View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
vanir Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011 Posts: 793
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do understand what you're saying lurker and don't want to hijack the thread with an off topic discussion, but just food for thought consider for example the Wehrmacht, existing as it did under a socialist dictatorship and yet it was strategically constructed "from bottom up" rather than "top down" philosophy, ie. high command gave the general objectives handed to them by the CiC (Hitler), but tactical decisions lay completely with the field commanders, in many cases as low as Colonel or Major in rank and I'm talking decisions which changed the direction of a Wehrmacht putsch, such as moving south in the crimea to take Sebastopol instead of linking up with von Kleist, or withdrawing from Kharkov to regroup and come back at it after diverting Soviet reinforcements...that was completely against Hitler's firm instructions. But field commanders always had full authority, if it didn't pay off they found themselves in a court martial and if it did they got decorated, they survived on the initiative of field commands, the entire "Blitzkreig" style of warfare was dependent upon the field commanders autonomy, the Stukas were literally attached to Panzergruppen and the command tanks assigned Luftwaffe radio operators so they could act with complete autonomy. No other military in the world gave so much authority to its field commanders, nobody.
The US painstakingly studied Wehrmacht warfare doctrine both during and following the war and adjusted its own conventions to follow it starting in the 1950s.
What you're really discussing is a case specific example of Soviet communism established by the Stalinist era and his terrifying Purges which ravaged the military, literally horrifying all personnel into submission. Did you know literally all commanders above the rank of Colonel, all staff officers, without exception were arrested and either executed or sent to Gulags during the 30s? That 50% of all mid ranked and administrative officers ranked between Captain and Colonel were similarly taken during the same period? That a noticeable number of all junior officers in the entire military met the same fate? They were terrified into submission, literally. No wonder they had no battlefield initiative in the early war period 41-43 but even so, by late 1942 the creation of Shock Troop formations, the Guards formations, improved training and experienced gained by the replacement commanders and senior staff, the Soviets actually showed plenty of initiative according to the Wehrmacht's own combat reports.
In fact the only military which markedly displayed a complete lack of any field initiative was the Imperial Japanese. Time and time again it was noted by US/Allied forces that whenever Japanese field command bunkers could be taken down, or squadron leaders shot down, or command flagships sunk, the rest of the present formations immediately broke into noticable and catastrophic tactical disarray, often throwing all pretence at organised warfare in the gutter and simply charging reinforced positions en masse. And to their own slaughter.
But this was under a strict Imperial and authoritarian monarchist system of old school training, where soldiers are dehumanized as serfs to become automatons fighting blindly for their Lords. Such an oligarchy is really much closer to west European and US systems of military doctrine than anything from central or eastern Europe (which was largey reconstructed during the 20th century all fresh and new).
But I think at any rate we can all agree if the Galactic Empire is styled on any particular historical theme the Nazi one is up near the top of the list, and whilst hardly representing anything other than ideological dictatorship, they did believe in getting the job done and that meant letting the experts on the scene, the field commanders act autonomously for the most part.
And look at Admiral Ozzel, who arrogantly decided which tactic to employ for the interdiction of Hoth: under his own authority. Look at Vader who happily does battlefield executions under his own authority. If their military doctrine challenged this autonomy, their own Stormtrooper guards would not have let them make those decisions.
It's just, not real good for you if your decision doesn't pan out well for the Empire. Then you pay.
But hey, it was the same in the Wehrmacht too. Some of Manstein's staff wound up in Dachau with their families because of unsuccessful field actions in the Crimea during 42. That was what happened: one minute you're in charge of an army, next minute you're in a concentration camp, so is your family, because a decision didn't pan out. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011 Posts: 1846 Location: Tacoma, WA
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
By strange and happy coincidence, I'm reading The Last Command right now, and those six ISDs just dropped out of hyperspace above Coruscant!
My two cents forthcoming later... _________________ Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2426
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Id say that if you designed an immobile space fortress you would certainly see to it that it would shoot further than any known enemies.. _________________ My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14254 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what do we all think the Hull/shield should be? 1d higher than an ISD? 2d? _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's an SSD? 10D hull and 8d shields, or something? I say go with that, or something similar. _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16345 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jmanski wrote: | What's an SSD? 10D hull and 8d shields, or something? I say go with that, or something similar. |
Seems fair.
I've always wondered why Golans didn't have fighter bays and a larger troop complement, too. _________________ "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 |
|
|
lurker Commander
Joined: 24 Oct 2012 Posts: 423 Location: Oklahoma
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vanir wrote: |
I do understand what you're saying lurker and don't want to hijack the thread with an off topic discussion, but ..
. |
Vanir
Rgr, I apologize to all here for going off topic myself ...
I would say it's a great debate but not here (especially as I am still trying to learn the differences in even the more basic SW craft. Much less one in a book I've never read!)
That said, good military theory on attack vs defense is to plan for 7ish attackers to one defender. Now I don't know how that would translate to dice for armor etc, but at the least there should be a significant difference between the station's armor and the most common ship that would be used to attack it. Also, like said earlier, without the need to move the station, the weapons will have significantly more power to draw from. Therefore they will have greater damage &/or greater range. _________________ "And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain
Forgive all spelling errors. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lurker wrote: | vanir wrote: |
I do understand what you're saying lurker and don't want to hijack the thread with an off topic discussion, but ..
. |
Vanir
Rgr, I apologize to all here for going off topic myself ...
I would say it's a great debate but not here (especially as I am still trying to learn the differences in even the more basic SW craft. Much less one in a book I've never read!)
That said, good military theory on attack vs defense is to plan for 7ish attackers to one defender. Now I don't know how that would translate to dice for armor etc, but at the least there should be a significant difference between the station's armor and the most common ship that would be used to attack it. Also, like said earlier, without the need to move the station, the weapons will have significantly more power to draw from. Therefore they will have greater damage &/or greater range. |
The theory behind that would make for good info and discussion, IMHO. Make a thread for it and see if it takes off. _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14254 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have always seen it as 5-1 when figuring out defenses.. part of our training in the Seabeas for setting up our perimeter defenses. _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16345 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | I have always seen it as 5-1 when figuring out defenses.. part of our training in the Seabeas for setting up our perimeter defenses. |
What about stats-wise? What would a Golan III need to be at for Hull and Shields to take a pounding from a Star Destroyer task force? _________________ "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 |
|
|
ZzaphodD Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2426
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand. Are Golans made to stand up against Star Destroyers en masse, at least Imperial and above? If the Empire is the main user, what enemy would attack a core world with 20+ ships in the SD range?
Even if a Golan is just the equivalent of one ISD, they are much cheaper because they are stationary, so you can have more of them. _________________ My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jmanski Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe the Golan I should be about ISD power level, Golan II more powerful, and Golan III as powerful as an SSD? _________________ Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lurker Commander
Joined: 24 Oct 2012 Posts: 423 Location: Oklahoma
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ZzaphodD wrote: | On the other hand. Are Golans made to stand up against Star Destroyers en masse, at least Imperial and above? If the Empire is the main user, what enemy would attack a core world with 20+ ships in the SD range?
Even if a Golan is just the equivalent of one ISD, they are much cheaper because they are stationary, so you can have more of them. |
Ohhhhh that makes it a horse of a different color ... and is a great point. Especially them being much cheaper - which the bean counters in the military supply side would love)
(again, not knowing much outside of the movies, I wasn't sure which side they were on...)
With that, assuming they are Imperial, what is the baddest thing the rebels can throw at them, then times it by 5ish, and then what do they need armor and arms wise to hold them off?
Quote: |
I have always seen it as 5-1 when figuring out defenses.. part of our training in the Seabeas for setting up our perimeter defenses.
|
Gar, I came from an airborne / light infantry background so I assume 5 v 7 is based off the lighter loads we had and lack of heavier support. Even with the Rangers and SF guys I was on the teams with, we'd have our team doing the mission, but then plan for the need of 7ish to 1 for the "oh Jesus, things just when sideways" support troops.
However, that may be high for planning on the ship navy side of combat.
That said, wouldn't the Golans have some sort of support craft. Being a setting target (regardless of how well armed armored) isn't fun. I would assume they have some sort of lesser combat craft to help act as a screening craft. (Again realizing I haven't read the book the battle took place in, so that may be already common knowledge that I'm missing) _________________ "And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain
Forgive all spelling errors. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16345 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ZzaphodD wrote: | On the other hand. Are Golans made to stand up against Star Destroyers en masse, at least Imperial and above? If the Empire is the main user, what enemy would attack a core world with 20+ ships in the SD range?
Even if a Golan is just the equivalent of one ISD, they are much cheaper because they are stationary, so you can have more of them. |
The best reference is in The Last Command, during Thrawn's raid on Coruscant:
"Six Imperial Star Destroyers had come in from hyperspace through the center gap of the Interdictor group, splitting into two groups of three and heading for the two massive midorbit Golan III battlestations."
"Two Victory-class Star Destroyers had suddenly appeared out of hyperspace, dropping in at point-blank range to their target battle stations exactly as Bel Iblis had predicted. They delivered massive broadsides, then angled away before the station or its defending Gunships could respond with more than token return fire. On the tactical, the hazy blue shell indicating the station's deflector shield flickered wildly before settling down again."
"'They're abandoning the battle stations?'
Thrawn snorted gently. 'They never should have brought those ships out to defend them in the first place. Golan defense platforms can take considerably more punishment than their former ground commander apparently realized.'"
"Unwilling to risk the ground-based weaponry, the Imperials were letting the defenders retreat back toward Coruscant. That left only the two battle stations still in danger, and they were proving themselves more capable of absorbing damage than Leia had realized they could."
To me, these quotes taken together indicate that a Golan is more than a match for a single ISD, and is indeed able to take a pounding from three ISDs at once (likely ISD II's, since the six destroyers involved in the raid were part of Grand Admiral Thrawn's varsity team), while likely being able to give as good as they get. _________________ "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 |
|
|
ZzaphodD Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 2426
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jmanski wrote: | Hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe the Golan I should be about ISD power level, Golan II more powerful, and Golan III as powerful as an SSD? |
Quoting Wookie
Built as a more powerful successor to the dangerous Golan II, the Golan III was larger and arguably better armed than an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Just as the Golan II had stronger deflector shields and a sturdier hull than the Golan I, the Golan III had shields at least 25% stronger than a Golan II and a similar increase in hull durability.
They were armed with 50 turbolaser batteries, 24 proton torpedo launchers, and 15 tractor beam projectors, and had a hangar capable of holding at least 12 starfighters. _________________ My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|