We had a couple of snow days this week which gave me time to work on my blog. So, I am trying out a new feature: tactics videos.

LINK

I am definitely curious about any feedback on the audio/video quality and what I can do to make it work better. I may actually re-encode this at higher quality and re-upload it.

Also, any thoughts on the tactical ideas presented or topics I could explore would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Most good. Keep em up. No issues with presentation. Maybe a summary of key points at end. Introduced the ideas, good demonstration but a key point summary to tie the essential structure/important points together would be good.

Clear, educational, and presented some really good ideas i'll be using next game. I've done the "full zone" deployment before, but having it explained WHY it works smarter was super helpful.

I think the tactical deployment was pretty well done (can't comment on audio as I am not able to listen to any at the moment). I would make an effort in a near-future episode to explore the usefulness of inside turns to mitigating maneuver issues like the ones brought up in this article. Maybe the release of Moff Jerjerrod will be a good time to add that in.

In particular, I noticed that a sharp inside turn by the nearest Raider should normally have allowed the VSD to safely pass by while turning to reacquire the Assault Frigates in the front arc.

Really nice video, The presentation was well done and thought out. The audio was a little scratchy/distorted when you were doing the closeup, bot not horrible by any means. Possibly changing mic location might help.

As for the actual content, it was wonderful! I for one love the idea and would love to see some more videos in the future. Capping the T definitely is different in Armada due to ships with forward facing firepower (very rare in the age of sail), but you did very well relating it Armada. There is something very enjoyable about a well flown formation, which can be a challenge to maintain in the course of a game. Another possible topic would be showing how to deploy to maintain options in the early turns of the game as opposed to forcing yourself into a predicable flight path.

This was great Shmitty! I look forward to future episodes. Also awesome game room!

I really liked it. Well thought out and planned. You moved at a good pace and presented valuable information. I agree with the comment above about a summary in bullet points. Other then that, great job.

Very good! Knowing about a tactic is no help if you can't see how to get in position for it. More, please!

Overall a great job and very informative. Look forward to seeing more of these.

Well done Shmitty. One thing I would add regarding dual Vics that you began touching on is that if you give them a little space in deployment, should your opponent try to overload an edge you can, with navcommands, cut the outside vic back inside the turning radius of turning vic. Will be even easier with Jerry.

Nice. More tactics/deployment discussion is welcome--definitely fills a void. Looking forward to more!

I agree entirely on the premise. So much discussion centers around upgrades and the 'game before the game' - list-building and meta-analysis (more the former than the latter). Shmitty, you're doing a great thing by sharing ideas about tactics.

In this video, or at least the blog post you've embedded it in, it would be good for you to refer to one or two of your earlier posts. Especially Out On Maneuvers - The Battle Line Pt 2, and Out on Maneuvers - The Battle Line Pt 3, in which you explain some of the terminology you use. I also think it would be good for you to revisit those year-old posts. How have your tactical theories evolved since then, or are they essentially the same?

Completely aside from the great purpose of the videos, there is a historical question that I have, however: Did 'gun-line' tactics really persist into the WWI era? I thought by that time, the guns were no longer fixed in broadsides, which was more of a thing in preceding centuries. I suppose, with the capacity to fix all turrets to the sides, it would still have been 'a thing', but was it really still current at that time? Also, weren't ranges much longer at that point already?

Haven't watched the video all the way through yet but am excited to.

Gun line tactics persisted into WWII, let alone WWI. It largely had to do with command and control reasons, and the desire to bring all your turrets into action, not just your front or rear ones. Now the entire fleet didn't necessarily fight in line, but certainly individual squadrons or divisions did. Take a look at some of the battles at Guadalcanal for examples where fleets still fought in line.

Thanks for the feedback! I've got some good ideas with what to do with this going forward.

Most good. Keep em up. No issues with presentation. Maybe a summary of key points at end. Introduced the ideas, good demonstration but a key point summary to tie the essential structure/important points together would be good.

Good point! I will add that in. I actually filmed the end before the middle, which is likely why I forgot to summarize.

The audio was a little scratchy/distorted when you were doing the closeup, bot not horrible by any means. Possibly changing mic location might help.

As for the actual content, it was wonderful! I for one love the idea and would love to see some more videos in the future. Capping the T definitely is different in Armada due to ships with forward facing firepower (very rare in the age of sail), but you did very well relating it Armada. There is something very enjoyable about a well flown formation, which can be a challenge to maintain in the course of a game. Another possible topic would be showing how to deploy to maintain options in the early turns of the game as opposed to forcing yourself into a predicable flight path.

I will see what I can do. I have a decent mike, but it is tethered to my camera. I may just change my speaking position.

I really enjoy formation flying and think it can be a huge tactical benefit. Hopefully this medium allows for better discussions on the topic. The next video should get into some formation basics and I will discuss how to maintain and when to break a formation.

In this video, or at least the blog post you've embedded it in, it would be good for you to refer to one or two of your earlier posts. Especially Out On Maneuvers - The Battle Line Pt 2, and Out on Maneuvers - The Battle Line Pt 3, in which you explain some of the terminology you use. I also think it would be good for you to revisit those year-old posts. How have your tactical theories evolved since then, or are they essentially the same?

I was actually going to go back and re-write those as my 100th post for the blog. Then I opted to wait until I knew more about Wave 5. As I thought about it I really thought that text was just too limiting for the discussion that I wanted to have, which led to me making the video.

So, yes I would like to re-visit those posts, but wanted to get the videos out there first.

I am glad everyone (at least those of you responding) seems to be enjoying the video. I will definitely do more.

In Armada I define "Capping the T" as achieving a table state where:

• A large portion of your fleet can concentrate fire on a small portion of the opposing fleet
• AND the opposing fleet is blocked from maneuver by their own ships

It isn't easy to pull off, but really gratifying when you do it.

So, some questions:

1. Do you agree with the definition?
2. Have you ever managed to do it?
3. Have you ever planned to do it from the start of deployment?

My brain can't much recall too many of the games I've played. Most games end up being more of a brawl.

There was once case where my opponent capped the T for me. He effectively flew line abreast with his Assault Frigates, and attempted a fly-by of my Victorys (this was before Wave II was released). They wheeled in, attacking my Victories with their broadsides, maintaining their line-abreast formation.

My Victorys were also line abreast, but the outside Victory was wheeling around the end to keep up with the Assault Frigates, thus keeping these in both of my Victorys' front arcs.

This did not meet your definition in that the Assault Frigates blocked their own maneuver but it did leave one blocking the other's fire somewhat, while both of my Victorys had ample opportunity to fire on one of the Assault Frigates, thus withering it down to nothing. The remaining Assault Frigate was left in long range and unable to put too much of a hurt on my inside Victory. It then flew off into Turn 5 or 6.

I am glad everyone (at least those of you responding) seems to be enjoying the video. I will definitely do more.

In Armada I define "Capping the T" as achieving a table state where:

• A large portion of your fleet can concentrate fire on a small portion of the opposing fleet
• AND the opposing fleet is blocked from maneuver by their own ships

It isn't easy to pull off, but really gratifying when you do it.

So, some questions:

1. Do you agree with the definition?
2. Have you ever managed to do it?
3. Have you ever planned to do it from the start of deployment?

1. I'd just use a different name. It will prevent those of us who have studied naval strategy from noting the differences. The concept of concentration of force is fairly basic in military strategy. Your description of the opponent's fleet being boxed in reminds me of Hannibal's double envelopment at Cannae, where the Romans became boxed in so much that their soldiers couldn't swing their swords effectively. So there are a lot of parallels with land armies that fight in lines, and sometimes have longer or shorter lines that have to match-up against each other.

2. Yes, plenty of times.

3. Opponents normally have to walk into it, whether from bad deployment or bad maneuvering on the early turns.

So, some questions:

1. Do you agree with the definition?

1. I'd just use a different name. It will prevent those of us who have studied naval strategy from noting the differences. The concept of concentration of force is fairly basic in military strategy.

Not having done too much studying of historical naval strategy, I think it's good. It seems to be a well-understood concept, and even has a Wikipedia page.

But I'm really curious about the distinctions that Vergilius would make. Is it just too general a term, as there are variations on the theme? Are you arguing with Shmitty's text definition, or with his video description of the concept?

Video name

Tactical Shmit

So, some questions:

1. Do you agree with the definition?

1. I'd just use a different name. It will prevent those of us who have studied naval strategy from noting the differences. The concept of concentration of force is fairly basic in military strategy.

Not having done too much studying of historical naval strategy, I think it's good. It seems to be a well-understood concept, and even has a Wikipedia page.

But I'm really curious about the distinctions that Vergilius would make. Is it just too general a term, as there are variations on the theme? Are you arguing with Shmitty's text definition, or with his video description of the concept?

Yes, its definitely well understood. Its an extension of the "concentration of force" concept. First, to be clear, the video is absolutely top notch. Shmitty's explanation were lucid, and the video was absolutely practical for the game of Armada itself. This is absolutely A+ quality work. I would not want any criticism to detract from that overall evaluation. I was picking upon the fact that he admitted that at some level it really breaks down from being a "capping the T" type concept, which is really something very specific. You get the general idea from the first paragraph or so of the wikipedia page, and that really matches the opening of Shmitty's video. What he notes is that it breaks down in a couple of ways. Now, the concept itself gets him to a really important basic idea in Star Wars Armada, and that is, if I can cost my opponent one of his arcs, he loses a good portion of his firepower. That, in and of itself, is often significant. Its the difference between a 10-1 tabling and a solid decisive, but nonetheless incomplete 8-3, or from the 8-3 decisive win to the 6-5 almost draw.

And I'd say there's a big hole in the strategy and tactics wing of the community for articles like this. I'm a life-long chess player myself, and I see a parallel between the chess community and the customizable gaming community. In chess, you get solid books of instruction, but the number of books written on the opening completely dwarf other aspects of the game altogether. You're also likely to hear players say, "I'm going to go work on my openings," but rarely do they speak of "my middle-games" or "my endgames." We also gear an awful lot of articles toward upgrades (as Shmitty notes), and toward fleet building, and often say, "I'm going to go work on my fleet designs," yet rarely do we say, "I'm going to go work on my positioning, placement strategy, or my double-arcing technique." Yet it is precisely those later skills that separate where players end up performing. So Kudos to Shmitty. I wish I had video skill, or even time to write something.

Great work Shmitty! I left my comments on the YouTube video to up its visibility within the YouTube algorithm

So, some questions:

1. Do you agree with the definition?

1. I'd just use a different name. It will prevent those of us who have studied naval strategy from noting the differences. The concept of concentration of force is fairly basic in military strategy.

Not having done too much studying of historical naval strategy, I think it's good. It seems to be a well-understood concept, and even has a Wikipedia page.

But I'm really curious about the distinctions that Vergilius would make. Is it just too general a term, as there are variations on the theme? Are you arguing with Shmitty's text definition, or with his video description of the concept?

I was picking upon the fact that he admitted that at some level it really breaks down from being a "capping the T" type concept, which is really something very specific. You get the general idea from the first paragraph or so of the wikipedia page, and that really matches the opening of Shmitty's video. What he notes is that it breaks down in a couple of ways.

Ah, okay, it's about the precision of a concept. In the same fairness, we should not actually be calling these vessels 'ships', as they are not buoyant watercraft. But, for my part, I like the loose reference to old RW naval warfare and how it resonates with the descriptions in the old Rebel Alliance Sourcebook from West End Games.

Though, I get it, I have those fields that I have my expertise in as well, and it sets my teeth on edge when folks get that wrong. Yet, are there meaningful allegories in the world/game we're trying to describe that would benefit from greater precision? Should we limit the term 'capping the 'T' to cases where the 'capping' ships are also broadside-firing vessels, traveling line-astern perpendicular to the direction of travel to the vessels that are getting 'capped'?

Crossing the T!!!!!!!!!!

Great! I love the approach. Comments on ships and upgrades are nice, but this is the really interesting stuff!