Gentlesophonts:
Steve Higginbotham(?) [email removed] flames:
> Necessarily. If you don't have orbital control, your guys won't ever
> get to the ground
I realize this is like talking about evolution to a creationist but when I
played *5FW* there were situations in which naval forces would enter a
system, land ground forces, and then have to face an opposing naval force
that subsequently jumped in system. In the course of the battle the first
naval force could be forced to withdraw without retrieveing its ground
forces (BTW, this happened to the Sword Worlds at Lanth in the *official*
campaign). The ground forces left behind had no 'aerospace' support from
their orbital elements. If I were the ground commander in such a situation
I'd have liked to have had some way of dealing with that enemy fleet now
in orbit besides surrendering or hiding in a cave somewhere, thus, I'd
have landed attached aerospace forces of some sort. (And this ignores
the fact that should I have managed to defeat that orbital force I might then
need some sort of air or sea lift capability to continue the planetary campaign
if my own naval forces have already jumped out system!)
> > It was these numbers that I used to estimate the Sword
> > Worlds naval forces at 42 ships.
>
> This is for the IMPERIUM ONLY! Not for ANYONE else...
You're forcing me into "apples and oranges" again! Why would I force the
Imperium to maintain *RS* protocol and then allow the Sword Worlds to
use *TCS*? That's not only unfair, it's stupid! I could have just as
easily used the *RS* methodology for Glisten subsector and come up with
a number for the 214th(?) Fleet that was similarly absurd to you TCS-ites!
> So let's ask another question: What makes you think *RS* qualifies
> as "strategic"? Big picture is NOT the same as "strategic", fyi.
Let's talk English 101. *FYI*, when someone places a word in quotation
marks (like I did with 'strategic' and 'tactical' *every time I used them*)
it's an indication that they are using the word in a non-standard way and that
it's meaning is suggested by the context of the text in which it appears.
Thus, I used 'strategic' and 'tactical' as easy ways of distiguishing
between the 'big picture', sector-level focus of *5FW* and *RS* and the
'little picture', ship-design focus of *HG* and *TCS*.
BTW, why the need to get so 'acrimonious'?
> If you ignore TL, then EVERYTHING you say about the military situation
> in Trav is meaningless drivel...
Again, why the need to get so angry and insulting? As far as this issue
is concerned, I find it more than a little irritating to have accepted a
point in one discussion for the sake of argument (in this case, Hans's
point about the Sword Worlds that tech level differences of one or two
*aren't* that important) only to get *flamed* for it by someone else in
another discussion! If you'd been following the discussion on Sword
Worlds technology, Steve, you'd have known that *I* think differences
of just *one* tech level *are* vitally important.
> > What I'm asking is why you choose to accept *TCS* data over *RS* data?
>
> Because RS is inconsistent with the reality presented in other places.
Let's talk Rhetoric 101. This is what's known as a circular argument.
> Yet Trav REPEATEDLY described successful invasions of worlds. Several
> in the FFW, more in the Rebellion. WHERE DID THE SHIPS COME FROM?
> Impy ship ever described that could move a division, though mention of
> assault transports was made)...
Here's some 'reality' for you. There were several assault transport
squadrons in *5FW* and these were exactly how large troop forces were moved
around.
Now, I'm not still trying to argue *5FW*/*RS* vs. *HG*/*TCS* (I've already
accepted Cynthia's and others' points) but I do hope you'll see that
there is no inherent value in calling for one source to be ignored *merely*
because it contradicts other sources!
> >> There is no military use for them (any of Neubayern's Flower class
> >> escorts (of which there were more than a thousand) could take all ten
> >> SDBs at once.
>
> > You're "mixing apples and orange". Why would I choose to have a *TCS*-
> > generated aggressor fight a *5FW*-generated defender?
>
> No, I'm describing a SINGLE SHIP. Designed using HG, which was the
> system used to design that SDB. You are assuming that a ship designed
> under High Guard is somehow different than another ship designed using
> High Guard just because the one ship was designed for a TCS game, and
> the other was designed as a bit of local color for the Traveller game?
> Ridiculous!
>
> I'm not restricting you to ANY constraints. I am using HG to design
> pirates, you are using HG to design SDBs (the one in question is the
> standard SDB from the Trav game (and Mt, and TNE, in different
> incarnations). It has NOTHING to do with FFW. FFW just provided the
> background for GDW to describe the SDB. And if you'd like to design a
> BETTER SDB (using HG, or any other rules set) feel free. It won't make
> a difference, any more than it would make a difference whether the US Navy
> used ten PT boats or ten Iowa class BBs to patrol the US coastline. The
> problem isn't the capability of the patrol ship, the problem is the
> NUMBER of the patrol ships. Keep in mind that your ten ships can only be
> TEN places at once...
[Sorry about this heavy quoting folks. I tried to cut as much as I could
but the guy's flaming me and he's *way* off mark.]
I'll try to write it simply.
You say your escort *Pansy* can beat my ten SDBs at Regina.
You say this has nothing to do with the differences between *5FW* and *TCS*.
You admit that my problem is the *number* of my ships rather than their
individual capability.
I say: THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ONLY TEN (10) SDBS AT REGINA IS A *DIRECT*
RESULT OF THE *5FW* RULES! As we've already seen, if *TCS* rules were
used for Regina there'd be *a lot* more than just 10 SDBs there! So,
please quit wasting everyone's bandwidth!
> If the Imperium only fights for high pop worlds, how did they grab
> the Border Worlds from the SW? Only one High Pop world there, so they
> shouldn't have touched any of the SW except Sacnoth...
And prior to occupying the Border Worlds the Imperial 214th Fleet
destroyed the Sacnoth Fleet at Sting! (BTW, there are *three* hi-pop
worlds in the SW. The Gram Fleet was defeated by the Imperial 213th
Fleet and the Narsil Fleet was defeated by the Darrians.)
> As to "harassing", what harassment could those offer to a battleship?
Uh, suicide run around the 'high guard' during refueling? Uh, forcing
some naval elements to remain in system to continue to protect ground
forces from SDB bombardment? (Unless, of course, the ground forces had
attached aerospace elements.)
> No. We have people who like to do EXPERIMENTS! Try it some time.
> Get off your lazy behind and
> FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!
If you'll recall it was my 'lazy behind experiment' that came up with
the '42-ship' Sword Worlds fleet that started this discussion. No one
has yet stated that this *5FW*/*RS* focus is inconsistent with itself,
merely that it doesn't jive with *HG*/*TCS* and some folks think the
latter makes more sense.
So again, why the need to get angry and insulting?
> 3) And finally, neither of these sources is "strategic", which is
There you go again. Maybe studying a little more grammar and punctuation
and a little less of the military would help?
> You assume that GDW did more than arbitrarily decide the fate of the
> Ihatei and GListen, eh?
No, again, if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I've accepted
this. What I've asked is that given this arbitrary decision can we
develop a reasonable rationale to explain it? This has been a common
endeavor of much of the background discussion we've had here on the TML.
> You seem unaware that strategy grows out of tactics/logistics/operations
> and that tactics grow out of strategy/operations/logistics.
No. Again you are making assumptions about my knowledge of military
affairs based upon your own ignorance of standard English style practice.
> And you can't determine what one man/ship can do by looking at
> a strategic primer.
Fine. So based upon your wondersous experience with *TCS*, what is the
structure of Regency naval forces in TNE? How many squadrons are there,
what is their composition and deployment? These are the sorts of ends
this discussion was directed towards.
> > What about types/classes themselves? Is there some finer breakdown than
> > battles, cruisers, carriers, escorts, etc.? Is there a way to tell a
> > frigate from a destroyer, etc. (besides what the designer choose to call
> it)?
>
> No. The designer is the only one who knows what the proper label for
> something is.
Once again, evidence of the Great TCS-ite Schism!
> Vanishing down the corridor to XTML immediately, never to appear
> here again....
One wonders why I bothered to respond. I guess if all you're going to do
is flame rather than contribute it's just as well.
Peace,
David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA