Blue sky doctrine sounds better suited for my preferences, at least for the first game where I intend to use wormholes. I'd assume that it's better for wormhole users in general, because you have to always worry about defense as a first priority.
Doctrine: Blue-Sky vs Black-Sky
- Thread starter TheBeautifulVoid2
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Very impressive OP. When I develop my own version of, to quote @Brownbeard, Meteorblitzkrieg, I may present my manual here as well.
- 2
I know, it's awful.
If the AI aren't being cooperative and throwing themselves at your defences it could be worthwhile to send a raiding fleet into their territory. Sacrifice a few corvettes to find out what kind of weapons they're using and refit your doomfleet as necessary. Wormholes would probably be the best for this as well. The further into their space you can get your raiders, the more you'll delay them on their way to your space, the more time you have to refit, build up, or advance.
Dark Purple Sky? I dunno, I am neither a space naval tactician nor an expert in colours.
Blue sky and black sky I feel are more like doctrines in response to the situation than actual fleets. when you are the stronger side the black sky or decisive battle doctrine is the favorable choice because it is efficient - try to fight big key battle where you slaughter the enemy with few losses. but what if you are not bigger beast, then you are going to want to try and make use of any tricks possible to provide your smaller fleet with a force multiplier. thus the blue sky strategy would be used
If the enemy refuses to cooperate, send the ENTIRE fleet. Take one world, move on towards another and hope the enemy seeks to liberate the previous planet. In which case, abandon the second system and engage. Might as well make progress if the AI won't come to you normally.
And so I finally engage with the future legendary poster, Ifreann. I look forward to the day in 11 years when you have nearly 100,000 posts to your name while I live in squalor with a mere 25,000.
I'd say that the Red Sky Doctrine (Raider Warfare) would be more suitable for a force mutliplier empire, or at least for an empire that doesn't favor decisive battle doctrines while also preferring offensive rather than defensive attacks. We'll see on the release day, but it might be possible to simply cause enough logistics damage to outgain the enemy warscore gains and earn a White Peace through that, rather than a decisive fleet battle.
Red Sky wouldn't be at all good for offensive wars though, so it might be limited to smaller empires that are not out to gain more territory.
Thanks for the most interesting thread in ages! Now, I'd like to add my thoughts on black sky doctrine...
I see three factors as defining of a black sky fleet :
Resilience - the ships need to be combat worthy even after taking damage.
Logistics - the logistics footprint must be kept to a minimum. (Mind you, that is not the same thing as small...)
ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) to find suitable targets (not the same thing as lightly defended!) and avoid unwanted engagements.
Where does this lead us when it comes to the hardware?
- Capital ships, the largest you can afford but preferably battleships, built according to German ww1 naval construction doctrine. Somewhat smallish guns, but good accuracy and superior fire control systems and superb survivability. Armament preferably some form of energy or mass driver weapons. Missiles need reloads, and that goes against point number two. Carriers have a role, but mostly a defensive one like brittisk carriers of early ww2, to defend the battleships. In action, their role is to hang back and defend the line of battle with fighters/interceptors craft. Strike craft tend to take losses (both craft and pilots) and replacing these or keeping spares also goes against point number two. There is use for a limited strike component, but only to take down cripples after battle or go against lightly defended targets Taranto-style.
- A large number of destroyers specialised for scouting and reconnaissance. Information superiority is paramount for a force that gives battle only when it choses.
Warp drive goes without saying.
I see two roles for a black sky fleet.
- First, an offensive spin on classic fleet in being doctrine. By keeping a credible threat deep within enemy territory, the enemy is forced to tie up large resources that could be used for offensive action or defence of border systems. In this role, conservation of force is most important. Though strategically an offensive method, ffensive action on the tactical level is generally undesirable and well defended targets are mostly avoided. Fleet action only under favourable circumstances. Scouting an intel is key to avoid enemy main fleet.
- Deep strikes against schwerpunkt targets, be it production facilities, civilian morale, shipping lanes or something else. Higher risk is accepted in order to engage fitting targets. Good scouting and intelligence is required to identify targets worthy the risk of attack. Please note that in this role, I make a difference between unwanted action and unfavourable! An action may be unfavourable but still wanted if the objective is of high enough value to warrant the risk.
Apologies for spelling and incoherence. I have been writing this on my phone over the days as kids have permitted
I see three factors as defining of a black sky fleet :
Resilience - the ships need to be combat worthy even after taking damage.
Logistics - the logistics footprint must be kept to a minimum. (Mind you, that is not the same thing as small...)
ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) to find suitable targets (not the same thing as lightly defended!) and avoid unwanted engagements.
Where does this lead us when it comes to the hardware?
- Capital ships, the largest you can afford but preferably battleships, built according to German ww1 naval construction doctrine. Somewhat smallish guns, but good accuracy and superior fire control systems and superb survivability. Armament preferably some form of energy or mass driver weapons. Missiles need reloads, and that goes against point number two. Carriers have a role, but mostly a defensive one like brittisk carriers of early ww2, to defend the battleships. In action, their role is to hang back and defend the line of battle with fighters/interceptors craft. Strike craft tend to take losses (both craft and pilots) and replacing these or keeping spares also goes against point number two. There is use for a limited strike component, but only to take down cripples after battle or go against lightly defended targets Taranto-style.
- A large number of destroyers specialised for scouting and reconnaissance. Information superiority is paramount for a force that gives battle only when it choses.
Warp drive goes without saying.
I see two roles for a black sky fleet.
- First, an offensive spin on classic fleet in being doctrine. By keeping a credible threat deep within enemy territory, the enemy is forced to tie up large resources that could be used for offensive action or defence of border systems. In this role, conservation of force is most important. Though strategically an offensive method, ffensive action on the tactical level is generally undesirable and well defended targets are mostly avoided. Fleet action only under favourable circumstances. Scouting an intel is key to avoid enemy main fleet.
- Deep strikes against schwerpunkt targets, be it production facilities, civilian morale, shipping lanes or something else. Higher risk is accepted in order to engage fitting targets. Good scouting and intelligence is required to identify targets worthy the risk of attack. Please note that in this role, I make a difference between unwanted action and unfavourable! An action may be unfavourable but still wanted if the objective is of high enough value to warrant the risk.
Apologies for spelling and incoherence. I have been writing this on my phone over the days as kids have permitted
- 4
That's an extremely interesting analysis, @Jakobus. Thank you for that.
The scouting and logistics parts of the game are things that we haven't yet seen much of, but you're right that they would play a huge part of the Black Sky doctrine.
The scouting and logistics parts of the game are things that we haven't yet seen much of, but you're right that they would play a huge part of the Black Sky doctrine.
I suspect that scouting will mostly consist of extensive picketing as well as sending cheap corvettes or potentially destroyers, kitted out for speed and survivability.
And well, depending on how exactly sensors aboard ships work AEW&C-style designs for radar pickets might feature prominently, too.
And well, depending on how exactly sensors aboard ships work AEW&C-style designs for radar pickets might feature prominently, too.
I'm also very curious to know more about the logistics system. After all, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics...
Blue sky at night, sailors' delight.
Black sky at morning, sailors' warning
Black sky at morning, sailors' warning
- 2
This is a really tough question... I tend to play cautiously and defensively, focusing on the internal strength of my empire so that it is able to resist whatever the world/universe throws at it. However if there's a good opportunity to chip away at a strong rival or eliminate a smaller power that's been a thorn in my side I will take it. I do try to avoid overstretching my armies and keep them close to my borders and each other so that they aren't left vulnerable, so I guess I go for a more 'Blue Sky' approach by default, but with the opportunity to go 'Black Sky' if the situation demands it. Minimising losses is the most important thing to me - let your enemies wear themselves out beating against your walls (space stations?) then mop up the survivors and turn the tables on them. I doubt they'll like sieges so much when they're the ones defending.
That said, if there's some way of instigating a peaceful takeover of their territory that's better still.
That said, if there's some way of instigating a peaceful takeover of their territory that's better still.
I would like to expand on @Stadhouder's Red Sky Doctrine. As TBV has pointed out multiple times, Black and Blue Sky are both decisive battle doctrines, intend on ending the war quickly. The Red Sky Doctrine on the other hand aims to creat a war of attrition, denying the enemy any such decisive battles.
By sending out multiple raiding forces to destroy Space stations and bombard planets you cripple your enemies ability to maintain and reinforce his fleet. By taking the initiative and bringing the war into your enemy's space you force a reaction. This reaction will most likely cost both you and your opponent, but with the small and cheap raiding parties your enemy's victories will not be worth much. While the enemy's big fleet hunts your remaining raiding parties down you will have time to rebuild another raiding party and thus prolong the war in your favour. Taking this as our tactical approach our ships need to be cheap and quick to build while also having enough power to destroy any space ports they would encounter. Of course all of this would be useless if your enemy didn't react to your raids.
I feel like there is still much more to say about the Red Sky Doctrine as an alternative to the Blue and Black Sky Doctrines.
By sending out multiple raiding forces to destroy Space stations and bombard planets you cripple your enemies ability to maintain and reinforce his fleet. By taking the initiative and bringing the war into your enemy's space you force a reaction. This reaction will most likely cost both you and your opponent, but with the small and cheap raiding parties your enemy's victories will not be worth much. While the enemy's big fleet hunts your remaining raiding parties down you will have time to rebuild another raiding party and thus prolong the war in your favour. Taking this as our tactical approach our ships need to be cheap and quick to build while also having enough power to destroy any space ports they would encounter. Of course all of this would be useless if your enemy didn't react to your raids.
I feel like there is still much more to say about the Red Sky Doctrine as an alternative to the Blue and Black Sky Doctrines.
I agree, but I don't feel I know enough to talk about it.
I think the deciding factor on a raiding approach isn't going to be economics or warscore, but is going to be player micro ability and attention. Fast-moving hit and run warfare will need almost constant attention (especially in multiplayer, where you can't pause as easily as in single player), far more than a decisive battle doctrine would.
- 1
As I posted in @Tearsdale's thread, I have been digesting and thinking about different points to make in both threads and will do so (hopefully) by tomorrow. Some great discussion points in here and it's only going to get better as the weeks go by!
Really excited to learn and develop a strong tactical know-how with you all!
Really excited to learn and develop a strong tactical know-how with you all!
Some really interesting conversation in here. I have some ideas that I look forward to trying out, but I'm signed up for a day 1 multiplayer campaign so I don't want to tip my hand in case enemy spies are listening.
On a more general scale I'd say that committing to any specific large scale doctrine too heavily will be mercilessly taken advantage of by cunning players. So if I had a doctrine I'd propably call it an adaptive one.
And like some people have mentioned before, never forget scouting. After all your giant fleet of doom will do you no good if you end up chasing the enemy around the galaxy without being able to force a decisive battle, while they raid your spaceports and bomb your planets.
On a more general scale I'd say that committing to any specific large scale doctrine too heavily will be mercilessly taken advantage of by cunning players. So if I had a doctrine I'd propably call it an adaptive one.
And like some people have mentioned before, never forget scouting. After all your giant fleet of doom will do you no good if you end up chasing the enemy around the galaxy without being able to force a decisive battle, while they raid your spaceports and bomb your planets.
- 1
I'm not sure what my plans are per se, I think the combat element of the game is one I have the weakest understanding of. My Terran's will generally look to maintain strong, defensive fleets probably putting us into the Blue Sky school of thought.