Re: Battle for the Lytherian astroid

>Actually that's not true.  Many forces find it impossible to adapt to
>different regions and/or terrains.

I won't argue with you on this, but I am a professional military historian
and I'm telling you that national fighting characteristics are a myth.
Other factors often prevent organizations from adapting, but no military
force chooses a tactically ineffective method simply because "that's how
they fight".  If you want to look into this, then I'd suggest starting with
the three volume "Military Effectiveness" series edited by Millett &
Murray.  Then move to "Feeding Mars" edited by John Lynn,  and "The Making
of Strategy" edited by Murray.  "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan is also
helpful, but doesn't directly answer the question.  Finally, for dealing
with this question in a pregunpowder context, there's a whole series of
articles scattered throughout the professional journals in an ongoing
"Nature of the Ancient Battle" debate.  If you'd like I can send those
citations.

In regards to the scro in particular, my take is that they have learned
from the mistakes of their ancestors.  I feel if they simply "charge" with
no thought to softening up tactics then they become relatively simple
opponents to beat. In this case, there was no landing zone not initially
covered by elven weapons.  So the intial landing would have been pretty
much doomed to failure.  The scro realized this and responded
intelligently, by preparing a landing zone.  In the event, they were still
unable to land without taking very heavy casuaties, but they follow the
most effective step.

>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).

Assuming they do use the same size ammunition.  I haven't seen that stated
one way or another.  A big problem here is that histroically, siege weapons
of these types were not standardized (well, the Romans and Chinese did
standardize them to a point, but the inherent inconsistencies in the
propellent system still leaves a great deal of variety).  Yet the game does
treat them in a standardized manner.

>> >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.

In his (my:)) defense, part of the reason I kept such scouting out of the
equation was because it would have complicated the game scenario.  Also, I
overestimated the importance of the elven defensive works (though with
overhead cover that might reverse itself).  The game was designed as a
"test" of SJ & Battlesystem combined, so I tried to keep the scenario
simple.


"We look on the same stars,  the sky is common,  the same world surrounds
us.  What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth?  We
can not attain to so great a secret by one road..."
Symmachus,  "Memorial on the Occasion of the Removal of the Altar of
Victory from the Senate House" (392 AD)

Paul Westermeyer,  westermeyer.3@???.edu
Phd Candidate, History, Ohio State
Adjunct Faculty, Humanities Department, Columbus State Community College