- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
These documents have now been updated and I will shift into the Library shortly. I have now separated then out into three individual documents for easier reference. I have also updated the Quick Reference document too.
The biggest change has been made to the fleet formations. One thing we noticed about them was that there were too many of them to try and remember. As a result, they have been reduced in number and simplified. There are still two types of formations, the close formations (of which there are now only three) and the combat formations. I’ll link the document below later for everyone to take a look.
Attack Patterns remain the same. Manoeuvres are rather underdeveloped, though really don’t need much more than some of the basics. Any suggestions for manoeuvres would be good though.
Location: 4th Division Library>Operational Guidelines and Protocols>Fleet Formations, Attack Patterns and Monaoeuvres
Fleet formations Able and Fox state in the reference sheet that disposition should be arranged based on tactical considerations (Heaviest ship is lead, lighter ships and interceptors to the rear) whereas Baker doesn’t have any tactical arrangement. These also seem to conflict with the new custom that formation position should be arranged based on seniority of the commanding officer.
Should the strategic formation take precedent or should we always just shuffle around based on who is commanding that vessel on any given day/mission/sim relative to the other Officer-In-Charge for the other active vessels in the fleet for that operation?
An oversight on my part. We had discussed the change from seniority of rank to the class of ship (i.e. heavier combat ships such as the battlecruiser vs lighter combat ships like the interceptor). It should be that ships form up with based on their class, with heavier weight ships closer to the lead ship. Should there be two ships in the same class (or similar class) then the most senior captain takes the closer position.
Baker is a little bit different, and I haven’t finalised my thoughts on this yet. One option is to have the heavier class ships closer to the escort, with lighter class ships further away (imagine rings of ships). This complicates things somewhat, with ranges from the escorts needing to be specified etc. I think for now, the same positioning will be applied, with the lead taking a position ahead of the escorts and the rest of the ships moving in to position around the escorts, heavier class ships further forward then lighter class ships.
To confirm I’m assuming the entire fleet is deploying then, the current assumed order of priority should be:
Raven (BC: Flt. Cpt. Xavier)
Viper (CL-A: Cpt. Verok)
Phoenix (CL: Cmdr. van Leigh)
Lancer (IX: Cpt. Jemel)
Hunter (IX: Cmdr. Tour [acting])For Baker, why not look at an electron-inspired model? Ships of the line (Raven, Viper, Phoenix) form the inner orbit about 1.5-2k away from the escorted target(s) to keep them within immediate response range while preventing multiple ships from being affected by heavy ordinance. Interceptors, scouts, and similar vessels would form the outer ring. Could keep them within 4-5k of the escort target(s) so that they still have visual, or push it to 6-8k so you buffer the escort targets from an engagement and allow for intercept of incoming hostiles far enough away to isolate them and destroy or delay with minimal risk to soft targets.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.