Sectorgame

Petrarch was an admiral from the start of Freespace 2 and the Aquitaine was the flagship of the 3rd fleet:

This is Admiral Petrarch, commanding officer of the GTD Aquitaine. For those squadrons joining us here in Vega, welcome aboard.

With a complement of 150 combat spacecraft, the Aquitaine serves as flagship of the GTVA 3rd Fleet, based in the Capella system. You join an elite crew of 10,000, the finest officers and enlisted personnel serving the Alliance today.

For the secrecy of the Colossus, has anyone considered that many people would have believed that it was probably completely impractical and would be quickly abandoned? After twenty years, who, except those who regularly received reports about it, would really still expect to see the Colossus making an entrance?

In terms of Petrarch being ordered by 3rd fleet HQ; what's to say the HQ isn't acting as a relay for the GTVA equivalent of the (US) Joint Chiefs?

Or that Admiral is the highest rank, and they have some 'star' system or soforth.

Plus it's likely a single capship wouldn't have the same complete battlefield intel as the actual HQ; you could have one (or more) unknown admiral/s as a co-ordinate and planner, and Petrarch as the guy that actually translates those orders into battle/local level tactics.

I think the game makes it fairly clear that admiral petrach is in command of the full 3'rd terran fleet and is a fairly high ranking admiral.

Remember the third is a fairly large fleet...

StratComm wrote: By that logic, the GTVA would have a maximum of 2-3 fleet admirals. That seems quite few in my opinion, given the fact that there is a war on.

There are always very few full admirals. The most the US has ever had at once is only four or five. The GTVA's fleet by pure personnel numbers is probably quite comparable to, say, the USN in the Second World War. (Granted the GTVA have much bigger crew complements per ship, but the WWII USN had a lot more ships then the GTVA does.) Indeed, it is not uncommon for a rear admiral to command a fleet.

StratComm wrote:The Aquitane is a part of the 3rd fleet. Bosch commanded the 6th. And at any rate, this whole "degree of admiralcy" issue is pretty moot. Rear, Vice, Full or Fleet, Bosch would have had high enough security clearance to know of the Colossus and any other secret projects before starting the NTF rebellion

Well, I'm an idiot. I keep getting that mixed up.

karajorma wrote:1. The figures above completely ignore the possibility that the 6th fleet had any detatched units. For all we know a large portion of the 6th fleet might have been elsewhere. We know that the Aquitaine was repeatedly detatched from its fleet.

I would dispute this statement on several grounds.

"Regional death toll among our forces." The possiblity of 6th Fleet units being elsewhere must also be balanced against the fact that the 6th Fleet is the only unit mentioned by name; however the phraseology is such that the figure almost certainly includes other units. Prime canidates are any system-based defense forces, and considering how the game seems to portray Terran and Vasudan units often operating in pairs, a Vasudan battlegroup. Also detached elements of other fleets or battlegroups.

I would also ask you for one single statement in the game that indicates clearly the Aquitaine was ever detached from its fleet. There is no evidence that the Aquitaine was ever doing anything but simply going where its fleet went.

karajorma wrote:2. You've made a complete assumption about the dispensation of the ships within a fleet. I wouldn't say that we saw 2.5 times as many corvettes as destroyers in the game or 7.5 as many cruisers and even if we had that wouldn't mean we were getting a true representation of a fleet's makeup. That said I feel your numbers are somewhat cruiser heavy and destroyer light based on the number of NTF ships we see and hear about being destroyed.

Alright; I'll play. Going by pure game numbers we drop the number of cruisers to roughly 3.5 and up the number of corvettes to roughly 4.5 (perhaps more) per destroyer.

There are a lot of corvettes in FS2. And I am almost certain that you see more cruisers while in Deneb alone then you saw in all of the first act of FS1.

Also, it is necessary to remember that Alpha 1 was present at many of the most important battles, and by their nature important battles involve big ships more often then small ones. The number of ships of each type seen by the player almost certainly provides a skewed view.

EDIT; bloody formatting.

In fs2;
2 Hecates
8 Orions (4 GTVA, 4 NTF)
18 Deimos (10 GTVA, 8 NTF)
13 Aeolus (7 GTVA 6 NTF)
8 Leviathan (3 GTVA, 5 NTF)
7 Fenris (2 GTVA, 5 NTF)
GTD ?; 2
GTC ?; 3
NTD ?; 3
NTC ?; 8

GVD Hatshepsut; 1
Sobek; 11
Mentu; 5
GVD ?; 2
GVC ?; 2

There are always very few full admirals. The most the US has ever had at once is only four or five. The GTVA's fleet by pure personnel numbers is probably quite comparable to, say, the USN in the Second World War. (Granted the GTVA have much bigger crew complements per ship, but the WWII USN had a lot more ships then the GTVA does.) Indeed, it is not uncommon for a rear admiral to command a fleet.

Thats not really relevant, given the vastly different scale of the GTVA. Particularly as any assumption of the number of ships is just that - an assumption. It's worth noting that the only concise ground troop number given in FS2 (IIRC in the first mission) is in the hundreds of thousands, which may help indicate the scale of the GTVA military forces as a whole (it's unclear AFAIK whether there exists a command separation from ground forces and space forces, also).

Addtionally, even with a reduced fleet capacity for the GTVA vis-a-vis the US nation, there's still the issue of responsibility; each commander - regardless of rank - would be responsible for a vastly greater area than any modern day admiral, thus explaining why you'd have a larger than expected number of very high ranking officials to organize individual sectors.

It's perhaps worth citing - if we're going to be using vastly useless ocean-scale references - that the Royal Navy in the 18th century had 9 Admirals (excluding the Admiral of the Fleet; 3 adm, 3 vice-adm and 3 rear-adm) for 9 'squadrons' (red, blue and white). This was later expanded in about the 1740s

In 1914, the RN had 4 Admiral's of the Fleet, 14 Admiral's, 22 Vice Admiral's and 58 Rear Admiral's.

As of 2004, it has 1 Lord High Admiral, 7 Admiral's of the Fleet, 11 Admirals, 8 Vice Admiral's and 29 Rear Admiral's.

ngtm1r wrote:I would also ask you for one single statement in the game that indicates clearly the Aquitaine was ever detached from its fleet. There is no evidence that the Aquitaine was ever doing anything but simply going where its fleet went.

Have you not played Mystery of the Trinity then? The Aquitane operated in the nebula alone. It was later joined by two corvettes but until then there is no mention of any other GTVA ships in the nebula.

In addition there is no indication that the rest of the 3rd fleet were involved in Deneb prior to Surrender, Belisarius and the fact that it was sent in to reinforce a vasudan battlegroup seems to point to the Aquitane being detached to join the 13th for the length of time it was in Deneb.

Allied Command has ordered the Aquitaine into the Deneb system. There we will reinforce the 13th Vasudan Battle Group, led by the GVD Psamtik.

Both the NTF and the GTVA have sustained heavy casualties in the battle for Deneb. In the past seventy-two hours, we have lost the GVC Andromeda, the GTC Trafalgar, and over 15 fighter wings. Command anticipates the arrival of the Aquitaine and the Psamtik will shift the battle for Deneb in our favor and force the NTF to withdraw to Sirius.

Notice that no mention is made of the rest of the fleet at all.

I also point out that the Carthage and Dashor were sent to deal with the Shivan threat on their own.

aldo wrote: Addtionally, even with a reduced fleet capacity for the GTVA vis-a-vis the US nation, there's still the issue of responsibility; each commander - regardless of rank - would be responsible for a vastly greater area than any modern day admiral, thus explaining why you'd have a larger than expected number of very high ranking officials to organize individual sectors.

Do you see the logical contradiction here?

karajorma wrote: Have you not played Mystery of the Trinity then? The Aquitane operated in the nebula alone. It was later joined by two corvettes but until then there is no mention of any other GTVA ships in the nebula.

The Aquitaine is always alone; so's the NTD Repluse, for that matter, or the GVD Psamtik, even when there is explict mention that these ships are leading reasonably sized groups. That you do not see the other ships of the fleet does not necessarily mean anything.

karajorma wrote: In addition there is no indication that the rest of the 3rd fleet were involved in Deneb prior to Surrender, Belisarius and the fact that it was sent in to reinforce a vasudan battlegroup seems to point to the Aquitane being detached to join the 13th for the length of time it was in Deneb.

13th Battlegroup was already in Deneb, for starters; the fact that Aquitaine was sent there to back up the Psamtik does not imply that it was on detached duty. It could well have been part of a general movement of 3rd Fleet.

Also consider the circumstances surrounding "Surrender, Belisaurius!". GTVA forces already insystem were engaged in rescue and recovery of the Vasudan civilians fleeing Deneb; it was the newly arrived Aquitaine and her cohorts who were dedicated to the counterstrike.

The mention of several cruisers (and a destroyer) as destroyed in that counterstrike rather clinches it; that's a lot of work for the Aquitaine alone, particularly when her fighter squadrons have been helping the rescue efforts.

I'd also point out that Aquitaine, if it is carrying the commander of 3rd Fleet, would not be detached from 3rd Fleet. That's just nonsensical.

ngtm1r wrote:

aldo wrote: Addtionally, even with a reduced fleet capacity for the GTVA vis-a-vis the US nation, there's still the issue of responsibility; each commander - regardless of rank - would be responsible for a vastly greater area than any modern day admiral, thus explaining why you'd have a larger than expected number of very high ranking officials to organize individual sectors.

Do you see the logical contradiction here?

Nope.

Larger area = larger command responsibility = higher rank.

...there's still the issue of responsibility; each commander - regardless of rank - would be responsible for a vastly greater area than any modern day admiral...

If, as you say, each person is going to be responsible for more anyways, yet the number of people is going to remain roughly the same, why is it necessary to increase anyone's rank at all?

ngtm1r wrote:...there's still the issue of responsibility; each commander - regardless of rank - would be responsible for a vastly greater area than any modern day admiral...

If, as you say, each person is going to be responsible for more anyways, yet the number of people is going to remain roughly the same, why is it necessary to increase anyone's rank at all?

Because you need a clear command responsibility. It'd piss off a lot of Admirals to have a lowly (for example) Captain holding the same level of responsibility as them, plus it creates clear chain-of-command issues when you have multiple fleets operating together, particularly if the commander of the 'home' fleet is of a lower rank than the commander of the fleet (or even of ships of that fleet) that's lending support.

Of course, you could demote everyone commanding a fleet (likely the highest level of military responsibility outside the pseudo political environs of the GTVA security council or whatever it's called), but that'd be a bit unpopular I reckon.

ngtm1r wrote:The Aquitaine is always alone; so's the NTD Repluse, for that matter, or the GVD Psamtik, even when there is explict mention that these ships are leading reasonably sized groups. That you do not see the other ships of the fleet does not necessarily mean anything.

boll##ks. The rest of the Repulse's fleet ARE mentioned in the briefings, As is the 13th Vasudan Battlegroup. Where is the 3rd fleet mentioned during Mystery of the Trinity? Why does every single briefing mention the Aquitane by name and none of them say "the fleet has blah blah blah"? Also if the entire 3rd fleet was in the nebula why the big hoo-haa about the Actium and Lysander crossing over to join the Aquitane?
Hell even if you say that the 3rd Fleet was in the nebula then what were the Actium and Lysander doing out of it? At some point those ships must have been detached from the fleet.

I'm not talking about what I saw in game. I'm talking about what was actually said in the command briefings. Note that Petrach specifically states that the Aquitane is being sent into Deneb. At no point is the deployment of the 3rd fleet mentioned.

ngtm1r wrote:13th Battlegroup was already in Deneb, for starters; the fact that Aquitaine was sent there to back up the Psamtik does not imply that it was on detached duty. It could well have been part of a general movement of 3rd Fleet.

Complete conjecture on your part. As I said above every single briefing mentions the Aquitane by name. You're inventing that the fleet must have followed it. There isn't a shred of proof to back you up.

ngtm1r wrote:The mention of several cruisers (and a destroyer) as destroyed in that counterstrike rather clinches it; that's a lot of work for the Aquitaine alone, particularly when her fighter squadrons have been helping the rescue efforts.

What the F**k are you on about. It doesn't mention anywhere that any other ships from 3rd fleet were present. Those ships could quite easily be from some other fleet already present in Deneb.

Both the NTF and the GTVA have sustained heavy casualties in the battle for Deneb. In the past seventy-two hours, we have lost the GVC Andromeda, the GTC Trafalgar, and over 15 fighter wings. Command anticipates the arrival of the Aquitaine and the Psamtik will shift the battle for Deneb in our favor and force the NTF to withdraw to Sirius.

So why not mention the 3rd fleet if they were also going in then? Why just the two destroyers? Even by your own figures there would have been another 3rd fleet destroyer? Why isn't it mentioned?

ngtm1r wrote:I'd also point out that Aquitaine, if it is carrying the commander of 3rd Fleet, would not be detached from 3rd Fleet. That's just nonsensical.

And command always make sensible choices?

The Aquitane could have been detached from the 3rd fleet as it's the best equipped fighter carrying vessel in the region. If you don't want to commit an entire fleet, but still scout the nebula, you're going to need the roaming services of quite a few fighter patrols.

Or they could have needed Petrach in Deneb to take over from whoever was in charge for a myriad different reasons.

During FS2, there isn't actually that much mention of specific fleets. Some of the major destroyers are mentioned as being part of or leading specific fleets: Aquitaine, Psamtik, Repulse etc. None of the other ships are mentioned as being assigned to specific fleets. The ships present in Deneb could be mostly from whichever fleet(s) already in Deneb, fighting defensively until the Aquitaine and Psamtik are sent in to quickly regain control of the system.

As for the nebula, I think it's an indication that many GTVA fighters still don't have intersystem drives. It's quite possible that parts of the 3rd fleet are in Gamma Draconis and Capella, possibly including the Carthage, prepared to deal with further Shivan incursions. The nebula is an unfamiliar environment and I doubt Command would risk sending all that many ships into it, especially while Deneb and Alpha Centauri remain contested. The ships in Capella could be quickly sent to either the nebula or the systems contested by the NTF. Command probably wanted to be prepared to respond to something like Koth's attack in Epsilon Pegasi.

karajorma wrote:Complete conjecture on your part. As I said above every single briefing mentions the Aquitane by name. You're inventing that the fleet must have followed it. There isn't a shred of proof to back you up.

There isn't a shred of proof to say it didn't, and you're inventing that it didn't follow it, so that makes us even, doesn't it?

karajorma wrote:What the F**k are you on about. It doesn't mention anywhere that any other ships from 3rd fleet were present. Those ships could quite easily be from some other fleet already present in Deneb.

The debriefing for "Surrender, Belisaurius", and the mission briefing, as opposed to the first CB.

karajorma wrote:So why not mention the 3rd fleet if they were also going in then? Why just the two destroyers? Even by your own figures there would have been another 3rd fleet destroyer? Why isn't it mentioned?

Remember your audience.

The briefing is being given by Admiral Petrarch to those aboard the Aquitaine. It is primarily concerned with the actions of the Aquitaine and her aerospace group, as opposed to what any supporting ships might be doing. Throughout the game the player is given rather limited information on the actions of other GTVA fleet assets (we already know the GTVA has a habit of playing its cards close to the chest, to the point of silliness; that's how this thread got started), the sole exception being the Gamma Draconis blockade and associated missions. You're viewing the war via the eyes of an ensign. You wouldn't know much about what the rest of your fleet is doing, just your own ship.

aldo wrote:Because you need a clear command responsibility. It'd piss off a lot of Admirals to have a lowly (for example) Captain holding the same level of responsibility as them, plus it creates clear chain-of-command issues when you have multiple fleets operating together, particularly if the commander of the 'home' fleet is of a lower rank than the commander of the fleet (or even of ships of that fleet) that's lending support.

That assumes responsiblity does not increase proportionally, which is rather silly.

Also, the second statement you make is downright silly. This is inherent to military systems and happens all the time. A simple example: a Commander is given charge of the escorts for a convoy. The convoy is in mid-voyage is joined by a another group of ships with a Captain in command, to reinforce the escort group. Who gives the orders? Still the Commander, because he was placed in command of the convoy escorts, and if he was placed in charge, then until he is explictly relieved of that duty or it is given to someone else, he will remain in charge of the escorts no matter who joins the escort group. This kind of situation arises over the course of normal military operations all the time. It's often even planned to occur, with a lower-ranking officer being given tactical command over a higher-ranking officer, because they are better suited to command that particular operation or force.

The chain of command issues are just not there. The person given command of a force is, regardless of rank, in command of whoever is assigned to that force, regardless of their rank. This has been thought of and dealt with by the military, long before you or I were ever born. Can it get awkward at times? Certainly. Is it a serious issue? Certainly not.