Terran Stellar Navy › Forums › (OOC) Division Development › Proposal of Addition to Combat Orders
- This topic has 17 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 11 months ago by Braddock.
16/12/2015 at 01:31 #2873
I’d like to propose the addition of a new category of manoeuvres that we use from time to time to be added as a combat order: the Epsilon Maneouvres. Essentially, it’s an extension of the Echo manoeuvres via an EMP precursor. An Epsilon 1 would have the weapons officer load an EMP and a mine into the tubes and fire the EMP on the fleet. Once it strikes, the ship will immediately proceed with a mine run. If you want to get fancy, you can do an Epsilon 2 where in the Weapons officer loads the EMP and mine, fires the EMP and immediately loads a second mine as the EMP is fired. Engineering would peak tubes at that point to quick load the mine, then just as before as the EMP strikes the ship sweeps through and drops the mines. With a Missile Cruiser you could pull off an Epsilon 2 and 3 (3 mines) without quick load, and an Epsilon 4 with quick load.
Epsilon 1 – Load EMP and Mine, fire EMP, mine run immediately after EMP strike.
Epsilon 2 – Load EMP and Mine, fire EMP, quick load 2nd mine, proceed with mine run after EMP strike.
Epsilon 3 – “” 3 mines.
Epsilon 4 – “” 4 mines.
I also thought another addition to consider would be orders for EMPs only… A single EMP or even 2 strategically placed to soften up a larger fleet.
Kilo 1 – 1 EMP center of fleet.
Kilo 2 – 2 EMPs strategically placed at both ends of a larger fleet.
Maybe the names could or should be switched: Epsilon for the EMPs, Kilo for the EMP/Mine runs. Either way, I think these additions could put a finer edge on our already efficient bridge coordination.16/12/2015 at 20:05 #2882Jemel EahainModerator
sound very similar to an idea i put to the seniors a whiles back but could never get any traction pushing it through,
while on hawk something we used to do alot was the epsilon 2 you describe i think the crew still do that now,
these days with lancer(with no ordnance at all) working with hydra a better way of going over comes with ” erm lancer to hydra, could you go over there and emp those guys for us please, cheers) would be great17/12/2015 at 00:38 #2889
How about calling an EMP/Echo combination an Echo-prime? This retains the familiarity and has the connotaion of “priming the pump” for the Echo.
Etc17/12/2015 at 01:40 #2897
That could work, Matsiyan. The only 2 oppositions I have to that are: 1. If the officer happens to not hear the “prime” part, they’ll just hear and execute a standard Echo. And 2. You have to consider that we have the Omega 3, which under the lines of your designation would be changed to an “Omega-prime 2” or “Omega 2-prime”, and also the Delta 3, which is essentially a Delta 2 and an Omega 1 combined, which could be ordered as “Execute Delta 2 and follow up with Omega 1”, but instead it’s more concisely combined into the Delta 3. Hence, new designations under a different command name I think would be the better option.17/12/2015 at 13:36 #2913John van LeighParticipant
It wouldn’t be Omega. All Omegas are long-range options that don’t put the ship in a place where she can be shot. Having an echo component built in into the order breaks that pattern.17/12/2015 at 14:11 #2919
I’m not propsing these as Omega Manoevres. That’s why I gave them their own manoeuvre designations as “Epsilon” manoeuvres. And what I was saying about the “Omega 2-prime” was actually me making more of a point to make the Epsilons their own set rather than a modification of the Echos. I was not trying to say that we should change the Delta 3 to and “Omega 2-prime”. I was using that examle to say we -shouldn’t- take that approach in my opinion.17/12/2015 at 15:09 #2923
My only concern is that the list of combat orders is growing and the time to achieve familiarity increases too.
Now where did I put that condensed single page of combat orders?
Conrad Matsiyan | Eng | CTR
Lieutenant-Junior | TSN Lancer | 4LDIV | 2FLT
17/12/2015 at 16:06 #2928
- This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Matsiyan. Reason: Signature
That is definitely a valid concern, and even I don’t want the list to be a mile long. Truth be told, to my awareness, there aren’t many more tactics remaining to be designated in a combat order. At least, unless the rumors I’ve been seeing about a new form of ordinance being developed by central command are true… Aside from that digression, even though it increases the number of orders that need to be memorized, it is still in line with why we have the combat orders in the first place; to make communication more efficient, execution of orders quicker and more concise, and reduce the need for the captains to micromanage. So instead of the Captain having to say “Load an EMP and a mine, fire the EMP on the fleet and then follow up immediately with an Echo 1,” it becomes “Epsilon 1 on this fleet”.
//Poking around the Artemis Wiki I saw a new type of ordinance called the “P-shock” that is planned to be introduced in an upcoming update to the core game. If we are ever able to make our mod work with newer versions of the base game, we may need additional combat orders to accommodate the new additions, so the list may need to grow regardless. But that’s another matter altogether.17/12/2015 at 17:32 #2930Leonard HallParticipant
// PSHOCKs are already in 2.2.0, which we don’t use because of its heap of problems for us. They are, of course, meant to finish off ships with stripped shield facings.
— LT Hall, ONI
17/12/2015 at 19:26 #2933
- This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Leonard Hall.
On reflection I like the original suggestion for Epsilon orders. Starting with E helps link it to the Echo order. I am not convinced that the Kilo order is warranted because it is a single action not a coordinated set. It represents no saving over “EMP that fleet” and adds another element of training.
I also note that we now have a confusion between NATO alphabetic codes and the Greek alphabet letter names. Could combat orders be limited to Greek and Fleet Patterns use NATO? Since Alpha is common to both, it should be avoided.18/12/2015 at 04:14 #2940
Here is a copy of the Orders Reference Spreadsheet with an extra tab that puts everything onto a single page reference sheet that I keep handy during
the gameduty shifts.
Conrad Matsiyan | Eng | CTR
Lieutenant-Junior | TSN Lancer | 4DIV | 2FLT18/12/2015 at 14:51 #2949Lewis RemmickParticipant
Many of these reference pages could be added to the library, no?20/12/2015 at 10:27 #3006FulvusParticipant
I also note that we now have a confusion between NATO alphabetic codes and the Greek alphabet letter names.
I think we should avoid all Nato phonetics for both attack orders and fleet pattern. Its not often but sometimes it can be confusing with sectors and ships called out along with orders, and radio signal disturbances.
“Target fleet in sector EchoTwoMarkThree. Prepare an EchoThree, intitiate with EMP on target ship EchoTwoThree.” This is as bad as it can get I think but thank the stars I’ve never experienced it.
Greek is fine, as long as we don’t use Alpha and Delta but maybe we should also consider separating attack orders from fleet patterns even more?11/01/2016 at 02:51 #3497
I very much understand where you’re coming from Fulvus, however in reality there isn’t a way to separate the two effectively, because of the fact that 2 Greek letters are irremovable parts of the NATO/phonetic alphabet; Alpha and Delta. Delta is one of our primary combat orders and maneuvers. I suppose you could rename the maneuvers, but then I believe you’re talking about a lot more work and re-memorization rather than simply memorizing what we already have in place and knowing the differences based on context.
The reality is that we simply need the Division as a whole to be keenly aware of the situation we are in, and be sure that the COs and XOs are clearly communicating their orders, being sure that they are clearly identifying Combat Orders, Fleet Orders, and in light of our Fleet Captain’s most recent post, Fleet Formations (all of which our COs and XOs already do a fine job of, we simply need to retain the high standard). When giving the order, be as clear as possible in communicating it to your crew. When hearing or receiving an order, evaluate the situation and understand the context in order to better understand the intention conveyed by the ship’s Captain through the order. If you don’t understand the order or the context, ask for clarification; a delayed but proper execution is better than a botched one.
However, to get back on topic, the proposal of the addition of the Epsilon Maneuvers has gained some positive reception, both here and out of forums. Any more feedback on them?17/06/2016 at 21:29 #11724Matthew VajParticipant
Sorry to pull this out from quite awhile ago, but I had another thought for a defensive combat order.
I’ve been in situations a few times where an enemy fleet is following a ship. The ship loads mines and drops them right in the path of the incoming fleet.
I would’ve called this Evasive Pattern Epsilon, as it happens, because it is an Echo on the defensive instead of offensive. Evasive Pattern Echo could work, but confusion could ensue on the part of the Helm officer.
I do like both your proposals, @gabrielwade. Since EMPs are often fired first, I would argue that calling an EMP strike Maneuver Alpha would be understandable. The EMP-Echo could then potentially be named after the combination of the two: an Alpha-Echo, or it could be given another name.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.