The War Never Changes quote in the Fallout games isn't meaning that the way we fight never changes. That is sadly a very common misunderstanding of that quote from the Fallout games. The true meaning of that quote is that Humans nature for war, conflict, and destruction never changes.
Very sad and a very shallow take and misunderstanding of it, I cannot ever claim to the brightest person and my English language in the sense of grammar and other details is terrible but even to me its obvious what that line is about, the costs to Humanity never changes, the suffering and tragedy is always the same whatever the scale. From tribal conflict through to industrialized and attritional war covering continents, whatever the tools and tactics people suffer.
@@TheWoblinGoblin Thing is, apparently this isnt obvious because this basic, surface level misunderstood interpretation that its about the strategy, tactics and materiel and therefore bullshit is distressingly common.
@@Tuberuser187 you really don't get that the statements are no literal philosophical treatise? It is obvious that the comment from venomcheek was not based on some great misunderstanding of the nature of war, but was a tongue in cheek moment. good gripes, how narrow minded must one be to have to OCD like make the point about the deeper meaning of a quote from a computer game
To be fair, the quote about war never changing is not meant to refer to the tactics or technology, but instead the motivations for fighting wars, and the effect that it has on the whole of society.
We as human beings are always at constant war. Not in the literal sense. Our bodies are always fighting something to keep us healthy or to keep us a live. It is the will to live that never changes and we are the embodiment of war. Even the most peaceful and most passive person is a killing machine. Just not in the literal sense.
Yeah, it's always bothered me how many people knee-jerk rip on that line. War, from one guy picking up a rock to million man invasions all boil down to: I will now use FORCE to MAKE you do what I want. That never changes.
Starship troopers, the books not the dipsh!t movies, does explore about individuals taking up responsibility, and making choices is act of violence because you are choice to perform action that will compete with other. The movies just suck, breaking it down to just fascism when the books directly opposite it.
@@bloodysimile4893 Well, as bad as the movies are. It is just a fun few movies to have a laugh. Even if it just shows how stupid humans are to a bunch of bugs. And I have no read the book. But, I do know and have been told repeatedly. The book is so much better. But, a few will admit the movies are just good fun, regardless. As you separate it from the source.
I think it is worth noting that although ships like the Akira, Norway and others are inclined towards certain roles in a combat fleet, they are still able to handle being thrown into other roles without completely falling apart. Outside of war time these vessels are expected to be able to handle themselves, to different degrees. Their tactical specializations are more often or not, an additional Tool in the Toolbox for a captain/Or higher rank to use. I feel that one of Starfleet's greatest strengths would be how flexible their ships are, combined with their diverse ways of thinking. This could lead to some very unique formations and Tactics, some of which might be one-offs, for a specific battle, or favoured by certain commanders.
Great now I am imagining a late 24th century version of Ryan MacBeth doing Open-source intelligence analysis of the latest Alliance counter offensive for the Federation News Service. 😅
Good point on the bits of training and doctrine. The Federation really hasn't had a war with a peer adversary since the Four Years War, nearly a century ago. The Cold War with the Klingons and Romulans never opened into extended conflict. The Cardassian War was always more of a border skirmish for Starfleet against an enemy they had a massive tech advantage against and for much of the conflict they held back. The short Pre-Dominion War wiht the Klingons is again not full out warfare, moreso along the lines of numerous skirmishes. While the Borg are pushing Starfleet to vastly update it's weapons technology and designs, it's far harder to update training and doctrine without that experience from combat - or observing combat. We don't ever get an impression of the Klingons getting into extended conflicts in the Beta Quadrant or Starfleet in turn having observers present. These help push technology and doctrine simply by seeing what works and what doesn't. For example - the Battle of Tsuhima in the Russo-Japanese War greatly influence the British design philosophy of HMS Dreadnaught - they saw that the most effective fire came from higher degrees, and that armor piercing was important for penetration. And ergo armor needed to help block out these penetrating shots. This influenced things like armor design/locations, battery deployment/arcs, and even things like shell design. These are not things that would have heavily influenced British design without that battle experience to draw upon - even for a war they were not directly involved in.
Two books you might find interesting: Fighting the Fleet - Operational Art and Modern Fleet Combat by Jeffrey R. Cares and Anthony Cowden General Naval Tactics - Theory and Practice by Milan Vego Yes, of course completely different technological context and Star Trek fleets aren't wet navies (but neither are they in any "realistic" sense space navies), but thinking about the principles and concepts is useful.
If you keep formations fluid, there is nothing wrong with pairing faster and slower ships at the beginning of the battle. For instance you can start with your slower ships up front and keep the faster ships in the rear, and then shifting the faster ships forward as necessary (to fill gaps in the line or allow damaged ships to fall back). Or you can split formation and use the faster ships as a maneuver element.
I've always wondered why during the Dominion war the Cardassian fleets were so numerous and formidable, and yet earlier when the Klingons invaded the Cardassian fleet was completely impotent.
The Dominion. Souped up the Cardies' ships and used their tech to expedite construction of their ships, especially when the Wormhole was mined and they had make things there instead of ship them in from the Gamma Quadrant.
They were in the middle of a political revolution and were caught almost completely out of position. The instability limited their bandwidth and they were mostly out of position, so they couldn't put a sufficient force to dent the invasion.
"War. War never changes." is a quote that sums up the humanity of life. We live in a constant battle. We fight to survive. Just because technology, methods to fight, and the enemy changes. It is still the same. Still, having a person fighting something. There is always a winner or a loser. Or in some cases. Everyone loses. War never changes. War is all about the fight for survival. And if you do not fight it. You....die. End of story.
*That* is why you use small and highly maneuverable craft like masses of shuttles to swarm and attack the artillery lines: they have the maneuverability to evade the distance shots and speed to make sure the artillery only has time for a single volley before it is completely wiped out- but if you have some close-in combatants mixed into the artillery line: it has some means of protecting the gunnery platforms in the meantime.
I would imagine some fleet commanders would factor the speed difference between the Miranda and the Interceptor into their tactics... Send the Interceptors ahead to sweep thru the Dominion line, then as the line turns to engage them, the Mirandas hit them from behind.
What if they don't turn to face the interceptors? Then the interceptors turn around and slap their backsides. Besides, who's gonna be worried about Miranda-Classes? (At least until they see we loaded a metric f-ton of quantums into them)
Generally, I would tend to agree in this case it probably is often better to gradually replace the older ships with the new to allow for better acclimation, time efficiency, and morale; as well as unpredictability improving chances of succusses in military conflicts. As to that other question that person had, I am curious as to the reasons behinds the decisions for the Romulan fleet arrangements. Plus, I look forward to seeing how the Chin'toka fleet actions will appear when completed.
It sounds like you are saying various combinations of starships create tactical and operational flexibility that complicates the opponent's planning. The combinations and permutations of actions forces the enemy to react, rather than be proactive, losing the initiative. The other point I think you were trying to say was that some heavier starships with heavier firepower could lay down a base of fire while faster and more nimble starships can act as the maneuver element.
There is always one constant in the history of wars and battles. The side that wins is almost always the one that has the ability to adapt and react to a situation and to be able to do so quickly. This can be done with technology, weather and environment or tactics by using one or all of these factors. If you look through all of human history, you see that at least one or more of these factors were crucial in winning a major battle or war.
🖖😎👍Very cool and very nicely well done and very well executed and informatively explained in every detail way shape and form provided to you from all sources on all of the content that you have gotten to put all of this into perspective for all to truly understand on the various tactics and use of one's vessels and fleets by all involved in all battle scenarios in order for one to come out on top and suffer less caulsitys of ships and personel and win the day and become victorious indeed!,👌.
One small point----I think the finale of Picard s3 kinda proves that the Galaxy class isn't really the lard-assed waddler that DS9 nerfed her into being.
oh c'mon, Geordi did nothing to improve on the ship;s systems--it just had a Soong-type android doin' the driving, but aside from that........ya no my gurl got nerfed in DS9, just like the D'deridex!!!!@@venomgeekmedia9886
I mean you definitely CAN pair up artillery ships like the Akira and Norway and keep them in back being predictable. HOWEVER you'll need to provide them with an escort of ships that are more capable at mid to close range in case the enemy does decide to come knocking. Same thing goes for having interceptors paired up with slower ships like the Miranda a fast and nimble interceptor is nice but if you charge the enemy formation with it, well I'm sure we all remember what happened to the Defiant. Pairing faster ships with slower ones is a double edged sword, on one end you end up tempering the aggression of your captains who have to slow down to not break formation while also giving them support of usually more heavily armed and protected ships meaning they're not going in Klingon style but do get extra fire support even if they also can't work at their peak because of these slower ships.
One notes, regarding war never changing, despite people saying to the contrary, that the 9 Principles of War have not changed much in hundreds of years: Objective, Offensive, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Surprise, Simplicity. Equipment, tactics and even doctrine change regularly, but the Principles do not.
@@yf9856 You simply wouldn't, Starfleet was throwing everything at the Dominion, including its anti borg ships. Anything that could stem the tide was out in the front line.
It wasn't. Cardassians were beligerant race, who confused intentions of Dominion. Basically the same thing as Russo-Chinese relations. Carassians believed that Dominion just want defeat Federation. When Dominion was only making Federation a point and generally would enslave Cardassians as everyone else. Dominion also didn't lost the war. They withdrew like US from Vietnam, for political reasons.
Thus the need to make sure that old dogs do indeed need to learn new tricks. You can have the latest and greatest, but if you don't know how to use or implement them - you will become a fleet in being.
If you think about in the way of warfare in the 17th century, that you use cavalry to attack artillery. Cavalry being fast and manoeuvrable they should be able to evade most of the mid-range defences after being softened up by your own artillery.
I've always believed that The Dominion war was one of the biggest "kick up the pants" to Star fleet and the Federation as a whole. "It's all well and good exploring space but there maybe other "Dominions" out there that we have not encountered yet....and they maybe even worse"....A Dominion war veteran.
Is there any information about regional defense forces during the Dominion War? I can only assume that the Vulcans still had their own ships in defense of Vulcan space as well as Star Fleet, same as Andoria, Betazed ect. Thanks in advance!
a largely obscure aspect of starship combat in ST, is target acquisition. just *how exactly* do starships lock their aim on enemy targets? what kind of sensor data do they work upon, to aim and confirm their shots? if their sensor data relies in anything that involves active pings, like modern radar or sonar, _massing ships of various configurations_ can help deflect incoming fire. it would have nothing to do with firing capabilities or maneuvering, but simply with preventing the enemy from acquiring specific targets, if any at all. in DS9, Sisko orders his fighters to "target the Cardassians" specifically.... no precision fire, no fancy tactics, just _find the closest Cardassian in that bulk of duranium blobs,_ shoot, and GTFO. in TNG, Jellico orders a change of rigging to counter whatever intelligence the Cardassians might have had on the Enterprise, _because,_ at that point, both sides would be well aware of each other's capabilities and tactics, and given that they were anticipating a battle, with at most 2 ships on each side, _fine targetting_ would have been a deciding factor. a fighter can aim simply by looking out the window... a starship, tho?
Remember this is the future. The ways and means of target acquisition, tracking and ordnance guidance are very nuanced and sophisticated. Also, the data processing is literally being done faster than light by the ships computers. Even the largest ship is still minuscule at the ranges that these weapon systems are capable of. Directed energy weapons like phasers have a range of about 1 light second, 300k kilometers. Photon torpedoes can be used up to 3.5 million kilometers. The targets are also moving very fast. Even sublight velocities are measured in kilometers per second. It's like hitting a bullet with a bullet. Anyway, obviously this makes our current techniques of mass murder rather quaint by comparison.
Training, experience and familiarity with the new ships is a lot quicker and simpler with *Holodecks.* As long as the programming is accurate enough you can be a _virtual veteran._
The problem here, as with most Star Trek battles, is that both sides are thinking and fighting in one plane, instead of using all three dimensions. We also see very large ships moving really well in close combat,which is unrealistic, and on both sides we see an astonishingly bad array of tactics. When trying to build a fleet of ships that all rely on phasers and torpedoes, it would make more tactical sense to create flexible formations centered around Galaxy class vessels, instead of using formations composed of a pair of ship classes. The US Navy does the former with their Carrier groups, although modern naval warfare relies on air superiority rather than cannon fire and torpedoes. The analogy holds, though, when we factor in MACO starfighters, which should have been used as light assault craft to poke at enemy vessels and provide cover for incoming fire and the manoeuvers of larger ships. They would also provide more targets for the enemy's weapons, which draws fire away from your more powerful frigates and light cruisers, which form the core of your assault on the enemy formations. In this setup, small formation of frigates, moving dynamically, not in rigid formation, can break enemy formations, allowing the cruisers, destroyers, and battleships to move in and further disrupt your opponent's fleet formation. By throwing your opponents formations into disarray, you gain an advantage, as your crews are trained to operate nearly independantly, but your opponent has been trained to operate in formations. Such a tactical advantage would almost certainly lead to victory, until your opponent learns to split his formations into ever smaller elements, until his fleet structure resembles your own. At that point, Star Trek battles begin to look like Star Wars battles, where fleets pound on each other with mid-range volleys while starfighters of various sorts look to punch holes in the enemy vessel's shields, or defend their own vessel's shields.
So creating galaxy groups. Especially in smaller scale. Engagements is worthwhile. However when it comes to large scale battles it's more effective to mass galaxies together instead of penny packet them.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 In terms of mass firepower, when the opponent is statically arrayed, perhaps grouping larger ships together for the opening salvos would work, but as range decreases, and openings are made in the enemy formation, breaking your fleet into Galaxy groups would give your fleet far greater flexibility, and thus survivability. Furthermore, as we see on screen, phasers and torpedoes are so energy dense that you really don't need mass fire tactics, except for opening salvos intended to break enemy formations, so grouping Galaxy class vessels together for mass firepower is actually not neccessary. There is a benefit to grouping large ships together, but at the cost of manoeuverability: overlapping shield coverage at range, when neither side can really use manoeuver to full effect because range decreases the effectivity of any but the most broad movements. At range, overlapping shield coverage is useful, as your Galaxys can cover each other and their group vessels with less losses, but in a close fight, manoeuver and speed becomes the only way to survive. In sort of a sideways fashion, I would treat Trek battles as ancient ground warfare. You have Galaxy class vessels acting as heavy infantry, around which your heavy cruisers and destroyers move as though they were heaavy and light cavalry. Your frigates and gunboats would act like light infantry, moving around and through your formations. This would work best if you used Ender's tactics of dynamic formations, uniting for specific objectives and then breaking apart to harass and confuse the enemy until they need to come back together to strike another objective elsewhere, yet maintaining a stable, and highly mobile, center around a Galaxy, or perhaps two if you have enough of them.
not sure, where all you informations come from... but one thing, I have to object is, that in my opinion here is a fundamental missunderstanding of the Akiras role: I wouldn't classify the Akira as cruiser (not even to mention "heavy"), for me it is clearly a (heavy) destroyer by design: It is relativley small, fast and has overwhelming firepower for its size that can be used in multiple directions. Yes, it CAN fire a devastating torpedo volley at long range during the opening of a battle, but then its designed to push the enemy formations and disrupt them, with using its ability to fire torpedoes left, right, aft and front like a mad-man - then get out and vector in for a new charge. Sitting back in or behind the line would be a terrible waste of (fire)power. So also the argument of "surprise" is in this case completly out of the window, because I would actually say: that is exactly what the Akira is designed for and pairing it with a medium cruiser, that can cover the Akira from its counters (medium cruisers) is basically "Akira-Tactics 101"
i'd imagine they would still be used for civillian purposes. but given how powerful starship sheilds became... the verteron wouldn't be much use. i imagine it as more of a kenetic weapon.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Well yeah, but the NX-01 was hit at just 2% of the Array's total output and it is stated that they would've been vaporized if it had been 100%.
I call bullshit on the defiant class being too expensive. It's actually a small more efficient starship. It's as powerful as an Akira with less needed materials.
@@venomgeekmedia9886Because the Akira has ALL THE TORPEDOES. The real question is why the Akira isn't packed with quantums instead of photons. Honestly, I feel like a Defiant swarm paired with an Akira or two would be very dangerous - Defiants shred shields/armor to allow the Akiras to torp dump into the unfortunate souls that just got swarmed by Defiants. Imagine 6-12 of these groups attack a Borg cube from all directions (include top/bottom) simultaneously. How deep of a hole can we carve with torps from each side until we find something important or the cube breaks up?
the armor on the Defiant is much denser than the Akira, and the weapons systems were purpose built. the space frame is largely the same materials, it just has much better armor. the Akira still ran on power plants, sensors and weapons designed for the Galaxy and Intrepid. the Akira was like "what can we strip off the Galaxy without losing effectiveness?", so they left the saucer for structure, the torpedo launchers and the warp drive, minus the labs and cargo bays.
Stop it!!! You're talking about tactics in space using a vertical plane. Ridiculous! Advanced computers, ships and beings are using 360 degrees on at least 6 Axis. Not one illustration here even uses the vertical axis. Really????
Sorry mate but I gotta dislike the video because your disagreement with the Fallout quote, which is clearly used just to rile up those of us who understand the nuance of the quotes meaning. Yes I'm subbed to you and yes I enjoyed this video but this is just a move to either get viewer engagement or show the world you don't understand the quote. Congratulations you got your engagement from me because I'm bored.
The War Never Changes quote in the Fallout games isn't meaning that the way we fight never changes. That is sadly a very common misunderstanding of that quote from the Fallout games. The true meaning of that quote is that Humans nature for war, conflict, and destruction never changes.
Very sad and a very shallow take and misunderstanding of it, I cannot ever claim to the brightest person and my English language in the sense of grammar and other details is terrible but even to me its obvious what that line is about, the costs to Humanity never changes, the suffering and tragedy is always the same whatever the scale. From tribal conflict through to industrialized and attritional war covering continents, whatever the tools and tactics people suffer.
NERD!!!
Captain Obvious
@@TheWoblinGoblin Thing is, apparently this isnt obvious because this basic, surface level misunderstood interpretation that its about the strategy, tactics and materiel and therefore bullshit is distressingly common.
@@Tuberuser187 you really don't get that the statements are no literal philosophical treatise? It is obvious that the comment from venomcheek was not based on some great misunderstanding of the nature of war, but was a tongue in cheek moment. good gripes, how narrow minded must one be to have to OCD like make the point about the deeper meaning of a quote from a computer game
I am going to have to admit at first I heard that as Worf, Worf never changes.
To be fair, the quote about war never changing is not meant to refer to the tactics or technology, but instead the motivations for fighting wars, and the effect that it has on the whole of society.
We as human beings are always at constant war. Not in the literal sense. Our bodies are always fighting something to keep us healthy or to keep us a live. It is the will to live that never changes and we are the embodiment of war. Even the most peaceful and most passive person is a killing machine. Just not in the literal sense.
Yeah, it's always bothered me how many people knee-jerk rip on that line. War, from one guy picking up a rock to million man invasions all boil down to: I will now use FORCE to MAKE you do what I want. That never changes.
Starship troopers, the books not the dipsh!t movies, does explore about individuals taking up responsibility, and making choices is act of violence because you are choice to perform action that will compete with other.
The movies just suck, breaking it down to just fascism when the books directly opposite it.
NERD!!!!!!
@@bloodysimile4893 Well, as bad as the movies are. It is just a fun few movies to have a laugh. Even if it just shows how stupid humans are to a bunch of bugs. And I have no read the book. But, I do know and have been told repeatedly. The book is so much better. But, a few will admit the movies are just good fun, regardless. As you separate it from the source.
Nice to see a Ryan MacBeth shout out. Great call out to his commentary.
I think it is worth noting that although ships like the Akira, Norway and others are inclined towards certain roles in a combat fleet, they are still able to handle being thrown into other roles without completely falling apart.
Outside of war time these vessels are expected to be able to handle themselves, to different degrees.
Their tactical specializations are more often or not, an additional Tool in the Toolbox for a captain/Or higher rank to use. I feel that one of Starfleet's greatest strengths would be how flexible their ships are, combined with their diverse ways of thinking. This could lead to some very unique formations and Tactics, some of which might be one-offs, for a specific battle, or favoured by certain commanders.
Yeah unlike other monitors the Norway has a well rounded armament. Or compare the akira to the brinok there's many different kinds of torpedo boat.
Great now I am imagining a late 24th century version of Ryan MacBeth doing Open-source intelligence analysis of the latest Alliance counter offensive for the Federation News Service. 😅
P’run from the Vulcan Science Academy giving a weekly 1 hour long briefing over related topics every 7 standard Earth days.
Combat evolves. But war never changes
Good point on the bits of training and doctrine. The Federation really hasn't had a war with a peer adversary since the Four Years War, nearly a century ago. The Cold War with the Klingons and Romulans never opened into extended conflict. The Cardassian War was always more of a border skirmish for Starfleet against an enemy they had a massive tech advantage against and for much of the conflict they held back.
The short Pre-Dominion War wiht the Klingons is again not full out warfare, moreso along the lines of numerous skirmishes. While the Borg are pushing Starfleet to vastly update it's weapons technology and designs, it's far harder to update training and doctrine without that experience from combat - or observing combat. We don't ever get an impression of the Klingons getting into extended conflicts in the Beta Quadrant or Starfleet in turn having observers present. These help push technology and doctrine simply by seeing what works and what doesn't.
For example - the Battle of Tsuhima in the Russo-Japanese War greatly influence the British design philosophy of HMS Dreadnaught - they saw that the most effective fire came from higher degrees, and that armor piercing was important for penetration. And ergo armor needed to help block out these penetrating shots. This influenced things like armor design/locations, battery deployment/arcs, and even things like shell design. These are not things that would have heavily influenced British design without that battle experience to draw upon - even for a war they were not directly involved in.
Two books you might find interesting:
Fighting the Fleet - Operational Art and Modern Fleet Combat by Jeffrey R. Cares and Anthony Cowden
General Naval Tactics - Theory and Practice by Milan Vego
Yes, of course completely different technological context and Star Trek fleets aren't wet navies (but neither are they in any "realistic" sense space navies), but thinking about the principles and concepts is useful.
If you keep formations fluid, there is nothing wrong with pairing faster and slower ships at the beginning of the battle. For instance you can start with your slower ships up front and keep the faster ships in the rear, and then shifting the faster ships forward as necessary (to fill gaps in the line or allow damaged ships to fall back). Or you can split formation and use the faster ships as a maneuver element.
Basically, you are doing the Stellaris method for new ship classes and technology.
I've always wondered why during the Dominion war the Cardassian fleets were so numerous and formidable, and yet earlier when the Klingons invaded the Cardassian fleet was completely impotent.
The Dominion. Souped up the Cardies' ships and used their tech to expedite construction of their ships, especially when the Wormhole was mined and they had make things there instead of ship them in from the Gamma Quadrant.
They were in the middle of a political revolution and were caught almost completely out of position. The instability limited their bandwidth and they were mostly out of position, so they couldn't put a sufficient force to dent the invasion.
Will you do a video on the Atlas-class Dreadnought?
Yeah i'll do a video on all the tos battleships.
*Venom*- “War, War never changes”.
*Me randomly in my room says aloud out of instinct*-“WAR HAS CHANGED!”
I had to HAD TO watch this video because the Cardassian ship in the title card looks like a rubber duckie.
"War. War never changes." is a quote that sums up the humanity of life. We live in a constant battle. We fight to survive. Just because technology, methods to fight, and the enemy changes. It is still the same. Still, having a person fighting something. There is always a winner or a loser. Or in some cases. Everyone loses. War never changes. War is all about the fight for survival. And if you do not fight it. You....die. End of story.
*That* is why you use small and highly maneuverable craft like masses of shuttles to swarm and attack the artillery lines: they have the maneuverability to evade the distance shots and speed to make sure the artillery only has time for a single volley before it is completely wiped out- but if you have some close-in combatants mixed into the artillery line: it has some means of protecting the gunnery platforms in the meantime.
I would imagine some fleet commanders would factor the speed difference between the Miranda and the Interceptor into their tactics... Send the Interceptors ahead to sweep thru the Dominion line, then as the line turns to engage them, the Mirandas hit them from behind.
What if they don't turn to face the interceptors?
Then the interceptors turn around and slap their backsides. Besides, who's gonna be worried about Miranda-Classes? (At least until they see we loaded a metric f-ton of quantums into them)
I can't believe I'm learning about combined arms this way
Generally, I would tend to agree in this case it probably is often better to gradually replace the older ships with the new to allow for better acclimation, time efficiency, and morale; as well as unpredictability improving chances of succusses in military conflicts.
As to that other question that person had, I am curious as to the reasons behinds the decisions for the Romulan fleet arrangements.
Plus, I look forward to seeing how the Chin'toka fleet actions will appear when completed.
Absolutely love the Akira. Just looks aggressive, almost mean.
almost klingon...
@@venomgeekmedia9886 yes!
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Well, if you were to grant that one wish of what starship would you fly? Brell II bird of prey.
It sounds like you are saying various combinations of starships create tactical and operational flexibility that complicates the opponent's planning. The combinations and permutations of actions forces the enemy to react, rather than be proactive, losing the initiative.
The other point I think you were trying to say was that some heavier starships with heavier firepower could lay down a base of fire while faster and more nimble starships can act as the maneuver element.
There is always one constant in the history of wars and battles. The side that wins is almost always the one that has the ability to adapt and react to a situation and to be able to do so quickly. This can be done with technology, weather and environment or tactics by using one or all of these factors. If you look through all of human history, you see that at least one or more of these factors were crucial in winning a major battle or war.
🖖😎👍Very cool and very nicely well done and very well executed and informatively explained in every detail way shape and form provided to you from all sources on all of the content that you have gotten to put all of this into perspective for all to truly understand on the various tactics and use of one's vessels and fleets by all involved in all battle scenarios in order for one to come out on top and suffer less caulsitys of ships and personel and win the day and become victorious indeed!,👌.
I honestly thought that opening “War!” was just your cat coughing up a hair ball. 😁
One small point----I think the finale of Picard s3 kinda proves that the Galaxy class isn't really the lard-assed waddler that DS9 nerfed her into being.
yes but i choose to ignore the millenium galaxy
oh c'mon, Geordi did nothing to improve on the ship;s systems--it just had a Soong-type android doin' the driving, but aside from that........ya no my gurl got nerfed in DS9, just like the D'deridex!!!!@@venomgeekmedia9886
Okay yeah that all makes sense-
Looking forward to see them all in action!!!
I mean you definitely CAN pair up artillery ships like the Akira and Norway and keep them in back being predictable.
HOWEVER you'll need to provide them with an escort of ships that are more capable at mid to close range in case the enemy does decide to come knocking.
Same thing goes for having interceptors paired up with slower ships like the Miranda a fast and nimble interceptor is nice but if you charge the enemy formation with it, well I'm sure we all remember what happened to the Defiant.
Pairing faster ships with slower ones is a double edged sword, on one end you end up tempering the aggression of your captains who have to slow down to not break formation while also giving them support of usually more heavily armed and protected ships meaning they're not going in Klingon style but do get extra fire support even if they also can't work at their peak because of these slower ships.
tagged as star wars, empire at war
lol
The benefit of 'keeping the enemy guessing' is grossly overestimated.
One notes, regarding war never changing, despite people saying to the contrary, that the 9 Principles of War have not changed much in hundreds of years: Objective, Offensive, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Surprise, Simplicity. Equipment, tactics and even doctrine change regularly, but the Principles do not.
Quick question did starfleet hide any of advanced ships by sending them on deep space missions?
The point of that would be?
@@Starwarsgeek-98 protecting assets when they were retreating.
@@yf9856 You simply wouldn't, Starfleet was throwing everything at the Dominion, including its anti borg ships. Anything that could stem the tide was out in the front line.
@@Starwarsgeek-98 but remember starfleet was extremely conservative to start the war and was on the defensive until retaking DS9.
The Dominion's mistake was treating the Cardassians as a potential enemy.
It wasn't. Cardassians were beligerant race, who confused intentions of Dominion. Basically the same thing as Russo-Chinese relations. Carassians believed that Dominion just want defeat Federation. When Dominion was only making Federation a point and generally would enslave Cardassians as everyone else. Dominion also didn't lost the war. They withdrew like US from Vietnam, for political reasons.
Thus the need to make sure that old dogs do indeed need to learn new tricks.
You can have the latest and greatest, but if you don't know how to use or implement them - you will become a fleet in being.
If you think about in the way of warfare in the 17th century, that you use cavalry to attack artillery. Cavalry being fast and manoeuvrable they should be able to evade most of the mid-range defences after being softened up by your own artillery.
I've always believed that The Dominion war was one of the biggest "kick up the pants" to Star fleet and the Federation as a whole.
"It's all well and good exploring space but there maybe other "Dominions" out there that we have not encountered yet....and they maybe even worse"....A Dominion war veteran.
Cheers
I really like how you categorize the ship types. Do you have a video that just explains the different definitions you use?
Check my collaboration with drachinifel. We go into a lot of detail there
Thank you!@@venomgeekmedia9886
Is there any information about regional defense forces during the Dominion War? I can only assume that the Vulcans still had their own ships in defense of Vulcan space as well as Star Fleet, same as Andoria, Betazed ect. Thanks in advance!
a largely obscure aspect of starship combat in ST, is target acquisition.
just *how exactly* do starships lock their aim on enemy targets? what kind of sensor data do they work upon, to aim and confirm their shots?
if their sensor data relies in anything that involves active pings, like modern radar or sonar, _massing ships of various configurations_ can help deflect incoming fire.
it would have nothing to do with firing capabilities or maneuvering, but simply with preventing the enemy from acquiring specific targets, if any at all.
in DS9, Sisko orders his fighters to "target the Cardassians" specifically.... no precision fire, no fancy tactics, just _find the closest Cardassian in that bulk of duranium blobs,_ shoot, and GTFO.
in TNG, Jellico orders a change of rigging to counter whatever intelligence the Cardassians might have had on the Enterprise, _because,_ at that point, both sides would be well aware of each other's capabilities and tactics, and given that they were anticipating a battle, with at most 2 ships on each side, _fine targetting_ would have been a deciding factor.
a fighter can aim simply by looking out the window... a starship, tho?
Remember this is the future. The ways and means of target acquisition, tracking and ordnance guidance are very nuanced and sophisticated. Also, the data processing is literally being done faster than light by the ships computers. Even the largest ship is still minuscule at the ranges that these weapon systems are capable of. Directed energy weapons like phasers have a range of about 1 light second, 300k kilometers. Photon torpedoes can be used up to 3.5 million kilometers. The targets are also moving very fast. Even sublight velocities are measured in kilometers per second. It's like hitting a bullet with a bullet. Anyway, obviously this makes our current techniques of mass murder rather quaint by comparison.
Training, experience and familiarity with the new ships is a lot quicker and simpler with *Holodecks.*
As long as the programming is accurate enough you can be a _virtual veteran._
I have wondered if the vorta would have been refitting the dominion ships or worked on new classes of Dominion ship besides the battleship.
The problem here, as with most Star Trek battles, is that both sides are thinking and fighting in one plane, instead of using all three dimensions. We also see very large ships moving really well in close combat,which is unrealistic, and on both sides we see an astonishingly bad array of tactics. When trying to build a fleet of ships that all rely on phasers and torpedoes, it would make more tactical sense to create flexible formations centered around Galaxy class vessels, instead of using formations composed of a pair of ship classes. The US Navy does the former with their Carrier groups, although modern naval warfare relies on air superiority rather than cannon fire and torpedoes. The analogy holds, though, when we factor in MACO starfighters, which should have been used as light assault craft to poke at enemy vessels and provide cover for incoming fire and the manoeuvers of larger ships. They would also provide more targets for the enemy's weapons, which draws fire away from your more powerful frigates and light cruisers, which form the core of your assault on the enemy formations. In this setup, small formation of frigates, moving dynamically, not in rigid formation, can break enemy formations, allowing the cruisers, destroyers, and battleships to move in and further disrupt your opponent's fleet formation. By throwing your opponents formations into disarray, you gain an advantage, as your crews are trained to operate nearly independantly, but your opponent has been trained to operate in formations. Such a tactical advantage would almost certainly lead to victory, until your opponent learns to split his formations into ever smaller elements, until his fleet structure resembles your own. At that point, Star Trek battles begin to look like Star Wars battles, where fleets pound on each other with mid-range volleys while starfighters of various sorts look to punch holes in the enemy vessel's shields, or defend their own vessel's shields.
So creating galaxy groups. Especially in smaller scale. Engagements is worthwhile. However when it comes to large scale battles it's more effective to mass galaxies together instead of penny packet them.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 In terms of mass firepower, when the opponent is statically arrayed, perhaps grouping larger ships together for the opening salvos would work, but as range decreases, and openings are made in the enemy formation, breaking your fleet into Galaxy groups would give your fleet far greater flexibility, and thus survivability. Furthermore, as we see on screen, phasers and torpedoes are so energy dense that you really don't need mass fire tactics, except for opening salvos intended to break enemy formations, so grouping Galaxy class vessels together for mass firepower is actually not neccessary. There is a benefit to grouping large ships together, but at the cost of manoeuverability: overlapping shield coverage at range, when neither side can really use manoeuver to full effect because range decreases the effectivity of any but the most broad movements. At range, overlapping shield coverage is useful, as your Galaxys can cover each other and their group vessels with less losses, but in a close fight, manoeuver and speed becomes the only way to survive.
In sort of a sideways fashion, I would treat Trek battles as ancient ground warfare. You have Galaxy class vessels acting as heavy infantry, around which your heavy cruisers and destroyers move as though they were heaavy and light cavalry. Your frigates and gunboats would act like light infantry, moving around and through your formations. This would work best if you used Ender's tactics of dynamic formations, uniting for specific objectives and then breaking apart to harass and confuse the enemy until they need to come back together to strike another objective elsewhere, yet maintaining a stable, and highly mobile, center around a Galaxy, or perhaps two if you have enough of them.
If there was a ship created in the shape of the galaxy with California class narcelles and disc section would it be more than 1000 in length?
Thanks
not sure, where all you informations come from... but one thing, I have to object is, that in my opinion here is a fundamental missunderstanding of the Akiras role: I wouldn't classify the Akira as cruiser (not even to mention "heavy"), for me it is clearly a (heavy) destroyer by design: It is relativley small, fast and has overwhelming firepower for its size that can be used in multiple directions. Yes, it CAN fire a devastating torpedo volley at long range during the opening of a battle, but then its designed to push the enemy formations and disrupt them, with using its ability to fire torpedoes left, right, aft and front like a mad-man - then get out and vector in for a new charge. Sitting back in or behind the line would be a terrible waste of (fire)power.
So also the argument of "surprise" is in this case completly out of the window, because I would actually say: that is exactly what the Akira is designed for and pairing it with a medium cruiser, that can cover the Akira from its counters (medium cruisers) is basically "Akira-Tactics 101"
Why in the hell do ships still miss their phaser shots, especially in close range.
Since you didn't see my comment on the last video about fortifications.
Where did the Verteron Arrays go according to you?
i'd imagine they would still be used for civillian purposes. but given how powerful starship sheilds became... the verteron wouldn't be much use. i imagine it as more of a kenetic weapon.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Would 24th century fighters have shields that are strong enough to survive a hit from a Verteron Array?
@@enterprise-h312 hmm... I mean when the nx is hit. It has no shields but survives. So if you have sheilds... your probably fine...
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Well yeah, but the NX-01 was hit at just 2% of the Array's total output and it is stated that they would've been vaporized if it had been 100%.
What is the worst ship class created after the war against Dominios?
I call bullshit on the defiant class being too expensive. It's actually a small more efficient starship. It's as powerful as an Akira with less needed materials.
Then why does the akira exist...
@@venomgeekmedia9886Because the Akira has ALL THE TORPEDOES. The real question is why the Akira isn't packed with quantums instead of photons.
Honestly, I feel like a Defiant swarm paired with an Akira or two would be very dangerous - Defiants shred shields/armor to allow the Akiras to torp dump into the unfortunate souls that just got swarmed by Defiants. Imagine 6-12 of these groups attack a Borg cube from all directions (include top/bottom) simultaneously. How deep of a hole can we carve with torps from each side until we find something important or the cube breaks up?
“As powerful as an akira…”
the armor on the Defiant is much denser than the Akira, and the weapons systems were purpose built.
the space frame is largely the same materials, it just has much better armor.
the Akira still ran on power plants, sensors and weapons designed for the Galaxy and Intrepid.
the Akira was like "what can we strip off the Galaxy without losing effectiveness?", so they left the saucer for structure, the torpedo launchers and the warp drive, minus the labs and cargo bays.
@@bcn1gh7h4wk That is not a good description of an Akira. It shares very little with the galaxy.
What are your thoughts on the T-14 Armata tank? 😅
I am not touching that with a 120mm HESH round. No thank you.
I fart in JARS and send them to my boss he thinks it's Jimmy from the Tech department 😉
Why didn't the Federation use combat drones as it will minimumise losses and a swarm will destroy the enemy?
Plot
We're trying to work out what informs the things we see, vs reject what we see if it isn't in line with our ideas.
War... What Is it good for?
Making sure everyone is part of the federation 😊
don't you mean Dominion...
@@venomgeekmedia9886
I mean the federation.
It's insidious as Eddington quark and garak have said 😉😂👍
Sovereigns? Plural? 😉
Yeeeesssss....
Stop it!!!
You're talking about tactics in space using a vertical plane.
Ridiculous! Advanced computers, ships and beings are using 360 degrees on at least 6 Axis. Not one illustration here even uses the vertical axis. Really????
They're all crap in terms of space combat design...so I'm not sure what the point of this video was.
Sorry mate but I gotta dislike the video because your disagreement with the Fallout quote, which is clearly used just to rile up those of us who understand the nuance of the quotes meaning. Yes I'm subbed to you and yes I enjoyed this video but this is just a move to either get viewer engagement or show the world you don't understand the quote. Congratulations you got your engagement from me because I'm bored.