Re: Battle for the Lytherian astroid

> I disagree completely. Scro are portrayed in both the novels and the
game
> materials as intelligent opponents. "National fighting
characteristics" are
> a myth in the real world, and given the scros ability to understand
the
> advantages of softening the enemy I think they would follow the most
> tactically sound route.

Actually that's not true.  Many forces find it impossible to adapt to
different regions and/or terrains.  The scro are specifically
described as preferring close in, melee fighting.  Even their favored
ship, the mantis, is designed with this in mind.  I have no doubt they
understand and appreciate the advantages of softening up but they
could do that even as the marines got into the action at the same
time.  To me that sounds more like a scro tactic.

> Actually, I used standard Battlesystem ranges for the weapons,
instead of
> SJ ranges, as most of the astroids in the field had atmospheres and
were
> close together.  In the report, however, in order to avoid having to
> explain that I just exchanged "Light" and "medium" Ballistae in the
report.
> The point is that the scro commander stayed at a range where he
could have
> the most favorable balance of the fire (at a range where more scro
weapons
> were in range then elven weapons).

I agree with your choice (using Battlesystem ranges in atmosphere).

> Concerning the range thing I'm still ambivalent.  Many of the
factors that
> favor larger weapons in regards to range in the real world are
missing from
> the SJ universe in space.  Ballistics are a complicated science to
begin
> with, and our knowledge of catapult and ballista ballistics is
skectchy at
> best (heck, our knowledge of Ren cannon ballistics are pretty damn
> sketchy).  I too feel the ranges should be reversed, but that's just a
> hunch, I haven't seen a convincing argument in its favor yet.

Or possibly just state range is "effective range" and assign similar
ranges to all weapons of the same type.  As for a convincing argument
I could definitely make one regarding ballistae but it would quickly
get complicated with catapults and jettisons.  The fact that ballistae
all use the same size ammunition (at least in my campaign) means
kinetic energy must be higher to get more damage.  Thus speed would
increase (as mass is constant).

> With lesser orcs, perhaps, but that sort of selfdestructive behavior
is why
> the elves won the UWI, so I think the scro religiously avoid it.  The
> novels seem to bakc this up, General Vorr remains loyal to Admiral
Halker,
> its only the OA Foxwoman who actually betrays them in _Maelstrom's
Eye_.
> In _The Radient Dragon_ a bit more dissent is shown, but no scro is
> disloyal in that way.  Perhaps the orcs in this fleet might have,
but this
> battle was fought prior to my Scro navy write up, today I'd have
assigned a
> Scro warpriest and a few bodyguards to each orc vessel to prevent
what you
> describe.

I never read the novels so I can't use them as a basis.  However I do
have the module featuring Gamaro Base with its resident scro warpriest
wight who died of betrayal.  Maybe we should view the scro closer to
the klingons in this respect *when in battle*.  A successful commander
lives while a failing one dies at the hands of his juniors officers.
Outside of battle I imagine duels (formal and impromptu), "training
accidents", and assassination still occur (of course the rigid command
structure of the scro means the ambitious have to be careful not to
kill too popular--ie, successful--of a rival lest they attract the
anger of the dead one's superiors--normal orcs/goblins don't usually
have this problem).

> >6)  Why wasn't at least one ship on patrol to help prevent foes from
> >sneaking up?  They don't have to engage, just see the enemy and run
> >home with some semaphore raised to sound the alarm.
>
> That's why the captain was demoted:)

And your explanation of how well and long the base was scouted makes
this even clearer.  I think you were too easy on him, though.  With
200 losses and 3 vessels (with helms!) he's still an officer and so
able to make some decisions.  Make him a private.

> >Those are some of my initial thoughts on the matter but I do think
> >your example demonstrates one of the long time principles of war, a
> >static defense will never beat a good mobile offense.
>
> That's somewhat self-evident, since a good mobile offense is defined
by its
> ability to beat a static defense:)

Not precisely.  A good mobile offense is simply one that maneuvers and
coordinates well.  It could easily be used against a mobile defense.
It also doesn't mean it will be successful (superiority of forces and
technology and supply and all that).  Still, I can live with your
definition.

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @?????.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com