- Location
- Patriarchova
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)
- Thread starter OneirosTheWriter
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
-
- Tags
- star trek exploration fully automated luxury gay space communism top level canon (canon) #hashtagcontent all-encompassing space amoeba cardassian boy bands cardassian magical girls darkest bureaucracy debate makes the qm cackle like palpatine hoh is an empire quest it has to be foreign infiltrators more ships ship happens singers delenda est starfleet this is not an empire quest ur waifu is collective?
The Federation-Cardassian conflict can be best understood as that scene in the dark knight rises where bane puts his hand on the business guy's shoulder and is like 'do you feel in charge' and basically, the Cardassians want to be the Bane to our Business Guy but instead keep ending up being more like Bane to catwoman behind the guns of the bat-cycle.
What I'm saying is that removing the Cardassian military control will be quite painful,, for you
What I'm saying is that removing the Cardassian military control will be quite painful,, for you
- Location
- Patriarchova
Yeah, to beat the cardassians we should do exactly what we've been doing. Build our resources, undermine their control over their more distant clients (Dawiar are next after the Sydraxians), slap down any attempts of theirs to perform operations in or near our space.
We decided on this approach way back before the treaty of Celos was even a thing. It was the right call. We're slowly winning.
After the Dawair, should we be trying to pursue the Lecarre, the Dylarians (probablty spelt wrong sorry) or the Bajorans?
The Lecarre are going to be fairly cut off by our upcoming ratifications, the Dylarians would open up a core-ward encirclement while the Bajorans would be aiming at Cardassia itself.
- Location
- Patriarchova
Lecarre. The Dylaarians have no reason to want to jump ship as far as we know. The Lecarre, as you noted, are finding themselves in a very dangerous place astrographically.
- Location
- Central Standard Time
If it actually becomes an issue, a snakepit option will appear.
Recruiting stations are far below our resolution.
You know, if the Cardassians are Decisive Battle, we should probably start spending intel reports on Fleet Strength of their various 'affiliates' to figure out how big their United Starfleet might be.
Honestly this is why I think we should go base strike. It synergies well with Forward defense, and we have the option to fleetball if needed instead of being tied to a United Starfleet -- which we don't know the mechanics behind, versus we know the mechanics of Base Strike. And it doesn't exactly hobble us in major fleet-on-fleet conflict, but does allow us to get the best out of our Starbase force multipliers, it doesn't drain the member fleet reserves that we might need for defense into a fleetball, and it allows us to deter or slow Cardassian assaults with smaller forces, which is important with our amount of territory.
The Licori War showed that fixed defenses and minefields, superscience aside, can force attackers to devote much more resources than usual to securing orbitals. Enhancing our capabilities on the defense will help keep our homeworlds secure, and will reduce the affect of attrition on our fleet's ability to assault key enemy installations. The same cannot be said of the Cardassians, who if they have their doomstack whittled down, will have a hard time dealing with much more robust defenses. Also, if steamrunner wing does apply to all forces in Base Strike, I hope everyone enjoys the crazy through-shield warp core crits we're more likely to see.
Also I am not sure why Oneiros says Forward Defense counters Base Strike -- Base Strike gives you the ability to better bypass border zones. I guess Decisive Battle is just supposed to ram through? But you could make a same-sized fleet with Base Strike and then... infiltrate easier anyways...
Base Strike enhances the crunchy shell of Starbases we're going to get with Forward Defense, enhances our combat in fleet battles though not to the extent decisive battle does, AND has the best ability to pursue objectives beyond killing the enemy fleet, which will probably be necessary to truly remove long-term threats or decisively (heh) end wars. It doesn't drain member fleets to contribute to a single fleet, and instead lets us position them near our defenses. Decisive Battle is just too inflexible by comparison and we get similar enhancements to combat with Base Strike anyways, so it's not like we're going to fall behind.
tl:dr do you know how many wars I've lost in Stellaris because while my fleetball was away the enemy ate my entire shit for breakfast? Don't be me in stellaris because I can't micromanage. Make Oneiros micromanage and reap the benefits.
Honestly this is why I think we should go base strike. It synergies well with Forward defense, and we have the option to fleetball if needed instead of being tied to a United Starfleet -- which we don't know the mechanics behind, versus we know the mechanics of Base Strike. And it doesn't exactly hobble us in major fleet-on-fleet conflict, but does allow us to get the best out of our Starbase force multipliers, it doesn't drain the member fleet reserves that we might need for defense into a fleetball, and it allows us to deter or slow Cardassian assaults with smaller forces, which is important with our amount of territory.
The Licori War showed that fixed defenses and minefields, superscience aside, can force attackers to devote much more resources than usual to securing orbitals. Enhancing our capabilities on the defense will help keep our homeworlds secure, and will reduce the affect of attrition on our fleet's ability to assault key enemy installations. The same cannot be said of the Cardassians, who if they have their doomstack whittled down, will have a hard time dealing with much more robust defenses. Also, if steamrunner wing does apply to all forces in Base Strike, I hope everyone enjoys the crazy through-shield warp core crits we're more likely to see.
Also I am not sure why Oneiros says Forward Defense counters Base Strike -- Base Strike gives you the ability to better bypass border zones. I guess Decisive Battle is just supposed to ram through? But you could make a same-sized fleet with Base Strike and then... infiltrate easier anyways...
Base Strike enhances the crunchy shell of Starbases we're going to get with Forward Defense, enhances our combat in fleet battles though not to the extent decisive battle does, AND has the best ability to pursue objectives beyond killing the enemy fleet, which will probably be necessary to truly remove long-term threats or decisively (heh) end wars. It doesn't drain member fleets to contribute to a single fleet, and instead lets us position them near our defenses. Decisive Battle is just too inflexible by comparison and we get similar enhancements to combat with Base Strike anyways, so it's not like we're going to fall behind.
tl:dr do you know how many wars I've lost in Stellaris because while my fleetball was away the enemy ate my entire shit for breakfast? Don't be me in stellaris because I can't micromanage. Make Oneiros micromanage and reap the benefits.
- Location
- USA
Has anyone done a break down on our combat stats in the various phases? I know @Nix did a breakdown of the phases and how they impact things but do we have a breakdown of how our cruisers have performed in the Vanguard phase?
I ask as one of the Decisive battle techs increases the chance amongst our ships that cruisers are firing and the increases the damage they deal during the Vanguard phase which is important as it 1) gives a chance to soften up some of their heavies that enter in the Vanguard phase, 2) a chance to damage or finish off skirmishers and 3) sets up the fleet values for the main phase. And in our most recent battle we dominated the Vanguard phase at 1.4 to 1 which gave us a major edge in the main phase by firing far more often which let us whittle down the enemy quicker. Winning the Vanguard Phase and winning it big is a huge edge to winning the main phase.
@Iron Wolf Forward Defense counters Base Strike as you already have sections of your fleet deployed to the front, which prevents or makes it harder to launch early strikes on the fixed defenses before the main fleet can arrive and start contesting. Base strike would be a focus on clearing out fixed defenses, Forward Defense moves mobile forces in to contest that, fleet in being has their mobile forces concentrated internally, with strong fixed border defense for that base strike can sweep over those before the mobile forces can move to reinforce or threaten to reinforce. As it is with either doctrine scouting and stealth will be important in keeping track of the enemy and trying to isolate small units for destruction. I do see a lot of cases where both fleets will be maneuvering against each other before committing, with small probes launched to try and draw them out of position.
I ask as one of the Decisive battle techs increases the chance amongst our ships that cruisers are firing and the increases the damage they deal during the Vanguard phase which is important as it 1) gives a chance to soften up some of their heavies that enter in the Vanguard phase, 2) a chance to damage or finish off skirmishers and 3) sets up the fleet values for the main phase. And in our most recent battle we dominated the Vanguard phase at 1.4 to 1 which gave us a major edge in the main phase by firing far more often which let us whittle down the enemy quicker. Winning the Vanguard Phase and winning it big is a huge edge to winning the main phase.
@Iron Wolf Forward Defense counters Base Strike as you already have sections of your fleet deployed to the front, which prevents or makes it harder to launch early strikes on the fixed defenses before the main fleet can arrive and start contesting. Base strike would be a focus on clearing out fixed defenses, Forward Defense moves mobile forces in to contest that, fleet in being has their mobile forces concentrated internally, with strong fixed border defense for that base strike can sweep over those before the mobile forces can move to reinforce or threaten to reinforce. As it is with either doctrine scouting and stealth will be important in keeping track of the enemy and trying to isolate small units for destruction. I do see a lot of cases where both fleets will be maneuvering against each other before committing, with small probes launched to try and draw them out of position.
- Location
- Australia
I may have to modify the wording of the big fleetball so extra fleetballs can be declared when you have very different fronts/theatres to fight. In practical terms though, DB is about having a big striking arm that you hold back from the defences and then either try to figure out where the enemy fleetball is, or deploy to whatever front you want to launch an assault on and then pull back if things run out of steam or you Be Iron Wolf In Stellaris.
- Location
- Central Standard Time
What's the intended use of Base Strike?
Winged One
Not the Simurgh
- Location
- definitely the ground
- Pronouns
- They/Them/It
The double meaning of that sentence amuses me.
Striking their bases. Preferably while the other guy is Being Iron Wolf In Stellaris.
[X] [DOCTRINE] Games & Theory Division : Decisive Battle Doctrine
I just want my fleet ball of doom man. Also kinda curious what the united fleet mechanics are.
I just want my fleet ball of doom man. Also kinda curious what the united fleet mechanics are.
- Location
- Central Standard Time
Thing is, Base Strike is better at massive fleets due to tactics.
United fleet mechanics are:
Take ships, put in fleet, attack their grand fleet and hope you get the right location
- Location
- USA
So, I was looking at scouting phase and all, and our Keplers are going to be disgusting as scouts against the Cardassians unless they up the number of science Takaaki. Against the Combat Takaaki it is S8 vs S1 giving a margin of 7 on average, or 35*.005= .175 based on the 5 checks from the most recent battle. That comes out to a 1.175 to .825 or a 42% edge. Add in the +2 from Decisive Battle and if they have not researched that we get 45*.005=.225 or 1.225 to .775 or a 58% edge. Combine that with the boost to evasion we should be able to carry an edge through the Skirmish phase and into the Vanguard Phase and getting the tech that makes it more likely for our cruisers to be firing and doing more damage is only going to increase our position bonus in the main phase. The most recent battle we won the Vanguard Phase 1.4 to 1 and that was with a close scouting and skirmish phases. If we can increase that to 1.6 to 1.8 it will make the main phase far more in our favor.
- Location
- Australia
Using task forces to bypass outer positions to destroy important infrastructure in deeper systems.
- Location
- USA
This is countered by what Oneiros said above on how it can be split. Decisive battle is all about the fleet ball of doom and bringing them to battle, this is combined with bonuses in scouting and vanguard phases to win those
So, if I have it right:
Decisive - one big fleet per major battle front (as Oneiros has implied that there can be multiple main fleets), with probably a scattering of small task forces on defence duties. So only one offensive battle at a time, but risks being caught out of position.
Base Strike - fleet is broken up into many task forces of a size estimated to be sufficient to deal with an orbital and likely defenders, and go trying to sneak past the mobile front line defenders. Could be many battles going on at once, but each task force is at risk if intercepted by locally superior mobile forces.
Cardassians are going Decisive, so they will have a major fleet - whether we want to meet it (with our own major fleet) or avoid it (with our many small task forces) depends on whether we are Decisive or Base Strike.
Decisive - one big fleet per major battle front (as Oneiros has implied that there can be multiple main fleets), with probably a scattering of small task forces on defence duties. So only one offensive battle at a time, but risks being caught out of position.
Base Strike - fleet is broken up into many task forces of a size estimated to be sufficient to deal with an orbital and likely defenders, and go trying to sneak past the mobile front line defenders. Could be many battles going on at once, but each task force is at risk if intercepted by locally superior mobile forces.
Cardassians are going Decisive, so they will have a major fleet - whether we want to meet it (with our own major fleet) or avoid it (with our many small task forces) depends on whether we are Decisive or Base Strike.
Last edited:
Not entirely true. Nothing in Base Strike stops you from assembling major, even huge, armadas. It's just that the Decisive Battle will have an edge in a fleet battle assuming equal or inferior forces. Base Strike doesn't mean "you can't assemble a fleet larger than X" unless I'm really off base, in which case strike I'm out, hahaha did you see what I did there
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
Things that help once battle is joined away from defenses:
Base Strike-
Target Priority: Hull+HP Lost
Improved Crit Rate
Tactic: Galaxy: Explorer more likely to fire
Tactic: Steamrunner: Enemy fleet value reduced, improved crit rate
+1L when outnumbered
EC Explorer +2% fleet value
Decisive Battle-
+2 S Scouting Phase (minimum of 10% increase to fleet value in Skirmish phase, increases as you win the scouting phase more)
Target Priority: Shield + Combat
Attack Pattern: Explorer +50% chance to fire and be target of fire
Torpedo Charge (no idea if this is a tactic, attack pattern or always on)- enemy cruiser and explorer evasion halved, improved crit rate for escorts
+.25% fleet value per ship in fleet (max of 5%)
Reduced sticky targeting by enemy (our total escort Reaction vs enemy total escort Reaction)
Increased chance for Frigates to be targeted over Explorers
Increased weighting for Cruisers in Vanguard (either this improves the chance that a cruiser is the one to take a shot or improves the contribution to the value for the phase, first is more likely)
Increased damage by Cruisers in Vanguard
May reduce Reaction and Evasion for +1L
Scouting Phase: (opposed S checks, total margin determines fleet value in Skirmish Phase)
Base Strike-None
Decisive Battle- +2S
Skirmish Phase: (high evasion is helpful here, determines fleet value for Vanguard phase based on damage dealt)
Base Strike- Improved Crit Rate, Tactic: Steamrunner, EC Explorer +2% fleet value
Decisive Battle- Improved Crit Rate-escorts, +.25% fleet value per ship (max 5%)
Vanguard Phase: (Determines fleet value for main phase based on damage dealt)
Base Strike- Improved Crit Rate, Tactic: Steamrunner, EC Explorer +2% fleet value
Decisive Battle- Improved Crit Rate-escorts, reduced evasion enemy cruisers, +.25% fleet value per ship (max 5%), Increased weight for cruisers, increased damage for cruisers
Main Phase: (Fleet value determines firing chance/order, so a 2 to 1 means the first side fires twice as often as the other side)
Base Strike- Improved Crit Rate, Tactic: Steamrunner or Galaxy, EC Explorer +2% fleet value, Target Priority: Hull+HP Lost, +1l when outnumbered
Decisive Battle- Improved Crit Rate-escorts, reduced evasion enemy cruisers and explorers, +.25% fleet value per ship (max 5%), May reduce Reaction and Evasion for +1L, Increased chance for Frigates to be targeted over Explorers, Reduced sticky targeting by enemy (our total escort Reaction vs enemy total escort Reaction), Attack Pattern: Explorer +50% chance to fire and be target of fire, Target Priority: Shield + Combat
Base Strike-
Target Priority: Hull+HP Lost
Improved Crit Rate
Tactic: Galaxy: Explorer more likely to fire
Tactic: Steamrunner: Enemy fleet value reduced, improved crit rate
+1L when outnumbered
EC Explorer +2% fleet value
Decisive Battle-
+2 S Scouting Phase (minimum of 10% increase to fleet value in Skirmish phase, increases as you win the scouting phase more)
Target Priority: Shield + Combat
Attack Pattern: Explorer +50% chance to fire and be target of fire
Torpedo Charge (no idea if this is a tactic, attack pattern or always on)- enemy cruiser and explorer evasion halved, improved crit rate for escorts
+.25% fleet value per ship in fleet (max of 5%)
Reduced sticky targeting by enemy (our total escort Reaction vs enemy total escort Reaction)
Increased chance for Frigates to be targeted over Explorers
Increased weighting for Cruisers in Vanguard (either this improves the chance that a cruiser is the one to take a shot or improves the contribution to the value for the phase, first is more likely)
Increased damage by Cruisers in Vanguard
May reduce Reaction and Evasion for +1L
Scouting Phase: (opposed S checks, total margin determines fleet value in Skirmish Phase)
Base Strike-None
Decisive Battle- +2S
Skirmish Phase: (high evasion is helpful here, determines fleet value for Vanguard phase based on damage dealt)
Base Strike- Improved Crit Rate, Tactic: Steamrunner, EC Explorer +2% fleet value
Decisive Battle- Improved Crit Rate-escorts, +.25% fleet value per ship (max 5%)
Vanguard Phase: (Determines fleet value for main phase based on damage dealt)
Base Strike- Improved Crit Rate, Tactic: Steamrunner, EC Explorer +2% fleet value
Decisive Battle- Improved Crit Rate-escorts, reduced evasion enemy cruisers, +.25% fleet value per ship (max 5%), Increased weight for cruisers, increased damage for cruisers
Main Phase: (Fleet value determines firing chance/order, so a 2 to 1 means the first side fires twice as often as the other side)
Base Strike- Improved Crit Rate, Tactic: Steamrunner or Galaxy, EC Explorer +2% fleet value, Target Priority: Hull+HP Lost, +1l when outnumbered
Decisive Battle- Improved Crit Rate-escorts, reduced evasion enemy cruisers and explorers, +.25% fleet value per ship (max 5%), May reduce Reaction and Evasion for +1L, Increased chance for Frigates to be targeted over Explorers, Reduced sticky targeting by enemy (our total escort Reaction vs enemy total escort Reaction), Attack Pattern: Explorer +50% chance to fire and be target of fire, Target Priority: Shield + Combat
- Location
- Actually pretty lost
If we all think both doctrines can handle all tactical considerations to similar effect, shouldn't we just take Base Strike on the basis it has better numbers mechanically?
It seems likely it functions as a starting value of ships forwarded from each member fleet during a SOE that we don't need to spend political will/war weariness on calling into service. That's a lot of ships, so it seems pretty good, but in a true crisis situation it would be a timesaver rather than an an actual fleet size upgrade - no one's going to hold back ships we say we need to deal with a Biophage-level crisis. I don't think it outweighs Base Strike's superior mechanics stats though.
- Location
- USA
Base strike has an edge for dealing with fixed defenses, and bypassing mobile forces for attempted strikes. However in pitched battles Decisive has the better stat boosts as given, we are looking at a minimum of a 10% increase in the scouting phase along with a solid increase for the Vanguard phase. And the key to a large battle is winning position in the Vanguard phase. Our most recent battle we won that phase 1.4 to 1 so we fired 40% more during the main phase which let's our Explorers do work. Further the reduced sticky targeting by enemy ships make damage they deal spread out over more of our fleet letting more of it be absorbed by our shields, keeping our C values higher which lets us output more damage along with getting more use out of shield regen, on the flip side our ships having sticky targeting will start reducing their C sooner tipping the damage dealt in our favor.
And for production side:
Base Strike: New Shipyard Complexes become cheaper, Nominated Capital Ship reduces construction time by 25%, Crew Requirements on this ship reduced by 20%, rounded down (1 per 5)
Decisive Battle: PP cost of shipyards and related infrastructure reduced, Reduce all build times by 1Qtr, +15% Academy intake
I like what Decisive Battle brings to the table here, overall build time reductions, including our escorts and cruisers along with higher crew income as opposed to a discount to one ship. Also its PP reduction covers more than just shipyards, though we are unclear on exactly what qualifies there.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
The problem is that we don't actually have control over the basic parameters of fleet deployment anymore. Remember the Licori War? We didn't really get to decide which ships would be assigned to which task forces; we just got straight-up told "here are
I suspect that if we adopt Base Strike, Starfleet Tactical will default to organizing our fleet into, oh... six, eight, ten, however many major task forces along the frontiers. We'll get yes/no votes on what to do with them, same as during the Licori War. And they'll be of roughly comparable size, as in the Licori War.
By contrast, with Decisive Battle, we're likely to get a whole lot of significantly smaller task forces, but one really big task force.
The first thing you do with your United Fleet is roll up to one of those multiple fronts and trample it. Like, the Lecarre are making trouble? Roll up to them with the United Fleet and go " 'Sup." Collect Lecarre surrender, intern their remaining warships somewhere hard to get to (I recommend Amarkia), park a squadron of cruisers and frigates to garrison Lecarre space, and move on to the next target.
The idea behind Decisive Battle doctrine in a multi-front war is that you can permanently eliminate entire fronts of the war zone in a fairly short amount of time, if you concentrate sufficient numbers and firepower.
My bet is that an all-Apiata, Apiata-led task force would start Wolfpacking, yes. Remember the Gaeni squadron that formed Task Force Six during the Licori War? They used Tech-Ship Doctrine. But if we integrate Apiata ships more tightly into our command structure, that starts breaking down.
It's kind of unavoidable that at least once in a while you'll be attacking a large fortification, unless you go pure Wolf Pack and try to cut the enemy economy apart with nothing but commerce raiding. Both Decisive Battle and Base Strike are likely to result in some number of battles fought in or around starbases.
As to the rest... I'm going to put this up more because I've been accused of strawmanning and am trying in good faith to address that issue, than anything else.
[Yes, SWB, I am aware you said you were giving this up]
I am just going to spoiler my entire reply to @SynchronizedWritersBlock, because having written it, I feel like the argument with him has gotten 'down in the weeds' enough that it is no longer very interesting. I am not happy doing this, but I'm doing this.
Point of information: Nash was disobeying her own orders to intercept the Imperial fleet as it headed to Ixaria.
Eaton's overall strategy provided no second force to stop an Imperial fleet headed for Ixaria; the role of said second force was to stop Imperial ships headed for Gammon.
Yes, but this wasn't "indirect approach," it was just a matter of Eaton's fleet outnumbering the entire Licori navy by about two-to-one, especially when the Ked Peddah are factored in. Eaton hit two of the the hardest, best-defended targets in Licori space, because (not coincidentally) those were also the targets the Licori had spent five years trying hard to protect.
Not all successful commanders are users of the indirect approach, and one of the big downsides of Liddell-Hart's approach is his tendency to engage in tortured reasoning to explain why things are 'indirect,' or why they make use of his ideas when they actually don't. Eaton's approach to generalship, at least in the Licori War, looked very little like "indirect approach" and very much like "bigger hammer."
It's not that it didn't do so. It's that it did so for a combination of interlocking reasons that don't have a lot to do with the 'indirect approach.' If you hit the enemy with enough strengths all at once, sooner or later one of your strengths will in fact hit them in a weak spot.
Eaton's campaign against the Licori was a great example of how to comprehensively kick an enemy's butt by both drawing out their fleets and crushing key bases- if you have overwhelming strength and good field commanders who know when to creatively reinterpret the letter of their orders. But they're not a good example of the indirect approach.
SWB, I'm going to be honest, your reasoning in posts like this tends to be... involuted. You say a great many things; in some cases you make what appears to be a strong declaration of X, then imply not-X. This makes it extremely labor-intensive to not inadvertently 'strawman' you by making a good-faith effort to interpret what turns out, in hindsight, to be the wrong part of your post sequence. Especially with multiple rounds of discussion batted back and forth per day.
You've said so enough different things, and implied enough different things, that I no longer have any real hope of sorting out what you think with certainty that I won't be accused of misrepresentation, for trying to remember what you said while keeping in mind what you're saying now. I'll do my best. But accusing me of misrepresenting you isn't going to make it easier for me to parse multiple layers of shifting and interlocking positions at the same time.
And Nix already addressed this. You are describing a situation where we pursue Objective A. But the enemy takes such desperate lengths to avoid letting us attain Objective A, that we instead attain Objective B and win the war.
I would argue that this is a moral victory for Objective A, because it implies that the enemy preferred to pursue a course of action ending in defeat, rather than run the risks associated with letting us attain Objective A. If the enemy is so afraid of a decisive battle with our fleet that they allow most of their own colonies to be overrun rather than fight the battle, this is hardly a mark against the desirability of fighting a decisive battle!
I mean, imagine a strategy that leads to us trapping an enemy army in burning buildings. Their only escape is to jump out of third-story windows. If they repeatedly elect to do so, until so many of their soldiers have been injured falling out of windows that they cannot go on fighting... Does that in any way whatsoever invalidate the 'burning building' strategy? I think not. It would be folly to say "well, our objective was to set them on fire, so our strategy didn't work, they lost because they got hurt in falls."
Because what's going on is that 'burning building' strategy is so effective that the enemy prefers to lose the war rather than allow it to reach its full potential against them. They'd prefer a broken leg to being trapped in a fire.
In the scenario we were actually talking about that brought this on, the intent is to force the enemy to give battle by making it part of a true forced choice. There are a variety of ways to do this in warfare- to force the enemy to sacrifice something in order to avoid engaging your fleet. Then do it again, and again.
I suspect this is the reason why Decisive Battle doctrine actually takes time to research, rather than just being Lathriss going "uh, have you considered attacking their ships?" Because the best and brightest of Starfleet Tactical are spending years compiling examples of ways the enemy can be compelled to give battle.
This is why war isn't chess. It is usually impractical to present an enemy with a true forced move in wartime, where there is literally only one thing they can possibly do.
And that's okay.
It is, as a rule, enough to present an opponent with decisions that are 'merely' unpalatable. Decisions like "do I lose five thousand men storming that ridge, or plunk my butt down for three days shelling it and accept a delay in my advance?" Or like "do I continue pursuing the enemy until my supply lines are cripplingly overstretched, or do I let them regroup comfortably out of range of my counterattacks?" Or like "do I reinforce all three forts and accept a risk of defeat in detail, or do I reinforce one fort and risk losing the other two quickly?"
And yes, the enemy will assess this situation, try to find ways to reduce their losses, and estimate which of their choices are least appalling. But that's inevitable. Striking at enemy bases or transports won't avoid that. War, unlike chess, does not reduce to a small integer number of choices for "what's my next move?" It can look that way when summarized at the highest level, but it isn't.
Forgothrax
Not Going Gently
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I will note that In Excelsis, depending on how it's read, has the option to be very powerful. If that 20% off crew applies to the raw crew numbers instead of what they're rounded up to, it's quite possible to build a 3/3/4 crewed 180/130 light Explorer that has all 7s/H5 for stats using 2327ish tech and builds in 11 quarters. Aka cheaper than a Rennie for crew. Could potentially be cheaper in SR depending on tech not on the sheet yet.
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
[X] [DOCTRINE] Games & Theory Division : Decisive Battle Doctrine
I'm choosing decisive battle, not because of any mechanical benefits but because of the intended targets. Decisive battle aims to hit enemy fleets, an almost purely military target that will have minimal civilian casualties. Base strike will hit infrastructure, that while a military target is likely to have significant civilian casualties (historically most military shipyards have a significant civilian or semi-civilian workforce).
I just can't see Starfleet having a full-throated commitment to an offensive doctrine that accepts (as it focus) that we will be aiming to take actions that cause civilian casualties.
[X] [STARBASE] Henn-Makad Engineering Institute : 2310s Starbase Design - Repair
I'm choosing decisive battle, not because of any mechanical benefits but because of the intended targets. Decisive battle aims to hit enemy fleets, an almost purely military target that will have minimal civilian casualties. Base strike will hit infrastructure, that while a military target is likely to have significant civilian casualties (historically most military shipyards have a significant civilian or semi-civilian workforce).
I just can't see Starfleet having a full-throated commitment to an offensive doctrine that accepts (as it focus) that we will be aiming to take actions that cause civilian casualties.
[X] [STARBASE] Henn-Makad Engineering Institute : 2310s Starbase Design - Repair