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

[BrotherArdis]

The highly individualistic USA initially only had 3 or 4 aircraft carriers and relied on their large battleship fleet. Only when the effectiveness of naval aviation was demonstrated by the extremely disciplined and hierarchical Japanese (robbing the US of their BBs and forcing them to rely on CVs as the primary fighting force), did the focus shift to aircraft carriers. In the democratic Great Britain, whose society also stresses personal freedom, battleships remained the fleet's backbone for the entire war. On the other hand, the first countries to recognise the true potential of planes in land-focused warfare were the totalitarian Germany and USSR...

I don't see any correlation between individualism and preference for smaller, more numerous comat vehicles. Designs, doctrines, strategies and tactics (including fleet composition) are shaped by previous combat experience, not by the political system or social values.

 

[Orkonkel]

The highly individualistic USA initially only had 3 or 4 aircraft carriers and relied on their large battleship fleet. Only when the effectiveness of naval aviation was demonstrated by the extremely disciplined and hierarchical Japanese (robbing the US of their BBs and forcing them to rely on CVs as the primary fighting force), did the focus shift to aircraft carriers. In the democratic Great Britain, whose society also stresses personal freedom, battleships remained the fleet's backbone for the entire war. On the other hand, the first countries to recognise the true potential of planes in land-focused warfare were the totalitarian Germany and USSR...

I don't see any correlation between individualism and preference for smaller, more numerous comat vehicles. Designs, doctrines, strategies and tactics (including fleet composition) are shaped by previous combat experience, not by the political system or social values.

This. So much.

 

[Empress Matilda]

The highly individualistic USA initially only had 3 or 4 aircraft carriers and relied on their large battleship fleet. Only when the effectiveness of naval aviation was demonstrated by the extremely disciplined and hierarchical Japanese (robbing the US of their BBs and forcing them to rely on CVs as the primary fighting force), did the focus shift to aircraft carriers. In the democratic Great Britain, whose society also stresses personal freedom, battleships remained the fleet's backbone for the entire war. On the other hand, the first countries to recognise the true potential of planes in land-focused warfare were the totalitarian Germany and USSR...

I don't see any correlation between individualism and preference for smaller, more numerous comat vehicles. Designs, doctrines, strategies and tactics (including fleet composition) are shaped by previous combat experience, not by the political system or social values.

I think you misread British society in the 1940s. It was hierarchical, class-dominated, racist and imperialist.

 

[BrotherArdis]

I think you misread British society in the 1940s. It was hierarchical, class-dominated, racist and imperialist.

If that is how you view it, then it was very much like the American society, only for the USA you'd have to swap imperialist for isolationist.

Either way, it doesn't support the point that is being argued in this thread. Either we agree that there were drastic differences between the shape of societies in democratic and totalitarian countries, in which case what I said earlier continues to apply, or you claim that there were no significant differences between democratic and totalitarian states, with all of them merely being slightly different shades of dark-grey-bordering-on-black, and consequently it can't be argued that individualist societies prefer fighters and carriers, because there were no individualist societies.

And should one argue that "it's the past, we should look at today's societies", then again - there are no differences. Everyone has aircraft carriers. The USA, the UK, France, Spain, Russia, China, India, Brazil. The USA have more only because they can afford more, not because they are individualistic. Today's UK is a perfectly cosmopolitan and individualistic society, and yet they don't have a massive carrier fleet.

 

[Empress Matilda]

If that is how you view it, then it was very much like the American society, only for the USA you'd have to swap imperialist for isolationist.

Either way, it doesn't support the point that is being argued in this thread. Either we agree that there were drastic differences between the shape of societies in democratic and totalitarian countries, in which case what I said earlier continues to apply, or you claim that there were no significant differences between democratic and totalitarian states, with all of them merely being slightly different shades of dark-grey-bordering-on-black, and consequently it can't be argued that individualist societies prefer fighters and carriers, because there were no individualist societies.

And should one argue that "it's the past, we should look at today's societies", then again - there are no differences. Everyone has aircraft carriers. The USA, the UK, France, Spain, Russia, China, India, Brazil. The USA have more only because they can afford more, not because they are individualistic. Today's UK is a perfectly cosmopolitan and individualistic society, and yet they don't have a massive carrier fleet.

I think I'd agree that the main differences on Earth are due to economics and technology rather than government ethos. I'll concede that point. Still theres the question of would race make a difference. In the example from 2300 I gave the kafers used massive battleships because their average intelligence was low (they called humans "smart barbarians") and gunners were easier to train than pilots.

 

[Chat]

I think I'd agree that the main differences on Earth are due to economics and technology rather than government ethos. I'll concede that point. Still theres the question of would race make a difference. In the example from 2300 I gave the kafers used massive battleships because their average intelligence was low (they called humans "smart barbarians") and gunners were easier to train than pilots.

As far as the game goes, I certainly don't see any reason why not. Game play always trumps realism, and it makes for a good initial influence on preferences.

I wouldn't mind it being just an initial influence though, since I don't particularly want to see an enemy race and go "Oh, they're x, so they'll favour y. Better build z so I can squish 'em quick." Ideally, I think I'd like for it to be the Kafers will probably prefer massive battleships, but there's always a decent chance that they'll go fighters or lighter ships with some bonus different to what the Humans would have gotten. For example, the Humans might get a Maverick Pilots bonus, while the Kafers get a Hunter Pack bonus. That way it doesn't create an obviously optimal play and allows for shifts in how a species will compose its armadas in response to the available technologies, and the current threats.

 

[BrotherArdis]

I think I'd agree that the main differences on Earth are due to economics and technology rather than government ethos. I'll concede that point. Still theres the question of would race make a difference. In the example from 2300 I gave the kafers used massive battleships because their average intelligence was low (they called humans "smart barbarians") and gunners were easier to train than pilots.

Various techs could easily be locked out for different phenotypes. However, within phenotypes they should probably be rather uniform. I have no idea how insectoids born with the ability to fly could approach aerial warfare - would they even develop airplanes as we know them? Would it occur to them to create small flying vehicles intended for individual specimens? But I can hardly imagine a land-based mammalian race (canine, feline, w/e) NOT coming up with the concept of carriers - if they got ships and they got runways, someone, somewhere is bound to think of a floating airstrip. However, the education and military training systems (I don't think that races capable of space travel are going to be noticeably different in their average intelligence levels) could hugely affect the quality of produced crews.

Also, the planet of origin could influence the available techs. If a race came from a world without large bodies of water, it probably wouldn't invent carriers because it has never had any need for them. So carrier techs could be locked out for them - at least until they encountered a carrier in combat.

 

[Chat]

I have no idea how insectoids born with the ability to fly could approach aerial warfare - would they even develop airplanes as we know them? Would it occur to them to create small flying vehicles intended for individual specimens?

I imagine it would. After all, it occurred to us to develop faster methods of traveling on the ground, ways to augment our combat capabilities. They might take a different path to get there, but I would still fully expect that they would. Their air combat might bear some resemblances to our ground combat though, with 'infantry' supporting the aircraft; holding ground and securing flanks while the fighters dart around dealing damage.

Amphibious assault craft would probably be a prime example of technologies barely developed. There's no need for a ship to reach land to rapidly deploy troops when they can swarm out from an offshore troopship that simply needs to get close to the beach. They might still use assault craft for deploying heavy vehicles, or they might just rely entirely on heavy air support to do the job the tanks would have. That might have implications for how they assault worlds; their dropships might deploy all of their infantry and fighting vehicles without landing, giving them a relative advantage compared to species that land and deploy heavy vehicles and infantry. But without the staying power of heavy vehicles, their beachheads might be easier to dislodge after they've become established.

 

[Alexander Seil]

I doubt there is any difference between phenotypes except flavor. Remember that there are mysterious genetic traits we know nothing about, and given those, I don't see any reason to tie anything to phenotypes. Maybe my insectoids descended from alien dung beetles? Why do they automatically get bonuses to aerial warfare for that?

 

[Chaos_TLW]

I doubt there is any difference between phenotypes except flavor. Remember that there are mysterious genetic traits we know nothing about, and given those, I don't see any reason to tie anything to phenotypes. Maybe my insectoids descended from alien dung beetles? Why do they automatically get bonuses to aerial warfare for that?

-Commander, the enemy is deeply entrenched and will not give way. What shall we do?
-Remember our ancient ways, sergeant. Tell the troops to spread their wings and prepare the bombardment!
*Ride of the Valkyries plays in the background*