• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

[DION] Squadron

Don't you think a squadron this size is going to make it awkward for ship commanders? In the Eucharis plot, we have an SAoY (4 ships) and even still it sometimes feels like we have too much support to fall back on.
 
Warship squadron size doesn't seem too bad considering the Abwehrans have similarly sized squadrons (though those squadrons are divided into Divisions).

You also have to think on the type of vessel being combined into a squadron. Certain vessels are designed to work in concert with other vessels, which makes it important to be formed into squadrons. Others are normally placed into independent commands (solo) and rarely join into Squadrons.
 
If you're going to use the word squadron, I really think you should stick to the accepted definition of it (3-4 ships) or use your own fictional term.
 
I'm only codifying what I've been using since March 2011. Now that I'm looking at the other fleets, I see I've been using the small end of the spectrum. Nepleslia has squadrons that have up to 50 ships. I've found the median range is 15-20 warships.

So, really, warship squadron size being 6-12 is conservative. I'm not going to retcon every faction page. I don't quite see why you're forcing us into one definition rather than letting us create our own.

Green Squadron (FA4s) has always been 64 fighters, half of which were unnamed units operating in tandem with a manned fighter. Teal Squadron (originally E2s, now Hammerheads) has always been 32 manned craft. Being the only Fleet which lists its squadron sizes, that is the measuring stick which I have.

Nepleslia has always used squadrons and it has long had no standardization of size. Each Fleet is organized according to the whims and fancies of its commanding Grand Admiral. So to account for this, I have edited the wiki page to reflect the non-standardization inherent within the NSN.

I must stand firm on the terminology and the numbers. I cannot and will not change Nepleslia to look more like Yamatai. Nor will I retcon the faction.
 
Why codify this at all? Or, at least, why submit it?

Why not just make the page and be done with it? Avoid the drama and all.
 
Ease up on the hostility there Sigma, it isn't needed. Wes is merely providing a suggestion, not a demand; don't misunderstand his reasons.
 
Doshii Jun said:
Why codify this at all? Or, at least, why submit it?

Why not just make the page and be done with it? Avoid the drama and all.
The point is to expand the navy page and provide guidelines for the structure of the Navy. I have been given permission to improve the faction's wiki and make the appropriate changes. Laying out the foundation for the Navy's basic unit seemed a place to start to expand on the NSN.

However, I fail to see why there should be drama in such a simple submission or the NTSE, in general. This is possibly a good point to mention that I have submitted other people's ideas (I will not say whom or which submissions) because they don't want to deal with the "crap in the NTSE" (their phrase). I have no fear of the NTSE or its moderators so I get asked to submit on their behalf. Perhaps a change is required to dispel this image of unfriendliness in the NTSE?

To return to the submission,

Nepleslia is not Yamatai. I see no reason why Nepleslian squadrons ought to be 3-4 ships. It provides no tactical flexibility in the basic unit of each Fleet. Nor is it in keeping with tradition.

There is no hostility, Kyle. It is how I write all of my academic work. This is simply an exercise in rhetoric and argument. So when someone points me to an "accepted definition" to challenge my conclusion, it is only natural to make a counterargument by citing evidence, providing analysis in support of and restating said conclusion. It is a basic form of argument.

For example.
I really think you should stick to the accepted definition of it (3-4 ships) or use your own fictional term.
I shall now draw upon some current naval squadrons for support since existing fictional ones are less persuasive. Though, I will admit that they are not as varied in warship type than how I use them in Nepleslia (and how I use them is different from existing Fleets; but as always, Fleet composition and organization is the prerogative of each Fleet commander)

185 Squadron of the RSN (6 Frigates)
DESRON One - 5 warships
DESRON 7 - 6 warships
DESRON 23 - 9 warships

Whether we judge by my home country's standard, or the US Navy's, 6-12 warships per squadron for Nepleslia is fairly acceptable as a guideline. 50 is a bit crazy but I didn't write those.

As for fighters, this is a science fiction setting where a fleet can be a thousand warships. I'm the only user of Nepleslian starfighter squadrons at the moment since MoonMan does not feature them in his plot. This is the optimal organization I have reached to support 6-12 warships since a single warship such as the Atlas can fit 24 fighters if its power armor bay is removed. A Blackjack Cruiser can hold 40. A squadron of 3 Blackjacks and 3 Atlases could hold 192 starfighters between them. That would be 6 squadrons of 32. Exactly. 3 Cruisers, 3 Escorts, 192 fighters. That is a fairly balanced fighting unit, no?

There is no international standard for what constitutes a squadron on SARP. So, I fail to see why Nepleslia should conform to one definition when it is one of the most non-comformist factions in the setting. This is my proposed definition of a "standard" Nepleslian squadron, with enough caveats to let any future submissions tweak the numbers to their liking.
 
I think you skipped my second sentence.

You've got clearance to just make the change. Delete this submission and just make the change, so we don't have to enter into a rhetoric-and-debate brawl over something as simple as this.
 
Every Nation, Every Species have their own take on military terminology. To try and predispose another nation to someone else's way of thinking is inherently stifling and oppressive to said nation's creative development by a submission standpoint when it comes to things like this.

Yes, just make the page, and avoid the drama that submissions can sometimes cause. This isn't groundbreaking technology or an expansive setting revision so it shouldn't need to go through here to start with. Saves not only yourself, but everyone some time and energy.
 
Right so this doesn't need to be run through the NTSE. So this is now approved, Doshii Jun?
 
I'm not a tech mod, so I can't speak to that.

What I was speaking to is a basic question — why does this need to be submitted? You're a co-FM, more or less, right? I'd think you could just do it and be done, without the need to go through the NTSE. You basically got clearance already.
 
Code:
21:48	Doshii_Deadline	If Moon's given you the OK, skip it.
21:49	Doshii_Deadline	It's not a setting element. So says this global mod, and unless [someone] wants to raise a further stink, just approve it.
21:49	Doshii_Deadline	I don't usually step on tech mod territory, but this is immensely silly.
This is approved according to Doshii.

And for the record, I am not a Co-FM. If I was, you'd see it somewhere. I am just a GM with a mandate from my FM to improve the faction.
 
My approval is based on being a global moderator for the website, not as a NTSE mod.

This does not fall under "setting elements." It's internal nomenclature that does not have a site-wide affect.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…