drothgery wrote:You do realize the Haven sector powers have these things called CLACs which let them bring LACs along with their fleets, and even if a system doesn't have an existing station that's workable as a LAC base, they have designs for prefabbed ones they can ship in, right?
And the relevancy of that statement? Zero.
Because either you are saying they should pennypacket fleet units, which is outright stupid, peace or war, or you´re saying that you want the equivalent of a wetnavy "battleship only" fleet.
drothgery wrote:Nothing between a LAC and BC(L) should be anywhere close to a clash between wallers. This has been pretty well established at this point.
Did i say anything to contradict that?
Operational and strategic scouting can´t be done without hyper ability.
And if you suggest using the fleet itself for this, well...
drothgery wrote:You seem to forget that barring oddball hyperspace conditions, it's all but impossible to catch someone in hyper
Except that it happens repeatedly in the books.
And the more predictable merchant routes, the greater the chances to interdict.
drothgery wrote:And why would commercial traffic go to an uninhabited system? Hyperspace doesn't work that why. Meanwhile, if a fleet is using one as a staging area, they have CLACs.
I didn´t say anything about the merchants going there now did i. But it´s rather perfect place for pirates to put a nice little hidden base or two(and preferably a decoy or two as well), whenever there´s an incoming hyper, anything that can be noticed carefully runs away and disappears into hyper, preferably going to a backup base elsewhere.
If the base is just outside of the stars hyper limit, going to hyper can be done VERY quick.
Then you get a situation like the REAL world Tortuga and other pirate havens of the Caribbean, with military´s attacking whenever they can be found or become too much of a nuisance, but with too much gold going around for the bases to go down and STAY down and out.
And a resurgent Silesia will certainly draw enough merchant traffic to be worth some effort from pirates.
#####
SWM wrote:I already pointed out the infodump where David described 300kt as the probable size of the smallest RMN warships, but I will show it to you again, with emphasis added:
And as i already wrote earlier(at least twice), i was responding to claims earlier in THIS THREAD, about how the only thing big enough would be something Sag-C or BIGGER.
300kt is almost realistic and with the already happened sizecreep, means DDs does not disappear.
SWM wrote:So 300,000 is not my value, it is David's value.
You were AFAIK, the first in this thread to bring it up.
SWM wrote:All I said is that the question of superdreadnought survivability is irrelevant to the question of whether 300kt becomes the smallest RMN ship. Please tell me how that is BS?
DDs are suddenly made to face a test that is unrealistic for them, while SDs are not made to face the same test even though for them it could actually be considered relevant.
SWM wrote:Yes, seriously. I do believe that. I disagree that tractored pods should be counted in the hypothetical test, because you would only carry those pods when you knew exactly when and where you were about to enter battle.
And if the Sag-C and Nike had not been specifically designed with areas on the hull for Flatpack pods, you would have a point.
For other ships, tractored pods is an improvisation, a temporary addition beyond normal.
For those 2 ship classes, it´s what they were DESIGNED to carry.
SWM wrote:I didn't ignore it, I said the comparison does not apply, and apparently you agree. If you believe it does apply, you'll have to explain a bit clearer because I don't see it. If you knew the argument was flawed, then you should not have used it. If you were "returning the favor from earlier posters in the thread", then you shouldn't have aimed it at my post.
You effectively agreeing with them made it relevant to make it part of that reply.
The comparison does apply, in part.
For one thing, other posters keep throwing around the assumption that there will be CLACs available just about everywhere ALL THE TIME.
That strategic and operational recon will either not happen enough or will be done by capital ship formations.
It´s very simple really, if i was involved in a strategy game and someone played like this against me, and it wasn´t fake, i would go YAY! and then kill them off with a small part of my own forces as the sideshow they would be.
Someone that doesn´t understand why both light and heavy units exist in anything that resembles a navy, is pretty much just a victim waiting to be exploited and conquered.
And destroyed.
SWM wrote:As for not having enough ships, you are making a flawed comparison when you say "you have the worlds best 10kt DD capable of doing everthing you might need as well as being main combatants, when what you need is 5 DD with 1/10 the individual capabilities." In Manticore's opinion, 1/10 the individual capability is insufficient capability. Manticore does not see a situation where they would want a ship with 1/10 the capability. If they did, they would still have been building frigates early in the war.
False argument, as FFs are too small to be USEFUL, especially for those missions that are now left for DDs(and CLs) to perform.
In contrast, the current big DD, the Roland class is perfectly well capable, often even generally good at doing all missions it needs to be able to do. It would need a platoon or two of marines added to handle some parts, but aside from that it´s mostly already "good enough" to do the vast majority of the mostly boring missions that you need light units for.
Adding extra defenses? Sure that would be great! But 99% of the time it would make ZERO difference for how able it is to perform it´s missions.
A modernised Culverin or Wolfhound DD could handle most of those missions almost as well.
Even if they sacrificed a lot of their offensive armament to switch them to dual drive missiles.
SWM wrote:David agrees that the small ships need to concentrate on not getting hit rather than absorbing the damage. The increase in size is not to add better armor--it is to add better defenses to prevent those hits. And he thinks that 300kt is the minimum size which can provide sufficient active defenses in that future environment. In particular, he said:
It´s his world so of course his word has precedence. But i´m looking at this as the longtime analyst and strategy gamer i am, and based on available knowledge, yes he may be correct, but he is also at the same time changing the definition of warships.
Doing the same mistake that has been done since WWII in the real world navies, building bigger and bigger because they can be sooo much better like that, and then during some crisis, like the pirates outside SE Asia or East Africa, they suddenly find themselves with pisspoor ability to simply cover enough area(and in space, that part is exaggerated by several magnitudes).
I mean hello, my own nation even sent a freaking sub-1kt corvette to the area(with a "command/base ship" in support), and that was a NOTICEABLE addition to the forces outside E. Africa?
That´s a point when it becomes blatantly obvious something is screwed up really bad.
And it´s also a big part of the reason why USA is currently scrambling to build a new breed of SMALLER ships.