[Dilmah G]

Your complaints are more related to mission design rather than command decisions.

I disagree, things like the number of Allied Fighters and Bombers deployed, they are COMMAND DECISIONS. I admit I got a little bit into what should've been mission design/Shivan behaviour.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Your complaints are more related to mission design rather than command decisions.

I disagree, things like the number of Allied Fighters and Bombers deployed, they are COMMAND DECISIONS. I admit I got a little bit into what should've been mission design/Shivan behaviour.

Maybe the small number of forces was due to a lack of resouces. I believe at that time the GTVA was still engaged against the NTF and the Nebula had only limited forces.


Besides, you may think Command is stupid for sending 2 wings and a corvette against a destroyer but think about the after action report.

GTVA High Command: "so our task force in the Nebula took down that new Shivan destroyer today?"
Subordinate: "correct sir, it's all in the report."
HC: "And we only lost 7 combat craft in the action?"
Subordinate: "yes sir."
HC: "Brilliant. Tell the local strategists to keep up the good work. If all our commanders could accomplish so much with so little we'd have already ended this rebellion!"

[Dilmah G]

Mm, well remember, the Hecate houses x number of squadrons, 7 ships isn't even half a squadron, and eight ships is the max in most missions anyway for the GTVA.

Fair enough with the after action report I guess.. But basic logic

Escort Fighters

Countered with: Alpha 1

Primary Objective

Countered with : Alpha 1

The man can't do everything . It's basic principle to have at least a 3 - 1 ratio of your fighters vs. theirs. I mean, numerical superiority is great, but 3 for every one of ours is the standard these days IIRC.

[deathfun]

It'd be no fun to watch Alpha 2 or 3 do more work then you

It just wouldn't make any sense!

[S-99]

this "advice" also makes me question Command's intelligence:

Avoid the beam and you won't get hit, pilot!

The pilot who started up all the dialogue about all of that beam fire did it to himself to get a quick to the point if partially sarcastic response with "don't fly around the beams". It seems to me that sometimes when people ask mundane questions that they may get mundane answers.

No, don't doubt commands intelligence giving solid advice to a clueless wingman of yours

[NGTM-1R]

It'd be no fun to watch Alpha 2 or 3 do more work then you

It just wouldn't make any sense!

Hey, you're still taking down that giant floating spikey death ship. It's called teamwork. And it's very important, because it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

[QuantumDelta]

Command also has a tactical problem with extremes.

It either overly relies on capital ships (any description), or it overly relies on fighters, or it overly relies on bombers.

Perhaps influenced by the way I play the game but from my perspective with very few exclusions over all three :V: campaigns, the GT(V)A rarely has a cohesive and strategically organised tactical plan except on defensive missions where they're forced to commit everything they have.

The only exception to this that I can think of (really, only) is the mission you lose the Colossus.

[Scotty]

Slaying the Ravana has a nice mixed effort to it.  They lose, what a destroyer at least, with (depending on how you fare) a corvette and two cruisers backing it up?  Along with several fighter wings and two bomber wings?

TBH, I think a lot of it has to do with what computers were expected to handle back then.  I mean, really, It's nice now to have a half-dozen capships beaming it out, but I doubt a computer back then could take it AND a fighter furball (which tend to end badly for whichever side you AREN'T on, regardless of difficulty or numbers).  Anything else, and it reduces performance.

Finally, does anyone remember what the biggest complaint (that I could see) for Exposition was?  You didn't FIX anything.  You flew around and watched gigantic ship battles.  DOING the important stuff is what people want to play the game for.  If you take that away, what reason is there to play?

When you apply that reasoning to Command (granted, it's not in-game reasoning) the decisions all make sense.

[QuantumDelta]

Play Rebel's Bluff (Multi mission made by Cetanu) and tell me fighters are unimportant to capship battles.
He put together an excellent mission that honestly, I haven't seen duplicated (scale/coordination required/sheer scope) anywhere 'cept ST:R and BP (*Still playing through all the user made content).
BP has a couple missions which beat it hands down, AA has /one/ mission where it's verging on your comment.
(*I r open to list of suggestions for others).

But seriously, fleet combat includes ships from all ranges, and if you think you'd be useless in big ship battles you really haven't paid enough attention to the coops we've flown together.
We (and, by We, I mean myself and anyone like The_E who coordinates really well with the rest of the wing that you've seen in action) absolutely dominate the course of events throughout the battle, and that's REQUIRED in Cetanu's missions, because he designed those missions with people like us in mind.

It doesn't matter if there's 2 dozen fighters between you and your objective, and they're unimportant to your objective, your objective needs to be completed for the mission to succeed otherwise your capship goes bye bye, that objective is regularly beams/bombers/other tactical objectives.

Strategy is not something devised by pilots, nor should they be able to instigate strategy, tactics, are pilots turf, strategy can react to tactical advantage, disadvantage or stalemate, but it is the admiral/command/etc's responsibility, not the pilots.

[CP5670]

I think you have a different mission in mind. Rebel's Bluff wasn't made by Cetanu and is not particularly hard (or good, for that matter).

[deathfun]

Hey, you're still taking down that giant floating spikey death ship. It's called teamwork. And it's very important, because it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

I tried to get them to shoot at things, but noooo

They wanted to go do... well... whatever it was they were doing. I am to this day not entirely sure what they were doing when I ordered them to go "Attack Beam Cannon"

[Akalabeth Angel]

Command also has a tactical problem with extremes.

It either overly relies on capital ships (any description), or it overly relies on fighters, or it overly relies on bombers.

Perhaps influenced by the way I play the game but from my perspective with very few exclusions over all three :V: campaigns, the GT(V)A rarely has a cohesive and strategically organised tactical plan except on defensive missions where they're forced to commit everything they have.

The only exception to this that I can think of (really, only) is the mission you lose the Colossus.

What about Feint Parry Riposte where you have to draw off enemy fighters and lure them to your cruiser? Or the scan the Sathanas mission where they deploy a Sobek to distract the enemy while you go in and do your thing. There are lots of examples of co-ordinated capital ship-fighter missions. Just because there's no big task force or "fleet" as command calls it in . . . Their Finest Hour, doesn't make the other mission invalid.

[Dilmah G]

Strategy is not something devised by pilots, nor should they be able to instigate strategy, tactics, are pilots turf, strategy can react to tactical advantage, disadvantage or stalemate, but it is the admiral/command/etc's responsibility, not the pilots.

I know this isn't really relevant to what everyone else is on about,  but I strongly disagree. Leadership/Officer suitability is a key factor in modern-day pilot selection for precisely the opposite reason. Pilots need to be able to devise and execute strategies in a constantly changing environment, I'm not talking major fleet movements and where to deploy forces, I'm talking "Okay Alpha, target the fighters, Beta, I want you to draw fire by assaulting the Ravana's flak cannons. Gamma Wing, follow me in, those beam cannons are ours!" If pilots were unable to devise and change strategies in the midst of a dogfight, your entire squadron is going to have its head up its ass when the enemy do something as simple as deploying reinforcements. Fair enough, Command and its Admirals have a job to play, but as soon as the aircraft are deployed, Fighter Controllers/Air Combat Officers working with Squadron Leaders take over responsibility for what happens in real-time.

Bottom Line: PILOTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SMALL-SCALE STRATEGY. [/rant]

[The E]

Umm. Small-scale strategies is exactly what QD was talking about. They are also commonly referred to as tactics.

[NGTM-1R]

He also referred directly to tactics.

Bluntly FS is not equipped to handle your having tactical command, though you can rise as high as a squadron commander. You really should been planning your Blue Lions missions in addition to executing them, and you probably should have had authority over anything up to a cruiser on the scene.

[Dilmah G]

Oh, I'm an idiot, I read his closing statement as something along the lines of:

Strategy is not something devised by pilots, nor should they be able to instigate strategy, tactics, are pilots turf, strategy can react to tactical advantage, disadvantage or stalemate, but it is the admiral/command/etc's responsibility, not the pilots.

And completely missed the point of what he was saying. *Facepalm*

Carry on.

He also referred directly to tactics.

Bluntly FS is not equipped to handle your having tactical command, though you can rise as high as a squadron commander. You really should been planning your Blue Lions missions in addition to executing them, and you probably should have had authority over anything up to a cruiser on the scene.

I agree, maybe not cruisers though, depending on the rank of the CO (Keeping with Navy traditions, they're generally Captains anyway IIRC). I think the cruisers would've been taking orders from Command rather than a Squadron Leader, since Command takes the role of a modern day ACO/Fighter Controller. The Squadron Leader would generally have a bit too much on his plate to plan a proper course of action that would make sense to a Cruiser Skipper.

[QuantumDelta]

I think you have a different mission in mind. Rebel's Bluff wasn't made by Cetanu and is not particularly hard (or good, for that matter).

Odd_M03.fs2 - Rebel's Bluff.
So, not Cetanu in origin, but he worked on it a lot as part of his CP3 management, blurry lines in my memory ;\
We disagree on how good it is, in regards to how hard it is, depends on who you're flying with.
Two reliable players can do it well together even on insane, but lesser players might not be able to do all the objectives even in groups of 5 or 6.

[TrashMan]

What about Feint Parry Riposte where you have to draw off enemy fighters and lure them to your cruiser?

I dislike missions that are centered around enemy stupidity (logic-wise, not AI).

"Oh, we are under attack by fighters! Morons are moving into the AAf range of our cruisers.....oh wait, now they are runign away. Escort fighters, after them!... oh, they are runing back towards their crusier. Continue pursuit! Yes, we know you're moving into their AAAf range and that we're too far away to support you. Yes, I realise we should call in some bombers instead, but don't you realise NTF is stupid by now pilot? Now go and die for our glory!!!"

[karajorma]

The NTF is composed pretty much of racists and xenophobes. What part of that led you to expect them to be intelligent?

[General Battuta]

Honestly, I don't think it's a bad call. I'd give pretty even odds on 8 Hercs over two Herc IIs and a cruiser. Or was it twelve Hercs?