[Discussion Piece & Poll] Military Purchases
Its soon time that Tarentum gets its turn to make military purchases.
What do you guys wanna do?
Should we save, in hopes of a bigger spending spree down the road? Or should we get while the get is good and armed ourselves for the immediate future? See the poll below.
With that in mind, should be spend now or in the short-term future; what do you guys wanna see purchased? What is our fleet or armed forces missing? What's something new we should invest in? Do you want to bother buying special units or a mascot, or should we stick to regular units? Let us know so Scion and I can include it in our purchases!
I wrote a very long post about this subject but the boards seem to kick you off after 10 minutes of writing...so when I hit send submit my entire post went away and I had to log back in. So after a long string of elaborate curse words and a thankfully non-cracked mouse ill try again in a shorter format.
For "realistic" reasons we need to purchase an Acclamator I-class Assault Ship. It allows our heavy ground forces to deploy from their base of operations to whatever planet we need/want to assault. Right now we have NO ships that can take on all of our AT-ATs, artillery or heavy tanks. It also give us another frigate/medium cruiser worth of firepower to our fleet.
We are also lacking in the starfighter department. We have LESS than we do on our OoB. Our actual starfighter compliment for the entire house is (all numbers are in full squadrons): 2x TIE Defender, 3x TIE Advance, 2x K-Wing assault starfighters, 1x E-Wing, 2x Scimitar assault bombers. That is pathetic, to be quite honest. I say, at the very least, we purchase some fighters for our base defense. TIE Interceptors are fairly cheap (35 points per squadron) as well as maybe a Y-Wing squadron (50 points). There are other options we can pursue, but Id like to see us gain bolster our defenses.
So for the ACC-1, that would cost us 700 and for just those three squadrons would cost us 120, so that brings us up to 820 points for those items. We could save the rest of our points, or use them to purchase some more. But that is up for general discussion.
Hold onto them.
The Navy was designed and created in a modular fashion. 2 Task Forces. The ISD on its own as one. All other ships in the second. It's meant for rapid response and deployment, not to hold ground. In fact, no Clan should be looking for a Navy or Army that is designed to hold ground. From a fiction stand point, this leads to wars of attrition. Wars of attrition are wasteful (see Vietnam and Iraq pt 2). Nor should points be spent on Clone Wars era technology. It's old. It's outdated. Sticking our troops in an Acclamator I = giant target in Naval engagement. With the focus on speed and strike power of the current 2 Task Forces, there are no resources available to defend a ship in a Naval engagement that has no purpose being floated at this point in time. As far as TIE Interceptors and Y-Wings go, I do agree we need more strike fighters, interceptors and bombers for defense. But, going with old technology, again, is not the way to go.
On the topic of fighters I agree to an extent. They are old technology, but also only have so many points we are able to spend. And the fact of the matter is we should spend half our points just to flush out our OoB. Before I was sent the current spreadsheet with Tar's entire military forces, I was going by the wiki, which in terms of starfighters is way off. We only have two squadrons of TIE Defenders where the wiki says four. We also have three squadrons of TIE Advanced where it says we have four, also. It might be just three squadrons, but they are also top of the line (the TDs anyway). Yes TIE Interceptors and Y-wings are old. But they also cost 35 and 50 points respectively. Compared to a TIE Defender (375 points), XJ X-Wing (275 points), and B-Wing (200 points) squadrons, spending 120 points on three squadrons is cost effective and helps us increase our defensive standing. That amount of points would only buy less than a third of a TIE Defender squadron. While one is better ship to ship, there comes a point where quantity will outmatch quality. The history of the Empire is proof enough of that concept. We can spend the 120, or maybe 200 if we really want to, and get fill out our starship's starfighter compliments and/or beef up our home defense. I think that is important.
As far as the ACC, I understand your point about being old and a target. It is certainly both, but it is also a technical necessity. My meaning in my previous email was not about wars of attrition since we lack the manpower/firepower to even think about such a conflict, it IS needed in any type of assault/strike on a planetary target. It is a blitzkrieg tool, if you want to use that train of thought. We can deliver our strike force to the target rapidly. Then, afterward, retrieve that same force once we are finished. Also, the 1st Legion is supposedly embarked on Task Force Piranha. But we do not have the capabilities to hold that many ground units on board our ships. Our Warlord dropships can only carry a little over half of our AT-ATs into battle yet take up so much room of an ISD that only two can fit in the hangar bay, if that. Simple tactics like having the ship not enter the area until space superiority is established and enough ships can escort it, or anything of that nature can vastly improve it's survival in a combat zone. Hell, we can buy a few squadrons of TIE Interceptors just to keep as protection if that is the case. But while you and I think tactics like this, the general use of all of our ships and forces will almost never be used in that type of situation. These are now used for fictional purposes for our members. Any battle that might happen will be confined to the stories of our members, or maybe a run on. That's about it. So I think we should seriously consider purchasing this starship.
Anyone else have comments?
You both make good points. It's like buying a new car vs. a used car. Too old and it's not worth it, but you pay a lot extra just for the privilege of being able to be the first one to drive it off the lot. As soon as you do, it drops quite a bit in value. The middle ground is to buy the year-old model.
In our case we don't have a whole lot of points to spend, and our fleet is looking a little thin. We don't have any frigates, we don't have very many bombers and we only have about eight squads of fighters. What really concerns me is what Hades was saying about our dropships. The Acclamator may be old, but if we can't actually land our ground forces in a timely fashion then we're in real trouble. I get the point about not getting involved in long-term wars and I agree, but you can't land an ISD II to let the soldiers off even if they're not planning to stay for long. Is there something newer that serves the same purpose, and that we can afford?
One other concern I have is that the possessions system is finally becoming a real possibility. When that happens, fleet points are likely to be converted into credits. Our official OOB is likely to get converted over 1 to 1; our purchasing power is at considerably more risk of fluctuating. To avoid that risk I'm inclined to spend our points down as close to 0 as possible rather than banking them.
But we should never be in a position to land a large amount of troops to begin with. Which is why we have the transports and shuttles we do now. It was a conscious effort, on my part, to never put the military in a position where we fight a protracted ground war. At most we should be sending in a regiment. Anything we attempt to do on a larger scale should be abandoned.
The goal of the 2 Task Force Element system was to obtain operational superiority through maneuverability. Once we have control of the space around a planet, that leaves us with the ability to land troops exactly where needed to complete short term goals in relation to longer term, non-Conquest, goals. Conquest was to never be one of those goals, since conquest requires more manpower than the entire DB has put together. In real world terms, think of Iraq pt 2. We sent what? 150,000 troops into Iraq? There wasn't enough boots on the ground to control the area. You couldn't hold Los Angeles with 150,000 troops. By removing the ability to land large troops at once, we remove the temptation of fighting a (losing) war of attrition against a native population better able to conduct guerrilla warfare.
Bombers and fighters present the problem of hangar capacity. Storing them planet side for defense effectively cripples the mobility of the TFE system. Bringing them out into space means they need active carrier support. Which in turn either gets absorbed into one of the 2 existing elements or requires creation of a third element with support.
Just my two cents in here, but i vote to keep the points and spend them after we get more (ie, after GJW).
My reasoning for this is that is: I like strategy games, RTSs, Civ etc. In all of those, new tech beats old tech damn near every time. In some cases, one peice of new tech beats multiple units of old tech. in essence, i like to turtle and possibly harass with a token low tech force, then hit hard and fast with a few high tech forces.
As for the current situation where we're stuck with what we have till then, well it forces us to get creative with our rust buckets, which can only a good thing for the time when we have shiny new buckets.
the above may be simplistic thinking on my part, but it's just how i feel about it. plus i like new toys more than old ones.
However Scion does bring up a good point about the change from points to credits... either way it's a gamble in my opinion, as selling back old ships may not net us as many credits as converted points either (plus selling back used stuff, usually means you get less than what you payed for it.)
SO! i'm going to bet on banking points/credits.
Guys, get out of my head.
Each of you have brought up points I too have been considering. A couple things I want to chip my thoughts in on:
1) Fleet Points to Possessions system
As Scion pointed out in this thread. We are getting more and more information each day that possession actually will be a thing (yay!). While this will be a great opportunity to see some balancing of fleets and purchasing in the future; the transition may not be likeable. We have no idea what the plan is to move fleet points over to credits and we may find an unfavourable rate of fluctuation between the two. Maybe it will work out in our favour. Maybe the DC will tell all units to spend to zero so there is no awkwardness.
We also don't know exactly when it will be rolled out. It could be after the GJW, maybe a surprise before it. Only the DCers involved know and they like their secrets I'm told
Frankly I am one for avoiding this mess and just having us at zero when the possession system rolls out and that means spending now. But that's just my opinion.
2) Old tech vs. new tech
Never go old for military technology. Ask the Canadian military; the upkeep sucks ;P
Also, with the new film next year we likely will see new tech. Not only will we want to be close to it to be relateable. We also will need to compete with the new tech. I don't see Clone Wars era tech competing with what J.J. and Disney will bring us.
3) New Dropships
Admittedly, I was originally on Hades side. Before we opened this thread I told Scion the same thing, we need dropships. Our invasions would suck otherwise. Everything Hades points out, I agreed with.
But that was before Oberst outlined the purpose of our army. Its not to invade or at least hold. Its to strike & destroy on specific spots. I can see that now in the dropships we have. It makes sense and I'm willing to concede that we don't need dropships. Doesn't fit out design. (however, this is a reminder to self we need to wiki'fy this somewhere)
4) Starfighters and Bombers
Now, as I've outlined so far. I am up for spending now. If we don't, they these will still be my recommendations when we eventually do. I concede we don't need dropships. I do support new tech whenever possible.
I also support buying starfighters.
Hades is right. Our wiki does not reflect what the DJB armed forces documents state. I don't know why this is. Misunderstanding somewhere, perhaps? I'm not sure. If anyone can provide evidence that we have more than what the DJB armed forces document says, please let me know immediately and I'll get the document changed for us.
This is what we exactly have (again according to the document):
2x TIE Defender
2x S8 K-wing
3x TIE Advanced
2x Scimitar Assault Bombers
*these are all squadrons. 2x means 2 squadrons worth, etc.
That's small potatoes. We don't compare to any other unit but HOU at this point. But Oberst does make a point. We need to house them. Makes no sense to buy without realistic housing. But we can, without changing the task forces.
Space Station Altera can take 4 squadrons
Magnus can take 6
Corsair can take 5
Doomsday can take 4
If my math is correct, we have room for 9 squadrons no? Why not spend the money now and fill these ships up?
K-Wings are bombers, not fighters. Also, the other Houses and Clans field Y-Wings, X-Wings and Z-95s. Those fighters are pretty much fodder and take up space. It would be like attempting to field F-2Hs against F-22s or Su-35s. We went small with our fighters, because of the expense in fielding what we are. If we're going to get new ones, nothing older than an E-Wing or K-Wing for the alphabet series should be considered. Even an A-Wing would be pushing it.
Yeah OK. Oberst's rationale against bigger dropships makes sense to me too, although I'm somewhat uncomfortable not having the capability to land troops in quantity, regardless of whether our doctrine says it's advisable. I can see us getting into a situation where we can't move as fast as our opponent because we simply can't move people fast enough from point A to point B in a swarm of small shuttles.
I'm not as uncomfortable with that as I am with the tiny, tiny number of fighters and bombers we've got.
Outside of military strategy though, I still think it's much less risky to spend our points now rather than letting them go through whatever conversion process they'll have to go through to turn into credits. Between the points needing to be converted to credits and the prices needing to be converted, it is almost certain that the exchange rate will change.
Okay, it looks like a majority of you guys do not want to get the ACC-1. If that is the summit's decision as well, then I am fine with it. But as they say, its always better to have an option and not use it than not have the option at all. If there is an emergency and we need to deploy a lot of troops in rapid fashion we will not be able to do so. We have 6 ATRs and 6 Transports (and a few shuttles) that can carry 40 and 30 troops respectively. If we go without the ACC-1 then we MUST think of purchasing additional landing craft. Either Sentinel landing craft or maybe one or two IF-120s. Unfortunately We can only carry one or possibly two Warlord dropships in the MK not the 6 we have listed. They can carry 340 troops but have a much, much longer turn around time. And its either troops OR AT-ATs, not both. We currently have NO way to land our tanks or artillery at all. We do not even have something like a LAAT/i to move our troops around a battlefield. Yes, old tech. But I do not see anything newer which would replace it. Something else to think about.
As far as starfighters. I am in agreement we need more. A lot more. I've been looking at the XJ X-Wings and I think we should purchase a few of those at the very least. But there is something to flooding the battle with numbers. The Empire built their entire starfighter doctrine around winning the battle by using superior numbers. And it worked. If all pilots were of equal skill, I would place my money on 200 T/Is against 12 T/Ds any day of the week. We can purchase 2-3 advanced fighter squadrons right off the bat. But I am also suggesting purchasing two or so squadrons of T/Is for 35 points a squadron. Not the 375 points a squadron T/Ds cost. Or 275 points XJ X-Wings. They can be rear guard for the platform over Yridia II. But I think we should bulk up.
Bombers is a different story. K-Wings are also 275 a squadron. They are good, but expensive. Y-Wings are 50 per squadron. So we could purchase 5 squadrons of Y-Wings for the same amount as one squadron of K-Wings. K-Wings can carry many more types of ordinance but Y-wings are more maneuverable AND they have a hyperdrive where the K-Wings do not. But that is up for the rest of Tarentum to decide.
We also have a problem when it comes to anti-starfighter issues. The only capital ship out of our entire fleet with point defense weapons is the Corsair. We are in need of a ship with that type of defense. I like the idea of a Nebulon-B Frigate because it has both point defense and 10 turbolaser cannons to assist with capital ships. They can also carry two squadrons of starfighters. It helps the House in three ways. But we can also go a bit cheaper and get a pure anti-starfighter Lancer-Class frigate. But point defense is something we need to invest in.
Heck, while we are thinking about it, we can look at purchasing additional troops and armor as well. Just a thought.
There should never be a situation where we need to land a lot of troops quickly. If you control the space around a planet, you control the planet.
Flooding the field with older fighters, just as fodder, doesn't work from any operational point of view. You should never look at your troops or materiel as expendable. They're soldiers, not slaves. The Luftwaffe favored the Me109 over other fighters, not because it was the best, but because it was the cheapest. Even with the Fw190 and newer aircraft outperforming the Me109, the Luftwaffe stuck with the Me109. All that did for them was increase the Allied and Soviet kill ratio. Flooding the skies with mediocre equipment became a major money and materiel sink. Let us not repeat that. The E-Wing has better acceleration and top speed than the X-Wing. Y-Wings are just giant targets. There's no time when they aren't giant targets.
Capital ships shouldn't need point defense. That's what a fighter screen is for. Capital ships should be worried about other capital ships. The CAG should be worrying about the bombers coming in, and directing their fighters and interceptors accordingly to intercept. The only time point defense becomes worrisome is if a ship is separated from its TFE. At no point should this be an operational decision. The element functions in totality. No TFE should ever be missing a ship, and no ship should ever be away from TFE support.
The empire did end up seeing the error of their mass numbers vs better tech late in the civil war. That's why things like the TIE defender were made. /me shrugs
Frankly I'm okay with buying more transports, but it doesn't need to be today. I'm happy to put it on the wishlist for the future as our fleet grows.
Frigates and Corvettes would be nice to have, but I again think its a wishlist item for the future at this point.
Starfighters are important. If it were just me I'd say we get 1 more TIE Defender squadron, 2 more E-wing squadrons and put the rest into the army forces somewhere.
An Interdictor of some sort would be good for the wishlist too
whether as a destoryer or a cruiser model, I just think the gravity wells always added interesting tactic options.
Problem with an Interdictor is that it means we're sticking around to slug out a long, protracted fight. While our 2 TFEs are perfectly capable of that, it isn't a very mobile strategy. The only pro to an Interdictor is that we can determine where to fight. The cons are that it needs to be guarded; it's slower than all but the MK; and in a losing engagement, while we're trying to withdraw do we protect the carriers or the interdictor? And the time to make that decision would end up costing us both.
yeah, it kinda needs it own taskforce for protection doesn't it?
I think the big problem with this piece meal way of gaining ships is that it's hard to figure out where and how to expand without handicapping. When we designed the 2 TFEs, we went in knowing we wanted something flexible, modern and mobile. But unless we get points to add an entire new TFE, we have no real way of weighing pros and cons. Typically when militaries add units, they know what they have, what they need and begin planning on how to get where they want to be. We only know where we want to go - continuing with mobility, modernity and flexibility. Ideally this means moving to carrier task forces, with few big cruisers but a lot of fighters and bombers. Unfortunately, we have no way to get there. Or plan how to get there.
Okay, say we are on a mission. We are attacking a few Golans, for instance, with our starfighters/bombers. Of course we keep a squadron or maybe two (like our T/Ds even) in reserve for a nice CAP. At that point we are jumped by a rebel-like force made up of many squadrons of fighters and bombers. They can even be old fighters/bombers like regular X-wings and Y-wings. Even if there are 3 squadrons of each type, that will still be too many for CAP to repel initially. Since both types can carry proton torpedoes, a quick strike (like the Rebels were known for) against our task forces like that would cripple our starships. Even if we eventually destroy every single one of the enemy force without a loss of one fighter of ours, they would have time to take out the MK or the Doomsday, or any other of our capital ships. Maybe several.
Just because you did not personally envision this type of event happening or that it "shouldn't" does NOT mean it never will. These types of attacks are why ISD IIs are supposed to travel with a few escorts. They have point defenses for this sort of event. Hell even having a squadron of T/Is for *only* CAP is not a bad idea.
Also, I'm pretty sure there is a famous quote that goes something like... "No battle plan ever withstood contact with the enemy". You must plan what you do not think will happen.
Your type of argument reminds of the designers and the "forward thinkers" of the Pentagon when the F-4 Phantom II was first created. They believed the time of close-in dogfights were over and that the only thing the F-4 would be used for is to shoot down soviet nuclear bombers, because that was the future and that's what they planned on. Then Vietnam happened and the entire plan they had for the future went out the window.
As a House, we need to make sure we have backup plans. If we set up our military the way you have there is a very decent chance that everything just might go the way you, and you alone, plan. But we all know its a statistical probability that it will not do so 100% of the time. So having a few ships with point defenses is a smart decision. Not to mention having a squadron or two of fighters who are only for CAP flights within range of your starships protection. Think of it as hedging your bets. You're confidant your plan will work, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
I think our ship purchases should go like this. Since I can give a little, how about this:
1x T/D Squadron = 375 Credits
1x XJ X-Wing Squadron = 275 Credits
2x K-Wing Squadron = 550 Credits
So far we are at 1200 points with a total of 1380 to spend. Now with the remaining 180 I suggest
2x Gozanti Cruisers @ 50 credits a piece = 100
10x Imperial Dropship Transports @1 credit = 10
1x TIE Interceptor Squadron = 35
1x Sentinel-class Landing Craft = 25
1x Lambda-class Shuttle = 10
This way we both give a little. You get your advanced fighters, we get our point defenses between the cruisers and the T/Is. We also get the dropships to help with troop transport and two more shuttles to help as well.
That line of thinking would mean any commander is putting ships in the firing line of bombers. If any fictional captain ever did that, they'd be relieved of their command if their command survived. No capital ship should be engaging while an active fighter/bomber screen is around. That's the point of our own compliment. If we cannot obtain space superiority, we withdraw. If we do obtain space superiority, our own ships close in. F-4 vs F-22 would result in F-4 disposal. X- or Y-Wing vs T/D would result in alphabet disposal. Even in superior numbers, the alphabet fighters are nowhere near the performance capability.
Perhaps I haven't been clear on operational doctrine? We are not a standing force. We do not engage in battles of attrition. If we are ever in a position where the enemy can match us, we withdraw. If we are in a position where the enemy outnumbers us, we withdraw. We continue to maneuver and force them to expend materiel holding abandoned positions and weakening their own force. Once they're spread out, we take them apart. Force them to hold onto everything we've given up, and then when we're in a superior position, take it all back bit by bit. If they reconcentrate, then they've dealt themselves a strategic loss. If they continue to hold, they've dealt themselves a strategic loss. Either way, they're not winning if we maintain mobility and flexibility. Sheer weight and numbers should never be an option.
I understood your doctrine. The scenario I mentioned previously is what some military experts call a "trap". It means that the forces for whom the "trap" was used against had no foreknowledge of the intended elements used in a sudden and surprising way. In that instances, 72 starfighters with proton torpedoes (that we did not know about or foresee) against 24 T/Ds will have enough time to strike a blow against our capital ships before being blown to bits. Yes, of course they will die. The T/Ds are amazing in the roles they play. But its a simple numbers game. The T/Ds just will not be able to take out the fighters/bombers fast enough to avoid our capital ships taking losses. If the MK is on it's own, for example, and the previous scenario played out.. we would probably be down one ISD II. If most of the enemy fighters/bombers got off just ONE torpedo before they were vaped, the MK would be toast. And the odds are the Y-Wings would get off more than one shot before being destroyed.
I understand your doctrine calls for plan A or plan B. But what if the enemy is operating on plan C? I cannot fathom that you cannot see the basic need for at least some anti-starfighter defenses. And I gave quite a bit, from a Nebulon-B frigate, which would be great in that role, to two small Gozanti Cruisers.
Because your trap works on the assumption that we wouldn't be screening to run the moment they popped out. Or that the MK would operate on its own. The TFEs give us flexibility. That doesn't mean they're completely independent of each other. I'd never send one without the other on standby. And if they're not on active mission, they'd be in clear support position.
But let's assume your trap. If the MK was on its own, with its own fighters. Let's assume your X and Y wings. The T/Ds and T/As would move to intercept. All the while, the MK would be withdrawing from the field, alternately signaling for reinforcements. I'd prefer if it withdrew.
I would prefer it withdrew as well. But are you willing to risk all those Tarente/Yridian lives on it? Since we are talking about these type of things as if they were very real, lets also put in the human element. For the MK that is 42,000 (give or take) lives at stake. Do you think for one minute, any Tarentum QUA or AED would risk all those personnel on the thought that your personal thoughts and doctrine is so flawless that my scenario would never happen? You are in charge of the Military. They are in charge of the entire House AND all the citizens in the Yridia system. While they might have faith in you, they would also make sure the people who are fighting for the House would be protected against all possibilities that they can.
All but one of our capital ships do not have point defense weapons. I'm not sure if that is by design on your part or not. But it is something we lack and I am just trying to find a way to plug that hole in our defenses. That's all I am trying to do.
I guess we could just save up for a Khyron-class Star Destroyer... we'd have to do really well in the upcoming GJW and whatever is after that. I think it's a pity we don't have one. More than everybody else it really seems like we should have one.
The flaw in our doctrine as I see it (if I understand it correctly, I'm no military expert) is that it assumes we hold nothing. That means if Yridia II comes under attack from a force greater than our own, we withdraw and leave Castle Tarentum and our ancestral home to the wolves. To some extent I see this as necessary - we have a relatively small force that isn't well suited for direct conflict, and we can't afford to buy a larger force that is. It's for picking the slow ones out of the herd. It's for making them chase their tails and shoot at ghosts. But once we withdraw from Yridia, how does our doctrine provide for us to get it back?
I'm not arguing that T/Is are the answer to that. I think I understand the basic ideas of the speed doctrine. I can see the wisdom in preferring the newer T/Ds and E-Wings because they survive better. I also very much see Hades' point about not being able to move our AT-ATs and troops quickly. Speed is crucial on the battlefield, and it's exactly the benefit our doctrine is supposed to give us. But it takes two hours in a "well equipped" Star Destroyer hangar to refit a warlord dropship and apparently we can only fit two on the MK at a time... so there's a disconnect here that I can't quite reconcile. At some point with a speed doctrine you will have to pick up your stuff and get out of Dodge faster than the other guy can kill you. To me, that says lots of transports or dropships. By the same token, with a speed doctrine you also need to be able to make a sizable force seem to appear out of nowhere where they aren't expecting to see you. Again, that means lots of transports to move more guys faster than the enemy thought you could. So I still have to agree with Hades' original argument that we seem to need more ability to move people from place to place. Am I missing something?
There are only 2 reasons to fight of an invasion force. Conquest or destruction. If the reason for the invaders is destruction, we hold nothing and move. Or we make some bold last stand and die with glory and honor. Either way, not a winnable situation.
If it's conquest, then they have to answer to the very basics of logistics. To hold territory, you need a certain number of boots on the ground per square mile per population density. For relatively low population and deserted areas, you don't need a whole lot to hold onto territory. For heavy populated, dense, urban areas, you need a lot. If China, for example, were to invade Los Angeles, the Chinese military would need to not only beat the US Navy and Army, but if they somehow beat back those forces, or if the US military withdrew, the Chinese must now face another enemy. The Los Angelinos. That's almost 4 million people that are gonna be pissed. The Chinese Army, on the other hand, numbers around 2.5M. They'd need to use almost the entire Army to hold onto such a small, dense, urban area. Sure, they could just bomb it into submission, but that defeats the purpose of conquest. The Industry would be gone, it would be useless as a port and incredibly expensive to maintain a supply line through there.
Please note the previous iteration of the Army where we used a citizen militia. The Army was primary defense, the militia would be post-conquest scenario offense. The enemy takes Yridia IX? Ok. How many troops and how many ships must they now pull away from their primary force to hold onto it? They take Yridia III? IV? Again, how much are they willing to expend to hold onto their gains? Plus they'll have to bring in outside supplies, materiel, evacuate casualties. This makes a conquest scenario of Yridia incredibly problematic. Yes. We lose out on Industry and supply, but we're also denying the enemy ready and able access to that same Industry and supply. They stretch their supply lines and their forces. And we keep pulling them back further and further. Letting them have a little bit more and a little bit more, without fighting a conclusive battle. Just a constant withdrawal. When they are stretched to the point that they cannot concentrate superiority on any one position, then we start to take everything back. Move fast, hit hard. And don't hit in predictable patterns. Push them on multiple sides of the same front and leave them wondering where to concentrate. If they concentrate the fleet at Yridia III, move to Itanna Belt. If they're at IX, move to II, etc. In a conquest scenario, and what games never show, is the aftermath. You have this place, but now can you hold onto it? And that's key. If we're shitty stewards, then the Yridians may be happy with the new guys and we're out. If we're not so bad and give them a sense of identity...suddenly the invader has to contend with guerrillas.
The only drawback to this is that we will never be the invaders. And we shouldn't be. Invasion is risky, costly and ultimately results in the invader being pushed back. If the Dark Council wishes us to land troops on a battlefield, let them shoulder the cost of transportation or deal with us sending a token detachment. And for our own planets, if we're controlling the space around a planet...why should we bother landing large amounts of troops? If the enemy Navy has been pushed out, the ground forces will quickly capitulate. Faced with either surrender or never going home, most troops will surrender. Fighting to the death for entire units exists only among extremists and RTS video games.
As for point defense, the only solution will be more fighters. And flooding the field with cheap fighters isn't the answer. The Lancer and the Gozanti, from what I've seen offer only screening, but no ability to defend themselves. Which means they need to be shielded by another ship, if the enemy closes. Which then forces one captain to command two ships, because the captain of the Lancer/Gozanti will effectively be under their tow. That is not a tenable position. Doesn't matter how good a skipper they are.
I wanted to iterate a couple of thoughts, if I might. When we disucss military matters, as has been touched upon briefly, or very mildly, what is our first priority? Tarentum. What does Tarentum include? Tarentum includes the people that make it up, most notably the Dark Side House membership, but also the military personnel who serve us, as well as whatever Yridian population swears fealty to us and serves, as well. The population of the system is under our control and protection, that is absolutely certain. What, then, is the primary directive to the military? To protect Tarentum and its holdings. We are not a House, or people of conquest. We have, for decades now, isolated ourselves to the Yridia system, and have been quite content to live our lives there, without any real drive to stretch beyond our borders and conquer other worlds and star systems.
Going further beyond this, we have worked for many years now, not only to subjugate or pacify the system, its elements, people, industry, and those who traffic with us, but also, in many cases, to make it a stable system of trade, transport, and living. We have current and former House leadership, Tarentae, and others, who have been given land grants, baronies and counties, to actually stabilize the system, and provide for its defense. In many cases, certain aspects of our fiction have settled upon the benfits of being a Baron or Count of Tarentum, one of the Tarentae, etc., but have focused very little upon the obligations of said position. Do you think Anshar, in Messina, merely sits as lord of his estate, in pure opulence, and expects everyone to fend for themselves and pay tribute to his lordship? Nope. Part of Anshar being there is to establish Tarentae and Tarenti presence, and provide for the network of ground defense of the system. In Messina, were there an attack, he has established his own defenses, that can be bolstered by the House's resources. He wouldn't need to be landing troops in his area in high volumes, because his own defenses are in place, and any additional resources from the House would be landed little by little, in safe zones, to rally and prepare for insertion where they were needed. People would not be landed into hot zones, and have to worry about being picked off little-by-little, which would cause increased risk to the House resources. With previously existing ground defenses, and people needing to work out WHAT those are for fictional purposes, we don't need to worry about where our standing Army is, because, in essence, we already have guerilla fights, at the very least, in sensitive areas.
That leaves space superiority. Any scenario can involve traps being laid. For Tarentum, because our isolation has, in many ways, been a huge resource and strength, we don't have much to worry about in the way of any armies, large or small, coming in and setting up a trap in our own space. Other forces MAY plan for a surprise attack and trying to catch us off guard, but quite frankly, any force landing on our soil would be met with resistance and destruction upon them, and our Task Forces are set to provide quick response and defense of the system, and not actually conquer other systems. Oberst has discussed possible worst case scenarios, of losing ground, and having to give it up, with the overall goal being to let enemies wear themselves out and whittle away their resources, to retake our own soil and system in the end. That is a WORST case scenario. We are isolationist, almost to a xenophobic extent. We don't like outsiders. We don't like those not kin, not of our blood, not of our House. We have alliance with Arcona, and they are very much near-kin to us, and we have spent years developing that. Few in Naga Sadow, such as Trevarus Caerick, are also very close and support us, as we support them, but it is not a blanket of general acceptance. When you come to Yridian, you're on hostile ground unless you give us a reason to think kindly on you, and work for however long it takes to earn our trust. Betray us once, you don't get a second chance. I don't believe we need to focus on huge ground landing responsibilities, because we're not built to be that army; we're not built to be that navy. We can add to our numbers slowly, and try to flesh out additional capabilities, while understanding, our goal is to defend Yridia and Tarentum, and not go wandering the galaxy kicking ass and taking names.
That being said, we have a role to fulfill for the Brotherhood as a whole, and when the Dark Council has requested us, we are typically 1) Stationed aboard the Council's own ships or stations, 2) Utilizing perhaps a ship or two of our own task force to provide additional support to Council resources, or 3) Somewhere where we have utilized personal transport, or other services where we have not brought in Tarentum ships for a long-term engagement, and are boots on the ground to toss out Force-ass-kicking and such. With the Possessions system coming into play in the future, personal ships will be another huge additive to that mix potentially, and people who want to be in the mix, in the cockpit of a fight, on the bridge of a transport and shouting commands, running to-and-fro, will get that rush. Honestly, capital ship combat is boring as hell. Ship commanders sit in a war room, and have calm conversations, unless one of them is overcome by emotion and acting crazed and excited, in which case, smart military commanders either smack the shit out of them to bring them to their senses, or have them removed for not being able to handle the burden of command. Think back to the scenes of Death Star combat, wherein Tarkin and his command crew were calmly and rationally overseeing the battle, and giving orders for troop movements and responses as necessary, but otherwise sat back and watched. Or, in RotJ, wherein, even on the bridge of the Executor, the only real "adrenaline rush" for the bridge command staff, was when an A-Wing was headed towards them, and then crashed into the bridge. Command fiction, and capital ship combat, is boring as fuck. And it requires people who recognize, "These our my goals, and overall strategy and tactics have to move rationally to those goals, even giving up territory when required, which does not mean I don't care about the soil lost, or the lives in peril; it simply means I act in the best manner possible for the overall victory, which assures that soil and liberty to the lives under my watch."
My advice would be, continue to fulfill the role and directives we have, which is defending the soveriegnty of Yridia and the leadership of our House Summit, add to the effective resources we do have by purchasing worthwhile fights or whatever as needed, and then save points up, get people involved, start hoarding points, and making purchases to complete the defense of Yridia. After that, continue to set up the fiction and ideals behind the ground defenses and support that ARE in place, but not always in mind, and then work to make that a mainstay in people's mind and fiction, so it continues to be fleshed out. Then, as we continue to solidify our forces, figure out what additional purchases in the future will strengthen our directions and priorities, so we can start building purchases to strengthen those roles, and getting membership engaged.
That would be my advice.
Our resources are limited, correct? We do not have the largest Naval fleet, and we certainly do not have a very large standing Army. What we do have, we want to protect. If we had a large portion of our ground forces (both men and machines) on a planet that was invaded. We would try to get out as many of our troops as we could and leave the machines. At least that is what I'm understanding. Losing such a large portion of our mechanized units would be devastating. We would have no way to replace them for quite a while. My point on this is that we do not have any transports that can move our forces, following Oberst's doctrine, away from the danger in such a quantity to make much of a difference. ALL of our shuttles would be needed to provide evac to even ONE Army Battalion, not to mention any troops of a mechanized unit. And that would include constant starfighter escort and a the MK/Corsair/Doomsday to land said transports on. Yet we would leave them either A, perfectly good tanks and AT-ATs or B, wrecked units that we destroyed to deny the enemy the bounty. We need some sort of transport that can accommodate our units in both men and material.
And also, let me say this. I was never, at any time, suggesting we go off to conquer other worlds and such. My entire point was moving units where we needed them IN system. Right now, wherever our tanks and artillery are placed once we purchase them.. that is where they sit until the end of time. Because we have no way to move them, at all. Either in a fast evac or a slow piece by piece move.
And about the point defense topic. A cow and a piranha are not exactly equal in size. The cow could squish the piranha pretty quickly if it wanted to. But I bet you have seen that video of a cow being eaten by piranhas while trying to cross a shallow stream in the Amazon. You throw enough starfighters at us in any situation, let alone one that Oberst has not predicted before hand, and they are exactly like the piranhas. One is annoying, but a swarm will kill you. Lets give our cow (capital ships) some chain mail. We need a way to allow our big ships to protect themselves if there are too many enemies for our CAP to handle. We can follow Oberst's doctrine until we are blue in the face. While you are all high ranking Dark Jedi, you cannot predict every engagement, no matter what. You know that. But here we are. Only one capital ship under our command has point defenses. The rest of our ships rely on the few squadrons we do have. While the list I mentioned earlier DOES give us two more fighter squadrons and two more bomber squadrons, I still do not think it is enough. I know I'm Mr. Nobody when it comes to the House Military, but I just cant fathom that the military experts of the House cannot take the most important aspect of warfare into account. That it is always unpredictable.
The thing about the tanks and artillery, when we were faced with how to move them, I never wanted them. But we were obligated to purchase them in dicto. Army movement became secondary when we realized what we would have. So the Army strategy was never to be a deciding factor in a fight. As many as possible would be stationed aboard the fleet, with the rest spread out in detachment. Ground forces on a planet's surface put up a token resistance in initial combat and then become core for guerrilla and resistance forces. Turn the onus on control of a planet into a space superiority fight. If the enemy wishes to entrench after their fleet is gone...they won't survive without a supply line.
As for the fleet, I don't think you understand that we do have point defense. Our starfighters. We have T/As which brilliantly fill the role of interceptor, and can get at any bomber attempting to close range. Same with the T/Ds. We definitely need more of them, but anti-fighter screening is not non-existant.
I understand about the Army units. 2,000 to 3,000 or so troops is not enough to hold a major city, let alone a star system. But even if we have 3/4 of our armor on our starships, there is STILL no way to deploy them if we wanted to. No transport of ours can take them from our ships to whatever destination we so wish. That is my entire point on the matter. We have some dropships (which we could only fit two in the MK and none anywhere else) that can deal with AT-ATs. But nothing for our artillery, tanks, or any other armored units. Even if it is one at a time, we need a craft that can get our units from point A to point B.
Assuming the enemy pilots are veteran and good at their jobs, what if we have an instance where the enemy outnumbers us (starfighters) 2-1. Yes, under your plan we withdraw. I agree. But how much of a beating will we take until we are able. You know going to hyperspace is not instant. And yes, our T/Ds and T/As can take out a single bomber/fighter in a decent time (assuming the enemy is flying inferior craft). But fighters can only engage one ship at a time. We will take a lot of torpedo hits by the time we are able to make our jump (unless they target the engines). And of course, this does not take into account that the enemy could be engaging us 1 to 1 with T/Ds and T/As or maybe all T/Ds. If they do that and slip just ONE more bomber flight (let alone an entire squadron) into the mix we could be in a world of hurt. And what would your answer be to that?
If it's "one time," then it's a waste of our resources. Preparing for something that can be avoided by simple mobility will end up costing us mobility.
Capital ships with point defense are going to be a moot issue. The ones that can create the type of screen you're envisioning offer nothing to any task force they're slotted in, and its duties can be performed by fighters and interceptors, not to mention escort shuttles. Combat superiority isn't gained through wars and battles of attrition. Those are costly and force both sides to wage wars of bank accounts. We don't have that limitless bank account. So we work with what we have. And that means moving quickly. Never getting pinned down. Never committing to an engagement unless we can guarantee space supremacy (complete control of space). And supremacy does not mean overwhelming numbers. If we can insert a strike team to disable parked and hangared craft, I'd be for that situation over going heads up with our fighters.
But let's assume this naval engagement where we are forced to face equal or overwhelming odds. T/As launch with the strict role of interceptor - hit bombers before they can close to Inner Space. To do this, Avengers and Defenders would launch and preferably jump to the Outside Space range of the Task Force, breaking up bomber formation with their own concussion missiles and keeping the fight close. From the start of this fight, with the CAG and DCAG are directing space traffic, either TF commander should be moving their task force to jump. The moment the enemy is ready to break the Outside Space cordone, that TF should be jumping, with fighters accelerating clear to jump to either a pre-determined rendez-vous or secondary and tertiary points before rejoining the TF.