edge. Dividing up runs the basic risks of division; defeat in detail. Coral Sea to bring the balance to normal, and Midway to lose the node and the campaign.
(If this turns out to be exactly how the campaign works I'm going to be annoyed.)
Would be correct except for a faulty assumption, namely that the UEF doesn't have something that's up to stopping a concentrated destroyer assault.
Putting multiple destroyers in the same place would get them all killed by UEF bombers and artillery. Meanwhile the vital positions that said destroyers should have been covering would be lost too, probably including the all-important node.
Dividing up allows them to avoid that kind of nightmare scenario. If they hold ships back then the UEF can't just throw all its forces into one be-all-end-all battle. Nor can the UEF make an end-run for a war-winning blow.
When you have such a major tactical advantage but an overall logistical disadvantage (due to the node bottleneck) you have no reason to gamble on high-risk-high-reward deployments. Nor any reason to put your destroyers in harm's way at all when corvettes can get the job done.
Oh and this:
If your enemy divides and you concentrate, you can bring your strength to bear on them better.
Kind of surprises me because it contradicts stuff we've both talked about in the past. If the enemy divides and you concentrate, you might achieve great success at a single objective but lose multiple other targets that the enemy was able to hit.
Thus, subspace speed chess in the early portions of the war. The GTVA has only three destroyer groups in Sol and so is badly outnumbered, but the UEF has far more targets to cover and is badly offensively hobbled. So you get a string of deployments and counter-deployments and retreats on both sides. In the long run the GTVA manages to gradually degrade its objectives as the UEF sensor net breaks down (think a subspace version of SOSUS).
In biology we analyze predator behavior with a set of mathematical tools, and a predator with a strong position will never take extreme risks. Putting more than one destroyer into a fight - or heck, any destroyer at all - is a big gamble.
-
Exactly.
And using your two most powerful weapons on each target is bloody inefficient, I must say. And man, I really do hate inefficiency in an organisation (which is why I hate bureaucracies with a large passion.)
And if you can do more with less, then why the hell not? If it isn't glaringly clear already, I'm quite a fan of sitting in the ops room with the Officers on-ship coming up with new strategies in which to do so.
-
Would be correct except for a faulty assumption, namely that the UEF doesn't have something that's up to stopping a concentrated destroyer assault.
Putting multiple destroyers in the same place would get them all killed by UEF bombers and artillery. Meanwhile the vital positions that said destroyers should have been covering would be lost too, probably including the all-important node.
Perhaps. On the other hand, as I will demonstrate below, they are at that risk all the time; in an offensive situation it can best be minimized.
Dividing up allows them to avoid that kind of nightmare scenario. If they hold ships back then the UEF can't just throw all its forces into one be-all-end-all battle. Nor can the UEF make an end-run for a war-winning blow.
On the contrary; holding them back exposes them to greater risk because some number of their subordinate ships and hence some amount of their support has been removed from them. Subspace transit allows a level of uncertainity, no matter how brief, about the destroyer's location. Commiting it offensively and winning protects it better because then, there being nothing left to defend, the natural thing will be to concede the field.
The end-run point is valid, but irrevelant; under no circumstances would I suggest underdefending the node anyways.
Though I would also note that the node allows instant reinforcement of itself. Short-term deployment into Sol by major GTVA forces for at least a few weeks at a time is entirely possible, something you seem to be dismissing out of hand.
When you have such a major tactical advantage but an overall logistical disadvantage (due to the node bottleneck) you have no reason to gamble on high-risk-high-reward deployments. Nor any reason to put your destroyers in harm's way at all when corvettes can get the job done.
But what you're posisting as a tactical disadvantage is, well, not. The Shivans have set about proving this numerous times in both games.
Kind of surprises me because it contradicts stuff we've both talked about in the past. If the enemy divides and you concentrate, you might achieve great success at a single objective but lose multiple other targets that the enemy was able to hit.
But there is a faulty logic at work here.
The GTVA has only one target worth defending in Sol, the Way Out. As noted above, defense of this can be handled by short-term deployments from Delta Serpentis. They have minimal defensive requirements allowing them to adopt a nearly-Shivan all-offense way of fighting.
Thus, subspace speed chess in the early portions of the war. The GTVA has only three destroyer groups in Sol and so is badly outnumbered, but the UEF has far more targets to cover and is badly offensively hobbled. So you get a string of deployments and counter-deployments and retreats on both sides. In the long run the GTVA manages to gradually degrade its objectives as the UEF sensor net breaks down (think a subspace version of SOSUS).
But this just reinforces the need for tactical concentration. In addition to offering better protection for your assets by allowing mutual support, it also offers two other classic advantages.
The use of minimal force will cause disproportionate casualities. Using overwhelming force will minimize your casualities. This ties directly into the second reason, time.
Casualities are a direct function of exposure time. By applying massive force to an operation you can complete it quickly and move on, resulting in minimal exposure of your force to danger. From this one can expand to a true manuver warfare concept or simply withdraw again. This course further recommends itself because it exaggerates the GTVA's advantages using beam-armed warships, which are better suited to rapid engagement conclusion.
The GTVA has been given a unique chance to adopt the Shivan way of war, to take a true manuver warfare stance that still forces the enemy to defend everything, but also that will all but insure superiority at the point of contact wherever they go.
In biology we analyze predator behavior with a set of mathematical tools, and a predator with a strong position will never take extreme risks. Putting more than one destroyer into a fight - or heck, any destroyer at all - is a big gamble.
Conversely, in a major offensive operation, leaving the destroyer behind is a greater gamble. The simple reason for this is blindingly obvious: if you do that you've given the enemy a tailor-made opportunity to force you to break off and defend the destroyer. (I would direct you to a mission I've tested for proof of concept of this very fact.) By commiting it to offensive action, you not only preserve the integrity of your offensive, you make it easier to safeguard the destroyer because your other ships can support it directly and it can in turn support them.
The other reason is fairly simple. The UEF do not force the GTVA to admit the more cautious route because they're not the Shivans. The greatest handicap of fighting the Shivans (which was brutally demonstrated in FS2) is that the most basic intelligence on them, their order of battle, is completely unobtainable. Without that, no capablities. Without capablities, one is reduced to guessing about intentions, which is no way to fight a war. But the GTVA should be able to easily assemble this kind of knowledge on the UEF. This certainity would in and of itself utterly transform the tactics of the war.
-
Well something neither of you have mentioned is that maybe the Terrans don't want to completely obliterate Sol. After all, it'll cost an arm and a leg to rebuild those mother****ers after the war. There are different ways of winning the war than overwhelming force, especially when these people are defending their homes.
You'd be surprised how deeply it affects serving men and women when their comrades are dying next to them. You can only see so many of your mates die before it really starts getting to you. The GTVA can send UEF cruisers and frigates home without destroying them, but by a few slash beams gutting compartments and tearing people in half, you demoralize them, and destroy their will to fight. At the end of the day, you'd have to ask yourself when you're the only original pilot of your squadron, whether it's all worth it.
It's within the GTVA's best interests to keep most of the Federation infrastructure intact, and force the Federation into a diplomatic solution. You *can* do that by obliterating anything that looks at you the wrong way, but that'd work against the Alliance in the long run. Sending thousands of Officers and Crew home wounded and broken by PTSD will have a far greater effect on a society such as Earth's which is fairly centred around the spiritual and mental side of things.
And the GTVA can do all that with minimum concentration of force and using their head when selecting targets. Crack open a few convoys, bomb a few planets, tear a few frigates open, and send a few more home with devastating combat damage.
-
The GTVA can send UEF cruisers and frigates home without destroying them, but by a few slash beams gutting compartments and tearing people in half, you demoralize them, and destroy their will to fight.
That is one of two possible outcomes.
The other is that you make the enemy fight harder. The more and more comrades the UEF soldiers lose, the more they will hate the GTVA, slowly overcoming their pacifistic natures and turning them more and more into fanatics. And I'd rather fight a pacifist who has no other choice but to fight, than a fanatic. A fanatic will not surrender and certainly will not let you surrender or retreat.
Which one's the case we'll have to wait and see.
And NGTM-1R you forgot one fact in your analysis - jumpdrive recharge time. A ship not comitted is a ship that can jump on a moment notice, a ship comitted is a ship that needs to recharge it's jumpdrive. Both sitting back and going on the offensive can lead you in a situation you want to retreat from, but the ship with the charged up jumpdrive has the better chance to actually make it out.
-
Well something neither of you have mentioned is that maybe the Terrans don't want to completely obliterate Sol. After all, it'll cost an arm and a leg to rebuild those mother****ers after the war. There are different ways of winning the war than overwhelming force, especially when these people are defending their homes.
The quickest way to win a war is to destroy your opponent's ability to fight. It always has been, and always will be. The GTVA must discredit Ubuntu as a political philosophy in addition to defeating it on the field of battle, and the most effective way to do this is to have a rapid victory. Rebuilding costs are acceptable when the alternative is that the original war aims may fail regardless of a battlefield victory.
Further in the long run triggering a quick UEF collapse will ultimately do more to save their infrastructure and reduce their casualities then a long war selectively targeted will.
You'd be surprised how deeply it affects serving men and women when their comrades are dying next to them. You can only see so many of your mates die before it really starts getting to you. The GTVA can send UEF cruisers and frigates home without destroying them, but by a few slash beams gutting compartments and tearing people in half, you demoralize them, and destroy their will to fight. At the end of the day, you'd have to ask yourself when you're the only original pilot of your squadron, whether it's all worth it.
This is a popular argument in this day and age, after things like Vietnam, Beirut, and Mogadishu. But it's not a valid one because drawing those comparisons is faulty. They were all, for want of a better word, optional. None of them had the slightest impact on the standing of the loser in the world.
The simple truth is that for the UEF, this war is not optional. Indeed, it goes beyond merely "not optional" in that losing will alter their place in the grand scheme of things. This is about not only political survival but the existence of their way of life. And this isn't even pointing out the Renjian. The UEF had their Pearl Harbor, but they also had their Coral Sea in the mission you yourself built for the combat demo. They know that not only must they resist, but that successful resistance is possible.
Attacking their will to fight is an inherently poor strategy. History has shown this time and time again. No one has ever successfully staged such a battle. Even the victories of it I've already pointed to were never intentional successes. In this situation, where the GTVA has gone out of its way to antagonize the UEF and has had intial failures in its war on the battlefield, it is outright madness to suggest it.
If you win on the battlefield, you can break their will to fight anyways. If you lose on the battlefield, you cannot. In the end, it comes down to the most effective means of winning on the field. And that, in turn, means the Shivan-esque strategy of massive force.
It's within the GTVA's best interests to keep most of the Federation infrastructure intact, and force the Federation into a diplomatic solution. You *can* do that by obliterating anything that looks at you the wrong way, but that'd work against the Alliance in the long run. Sending thousands of Officers and Crew home wounded and broken by PTSD will have a far greater effect on a society such as Earth's which is fairly centred around the spiritual and mental side of things.
Which crushing the enemy wherever you go will also force them into, as you admit. It will serve the Alliance well in the long run; they win. They discredit Ubuntu as a political philosophy. They prove that their early-war blunders were an aberration. They demonstrate that not only is the military a strong, viable force to put one's faith in for the next Shivan attack, but that it can learn Shivan behaviors and adapt them.
And the strategy you propose will build a legacy of hatred and mistrust between Sol and the rest of the GTVA that will take decades or centuries to eradicate. A quick resolution sought only on the field of battle will make the pain of reintegration shorter and it will make reintegration more possible; a fair victory fairly won, not an internal collapse that can be blamed on a backstab by the politicians or others, or a lingering resentment with the many physical objects you describe as a rallying point for it.
And the GTVA can do all that with minimum concentration of force and using their head when selecting targets. Crack open a few convoys, bomb a few planets, tear a few frigates open, and send a few more home with devastating combat damage.
See above. All of it.
And NGTM-1R you forgot one fact in your analysis - jumpdrive recharge time. A ship not comitted is a ship that can jump on a moment notice, a ship comitted is a ship that needs to recharge it's jumpdrive. Both sitting back and going on the offensive can lead you in a situation you want to retreat from, but the ship with the charged up jumpdrive has the better chance to actually make it out.
This was considered. It was also rejected. Either the option is removed from your enemy as well in his response, or he does not turn up. Remember as well that subspace tracking exists; any jump to an area without existing support is trapping yourself in what may become your own tomb. If you are already with your support then you have a much better chance to make a successful escape if trapped.
If he choses to attack your rear areas, you already have sufficent defense in place to stall him long enough for your return, and then it is he who is trapped.
-
This debate has devolved into armchair-general theorycrafting rather than anything useful, and I'm on vacation, so I'm just gonna let it sputter out.
-
Argh, just when I was waiting for you to take the lead, I'm too tired to reply. :P
-
Right, fine. I'll QED this thing fast.
C/B analysis, deploying more than 1 (2, 3, or later in the war 4 or 5) destroyers to a single engagement:
BENEFIT:
Using the extra destroyer(s) and their escorts you can destroy your target twice, three times, four times, or five times as fast.
COST:
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.
You lose access to those destroyer's fighter complements in other areas since they can't be launched rapidly under combat maneuvers.
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.
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.
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.)
You gain little, you risk much. Behavior does not increase strategic fitness.
With only 3-5 destroyers in Sol, there is good reason the GTVA elects to rarely deploy more than one at a time.
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.
And that's that.
-
*Salutes Battuta*
And yeah, diplomacy is the only real way to go in Sol, in the end. Else, you deal with a public so damn bitter from your presence, they'll stab you in the back when you're not looking.
-
[...] and even use subspace gates.
Care to elaborate on those a bit?
-
Right. Time to explain those.
Subspace gates are a neat bit of tech the UEF has cooked up during their isolation period. Basically, they built installations that can open intrasystem jumppoints, so that they could build freighters without intrasystem drives, and which would allow ships with drives to jump without actually using their jump drives (thereby eliminating the drive recharge time period).
-
And according to Battutas earlier comment I'd guess they are big enough to fit a destroyer through.
Are they point to point or can you choose which gate you'll come out of?
-
Point-to-point. That is, you can only get from one gate to another. Also, gates are range limited, you can't get from Mercury to the Kuiper belt in one jump for example (which intrasystem drives can theoretically do).
As a result, there's a gate network with fixed "roads" you need to travel. While some forking is possible (It doesn't make much of a difference whether you're going from Mars to Earth orbit or Luna orbit, the departure gate will be the same. The Arrival gate, however, will vary).
-
Point-to-point. That is, you can only get from one gate to another. Also, gates are range limited, you can't get from Mercury to the Kuiper belt in one jump for example (which intrasystem drives can theoretically do).
As a result, there's a gate network with fixed "roads" you need to travel. While some forking is possible (It doesn't make much of a difference whether you're going from Mars to Earth orbit or Luna orbit, the departure gate will be the same. The Arrival gate, however, will vary).
a concept used quite nicely in freelancer :wtf:
-
...And?
-
a concept used quite nicely in freelancer :wtf:
And many other games before it, including FreeSpace 1. Since jumpnodes aren't any different than Freelancers portals (or whatever they were called), except being natural occurances instead of artificial constructs, allthough Freelancer also has naturally occuring jumpholes.
Your point being?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 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.
-
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? :p
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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! :)