StarDestroyer.Net BBS

...What the fuck are you ranting about now, Formless? Points are points are points, which means that when a shitload of points comes roaring down on a non-shitload of points, the non-shitload of points are going to either be absolutely screwed or Brave Sir Robin at high speeds. That is the definition of defeat in detail. Does it mean they don't do anything at all? Nope. Does it mean that they won't accomplish much barring a miracle or a super-fuckup on the attacker's part? Hell yes! To use your D&D reference, it's not a level differential, it's forty archers shooting five identical archers full of nasty fuckoff war arrows and killing them in short order while the five shoot off a couple when they're not busy going 'OH GOD THE PAIN' and maybe killing one or two on a good day.

Unless, say, there's a fortress involved, or an Adept Flanking Attack, or the forty archers are all moonwalking towards the five.

I don't even get how you can possibly argue that defeat in detail is somehow 'wrong.' Concentration of effective force in an unexpected location is the definition of how you produce a non-1:1 kill ratio overall.

That is the definition of defeat in detail.

No, its not. Defeat in Detail is about sequential concentration of force, and only works when the defending force has some sort of exploitable weakness preventing them from reinforcing one another like bad communications or operating in a different environment (for example, a starship can support ground units through bombardment but ground units can rarely if ever support a starship in battle). Issues which may not apply in a space environment or between militarily equal forces... but again, we don't want to have that argument here on this forum, so we don't want Defeat In Detail or any other tactic to be enshrined in the rules. Simple. If you want to depict Defeat in Detail, do so in your own stories. These rules are supposed to apply when players disagree, remember?

edit: also, your archers had to use up arrows for that shot. The analogy is inexact, because arrows cost little whereas missile strikes might cost thousands of dollars in hardware. It adds up.

It's only sequential in the context of an overall war or a battle between dispersed components of two equal fleets. A single battle between two fleets in one system wherein one fleet has a heavy advantage over the other is defeat in detail in the context of the greater war going on outside that single system. In other words, it doesn't matter how big or small both sides' fleets are elsewhere, at the point of contact one side has a decisive advantage.

Now, am I saying that defeat in detail is the be-all, end-all all the time? No. Retreat, playing for time until reinforcements arrive, trying to split up the larger force and engage a component on favorable terms (TACTICAL-level defeat in detail), so on and so forth, all valid attempted counters. But should a counter not be attempted or not prove successful, the outnumbered force will get its shit packed in to little gain.

Again, that kind of thing is better handled through roleplaying, because of the big differences in military doctrines that people have. For example, do these points represent fixed platforms, starfighter militias, or planetary ion canons? It could be all three, depending on the tactical and strategic doctrines of the particular nation, and some of those options may be more or less vulnerable to concentration of forces. Plus, what happens when the defender pulls the same stunt? Do the dedicated defensive points get to participate in battle, or are they just going to sit there jacking off *? And how does it work when someone has bought a dedicated fixed platform? Its a needless complication that raises as many issues as it solves.

* Edit: to clarify, I mean to say in a situation where the defender's reinforcements have arrived.

Excuse me, am I still discussing matters with the same person who so recently ranted that 'Points are points are points are points!?'

I believe I am. Let me break it down for you. Battle consists of [Attacker Points] vs. [System space defenses] + [Point-bought space defenses if you have any] + [Defender fleet units stationed in-system or close enough to matter]. Are those space defenses ion cannons or starfighter militias or whatnot? Who goddamned cares? For the purposes of points, they're all points, exactly the position you took not half a dozen posts ago. My, wheeled goalposts? What a fantastic invention! :Monocle:

Now, once you've found the total balance of points (Say, 6000 attacking, vs 400 fixed defenses, 100 bought defenses, 1000 mobile fleet, for a total of 6000 vs 1500), then you figure out the narrative. But the narrative, barring miracles or idiocy, is going to go VERY BADLY for the 1500, and the 6000 isn't going to take major casualties with a 4:1 point edge, unless otherwise agreed in negotiation for some reason. That's strategic-level defeat in detail.

Now, let's say the attacking force manages to bait out the 1000-pt mobile fleet away from the range of fixed defenses and engage them alone? Well, that might just be tactical-level defeat in detail. And, just so your semantics-whining is happy, it's then followed in sequence by the fleet brutalizing the suddenly-unsupported fixed defenses, and probably taking fewer casualties than if they'd engaged all 1500 points at once. On the flip side, let's say the 6000 force tries to bait out the 1000-point mobile force using a smaller contingent of ships, but oh hell, the 1000-point force is dual-drive and engages Heim engines to quickly ambush the baiting force of 500 points within the hyper limit! ...Defeat in detail? Now, that might allow them to inflict somewhat disproportionate casualties, but unless the attackers are truly idiotic, it's not going to change the overall outcome of a force mismatch that broad. As has been stated, it's not always going to be possible depending on individual situations, but both of those situations are examples of defeat in detail in actual possible scenarios in-game.

I am that same person, you are just talking past me. This has always been about a specific proposed rule. Simon stated that the rule is supposed to prevent a small raiding force from taking an entire sector (a strategic concern, note) but is NOT intended to make the work of a dedicated invasion force any harder than it is now. So he said that they can be Defeated In Detail at essentially no cost of casualties to the attacker as long as the force wasn't just a "raiding group" (a vague term that is just begging to start Yet Another Bitchfest as soon as the rule actually gets used). Thus, not only has the rule invoked a specific and potentially debatable tactic, but it also creates a new class of points that don't mean anything outside of a specific situation where common sense already dictates a player has crossed the line into absurdity.

In any case, this was from the start a tangent to what Sorchus wanted to talk about, and like I said in the beginning Simon is no longer considering that proposal for various reasons. As we're starting to drift into the realm of That Argument I Would Rather Have Elsewhere, lets just agree to disagree for the moment, shall we?

It's not a category of points that doesn't matter against 'a real force' you bloody fool. It's an AMOUNT that poses little threat to a given ratio of attacker versus defender. If I deploy two Tornado-class attack cruisers to each populated system in a colony sector, for a total of ten cruisers at $75 each, each pair of cruisers faces $400 of space defenses each, and dies horribly. If I deploy all ten against one system, for the total point cost of $750 versus $400 of default defenses, I can probably win, but not without significant casualties, and possibly not fast enough to do so quickly enough to finish up before reinforcements can arrive. I definitely won't have enough left to successfully bombard the populated planet in-system against the ground defenses.

Now, if I deploy the entire Midnight Confederation Navy Third Fleet that those ten Tornados were detached from, I'll roll over the entire system defenses so fast as to be ludicrous, and they'll inflict infinitesimal casualties before being annihilated. That's not because 'system defenses are in a category that's not allowed to fight major forces' or any such bullshit you keep spewing, but because the Third Fleet is comprised of nine thousand, three hundred and seventy points of warships, and the system's space defenses are four hundred points, a twenty-three-fold advantage. Hell, if the entire battle takes place in low orbit so the planetary defenses can chime in, it's still nearly a twelve-to-one ratio. The system defenses aren't useless because they're a specific useless class, it's because they're so hilariously overmatched as to be useless in the event that overwhelming mobile fleet assets manage to slip past and skullfuck them. Now, you should probably spot a fleet that large coming and be able to deploy a response, but that's neither here nor there, as that's a mobile fleet versus mobile fleet + system defenses consideration.

Have I been crystal clear enough to you? Do you want a diagram?

Oh, for fucks sake, are you completely incapable of reading without first applying a MINDLESS RAEG filter?

The rule in question DOUBLED THE DEFENSIVE VALUES OF SECTOR DEFENSES. If you DOUBLE THE VALUE OF SECTOR DEFENSES, the DEFENDER can use Defeat in Detail as you are misrepresenting it to utterly curbstomp an attacker. This obsoletes several OOBs, which were written with smaller sector defenses in mind. The way Simon solved that was by invoking Defeat In Detail on a tactical level so that the extra forces granted by the rule which DOUBLES THE SECTOR DEFENSES would suffer Critical Existence Failure as soon as a dedicated invader arrives. Go back and read the argument, it starts on Page two of this thread. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting the rule and stop acting like a trolling fuckhead.

This argument is not worth the over the top flaming and impatience.

The only conceivable way that fixed defenses can engage in 'defeaqt in detail' as you so incoherently rant about is if the attacking fleet commander is beaten about the head by a spy before the attack force departs, and he decides to attack a system that he doesn't have a prayer in hell of defeating. Given how low that threshold is it shouldn't be a problem for all but the most ambitious and stupid of fleet commanders.

Also, 'double defenses' is a deceptive whine and you bloody well know it. Unless you literally decide to have a shootout in low orbit, the ground defenses aren't going to be able to weigh in at all unless you're trying to take the planet itself, and that's what armies are for, not navies.

It increased both values, thank you very much, but you know what? This is getting bloody stupid. Firstly because I think you're refusing to budge even an inch, but also because as stated Simon isn't even pursuing that option anymore. As long as he understands what it is I dislike about the idea, and remembers what it is people in general dislike about it next time he decides to add a new rule, good. He understands how it works better than either of us do, since he is the one who came up with it.

Have a nice day.

Formless wrote:It increased both values, thank you very much...

Nope. See below.

This is getting bloody stupid. Firstly because I think you're refusing to budge even an inch, but also because as stated Simon isn't even pursuing that option anymore. As long as he understands what it is I dislike about the idea, and remembers what it is people in general dislike about it next time he decides to add a new rule, good. He understands how it works better than either of us do, since he is the one who came up with it.

In this case, "people in general" who dislike the rule seem to be summarized as "Sorchus and Formless." Since Sorchus and Formless can be depended on to dislike virtually anything I do, and since their dislike is often ill-informed or poorly thought out, I don't take their dislike very seriously anymore.

Now, if it were different people dissenting from a proposed rule change every time, or if the people who consistently disapproved included people whose judgment I trust farther, then I'd really need to take pause for thought.

My canary-in-the-coal-mine for this sort of thing is usually Siege: he's not fond of extra rules, and he has no fear whatsoever of arguing with me when he thinks I'm wrong, but he's got the intellectual integrity to take a step back, think about other people's perspectives, and not get his ego wrapped up in keeping a dispute going. That makes him a good sounding-board; anything he doesn't mind is probably pretty unobjectionable, and if he really doesn't like something he's got a pretty fair chance of improving on it.

White Haven wrote:It's not a category of points that doesn't matter against 'a real force' you bloody fool. It's an AMOUNT that poses little threat to a given ratio of attacker versus defender. If I deploy two Tornado-class attack cruisers to each populated system in a colony sector, for a total of ten cruisers at $75 each, each pair of cruisers faces $400 of space defenses each, and dies horribly.

Ahem. Under my own draft proposal, that's properly $200 of space defenses each.

$150 of attacking ships confront these defenses. As a rule they will lose, but it isn't as one-sided as it would be if the defensive strength was $400 per system. In, let us say arbitrarily, one of the five systems (on average), they will probably manage to win, or at least score what amounts to a double-kill where the damage to the cruisers is comparable to the damage to the defenses.

Then again, in one or two of the five systems, the cruisers get their asses kicked and die horribly. Eyeballing it, I'd toss out a distribution of outcomes like: one marginal victory, one or two stalemates, one or two marginal defeats, and one or two decisive defeats. ROUGHLY.

Not that this is a rule; it's just how I would propose, modhat firmly off, to resolve something like this.

The concentrated $750 cruiser fleet would be able to punch out the $200 space defenses of a colony system quite easily with fairly minimal losses- if five such task forces took on five such defense networks, I would expect a distribution of outcomes like: two or three decisive victories, two or three marginal victories.

That might be altered if we throw questions of things like reinforcements into the pot, of course.

And that's not a rule either- it's just something I'd propose, modhat off, if I were in a war and I were having to think about this while dealing with another PC on the other side.

Formless wrote:Oh, for fucks sake, are you completely incapable of reading without first applying a MINDLESS RAEG filter?

The rule in question DOUBLED THE DEFENSIVE VALUES OF SECTOR DEFENSES...

No it didn't.

It created two separate defense forces, space and ground. The ground defense force is the same size as it always was, but is physically located on the planet and isn't really a big threat to spaceships. If nothing else, the planet is fixed in a ballistic orbit; if you leave it alone, it leaves you alone.

The space defense force is a threat to naval task forces in the system, at least if they want to go anywhere important enough for the defense forces to be covering that location. Unless the task force is large enough to duke it out with the defenses, it cannot secure control of space in the system- at least, not the important bits.

The point value of the ground defenses is unchanged, but it can't actually fight a space force unless you deliberately try to fight ground troops with spaceships rather than with other ground troops. The point value of the space defenses exists so there is some deterrent to simply flying around an enemy-held system at will and shooting up whatever looks like a fun target.

From the point of view of either an invading army or an invading navy, the point value of the defenses is the same as it ever was. For a serious invasion force, which must consider both sets of defenses, the expected point value for success is so large (thousands of points) that even both sets of defenses combined are practically irrelevant because they're so damn tiny. At most, the system defenses contribute a small 'home court advantage' to a battle between the large fleet attacking a planet and the large fleet defending the planet.

This is all a direct consequence of the things White Haven has been trying to explain to you. Please take a breath and double-check your reasoning.

If you DOUBLE THE VALUE OF SECTOR DEFENSES, the DEFENDER can use Defeat in Detail as you are misrepresenting it to utterly curbstomp an attacker.

No, this is based on a totally mistaken definition of "defeat in detail." I cannot for the life of me see what you're talking about. What in God's name do you think "defeat in detail" means (hint: it is not capitalized in English)? Do you think "defeat in detail" means "I have more stuff than the enemy?"

Because that's not correct. It means "I attack one part of the enemy, destroy that part easily by locally outnumbering it, then move on to easily destroy other parts of the enemy, without ever confronting their full strength at once."

This obsoletes several OOBs, which were written with smaller sector defenses in mind.

Formless, please name one such order of battle, and explain why it is "obsoleted." Numbers will be required as part of the argument.

The way Simon solved that was by invoking Defeat In Detail on a tactical level so that the extra forces granted by the rule which DOUBLES THE SECTOR DEFENSES would suffer Critical Existence Failure as soon as a dedicated invader arrives.

That not true. Nowhere did I say any such thing, or make any reference to any 'critical existence failure.' I did mention before, and mention again, that large forces can easily overrun small forces. This is not a hard idea to understand.

When the small force is a fixed defensive unit that cannot leave the star system, and it fights a larger force, it dies without doing much damage in return. If I have a large FTL-mobile force which can run around from system to system, stomping on the isolated defense forces at will, I can easily destroy thousands of points of defenses without losing thousands of points of ships.

Now, if I choose not to use a large FTL-mobile force, and commit only tiny forces to attacking enemy systems, the defenses are a serious threat. But if I send only, say, one 100-point ship (of which I might have hundreds) to take on one star system (of which the enemy only has a few dozen), I sort of deserve to lose that fight.

Go back and read the argument, it starts on Page two of this thread. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting the rule and stop acting like a trolling fuckhead.

This argument is not worth the over the top flaming and impatience.

I'm sorry, Formless, but you are blatantly trying to pick an argument based on your own lack of understanding of the terms and strategic concepts being thrown around by others. I do not consider your objections relevant, as I think that they are so ill-founded that no one should have to go out of their way to accomodate them.

Nor do you gain any points here by attempting to display your nobility of spirit by calling White Haven a "trolling fuckhead," then saying that it's not worth fighting over. Anything worth calling a man a trolling fuckhead over is plainly something you consider worth fighting over.

Good catch on the math, Simon. I realized I'd doubled before halving, but didn't have time to fix it. Curse you, gainful employment! But hey. It's a math error that just supports my point even more, so no biggie.

Apparently in FormlessWorld, there are entire navies built of nothing but tiny, tiny task forces designed to punch out worlds with no space defenses. That's like...that's like...it'd be a national navy made up of the spacegoing equivalent of the first marshlands area in Diablo 2, full of enemies a sorceress can melee to death. These navies possess no organizational structure sufficient to combine more than one of these tiny forces, and thus defended systems render them helpless.

...Where are these navies? I'd love to pick a fight with one of them. Hell, all of them at once.

Apparently in FormlessWorld, there are entire navies built of nothing but tiny, tiny task forces designed to punch out worlds with no space defenses.

In FormlessWorld, there are moderators who tell people to fuck off when they do that. And likewise, strawmanners like yourself would be told to STFU until such a time as they can learn to stop lying.

Unfortunately, it appears this game exists in a world where the de-facto head moderator (because he is the only one still around) can openly state he has a bias against two of his players for no logical reason other than he generally disagrees with them, and cherry picks those arguments where he thinks he has the most solid case, rather than dealing with the crux of the matter-- that a particular and potential rule is unnecessary.

This does not make me want to participate. In any game where he has power. Ever.

Including this one.

Goodbye, douchebags. It is unfortunate that my promise to participate in this game will have to be suspended until a new moderator can be found to serve as a check on Simon's Inflated Head Syndrome. Frankly, I expect from a GM some shred of giving a damn what his players think and not just what specific players think. Simon, do not think that this is personal-- its your apparent belief that it is that makes me think you need to get over yourself. I've quit games before, and fortunately this does not technically count as quitting.

Apologies go out to Fin and Siege for earlier comments about their conduct OOC. I should have done that sooner since I made those comments while generally enraged, but I hope you can accept them now. You clearly are not as bad as I initially believed. Good luck with whatever you plan on doing.

Have a very nice day, and remember, This Is Not Worth A Fucking Flame War!

Oh, and since you won't be needing it I took the liberty of removing the content of my nation's wikia page. If you want see what it was its all there in the page history, or I can PM interested people. I might be willing to write collaboratively with select individuals and possibly might put stories in the User Fiction forum.

Eh, probably for the best. The temptation to say 'fuck IC/OOC divide' and roar down on Formless's nation like the Fist of God would have been strong, and that wouldn't do happy things for narrative integrity.

The feeling is quite mutual-- one thing I've learned from playing RPG's IRL is that if your desire to burn the game down around you to spite the GM or fellow players outweighs your desire to smack around the Villains the game set up for you, its probably a good idea to get out while you still can.

And hey, I'd advise anyone to take that option if they feel that way about a game. These things are supposed to be fun, yo.

Formless wrote:Unfortunately, it appears this game exists in a world where the de-facto head moderator (because he is the only one still around) can openly state he has a bias against two of his players for no logical reason other than he generally disagrees with them, and cherry picks those arguments where he thinks he has the most solid case, rather than dealing with the crux of the matter-- that a particular and potential rule is unnecessary.

This does not make me want to participate. In any game where he has power. Ever.

Including this one.

Your call.

Goodbye, douchebags. It is unfortunate that my promise to participate in this game will have to be suspended until a new moderator can be found to serve as a check on Simon's Inflated Head Syndrome. Frankly, I expect from a GM some shred of giving a damn what his players think and not just what specific players think.

I care what plenty of players think. I just stop caring what players think when they're one-trick ponies and their one trick is running around in circles and screaming about how evil and oppressive and horrible everyone's conduct is and getting "enraged" about other people's behavior.

Sorchus is better than that. You aren't.

I literally cannot please everyone, and if I have to give up on trying to please the people who go off half-cocked against bizarre mutant versions of "this is what I'm doing," while insulting people for their obdurate refusal to take the mutant version over the real one, then I will.

Simon, do not think that this is personal-- its your apparent belief that it is that makes me think you need to get over yourself.

Oh, I don't think it's personal; I'm quite prepared to believe that you're like this to everyone, without fear or favor. It makes you sound like a bickering nitwit if you do act this way around everyone, but that's no skin off of my nose.

How can Formless have left the game when he's never actually played it? The only difference between him and Bluewolf and doom-numbers and KhorneFlakes and CN and all those other guys is instead of mindless spamming of the OOC or the chat in place of actual IC posts that never ever happen, he's got contrarian argumentative I have no idea whats in the OOC in place of actual IC posts. I have no idea what their beef with Simon (and everyone and everything else) is. Maybe if we made a game designed for Bakustrian contrarian haranguing over tangents and lots of huffing and puffing, trophies would be in order. I personally prefer to spend my time actually writing IC stuff instead of these OOC bickering, and these things I find very annoying. It's a damn shame that all we've seen is just that, OOC bickering about one inconsequential topic after another (OMG SASHA IS NOT A PSYKER... OMG SIMONS... OMG DEFEAT IN DETAIL), instead of any actual awesome IC stuff since at I hoped Formless would been better than those other Lemmings I've aforementioned. Well, too bad. *tacks name to the list*

I didn't come here to harangue or rules lawyer or bicker about tiny inconsequential detail.

Ooh, Goethe's Faust no less. How very appropriate, Shinn. I like it!

Well guys, I'm almost done writing my history thingy, and the story updates (Two, now) are kinda finished, but I got delayed somewhat as my mother decided to be a dick for no reason again. Typically I get angry, given that it's so gawddamn annoying, but I don't want her to start going "OENGIONGOIGw!" again. That'll just make it worse. However, my holiday is coming up, so I should have plenty of free time if she doesn't start with the annoying crap again.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:How can Formless have left the game when he's never actually played it?

This. He's not leaving so much as throwing a hissy fit and... refusing to bitch any further. Net positive if you ask me.

For those who were interested in it, I'm sorry, but I'm dumping the Sector X-13 storyline as too minor an issue to bother with. I'm going to focus all my STGOD energies on posting the government of the Empire and its work.

Well, you wrapped up the immediate crisis in X-13. All the scheming and plotting and subplots now going on there can reasonably fade into the background, possibly kept secret by the parties involved to the point where they don't really matter urgently to anyone outside the sector.

So consider the story finished, in my book.

It really wasn't finished, though. I mean, the last post has that one Ebon Blade agent being sent to Tyconia to interrogate Nika. Hardly a "story is over" thing.

I was going to have Princess Sara eventually hire the Blade to just kill Hilda and Reina at their wedding, where Druni and others would act decisively to save them (and Druni would recover her stolen weapon after beating the one EBon Blade lady personally). The CompInt conspiracy group would of course manipulate events so that Cornelia's involvement became obvious, and from there the issue would be a larger one. But at this point I'm really not interested in going through all this.

Welcome... to the war zone of the O-ZONE!