Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests

Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by Thirdbase   » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:36 pm

Thirdbase
Admiral

Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:27 pm

jthoma8318 wrote:Did I misread? I thought they were only talking about the termi of their worm hole. If it is every known termini, then no I do not think they have the ships at this time to do it. Even with RH ships to bolster Manticore's defense, the spider ships are quite capable of making hit and run raids all over the place. Most likely that will be what MAN will start doing. That is really their only use. They are was too slow for really engaging another conventionally powered fleet. No matter how much armor is on them, without the wedge they are extremely vulnerable to missile attack. Eventually someone will be able to detect them. No advantage in war lasts.

Thirdbase wrote:Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that Manticore by implementing Lacoon II will be effectively declaring war upon the star nation that controls the Worm Hole. Effectively this would be like England seizing control of the Suez and Panama Canals.

Yes I realize that none of these star nations would be a threat to Manticore, but it is what they are doing.


Lacoon I is the closure of all Manticoran controlled wormholes to Sollie ships. Lacoon II is the seizure and control of all known wormholes.

"Case Lacoön was the Royal Manticoran Navy's plan to close all wormhole nexii under its control to Solarian traffic. Or, rather, that was the first phase of Lacoön. The second phase included active commerce raiding and the extension of de facto Manticoran control to every wormhole nexus within its reach, regardless of who that nexus nominally belonged to."

Mining the wormholes is a bad idea, because they still want to use them.
------------
runsforcelery wrote:
Thirdbase wrote:I think that was the next novel.



Allow me to demonstrate my concision, brevity, and economy of phrase:

"Smart alec!" ;p
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by kzt   » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:51 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Thirdbase wrote:Mining the wormholes is a bad idea, because they still want to use them.

It's no major problem. You just better have the right IFF code in your transponder....
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by Thirdbase   » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:02 pm

Thirdbase
Admiral

Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:27 pm

kzt wrote:
Thirdbase wrote:Mining the wormholes is a bad idea, because they still want to use them.

It's no major problem. You just better have the right IFF code in your transponder....


And when your mines blow up some independent freighters from neutral nations?
------------
runsforcelery wrote:
Thirdbase wrote:I think that was the next novel.



Allow me to demonstrate my concision, brevity, and economy of phrase:

"Smart alec!" ;p
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by Cheopis   » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:04 pm

Cheopis
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1633
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:04 am

Thirdbase wrote:
kzt wrote:
Thirdbase wrote:Mining the wormholes is a bad idea, because they still want to use them.

It's no major problem. You just better have the right IFF code in your transponder....


And when your mines blow up some independent freighters from neutral nations?


This is no different from mining shipping channels in modern warfare. Neutral shipping had best either steer clear of the area, or get permission and guidance from whoever controls the passage.
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by kzt   » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:14 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Thirdbase wrote:And when your mines blow up some independent freighters from neutral nations?

They shouldn't have ignored the warning beacons at the far end or the RMN ships challenging them.
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by Thirdbase   » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:26 am

Thirdbase
Admiral

Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:27 pm

kzt wrote:
Thirdbase wrote:And when your mines blow up some independent freighters from neutral nations?

They shouldn't have ignored the warning beacons at the far end or the RMN ships challenging them.


If you are going to have ships guarding the wormhole, you don't need the minefield, or at least not one that isn't command controlled.
------------
runsforcelery wrote:
Thirdbase wrote:I think that was the next novel.



Allow me to demonstrate my concision, brevity, and economy of phrase:

"Smart alec!" ;p
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by kzt   » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:35 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

It certainly would reduce the number of ships required to control the wormholes, wouldn't it?
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by Star Knight   » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:44 pm

Star Knight
Commodore

Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:27 pm

kzt wrote:It certainly would reduce the number of ships required to control the wormholes, wouldn't it?

The number of ships required to control wormholes:
2 or maybe 3 BatRons of Apollo equiped SD(P)s a couple of million kilometres away from the junctions.
So we are talking about up to ten BatRons, meaning 60 SD(P)s in the pre Janacek era.
The Manticore Alliance has up to 450 SD(P) before Oyster Bay hit them.
Dont see a problem coming up with podlayers to do the job.
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by Dane Dryss   » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:06 pm

Dane Dryss
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:08 pm

So I understand that Manticore's ability to replenish there missiles and ships. What about Haven guarding the wormholes? I know all about the hate that the Queen has and all but if they are going to be in a Military Alliance against the Sollies then why not use the 300 to 400 SD's that Theisman has?
Top
Re: Implenting Case Lacoon I & II after Oyster Bay
Post by Star Knight   » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:24 pm

Star Knight
Commodore

Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:27 pm

Whats the point?
Lets assume that the RMN has 200 Invictus and Medusa Bs. Thats a very conservative estimate.
Both classes carry 2000 missile pods. If we assume that their magazines are full (no reason why it shouldnt be the case) the RMN has at least 400.000 pods or 3.2 million Mk-23.
At Spindle the RMN targeted each Solly SD with 400 Mk-23s without using Apollo and destroyed every single enemy ship they targeted.
Battlefleet has 11.000 of the Wall, most of them less capable then the SDs destroyed at Spindle.

400.000 pods / 350 Mk-23 is 9.000 Solly SDs destroyed.


So, no need for Manticore to replenish missile stocks before they killed every Solly SD in existence.
And for sure no reason to use the Havies.


Dane Dryss wrote:So I understand that Manticore's ability to replenish there missiles and ships. What about Haven guarding the wormholes? I know all about the hate that the Queen has and all but if they are going to be in a Military Alliance against the Sollies then why not use the 300 to 400 SD's that Theisman has?
Top

Return to Honorverse