| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| This is true , I'm not saying every idea I have is great or even good but I also don't feel the need to attempt to pick holes in others ideas . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RexMundiAbu wrote: | | This is true , I'm not saying every idea I have is great or even good but I also don't feel the need to attempt to pick holes in others ideas . |
That's what we DO here. In hundreds of conversations and thousands of posts, I've yet to post ANY idea that met with universal acclaim. There is ALWAYS someone disagrees or doesn't like it, but it is never intended as a personal attack. Constructive criticism is a key facet of what we do here. If you look at my previous posts in this topic, you will see that my approach has never been, "well, your idea is stupid, and you are stupid for thinking it", but rather "I don't agree with this idea, and this is why." We are here to help each other improve our ideas and concepts by offering opinions and perspectives that may not have occurred to others when they first thought the concept up.
Opinionated? Yes.
Arrogant? I will concede the point.
But neither of those mean that I'm trying to attack you personally. I'm trying to offer constructive criticism based on my own experience in gaming and in the real world. If you can't handle that, then perhaps the Rancor Pit is not the place for you, as you won't be getting it just from me.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no problem with constructive criticism and also if folk don't agree with me , cool . But the way you have come across has been ( I feel ) over the top , but like you say you are of course entitled to your opinions .
Personally I am here to get new ideas from you guys and maybe share some of mine , if I don't like for whatever reason anyone else's ideas then I wont use it , I wont bash them for it or tell them how wrong they are ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not a moderator here. Just think of me as a mutual friend.
As I'm sure both of you know, internet and forum discussions can often come across as more abrasive than they really were intended. Take a breath, become at peace with the Force, and trust that everyone here means well.
It seems to me like the two of you need to align your understandings of the SWU in order to develop a similar vision, or to find out that your visions are fairly compatible to begin with.
What we're (IMO) working towards here is a deeper rather than wider conception. So, we should make ourselves be a bit conservative so that we can collate our ideas to collaboratively make something more interesting than each of our ideas can make alone.
Regarding this vessel, I think that Crmcneill has a point that it really should remain as a support vessel. If we were to amend my listing at the bottom pg. 2 to list every ship someone ever thought of, we'd have a listing that's not manageable and it would include a lot of weird (and, frankly, stupid) ships and it would make no coherent sense. This ship has all the potential to become weird and wacky and therefore, ultimately, a less compelling addition to our SWU, if we expand too far out the modules that might be added to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And yet constructive criticism often takes the form of telling someone that you think their idea is wrong or misguided, so long as you explain the reasoning behind your opinion.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, let's have that be the last that we need to say about this particular argument. If you have more to say about this ship, start up a separate topic about it, and take your argument - be it debate or mudslinging match there.
If we're about done with the list of standard imperial ships (for core systems), and we're agreed that there's a separation between bureaucratic lines of similars and tactical lines of dissimilars, then I think we can start to outline different doctrines of squadron building, based on the ImpSB as the basis for the bureaucratic lines. We can also use our discussion of capital ship roles as the basis for tactical lines.
I suggest we do the bureaucratic lines here, and the tactical lines there.
Any thoughts to start us off? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | I suggest we do the bureaucratic lines here, and the tactical lines there.
Any thoughts to start us off? |
I think they are both appropriate for here. Rex's end goal will be tracking the losses from the tactical lines, so if the bureaucratic lines (which, by the way, are not mentioned anywhere in the ImpSB) exist at all, it will take more the form of "there are X many Vindicator-Class Heavy Cruisers in Superiority Force GK421, divided into Y number of squadrons, with Z ships per squadron." Any ships encountered in a tactical line will likely be from the same squadron, so any losses of multiple ships of the same type in the same line will most likely have been part of the same administrative squadron at Systems Force HQ
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | If you have more to say about this ship, start up a separate topic about it, and take your argument - be it debate or mudslinging match there. |
In all fairness, I had worked this up before I read your post. It's a partial list of other potential taskforce cruiser modules, and I have a few others, but I stopped with these for now...
Fire Support
Equipped with multiple missile launchers of varying sizes, as well as onboard armories containing a variety of different warheads. Used to provide fire support for army operations on planets where the orbital space has been secured but combat operations on the surface are still underway.
Minelayer
Pretty much what it sounds like. Can also be used to support siege operations by deploying orbital nightcloak satellite arrays.
Troop Transport
Transport capacity for a reinforced Army division and all their equipment, as well as landing craft to deploy them. The landing craft complement will be geared more towards bulk transport into a secured landing zone than establishing a beach-head (i.e. lots of barges and utility shuttles, but little or no drop ships or combat landers).
Small Craft Tender
Massive hangar bays with room for up to two full TIE wings. Can also be used as a base for various other small craft, such as blastboats or assault shuttles and drop ships (used to augment the landing capacity of other transport craft)
Heavy Lifter
Provides inter-system transport for non-hyperspace capable vehicles (such as the System Patrol Craft), as well as large planetary vehicles like the Mobile Repulsorlift Base or ocean going vessels like the Leviathan Submersible Carrier (as I've always felt that the Imperial military retained some traditional naval vessels for enforcing their rule on water worlds). Can also be used to relocate small space stations or other orbital platforms.
Logistics Transport
As logistics deal not just with transportation of supplies but also their coordination and distribution, this ship differs from standard bulk transports in that it is also equipped with an internal distribution network to quickly sort inbound and outbound cargo, as well as a small craft contingent that is used to distribute the ship's load to multiple locations simultaneously. Loses some cargo capacity to a bulk freighter, but has the advantage of being able to transport material directly to its end receiver (or at least closer than normal). Commonly used to support operations on planets with wide-spread military activity, yet lacking a central supply base equipped to unload more standardized transports.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ... the bureaucratic lines (which, by the way, are not mentioned anywhere in the ImpSB) exist at all, ... |
I disagree. They do exist in the ImpSB. It's what the ImpSB talks about. I call it 'bureaucratic' to distinguish it from the idea that IS made up/implied/derived, namely the tactical lines.
For the rest, I agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | I disagree. They do exist in the ImpSB. It's what the ImpSB talks about. I call it 'bureaucratic' to distinguish it from the idea that IS made up/implied/derived, namely the tactical lines. |
Okay, I think I'm missing something here. The Fleet Organization chapter of the ImpSB always refers to a group of ships by their tactical mission. Another thing it never clarifies is whether or not a tactical line must consist of a single class of ships. For instance, an attack line consists of 3-6 ships, anywhere from heavy cruisers down to frigates, but it never clarifies that all the ships must be one or the other. An attack line composed of 2 Dreadnoughts and 2 Nebulon B's would still meet the definition of an Attack line and also be a more versatile force. Most of the lines listed in the ImpSB have the potential to be mixed and matched in this fashion.
When I first proposed the organizational line as distinct from the tactical line, it was based on the presupposition that the make-up of the various tactical lines would be composed of multiple ship types more often than not, and that the makeup would be determined by the estimated mission requirements as determined at the Systems Force level. The force pools mentioned in the Systems Force description would be uniform squadrons composed entirely of the same ship type, and individual ships would be drawn from those force pools then mixed and matched to meet projected mission requirements.
For example, if a planner at Systems Force HQ was organizing a mission that was expected to require an attack line, he would pull ships from organizational squadrons to fit the mission.High Starfighter / Low Capital Ship = Nebulon B's
Low Starfighter / High Capital = Dreadnoughts
Equal Starfighter & Capital = Dreadnoughts & Nebulon B's Tactical lines (i.e. pretty much every line described in the ImpSB) would be temporary formations cobbled together based solely on the missions that Systems Force HQ needed accomplished. These formations would have no set duration (anywhere from days to years), and could be broken up just as easily as they were put together.
Does this match your thinking?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I think there's room to think about this in two ways, and I may have overstated my case in the past. You're also right that the lines in the ImpSB are named according to their tactical missions.
As I've read the ImpSB - and you're a much closer student of it than I am - it strongly implies lines of similars, talking about a line of light cruisers or a line of heavy cruisers, rather than a line of one heavy cruiser combined with a carrier and two small anti-starfighter frigates or corvettes.
Because I assume that the latter (dissimilars) is much more tactically effective, while the former (similars) is more bureaucratically efficient, I've divided them up as such, conceptually. As such, I think you've embraced what I was talking about in a more categorical way that I intended, but I can certainly see what you're saying as a way to consider this.
Here's how I think about it:
As a totalitarian regime, operational efficiency is not necessarily the Empire's main driving objective. The Imperial Navy is driven by two impulses - it's own native desire for tactical mastery, and the regime's objective of maintaining a political power with the image of uniformity and overwhelming military force. The poor schlepps at the operational level are squeezed by these two cultures, bottom-up military and top-down political. They do so by pretending the latter and doing the former, while the Imperial Army does the reverse.
However, that balance is not uniform throughout the galaxy. In places, such as the Core, the top-down approach overrides everything, whereas on the Outer Rim tactical outcomes overrides everything.
The reason why I don't think your scheme would work is because they would constantly be assembling and reassembling the tactical lines and the logistics would be far too confused, resulting in crazy supply lines which are vulnerable to attack. Now - I can totally see the argument that that's how it is, and that the Rebel Alliance is able to exploit this Achilles heel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | As I've read the ImpSB - and you're a much closer student of it than I am - it strongly implies lines of similars, talking about a line of light cruisers or a line of heavy cruisers, rather than a line of one heavy cruiser combined with a carrier and two small anti-starfighter frigates or corvettes. |
Before I wrote the last post, I double checked the line descriptions to confirm the language used, and you are correct about the implication. However (and this was key for me) it never explicitly states that that is the case. As such, in the absence of a definite statement, the implication is that it can go either way (for me, at least).
| Quote: | | As a totalitarian regime, operational efficiency is not necessarily the Empire's main driving objective. The Imperial Navy is driven by two impulses - it's own native desire for tactical mastery, and the regime's objective of maintaining a political power with the image of uniformity and overwhelming military force. The poor schlepps at the operational level are squeezed by these two cultures, bottom-up military and top-down political. They do so by pretending the latter and doing the former, while the Imperial Army does the reverse. |
This is not the way it is described in the ImpSB. I offer the following from the OB Chapter:
| Quote: | | Navy organization is completely different than the Army's method — while the Imperial Army has a "baseline" Order of Battle (OB), with carefully classified exceptions to this OB, Navy command simply assigns the most appropriate force to the most appropriate mission. Therefore, while the listings below are "theory," Naval mission assignments in practice often bear little resemblance to the OB. |
| Quote: | The heart of Navy doctrine is the mission detail. The commander at every level can create temporary organizations called "mission details" which violate the standard OB. The concept behind the mission detail is simple for a commander to carry through:
1. Evaluate the mission.
2. Assign a detail which would best accomplish the mission.
3. Retain sufficient ship strength to meet other expected obligations.
There is a saying among Navy staff officers and commanders: "The first step leads to work, the second to promotion, the third to court martial." While extensive training docs exist to teach commanders how to perform these three steps, the third step remains as much a product of instinct as training. With increased Rebel activity, those officers who act in strict accordance with doctrine often fall short of expectations. Naval discipline is such that officers rarely repeat their mistakes. |
| Quote: | Another point to be made is that the OB represents the ideal organization of the Army. Mistakes and inaccuracies in upper level HQs can result in a skewed organization of the actual unit in the field. As the war against the Rebellion heats up, a substantial part of the organization is improvised by field commanders who are trying to combat a foe who gains strength with each encounter. Old line commanders and COMPNOR officials do not approve of such initiative on the parts of local commanders, and these officers are often punished even if the results prove successful. It is not unknown for a commander to be summarily executed for his violation of Surface Operations Training Doctrine, and then have his methods evaluated and subsequently adopted as new doctrine.
Such pioneers are obviously a rarity in the Empire. |
To me, these three quotes are a representation of the difference in institutional thought, in that the Navy is mission oriented while the Army is doctrine oriented. The mission detail that is described above is, in essence, a mixed line or squadron put together on short notice to complete a specific mission. For the Army, such improvisation would be cause for court martial; for the Navy, it is par for the course.
| Quote: | | The reason why I don't think your scheme would work is because they would constantly be assembling and reassembling the tactical lines and the logistics would be far too confused, resulting in crazy supply lines which are vulnerable to attack. Now - I can totally see the argument that that's how it is, and that the Rebel Alliance is able to exploit this Achilles heel. |
Based on my read of the ImpSB, that is actually exactly how it is, but the Logistics units of the Navy are good enough to actually keep up.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okay, fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Incidentally, I misspoke before when I said that support units were attached Systems Forces level; they are actually attached at the Fleet and Sector Group levels. The reason for my confusion was that the support units are actually System Force equivalent units.
The way it ends up working organizationally is that System Forces are assigned a specific region within a sector, covering multiple star systems. Multiple Systems Forces may be assigned to the same region, or may overlap. For instance, a Superiority Force and Escort Force may be assigned to a specific area, even though each will have their own missions (the Escort Force might be used to police the area to free up the Superiority Force for a campaign against the Alliance, rebellious planets, or pirate forces). It's likely one of the Systems Force commodores will serve as an acting admiral of some kind, commanding all the Systems Forces assigned to the region.
Fleets, on the other hand, are considered Sector-wide assets, although it is possible that Fleets could also be assigned to larger regions within a Sector. It's also possible that a Sector could keep a Fleet (particularly a Superiority Fleet) in reserve, deploying its units out as reinforcements to the Fleets on front-line duty. Fleets also are responsible for maintaining the assets that support the Systems Forces, both technically and logistically.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its a shame we can't flip the designations and have the Sector Fleet made up of Groups instead of a Sector Group made up of Fleets...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
