What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

297 posts • Page 3 of 30 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 30

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by tlb » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:17 pm
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 3936 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	Relax wrote:1) There is no front line in space in HV 1a) Unless one literally has over 500light years of territory to your core system and even then an audacious attack force could still attack without enough fuel to get home. Of course if they bring equipment to suck up hydrogen from a gas giant.... well, then ultimately the range of an attacking force is near infinite even if refueling is a bit slow. So, there is no front line in space in DW's universe as sensors cannot cover the gaps between. You could say the attack on Marsh was an example of this; but the objective was Honor's forces, rather than the planet itself. Still it was very risky because any ships that were damaged would have a hazardous trip back to base, made worse by the distance. It was only worthwhile because of the assumed inferiority of Honor's forces and the propaganda value if she were captured. Had the actual ratio of forces been known it would not have been attempted. The problems with long range sorties are the lack of current information, the way the assigned forces are unavailable for any other use until refitted upon return and the difficulty of repair without additional logistics support. Just the unavailability of forces is probably enough to put a practical limit to the distance a sortie is expected to cover. Also this ignores the presence of any wormhole routes as travel or value for conquest.
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by tlb » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:17 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3936
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Relax wrote:1) There is no front line in space in HV
1a) Unless one literally has over 500light years of territory to your core system and even then an audacious attack force could still attack without enough fuel to get home. Of course if they bring equipment to suck up hydrogen from a gas giant.... well, then ultimately the range of an attacking force is near infinite even if refueling is a bit slow.

So, there is no front line in space in DW's universe as sensors cannot cover the gaps between.

You could say the attack on Marsh was an example of this; but the objective was Honor's forces, rather than the planet itself. Still it was very risky because any ships that were damaged would have a hazardous trip back to base, made worse by the distance. It was only worthwhile because of the assumed inferiority of Honor's forces and the propaganda value if she were captured. Had the actual ratio of forces been known it would not have been attempted.
The problems with long range sorties are the lack of current information, the way the assigned forces are unavailable for any other use until refitted upon return and the difficulty of repair without additional logistics support.
Just the unavailability of forces is probably enough to put a practical limit to the distance a sortie is expected to cover.

Also this ignores the presence of any wormhole routes as travel or value for conquest.

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by Jonathan_S » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:20 pm
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 8303 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	noblehunter wrote:It seems that their value is mostly what is lost to the enemy. It may be possible for some industrial value to be captured but not if the platforms are scuttled or destroyed during capture. It was believed at the start of the war that they had moderate value as positions for basing or logistics but that's now questionable. The burden of picketing system might outweigh any benefits of location, wormholes aside. I would also say that when the war is in the grinding attritional phase each system you captured not only took it's resources away from the enemy (and kept it from supporting light forces that might try to interdict your supply train if you left it uncaptured) but it gave you a chance to create a localize concentration of force to generate a favorable ratio of damage or destruction on the enemy fleet. Politically they often couldn't abandon an occupied system without a fight, so it forced them to engage when you had an advantage (and sometimes if you pulled off a good surprise a much more overwhelming advantage than they suspected before you brought them into range). But I'll go a step further and point out that it's quite possible that this goal wasn't the most efficient way to make war. (And having to defend the systems afterwards, even minimally, certainly did lead to some strategic disbursement). But keep in mind that nobody had ever fought an interstellar war on anything like this kind of scale. All the strategic thoughts on how to carry it out were untested theories until exposed to the crucible of this combat. (And that's even ignoring how the tech had changed since the last major interstellar combat) So it wouldn't be surprsing if the system by system grinding advance turned out to be less effective that the pre-war theorizers thought. It'd hardly be the first time (WWII strategic bombing comes to mind). The mobility of fleets through hyper (and difficulty in detecting that movement) means that it's quite possible that a better strategy would have been to take the system, hold it long enough to systematically wreck all it's orbital and deep space mining and infrastructure, and abandon it beyond a light scouting presence warning you if the enemy attempts to rebuild (and possibly some randomly timed BC/CA sweeps looking for convoys trying to trade to get planet-side resources) You'd still probably want to grab a few advanced system (whether captures from the enemy or simply unoccupied systems within their territory) as defended repair and resupply nodes as you pushed your Sherman's March closer to their key systems - but that's a far cry from occupying every system you defeated. Heck the wrecked system's political demands for renewed protection might well divert useful amounts of the enemy's fleet and resources towards them. Whereas if they're captured then the enemy can write the less productive ones off until the fortunes of war change.
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by Jonathan_S » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:20 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8303
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

noblehunter wrote:It seems that their value is mostly what is lost to the enemy. It may be possible for some industrial value to be captured but not if the platforms are scuttled or destroyed during capture.

It was believed at the start of the war that they had moderate value as positions for basing or logistics but that's now questionable. The burden of picketing system might outweigh any benefits of location, wormholes aside.

I would also say that when the war is in the grinding attritional phase each system you captured not only took it's resources away from the enemy (and kept it from supporting light forces that might try to interdict your supply train if you left it uncaptured) but it gave you a chance to create a localize concentration of force to generate a favorable ratio of damage or destruction on the enemy fleet.

Politically they often couldn't abandon an occupied system without a fight, so it forced them to engage when you had an advantage (and sometimes if you pulled off a good surprise a much more overwhelming advantage than they suspected before you brought them into range).

But I'll go a step further and point out that it's quite possible that this goal wasn't the most efficient way to make war. (And having to defend the systems afterwards, even minimally, certainly did lead to some strategic disbursement). But keep in mind that nobody had ever fought an interstellar war on anything like this kind of scale. All the strategic thoughts on how to carry it out were untested theories until exposed to the crucible of this combat. (And that's even ignoring how the tech had changed since the last major interstellar combat)

So it wouldn't be surprsing if the system by system grinding advance turned out to be less effective that the pre-war theorizers thought. It'd hardly be the first time (WWII strategic bombing comes to mind). The mobility of fleets through hyper (and difficulty in detecting that movement) means that it's quite possible that a better strategy would have been to take the system, hold it long enough to systematically wreck all it's orbital and deep space mining and infrastructure, and abandon it beyond a light scouting presence warning you if the enemy attempts to rebuild (and possibly some randomly timed BC/CA sweeps looking for convoys trying to trade to get planet-side resources)
You'd still probably want to grab a few advanced system (whether captures from the enemy or simply unoccupied systems within their territory) as defended repair and resupply nodes as you pushed your Sherman's March closer to their key systems - but that's a far cry from occupying every system you defeated.

Heck the wrecked system's political demands for renewed protection might well divert useful amounts of the enemy's fleet and resources towards them. Whereas if they're captured then the enemy can write the less productive ones off until the fortunes of war change.

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by Relax » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:39 pm
Relax Fleet Admiral Posts: 3106 Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm	Actually WWII strategic bombing did work. Problem is they often couldn't hit a city or even the correct city... with a bombload let alone an individual building. This forced a change in tactics till better bombing methods were developed(they were and they worked great). Why Bomber Command tactics changed to wanton destruction in the hope of destroying something vital. Of course to gloss over this wanton destruction in the hope of hitting something vital, a stupid narrative was created during the war and post war. Even though accurate(for its time) methods were developed and implemented with great success. Naturally these methods and reasons were nearly forgotten completely when Korea and Vietnam came around.... Grrrr. Yes, humanity is stupid quite often. Hrmm... more than often. _________ Tally Ho! Relax
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by Relax » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:39 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3106
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Actually WWII strategic bombing did work. Problem is they often couldn't hit a city or even the correct city... with a bombload let alone an individual building. This forced a change in tactics till better bombing methods were developed(they were and they worked great). Why Bomber Command tactics changed to wanton destruction in the hope of destroying something vital.

Of course to gloss over this wanton destruction in the hope of hitting something vital, a stupid narrative was created during the war and post war. Even though accurate(for its time) methods were developed and implemented with great success. Naturally these methods and reasons were nearly forgotten completely when Korea and Vietnam came around.... Grrrr. Yes, humanity is stupid quite often. Hrmm... more than often.

_________
Tally Ho!
Relax

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by edgeworthy » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:05 pm
edgeworthy Lieutenant (Senior Grade) Posts: 83 Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:34 pm	TFLYTSNBN wrote:Given the nature of Honorverse hyperdrive technology, the idea of strategic depth as described in theearly books perplexed me. Then as Weber fleshed out his thinking on ship FTL speed and ship endurance being not quite as unlimited as the Warasawki sail implies, it becomes apparent that effective combat radius is limited to a few hundred lightyears unless you have fleet logistics ships. Even then, the logistical support requirement will scale exponentially with the combat radius. The above consideration applies to freighters as well as warships, which is why the MWJ is of such profound economic as well as military importance. As to taking inhabited, industrialized systems, the potential economic benefit is obvious. Assume a population of one billion people with a productivity of $50,000 per year per capita. Economic productivity of the system is then $50 Trillion per year. Biblical level tax rate is 10% yielding revenue of $5 Trillion and rapidly growing because you are leaving the people with 90% which enables reinvestment and encourages compliance without to much armed force. Republican level tax rate might be 10% yielding tax revenue is $10 Trillion per year but less economic growth and need for more force to get compliance because of less money available for reinvestment.. Democrat level tax rate is 40% yielding tax revenue of $20 Trillion per year and stagnent and totalian force needed to compel compliance. PRH tax rate 80% yields or $40 Trillion per year but imploding because there is no money for reinvestment and people have no incentive to be productive or even reproduce. Setting aside the above political rant, assume the economic benefit of system conquest is $5 Trillion per year. Weber has stated that missiles cost about $1 million each and the missiles on an SD(P) cost about as much as the SD(P). An SD(P) with a full ammo load out costs about $20 Billion. Assume that you need 100 SD(P)s to take a system, expending all ammo and with 20% losses. You have just spent $1.2 Trillion to conquer the system. Even with a Biblical level tax rate of only 10%, you are going to make a 400% profit in the first year! Dont worry about compliance. Empires have been extracting taxes from conquered peoples for 5,000 years. The techniques are well understood. The Honorverse societieswill not have forgotten how to tax the feces out of conquered peoples in 2,000 years. This of course explains why Haven and Manticore would fight hard enough to force the winning side to blow up industrial infrastructure or blow it up themselves. Of course there are the SEX SLAVES. Don't forget the SEX SLAVES not to mention the opportunity for the conquerers to inseminate the conquered population. The Darwinian logic of raping as well as pillaging a village will be just as valid 2,000 years ago as it was back when the Babylonians were conquering the Israelis and castrating all of the males so that King Xeres could add Esther to his vast harem. Ghengis Kahn and his sons were so successful at inseminating China that one half of all Chinese males have the same Y chromosone. Okay, partisan politics aside there may be a good point here. The DuQuense Plan was all about extorting money out of captured systems, the actual goods and services were of more limited consequences. There are comments by the Legislaturist Planners on Haven about there being only so much that they can squeeze out of the captured systems, especially without compromising the needed productivity and Tax Base. Now we don't really have much on what the taxation rate by the conquerors was, or exactly how much each system was worth, although some are stated to be much more profitable than others. This source of income is obviously much more useful to the Peoples Republic than to Manticore, the putative Good Guys are unlikely to be imposing taxation as a Liberation Tribute. And taking anything away from the ramshackle Havenite Budget does proportionately more harm regardless of whether the system produced any useful products. And we should not dismiss the classic colonialism advantages of having a captive market, the conquered systems having no choice but too buy from Havenite sources and move their own produce in hulls of the Peoples Merchant Service. Taking a system away from the PRH does not mean that Manticore will necessarily gain anything, although it would open it up to a Free-Market that will be at least initially dominated by Manticoran interests.
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by edgeworthy » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:05 pm

edgeworthy
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:34 pm

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Given the nature of Honorverse hyperdrive technology, the idea of strategic depth as described in theearly books perplexed me. Then as Weber fleshed out his thinking on ship FTL speed and ship endurance being not quite as unlimited as the Warasawki sail implies, it becomes apparent that effective combat radius is limited to a few hundred lightyears unless you have fleet logistics ships. Even then, the logistical support requirement will scale exponentially with the combat radius.

The above consideration applies to freighters as well as warships, which is why the MWJ is of such profound economic as well as military importance.

As to taking inhabited, industrialized systems, the potential economic benefit is obvious. Assume a population of one billion people with a productivity of $50,000 per year per capita. Economic productivity of the system is then $50 Trillion per year. Biblical level tax rate is 10% yielding revenue of $5 Trillion and rapidly growing because you are leaving the people with 90% which enables reinvestment and encourages compliance without to much armed force. Republican level tax rate might be 10% yielding tax revenue is $10 Trillion per year but less economic growth and need for more force to get compliance because of less money available for reinvestment.. Democrat level tax rate is 40% yielding tax revenue of $20 Trillion per year and stagnent and totalian force needed to compel compliance. PRH tax rate 80% yields or $40 Trillion per year but imploding because there is no money for reinvestment and people have no incentive to be productive or even reproduce.

Setting aside the above political rant, assume the economic benefit of system conquest is $5 Trillion per year. Weber has stated that missiles cost about $1 million each and the missiles on an SD(P) cost about as much as the SD(P). An SD(P) with a full ammo load out costs about $20 Billion. Assume that you need 100 SD(P)s to take a system, expending all ammo and with 20% losses. You have just spent $1.2 Trillion to conquer the system.

Even with a Biblical level tax rate of only 10%, you are going to make a 400% profit in the first year!

Dont worry about compliance. Empires have been extracting taxes from conquered peoples for 5,000 years. The techniques are well understood. The Honorverse societieswill not have forgotten how to tax the feces out of conquered peoples in 2,000 years.

This of course explains why Haven and Manticore would fight hard enough to force the winning side to blow up industrial infrastructure or blow it up themselves.

Of course there are the SEX SLAVES. Don't forget the SEX SLAVES not to mention the opportunity for the conquerers to inseminate the conquered population. The Darwinian logic of raping as well as pillaging a village will be just as valid 2,000 years ago as it was back when the Babylonians were conquering the Israelis and castrating all of the males so that King Xeres could add Esther to his vast harem. Ghengis Kahn and his sons were so successful at inseminating China that one half of all Chinese males have the same Y chromosone.

Okay, partisan politics aside there may be a good point here.

The DuQuense Plan was all about extorting money out of captured systems, the actual goods and services were of more limited consequences. There are comments by the Legislaturist Planners on Haven about there being only so much that they can squeeze out of the captured systems, especially without compromising the needed productivity and Tax Base.
Now we don't really have much on what the taxation rate by the conquerors was, or exactly how much each system was worth, although some are stated to be much more profitable than others. This source of income is obviously much more useful to the Peoples Republic than to Manticore, the putative Good Guys are unlikely to be imposing taxation as a Liberation Tribute. And taking anything away from the ramshackle Havenite Budget does proportionately more harm regardless of whether the system produced any useful products. And we should not dismiss the classic colonialism advantages of having a captive market, the conquered systems having no choice but too buy from Havenite sources and move their own produce in hulls of the Peoples Merchant Service.
Taking a system away from the PRH does not mean that Manticore will necessarily gain anything, although it would open it up to a Free-Market that will be at least initially dominated by Manticoran interests.

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by tlb » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:09 pm
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 3936 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	TFLYTSNBN wrote:The best analogy is islands in the Pacific. Prior to the invention of aircraft fleets could operate in an enemy rear area with near impunity as long as they stayed out of range of shore batteries. Even during WW2, taking an island was not needed unless the enemy garrison had aircraft. Remember McCarthur island hopping? Even after the Japanese set up a "defensive perimeter" many islands were bypassed, with at most raids to destroy planes and/or fuel. The idea was if the Japanese wanted to resupply those outposts by sending ships through the US fleet, let them try. The biggest fights were reserved for places where the US needed to establish an air base.
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by tlb » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:09 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3936
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The best analogy is islands in the Pacific.

Prior to the invention of aircraft fleets could operate in an enemy rear area with near impunity as long as they stayed out of range of shore batteries. Even during WW2, taking an island was not needed unless the enemy garrison had aircraft.

Remember McCarthur island hopping?

Even after the Japanese set up a "defensive perimeter" many islands were bypassed, with at most raids to destroy planes and/or fuel. The idea was if the Japanese wanted to resupply those outposts by sending ships through the US fleet, let them try. The biggest fights were reserved for places where the US needed to establish an air base.

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by Brigade XO » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:14 pm
Brigade XO Fleet Admiral Posts: 3115 Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:31 pm Location: KY	The DuQuense Plan was to bring (conquer) systems and bring them into the Haven Republic to support Haven with revenues (taxes etc) and provide materials and goods to Haven and those systems it had earlier made part of it's expanding empire. Haven found itself never having enough to support either it's home system population (in the situation that it had trapped itself with the Dole and it's side effects) or advance the development/standards of any of the systems it took over. It also had to garrison them and maintain signifcant spaceborn forces to keep the systems pacified--the reason it built Battleships was pure military dominance of captured and subjugated systems. Manticore didn't do that. At worst, in the war, it put garrisons on captured Peep planets and mainteined some level of picket or defensive starship station but they didn't start sucking the systems dry of resources or go to production of goods through forced labor. Actually, the books don't talk much about Manticorian Alliance activity in systems they took away from the Peeps except to try and keep enough warship presence to keep the Peeps from trying to take them back. No stripping of goods and strategic materials. No integrating them in a Manticorian colonial system- that was the Peep's method of operation. Note that Pritichard had been dealing with two very different sets of problems from present and former systems of the Peoples Republic of Haven. One is those that were forced into the Republic and are still not happy, and those that were forced into the Republic, were taken by Manticore and DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO BEING PART OF HAVEN. So she has been having people negotiate separation agreements and disengaging from those that want to be out of Haven's control. I don't recall a word about anybody who -the system as a whole- was taken away from the Peeps and is complaining about anything Manticore did to the system's population or used it as a supply point without paying for what they then purchased under business arrangements (not extorted at the point of a pulsar or threat of KEW's). Along with the tactical and stratigic positons of various systems and things like wormholes, the systems themselves seem to fall into varying degrees of Markets for good & services or somebody is holding them in some form of economic bondage. Think the rapacious version of Transtellars or the variations of strongman (or oligarch) governments with their kingdoms and empires. If you have to use force to get what you wan't it generally means that you are going to have to maintain a very large military or police force there with orbital assistance to maintain enough control to crush resistance when you can catch it as well has having to continualy beat down any attempt for the local's to improve their situations that doesn't include a major payoff or payday for the local government and it's extra-planetary "friends. You need the inhabited planets and systems to produce things and be markets, not just bleed them for treasure.
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by Brigade XO » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:14 pm

Brigade XO
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: KY

The DuQuense Plan was to bring (conquer) systems and bring them into the Haven Republic to support Haven with revenues (taxes etc) and provide materials and goods to Haven and those systems it had earlier made part of it's expanding empire.

Haven found itself never having enough to support either it's home system population (in the situation that it had trapped itself with the Dole and it's side effects) or advance the development/standards of any of the systems it took over. It also had to garrison them and maintain signifcant spaceborn forces to keep the systems pacified--the reason it built Battleships was pure military dominance of captured and subjugated systems.

Manticore didn't do that. At worst, in the war, it put garrisons on captured Peep planets and mainteined some level of picket or defensive starship station but they didn't start sucking the systems dry of resources or go to production of goods through forced labor. Actually, the books don't talk much about Manticorian Alliance activity in systems they took away from the Peeps except to try and keep enough warship presence to keep the Peeps from trying to take them back. No stripping of goods and strategic materials. No integrating them in a Manticorian colonial system- that was the Peep's method of operation.
Note that Pritichard had been dealing with two very different sets of problems from present and former systems of the Peoples Republic of Haven. One is those that were forced into the Republic and are still not happy, and those that were forced into the Republic, were taken by Manticore and DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO BEING PART OF HAVEN.

So she has been having people negotiate separation agreements and disengaging from those that want to be out of Haven's control.

I don't recall a word about anybody who -the system as a whole- was taken away from the Peeps and is complaining about anything Manticore did to the system's population or used it as a supply point without paying for what they then purchased under business arrangements (not extorted at the point of a pulsar or threat of KEW's).

Along with the tactical and stratigic positons of various systems and things like wormholes, the systems themselves seem to fall into varying degrees of Markets for good & services or somebody is holding them in some form of economic bondage. Think the rapacious version of Transtellars or the variations of strongman (or oligarch) governments with their kingdoms and empires.

If you have to use force to get what you wan't it generally means that you are going to have to maintain a very large military or police force there with orbital assistance to maintain enough control to crush resistance when you can catch it as well has having to continualy beat down any attempt for the local's to improve their situations that doesn't include a major payoff or payday for the local government and it's extra-planetary "friends.

You need the inhabited planets and systems to produce things and be markets, not just bleed them for treasure.

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by stewart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:41 pm
stewart Captain of the List Posts: 715 Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:54 pm Location: Southern California, USA	[quote="Brigade XO"]The DuQuense Plan was to bring (conquer) systems and bring them into the Haven Republic to support Haven with revenues (taxes etc) and provide materials and goods to Haven and those systems it had earlier made part of it's expanding empire. ----------- The first Manticoran-Havenite war was based on (from Haven) need for forward refit/supply bases due to their maintenance and logistic needs and (from Manticore) (1)denial of those systems to Haven and (2) protection of allies and (3) productivity and repair facilities with those self-same allies. The Second SKM-RH war was initially deep strikes (by both sides) to force redeployment of tactical and strategic assets -- warships forced to be in a defensive role rather than as offensive tools. The Solly war appears to be one of (1) strategic denial (seizing wormholes), (2) economic denial -- removing protectorate and verge systems from the SL tax base, and (3) slowing down / breaking the SL industrial engine; (4) breaking up the SL into smaller, independent/interdependent regions (Harrington Doctrine) thus removing power from SOL and the Mandarins. How well item (4) works will depend on how the SL/SLN learns its lessons after the GA applies its Cue Stick / 2x4 / Calibrated Pipe Wrench. -- Stewart
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by stewart » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:41 pm

stewart
Captain of the List

Posts: 715
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:54 pm
Location: Southern California, USA

[quote="Brigade XO"]The DuQuense Plan was to bring (conquer) systems and bring them into the Haven Republic to support Haven with revenues (taxes etc) and provide materials and goods to Haven and those systems it had earlier made part of it's expanding empire.

-----------

The first Manticoran-Havenite war was based on (from Haven) need for forward refit/supply bases due to their maintenance and logistic needs and (from Manticore) (1)denial of those systems to Haven and (2) protection of allies and (3) productivity and repair facilities with those self-same allies.

The Second SKM-RH war was initially deep strikes (by both sides) to force redeployment of tactical and strategic assets -- warships forced to be in a defensive role rather than as offensive tools.

The Solly war appears to be one of (1) strategic denial (seizing wormholes), (2) economic denial -- removing protectorate and verge systems from the SL tax base, and (3) slowing down / breaking the SL industrial engine; (4) breaking up the SL into smaller, independent/interdependent regions (Harrington Doctrine) thus removing power from SOL and the Mandarins.

How well item (4) works will depend on how the SL/SLN learns its lessons after the GA applies its Cue Stick / 2x4 / Calibrated Pipe Wrench.

-- Stewart

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by tlb » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:52 pm
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 3936 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	Brigade XO wrote:The DuQuense Plan was to bring (conquer) systems and bring them into the Haven Republic to support Haven with revenues (taxes etc) and provide materials and goods to Haven and those systems it had earlier made part of it's expanding empire. stewart wrote:The first Manticoran-Havenite war was based on (from Haven) need for forward refit/supply bases due to their maintenance and logistic needs and (from Manticore) (1)denial of those systems to Haven and (2) protection of allies and (3) productivity and repair facilities with those self-same allies. The Second SKM-RH war was initially deep strikes (by both sides) to force redeployment of tactical and strategic assets -- warships forced to be in a defensive role rather than as offensive tools. The Solly war appears to be one of (1) strategic denial (seizing wormholes), (2) economic denial -- removing protectorate and verge systems from the SL tax base, and (3) slowing down / breaking the SL industrial engine; (4) breaking up the SL into smaller, independent/interdependent regions (Harrington Doctrine) thus removing power from SOL and the Mandarins. How well item (4) works will depend on how the SL/SLN learns its lessons after the GA applies its Cue Stick / 2x4 / Calibrated Pipe Wrench. -- Stewart Haven's aim in the first war with Manticore was to seize the wormhole junction and the attendant wealth that follows. The need for forward refit/supply bases, due to their maintenance and logistic needs, arise as a secondary objective to support that capture. PS. AAC describes the Moriarty system, it does not mention Mycroft.
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by tlb » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:52 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3936
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Brigade XO wrote:The DuQuense Plan was to bring (conquer) systems and bring them into the Haven Republic to support Haven with revenues (taxes etc) and provide materials and goods to Haven and those systems it had earlier made part of it's expanding empire.

stewart wrote:The first Manticoran-Havenite war was based on (from Haven) need for forward refit/supply bases due to their maintenance and logistic needs and (from Manticore) (1)denial of those systems to Haven and (2) protection of allies and (3) productivity and repair facilities with those self-same allies.

The Second SKM-RH war was initially deep strikes (by both sides) to force redeployment of tactical and strategic assets -- warships forced to be in a defensive role rather than as offensive tools.

The Solly war appears to be one of (1) strategic denial (seizing wormholes), (2) economic denial -- removing protectorate and verge systems from the SL tax base, and (3) slowing down / breaking the SL industrial engine; (4) breaking up the SL into smaller, independent/interdependent regions (Harrington Doctrine) thus removing power from SOL and the Mandarins.

How well item (4) works will depend on how the SL/SLN learns its lessons after the GA applies its Cue Stick / 2x4 / Calibrated Pipe Wrench.

-- Stewart

Haven's aim in the first war with Manticore was to seize the wormhole junction and the attendant wealth that follows. The need for forward refit/supply bases, due to their maintenance and logistic needs, arise as a secondary objective to support that capture.

PS. AAC describes the Moriarty system, it does not mention Mycroft.

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by Jonathan_S » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:38 am
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 8303 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	Relax wrote:Actually WWII strategic bombing did work. Problem is they often couldn't hit a city or even the correct city... with a bombload let alone an individual building. This forced a change in tactics till better bombing methods were developed(they were and they worked great). Why Bomber Command tactics changed to wanton destruction in the hope of destroying something vital. Of course to gloss over this wanton destruction in the hope of hitting something vital, a stupid narrative was created during the war and post war. Even though accurate(for its time) methods were developed and implemented with great success. Naturally these methods and reasons were nearly forgotten completely when Korea and Vietnam came around.... Grrrr. Yes, humanity is stupid quite often. Hrmm... more than often. Well it worked for some definition of worked, once they got vastly more planes than pre-war theorists thought they'd need and (for the USAAF) long range fighter escort which they didn't think they'd need because the bomber would always get through. And of course until the Atomic bombs (which the pre-war theorists weren't anticipating) it certainly didn't singlehandedly end the war like it's most ardent supported claimed it would. (And they certainly didn't anticipate that one of the uses of USAAF bombing raids would be as fighter traps forcing the Luftwaffe to come up where those weren't supposed to be needed long range escort fighter can grind them down. There's a quite good case that the Allies would have been significantly better off if in '40 - '42 when RAF Bomber Command didn't have the critical mass (nor the developed blind bombing aids) to be truly effective yet they'd been stripped of say a third or so of their long range bombers to be tuned over to Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols. (But that's a total violation of pre-war bomber theory)
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by Jonathan_S » Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:38 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8303
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Relax wrote:Actually WWII strategic bombing did work. Problem is they often couldn't hit a city or even the correct city... with a bombload let alone an individual building. This forced a change in tactics till better bombing methods were developed(they were and they worked great). Why Bomber Command tactics changed to wanton destruction in the hope of destroying something vital.

Of course to gloss over this wanton destruction in the hope of hitting something vital, a stupid narrative was created during the war and post war. Even though accurate(for its time) methods were developed and implemented with great success. Naturally these methods and reasons were nearly forgotten completely when Korea and Vietnam came around.... Grrrr. Yes, humanity is stupid quite often. Hrmm... more than often.

Well it worked for some definition of worked, once they got vastly more planes than pre-war theorists thought they'd need and (for the USAAF) long range fighter escort which they didn't think they'd need because the bomber would always get through. And of course until the Atomic bombs (which the pre-war theorists weren't anticipating) it certainly didn't singlehandedly end the war like it's most ardent supported claimed it would. (And they certainly didn't anticipate that one of the uses of USAAF bombing raids would be as fighter traps forcing the Luftwaffe to come up where those weren't supposed to be needed long range escort fighter can grind them down.

There's a quite good case that the Allies would have been significantly better off if in '40 - '42 when RAF Bomber Command didn't have the critical mass (nor the developed blind bombing aids) to be truly effective yet they'd been stripped of say a third or so of their long range bombers to be tuned over to Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols. (But that's a total violation of pre-war bomber theory)

Top

Re: What is the \|value\| of captured enemy systems?
by cthia » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:34 am
cthia Fleet Admiral Posts: 14951 Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm	During most all historical occupations, many horrible things occurred. I always wondered what happened to occupied systems in the Honorverse when the combatants had such hate for each other. Before Harrington began to show the Peeps that war could be waged in a decent fashion, Peeps were murdering and abusing Manticoran prisoners. It is difficult to believe that Peep occupied systems treated the local population with decency and respect. In our own history, the local citizens were usually kept from fleeing the city and taking their treasures with them. What prevents this in the Honorverse? Or rather, is it prevented? If a system is gathered up, are the small percentage of the rich allowed to flee the system carrying their riches with them? If that happens, industry will falter. Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top

Re: What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?

by cthia » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:34 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

During most all historical occupations, many horrible things occurred. I always wondered what happened to occupied systems in the Honorverse when the combatants had such hate for each other.

Before Harrington began to show the Peeps that war could be waged in a decent fashion, Peeps were murdering and abusing Manticoran prisoners. It is difficult to believe that Peep occupied systems treated the local population with decency and respect.

In our own history, the local citizens were usually kept from fleeing the city and taking their treasures with them. What prevents this in the Honorverse? Or rather, is it prevented? If a system is gathered up, are the small percentage of the rich allowed to flee the system carrying their riches with them? If that happens, industry will falter.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense

Top

297 posts • Page 3 of 30 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 30

Return to Honorverse

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

What is the |value| of captured enemy systems?