Author Topic: What should the GTVA's strategy be?  (Read 201235 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Drogoth

  • 28
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
I don't think it's written from the Tevs perspective. The only thing that implies that would be the 'colleague and respected friend, Admiral Chiwetel Steele' bit. That could easily be biting sarcasm... or maybe the Elders and the Security Council are playing a deeper game then we know.

Every single other bit implies that actually attempting to engage the shivans is futile by the logic of the author. That is NOT the Tev's strategy. They seek security through military means. The UEF, and a particular admiral in general, favor pacific deployments and whatever their secret project is. This sounds like the UEF backing up their own perspective on why they CAN survive against the Shivans, purely by refusing the fight them. If the Tev's plan was to plant a big cargo container filled with Meson bombs near every jump node, and just blow them up when the Shivans appeared, then maybe I could see this being from them.

But in BP, the Tevs are planning for a military response to the 'inevitable third incursion'. It's why they want earth's industrial capacity... make more warships.

If the conclusions held in the Nary easter egg were indeed from the Tev perspective, then either a) their intel types are totally ignored or b) The security council is retarded.

I think its a UEF perspective... i.e. why its on the Nary, rather then say, hidden in the Carthage's fighter bay for example.
TC 2 Fan club for Life

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
Remember that - as in the real world - all the governments and militaries in the BPverse contain competing schools of thought, with different interpretations of available intelligence, different policies they'd like to pursue, and different doctrines to advocate.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
The UEF never encountered Maras, either.

And the reason it isn't on a Tev ship is because all their capital ships are tilemapped ATM.

 

Offline crizza

  • 210
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
After my recent effort completely redesigning the Diomedes (which is only missing LODs and debris ATM.  All Uvmapped and textured), I enjoyed it so much I'm now strongly considering HTL-ing the rest of the Stratcomm fleet (well, the ships used in BP.  no redesign, just higher poly models and UVmapped textures).  Promises might not be worth much, but I am looking at doing it after exams.  I'm also not sure about the policy on HTLing someone else's ships.  Don't want to step on any toes.
Can you show as a WIP? Perhaps in another thread?

 

Offline qwadtep

  • 28
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
Every single other bit implies that actually attempting to engage the shivans is futile by the logic of the author. That is NOT the Tev's strategy. They seek security through military means.
Security, not victory. The Tevs know that winning is impossible and are just entrenching themselves in hopes of weathering the next incursion without any stars blowing up.

 

Offline Drogoth

  • 28
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
The UEF never encountered Maras, either.

And the reason it isn't on a Tev ship is because all their capital ships are tilemapped ATM.

A high level Admiral defected, he may have had access to data on the Mara. Can't rule out that they have it.
TC 2 Fan club for Life

  

Offline -Norbert-

  • 211
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
But in BP, the Tevs are planning for a military response to the 'inevitable third incursion'. It's why they want earth's industrial capacity... make more warships.
If you think that "military response" is to go on the offensive and crush the Shivans, then you are wrong. Their whole strategy of countering the Shivan IS blowing up the nodes with meson bombs. The reason why they want to maintain such a big fleet isn't to defeat the Shivans, it's to buy time.

Even with all their advancements the GTVA made, they still couldn't hold off the Sathanas fleet, even if the Shivans don't bring anything new to the battle and the GTVA knows that. But as FS2 showed enough force can push the Shivans back temporarily. Not defeated or held of indefinately, but pushed back far and long enough to cut off their access route, before important terretory is lost.


The UEF never encountered Maras, either.

And the reason it isn't on a Tev ship is because all their capital ships are tilemapped ATM.

A high level Admiral defected, he may have had access to data on the Mara. Can't rule out that they have it.
So you're saying Admiral Bei spray painted that message onto the insides of the Nara? :P

 

Offline qwadtep

  • 28
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
So you're saying Admiral Bei spray painted that message onto the insides of the Nara? :P
Serkret project! Serkret project!

 

Offline Drogoth

  • 28
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
No i was saying its an easter egg that MAY be written from the PERSPECTIVE of the UEF.

I was opposed by saying the UEF had no info on the Mara.

To which I responded they may very well actually have that data.

But hey, maybe Bei has a passion fr large scale calligraphy :P
TC 2 Fan club for Life

 

Offline -Norbert-

  • 211
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
To clarify my previous comment about Admiral Bei, in Glados' words: "That was a joke... haha... fat chance!"

 

Offline Crybertrance

  • 29
  • Conventional warheads only, no funny business
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
To clarify my previous comment about Admiral Bei, in Glados' words: "That was a joke... haha... fat chance!"

And to continue (courtesy GLaDOS): "Anyway, this Bei is great, its so delicious and moist"
<21:08:30>   Hartzaden fires a slammer at Cybertrance
<21:09:13>   Crybertrance pops flares, but wonders how Hartzaden acquired aspect lock on a stealth fighter... :\
<21:11:58>   *** The_E joined #bp [email protected]
21:11:58   +++ ChanServ has given op to The_E
<21:12:58>   Hartzaden continues to paint crybertrance and feeding the info to a wing of gunships
<21:14:07>   Crybertrance sends emergency "IM GETING MY ASS KICKED HERE!!!!eleventy NEED HELPZZZZ" to 3rd fleet command
<21:14:50>   Hartzaden jamms the transmission.
<21:14:51>   The_E explodes the sun

 

Offline BritishShivans

  • Jolly good supernova
  • 29
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
That's called cannibalism, actually. It's frowned upon in most cultures.  :pimp:

 

Offline Buckshee Rounds

  • 29
  • Lord Defecator
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
Well it's an AI talking singing about eating an extra-terrestrial human so debatable perhaps. ;)

Nice name btw.  :cool: Nothing like tea and crumpets with your supernova.

 

Offline CT27

  • 211
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
People here have argued that the GTVA won't send another destroyer to Sol (I think one more would be a good idea but that's not particularly what I'm arguing for here); how about something 'halfway'?  I.e., rotate out one of the Hecates and send in a better destroyer (Raynor or Titan)?  That would still be an improvement I think.

 

Offline crizza

  • 210
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
Hm, I guess the point was allready discussed.
How many Raynor and Titans were build?
Three each?
the Orestes and Temeraire won't be send to Sol after this whole mutinity thing, and the other two(wasn't one named Electra?) are properbly stationed around Capella.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
If new Raynors are introduced either in P2 or BP3, I hope they'll keep the current naming scheme of naming them after members of the house of Atreus.  So Menelaus, Agamemnon, Thyestes, Electra, etc.  Kinda like both Titans have been named after late 17th century British ships of the line.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2012, 10:42:10 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline qwadtep

  • 28
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
Well it's an AI talking singing about eating an extra-terrestrial human so debatable perhaps. ;)

Well, the Fed economy is controlled by incredibly precise simulations...

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
People here have argued that the GTVA won't send another destroyer to Sol (I think one more would be a good idea but that's not particularly what I'm arguing for here); how about something 'halfway'?  I.e., rotate out one of the Hecates and send in a better destroyer (Raynor or Titan)?  That would still be an improvement I think.

As NGTM1R has noted repeatedly, the GTVA does have the ability to surge additional ships into the system via the node, possibly for an extended period of time. If and when they see fit to do so again is still up in the air.

 

Offline -Norbert-

  • 211
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
There is no question wether the GTVA can send another destroyer into Sol. The real question is wether the benefits of such an action outweight the costs and/or risks of doing it.

 

Offline Buckshee Rounds

  • 29
  • Lord Defecator
Re: What should the GTVA's strategy be?
Well they need destroyers to patrol 'trouble' systems (probably the former NTF ones like Polaris and Sirius) and ships for reactionary forces in case of Shivans. Those are probably the 'war ready' ships, ones that are fully supplied with ammo, fighters and such. Whatever is left is probably waiting on rotation or mothballed awaiting reactivation (in case of Shivs). Regardless, any ship that gets the call will probably have to be fitted with theatre specific gear and kitted out before being deployed, all of which must cost a bomb. The only case where a ship could be sent straight out is if the conflict is low level, which this sure ain't.  :cool: Hell even peacekeeping forces in real life militaries get extensive training and specific gear before going out and none of that is cheap or quick to do.

It's all well and good saying "we haz 24 destys harr harr harr" but in reality probably no more than a third to a half would ever be actively deployed at an absolute maximum and even then not all of those would be sent to the same system (bottlenecking of supplies and such). If you ask me 5 destroyers is already a little excessive, not just because it's more than enough to get the job done, but because supplying all of those must be hell.