
So that doctrine puts a strict limit on the amount of forces you can deploy in a given area, because with too many troops, even having enough landers on hand to do the evac doesn't guarantee a lift out in 30 minutes because of space-gridlock

Well, sure. Lucky for me we didn't need to declare, or waste points, on the number of landers (or for that matter troopships) we wanted.RogueIce wrote:And do you have at least 60% lift capacity for every single Marine unit? If yes, that's...a lot of resources pumped into landers.
A full planetary-scale invasion also calls for a fleet to match. Not that the Sovereignty has ever launched such an invasion to being with, so the question of whether the doctrine holds up under those kinds of circumstances is a stupid one to begin with. The only places the USMC is conceivably going to invade in the near future are Wild Space crapholes with mediocre-at-best defenses, so what would I need such a huge army for to begin with?In fairness, of course, a lot of these problems probably are not totally insurmontable for 'low level' operations. I think it's only really gets more problematic the larger scale your operations go. A single-city landing may not be too bad; a full planetary-scale invasion, on the other hand, would be rather taxing on your '30 Minute Evac' doctrine.
This is a doctrine. Whether it actually holds up under all circumstances is another thing: landers can be shot down (as, it bears pointing out, I've already demonstrated), resulting in stranded forces planetside. Christ, it's not like I'm declaring a "my troops have an invincible pull-back-in-30-minutes" insta-win option here. Cut me some fucking slack.A fair enough point, though it helps to point these things out. Plus, there should be some limits to what one can do. I mean, in a Player vs Siege War (if such should happen) the Player might feel a little cheesed if they plan a space counterattack on some Sovereignty invasion but Siege can just lift 'em all out with minimal losses in 30 minutes.
Honestly, since this also gives your troops superb ground mobility for things other than evacuation, I'd argue that "has enough landers to go anywhere in thirty minutes" should be part of their kit multiplier. That's how I'd spin it if I were in your position.Siege wrote:Well, sure. Lucky for me we didn't need to declare, or waste points, on the number of landers (or for that matter troopships) we wanted.RogueIce wrote:And do you have at least 60% lift capacity for every single Marine unit? If yes, that's...a lot of resources pumped into landers.
Ah. This doctrine works way better against Third Galaxy opponents, so yeah. That makes a lot of sense.A full planetary-scale invasion also calls for a fleet to match. Not that the Sovereignty has ever launched such an invasion to being with, so the question of whether the doctrine holds up under those kinds of circumstances is a stupid one to begin with. The only places the USMC is conceivably going to invade in the near future are Wild Space crapholes with mediocre-at-best defenses, so what would I need such a huge army for to begin with?
It's a common problem. Posit insanely powerful technologies in an SF setting and people just smile and nod. But when the implications of those technologies are used to do something the audience just can't imagine being able to do... people freak.And honestly, nobody made a peep when it's 10,000p warships, planet-cracker bombs or frickin' Titans being declared, but when a guy toys with faster than average troop redeployment it's suddenly an outrage? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this is a preposterously dumb thing to nitpick about, but I sure as hell think it's a preposterously dumb thing to nitpick about.
Here's a question for you: why the hell would I, much less anybody else, care about whether or not landers are part of the kit multiplier or not? What kind of a fucking dumb thing to fret about is that? When two armies meet and for some idiot reason the owners can't be bothered to work out a solution between them we look at the point value they represent and multiply it by their kit stats, and then we know who the winner is. I could fight an army of atomic death robots with nothing but hippies wielding pointy sticks and if my kit/point combo is superior, then pointy sticks beat death rays. The clue buried in there? What's part of kit and what isn't doesn't at any point figure into anything. Y'all can go ahead and worry about something as utterly inane as how much 'tail' my ground forces have, or whatever other insane nonsense you (generic you, not Simon-you) can dream up for all I care, I'm not going to bother defending the way I write my forces any further than I've already done.Simon_Jester wrote:Honestly, since this also gives your troops superb ground mobility for things other than evacuation, I'd argue that "has enough landers to go anywhere in thirty minutes" should be part of their kit multiplier. That's how I'd spin it if I were in your position.
Then people should have their imagination upgraded to something more closely resembling, you know, imagination. Their failure to imagine anything other than '1980s army in space' is not my problem, and I'm not about to make it that either.Posit insanely powerful technologies in an SF setting and people just smile and nod. But when the implications of those technologies are used to do something the audience just can't imagine being able to do... people freak.
The kind of thing that I spend five seconds thinking about, then don't worry about any more? I mean, it's not like I expend any real effort writing something like this. There's a difference between "talk" and "fret," you see.Siege wrote:Here's a question for you: why the hell would I, much less anybody else, care about whether or not landers are part of the kit multiplier or not? What kind of a fucking dumb thing to fret about is that?Simon_Jester wrote:Honestly, since this also gives your troops superb ground mobility for things other than evacuation, I'd argue that "has enough landers to go anywhere in thirty minutes" should be part of their kit multiplier. That's how I'd spin it if I were in your position.
Isn't the Central alliance inactive at the present time though?PeZook wrote:And...here's my "something outrageous". Well, not very outrageous...just new
A bit, yes. I'm not expecting this to move very fast.Darkevilme wrote: Isn't the Central alliance inactive at the present time though?
Something about Coyote's work cracking down on unauthorized internet use preventing them from posting...
I'll go out on a limb and say that perhaps some of it is that landers and such are "free" whereas 10,000pt warships and Titans weren't. You could pay for those outlandish things at the cost of potentially putting too many eggs in one basket. With landers and the the other aspects of your "tail" you could just pull it all out of your ass.Simon_Jester wrote:It's a common problem. Posit insanely powerful technologies in an SF setting and people just smile and nod. But when the implications of those technologies are used to do something the audience just can't imagine being able to do... people freak.Siege wrote:And honestly, nobody made a peep when it's 10,000p warships, planet-cracker bombs or frickin' Titans being declared, but when a guy toys with faster than average troop redeployment it's suddenly an outrage? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this is a preposterously dumb thing to nitpick about, but I sure as hell think it's a preposterously dumb thing to nitpick about.
You're running up against people who are far more comfortable imagining an army of 20th century troops in space with their spacecopters and spacetrucks... and an army like that wouldn't be able to meet the 30-minute doctrine. Hence the problem. They can imagine ludicrous giant tanks and planet-cracker bombs more easily.
Simon_Jester wrote:Hey, Steve:
Is there any problem with my saying that some time a few decades ago, my people sent a scientific expedition to study a supernova in a fairly distant region of space, say a few dozen sector-widths off the map, far enough away that it wouldn't cause any long-term problems for SDNW4 civilization?
This wouldn't be any kind of colony expedition, just some scientists with a boatload of sensor equipment to check out what's going on and maybe get some sweet pics of a newly formed black hole. Things like that.
Can't wait to see the negotiations themselves.Shroom Man 777 wrote:The immediate prelude to Bragulan-Byzantine diplomatic negotiations has been posted!![]()
Siege hates pointlessly burdensome time-wasting ruleset quantifications with a bloody vengeance; film at 11. I mean, I've only railed against this very thing, oh, three games in a row or so...Simon_Jester wrote:But if you resent discussion of the subject that much, I should probably leave you alone just like I should leave Fin alone.
Since you're in an agreeable mood, can I borrow that blackhole generator for a couple days? There's a certain out-of-the-way planet that needs to disappear.Steve wrote:Simon_Jester wrote:Hey, Steve:
Is there any problem with my saying that some time a few decades ago, my people sent a scientific expedition to study a supernova in a fairly distant region of space, say a few dozen sector-widths off the map, far enough away that it wouldn't cause any long-term problems for SDNW4 civilization?
This wouldn't be any kind of colony expedition, just some scientists with a boatload of sensor equipment to check out what's going on and maybe get some sweet pics of a newly formed black hole. Things like that.
Oh, go ahead.