Author Topic: Cold War Comments Thread  (Read 71916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kurt (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #390 on: May 11, 2021, 11:29:29 AM »
I got sidelined by reality and just finished getting caught up...

Three things sorta stand out:
1.  With reduced growth rates it is nearly a requirement to force grow colonies to medium (400 PU) status.  This likely flies in the face of conventional SF wisdom but both Starslayer and I came to this same conclusion in our game.  The Shanirian's have been relying a bit too much on growth as they were forced to expand their fleet.  But basically I got 2 races that were seriously in the red income wise and both of them are now in a good economic state due to this concentrated effort to both colonize and push up benign world populations.  Also hostile worlds are worth settling due to the surplus population they produce on growth turns that can be used for in-system colonization...the Drakes have completely filled several systems and in particular if you allow asteroid colonies they are a great seed source.   The D'bringi ignoring these worlds...has cost them a lot of money.

Yeah, I have been slow to adjust to the new reality of low population growth rates.  Over time, it has forced my races into radically different behavior from a normal game.  Almost all of my major races are now colonizing habitable worlds in the 5-8 jump band now, which is more expensive and slow, and some are eyeing planets in the 9-12 jump band.  In a normal game I'd never do that, as if you just wait for a while a nearby colony would grow to the 400 PU level and you could begin shipping out colonists from there much cheaper than from the home planet.  In this game, though, I've reached turn 180 and colonies planted at the start of the game are just now reaching the 400 PU level.

Some of the races are 'force-growing' their colonies to the 400 PU level by shipping additional colonists from their home planet.  I'm not convinced that this is a good economic idea, as every 5.2 PTU you ship turns into only 2 money producing population units, but I think most races will turn to this rather than ship colonies out to the 9-12 range band. 

Quote
2.  Did you roll for the commander who attacked the crabs?  I mean that was a very bad case of snatching total defeat out of the jaws of victory....unless those PDCs had a lot more armour than I can believe the DDs could wipe them out...then wipe out the orbital stations...and then and only then does the fleet need to close in...basically when the DDs are out of missiles.  If the ESs charged the whole fleet can withdraw ahead of them using their XOs to slow the ESs down to the point where they can't close the distance.   Charging forwards...and even letting the BM equipped ground based launchers have any chance to hit???  Madness...and the DDs can cycle in and out...they had shields their targets not.  The crabs could not be crushed without losses but there is no reason for the losses they took.

Part role playing, part random chance.  The Sligo forces were mostly green, as home built or reserve ships would be, and their commander, as a local political appointee, was green as well.  I decided that a green commander, appointed for political reasons, would be most likely to launch a frontal assault, and would also be very sensitive to losses.  Worse such commanders also tend to overestimate their enemy's effectiveness, and underestimate the damage they have done to the enemy during the battle.  At the critical point, I rolled against the Sligo (RM+RD)/2 to determine if they would press forward.  They failed the roll badly, and thus retreated in confusion.  Had they enough time to try again, they would have had a better plan and been more effective in applying it.  Sligo was almost certain to win in the end, the income and tech disparity was significant and was all in their favor, but as always there are political factors as well. 

Quote
3.  Did you forget the detection range of F0s?  I'm baffled by how they managed to find the ships they supposedly attacked...   I used to always send along an ast with each F0 strike where the ast was the eyes and even that is only range 20.  Once the Mimbarii ships transited out the fighters were effectively blind...if they were in 6 hexs of the CTs they could follow those but the fleet could just turn away from them.  They could have played cat and mouse with the nearsighted F0s till their lifesupport was up.

Yeah, I did forget the piss-poor detection range of the fighters.  In the end it didn't matter, the D'Bringi just lost some fighters they wouldn't have otherwise lost.  Fighters really need an Xr equipped ship to spot for them. 

Quote
A more general comment about fighters is that they are rich man's weapons.  F0s are well attrition weapons since the only thing they can do is close to FR range...and under most circumstances that will result in a lot of dead fighters...even though it is going to take out ships unless the fighters are insufficient and should not be deployed.  This means the races that consider them secondary support systems likely have to consider very carefully how and against what they deploy their fighters.  There are a lot of hidden costs with fighters...magazines costing more than the carrier, the upgrade to new fighters, the reduced effectiveness of the damn things till fM2LT2 shows up.  UTM nerfed them seriously with Zi, Ai, S0, !2 and Dz.  It is clear that how they are deployed has to change from what was typical in the past but I must admit I'm not sure the best way to do so.  Basically an X fighter squadrons with weapon # are required to destroy ship type xx table needs to be generated for each race.  Based on that they can then determine how many fighters they want to attach to each force.  But affording enough of them to be decisive I think will be the constant issue.

You are right.  Fighters are the quintessential swarm weapon, but as with most swarms are very vulnerable to being outnumbered.  All other things being equal, if two fighter groups meet each other, the larger group will destroy the smaller group completely, while losing about half of the smaller group's number of fighters.  In other words, if force A has 100 fighters, and force B has 50, then force A will always destroy force B, while usually losing around 25 of their own fighters.  This is dependent on grade and what the fighters are armed with, but only to a small extent.

In an F0 vs F0 fight, the FO has the following chance of destroying its opposing fighter at range 0:

F0 with two fR: 91%
F0 with two fG: 75%
F0 with 1 fG and 1 fR: 85%

This is somewhat frustrating, as the fG is supposed to be an anti-fighter weapon, and indeed can't be used against ships.  It does have the advantage of not being expendable, though, meaning that if the fighter survives its initial round of combat it can go on attacking while a fighter with fR has to retreat after expending its fR.  Because of the way the alternating combat sequence works, the smaller fighter group is only going to be able to engage with approximately 50% of its fighters, as the other 50% will be destroyed before they can fire.  Meaning they will likely only be able to destroy up to 50% of their own number of enemy fighters. 

This has widespread effects.  Basically, I can see three basic strategic strategies for deploying fighters:

1. All-fighters, with only light supporting 'conventional' forces;
2. Balanced forces, divided between carriers and conventional forces;
3. Fighter-support, with heavy conventional forces and carrier escorts.

The above equation of being outnumbered and resulting losses is the same no matter what strategy you choose, you can only affect your chances of being outnumbered.  Obviously, your best chance of outnumbering the enemy is by choosing strategy #1, while your highest chance of being outnumbered is if you choose strategy #3.  Random chance, empire sizes, and other factors also have a say, so even if you choose strategy #3 you can still have a chance at outnumbering your enemy.  Other factors will change this, such as better fighters at higher tech levels, and better weapons. 

Having said all of that, outnumbering the enemies fighter force, and thus being the last side with fighters in space, does not automatically mean you are the winner of the battle.  As you pointed out, you are going to have to attack the enemy ships with your fighters, and you are going to take losses doing that, perhaps significant losses to your already depleted fighters.  It is possible that a balanced force, well escorted with ships designed to engage fighters, can deal with the remnants of the enemy's fighters after those fighters are depleted taking out the balanced-force's fighters, and then go on to engage and defeat the fighter-heavy force's combat ships.  Very situational, though. 

Kurt
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • m
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #391 on: May 12, 2021, 09:59:55 AM »
>Some of the races are 'force-growing' their colonies to the 400 PU level by shipping additional colonists from their home planet.  I'm not convinced that this is a good economic idea, as every 5.2 PTU you ship turns into only 2 money producing population units, but I think most races will turn to this rather than ship colonies out to the 9-12 range band.

if youve got no use for a colonization hub  it's probably not worth it, no.  but tech levels are getting up there, and i feel like even with no other habs, being able to do in-system and adjacent-system colonization of airless rocks is going to become a meaningful perq sometime soon.  supposing your edition still has the 10% bonus to econ per TL, anyway.

also:  defending a system 12 away from home?  UGH. 


 

Offline Kurt (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #392 on: May 12, 2021, 06:08:25 PM »
>Some of the races are 'force-growing' their colonies to the 400 PU level by shipping additional colonists from their home planet.  I'm not convinced that this is a good economic idea, as every 5.2 PTU you ship turns into only 2 money producing population units, but I think most races will turn to this rather than ship colonies out to the 9-12 range band.

if youve got no use for a colonization hub  it's probably not worth it, no.  but tech levels are getting up there, and i feel like even with no other habs, being able to do in-system and adjacent-system colonization of airless rocks is going to become a meaningful perq sometime soon.  supposing your edition still has the 10% bonus to econ per TL, anyway.

also:  defending a system 12 away from home?  UGH.

With the slower population growth equaling less money, and reduced ship construction rates coupled with slightly slower research rates, all of this puts the various races in a difficult position.  Spread and expand is an imperative, but for some of the larger races they are getting pretty extended, but with less ships than a race would have in a normal game to defend all of that area. 

It's different. 
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • m
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #393 on: May 12, 2021, 06:36:33 PM »
i poked through the early couple pages of this thread, but didn't see:

what actual growth rate are you using for pops in this game?    while i'm bugging you for numbers, what is the PU/PTU conversion rate at 401 pop, in 3rd ed?  thx
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #394 on: May 13, 2021, 04:41:38 AM »
The thing is with the economics in starfire, and especially with the reduced rate of growth there are only two relevant questions:
1.  Can I afford to ship the 26 PTU a distance x?
2.  Is there anything else closer to home that will make me money instead?

If the answer is YES and NO then you ship the colonists.   Starfire and as far as I can see most other games have no "cost for empire" so there is no reason to not do so.  The whole "rate of return" question is mostly academic.  Every investment in the economy returns you more money for the economy.  So there is no reason to not make any economic investment you can afford to make.  And I have seen what it does for 3 races now....the SC reduced its investment in the economy due to needing to expand the fleet and their income growth stagnated, the RM was in the red and is now so far in the black that they can afford their fleet and all other expenses without looking at trade income...and they ship 105 PTU per turn from their home system 12+ jumps.  The Squids are also now in the black so they can look into expanding their active fleet and they also ship population up to 12 jumps...their empire has so much survey luck and several nexus that they could ship stuff out with few jumps.

It is best to do this with the better planets and let growth deal with the other planets but even then sending out occasional colonists to speed up the arrival at 400 PU is good.  Once the planet can start doing in system colonization of the moons it is a huge benefit...plus those 10 PU also allow 5 IU so the net benefit builds up fast.  I also look into taking people off very poor small's near to the growth turn and moving them to the very rich moons using the in-system CFN. 

Spreading out requires investment in fixed defences....and recall that the TFN in stars at war had a lot more invested in fixed defences then mobile ones....and it also means patrol forces are required.   Plus you end up with a fleets rather than "a fleet" and so battle sizes are much more sensible.   You don't have a single fleet that has to move 12 jumps to defend that world....you have system defences, you have a patrol force and some 4 jumps away is the xth Fleet or TG y of xth fleet or whatever. 
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

Offline Kurt (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #395 on: May 13, 2021, 08:10:41 AM »
i poked through the early couple pages of this thread, but didn't see:

what actual growth rate are you using for pops in this game?    while i'm bugging you for numbers, what is the PU/PTU conversion rate at 401 pop, in 3rd ed?  thx

I changed growth in Starfire Assistant from every turn to once every five turns.  This turned out to be more drastic than I had originally thought, as I have cut growth by 80%.  Of course, my previous campaign ended, if I remember correctly, in or around turn 140, from sheer size.  This campaign is still going strong at turn 180, although some of the races are getting larger at this point. 

From 151-400, the conversion rate is 2.6, which means that those populations can't really support colonization efforts without becoming seriously depleted quickly.  From 401-800, the conversion rate is 18, which is much better. 

Kurt
 

Offline Kurt (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #396 on: May 13, 2021, 08:24:25 AM »
The thing is with the economics in starfire, and especially with the reduced rate of growth there are only two relevant questions:
1.  Can I afford to ship the 26 PTU a distance x?
2.  Is there anything else closer to home that will make me money instead?

If the answer is YES and NO then you ship the colonists.   Starfire and as far as I can see most other games have no "cost for empire" so there is no reason to not do so.  The whole "rate of return" question is mostly academic.  Every investment in the economy returns you more money for the economy.  So there is no reason to not make any economic investment you can afford to make.  And I have seen what it does for 3 races now....the SC reduced its investment in the economy due to needing to expand the fleet and their income growth stagnated, the RM was in the red and is now so far in the black that they can afford their fleet and all other expenses without looking at trade income...and they ship 105 PTU per turn from their home system 12+ jumps.  The Squids are also now in the black so they can look into expanding their active fleet and they also ship population up to 12 jumps...their empire has so much survey luck and several nexus that they could ship stuff out with few jumps.

I have slowly come to a similar conclusion.  In the Phoenix Campaign, I never shipped colonists out further than four jumps, as there were always new colonies reaching the 401 PU level that could support new colonization, and if I had to wait for that to happen in one area, that just meant I shifted colonization efforts to another area of my empire where colonies at that level already existed.  It takes so long for colonies to grow in this campaign, that if I waited for a colony to reach 401+ PU to begin colonization efforts beyond the 4 jump band, it would likely never happen.  Certainly, any race that waited would be rapidly out-grown by its neighbors.   

Quote
It is best to do this with the better planets and let growth deal with the other planets but even then sending out occasional colonists to speed up the arrival at 400 PU is good.  Once the planet can start doing in system colonization of the moons it is a huge benefit...plus those 10 PU also allow 5 IU so the net benefit builds up fast.  I also look into taking people off very poor small's near to the growth turn and moving them to the very rich moons using the in-system CFN. 

Spreading out requires investment in fixed defences....and recall that the TFN in stars at war had a lot more invested in fixed defences then mobile ones....and it also means patrol forces are required.   Plus you end up with a fleets rather than "a fleet" and so battle sizes are much more sensible.   You don't have a single fleet that has to move 12 jumps to defend that world....you have system defences, you have a patrol force and some 4 jumps away is the xth Fleet or TG y of xth fleet or whatever.

Yes, the D'Bringi Alliance is facing this issue now.  They are fairly wide-spread, but face a nebulous threat in the Mintek that have a couple of fixed contact points, but other than those can appear anywhere.  This means that they have to have centralized fleets and sensor nets to protect the core worlds, but are becoming more and more worried about the outer rim, where things can be happening without anyone seeing them. 

Kurt
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #397 on: May 14, 2021, 05:18:17 AM »
I have to admit that both Starslayer and I didn't start out with that thought in mind but we have both come round to that way of thinking.  The 10:1 ratio of economics to movement in "normal" starfire distorts things astonishingly far from sensible what we and you are doing is seeing the more realistic side of the game.

Border security in the Shanirian Confederation is done by small divisions of lighter ships and large numbers of small bases at warp points.  The thebans use small numbers of BCs with commercial engines plus large bases at each habitable world and loads of fighters when I understand Starslayer correctly.  There is also in both cases a fairly well distributed network of small shipyard space stations (or not so small).  One thing that isn't so obvious but is clear when you look at it is that the TFN in the official universe probably spent far far far far more on Fortress Command then the fleet at least by ISW3 and certainly in ISW4. 
 

Offline Migi

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 465
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #398 on: May 16, 2021, 05:28:17 PM »
Doesn't the 'undetectable new jump point problem' make fixed defences less than ideal (at least at jump points)?
If you explore enough systems in theory you can bypass any fixed defence because you'll eventually find a new jump point into that system, as the Mintek just found out. If they had ships instead of asteroid bases then they could relocate some of them to approximate location of the new jump point, ready to respond against an incursion.
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • m
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #399 on: May 16, 2021, 07:13:31 PM »
the vague undefined future is always "here be dragons", and that's a good thing.  if you can fend off an enemy who could roll you _here and now_ with a military disposition that doesn't hobble your economic growth, that can easily be "ideal" in many reasonable circumstances.

even if you're deeply committed to owning the tempo, the "bank rank mate" is a real thing in starfire, and having speedbump defenders available is vital.  because of the way activation works, you can stuff an ad hoc attack a lot more cost effectively with bases and (especially) automata than with ships.

starfire's ridiculous economic curve exaggerates the value of any small delay to the defender.
 

Offline Kurt (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #400 on: May 17, 2021, 09:28:55 AM »
Doesn't the 'undetectable new jump point problem' make fixed defences less than ideal (at least at jump points)?
If you explore enough systems in theory you can bypass any fixed defence because you'll eventually find a new jump point into that system, as the Mintek just found out. If they had ships instead of asteroid bases then they could relocate some of them to approximate location of the new jump point, ready to respond against an incursion.

Both the Mintek and the D'Bringi Alliance are doing just that, trying to find new ways into each other's territory.  Finding a new way into any given system is not guaranteed, though, and if the new system with the jump link is far enough away from the core systems, you are going to have to send your fleet way out there to reach the enemy's systems. 

Your point above about the relative value of fixed defenses over warships is valid, and is a constant issue for all of the races.  The problem is that fixed defenses are cheaper to maintain, which means you can have more of them, particularly in a limited income setting like the Cold War Campaign, and are sometimes cheaper to buy.  That is the primary advantage of fixed defenses, however, as you point out their big disadvantage is that they can be outflanked if the enemy finds another way into their system.  The D'Bringi Alliance found this out when the Mintek found their way into the Rehorish Kure system and destroyed their border defenses at the warp point to the Free States, almost without loss to themselves, because the bases were all short-ranged beam type bases.   

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.  Politicians in threatened areas would advocate for the construction of fixed defenses to protect their people and industrial assets over ships, and, at least during peace, I think the national government would find it difficult to resist this kind of pressure.  In all of my big campaigns, starting with the old Terran Campaign, and then the Phoenix Campaign, the national governments wanted more and more ships, but also wanted to concentrate that power in massive fleets, or at least in nodal fleets in important systems.  However, all of these governments began facing considerable pressure from colonial governments that felt that they were completely unprotected, which they were.  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. 

In any case, the balance of ships over fixed defenses is constantly being re-evaluated by nearly all of the races.  Many of the races, particularly the smaller ones, have a few missile armed bases to protect their homeworlds and shipyards, and focus nearly everything on their fleets, trying to maximize their mobile striking power, as limited as it is. 
 

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 764
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #401 on: May 17, 2021, 10:15:48 AM »
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.


« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 10:18:40 AM by skoormit »
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • P
  • Posts: 1432
  • Thanked: 50 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #402 on: May 17, 2021, 11:50:07 AM »
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.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1048 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #403 on: May 17, 2021, 12:45:30 PM »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: nuclearslurpee

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1703
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: Cold War Comments Thread
« Reply #404 on: May 17, 2021, 02:10:24 PM »
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.

Funnily enough the Japanese I-400 carrier subs came somewhat close to realizing this fear to some degree.

Until Japan got nuked.