Ethos and Racial Traits and their effect on fleet composition and tactics

[Empress Matilda]

Should ethos and racial traits affect the types of ships a civ builds and the tactics they use?
I'm thinking of GDWs 2300 as an example where the individualistic humans favoured fighters and light ships using guided missiles whilst the kafers who weren't the brightest race in the galaxy favoured huge battleships with massive batteries trained on a single target.
I'd see it more as an AI preference for certain ship types and tactics than a player limitation unless a player wanted to RP it.

 

[chopak]

Thread title sounds like it's some kind of scientific paper

I see it that way - Ethos and Traits affect how tech events (e.g. examining anomaly) are handled. Thus they affect techs you receive. And finally that affects your battle tactics.
So yeah, they will impact tactics but I doubt it will be as direct, as you want

 

[Empress Matilda]

Thread title sounds like it's some kind of scientific paper

I see it that way - Ethos and Traits affect how tech events (e.g. examining anomaly) are handled. Thus they affect techs you receive. And finally that affects your battle tactics.
So yeah, they will impact tactics but I doubt it will be as direct, as you want

Somebody will probably write it when the game is out. Not me though, I wouldn't understand it.
I'm not sure if I'd want it or not. Done too heavy-handed it might make foes predictable once you've identified the type they are but I think there should be differences in the makeup and use of fleets.

 

[aruon]

i could see this happening. as predictable as it may become at times, a brutal and oppressive nation like north space korea definately has a better than 50/50 chance of favoring huge ships like battlecruisers and dreadnoughts riddled with guns and missiles that make their intentions clear over small prowlers and frigates. take star wars for example- before the galactic empire, few ships ever reached the size or dedicated firepower of what imperial star destroyers had by design.

 

[Velorian]

How would an individualistic society encourage using fighters?

 

[Empress Matilda]

How would an individualistic society encourage using fighters?

An individualistic society encourages inititive and development of individual talent. A fighter wing might require a dozen talented pilots capable of acting independently whereas a warship with large batteries would require 1 talented fire control officer and a dozen gunners who learn their job by rote. That was the theory in 2300 anyway. Ofc if the game has sophisticated AI as a technology it might all be irrelevant anyway.

 

[Velorian]

An individualistic society encourages inititive and development of individual talent. A fighter wing might require a dozen talented pilots capable of acting independently whereas a warship with large batteries would require 1 talented fire control officer and a dozen gunners who learn their job by rote. That was the theory in 2300 anyway. Ofc if the game has sophisticated AI as a technology it might all be irrelevant anyway.

Seems to me Collective would be better as it would instil in the people a greater ability in working together and a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Fighters are not really solo actors, they fight in groups.

Individualistic would be better for ships acting alone in a solar system. Although I think it's more of a societal Ethos than a strategic doctrine..

 

[BrokenSky]

Seems to me Collective would be better as it would instil in the people a greater ability in working together and a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Fighters are not really solo actors, they fight in groups.

Individualistic would be better for ships acting alone in a solar system. Although I think it's more of a societal Ethos than a strategic doctrine..

Surely collectivist would use big ships, where everyone has to pull their weight or everyone dies, and individualists would use fighters, where more skilled pilots stand out?

 

[Teleros]

I'd see it more as an AI preference for certain ship types and tactics than a player limitation unless a player wanted to RP it.

Agreed. Think of fleet combat like a puzzle - there's an optimum way (or ways) to solve it, so unless a civilisation is deliberately setting out to fight with one arm tied behind their back, forcing hard limits on them seems silly. Sure, having the race of chivalrous WW1 pilot wannabes preferring their carriers is fine, but forcing them to use them, or to not use other ships, is daft.

 

[Velorian]

Surely collectivist would use big ships, where everyone has to pull their weight or everyone dies, and individualists would use fighters, where more skilled pilots stand out?

I don't see it really. The individualistic part means decision-making if it's going to mean anything, fighters take few independent decisions. They fight as a pack and the better they work as a group the stronger they'll be. A few pilots standing out and being impressive is less useful than a team working cohesively. Like baseball most of the team needs to work together if there's too many solo players its not good.

Ship size wouldn't be affected by Collective/Individualist it would more have an effect on fleet size if anything.

 

[aitaituo]

How would an individualistic society encourage using fighters?

Capital ship development requires huge investments in material and manpower and can only be completed by state or corporate groups. Small interest groups can build fighters with sufficient capital and even if those designs never become widely adopted, they'll influence the overall development of small ships.

 

[Velorian]

Capital ship development requires huge investments in material and manpower and can only be completed by state or corporate groups. Small interest groups can build fighters with sufficient capital and even if those designs never become widely adopted, they'll influence the overall development of small ships.

Right, but I view USA as a very individualistic (well probably just 1 Stellaris point) society and they wouldn't have difficulty securing financing for that. An individualist society idealizes self-realization and excelling personally instead of sacrificing individual advancement for the group. As a state, however, they could easily pick expensive projects. People don't buy their own ship in the modern military, it's given to them if the state feels they are worth it.

 

[aitaituo]

Right, but I view USA as a very individualistic (well probably just 1 Stellaris point) society and they wouldn't have difficulty securing financing for that. An individualist society idealizes self-realization and excelling personally instead of sacrificing individual advancement for the group. As a state, however, they could easily pick expensive projects. People don't buy their own ship in the modern military, it's given to them if the state feels they are worth it.

Compare the US aircraft industry to the US ship industry. The aircraft industry employs about five time as many people directly and three times as many people in total and contributes a whoppinhg $1.5 trillion to the GDP compared to only about $10 billion from ship manufacturing.

There's a century old hobby industry in the US of people building their own planes by hand or through kits with numerous designs, manufacturing techniques, and materials. Many of these people are or go on to be professionals in the air manufacturing industry, which adds to the diversity and robustness of US aircraft designs in addition to the total built and the total number of pilots. You can't hobby your way into manning a turret on a battleship, nor can you assemble a carrier in your garage.

Even with a modern, fully professional military, the skillsets of your citizens can shape both your policy and ability to implement policies.

 

[Velorian]

Compare the US aircraft industry to the US ship industry. The aircraft industry employs about five time as many people directly and three times as many people in total and contributes a whoppinhg $1.5 trillion to the GDP compared to only about $10 billion from ship manufacturing.

There's a century old hobby industry in the US of people building their own planes by hand or through kits with numerous designs, manufacturing techniques, and materials. Many of these people are or go on to be professionals in the air manufacturing industry, which adds to the diversity and robustness of US aircraft designs in addition to the total built and the total number of pilots. You can't hobby your way into manning a turret on a battleship, nor can you assemble a carrier in your garage.

Even with a modern, fully professional military, the skillsets of your citizens can shape both your policy and ability to implement policies.

That's a difference between industrial genres. The closest comparison to a starship would be a naval vessel not an airplane, and the US is not famous for making a whole lot of small ships. Instead they've made some of the most expensive and largest ships in the world.

What people make in their garage has little bearing on what the state chooses to use it's resources to build.
Granted, the US uses carriers which could be likened to star fighters but they use those because it's the best strategy, not because it's an opportunity to excel individually.

Realistically either Ethos probably wouldn't have much effect on ship sizes at all but efficient fighter tactics surely would benefit from a Collective mindset most.

 

[aitaituo]

That's a difference between industrial genres. The closest comparison to a starship would be a naval vessel not an airplane, and the US is not famous for making a whole lot of small ships. Instead they've made some of the most expensive and largest ships in the world.

That's exactly my point. Space fighters would be the equivalent of carrier based aircraft, with the individualist ethos forcing a trend towards state-only carriers, but a more vibrant fighter industry again from the individualism.

 

[Velorian]

That's exactly my point. Space fighters would be the equivalent of carrier based aircraft, with the individualist ethos forcing a trend towards state-only carriers, but a more vibrant fighter industry again from the individualism.

That's a doctrinal strategy due to it being the best way to project power and due to US geographical location.

 

[aitaituo]

That's a doctrinal strategy due to it being the best way to project power and due to US geographical location.

I disagree on the fundamental reasons for that doctrine, but I will digress.

 

[Chat]

That's exactly my point. Space fighters would be the equivalent of carrier based aircraft, with the individualist ethos forcing a trend towards state-only carriers, but a more vibrant fighter industry again from the individualism.

I really don't think that the aircraft industry is remotely dependent on individualism or garage plane builders. Development of fighters/bombers aren't remotely individual undertakings, and I very much doubt that 'well people like acting as individuals' was ever a factor for the military to favour aircraft, particularly given that militaries as a whole are trained to fight together as a group. An aircraft can sink a battleship though, and you can build a lot of aircraft for the cost of a battleship, making aircraft very cost effective in comparison to large warships. About the only advantage that a battleship has over aircraft in current day warfare is their range and staying power; a battleship can sit offshore and fire shells/missiles all day. But that problem is solved with the use of carriers. Once point defense systems advance to the point that an aircraft or missiles can be shot down before posing any threat, and more direct fire is required to take down an opponent, we'd probably see a shift back to battleships.

You can't hobby your way into manning a turret on a battleship, nor can you assemble a carrier in your garage.

Most people don't build turrets in their garage because what's the point? A plane you can fly with, but a turret? It's static relative to its mount by definition and testing it might annoy the neighbours (not to mention probably break a law or two). People certainly build their own boats on the other hand.

 

[Orkonkel]

Uhm.

A civilization that could not build a specific type of ships because of their ethos or traits seems... bad. It's like saying 'the Soviets should only use infantry in this WW2 game because they had tons of people' or 'the Germans should only use tanks in this WW2 game because they had huge industry'.

An army needs to be diverse in order to deal with all the uncertainties of war.

EDIT:
The U.S Army was mentioned in this thread. As far as I know, the U.S army has missile batteries, cruisers, carriers, airplane fleets, infantry divisions, armoured infantry divisions, tank divions, et cetera, et cetera. Why would it be any different for a space game (not using all the tools at your disposal)?

The composition of an armada could and should be different between the Empires, but limiting what type of ships you're able to build based on ethos/traits/government seems... wrong.

 

[Chat]

Uhm.

A civilization that could not build a specific type of ships because of their ethos or traits seems... bad. It's like saying 'the Soviets should only use infantry in this WW2 game because they had tons of people' or 'the Germans should only use tanks in this WW2 game because they had huge industry'.

An army needs to be diverse in order to deal with all the uncertainties of war.

EDIT:
The U.S Army was mentioned in this thread. As far as I know, the U.S army has missile batteries, cruisers, carriers, airplane fleets, infantry divisions, armoured infantry divisions, tank divions, et cetera, et cetera. Why would it be any different for a space game (not using all the tools at your disposal)?

The composition of an armada could and should be different between the Empires, but limiting what type of ships you're able to build based on ethos/traits/government seems... wrong.

No one is saying that an empire should be locked out of a ship type or anything like that, the basis of the thread is literally your last line; empires favouring certain designs/doctrines that will affect their military compositions.