SLN, and MAlign playing catch up with Manticoran superiority

Joat42 wrote:The comparison isn't 1-1, but we have to remember that rfc tend to borrow from history when writing his stories, which may well mean we will see the LD's used as commerce warfare against the GA's merchant marine to start with in the future.

tlb wrote:If the LD's are used as commerce raiders, this would mainly work by posting at the hyperlimit near the closest approach to a planet and blasting anything that arrives when they are most vulnerable. Anyone moving in hyperspace will either be traveling with a wedge or sails. In the case of sails, the LD has to be under sails also; so not invisible. in the case of a wedge, there is a possibility of a passing shot; but it is limited by the decreased detection ability compared to normal space. I hope we will soon see what the author choses to do.

Theemile wrote:Commerce raiding can be done efficiently with BC or lower at a much lower cost. Just troll JUST outside the hyperlimit and bag everything that jumps in - and then jump out if anything too heavy attempts to engage you. Any why use a platform that can't rum down even a merchie if it has a head start, and why waste a G-torp on a merchie when any old missile will do. (cause if you don't need to use a Gtorp, why use the only platforms that specialize in them?

I am not sure from your answer whether you are differentiating between a Shark class versus a Leonard Detweiler class ship, as opposed to a spider-driver ship versus a wedge drive ship. If you are saying that this could be done by a Shark, then I could agree; although the LD would have more crew comfort and a greater weapon power (using energy weapons, rather than torpedoes. Saving those torpedoes for targets of opportunity within the hyperlimit). But if you are saying to use a wedge powered BC, then you lose the invisibility factor that would be important in this role.

Theemile wrote:Commerce raiding can be done efficiently with BC or lower at a much lower cost. Just troll JUST outside the hyperlimit and bag everything that jumps in - and then jump out if anything too heavy attempts to engage you. Any why use a platform that can't rum down even a merchie if it has a head start, and why waste a G-torp on a merchie when any old missile will do. (cause if you don't ned to use a Gtorp, why use the only platforms that specialize in them?

That's true against 3rd tier systems -- which won't have the long range sensors to spot a lurking BC, nor the heavy forces on hand to readily chase one off.

Now 1st tier system, like Manticore, where to sneak a starship in undetected would require years with a conventional wedge and still months with a spider drive -- given the insanely long range of their sensors against hyper-space emergence -- it'd be a waste to spend all that time sneaking into position just to bag a few merchies before home fleet and its LACs chased you back into hyper. Against a 1st tier system like that sneaking an LD in is only worth it if you're going after major infrastructure, system defense, or the defending fleet itself. (Things that would cripple the system and/or leave it vulnerable to conventional attack)

But 2nd tier systems -- that's where I could see you potentially using a spider ship for commerce raiding. They lack the multi light-month detection for hyper emergences (else they'd be 1st tier systems), but would have sensors able to see a wedge operating at any significant power level even out just beyond the hyper limit and would have to navy to chase off or kill a BC. Those same sensors should detect any missile launches out there; so even if the BC is able to keep wedge power way down and hide under stealth it'll reveal its present and approximate location every time it fires on a merchie.
But those star systems require far less time investment getting a spider ship into position and, especially if it uses stealthy munitions (g-torps), it can prey on commerce for quite a while before being likely to be localized and chased off. (And can relatively quickly sneak back in). So the cost/benefit vs commerce raiding with a BC might tip in favor of a spider ship in such 2nd tier systems...

Which of course raises the question of exactly how they will be used. Which we debated to death in other threads, ending with ‘future cloudy, ask again later’.[/quote]
True, but, somewhere in the middle of the debate - or either from the onset - we unanimously agreed that they are perfectly suited for infrastructure destruction. Even if they are simply used for that, game over.

For you naysayers it will still be Honor Harrington's universe. What's left of it.

I do not understand why someone keeps pointing out that the MA's existence will be proved with the maiden voyages of the LD. I don't think the MA is going to care about their existence being known while they are busy lighting birthday candles all around town. Do something about it if you can![/quote]

Can anyone post a link that will take me to the topic that Penny is referring to? To be specific where the LD ships are speculated on.

kzt wrote:Which of course raises the question of exactly how they will be used. Which we debated to death in other threads, ending with ‘future cloudy, ask again later’.

penny wrote:True, but, somewhere in the middle of the debate - or either from the onset - we unanimously agreed that they are perfectly suited for infrastructure destruction. Even if they are simply used for that, game over.

For you naysayers it will still be Honor Harrington's universe. What's left of it.

I do not understand why someone keeps pointing out that the MA's existence will be proved with the maiden voyages of the LD. I don't think the MA is going to care about their existence being known while they are busy lighting birthday candles all around town. Do something about it if you can!

Mycall4me wrote:Can anyone post a link that will take me to the topic that Penny is referring to? To be specific where the LD ships are speculated on.

They are speculated on in a number of threads, because the damage that they are going to do is a favorite topic of a certain poster. The thread linked here is just one place: Attacking Darius

Here is one of the really early threads (note that Penny is a new name for Cthia): The Lennys are coming! The Lennys are coming!

PS: Please try to keep the bracketed "quote" and "/quote" pairs together better; I have tried to fix the attributions that you messed up.

tlb wrote:

kzt wrote:Which of course raises the question of exactly how they will be used. Which we debated to death in other threads, ending with ‘future cloudy, ask again later’.

penny wrote:True, but, somewhere in the middle of the debate - or either from the onset - we unanimously agreed that they are perfectly suited for infrastructure destruction. Even if they are simply used for that, game over.

For you naysayers it will still be Honor Harrington's universe. What's left of it.

I do not understand why someone keeps pointing out that the MA's existence will be proved with the maiden voyages of the LD. I don't think the MA is going to care about their existence being known while they are busy lighting birthday candles all around town. Do something about it if you can!

Mycall4me wrote:Can anyone post a link that will take me to the topic that Penny is referring to? To be specific where the LD ships are speculated on.

They are speculated on in a number of threads, because the damage that they are going to do is a favorite topic of a certain poster. The thread linked here is just one place: Attacking Darius

Here is one of the really early threads (note that Penny is a new name for Cthia): The Lennys are coming! The Lennys are coming!

PS: Please try to keep the bracketed "quote" and "/quote" pairs together better; I have tried to fix the attributions that you messed up.

For some unknown to me reason, on certain "reply with a quote" thingie, my reply REFUSES to post. In order to get my reply submitted I've had to selectively delete sections while retrying to submit until my reply is finally accepted. It usually occurs when there is a long series of previous quotes.

If you have any suggestions for what I can do when this occurs, I would be most happy to apply them. Unfortunately I'm a little tech challenged in the finer ins and outs of things like this.

Mycall4me wrote:
For some unknown to me reason, on certain "reply with a quote" thingie, my reply REFUSES to post. In order to get my reply submitted I've had to selectively delete sections while retrying to submit until my reply is finally accepted. It usually occurs when there is a long series of previous quotes.

If you have any suggestions for what I can do when this occurs, I would be most happy to apply them. Unfortunately I'm a little tech challenged in the finer ins and outs of things like this.

The usual reason is quotes that are too deeply nested.
The forum software does put up a message about it "You may embed only 2 quotes within each other." but it's in a rather subdued box above the post icon area, so a couple inches above the text box. Easy enough to miss.

And fixing that so the submission will go through does require manual post editing to either remove the more deeply nested posts, or the un-nest them (arranging all the older posts in chronological order as depth 2 posts.

So changing:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
____[ post 1 ]
__]
]

into either:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
__]
]

or:
[ post 3
__[ post 1 ]
__[ post 2 ]
]

But either manual edit is error prone (especially on mobile).
On PC I'll do a find on "quote]" to be sure I've found the start and end of the same quote block so I can cut it as one.

(And even then I sometimes mess up and try to remember to look at the my new post to make sure things came out as intended)

Mycall4me wrote:For some unknown to me reason, on certain "reply with a quote" thingie, my reply REFUSES to post. In order to get my reply submitted I've had to selectively delete sections while retrying to submit until my reply is finally accepted. It usually occurs when there is a long series of previous quotes.

If you have any suggestions for what I can do when this occurs, I would be most happy to apply them. Unfortunately I'm a little tech challenged in the finer ins and outs of things like this.

There is a limit (3?) on the depth of quoting that can be nested; so I tend to cut the square-bracketed {quote="username"} from the front and paste it at the beginning of the text that the user entered. That way I rarely have a quote within a quote, usually the times I do is when the user is introducing a quote from an outside source, such as Wikipedia.

Yes, it is very useful to preview what you have before posting to see if it looks the way that you want.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Mycall4me wrote:
For some unknown to me reason, on certain "reply with a quote" thingie, my reply REFUSES to post. In order to get my reply submitted I've had to selectively delete sections while retrying to submit until my reply is finally accepted. It usually occurs when there is a long series of previous quotes.

If you have any suggestions for what I can do when this occurs, I would be most happy to apply them. Unfortunately I'm a little tech challenged in the finer ins and outs of things like this.

The usual reason is quotes that are too deeply nested.
The forum software does put up a message about it "You may embed only 2 quotes within each other." but it's in a rather subdued box above the post icon area, so a couple inches above the text box. Easy enough to miss.

And fixing that so the submission will go through does require manual post editing to either remove the more deeply nested posts, or the un-nest them (arranging all the older posts in chronological order as depth 2 posts.

So changing:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
____[ post 1 ]
__]
]

into either:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
__]
]

or:
[ post 3
__[ post 1 ]
__[ post 2 ]
]

But either manual edit is error prone (especially on mobile).
On PC I'll do a find on "quote]" to be sure I've found the start and end of the same quote block so I can cut it as one.

(And even then I sometimes mess up and try to remember to look at the my new post to make sure things came out as intended)

Wow! Thanks! I ALMOST understood that. All of my forum work is done from my tablet, so the note that "mobile manual edit" definetely would apply in my case. PLUS, as I mentioned, I AM tech challenged and more or less self taught in the try, and try again experementation school, so it may take me a while to figure out exactly what I need to do to get to what I want to do.

Although if I'm understanding correctly, what I've been doing is ALMOST what you're describing that I need to do, I'll just have to experiment and keep it up until I can figure it out by trial and error. I just hope that I won't irritate anyone while doing so.

It wasn't that long ago (I was a Lt Senior Grade) when I finally figured out how to reply to a quote in the first place. I'm old enough to remember when AOL was the only way to access the internet for the general masses.

Mycall4me wrote:For some unknown to me reason, on certain "reply with a quote" thingie, my reply REFUSES to post. In order to get my reply submitted I've had to selectively delete sections while retrying to submit until my reply is finally accepted. It usually occurs when there is a long series of previous quotes.

If you have any suggestions for what I can do when this occurs, I would be most happy to apply them. Unfortunately I'm a little tech challenged in the finer ins and outs of things like this.

Jonathan_S wrote:The usual reason is quotes that are too deeply nested.
The forum software does put up a message about it "You may embed only 2 quotes within each other." but it's in a rather subdued box above the post icon area, so a couple inches above the text box. Easy enough to miss.

And fixing that so the submission will go through does require manual post editing to either remove the more deeply nested posts, or the un-nest them (arranging all the older posts in chronological order as depth 2 posts.

So changing:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
____[ post 1 ]
__]
]

into either:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
__]
]

or:
[ post 3
__[ post 1 ]
__[ post 2 ]
]

But either manual edit is error prone (especially on mobile).
On PC I'll do a find on "quote]" to be sure I've found the start and end of the same quote block so I can cut it as one.

(And even then I sometimes mess up and try to remember to look at the my new post to make sure things came out as intended)

Mycall4me wrote:Wow! Thanks! I ALMOST understood that. All of my forum work is done from my tablet, so the note that "mobile manual edit" definetely would apply in my case. PLUS, as I mentioned, I AM tech challenged and more or less self taught in the try, and try again experementation school, so it may take me a while to figure out exactly what I need to do to get to what I want to do.

Although if I'm understanding correctly, what I've been doing is ALMOST what you're describing that I need to do, I'll just have to experiment and keep it up until I can figure it out by trial and error. I just hope that I won't irritate anyone while doing so.

It wasn't that long ago (I was a Lt Senior Grade) when I finally figured out how to reply to a quote in the first place. I'm old enough to remember when AOL was the only way to access the internet for the general masses.

Compare what I have done here to what you just created and see that I eliminated the nesting. I prefer to change:

[ post 3
__[ post 2
____[ post 1 ]
__]
]
new text for replay

into:

[ post 1 ]
[ post 2 ]
[ post 3 ]
new text for replay

So everything is in order and nothing is nested.

tlb wrote:

Mycall4me wrote:For some unknown to me reason, on certain "reply with a quote" thingie, my reply REFUSES to post. In order to get my reply submitted I've had to selectively delete sections while retrying to submit until my reply is finally accepted. It usually occurs when there is a long series of previous quotes.

If you have any suggestions for what I can do when this occurs, I would be most happy to apply them. Unfortunately I'm a little tech challenged in the finer ins and outs of things like this.

Jonathan_S wrote:The usual reason is quotes that are too deeply nested.
The forum software does put up a message about it "You may embed only 2 quotes within each other." but it's in a rather subdued box above the post icon area, so a couple inches above the text box. Easy enough to miss.

And fixing that so the submission will go through does require manual post editing to either remove the more deeply nested posts, or the un-nest them (arranging all the older posts in chronological order as depth 2 posts.

So changing:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
____[ post 1 ]
__]
]

into either:
[ post 3
__[ post 2
__]
]

or:
[ post 3
__[ post 1 ]
__[ post 2 ]
]

But either manual edit is error prone (especially on mobile).
On PC I'll do a find on "quote]" to be sure I've found the start and end of the same quote block so I can cut it as one.

(And even then I sometimes mess up and try to remember to look at the my new post to make sure things came out as intended)

Mycall4me wrote:Wow! Thanks! I ALMOST understood that. All of my forum work is done from my tablet, so the note that "mobile manual edit" definetely would apply in my case. PLUS, as I mentioned, I AM tech challenged and more or less self taught in the try, and try again experementation school, so it may take me a while to figure out exactly what I need to do to get to what I want to do.

Although if I'm understanding correctly, what I've been doing is ALMOST what you're describing that I need to do, I'll just have to experiment and keep it up until I can figure it out by trial and error. I just hope that I won't irritate anyone while doing so.

It wasn't that long ago (I was a Lt Senior Grade) when I finally figured out how to reply to a quote in the first place. I'm old enough to remember when AOL was the only way to access the internet for the general masses.

Compare what I have done here to what you just created and see that I eliminated the nesting. I prefer to change:

[ post 3
__[ post 2
____[ post 1 ]
__]
]
new text for replay

into:

[ post 1 ]
[ post 2 ]
[ post 3 ]
new text for replay

So everything is in order and nothing is nested.

Yes, I think that I UNDERSTAND it, but as Johnathan pointed out, my tablet (mobile) is NOT going to make that easy (especially for my tech challenged self) I suppose that I can fire up my pc, sign in and accomplish what I THINK that you're saying, unfortunately that sounds too much like work. So I'll probably muddle through as best as I can, and hope for the best.

But I DO appreciate the enlightenment of the mysteries (well, they're mysteries to me) of the ins and outs of the forum quote system.

Thank you (and thanks to Johnathan)