[Cyborg17]

Point 1: All points in a system are, for practical purposes, equidistant. There are no front lines and no rear areas as modern strategic thinking defines the terms; once the enemy has broken past the defenses at the jump node, he is free to maneuver in an unimaginably vast area of space.

I've actually been thinking about this point lately.  I recently reread the tech-entry on subspace and found that my assumption that they could jump anywhere was wrong, at least based on that information.  It also seems that it takes destroyers way too long to move between systems in the normal canon. (from my vague memory and not specifics.)  So, it seemed as if large ships having multiple short jumps is possible. Resupply rendezvous times could account for this as well, as could wing recall times.  Was there a clear example somewhere that clarified this point?

Edit: Clarifying my language.

[Bullhorn]

All good points, though in Bullhorn's favor the BP GTVA does escort its destroyers heavily and use multiple air wings in concert.

Exactly.
BPs common sense tactics are it's strongest point,  for me.

[JCDNWarrior]

Consider the specific peculiarities of the FS universe.

Point 1: All points in a system are, for practical purposes, equidistant. There are no front lines and no rear areas as modern strategic thinking defines the terms; once the enemy has broken past the defenses at the jump node, he is free to maneuver in an unimaginably vast area of space.

<snip>

Point 3: The menu of deployment options favours the defender, as he is able to picket his vulnerable points and able to concentrate his forces at a moment's notice should the enemy decide to attack any single one.

On a strategic level, combat then becomes a game of action and reaction, the attacker trying to force the defender away from certain positions and the defender trying to commit enough forces to battle to achieve a defeat in detail while not uncovering critical positions.

As mentioned upthread, a lot of this thinking is what is behind the actions of the GTVA in BP, based on our idea that the GTVA in FS1 and FS2 was operating on a "needs must when the devil drives" basis, rather than established doctrine, and made sure that that would not repeat itself here.

It looks similar to what I saw occurring in a online two-faction war game called AirRivals (Before that: Space Cowboys Online, among other names) where you would have either one and occasionally two hovering portals in and out of a map leading to another, which would result in the usual camping efforts, which when broken would usually mean retreat a whole map (system) within a minute to camp the next gate. Only when the map was the one containing a specific objective, which would randomly appear a few times each day, it would become a complete full scale air war with all defense units circled around the objective.

Difference there was that it wasn't as easy as in near infinite space to hide your fleet of bombers, as there were intrepid interceptor individuals that would patrol and give chase, though there were certainly attempts by people parking their bombers behind enemy lines and logging on when required. Also a difference in that the GTVA can't just give up ground that easily because there's no buffer zones like Gamma Draconis from what we know of.


Back to FS2 and BP, I would be surprised if the GTVA wouldn't dedicate almost all Mjolnirs and other defensive means to heavily reinforce every subspace node they control. Ideally AWACS units would also be permanently stationed there.

[General Battuta]

In BP nodes move somewhat erratically rather than obeying traditional orbital mechanics, so stationary fortifications have to be towed and redeployed, and big non-mobile forts are generally ineffective. I encourage most campaigns to adopt this bit of fluff, since it helps you dodge the frustrating conclusion that everybody should guard their nodes with huge balls of armor.

[JCDNWarrior]

That's a interesting way to handle that. I do wonder how the GTVA can keep track of the nodes if they move around as it would make it seem as though it would take a while (minutes, hours?) to 'find' the node's new location again, unless you mean the nodes having different entry/exit trajectories but a (near) same position within the system (and likely orbit around the star).

[NGTM-1R]

Their movements are predictable but not in line with traditional orbits; thus, you can't leave objects at them.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, and it kinda fits neatly with the Mjolnir, doesn't it? Nobody develops any real stationary node-denial defenses until it's possible to squeeze warship-killing firepower into a towable-size (and presumably burnout-prone, reaction-mass-limited, maintenance-hungry) package, because prior to that, anything big enough to threaten a warship would need to mount a subspace drive and pretty much be a warship itself.

[NGTM-1R]

That said, my own view on balls of armor is that somebody can always pack a ship full of enough antimatter to make the Gods of Boom ask if that's maybe a little overkill and send it one-way. The development of the meson bomb has only made this situation, and the blockade concept in general, worse.

The GTVA in at least one campaign I plotted actually did have watch installations at some nodes, but they were stationed at least 30km out so they were not immediately threatened by one-shot weapons systems or large bombs that emerged blind. It was also implied they were T-V War survivors and it was no longer considered desirable to build installations at subspace nodes.

[General Battuta]

Yeah but what do you do if it's literally a solid ball of armor? Does the subspace entry even work? Or are you trapped forever in an endless tunnel of

[Lorric]

Yeah but what do you do if it's literally a solid ball of armor? Does the subspace entry even work? Or are you trapped forever in an endless tunnel of

Oh man. Funny thought.

http://colonywars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_Platform

Build it, make it solid, and park it in front of the jump node. Of course, what happens if you want to use the node...

[NGTM-1R]

At the point you have a ball of armor large enough to prohibit anything exiting the node, I think it's safe to say that you've probably spent far more than you would on any kind of conventional defense just getting it there.


Alternately, that much mass would distort local subspace enough to move the node; you can never place a ball of solid armor in the node.

[Killer Whale]

Get a big rock, shoot it a few times until it moves (laser ablative propulsion), move it so that it ends up on top of a jump nice. It doesn't even need guns.

[JCDNWarrior]

To quickly add one more point or question on the feasability of Mjolnirs, if the Triton/other vessel that tows the Mjolnir just stays connected to it (even in the event of the Mjolnir being used for combat) and jumps/moves in accordance to the trajectory the node is going, would that be a feasible way to keep the RBC mobile or would there be other elements to take into consideration?

I do like the method that was described. Having warships defend and blockade the node seems more logical overall anyway, something where I would consider the broadside of the Orion to be ideal for despite it's age.

[Bullhorn]

Staying on topic a bit...

MW isn't really possible in FS2, as any targeted force can literally jump away, only to jump right back and become the attacker in turn. This just results in a sprawling hiccuping furball, ie Attrition.

MW is defined by speed and force against a target that cannot physically get out of the way quick enough,  or does not wish to (ie wants to "hold the line".  Holding a line in space is pointless and stupid.
The notes previously about standing off from nodes when defending reflect this point - better to view, react,  swarm the entering forces. 

A different theory that reflects the two tier speed system of FS universe is required - "Jump Warfare", anyone?

[Spoon]

There are plenty of objectives that you could think of for a holding the line senario. Like important industrial complexes, such as shipyards or refineries. Or space colonies and such. Things a side cannot afford to lose and thus will reinforce so much that a frontal assault by the opposite force will be extremely costly for them.
Also jump drives may not be capable of doing an endless series of jumps in rapid succession.

Or in other words, play BP cause they show how MW could be done in FS2.

[General Battuta]

It really depends on your assumptions about how fast drives recharge and how reliably and rapidly subspace jumps can be plotted. It's possible to create a set of rules that actually renders the limited scale and conservative deployments of FreeSpace tactical battles fairly plausible.

e: what spoon said

[Kiloku]

I've always heard of Attrition Warfare defined as something different. The gist of it is that, in attrition warfare, you focus on damaging the assets that do not engage in battle, but are important for the enemy, such as supply lines, production facilities, means of transport for the troops, etc. The idea would be to disable the enemy from actually engaging in combat, or forcing them to engage without resources to sustain a battle.

After reading this, I believe I am wrong (as I'm not even close to being as knowledgeable on the matter as you guys are), but now I want to know: What is this I've described called?

[yuezhi]

That's hardly the attrition i learned about. If WW1 worked like that, the battles and casualties would probably have ended up strikingly different.

[Lorric]

That's hardly the attrition i learned about. If WW1 worked like that, the battles and casualties would probably have ended up strikingly different.

I wondered about his question too but waited to see if anyone else would take a crack at it.

Attrition just means wearing something down. So there might be no right or wrong here. Though the common meaning I've encountered is indeed wiping out everything the enemy has.

If you destroy all the enemies vehicles, they have no vehicles.

If you kill all the crews, then those vehicles will just sit there.

If you destroy the fuel supply, then those vehicles will just sit there.

If you destory the ammo supply, then they'll be able to move but be little better than a gun with no bullets in it.

If you destroy the food supply, then those vehicles will just sit there after the soldiers die or are too weak to operate them.

It's still all the same, wear them down so you still have something and they don't, whether it's soldiers, vehicles, fuel, ammo, food...

[General Battuta]

I've always heard of Attrition Warfare defined as something different. The gist of it is that, in attrition warfare, you focus on damaging the assets that do not engage in battle, but are important for the enemy, such as supply lines, production facilities, means of transport for the troops, etc. The idea would be to disable the enemy from actually engaging in combat, or forcing them to engage without resources to sustain a battle.

After reading this, I believe I am wrong (as I'm not even close to being as knowledgeable on the matter as you guys are), but now I want to know: What is this I've described called?

You could probably call this 'strategic attrition', but no, it's not exactly attrition warfare, because it involves a strategic-level attack on the enemy's ability to make war. If anything, it's closer to maneuver warfare in that it attempts to defeat the enemy by locating and exploiting vital points rather than hammering surfaces and concentrations of force.