Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
page 83 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:31 am
Posts: 581
Post Re: page 83
Arioch wrote:
As you point out, the Umiak force has built up substantial momentum that will carry them well past the Loroi formation and would take some 15 minutes or so to cancel out. The Umiak commander can choose to brake for another pass, or continue accelerating away from the Loroi to disengage. In either case, the Loroi cruisers will want to "pursue" them for a short distance to extend the amount of time that the Umiak are in pulse cannon range, even they can't "catch" them; these are just free shots for the Loroi to which the Umiak can't respond. In the case that the Umiak are braking to renew the engagement (as the Loroi expect them to do), the pursuit can indeed catch them.

As to the issue of command procedure, page 84 should clear this up somewhat, but we can expect that these are veteran commanders who have done this many times before, and have standing orders and regular procedures for such an engagement; Stillstorm only needs to tell them what is different for this particular engagement. The fact that they are making bets on the outcome is meant to convey how ordinary such engagements are for them.


Mmm. If I were the Umiak commander (and utilizing the typical Umiak naval doctrine in respect to losses) I would have ordered the heavies and medium vessels with energy weapons to flip over and start decelerating "in block" the moment they charged through the Loroi line. It would keep them longer in range of the the Loroi, which should still be in the minority in number of vessels. It should also keep the Loroi on their toes because they can't point their bows too long to the receding Umiak force of fear of coming in range of the Umiak heavy weapons, so the pursuing vessels would need to turn back to the Bellarmine location the sooner.

Momentum definitely is tricky stuff in combat. :D

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:03 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2308
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: page 83
GeoModder wrote:
I would have ordered the heavies and medium vessels with energy weapons to flip over and start decelerating "in block" the moment they charged through the Loroi line. It would keep them longer in range of the the Loroi, which should still be in the minority in number of vessels.

Yes, this would also be standard procedure.

_________________
Outsider


Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:54 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:31 am
Posts: 581
Post Re: page 83
Guess that makes me a mediocre tactician. :geek:

_________________
Image


Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:26 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:01 am
Posts: 306
Post Re: page 83
bunnyboy wrote:
manticore7 wrote:
TrashMan wrote:
Even among very loose and liberal humans, such actions by CAPTAINS in the middle of a battle would be unheard of.

maybe, me I think such banter is a great way to easy some of the tension and like icekatze said the worste of the battle seems to have passed.

Hard work needs harder humour.


This is something I might expect from lower-ranking personnel.
Things are less formal in the lower ranks.

Captains have a certain profesional level of conduct they should mantain. It just seems...wrong.


Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:20 pm
Posts: 176
Post Re: page 83
Remember that this is a warrior culture, and that these captains have been serving together in high-stress environments for a long time. A certain amount of informality is probably to be expected.


Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2308
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: page 83
GeoModder wrote:
Guess that makes me a mediocre tactician.

Does it? I don't think being an exceptional tactican has anything to do with inventing maneuvers that no one has thought of before. The Napoleons and Nelsons of history were successful not because they had trick tactics, but because they had a solid grasp of tactical fundamentals, they had a good sense of what the enemy was trying to do and how to counter it and avoid being surprised, and above all, they were aggressive and kept the initiative. One of the foundations of being aggressive is the confidence in the superiority of your own forces; when you've trained an elite corps and you have confidence that they can beat an opposing force nose to nose with even odds, then it's much easier to take risks.

Napoleon's standard battle plan was very simple; he'd throw his elite infantry directly at the enemy's center, and rely on them to do enough damage so that the enemy would have to commit his reserves to hold the line, and thus become potentially vulnerable to flanking maneuvers or other line penetrations. This tactic only works if you know your troops are superior to the enemy's. Similarly, Nelson abandoned the traditional battle line at Trafalgar and had his ships just charge the enemy line head-on, because he knew his ships and crews were superior, and that they could survive the initial broadsides of the French and Spanish line and then chew them to bits at close range. And once he did this, the individual British ships were totally out of his control; he was relying totally on the abilities of his captains and their crews.

_________________
Outsider


Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:19 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:03 am
Posts: 785
Location: Quebec, Canada
Post Re: page 83
CptWinters wrote:
A certain amount of informality is probably to be expected.


that and their mental ability make them really close to each other. closer at least than someone you just talk to from time to time.


Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:23 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:37 am
Posts: 55
Post Re: page 83
TrashMan wrote:
This is something I might expect from lower-ranking personnel.
Things are less formal in the lower ranks.

Captains have a certain profesional level of conduct they should mantain. It just seems...wrong.


that's to be expected from a human point of view.

but to act with a " profesional level of conduct" takes tact and the ablity to hold in one emotion, two things Loroi do not have. remember page 62 the loroi wear their hearts on their sleeves and so hold nothing back.

looking at it from that point of view it makes sense.


Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:15 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:53 pm
Posts: 85
Post Re: page 83
Off Arioch

Remember that the Loroi repair their ships and that a given Loroi fleet is more likely to have seen combat than an Umiak fleet (as so many Umiak fleets are destroyed, or at the very least so many Umiak fleets suffer significant losses). Add this to the fact that Umiak are assigned to ships like parts and that they are individually considered dispensable and it's not hard to see that the Loroi are more like a small well trained force and the Umiak are more like hordes of disposable troops...

-O


Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:00 pm
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 927
Post Re: page 83
osmium wrote:
the Loroi are more like a small well trained force and the Umiak are more like hordes of disposable troops...


Russians vs. Germans in WW2.


Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:24 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:31 am
Posts: 581
Post Re: page 83
Arioch wrote:
GeoModder wrote:
Guess that makes me a mediocre tactician.

Does it? I don't think being an exceptional tactican has anything to do with inventing maneuvers that no one has thought of before. The Napoleons and Nelsons of history were successful not because they had trick tactics, but because they had a solid grasp of tactical fundamentals, they had a good sense of what the enemy was trying to do and how to counter it and avoid being surprised, and above all, they were aggressive and kept the initiative. One of the foundations of being aggressive is the confidence in the superiority of your own forces; when you've trained an elite corps and you have confidence that they can beat an opposing force nose to nose with even odds, then it's much easier to take risks.


I used the " :geek: " smilie for a reason. It was more of a ironic response. ;)
In any case, I'm trying to anticipate what the Tempest will do in respect to those retreating Umiak. I keep thinking of Stillstorms line: "This attack is NOT the full enemy force."

_________________
Image


Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 am
Posts: 780
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Re: page 83
Arioch wrote:
GeoModder wrote:
Guess that makes me a mediocre tactician.

Does it? I don't think being an exceptional tactican has anything to do with inventing maneuvers that no one has thought of before.

man Blitzkrieg. WW2. Fast tanks vs. Maginot-line. ;)

_________________
sapere aude.


Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:38 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:20 pm
Posts: 176
Post Re: page 83
"Going around" is not exactly a new invention.


Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:34 pm
Posts: 441
Post Re: page 83
osmium wrote:
Arioch already stated as much, but I'll rephrase and add a little on because I'm not sure we've covered this in the forum V2.

Combat in outsider is sort of interesting. In order to actually close you need a difference in velocity, but at the distances and accelerations in question the resulting velocity takes both quite some time to achieve and quite some time to undo. As a result unless there are positions that one needs to defend or limitations on where one needs to go (read jump out of the system after just jumping in) both sides need to decide to engage for there to be combat as either side can independently decide to not engage and can usually accomplish that task. Note that this is slightly less true for the Loroi as they can outrun the Umiak (although the Umiak have more staying power due to more efficient engines).
The result is that combat tends to be a number of jousts where there is a velocity differential that causes one fleet to pass by the other. This differential is canceled out by one or both parties (depending of course on any specific limitations on movement and noting the Loroi have more ability to maintain or disengage from combat) and either combat ensues for another joust or they disengage. At some point it may happen that the fleets are within firing range and are at similar velocities, at which time obviously combat would change significantly as there would be no "breaks" like jousting would provide and disengaging or escaping would be more difficult, especially for the fleet with less acceleration (read Umiak)

-O


Thxs osmium, forgot about that ( I'm horrible with physics)

Arioch wrote:
GeoModder wrote:
Guess that makes me a mediocre tactician.


Does it? I don't think being an exceptional tactican has anything to do with inventing maneuvers that no one has thought of before. The Napoleons and Nelsons of history were successful not because they had trick tactics, but because they had a solid grasp of tactical fundamentals, they had a good sense of what the enemy was trying to do and how to counter it and avoid being surprised, and above all, they were aggressive and kept the initiative. One of the foundations of being aggressive is the confidence in the superiority of your own forces; when you've trained an elite corps and you have confidence that they can beat an opposing force nose to nose with even odds, then it's much easier to take risks.

Napoleon's standard battle plan was very simple; he'd throw his elite infantry directly at the enemy's center, and rely on them to do enough damage so that the enemy would have to commit his reserves to hold the line, and thus become potentially vulnerable to flanking maneuvers or other line penetrations. This tactic only works if you know your troops are superior to the enemy's. Similarly, Nelson abandoned the traditional battle line at Trafalgar and had his ships just charge the enemy line head-on, because he knew his ships and crews were superior, and that they could survive the initial broadsides of the French and Spanish line and then chew them to bits at close range. And once he did this, the individual British ships were totally out of his control; he was relying totally on the abilities of his captains and their crews.


Ah yes the basics, I'm a civil so didn't take the courses ( My knowledge is limited to FPS play and Starcraft/homeworld)

as for the current battle, is jousting is the model ( given the physics) this reminds me of a heavy armour knights ( Umiak armour and short range weapons) vs a long pole/ archers (Loroi Long ranged weapons, little armour).

_________________
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD


Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 am
Posts: 780
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Re: page 83
CptWinters wrote:
"Going around" is not exactly a new invention.

"... has anything to do with inventing maneuvers that no one has thought of before."
Well, the french military was pretty surprised. 8-)
And it wasn´t "just" going around, they used a combination of new tactics and new gadgets like shaped charges. The germans invented them in 1935, and they busted the maginot-bunkers like eggshell.

_________________
sapere aude.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:07 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:20 pm
Posts: 176
Post Re: page 83
Trantor wrote:
Well, the french military was pretty surprised. 8-)

Which proves nothing. The French military during the Second World War was not exactly up to par.
Trantor wrote:
And it wasn´t "just" going around, they used a combination of new tactics and new gadgets like shaped charges. The germans invented them in 1935, and they busted the maginot-bunkers like eggshell.
I would submit that Blitzkrieg was not "new." It was simply an adaptation of tactics and principles of warfare, which had been around for thousands of years, to new and revolutionary equipment.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:22 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 am
Posts: 780
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Re: page 83
Arioch wrote:
Similarly, Nelson abandoned the traditional battle line at Trafalgar and had his ships just charge the enemy line head-on,

No, he used the "crossing the T"-manouver. And because of the sheer size of the enemy-fleet he sailed in two lines, with Collingwood leading the second divison.
It was a variation of a traditional standard-manouver, and contributing to his success was that wind and initiative were on his side, and that Villeneuve on the other side was confused aditionally by some of Nelsons ship sailing out of line, e.g. "Africa" and "Temeraire".

Arioch wrote:
And once he did this, the individual British ships were totally out of his control; he was relying totally on the abilities of his captains and their crews.

Well, closing-in in these times always resulted in an uncontrolled brawl.

_________________
sapere aude.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:29 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 am
Posts: 780
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Re: page 83
CptWinters wrote:
I would submit that Blitzkrieg was not "new." It was simply an adaptation of tactics and principles of warfare, which had been around for thousands of years, to new and revolutionary equipment.

And that´s called tactics. ;)

BTW: If they were so ordinary, why didn´t anybody see this coming back then?

_________________
sapere aude.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:35 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:42 pm
Posts: 178
Post Re: page 83
Its not that people didn't see it could happen, its just that the people in a position to do something about it couldn't see it.

Besides, everyone knows you could never get Armored Divisions through the Ardennes ;)

_________________
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. - Dylan Thomas

[A] book need never die and should not be killed; books [are] the immortal part of man. - Robert A. Heinlein

Oops. - Shannon Foraker

Incursion RPG
IC Thread
OOC Thread
Character List


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:41 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:20 pm
Posts: 176
Post Re: page 83
Trantor wrote:
And that´s called tactics. ;)
Um... thank you for agreeing with me?

Trantor wrote:
BTW: If they were so ordinary, why didn´t anybody see this coming back then?
I never said they were ordinary, I said they weren't "new."


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:57 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2308
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: page 83
The point of my rant above (which really had nothing to do with what GeoModder actually meant) was that I get the feeling that the majority of the general public think that exceptional tactics is all about novel tricks. Something like the captain says "Execute tactical pattern Riker-Omega!" and the enemy says, "Wow, he short-warped behind me! Nobody's ever thought of that before! What a genius!" It's kind of like the misperception that hacking a computer consists of typing on a keyboard really fast. It's the military version of technobabble, and the popular media (including some otherwise really good SF books) reinforces the misperception.

Going around the Maginot Line through Belgium in 1940 was not blitzkrieg (the Germans did it in 1914 before tanks had been invented), and it was not a novel trick (the Germans did it in 1914!). Attacking where and when your enemy is not prepared is not a novel trick; it's one of the fundamentals of warfare (see: Sun Tzu). And as TheUnforsaken alludes to, the Germans did it again in 1944 to the Americans, demonstrating that you don't have to be French to be tactically surprised (though it helps).

Blitzkrieg is a doctrine of using mobile combined arms. To take advantage of the hitting power of tanks and aircraft, you also must have mobile artillery and mechanized infantry to follow up and outflank and cut off a slower enemy. It is not a tactical trick. It was also not new in 1940... Guderian's book explaining it (Achtung - Panzer!) was published in 1937, and the Germans had demonstrated it in action quite clearly in Poland in 1939. The French were overrun not because they were surprised by a novel tactic, but because they were totally unprepared to fight a modern war, and overmatched in essentially every category (except numbers).

_________________
Outsider


Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:20 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:31 am
Posts: 581
Post Re: page 83
Trantor wrote:
Arioch wrote:
Similarly, Nelson abandoned the traditional battle line at Trafalgar and had his ships just charge the enemy line head-on,

No, he used the "crossing the T"-manouver. And because of the sheer size of the enemy-fleet he sailed in two lines, with Collingwood leading the second divison.
It was a variation of a traditional standard-manouver, and contributing to his success was that wind and initiative were on his side, and that Villeneuve on the other side was confused aditionally by some of Nelsons ship sailing out of line, e.g. "Africa" and "Temeraire".


Erm, crossing ones T is overtaking the enemy fleet and giving them all you got through your broadsides while the enemy can only respond with front-positioned/directed guns.
Essentially, Nelson sailed his fleet (in two prongs of course) into the French/Spanish broadside, but by doing so he cut off quite a number of enemy vessels from the action (it's difficult to sail back).

_________________
Image


Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:19 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 am
Posts: 780
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Re: page 83
GeoModder wrote:
Erm, crossing ones T is overtaking the enemy fleet

..and then intercepting their path..
GeoModder wrote:
and giving them all you got through your broadsides while the enemy can only respond with front-positioned/directed guns.

Yes, that´s what the Japanese demonstrated in Tsushima in near perfection.

GeoModder wrote:
Essentially, Nelson sailed his fleet (in two prongs of course) into the French/Spanish broadside, but by doing so he cut off quite a number of enemy vessels from the action (it's difficult to sail back).

Yes, and his two lines formed a wedge, and wind came from astern. This reversed the situation for the French.

_________________
sapere aude.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 11:34 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:52 am
Posts: 780
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post Re: page 83
Arioch wrote:
...
Going around the Maginot Line through Belgium in 1940 was not blitzkrieg ...
Blitzkrieg is a doctrine of using mobile combined arms.

Now you´re confusing me... we used mobile combined arms back then in the Ardennes, but somehow it´s not Blitzkrieg?
Ok, a doctrine or strategy is not tactics, but both depend on each other. You can´t use new strategies with old tactics.

Arioch wrote:
It was also not new in 1940... Guderian's book explaining it (Achtung - Panzer!) was published in 1937

Oh, come on. Three Years - How long do you need to respond to a new situation? You have to school your officers, develop and purchase new weapons, train your staff on them and we´re talking about the 30ies, not the internet-age.

We developed some pretty advanced weapons back then (still in peacetime), and took advantage of them.
In the long run of course the allies catched up in technology, and their sheer numbers and their advantage of having a huge and powerful save haven in the US determined the outcome.

And this is where i see a huge problem for our beloved space-elves, too. Either the historians give them some good technology or they´re doomed in the long run.

_________________
sapere aude.


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:53 pm
Posts: 85
Post Re: page 83
Blitzkreig is more the small war (i.e. specific tactics of combat). It was essentially using the increased mobility of mechanized forces and the recent increase in offensive power tanks provided to quickly assault and then outmaneuver the enemy.

Ignoring the magnot line was just smart and is an independent concept from blitzkrieg. That maneuver was more of a large war sort of thing (less concerned with actual combat and more with picking smart fights, keeping you troops supplied, fighting your enemy's weakness and forcing them to attack your strength. etc)

I could make the counterpoint. How STUPID do you have to be as a commander to see an enemy entrenching only 75% of their border with you with huge guns and emplacements to prevent your assault and then assault there when all you need to do to avoid it is roll through Belgium.

-O


Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:21 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: harlequin2262 and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.