Best tactics displayed in SW?

[Bakustra]

Oh dear god, it is ZAHN ZAHN MINIMALISM. But it's drizzled in a lovely dressing of stupid. The point is that the most promising junior officers and cadets would apply for positions onboard Executor and the rest of Death Squadron (Since it seems likely that Pellaeon would include the supporting ships when considering the losses). I don't know why you decided that Thanas was saying "senior officers".

Yeah yeah yeah, labelling something does not automatically make it wrong. The only way the statement could even have an impact on the Empire was if it was senior officers, and even here....... its still a pittance.

Justify your statements, please.

Why is training automatically flawless? Why would there be special attention given to a species that lives on one planet and is so minor that a repressive state went unnoticed for decades under the Republic?

Sigh. Did you even read my post in full?

My argument isn't that the Elonim don't have such a flaw or that training would have counter-acted everything. My argument is that the description as it stands alone is insufficient because species wide vulnerability would tend to exhibit itself in a much larger spectrum and it wouldn't be unknown. Hence, unless one argues that the Republic simply didn't train its commanders well enough, they would have known of this deficit and attempted to correct it.

The TIE probe wasn't to establish the species, but rather, to establish the commander vulnerability to such a tactic.

It works BETTER than the Zahn statement because it assumes the Republic aren't fools.

Why does it have to exhibit itself in a wider spectrum? Why would it be known in an obscure species like the Elomin? You're assuming that a poor response to a specific tactic is something so widely known that it would be corrected, and that this response to this tactic is something that must be exhibited in a wide range, rather than a minimal correlation. It's also not really a species-wide vulnerability, as they're a monocultural civilization on a single planet. So here's a historical analogy. Was Chinese military science awful, or the various dynasties fools, because of all the Chinese commanders who found themselves at a loss against steppe tribes?

You have no idea what that means. Thanas is not dismissing your arguments because of you the person, he is saying that you have nothing to support your claims of impossibility, insulting your feelings of grandeur at the same time.

Oh bullshit. Thanas literally has been using the "PainRack has no idea what he's talking about" tangent for the last two post now.

Again, the fundamental problem with the argument is that it assumes that blind spot= uncorrectable or unknown by anyone.

Thanas argument is that "why can't it be an extremely rare blindspot that nobody knows about". Something that is exhibited species wide is unknown.
And the Republic military never had a situation where such a defect could pop up either in training or in combat.


Sorry if I punctured Thrawn aura of invulnerability by pointing out that this exploit worked because he determined that the opponent actually had a vulnerability to be exploited, as opposed to being a godlike genius who knew something no one else in the universe knew. That is literally Thanas argument. Thrawn is the sole military expert who realised the Elonim had such a weakness.

Why is this scenario so unlikely? There are 2 million sapient species known to galactic civilization. The Elomin live in such a remote shithole of a planet that slavery lasted for decades under the Republic. I doubt that they are widely known. Meanwhile, why would they have such a situation? The tactic is so obvious that it's apparently rare to use it in battle. It's like focusing on what to do in case the opposing force approaches in full parade-formation, judging by Pellaeon's reaction to Thrawn's order.

Alternatively, Thrawn is the only person who figured this out because he has an unorthodox method of psychological analysis of his enemies. Alternatively, Thrawn didn't know for sure that the attack would work, but figured that the chances were high enough that he could risk it. Alternatively, you're proposing an alternate explanation while failing to support why the current one is so awful.

[PainRack]

I apologise for the delay in reply, as I spent it searching my cupboards in digging up the novelisation. That, and I just finished night shift.

Justify your statements, please.

In an Empire with over a thousand sectors, each fielding their own fleets and centralised fleets such as Black Sword Command, the loss of tens of elite senior officers and thousands of elite junior officer simply doesn't make a noticeable impact on the number and quality of officers left.

If you were to lose a single SAS trooper, will the entire SAS be crippled? That's the scale Endor represented. Even the loss of the entire sector fleet would have comprised of less than a thousandth of their standing military strength.

Why does it have to exhibit itself in a wider spectrum?

Let's take a look at pyschological traits of humans. All of us have a conscience, does it exhibit itself the same way?
All of us have courage, does it exhibit itself the same way?
All of us have the tendency to be afraid of the dark, does this exhibit itself the same way?

Name a single pyschological trait humans have that is only seen in a narrow, specific example.

So here's a historical analogy. Was Chinese military science awful, or the various dynasties fools, because of all the Chinese commanders who found themselves at a loss against steppe tribes?

Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. How is the Chinese military known difficulties of acquiring insufficient cavalry, insufficient mobility and logistic support fighting against the steppe tribes an analogy? Are you discussing about pyschological traits or what?

If pyschological traits, let's look at the example of "fire bulls". Firebulls is an ancient tactic from the Warring States era, when a Chinese strategist unleashed a herd of bulls with burning straw attached to their tails against besieging forces camped outside the city. It was successful due to the shock and fear value of such attack, especially at night against an unprepared opponent. Yet, when this tactic was copied again in a later dynasty, the general using it was laughed at for using an obsolete tactic because later era opponents had mastered anti-cavalry tactics, massing arrow fire at the charging bulls and causing a reverse stampede into "friendly" lines.

Had the pyschological trait that allowed firebulls in the Warring States changed? No. Humans were still fearful of the dark, still in awe of monsters and superstitious. Yet, difference in training and tactics carried the day.

Why is this scenario so unlikely? There are 2 million sapient species known to galactic civilization. The Elomin live in such a remote shithole of a planet that slavery lasted for decades under the Republic. I doubt that they are widely known. Meanwhile, why would they have such a situation? The tactic is so obvious that it's apparently rare to use it in battle. It's like focusing on what to do in case the opposing force approaches in full parade-formation, judging by Pellaeon's reaction to Thrawn's order.

Alternatively, Thrawn is the only person who figured this out because he has an unorthodox method of psychological analysis of his enemies. Alternatively, Thrawn didn't know for sure that the attack would work, but figured that the chances were high enough that he could risk it. Alternatively, you're proposing an alternate explanation while failing to support why the current one is so awful.

Because I cannot see a scenario where a pyschological trait is so isolated that it cannot be noticed in other aspects of Elonim life. Indeed, if we are to believe thrawn, it isn't, because Thrawn realises such pyschological trait from the observation of art.

The Republic forces had put in place a multi-species task force under the charge of an Elonim commander, are we to believe hence that such a commander has not been tested in battle or screened beforehand to show whether he's vulnerable to being unable to handle complex, unccordinated maneveur? The Marg Sabel maneveur worked because Thrawn said the Elonim is unable to handle the uncoordinated complexities of such a tactic........

Warfare is supposed to be chaotic and complex. The circumstances inflicted by such a maneveur cannot possibly be seen in such a situation alone. Unless one believes that their failing exhibits itself only in such a specific scenario.

[Bakustra]

So how do you know how many crewers are on board the Executor, and of what proportions officers make up of the crew? The official numbers are for either an eight-kilometer long starship or a 12.8 kilometer long starship. The true numbers are likely to be higher by far, and you neglect Death Squadron as well.

A fear of the dark can manifest in a number of ways in a person. People may hurry to switch on lights or get to a lit area, they may suffer a panic fit, they may go catatonic if their phobia is severe enough, or they may simply prefer to be in a lit area. But, if you take someone who's frightened of the dark and switch off the lights in the room they're in, they generally will protest. So while there is a more general trait, if you have sufficient knowledge of the trait, you can provoke a negative reaction in a person with the trait. Thrawn may not have known the precise way that the commander would have reacted. My guess is that he probably didn't. But he knew that a chaotic maneuver like the Marg Sabl would provoke a negative reaction in the commander, causing at the very least some confusion and giving him a wedge to open up the Republican forces.

Let's take a look at what happened in the novel. Once the sweep begins, the commander reacts poorly by tightening his formation. So let's consider that this is in response to a multi-vectored starfighter attack, and that conventional tactics dictate long-range engagements between vessels. So any starfighter attack, as was seen at Endor, will tend to come along a vector between the two forces. Conducting the maneuver at long ranges would be impractical and difficult to coordinate.

So why would they focus on drilling over something that will only come up in rare situations or customs work? That's like spending weeks on bayonet training, to my mind. In other words, they may well cover it but don't focus on instilling instinctual reactions to it, much like we don't bother with instinctual reactions to parade-formations in modern military training.

The China example was to counter your argument that training would always produce effective counters. It didn't for the Chinese who fought the steppe tribes. They failed to develop a consistent mobile force that could fight the tribes effectively for centuries. Individual generals did, but their methods didn't pass into training. So how could they have failed to provide training for this, then?

[PainRack]

So how do you know how many crewers are on board the Executor, and of what proportions officers make up of the crew? The official numbers are for either an eight-kilometer long starship or a 12.8 kilometer long starship. The true numbers are likely to be higher by far, and you neglect Death Squadron as well.

The loss of the entire Fleet would have been a mere thousandth of their strength.

The sheer scale of the Imperial military means that the mere loss of the Executor and the Death Star has miminal impact on their officer corp. Again, will the loss of a single SAS trooper severely weaken the entire SAS regiment?That's an appropiate representation of the scale of the Empire "elite" officer corp.

A fear of the dark can manifest in a number of ways in a person. People may hurry to switch on lights or get to a lit area, they may suffer a panic fit, they may go catatonic if their phobia is severe enough, or they may simply prefer to be in a lit area. But, if you take someone who's frightened of the dark and switch off the lights in the room they're in, they generally will protest. So while there is a more general trait, if you have sufficient knowledge of the trait, you can provoke a negative reaction in a person with the trait. Thrawn may not have known the precise way that the commander would have reacted. My guess is that he probably didn't. But he knew that a chaotic maneuver like the Marg Sabl would provoke a negative reaction in the commander, causing at the very least some confusion and giving him a wedge to open up the Republican forces.

I'm NOT claiming that the Marg Sabel maneveur will never provoke an ineffective response. Note that in my explaination, the probe was to establish the vulnerability of the force to the maneveur.

So why would they focus on drilling over something that will only come up in rare situations or customs work? That's like spending weeks on bayonet training, to my mind. In other words, they may well cover it but don't focus on instilling instinctual reactions to it, much like we don't bother with instinctual reactions to parade-formations in modern military training.

Multi-vector engagement? I don't know, maybe an attack from two pincers of an attacking fleet such as Endor? Or maybe the chaotic meelee at the Battle of Coruscant?
Hell. The Bothan squadrons used to capture the Endor intelligence also used multiple vector engagement, and Rogue Squadron also executed such tactics in the battle against Issard SSD.

The China example was to counter your argument that training would always produce effective counters. It didn't for the Chinese who fought the steppe tribes. They failed to develop a consistent mobile force that could fight the tribes effectively for centuries. Individual generals did, but their methods didn't pass into training. So how could they have failed to provide training for this, then?

Say what? The Chinese generals did. Remember that massed arrow example I gave you?

The Chinese developed anti-cavalry tactics ranging from massed squares using arrows for ranged work and specific formations/anti cavalry weapons against the Xiongniu.

The Chinese simply was unable to deploy a cavalry unit equivalent to the Xiongniu due to the fact that they didn't own the plains or had the animals that could compare against nomadic horses. Post Han dynasties were facing entirely different foes and had their own problems. The Mongols success against the Song had more to do with the later weakness than the inability to develop methodologies.
Their inability to develop effective counters rested purely on their strategic and technological failings, not that of tactics.
Or are you attempting to compare the Chinese strategic capabilities with that of the Romans?

[Bakustra]

So the entire argument was that you don't believe that there can be such a thing as a culture-wide psychological quirk that can be exploited. If you're willing to concede that it is possible, then we have no argument.

[PainRack]

There is no argument?

The argument had NEVER been about the Elomin has a pyschological quirk that can be exploited. My point is that the presentation of it in the novel alone is INSUFFICIENT, because pyschological trait alone does not equate to INSTA WIN.

Instead, it was the commander who had that vulnerability.

[Abacus]

There is no argument?

The argument had NEVER been about the Elomin has a pyschological quirk that can be exploited. My point is that the presentation of it in the novel alone is INSUFFICIENT, because pyschological trait alone does not equate to INSTA WIN.

Instead, it was the commander who had that vulnerability.

Holy Shit on a stick Batman, we've found the Joker![/asshat]


Then state that next time instead of spending--I don't really care to count how many posts--arguing over the psychological aspects of the commander. Obviously if the commander is the one giving the orders (fucking duh) and he is the one with the psychological blind spot, then his reactions and orders which HIS MEN MUST FOLLOW BECAUSE HE IS THE FUCKING COMMANDER, then you really have no argument. You're simply angry about the fact that there seems, in your opinion, to be a lack of detail concerning this event.

I.E. you are never go to be happy regardless of what we try to painstakingly explain to you because, ultimately and personally, you will never be satisfied with anything less than Zahn going back and re-writing the battle as if it were a fucking play-by-play.

[Metahive]

Holy Cowbells, hyperventilating much? If just the commander has a certain issue that can be exploited then this can't be explained as some sort of species-wide liability, and I think that was the point, no?

[Thanas]

This is stupid. Once more we have PainRack the idiot, trying to argue against established canon events which make perfect sense to everybody but him...with what? Oh, that's right, his own standards and opinions. There are no facts to support him, no in-universe source. But of course his own misconceptions somehow are worth more than what the novel says.

Hurray for the napoleon complex, I guess.

[Bakustra]

There is no argument?

The argument had NEVER been about the Elomin has a pyschological quirk that can be exploited. My point is that the presentation of it in the novel alone is INSUFFICIENT, because pyschological trait alone does not equate to INSTA WIN.

Instead, it was the commander who had that vulnerability.

Okay, so you ignore what actually happened, then, since the Marg Sabl sweep didn't cause the commander to order mass self-destructs. The scene essentially ends with Pellaeon wondering at the formation they used in response and Thrawn explaining his reasons. So, no, it wouldn't be insta-win, but that doesn't occur in the novel either. The actual mop-up occurs off-screen, seeing as this is a character moment, and there's no point in continuing the scene further without developing the characters further.

I, meanwhile, proposed that Thrawn used the maneuver without being sure that it would trigger that exact response, but being assured that it would trigger a poor response in the commander, and being able to follow up on that response and look good in front of Pellaeon. You propose that he made a detailed psychological analysis of the commander in a few seconds from the initial attack and concluded that the man would respond in this specific way from that. Now who's wanking Thrawn, exactly?

Holy Cowbells, hyperventilating much? If just the commander has a certain issue that can be exploited then this can't be explained as some sort of species-wide liability, and I think that was the point, no?

So which is a more plausible explanation? Thrawn conducting a detailed psychological analysis in a few seconds, or conducting a detailed cultural analysis over the last few years and drawing useful information for military tactics and strategy from that?

[Metahive]

So which is a more plausible explanation? Thrawn conducting a detailed psychological analysis in a few seconds, or conducting a detailed cultural analysis over the last few years and drawing useful information for military tactics and strategy from that?

Thrawn downloading a copy of that particular commanding officer's combat profile before going into battle. The droids in the Clone Wars did it, why not he? I don't see the difficulty here, though I admit I have not read that particular work and will therefore not insist on anything I say here.

[Bakustra]

So which is a more plausible explanation? Thrawn conducting a detailed psychological analysis in a few seconds, or conducting a detailed cultural analysis over the last few years and drawing useful information for military tactics and strategy from that?

Thrawn downloading a copy of that particular commanding officer's combat profile before going into battle. The droids in the Clone Wars did it, why not he? I don't see the difficulty here, though I admit I have not read that particular work and will therefore not insist on anything I say here.

He didn't know who the commander was.

[PainRack]

Then state that next time instead of spending--I don't really care to count how many posts--arguing over the psychological aspects of the commander.

Ahem.

I think in heir to the empire when Thrawn sends the fighters against a small attack group and can see by their reaction what species commands the ship and adjusts his tactics so that they chase uselessly after the fighters and ignore the star desroyer thats pretty nice. when it comes to tactics thrawn is awesome

God, that whole speciest bit was idiotic.
Oooh, Maarg attack is something the species can't adapt to because of a blind spot..... Say what? All of us have blind spots. That gives you what, a few minutes of surprise before training sets in and overcomes our inferiorities.

Did you note where I started my comment on? Oh yeah, someone thinking Thrawn had an insta win because he figured out which species was the commander and pulled out a super-tactic.

So which is a more plausible explanation? Thrawn conducting a detailed psychological analysis in a few seconds, or conducting a detailed cultural analysis over the last few years and drawing useful information for military tactics and strategy from that?

Or, Thrawn probed the enemy, reacted to the response the enemy made and then explained to Paelleon why he acted the way he did.

Think of it as goalies defending a penalty kick. There's always the "I know he was kicking that way because...." but it all boiled down to fast thinking and gut instinct.

[Thanas]

So we are back to PainRack claiming things with no evidence whatsoever. Lovely.

I repeat: Show evidence from the books that justify your argument or concede.