Cold War Comments Thread

[Kurt (OP)]

Even many core systems with larger populations had no real defenses, because the tendency is to concentrate power as much as possible, both for striking power and because as a gamer it's easier to control.  This is inherently unrealistic, and does not work that way in real life, for the most part, although it is situational. 

I disagree about power concentration being unrealistic.

Mahan doctrine applies to space navies at least as much as to wet navies.

Summarizing Mahan (and I welcome the naval military history buffs out there to correct any serious misstatements):
You win the battle by bringing more power to bear at a single point than your opponent.
You win the war by winning the battle between primary fleets.
Therefore if your objective is to be capable of winning a war, you should maximize the amount of power you can bring to bear at a single point.

My own corollaries:
All armed naval forces other than the primary fleet are only useful for recon, counter-recon, raiding, and counter-raiding. (Allowing for multiple primary fleets if travel time between fronts is too great.)
Static forces are only useful to the extent that they are cost effective deterrents to raiding, and to the extent that raiding is a material threat. (Assuming recon is performed outside of range/detection of static forces; if not, then static forces have anti-recon value as well.)

Therefore I expect power concentration to be the natural state of affairs, and the political pressure for static forces at any one location to be in line with the perceived material threat posed by enemy raiding forces at that location, not the perceived threat of the entire enemy force.

Except that in the real world there are a lot of factors working against concentration, at least in times other than active war.  These factors don't exist in Starfire, except maybe with house rules.  For example, today the US fleet is largely dispersed around the world performing various duties involving anti-piracy, maintaining free transit, and various political priorities like showing the flag, while the rest are in port being overhauled, reprovisioned, or refitted.  If we were actively at war with a near-peer, say china, I would expect that the fleet would be much more concentrated. 

Kurt

[Kurt (OP)]

To comment on "maximize the amount of power you can concentrate"  this is relative to the time you need to "have a battle between primary fleets."  It is why in the real world there are things like "1st Fleet", "Home Fleet", "Indian Ocean Fleet" etc.  You want to have a superior force in both numbers and time.   "He who gets there first-est with the most-est" is one of the few land battle truisms that applies to naval warfare.  In starfire you have to deal with the time to respond, which is why you tend to have a layer cake response, and the question is more about what your layer cake looks like than anything.

The tug of war is between "concentration" and "response time."  Also a massive fleet concentration can only be in one place at one time.  If the enemy is in 3 places you have lost two of them...or if you have 3 enemies.  Also you have to consider that in Starfire a small force (6 DDs for example can destroy 18 PU/IU every 30s) can depopulate a colony world easily.  Against domed moon colonies even a small group of CTs with beam weapons can destroy them on a short time scale. 

The Shanirian Confederation Navy is organised (excluding detached TGs, and specialist formations as follows)

1st Fleet
TF10:  9 BB, 6 BC, 6 CA, 19 CL, 17 DD
TG11.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG11.2 & TG11.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)
TG12.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG12.2 & TG12.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)

2nd Fleet
TF20: 9 BB, 6 BC, 9 CA, 12 CL, 18 DD, 2 CT
TG21.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG21.2 & TG21.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)
TG22.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG22.2 & TG22.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)
TG23.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG23.2 & TG23.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)
TG24.2 & TG24.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)

3rd Fleet
TF30: 6 BB, 6 BC, 6 CA, 10 CL, 11 DD, 2 CT
TG31.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG31.2 & TG31.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)
TG32.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG32.2 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)

4th Fleet
TF40: 3 BB, 6 BC, 4 CA, 17 CL, 10 DD
TG41.1 (1 CA, 4 CL, 4 DD, 2 CT), TG41.2 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)


5th Fleet
TG51.2 & TG52.3 (1 CL, 2 DD, 2 CT)

Each Fleet is assigned to a sector and the TF x0 is the primary strike force with the other TF x1+ being the patrol force for that sector.  Additionally they use BS1 (DD sized bases) in great numbers with 560 in service.  A typical WP will have between 6 and 9 of them present as a watch force.  The response time for some sort of combat force is in many cases less than 1 month between encounter and the first ships arriving.  The patrol ships can then pile onto a WP defence force to make a more substantial road block.  The primary task force can respond in usually 2 months or less inside its area of responsibility.  There are support forces for each sector with mine layers, mine carriers, extra aPn etc. 

But 1st Fleet just got dispatched to deal with the break in at Romulus.  2nd Fleet is stuck watching Valentina's warp point.  3rd Fleet is stuck in Jerusalem as a survey force entered that system via a closed WP.  4th Fleet is currently refitting and 5th Fleet is barely being conceived as no one can figure out how to pay for it.

There is no way I can deal with the distributed threats by having a single fleet.  And I can't patrol effectively without a substantial investment in light ships.  And I need fixed defences at choke point systems to give me the time I need to shift forces around.  I also don't think bases can protect a world at least not once fighters show up and the 1LS circle of death becomes an issue.

Added to this we use Steve's logistics rules so there is an absolute maximum of ships you can support and the further you are from your logistics hubs the smaller that amount is.  That is part of the problem in Valentina...the amount of ships there is about the most I can support.  So concentration has its limits...the Squidzies have that issue where one system they would love to concentrate a big fleet into has to be picketed because they haven't got the logistics to support a fleet there.   And the Japanese-Russian war showed what happened to ships that needed to refit before fighting due to being at the end of their logistics teather.  Heck this was true in WW2 even...as logistics makes up a huge part of your work load in War in the Pacific.

My 0.02€ anyway.

I've been considering turning on the logistics in my campaign.  I used them in the Phoenix Campaign, but it had been a while, and I couldn't remember the rules exactly, so I left them off at the start of this campaign.  The various major powers are so spread out at this point that having those rules active would have a big effect, I think.  I just can't remember exactly how they work. 

Kurt

[Kurt (OP)]

The final point is the squishy, intangible, role-playing aspect.  In real life, most local politicians would probably prefer fixed defenses over ships, because then they can't be relocated someplace the  national government thinks is more important.

There are several historical examples of this. In WW2, Americans were hysterical about the threat of Japanese or German bombers, launched from imaginary submarines, attacking their coastal cities. So a large number of valuable 90mm AA guns were kept in the continental US for absolutely zero gain until well into the later stages of war. Somewhat similarly, the Germans built an extensive anti-air network in western Germany in 1937-1939 that was almost completely wasted effort too. In both cases the weapons and equipment could be later moved to make better use of them but manpower and infrastructure price had been paid and lost. Then there is the famous example of the Allied bombing campaign (that was not really affecting German industrial production until late 1944) drawing majority of Luftwaffe fighter forces into Germany itself instead of being used over the Soviet Union. Those fighters shot down impressive numbers of bombers but were grind to dust themselves at the same time. Meanwhile, their absence meant that the Red Air Force, so badly mauled in 1941, could rebuild and regain air superiority. So even totalitarian states are vulnerable to making strategic mistakes in the name of populism.

I disagree about power concentration being unrealistic.

Mahan doctrine applies to space navies at least as much as to wet navies.

Summarizing Mahan (and I welcome the naval military history buffs out there to correct any serious misstatements):
You win the battle by bringing more power to bear at a single point than your opponent.
You win the war by winning the battle between primary fleets.
Therefore if your objective is to be capable of winning a war, you should maximize the amount of power you can bring to bear at a single point.

You're right but Mahan was wrong. In WW1, the big battle between primary fleets was won by Germans but they lost the war. Because actually the only naval element that truly affected the land war was the continental blockade that was slowly strangling Germany. Germany could've done better if instead of battleships they had invested in blockade runners, submarines and fast cruisers that could wreck Allied shipping. Their tiny African and Asian squadrons did pretty well until the British hunted them down and of course late in WW1 the German submarines, despite their technical infancy, nearly destroyed British shipping lines. And in both WW1 and WW2 the British suffered because of lack of light forces to escort commercial ships and to patrol vulnerable areas and so on. Not to mention that the Japanese focus on the Decisive Battle cost them the Pacific War - their submarines were hunting battleships instead of cargo ships and their navy lacked the corvettes and destroyers necessary to prevent American submarines from doing the same.

The reason why Mahan was wrong was human nature. The investment into those big Battle Fleets was so immense that neither admirals nor political leaders were willing to gamble and risk them all. So the Decisive Battle almost never happened and even when it did happen, the fights were broken off pretty quickly. At Jutland, the Germans broke off into port after half a day of sailing despite having sunk more British ships than they had lost. At Midway, the Japanese called off their surface fleet after they lost three carriers despite still having superiority in numbers and guns. In both cases the battle could have ended up being Mahan's desired Decisive Battle but didn't because the admirals in command decided to withdraw.

It's only the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 where a naval Decisive Battle affected the entire war and that was only because the psychological shock of losing the Baltic Fleet caused Czar Nicholas II to seek peace despite the Russin army still mobilizing to send troops to the Far East. If the war had gone on, it's likely that Russia would have driven the Japanese army to the sea.

Wasn't Admiral Jellicoe, the commander of the British fleets in WW I, referred to by Churchill as "The only man who could lose the war in an afternoon"?  For just this reason.  Jellicoe couldn't win the war, even by sinking the entire German Fleet, but if he committed his fleet and lost badly, it would almost certainly end with Britain losing the war. 

Skoormit is right in that the tendency is to concentrate the fleet, and that is certainly what Mahan argued for, IIRC.  WW I is a perfect example of this, where both fleets remained largely concentrated for most of the war, mostly out of fear of what the other fleet might do. 

[Garfunkel]

Exactly. Even if Jellicoe had done everything perfectly and his ships and crews worked flawlessly, destroying the Hochseeflotte would not have accomplished anything because Germany had to be defeated on land. Which is the major shortcoming of Mahan's theory - it disregards land empires as it overemphasizes sea empires.

[Andrew]

Mahan was writing from the perspective of an American and America is a Maritime power until such time as Mexico or Canada builds a huge army. He was also basing his writings of the performance of Great Britain which is a Maritime power and used that power to defeat pretty much everyone at various points by using their command of the sea to project power where needed.
Germany lost WW1 because they had built a navy which while vastly expensive and consuming a lot of resources was worse than useless. It brought the Greatest Maritime power into an alliance with all their hostile neighbours , and was then unnable to meaningfully intefere with the blockade this caused strangling Germanies economy and allowing the financial power of Great Britain to bring men and material from all over the world to block their ambitons on land. If the Germans had not built a navy WW1 would have ended in 1914-15 with a German victory over France and Russia.

However in Starfire there is only the Navy and fixed fortifications so fleet power is all important. The maths of Starfire means that all other things being equal the larger fleet wins by a signifigant margin.  So the weaker power needs to attrit the more powerful fleet by some means, diversions to split their fleet, attrition from cheap wp defenses or drawing a part of the enemy fleet into an engagment as attempted at Jutland.
The Greater power needs to keep as much combat power concentrated as possible and avoid being drawn into too many wp assaults and being attrited before the Decisive battle.
Esentially it works like the Pacific war in WW2 and Japanese planning for attrition before the final decisive battle. The same rule applies never fight anyone who has an economy 10 times greater than you unless you can destroy their economy before they bury you in ships.

This is the Big problem for the Mintek, they cannot match the D'bringi numbers so need to win multiple small engagements, WP defenses or find a way to hit the D'bringi economy.  Kurt had a great example of how a weak power can defeat a stronger power with luck and skill in his previous campaign, the defeat of the Republic by the Empire despite the Empire being much weaker than the Republic but with a whole card.

[misanthropope]

feel you are considerably underappreciating the effects of choke points on wars in starfire.   

[Kurt (OP)]

Mahan was writing from the perspective of an American and America is a Maritime power until such time as Mexico or Canada builds a huge army. He was also basing his writings of the performance of Great Britain which is a Maritime power and used that power to defeat pretty much everyone at various points by using their command of the sea to project power where needed.
Germany lost WW1 because they had built a navy which while vastly expensive and consuming a lot of resources was worse than useless. It brought the Greatest Maritime power into an alliance with all their hostile neighbours , and was then unnable to meaningfully intefere with the blockade this caused strangling Germanies economy and allowing the financial power of Great Britain to bring men and material from all over the world to block their ambitons on land. If the Germans had not built a navy WW1 would have ended in 1914-15 with a German victory over France and Russia.

However in Starfire there is only the Navy and fixed fortifications so fleet power is all important. The maths of Starfire means that all other things being equal the larger fleet wins by a signifigant margin.  So the weaker power needs to attrit the more powerful fleet by some means, diversions to split their fleet, attrition from cheap wp defenses or drawing a part of the enemy fleet into an engagment as attempted at Jutland.
The Greater power needs to keep as much combat power concentrated as possible and avoid being drawn into too many wp assaults and being attrited before the Decisive battle.
Esentially it works like the Pacific war in WW2 and Japanese planning for attrition before the final decisive battle. The same rule applies never fight anyone who has an economy 10 times greater than you unless you can destroy their economy before they bury you in ships.

This is the Big problem for the Mintek, they cannot match the D'bringi numbers so need to win multiple small engagements, WP defenses or find a way to hit the D'bringi economy.  Kurt had a great example of how a weak power can defeat a stronger power with luck and skill in his previous campaign, the defeat of the Republic by the Empire despite the Empire being much weaker than the Republic but with a whole card.

The Mintek had a great plan of attack against the D'Bringi Alliance, based on their development of HT-9 systems.  Their attack plan relied on SBM pods destroying the warp point defenses at the Phyriseq warp point, and then their new F1 fighters and anti-matter munitions giving them qualitative superiority over the remaining Alliance fleets that would respond.  There was more to the plan, but that was the basics.  It had a good chance of succeeding, but their great plan ran afoul of economic realities.  Namely, their economy can't handle refitting their fleet, upgrading their munitions, and building the number of ships and fighters they need to both attack the D'Bringi and defend their home system against the unknowns that recently found a closed warp point into their system.  By the time they sort out their economy and their contact with the Bedu (currently ongoing), they will likely have lost their window, as the D'Bringi Alliance will probably have developed HT-9 systems themselves.  Whether the Mintek figure that out before attacking, though, is another question. 

Kurt

[Kurt (OP)]

feel you are considerably underappreciating the effects of choke points on wars in starfire.

Starfire is dominated by the warp point choke point issue.  However, in a low-growth, relatively low income game, the stakes are considerably higher.  It is much harder in this campaign to establish significant warp point defenses outside a race's home system, and all of the races are much more loss-sensitive than they would otherwise be.  In spite of the fact that I've raised the price of mines and DSB-L's, they are relatively easy to build and so most races rely on them, but given their limited income they can only build so many without crippling other areas, such as their fleet or economic expansion. 

The economic choices I made for this campaign continue to yield interesting results. 

[Paul M]

Mines and buoys Starslayer and I sorta have a soft cap on.  We also require that a tender be present for them so they have a running cost.  We also increased the build cost for minefields to 0.5 HS/pattern and you can't move them with the CFN, I do the same with pods, the races I have that use them all have dedicated pod movers.  So a fair few of these things are under control in our game.  The cost of the fun toys is also an issue as you are seeing...the RM has spent turn after turn after turn refitting...replacing older fighters...buying pods...refitting...oh those ships need refitting...oh what the heck are those fighters still in service for...good lord there are still ships to be refit...finally I can refit those carriers as I don't need them to shuttle fighters any more...

Starslayer is the better one to mention the Bugs vrs the Psycho Seals.  In our game the bugs are among the highest tech level in the game:  the SCN ran into cloaked bug SDs for example.  Still the Seals have managed to tie them up for over 100 turns.  The combination of closed WPs, WP defences, 100 HS WPs etc have made the advances after the initial rapid ones painfully slow.   And the Seals still don't have anti-matter while the bugs are using advanced anti-matter.

Our stellaris game last night by the way illustrated very well the problem with concentrated fleet power.  I was attacking a NPR and while my fleet was stronger I had to split it in 2 to deal with 2 lines of advance and then the one line of advance split again.  Soooo there I am taking system C...then the NPR runs back and takes system B...followed by A...my fleet retakes B then A...they take C...I retake C...they take B than A.  It was VERY annoying and ended up with a status quo peace.  I needed 1 more good sized fleet and that problem would have been solved...but it illustrates the issue with a single powerful fleet....that can be only in one place at one time.  I also don't think I was playing so effectively since it is multiplayer and the whole stopping the clock is something I try and avoid.  So I make no claims there wasn't a better way to deal with the situation than playing whack-a-mole.

In starfire once you empire is 4 jumps from your home system in all directions a single concentrated fleet has to give way to something distributed ...so at around HT4 for a player race or when BBs show up you have virtually no other choice as they are just too slow to respond to threats where you have to go from one side to the other and then back.  In a game with a SM and other humans I'd think that whole "one fleet to rule them all" concept dies even earlier.

[misanthropope]

urge to play starfire intensifying...

[Kurt (OP)]

Sorry for the hiatus.  I had some real-life stuff I had to deal with, and, as the campaign has gotten more complex, I decided I needed a better way to track the contact points between empires.  As the game has gone on and the empires have grown, there have been an ever increasing number of contact points.  Some of these contact points are known to both sides, some are known to one side, and some are not known by either side to be an actual contact point.  The number of these has grown to the point that I decided to create a spread sheet to track the contact points, and the knowledge each race has for the contact points, so that I could better track what is actually going on.  I think this will be useful in the future, but, it has been a bit time consuming. 

[TheTalkingMeowth]

The degree to which the CU higher-ups suck is...awe-inspiring. Seriously. Masterclass in sheer unadulterated awful.

I think it's the whiff of pettiness that really sells it.

[Gyrfalcon]

Agreed. Its to the point where I more or less am hoping that Humanity gets taken over by the D'Bringi simply so we don't have to deal with the human politicians any longer.

[Black]

I would prefer Bjering over D'Bringi, but even D'Bringi are getting more reasonable with Rehorish influence. It is a shame that the Colonial Union has fallen so low. I am at least content that Ruston is out of the harms way. I wonder about Semenov thought, some overzealous New Dawnist could go after him if Semenov will be more vocal about this situation.

[Paul M]

It does seem to be a situation where the scum is rising to the top of the pot...

The CU will have to invest in dedicated assault transports in the future and presumably will be scrabbling to put DDE/CLE/CAE into service.