Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: CT27 on January 31, 2013, 07:27:37 pm

Title: UEF destroyers
Post by: CT27 on January 31, 2013, 07:27:37 pm
With the additional GTVA destroyers being brought in, it's not unreasonable I think to assume there will be some heavy destroyer action upcoming.

So far, all three UEF destroyers are at least relatively intact.  By the end of WIH, do you think the UEF will lose at least one destroyer?  If so, which one?

-Solaris (Byrne)
-Eris (Netreba)
-Toutatis (Calder)
-2 of those
-All three

Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: SpardaSon21 on January 31, 2013, 08:45:12 pm
Calder will go down in a blaze of glory against the Atreus to protect his last remaining frigates while quoting Moby Dick at Steele.  Khan Noonien Singh wishes he was that badass.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on January 31, 2013, 11:51:16 pm
I still hope that Byrne will do something cool with the Solaris. Like ramming a ship.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: QuakeIV on February 01, 2013, 12:55:15 am
I say the toutatis rams the atreus while Calder screams "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at th-!" over comms before smacking into it on overloaded engines and detonating his antimatter magazines.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Crybertrance on February 01, 2013, 04:35:45 am
Nah, UEF Destroyers are just too cool to be killed of... :cool:
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Ryuseiken on February 01, 2013, 11:11:03 am
If I had to guess, I'd say that the Toutatis and the Solaris are the most likely to be destroyed by the end of BP3. The Toutatis because of Calder's beef with Steele, and the Solaris probably due to some situation associated with Project Shambhala.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: CT27 on February 01, 2013, 02:07:06 pm
Netreba probably survives the war then in your opinion?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Kobrar44 on February 01, 2013, 02:15:55 pm
I hope humanity is doomed, therefore all destroyers go down. Also, the chanses are Netreba will be developed in upcoming campaing so I can't see why wouldn't he go down with his ship first. He is capable of taking risks and showed that before.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Terminator on February 01, 2013, 02:39:53 pm
I think the Eris will be destroyed. I also think Steele and Calder will fight side by side against the Vishnans. It could happen. After the cold war ended, the US and Russia started conducting joint exercises. In Stargate Atlantis the Tauri, Wraith, and Pegasus Humans joined up to raid the replicator homeworld.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Rodo on February 01, 2013, 02:40:02 pm
Netreba?, you mean Calder?
Spoiler:
I thought Laporte was going to be a 3rd fleet commander or something like that in the next release.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Ryuseiken on February 01, 2013, 03:10:51 pm
Again this is just a guess at what's going to happen, but from the tone of this story I think friendly destroyer losses are going to be inevitable.

In storytelling terms Calder is good candidate because of his aforementioned grudge with Steele for Jupiter, his diminished resources, and like people have said above because going out in a blaze of glory sounds amazing. Byrne is also a good candidate because of his relationship with Project Shambhala which is implied to be something sinister or at least dangerous, and his downfall could be tied to the downfall of Shambhala if that occurs in the story.

Netreba hasn't recieved as much attention as Calder or Byrne so I feel he's a bit safer.

Also, just because Laporte is stationed on the Toutatis doesn't mean it won't be destroyed, we did lose the Galatea and Psamtik in FS1&2, and Laporte has switched ships at the end of every act so far.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Drogoth on February 01, 2013, 06:46:45 pm
I don't know if Shambawhatitsproject is a good way to judge risk to the Solaris - too many variables we don't know.

I actually feel like Netreba is the most likely candidate to go down.

He often works with Third Fleet, and apparently they 'almost lost the Eris' during Aristeia. Third fleet is a barely operational wreck, which limits Calder's freedom of operation. His destroyer acts more as a hunter-killer unit then a deterrence platform these days in my eyes. Which means I doubt he will be committed to an engagement he isn't very confident he can win. Netreba on the other hand has a functioning fleet and is usually tasked with tying down enemy fleet formations in a critical and important way to the overall operations (Aristeia and Delenda Est). Larger engagements have far more potential to go wrong as they are less micromanaged. 

Additionally, I don't think Netreba's lack of character development makes him safe. The Indus is trashed, there is no way it's operational again yet. But Lorna Simms is alive. Who's to say she isn't now based/being transferred to the Eris? That's the emotional link for the player if the Eris gets taken out (provided Simms is indeed transferred there). Maybe she gets all her rooks off ship in time but doesn't make it herself?

OR - The tevs rescue her from a lifepod. Maybe that would cool some of Laporte's rage? Spitballing here...
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: QuakeIV on February 01, 2013, 09:56:09 pm
I agree with your analysis on the second fleet losing its destroyer, they tend to be given riskier assignments because they are actually still an effective fighting force above the hunter-killer scale. 

I don't know that witnessing a rescue cool her rage though.  She could just assume that Simms would be hauled off for interrogation/torture or something to keep the rage state going.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 01, 2013, 10:37:36 pm
Indus is a prime candidate for becoming a Mk2.  That ship needs a very long stay in a dockyard anyway, so it may as well get an upgrade.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Ryuseiken on February 01, 2013, 11:29:31 pm
It could, but considering the timeframe for Steele's attack on Earth I doubt it'll be in fighting condition soon enough to be of aid.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Drogoth on February 02, 2013, 12:32:26 am
I agree with your analysis on the second fleet losing its destroyer, they tend to be given riskier assignments because they are actually still an effective fighting force above the hunter-killer scale. 

I don't know that witnessing a rescue cool her rage though.  She could just assume that Simms would be hauled off for interrogation/torture or something to keep the rage state going.

She could be part of a POW exchange in order to get Lopez and the crew of the Carthage back. At which point she is alive, and (if she was treated well) maybe some of the old Noemi will return.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: CT27 on February 02, 2013, 01:46:08 am
I agree with your analysis on the second fleet losing its destroyer, they tend to be given riskier assignments because they are actually still an effective fighting force above the hunter-killer scale. 

I don't know that witnessing a rescue cool her rage though.  She could just assume that Simms would be hauled off for interrogation/torture or something to keep the rage state going.

She could be part of a POW exchange in order to get Lopez and the crew of the Carthage back. At which point she is alive, and (if she was treated well) maybe some of the old Noemi will return.

Or the crew of the logistics vessel captured in WIH part 1?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: QuakeIV on February 02, 2013, 01:56:04 am
Since you have the option of slaughtering the carthages crew I think that the anemoi crew is the better choice.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crizza on February 02, 2013, 07:05:57 am
Wait...whats that whole thing about Simms, she is alive, but most likely being treated by the Fedayen(I can't get the spelling) or not?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Crybertrance on February 02, 2013, 10:08:20 am
Wait...whats that whole thing about Simms, she is alive, but most likely being treated by the Fedayen(I can't get the spelling) or not?

Nope, most probably she is somewhere in Two Fleet HQ undergoing treatment along with the rest of the Indus crew.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Veers on February 03, 2013, 12:38:19 am
IIRC, even Calder couldn't find where Simms was, or if she was even alive. So I think only the Fedayeen know where she is exactly.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Drogoth on February 03, 2013, 01:07:39 am
Or calder lied to keep noemi useful.

Also what is the canon ending for the Carthage? Capture or destruction?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: QuakeIV on February 03, 2013, 10:53:34 am
Calder could be lying.  Seems like the fedayeen may have lied about Simms surviving to keep Laporte useful though.  Perhaps they were afraid she would lose control if Simms was known to be dead.

With respect to the Carthage, I would assume it is to remain vague.  Though on a replay I accidentally hit four instead of three (or vice versa) and accidentally blew the sucker to kingdom come.  They really should make choices like that use buttons with a bit of distance between them.

*finger slips*

*ten thousand die*
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 03, 2013, 11:20:03 am
Or calder lied to keep noemi useful.

Also what is the canon ending for the Carthage? Capture or destruction?

The canon ending, unless something else ends up ruining this, is 'what you did'
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crazy_dave on February 03, 2013, 03:23:42 pm
Calder could be lying.  Seems like the fedayeen may have lied about Simms surviving to keep Laporte useful though.  Perhaps they were afraid she would lose control if Simms was known to be dead.

With respect to the Carthage, I would assume it is to remain vague.  Though on a replay I accidentally hit four instead of three (or vice versa) and accidentally blew the sucker to kingdom come.  They really should make choices like that use buttons with a bit of distance between them.

*finger slips*

*ten thousand die*

:lol:

That would surpass a mere 'oops' to a definite 'whoops-a-daisy'. I'm imagining Laporte in the dreamscape trying to explain to, say, Falconer why she "chose" to destroy the Carthage: "... well you know ... the buttons were close together ... and ... uh"

------

I thinks Simms is probably alive. Calder may have been blocked from knowing or told not tell Laporte by the Fedayeen. But now that Laporte is out of the Fedayeen bubble, it would be easy for her to check - especially now that they've given her an answer she would expect to be able to find Simms. If it were a lie, then Ken and Al-Da'wa would've had to tell the same lie. Given the nature of the conversations, I could see Ken lying in desperation, but Al-Da'wa wouldn't have known to tell that same lie right after the "dream" when Laporte confronts him and would've had less cause to since she had completed her Fedayeen mission. They of course want to keep her useful for Third Fleet, but I think it much more likely than not that "Simms, alive" is the truth.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Drogoth on February 03, 2013, 05:18:06 pm
Or calder lied to keep noemi useful.

Also what is the canon ending for the Carthage? Capture or destruction?

The canon ending, unless something else ends up ruining this, is 'what you did'

Fair enough, then barring events in the following acts that contradict this, BP Canon (Drogoth Version) is a captured Carthage, and I think the tevs would be more likely to try and get Lopez and her officers/crew back through a POW exchange then the crew of the Agincourt. One is a decorated admiral and tactition as well as her fleet wide recognized crew. The other are the crew of a glorified freighter/repair bay, who are of limited value without the ship they serve on, where as military expertise can be transferred to other units, or employed in a planning role.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: niffiwan on February 03, 2013, 05:29:13 pm
Or calder lied to keep noemi useful.

Also what is the canon ending for the Carthage? Capture or destruction?

The canon ending, unless something else ends up ruining this, is 'what you did'

I guess that means that Lopez is out of the story, which I find slightly sad  :(
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crizza on February 03, 2013, 07:33:00 pm
You know, about Simms...Laporte will get another Name, ID, Bias and the whole stuff.
She can check about Simms, but I highly doubt that she can just walk to her bedside and say hello.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Flak on February 03, 2013, 09:38:56 pm
I am just suspecting a COD Black Ops 2 style multiple outcomes. Like if you choose to destroy the Carthage,  nothing much happens. If you choose not to destroy however, the Toutatis maybe gets jumped by the Serkr somewhere along the line, and Calder will then use the Carthage as his new flagship.

Lastly, if Simms really survived as Ken said, I am suspecting that the Indus is (as of Tenebra) in the middle of being rigged to be turned into a Mk2.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: CT27 on February 03, 2013, 10:22:34 pm
Or calder lied to keep noemi useful.

Also what is the canon ending for the Carthage? Capture or destruction?

The canon ending, unless something else ends up ruining this, is 'what you did'

Fair enough, then barring events in the following acts that contradict this, BP Canon (Drogoth Version) is a captured Carthage, and I think the tevs would be more likely to try and get Lopez and her officers/crew back through a POW exchange then the crew of the Agincourt. One is a decorated admiral and tactition as well as her fleet wide recognized crew. The other are the crew of a glorified freighter/repair bay, who are of limited value without the ship they serve on, where as military expertise can be transferred to other units, or employed in a planning role.

If they got Lopez back, I'd imagine she'd get a huge lecture from Steele though right?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Drogoth on February 03, 2013, 10:38:16 pm
Or calder lied to keep noemi useful.

Also what is the canon ending for the Carthage? Capture or destruction?

The canon ending, unless something else ends up ruining this, is 'what you did'

Fair enough, then barring events in the following acts that contradict this, BP Canon (Drogoth Version) is a captured Carthage, and I think the tevs would be more likely to try and get Lopez and her officers/crew back through a POW exchange then the crew of the Agincourt. One is a decorated admiral and tactition as well as her fleet wide recognized crew. The other are the crew of a glorified freighter/repair bay, who are of limited value without the ship they serve on, where as military expertise can be transferred to other units, or employed in a planning role.

If they got Lopez back, I'd imagine she'd get a huge lecture from Steele though right?

She's still a more valuable asset then a repair crew with no repair ship to work on.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Crybertrance on February 04, 2013, 05:58:21 am
Or calder lied to keep noemi useful.

Also what is the canon ending for the Carthage? Capture or destruction?

The canon ending, unless something else ends up ruining this, is 'what you did'

I assume that this applies to the Serenity as well? Because a recent screen-shot in the Celebration of Freespace (iirc) has the Serenity depicted flying escort with 3 Fleet.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: The E on February 04, 2013, 06:17:09 am
That screenshot was just a bit of a beauty shot I took. It has no relevance to the story.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Flak on February 04, 2013, 06:56:48 am
Looks like the same as original FS, it is not a primary objective so the Serenity don't have to survive to continue. It is not seen in the ending cutscene either, those two Karunas are second fleet ships Ridwan and Hebrides, as you can probably tell with their red paintjob as opposed to the third fleet's blue.

I think Calder only have 2 Karunas left, assuming the Serenity survived.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Crybertrance on February 04, 2013, 07:41:36 am
I think Calder only have 2 Karunas left, assuming the Serenity survived.

The Serenity was Calder last Karuna iirc.. He has two Narayanas (Vikrant, Toreador)... Hence, since its now a very small world over at 3 Fleet, I was wondering if we would see the Serenity again (if you saved her).
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Luis Dias on February 04, 2013, 09:48:52 am
Too many variables, if I were the game designer, I'd shiver at any of these "possibilities" branching through the entire story like a can of worms...
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 04, 2013, 10:18:54 am
Serenity survival will be tracked.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 04, 2013, 12:21:02 pm
As much as I love the possibility that my decisions can affect the outcome of later missions can I just ask (from a purely selfish point of view) that you please don't do too much and give yourselves a nightmare coding this.

The wait for Tenebra was hard enough. (Though the end result was incredible)
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 04, 2013, 12:24:33 pm
I would love a few curveballs though that make what seem like the right decisions blow up in my face.
Spoiler:
like when I let the Gefs go in act 3
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: CT27 on February 04, 2013, 01:50:12 pm
Concerning the destroyers,  if Calder loses the Toutatis might he try to take over the Sanctuary (I'm assuming it's somewhere in Sol and some work's been done on it in the ~two years since the end of AOA)?

Or if a Solaris class destroyer goes down, will the Admiral on board go down with his ship?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: The E on February 04, 2013, 01:52:49 pm
The Sanctuary is not a combat-ready vessel. Against any of the current GTVA vessels, even ones as old and decrepit as Deimos Corvettes, it is utterly outclassed and that is before taking into account the decades upon decades of jury-rigged repairs and radiation exposure.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 04, 2013, 01:59:25 pm
The Carthage too has almost certainty been rendered unfightable.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: MatthTheGeek on February 04, 2013, 02:03:38 pm
The Carthage was already unable to survive an inter-system jump after Saturn, I wouldn't be surprised if it was unable to survive even an intra-system jump after Neptune and that they had to leave the derelict there. I don't think I'm streching it far by saying that ship will never fight again.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Rodo on February 04, 2013, 02:13:07 pm
Why do you think Calder will live after the Toutatis is lost?, I see him dying with the destroyer all the way up to the moon.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 04, 2013, 02:17:26 pm
I could see the Carthage being juryrigged to be a static beam platform protecting a key installation, perhaps automated or operated by a skeleton crew.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crazy_dave on February 04, 2013, 03:33:10 pm
I would love a few curveballs though that make what seem like the right decisions blow up in my face.
Spoiler:
like when I let the Gefs go in act 3

When I made that same decision I thought I was letting them live but returning them to UEF custody - if I had known I was letting them go, I wouldn't have done so. Operational security demanded no Vasudan or non-Fedayeen UEF survivors, it sure would've demanded no GEF survivors too - at least not free ones that could go blabbing to the GTA, Vasudans, and Kostadins about how they were forced to attack a Vasudan convoy with all the sensor, flight data, and communication logs as well as the fighters tricked out with explosives to prove it.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on February 04, 2013, 05:24:08 pm
The Carthage was already unable to survive an inter-system jump after Saturn, I wouldn't be surprised if it was unable to survive even an intra-system jump after Neptune and that they had to leave the derelict there. I don't think I'm streching it far by saying that ship will never fight again.

Great War survivor, first counter to the Second Incursion, slayer of the Vassago, victim of a schizoid stealth fighter.

RIP Carthage, you deserved better.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: An4ximandros on February 04, 2013, 05:50:38 pm
Shivan steamroll? that ain't ri'te!
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 03:01:50 am
Quote
RIP Carthage, you deserved better.

She will have better - going out in a blaze of glory furfilling her original role of protecting Earth from hostile invaders. I can't think of a better ending for this legendary ship :)

Spoiler:
just imagine the reaction if she was used to take out the Imperieuse
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Phantom Hoover on February 05, 2013, 04:44:02 am
Yeah, a 50 year old destroyer which by this point is basically a hulk with functioning life support is really going to be able to take down a top of the line warship.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 04:57:18 am
Spoiler:
Not by going toe to toe but she could be used as a suprise shock jump to ram a destroyer for instance as she has a prototype sprint drive or jump in at the rear of a formation to carry out a suprise suicide beam attack or used to lure the TEVs in with a fake escape attempt by the GTVA crew captured in her finest hour or maybe even used to collapse the Sol jump node ala Bastion

Didn't say it was going to happen just said imagine the reaction
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: MatthTheGeek on February 05, 2013, 05:13:51 am
I think you underestimate the current state of the Carthage. I am not sure it would survive someone sneezing in the engine room...
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 05:22:03 am
Yeah, I'm with Matth on this one.  I'm pretty sure the only thing the Carthage is good for now is becoming a war memorial.

Chances are the surviving elements of its BG (the Legionary, along with the Iolanthe, Deianira and the surviving cruisers if they got away from Neptune) will be folded into some other one.  The 2nd Battlegroup is gone.

She's still a more valuable asset then a repair crew with no repair ship to work on.

No, she probably isn't.  If Lopez is ever returned to the GTVA, chances are she'll be court-martialed for insubordination, which led to the loss of her ship and possibly her battlegroup.  Her career is over, and her good intentions might be the only thing that would save her from execution.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 05:41:39 am
I always wondered what happened to the captain of the Phonica after bearbaiting. Would she have been courtmarshaled for disobeying orders or praised for saving what was left of her crew?

I don't think that the TEV leaders will be to hard on Lopez - considering what Steele had put her through the Carthage had no reason even being at Neptune never mind the main picket defence.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: TheDemon on February 05, 2013, 05:55:02 am
What about the 3 corvettes I captured in Her Finest Hour? Surely those are worth about a frigate if they're operational, and to capture them I didn't need to do anything more to them than disable their engines.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 05:56:19 am
Gray113: The Carthage had perfectly valid reasons for being at Neptune.  It was a combat ready vessel charged with protecting the station until ordered to retreat.  Lopez was ordered to retreat.  She refused to obey that lawful order, which , if the military code of justice of the GTVA is anything like US military's one, is punishable by the death penalty if in a time of war.  It wasn't even a tough assignment, and if she had followed orders, the Carthage would have gotten away just fine.

The GTVA isn't some touchy-feely Star Trek Federation where good intentions can get you acquitted of pretty much anything.

TheDemon: I didn't capture any corvettes.  If you did, then they'll probably be treated just like every other captured Tev warship.

Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crizza on February 05, 2013, 05:59:01 am
I always wondered what happened to the captain of the Phonica after bearbaiting. Would she have been courtmarshaled for disobeying orders or praised for saving what was left of her crew?
I'm writing about the Phoenicia currently and I for my part imagine her Captain got kicked out of the fleet, while the Phoenicia situation is part of warship command lessons on the academy.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 06:11:03 am
Quote
The GTVA isn't some touchy-feely Star Trek Federation where good intentions can get you acquitted of pretty much anything.

I wouldn't imagine that it would be however military forces now are having to wake up to the psychological effects of combat on troops such as the appalling suicide rate amongst American troops coming home from Iraq or the raft of mental illness cases in Falklands war veterans.

Any organisation that was willing to sacrifice a battlegroup in order to win a key victory must be aware that there would be a problem with survivors guilt as well as PTSD and have appropriate provisions in place in order to help the survivors - post combat psychological screening at least. Lopez lost a lot of friends and colleagues during the battle of Saturn and didn't want to sacrifice any more to a war she had lost faith in. If the UEF knew that she was a liability then the GTVA leadership should have also been aware of it. Making Lopez far less culpable than the Hawks in the administration would have people believe.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 06:19:28 am
Irrelevant.  She was given her break.  Neptune wasn't a tough assignment.  She stayed there because she wanted to assuage her own conscience.  She is not dependable.  PTSD doesn't excuse insubordination, not in a flag officer.  The trauma and the good intentions might save her from execution, but her career is over

I'll add that she got psychological screening, probably just like every other high ranking officer in that BG.  Do remember that there was enough time between DE and HFH that the Carthage was almost fully repaired.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Steele was perfectly aware that Lopez was a weak link in his command structure.  Hell, Neptune was probably also a test, to see if she would keep following her orders and was still dependable.  She failed miserably.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 06:28:28 am
Quote
Do remember that there was enough time between DE and HFH that the Carthage was almost fully repaired
Hell, Neptune was probably also a test, to see if she would keep following her orders and was still dependable.

Don't agree with that one, the Carthage was going back to GTVA space as soon as she was able taking Lopez out of the war.

I would think that it was more likley that steele knew what he was doing and got rid of one mortally wounded Orion destroyer in exchange for two fully equiped new Hecate battlegroups with crews that have no idea of the horrors that await them under Steele.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Flak on February 05, 2013, 06:39:31 am
I believe she wanted to make sure she got all her men on the station back before pulling out. Even in the US army, no man is left behind. Steele on the other hand, already expected the Neptune station to fall anyway, and already prepared it for self destruct to prevent capture, though even he didn't expect saboteurs to mess that up.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crizza on February 05, 2013, 06:40:12 am
Two Hecate Battlegroups? The Vengeance and the Phoenicia are one battlegroup though.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 06:45:05 am
Though if she had escaped would she have been blamed for the station not being scuttled? As it stands the blame falls on Steele for the loss of the station but would he have used Lopez to deflect blame from himself? Leaving before critical objectives are completed is a court marshal offense as everyone who has jumped out early knows.

Quote
The Vengeance and the Phoenicia are one battlegroup

My bad I thought they each had their own battlegroup.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Flak on February 05, 2013, 06:54:56 am
Don't forget 4 more are waiting for deployment, there are the Implacable and Agamemnon as well as the Pallas and Illium. I think there is a Titan and a Raynor in there, not just Hecates.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 06:57:20 am
No.  She wasn't responsible for the enemy agents, not could she be blamed for their actions.  Steele isn't stupid, and he's not the type that constantly shuffles blame around.

BTW, "No man gets left behind" is a nice sounding phrase that doesn't actually reflect reality, especially not in wartime.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crizza on February 05, 2013, 07:03:44 am
Don't forget 4 more are waiting for deployment, there are the Implacable and Agamemnon as well as the Pallas and Illium. I think there is a Titan and a Raynor in there, not just Hecates.
Agamemnon is a Raynor, Implacable a Titan, the Pallas and Illium are most likely a Hecate/Hecate combo, or one is a Orion...
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: The E on February 05, 2013, 07:11:47 am
The thing is, Aesaar, in light of her previously exemplary service, and her known service record, it is far more likely that Lopez will be retired rather than court-martialed. "Return with your shield, or on it" is not a great motivator; Knowing that making the sort of judgement call a flag officer is supposed to be making may land you in front of a tribunal if you fail is sending the completely wrong signals.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 07:33:00 am
Except it wasn't her judgement call to make.  She didn't just make a command decision that didn't pan out, she actively disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer.  Her insubordination lost the destroyer.  It isn't something a disciplined military can overlook.

It's a discipline issue.  Had she lost the Carthage before being ordered to retreat, then she would have failed, but it would be like you said.  But she didn't.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Luis Dias on February 05, 2013, 07:55:50 am
Of course it is her judgement to make. Hierarchy in every military is not absolute. A subordinate should disobey if he thinks the orders he is given are insane, unhuman, etc.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 08:11:09 am
No.  Just no.  You don't get to disobey lawful orders just because you disagree with them.  And Steele's order to retreat was 100% lawful.  This is the very foundation of a disciplined military.

Had Lopez still managed to leave, it might be excusable.  A talk from Steele, no need to make a big deal about it because no harm was done.  But that's not what happened.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on February 05, 2013, 08:15:05 am
No.  She wasn't responsible for the enemy agents, not could she be blamed for their actions.  Steele isn't stupid, and he's not the type that constantly shuffles blame around.

BTW, "No man gets left behind" is a nice sounding phrase that doesn't actually reflect reality, especially not in wartime.

Very true, but the phrase applies more to infantry warfare. Lopez was responsible for ten thousand lives minimum at HFH, it's not a case of 'no man left behind' so much as the lesser of two evils: lose the Carthage or lose thousands of personnel. There were a fair few transports that were able to evacuate Neptune HQ because Lopez chose to stay behind and cover them (and a fair few Hermes launched from the Carthage too). If the Carthage had jumped out the losses could have potentially been much greater. It's a judgement call and she was probably right in believing it was better to lose the Carthage (which the Feds have practically no use for whatsoever) than to lose thousands of trained personnel or have them captured.

Quote
No.  Just no.  You don't get to disobey lawful orders just because you disagree with them.

Even the military recognises that the situation on the battlefield can change to a point where standing orders are no longer relevant. This gets taught in basic training, it's a fundamental aspect of warfare: you can't keep charging in a straight line when you're being flanked, you have to react to take advantage of the situation. If that means disobeying orders then so be it. Lopez had very good reasons for disobeying, that can't be overlooked.

EDIT: Retarded spelling
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crizza on February 05, 2013, 08:17:07 am
Thats the same with the Phoenicia...
The ship was ordered to hold the node against the Sath, but choose to jump out.
Wheres the point to get wasted if you can run and fight another day?!
Lopez should've jumped out, she don't wanted to continue to fight in Sol, so when the order came, she should've jumped clear...
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 08:19:20 am
Even the military recognises that the situation on the battlefield can change to a point where standing orders are no longer relevant. This gets taught in basic training, it's a fundamantal aspect of warfare: you can't keep charging in a straight line when you're being flanked, you have to react to take advantage of the situation. If that means disobeying orders then so be it. Lopez had very good reasons for disobeying, that can't be overlooked.
  These weren't standing orders, as the intercepted dialogue makes clear.  Steele was in direct contact with her telling her to retreat.  She refused.  This is insubordination, and is pretty much as black and white as it can get.  Maybe excusable if she had still managed to leave, but she didn't.  And this is a fundamental aspect of warfare:  if your superior officer tells you to do something, you do it, no matter how much you disagree with it (the exception is if the order in question isn't legal, which doesn't apply here).  Again, this is the very foundation of a disciplined military.

Moreover, Steele had a clear picture of the battle.  It's not like he was giving her an order that he wouldn't give if he was there.  She didn't choose to stay behind because she felt she had a clearer view of the battle, she stayed to assuage her conscience.


This:
Quote
"I am not finished. If I give you a direct order to fly your ships into a solar flare, you will obey that order. You will obey it whether I give you a seventy-page strategic directive explaining our urgent need for a fleet of ghost ships or a simple six-word coded imperative. You will obey the order with alacrity and without question, and you will do so with enthusiasm and skill. If you cannot meet these standards then you are not the woman I need in command of my point battle group."
is how it happens.  This attitude is how you run a disciplined military.  It is absolutely essential.

Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on February 05, 2013, 08:20:32 am
That's totally different; the Phoenicia was doing literally nothing in slowing down or stopping the Sathanas, jumping out was a no-brainer. Lopez had to weigh the lives of thousands against the loss of a destroyer and decided it wasn't worth leaving. I dout the Carthage would've fought another day anyway, the thing was a wreck waiting for the scrapyard.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: crizza on February 05, 2013, 08:23:38 am
Yeah, but thanks to her decision her crewmen are now PoWs.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 08:36:20 am
More to the point when Lopez was ordered to get out the battle conditions were (to her) still favourable. The Frigate had withdrawn with loses to its cruiser screen and the artillery was contained. The order came through when her position could be held to allow the evacuation to proceed successfully and she still had clear in her mind the previous orders that Steele gave that resulted in the deaths of thousands of her subordinates. Her withdraw at this point would have cost the lives of thousands more. As I said before Lopez should never have been left to defend Neptune as she was already compromised by grief and the desire to save the station but she was not stupid and would have withdrawn if the situation had merited it.

She just didn't know (and Steele neither) that a stealth fighter was positioned to call in a massive bomber strike right under her engines and it is a testament to the planners of the Fedyeen that they knew exactly where and when to strike.

Under those conditions the GTVA could not hold Lopez fully responsible. If they did they would loose the trust of every captain in the fleet.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 08:45:16 am
Under those conditions the GTVA could not hold Lopez fully responsible. If they did they would loose the trust of every captain in the fleet.
  No, it wouldn't.  Not punishing her would undermine the chain of command and encourage the notion that if you disagree with your superior officer you can disobey his/her orders.  Your superior is not required to explain to you each and every order he/she gives you.  A good officer will listen to your misgivings, but he/she is free to ignore them, and you, no matter how much you disagree, must do as you're told.  That's how a military works.

Lopez ignored this, which lead to the loss of an important military asset.  It wasn't up to her to determine whether her ship was worth the lives on that station on not.  That decision was up to Steele.  He believed it was.  End of story.  Her failure to obey is punishable by court-martial and possible (though unlikely, in this case) execution.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 09:12:48 am
But Steele left her in command of an important military asset in a mission where she was unfit to command and her ship was unfit to combat the forces ranged against her. The Fedyeen recognised this and took advantage, Steele should have also known this (indeed maybe he did).

The superior is responsible in these circumstances in this case the superior is Steele. Who should have had both Lopez and what was left of her battlegroup far out of the field of engagement.

Its easy to say she should have left when Steele ordered her but by that time the damage was already done. Lopez was to far gone to trust Steele's judgement after what he had done to her unit and was not going to sacrifice any more lives.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 09:20:38 am
Lopez would be court-martialed for the loss of her ship, and in the context of the modern GTVA military, she almost certainly would be found guilty and punished severely. While initiative and independence are valuable and even desirable traits in any commander, the post-Capella GTVA is all about exigency, the ability and willingness to make extremely tough Sophie's Choice decisions without hesitation or half measures. Lopez would be held to that standard.

Moreover, disobeying a direct order from a superior officer is an act that can usually only be justified when the order is immoral. While I suppose Lopez could make a case here, in the climate of the contemporary GTVA military, she'd lose.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on February 05, 2013, 09:22:52 am
Yeah, but thanks to her decision her crewmen are now PoWs.

Thanks to her a large amount of crew on the station escaped in addition to those of the Carthage that made it out on the Hermes escape pods. If she had left the amount of captured personnel could have potentially been much greater.

Insubordination is acceptable if the order given by superiors is unlawful. I agree that given Lopez was given a fully lawful order she was not in a position to disobey it. However, given she was able to save personnel at the expense of her ship and how decorated and respected she is I'd wager she's looking at dismissal at best, court-martial at worst.

Legally speaking, yes she could be imprisoned or executed, but given that she put the lives of her crew above those of an important asset (one which was likely looking to be mothballed upon return to GTVA space) I doubt the higher-ups will pursue the maximum penalty. At the very least public opinion will mean she'll live.

EDIT: damn you ninjas
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 09:25:25 am
Lopez and the Carthage battlegroup were broken. It is stupidity to use a damaged asset when there are replacements available that are far more suited to the task and so Steele in other circumstances would be answering difficult questions on his own conduct during the battle. No doubt these would come up at any subsequent courtmarshal.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 09:26:48 am
Lopez and the Carthage battlegroup were broken. It is stupidity to use a damaged asset when there are replacements available that are far more suited to the task and so Steele in other circumstances would be answering difficult questions on his own conduct during the battle. No doubt these would come up at any subsequent courtmarshal.

The whole point of the battle was to avoid commitment.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 09:28:45 am
Quote
made it out on the Hermes escape pods

I must say that I took great pleasure in slaughtering those escape pods whilst remembering the Yangtze. It made accepting the surrender that bit easier.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 09:30:23 am
Quote
The whole point of the battle was to avoid commitment

So why put an emotionally compromised leader in charge of the evacuation?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 09:34:00 am
Quote
The whole point of the battle was to avoid commitment

So why put an emotionally compromised leader in charge of the evacuation?

Because her ship was right there.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Buckshee Rounds on February 05, 2013, 09:37:40 am
Quote
made it out on the Hermes escape pods

I must say that I took great pleasure in slaughtering those escape pods whilst remembering the Yangtze. It made accepting the surrender that bit easier.

I hope for the next release they put a warcrimes meter in the hud with ascending milestones like Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. :P
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 09:38:53 am
Best.............. idea............... ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: MatthTheGeek on February 05, 2013, 09:40:35 am
Lopez and the Carthage battlegroup were broken. It is stupidity to use a damaged asset when there are replacements available that are far more suited to the task
1) Carthage and its battlegroup were definitely combat-able. Watch how they wrecked a direct assault from a full CruisRon and a Karuna while under constant artillery barrage.

2) Other assets were being prepared for Steele's final assault. Deploying them to assist Neptune would be loosing precious momentum, as they'd need repairs and resupply again afterwards.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 09:50:07 am
Quote
Watch how they wrecked a direct assault from a full CruisRon and a Karuna while under constant artillery barrage.

A CruisRon and Karuna that for some reason did not have fighter cover (didn't really understand the start of the mission) whilst the Carthage was protected by fixed beam cannons and AWACS.

Quote
Deploying them to assist Neptune would be loosing precious momentum, as they'd need repairs and resupply again afterwards.

Serkr team was on standby to engage the Toutatis, deploying them against the artillery would have forced the UEF to withdraw.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 09:52:45 am
Your two 'not understanding' questions there answer each other.  ;)
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 10:12:46 am
Ok then the points I am making is that Lopez was emotionally unstable due to the previous losses and should not have been in command of the mission. The fact that she was left in command is explained as: hers were the only forces on station and Steele didn't want to slow his build up by deploying more assets. Fair enough but that would not stand up in a military tribunal. Lawyers would pick holes in the decision to place her forces in harms way and ultimately the blame for the loss of the Carthage would go back to Steele.

The fact that her battle group was able to beat back an ill planned assult is to her credit however they were unable to make headway against the artillery, only hold them off meaning that if they pulled out then the stations crew would be lost. As long as the artillery was in the Field then the Toutatis was not going to commit and there was no possibility of an interception therefore is it not entirely unreasonable that Steele could have instead used Serkr to take out the artillery which would in itself finish of third fleet as an effective fighting force. This could then have saved the day for the GTVA forces and allowed the evac to continue without further loss.

Steeles failure in Neptune can be accounted to his decisions more so than Lopez. When the courtmarshal comes then I doubt that she would get much worse than an honorable discharge.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 05, 2013, 10:16:11 am
Or it could have resulted in Calder bringing in the Toutatis because Serkr was already on the field and committed.  Which in turn could have led to the loss of Serkr over a useless installation.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 10:21:12 am
Serkr have sprint drives - they could get out before Calder could do much damage
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: MatthTheGeek on February 05, 2013, 10:23:26 am
A CruisRon and Karuna that for some reason did not have fighter cover (didn't really understand the start of the mission) whilst the Carthage was protected by fixed beam cannons and AWACS.
Wait, since when did they not have fighter cover. It's not because it's all gone when you arrive that they were never there ? :wtf:

Serkr team was on standby to engage the Toutatis, deploying them against the artillery would have forced the UEF to withdraw.
1) The Narayana had their drives ready. Serkr wouldn't have had time to kill them.

2) Deploying Serkr against the artillery would probably have left another critical target wide open for the Toutatis to attack. Subspace chess, remember ? Re-read the briefing of this mission. Steele wants to avoid escalation before he is ready for the big battle. Especially if escalation doesn't happen on his terms.

3) They are deployed against the big T if you've ****ed up because for Steele, such an opportunity to destroy the big T is more important than keeping the strategical momentum. Steele can definitely afford loosing a couple days prepping Serkr again if the big T is out of the equation.

4) A Solaris down would be much more a major blow to the UEF morale (and leadership, if Calders goes down with the ship) than two more artillery frigates, of which the UEF has already lost many since the beginning of the war. The Vikrant and Toreador simply don't hold a comparable strategical value than the big T.

Serkr have sprint drives - they could get out before Calder could do much damage
Yes, and Steele would have lost momentum again, for no gain.


The fact that she was left in command is explained as: hers were the only forces on station and Steele didn't want to slow his build up by deploying more assets. Fair enough but that would not stand up in a military tribunal. Lawyers would pick holes in the decision to place her forces in harms way and ultimately the blame for the loss of the Carthage would go back to Steele.
You underestimate Steele's charisma and influence. Remember we're talking about one of the most powerful man in the GTVA, someone that could dictate terms to Tocqueville. The GTVA is more concerned about winning Sol than holding a trial against him, especially when he's the only man that can give them Sol fast enough. Whatever arguable strategical decisions he may take, they can overlook them, as long as the situation in Sol is finally resolved. And he'd get a few medals afterward, too.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 10:28:07 am
Deploying Serkr would have been strategic and tactical suicide with the Toutatis air wing, the Toutatis itself, and the Eris waiting to pounce on any opening. The mission itself shows you the only circumstances under which Steele is willing to commit Serkr - the Toutatis is on the field and its air wing is badly degraded.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 10:30:05 am
Quote
Yes, and Steele would have lost momentum again, for no gain

The lives in board the station would have been the gain, in this mission (if done properly) there is no threat to the Toutatis as it doesn't need to be deployed - hell the second time I did it the option did not even come up because both my frigates were over 70% when the Carthage surrendered.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 10:31:34 am
There was no way for Steele to commit forces to save Neptune HQ without suffering greater losses elsewhere. The correct move from a utilitarian standpoint was to get as as many people as possible out of there - the position was being abandoned anyway - and then withdraw the Carthage.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 10:32:24 am
You can actually see, if Serkr arrives, that they've been involved in fighting elsewhere and were rapidly repositioned to take advantage of the Toutatis' weakness.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: MatthTheGeek on February 05, 2013, 10:35:42 am
Quote
Yes, and Steele would have lost momentum again, for no gain

The lives in board the station would have been the gain, in this mission (if done properly) there is no threat to the Toutatis as it doesn't need to be deployed - hell the second time I did it the option did not even come up because both my frigates were over 70% when the Carthage surrendered.
The lives in the station are less important to Steele than keeping the strategical momentum. Which is why he ordered Lopez to retreat before the evacuation was complete.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 10:46:14 am
Quote
if Serkr arrives, that they've been involved in fighting elsewhere and were rapidly repositioned to take advantage of the Toutatis' weakness

Never saw that, i didn't call in calder when I played the mission so I should probably play again to see it.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 10:56:48 am
Looking over The Reunion in the fiction pages there is also the famous example of Admiral Morian who is responsible for the mess that the GTVA are in now.

Quote
His service in Capella had left the man with a deep-set but largely unrecognized fear of the Shivans, and recent events had exacerbated this phobia.

It would seem that the GTVA do have knowledge of the effects of mental strain and it's effects on command staff decisions. This fact makes Steele's error in leaving Lopez in command all the worse.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: MatthTheGeek on February 05, 2013, 11:00:15 am
I'm still not sure how it can be interpreted as an "error". It gave Steele the leverage to requisition four more destroyers. Sounds like a victory to me.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 11:20:37 am
Looking over The Reunion in the fiction pages there is also the famous example of Admiral Morian who is responsible for the mess that the GTVA are in now.

Quote
His service in Capella had left the man with a deep-set but largely unrecognized fear of the Shivans, and recent events had exacerbated this phobia.

It would seem that the GTVA do have knowledge of the effects of mental strain and it's effects on command staff decisions. This fact makes Steele's error in leaving Lopez in command all the worse.

Wait, what? You just quoted a passage indicating that a man had a deep-set psychological problem but was left in command and made a huge error, and then you argue that this indicates the GTVA is good at recognizing deep-set psychological problems before they cause huge errors?  :p
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 11:30:56 am
No I said the GTVA have some knowledge of how psychological issues can affect decision making. This means that after the disaster at the Reunion they should be better prepared and those who are suspected of being under the effects of such issues such as Lopez should not be placed in positions where their judgement could be called into question until they have received proper counselling and treatment.
Steele was at fault for placing Lopez in the situation as he would have known that she would be under strain. It was his job to be aware of these things.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 11:45:32 am
Is your argument that the flaw in Steele's command style is that he expects his human subordinates to perform as reliably and unquestionably as his technical systems?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Gray113 on February 05, 2013, 11:55:49 am
Yes and this means is that Lopez would not be fully held responsible for Neptune. Steele put her in that position knowing that she was emotionally compromised and as such he would have to answer for it.

Therefore Lopez would not be held culpable in her courtmarshal and would get of with an honorable discharge - if Steele let it get to a courtmarshal, he might want her to go quietly.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: General Battuta on February 05, 2013, 12:01:49 pm
A flag officer is expected to be ready for duty and able to ascertain when she cannot perform that duty. Lopez would definitely be courtmartialed and definitely be punished, perhaps severely. Whether or not Steele should have understood her psychological position, her rank demands that she obey the orders of her superiors, and explicitly defying or implicitly 'reinterpreting' those orders is a failure that can't go without recrimination.

Historians might well put some of the blame on Steele - certainly the Fedayeen strategy was predicated on understanding Steele's blindness in this regard - but the GTVA military justice system probably won't. GTVA flag officers are expected to be able to make extraordinary and decisive sacrifices if orders demand.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Drogoth on February 05, 2013, 01:02:23 pm
Quote
RIP Carthage, you deserved better.

She will have better - going out in a blaze of glory furfilling her original role of protecting Earth from hostile invaders. I can't think of a better ending for this legendary ship :)


Hardly, she will have been taken over by the puppets of Vishnan overlords. Whole new kind of invaders. The Tevs may be the 'invaders' but they are at least true Terran, influenced by their own objectives and phobias rather then the objectives and phobias of distant an difficult to understand aliens.

Also - I called in the Toutatis on my first run cus I thought it would look cool. I also cheered when it got bum rushed and summarily destroyed.

Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: An4ximandros on February 05, 2013, 01:11:16 pm
 The UED Solaris stand as an avatar of incomprehensible aliens (Vishnans) with manipulative motives within the UEF.

 I see what you did there.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Pred the Penguin on February 05, 2013, 05:44:41 pm
So... having strong personal feelings is a viable excuse to disobey direct orders? Damn, I gotta try that sometime! (kidding :nervous:)
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: QuakeIV on February 05, 2013, 06:43:38 pm
I think the general point is its possible to court marshal people for not behaving like machines in the military.  They only used humans because they needed thinking machines to run the show.  Lopez failed as a thinking machine because she let her emotions screw up the execution of direct orders.  Therefore court marshal.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: CT27 on February 05, 2013, 06:45:53 pm
So if Lopez makes it home (through a POW exchange or something), probably:

-Court martial
-Dishonorable discharge
-Retires to some backwater place
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: QuakeIV on February 05, 2013, 07:41:18 pm
I would have to guess that that would be the case, yes.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Klaustrophobia on February 05, 2013, 08:07:24 pm
do you actually court martial returned prisoners?  or do you just discharge/retire them? 
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Flak on February 05, 2013, 08:21:33 pm
I am not sure you can just send her to court martial though, sometimes circumstances left you no choice. I am sure that even Steele is more concerned that Calder managed to capture the Neptune station than losing the Carthage, since it gives the UEF a staging ground.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: CT27 on February 05, 2013, 08:27:02 pm
How often are the three UEF Admirals on their respective destroyers?

In other words, is there a chance that if/when a UEF destroyer goes down that a Fleet Admiral would still be alive?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Flak on February 05, 2013, 10:58:42 pm
Calder sounds like he is all over the place, while Byrne appears to be spending more time with the council than in his ship.

Oh, you may find it interesting that the Netreba (or rather the Eris) appears to have either the 'character shield', or a highly advanced ECM. In the beginning cutscene you can see the Marcus Glaive missed it at very close range. 
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: TwentyPercentCooler on February 05, 2013, 11:01:50 pm
I'm gonna have to fall on the side of a court martial and dishonorable discharge for Adm Lopez. She not only disobeyed a direct order from her superior, an order which contained absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever, she subsequently decided to feign communications failures. It's the second part that pushed it over the edge for me - it's a flat-out lie to her theater commander. That's a pretty big no-no.

Edit: assuming you didn't nuke the Carthage to kingdom come like I did.  ;7
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Flak on February 06, 2013, 12:10:42 am
Great, if that was the case, I'd probably defect if I were her.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Aesaar on February 06, 2013, 05:08:59 am
She didn't feign comms failure, her corvettes did when she presumably told them to leave, which they actually do if they still have their engines when she surrenders.
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Crybertrance on February 06, 2013, 08:32:07 am
She didn't feign comms failuire, her corvettes did when she presumably told them to leave, which they actually do if they still have their engines when she surrenders.

I don't think her Corvettes had Comms problems though...
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: MatthTheGeek on February 06, 2013, 08:40:32 am
...hence the "feign" part ?
Title: Re: UEF destroyers
Post by: Crybertrance on February 06, 2013, 09:15:06 am
...hence the "feign" part ?

Oh sorry, reading comprehension FAIL  :nono: