[Gray113]

Like I said if Steele wins then its game over - not much point discussing that from a what happens afterwards other than accepting the surrender of what is left of the UEF military

[Gray113]

Unless Byrne decides that protecting the secret project is more importiant than Earth.... 

[CT27]

I don't think Steele's stupid or ignorant of what's going on around him.  What I mean is, even though it's probably not his first choice, he probably knows that the GTVA needs to win as soon as possible and has thought of a 'plan B' where he has to do a rushed attack.

[Gray113]

But in act 3 we found out that the Fed intelligence are capable of matching Steele's strategic planning and of forcing him to make errors.

Will the knowledge of this make him less confident in his own actions - will he be second guessing himself from now on or will he continue as before and risk being caught out again like at Neptune?

[General Battuta]

But in act 3 we found out that the Fed intelligence are capable of matching Steele's strategic planning and of forcing him to make errors.

Will the knowledge of this make him less confident in his own actions - will he be second guessing himself from now on or will he continue as before and risk being caught out again like at Neptune?

This has to be the biggest question on his mind right now. All of a sudden he's got a fleet riddled with enemy agents and someone on the other side is playing on his level.

[Gray113]

I thought that was the whole point of act 3 - the deconstruction of the myth of Steele.

Once it is shown that the fleet can strike back against the GTVA fleet and win it changes the whole outlook for the player and gives the impression that the UEF still have a chance.

Then it shows the GTVA fleet at the end and that sinking feeling comes back....   

[Ryuseiken]

Steele does prove himself extremely effective at finding those enemy agents though, if the HoL operative in the dreamscape is any indication, and they still can't match him in terms of resources especially since they've already used all the HoL viruses during act 3.

[Legate Damar]

There doesn't seem to be any reason why any of them would treat humanity as anything other than pawns on a board of bone (had to throw that in there)

From my understanding, you humans can live with being pawns if the game makes sense.

[Gray113]

can live with being pawns if the game makes sense

Worst line in the game. I cringed the first time I heard that.

[General Battuta]

No way, that line owns :colbert:

[Apollo]

I was unable to play Tenebra until my friend let me use his computer.

I freed the Gefs, and I didn't regret it later on.

I thought the mission where you fly the Custos was brilliant.

I thought "Her Finest Hour" was very difficult, and I accepted the Carthage's surrender.

"Universal Truth" unnerved me a little, but it wasn't really scary.

[crazy_dave]

But I think Gray has some good points about the possibility of an uprising in the GTVA.

Aye, Kursk as a turning point was only a good analogy up to a point because Kursk solidified the Russians gaining the upper hand militarily. Ignoring the secret project (which itself is not entirely militaristic according to our information so far), a UEF military victory in Steele's final attack has to be big enough to cause a political victory within the GTA - force them to reconsider because the population won't support the war or even actively revolts against the leadership. In terms of simple numbers and units, the UEF is still going to be outmatched even if they do pull off a military victory.

There doesn't seem to be any reason why any of them would treat humanity as anything other than pawns on a board of bone (had to throw that in there)

From my understanding, you humans can live with being pawns if the game makes sense.

The E
I would agree in the short term but mid/long term?

If the battle of Earth is lost then its game over both sides know this - will Steele know when to withdraw if he is losing? Will this even be a possability?

If (and it is a big IF) The UEF can inflict heavy enough casualties on the GTVA forces whilst preserving enough of their own strength then what is to stop them from rebuilding? Is there a shortage of resources in Sol that so far has not been talked about or some other reason that their greater manufacturing ability will not be able to allow them to catch up?

I would actually look at it the other way - the Japanese navy was stronger at the start of the conflict but the USA was able to replace losses and exploit R&D breakthroughs in order build an advantage over time. A position that I feel would be comperable to the UEF  - IF they manage to defeat Steele's assault

P.S sorry for hijacking the thread

I also apologize.

Arguing which analogy is best is always tough because as much as things fit, too many others generally don't. The US Navy in the beginning was actually just as powerful than their Japanese counterparts, the Americans just didn't understand how to use what they had as effectively. The Japanese also had the initiative, but were unable to translate that into total victory and were unable to harm US infrastructure. Eventually, as you say, the US rebuilt stronger and better and after that it was only a matter of time. The Allied tanks and equipment were better than their German counterpart's in the very beginning of the war, but the Germans knew how to use what they had so much more effectively.

In contrast, the UEF are just completely outmatched. I think they do tore down the myth of Steele somewhat, but the GTA have many more destroyers, fighters, and battlegroups, overall better tech, etc ..., have well trained, determined soldiers, and even their worst commanders don't appear to be stupid. As you said, the view of the battlegroups arrayed at Jupiter is quite the sight ... and that's still not even close to what the GTA could bring to bear if they really, really wanted to ... (and could afford to politically)

------------

Of course another thing to keep in mind is that the UEF and GTA are not each other's true enemies - extinction is. At the moment each side believes the other is a threat to the extinction of the human race. If the true enemy of extinction does rear its head, that will necessitate a change in the dynamics beyond a UEF or GTA victory.

[crazy_dave]

Speaking of Vasudans, they could use some newer designs and weapons in their fighters and cap ships too. C'mon BP team, show 'em some love! /sillymode - in seriousness, the new BP ship designs are really good, so I'd love to see them tackle new Vasudan fighters and cap ships beyond massive transports, but they may not have the time/resources to do so which given the massive undertaking is more than reasonable.

You're asking to the wrong people. Most of the assets used in BP were not made by or for BP. Go ask the rest of the community why they are too lazy to make more quality Zod ships !

You know, now that I read that I realized I had been told that before and had forgotten. To be fair it was two years ago ... 

[CT27]

The first release of War In Heaven seemed to present a balance of both sides militarily.  The UEF had some tactical successes but so did the GTVA.  Act III seemed to skew somewhat toward the UEF.  The GTVA still seems to have the overall initiative, but the loss of the Carthage and Neptune was a boon for the UEF.

It will be interesting to see which way Act IV goes.  Unless the GTVA is stupid (I hope they won't be), with the additional destroyers they should be able to keep the initiative and have some more victories.

[General Battuta]

The first release of War In Heaven seemed to present a balance of both sides militarily.  The UEF had some tactical successes but so did the GTVA.  Act III seemed to swing things totally in favor of the UEF; except for the ending scene, I don't remember any good notes for the GTVA or any successes they had tactically/militarily.

It will be interesting to see which way Act IV goes.  Unless the GTVA is stupid (I hope they won't be), with the additional destroyers they should be able to keep the initiative and have some more victories.

Man I could not disagree more with this post.

[crazy_dave]

The first release of War In Heaven seemed to present a balance of both sides militarily.  The UEF had some tactical successes but so did the GTVA.  Act III seemed to swing things totally in favor of the UEF; except for the ending scene, I don't remember any good notes for the GTVA or any successes they had tactically/militarily.

It will be interesting to see which way Act IV goes.  Unless the GTVA is stupid (I hope they won't be), with the additional destroyers they should be able to keep the initiative and have some more victories.

I'd say that overall the first two games swung pretty heavily in favor of the GTA - the UEF had some victories to be sure, but overall the GTA came out very far ahead. Remember there were only about 5 actual missions in Part 3 and they were all with the Fedayeen. In the Dreamscape, they mention once or twice that other battles have not gone so well for the UEF during the same period of time. These were crucial engagements but in many respects more of an evening of the scales (not even quite) given the heavy losses the UEF has otherwise taken.

[CT27]

I apologize for the hyperbole in my post.  I edited it to make it sound somewhat more reasonable at least.

[crazy_dave]

That is not true. If given the choice, Steele would rather keep bleeding the UEF dry - that would be the wiser strategy for the GTVA if they could afford the time, one that ensures victory with minimal losses. That is the exact strategy Severanti has been employing for 18 months and the results of this strategy enabled Steele to plow through 3rd Fleet with minimal resistance.

But the GTVA can't afford to follow this wise but lengthy strategy. Shivan incursion could happen at any time. Civil unrest is brewing at home. And last but not least, the Project, whatever it is, is getting closer to completion. The Tev must end the war as quickly as possible. Their decision to deploy four more battlegroups is clearly a calculated, but major gamble born of desperation to end the war now, and because of that they will sustain losses. Because UEF logistical collapse is still weeks/months away. Because Byrne has saved the near entirety of 1st Fleet's strength. Because Netreba is barely bloodied, and that Calder is more than willing to hit where it will hurt the most, and still able to do so. And because the Fedayeen are now on the loose.

Steele's is using more agressive tactics to end the war swiftly, but this does not come without a price. It is, in fact, a massive gamble. Steele sustained significant losses during Earth' Blitz, and four more battlegroups or not, genius or not, another attack on Earth as predicted by Cassandra will lead to more losses. What remains to be seen is how large those losses will be.

Wars of attrition typical generally cost more in lives than direct action, they just do it over a longer period of time. Direct, aggressive action is more risky and if you fail you may have spent more lives in vain if your side can win by attrition. Attrition is safer if you can face the "horrifying arithmetic". For instance, had Gallipoli worked, the Brits would've still lost a lot of men in that engagement, but they would've knocked Turkey out of the war in one blow. That would've meant saving tens of thousands of lives in the end. However, mostly due to some incompetence on the British commanders and partially due to some tenacious Turkish defending (Attaturk), it failed and many lives were lost and the Brits never broke out of their foothold there, costing even more lives. Both sides in the American Civil War thought they could win be direct action, when it became clear to the North that wasn't going to happen they finally adopted the Anaconda strategy which had been proposed from the beginning but rejected because they had thought a war of attrition was unnecessary against the South.

So direct action like Steele is taking is certainly riskier, but if it works, fewer lives will have been lost than integrated over time in a war of attrition.

[General Battuta]

I don't think that the first release presented a balance of both sides militarily at all. The UEF got routed.

[CT27]

That is not true. If given the choice, Steele would rather keep bleeding the UEF dry - that would be the wiser strategy for the GTVA if they could afford the time, one that ensures victory with minimal losses. That is the exact strategy Severanti has been employing for 18 months and the results of this strategy enabled Steele to plow through 3rd Fleet with minimal resistance.

But the GTVA can't afford to follow this wise but lengthy strategy. Shivan incursion could happen at any time. Civil unrest is brewing at home. And last but not least, the Project, whatever it is, is getting closer to completion. The Tev must end the war as quickly as possible. Their decision to deploy four more battlegroups is clearly a calculated, but major gamble born of desperation to end the war now, and because of that they will sustain losses. Because UEF logistical collapse is still weeks/months away. Because Byrne has saved the near entirety of 1st Fleet's strength. Because Netreba is barely bloodied, and that Calder is more than willing to hit where it will hurt the most, and still able to do so. And because the Fedayeen are now on the loose.

Steele's is using more agressive tactics to end the war swiftly, but this does not come without a price. It is, in fact, a massive gamble. Steele sustained significant losses during Earth' Blitz, and four more battlegroups or not, genius or not, another attack on Earth as predicted by Cassandra will lead to more losses. What remains to be seen is how large those losses will be.

Wars of attrition typical generally cost more in lives than direct action, they just do it over a longer period of time. Direct, aggressive action is more risky and if you fail you may have spent more lives in vain if your side can win by attrition. Attrition is safer if you can face the "horrifying arithmetic". For instance, had Gallipoli worked, the Brits would've still lost a lot of men in that engagement, but they would've knocked Turkey out of the war in one blow. That would've meant saving tens of thousands of lives in the end. However, mostly due to some incompetence on the British commanders and partially due to some tenacious Turkish defending (Attaturk), it failed and many lives were lost and the Brits never broke out of their foothold there, costing even more lives. Both sides in the American Civil War thought they could win be direct action, when it became clear to the North that wasn't going to happen they finally adopted the Anaconda strategy which had been proposed from the beginning but rejected because they had thought a war of attrition was unnecessary against the South.

So direct action like Steele is taking is certainly riskier, but if it works, fewer lives will have been lost than integrated over time in a war of attrition.

Since you brought up the American Civil War:  wasn't it eventually Grant's and Sherman's aggressive actions that convinced the South to surrender?  McClellan's more timid actions in the earlier parts of the war I've heard argued extended the war by a year or two.