It was just grand to follow a tournament that had those iconic triangles in it; so very, very Star Wars-y! Also loved Ben's use of the glorious ISD, it's so nice to see diversity without Rieekan everywhere (like the games I watch, trying to gleen pointers at my LGS); the Euro's are much more fun!!

1 hour ago, Kendraam said:

Some of us do ? I went 400pts - played 2nd every time. Won 6-1, came 8th. Every objective helped me with points - lowest 'boost' I got was 50pts with VIP.

Was it you who had the double super-pickle list?

No one say we have 3 big ships in the top 4?

6 minutes ago, ManInTheBox said:

Was it you who had the double super-pickle list?

Gods no! Rieekan list, Yavaris, Salvation with 3 GRs inc a Quantum Storm RLB. Played all wrong mostly but lucked a decent place in the end ?

10 hours ago, PT106 said:

I'm not convinced that's the case. I would still state that high-activation builds relying on squadrons have the advantage and Rieekan pushes that advantage even further. My understanding is that there weren't many (if any) Rieekan aces builds flown by skilled players.

Thats curious, my understanding of it is that there is not a single skilled Rhymmer player (wich is the direct counter of Gallant Heaven and Yavaris plus a solid list itself, proven in europeans) who could reliably face a neutral skilled Rieekan list.

Edit: At Minnesota ofc.

6 minutes ago, xerpo said:

Thats curious, my understanding of it is that there is not a single skilled Rhymmer player (wich is the direct counter of Gallant Heaven and Yavaris plus a solid list itself, proven in europeans) who could reliably face a neutral skilled Rieekan list.

I see at least two questionable assumptions in this statement:

1. Rhymerball is a not direct counter to a GH/Yavaris build. I would expect Rhymer player to lose more often than win given the equal player skill.

2. At worlds there were Rhymerballs and some of them were flown by skilled players.

4 hours ago, Truthiness said:

You got it. And 9 flotillas between the two finalists. At least it wasn't Rebels at the top this time? I'm hearing 6 of the top 8 were Rhymerballs. I smell a nerf bat coming.

yeah i wont forget either geez 9 flotillas.

this though, is more like clonisher era battle tactics. as opposed to what can we call modern tactics, the 5 activation rieekan.

are we actually seeing emergent battle doctrines in armada? like WWII mahan and fletcher stuff? decisive battle vs carrier doctrine? the fall of the IJN.

**** I'd love to read single thread about comp results without someone screaming about the need to nerf whatever did well...

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

yeah i wont forget either geez 9 flotillas.

this though, is more like clonisher era battle tactics. as opposed to what can we call modern tactics, the 5 activation rieekan.

are we actually seeing emergent battle doctrines in armada? like WWII mahan and fletcher stuff? decisive battle vs carrier doctrine? the fall of the IJN.

What is IJN?

2 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

What is IJN?

Imperial Japanese Navy

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

yeah i wont forget either geez 9 flotillas.

this though, is more like clonisher era battle tactics. as opposed to what can we call modern tactics, the 5 activation rieekan.

are we actually seeing emergent battle doctrines in armada? like WWII mahan and fletcher stuff? decisive battle vs carrier doctrine? the fall of the IJN.

Blail, can you explain what you mean by this? (I have very little WWII battle knowledge)

4 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Blail, can you explain what you mean by this? (I have very little WWII battle knowledge)

TL;DR this idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan

Mahanian Diatribe is up in the Off-Topic Forum, because if I don't, I will drag this thread off topic then throw it off the cliff of Interesting History, and dive after it.

also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_Kessen for decisive battle doctrine.

On one hand, I really hate the modernization of warfare, from surface ship combat to fighter supremacy in both Armada and WWII. But one cannot mistake that that is what happened in real life.

It is kind of cool to see very opposing thought processes from US to EU. EU seems to think in the old Clon style, where activation is most important.

10 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

TL;DR this idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan

Will post longer diatribe soon

I look forward to this diatribe. I have some experience with Mahan and it hasn't been positive. Obsession with naval dominance sparked by his writings caused a lot of unnecessary naval arms races and friction towards the end of the 19th and into just about the first half of the 20th century, which in the grand scheme of things didn't really serve many of those nations well due to the cost of maintaining a larger navy and the resulting loss of lives when country A's pumped-up prestige navy went to war with country B's oversized prestige navy.

7 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

I look forward to this diatribe. I have some experience with Mahan and it hasn't been positive. Obsession with naval dominance sparked by his writings caused a lot of unnecessary naval arms races and friction towards the end of the 19th and into just about the first half of the 20th century, which in the grand scheme of things didn't really serve many of those nations well due to the cost of maintaining a larger navy and the resulting loss of lives when country A's pumped-up prestige navy went to war with country B's oversized prestige navy.

I appreciate the faith. The arms race problem is one that to my knowledge he never took seriously, either as a side effect or as a problem. He also applied some theories far too narrowly for the generalist nature of the principles he "found". I am not a fan, and in fact would strongly recommend a study of First Lord Baron Jackie Fisher if you have a 19th/20th century naval tactician, strategist, futurist, and general smart person you want to study.

1 minute ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I appreciate the faith. The arms race problem is one that to my knowledge he never took seriously, either as a side effect or as a problem. He also applied some theories far too narrowly for the generalist nature of the principles he "found". I am not a fan, and in fact would strongly recommend a study of First Lord Baron Jackie Fisher if you have a 19th/20th century naval tactician, strategist, futurist, and general smart person you want to study.

Yeah the very myopic perspective on the matter seems almost childish to me. He primarily seemed to focus on England and how its large navy gave it extreme advantages in wars against France and in other European conflicts primarily because it allowed the English to basically set the tempo (by preventing attacks against England and allowing England the option to attack their foes along the coast where and when they chose) as well as to cut off colonial supply lines and sea trade to their enemies (which against a country like Spain was extremely important). That's all certainly very true. Getting from there to "and therefore everyone who's anyone needs a giant hopped-up navy" lacks nuance or an appreciation of England's unique situation both as a huge island (where a navy, merchant and/or military, is required for interaction with other countries at all) as well as its proportionally large amount of coastline which allows for a more productive focus on naval endeavors compared to other countries.

The Germans in particular going navy-crazy despite their extremely limited overseas assets and mediocre at best naval tradition is in retrospect just bonkers. But that's Mahan for you.

Just now, Snipafist said:

Yeah the very myopic perspective on the matter seems almost childish to me. He primarily seemed to focus on England and how its large navy gave it extreme advantages in wars against France and in other European conflicts primarily because it allowed the English to basically set the tempo (by preventing attacks against England and allowing England the option to attack their foes along the coast where and when they chose) as well as to cut off colonial supply lines and sea trade to their enemies (which against a country like Spain was extremely important). That's all certainly very true. Getting from there to "and therefore everyone who's anyone needs a giant hopped-up navy" lacks nuance or an appreciation of England's unique situation both as a huge island (where a navy, merchant and/or military, is required for interaction with other countries at all) as well as its proportionally large amount of coastline which allows for a more productive focus on naval endeavors compared to other countries.

The Germans in particular going navy-crazy despite their extremely limited overseas assets and mediocre at best naval tradition is in retrospect just bonkers. But that's Mahan for you.

Well, in complete fairness, all of Mahan's studies were focused on the British as a case study, including a seminal biography of Nelson, seeking to restore him to his place a rightful British national hero, that stood as the biography of Horatio for over fifty years. Also in complete fairness, the British case only really applies to Japan, the US to a degree, and China in the present to a degree. I can expound on any of the above if anyone is curious. I also apologize in advance for the diatribe, we've already detoured into the Russo-Japanese War and that the Treaty of Portsmouth doomed the Russian Empire to the chain of events that led to the rise of the USSR. What can I say, I'm an academic. There's just so much to consider.

Just now, GiledPallaeon said:

Well, in complete fairness, all of Mahan's studies were focused on the British as a case study, including a seminal biography of Nelson, seeking to restore him to his place a rightful British national hero, that stood as the biography of Horatio for over fifty years. Also in complete fairness, the British case only really applies to Japan, the US to a degree, and China in the present to a degree. I can expound on any of the above if anyone is curious. I also apologize in advance for the diatribe, we've already detoured into the Russo-Japanese War and that the Treaty of Portsmouth doomed the Russian Empire to the chain of events that led to the rise of the USSR. What can I say, I'm an academic. There's just so much to consider.

I have a masters degree in history and I want to hear more. I know some but I'm always down for knowing more. Maybe another thread, though?

Just now, Snipafist said:

I have a masters degree in history and I want to hear more. I know some but I'm always down for knowing more. Maybe another thread, though?

It's a side note, literally, since I'm using the Battle of Tsushima as an example.

you should create a resource list of good naval/fleet content GP

6 minutes ago, PodRacer said:

you should create a resource list of good naval/fleet content GP

What I need to do is start writing out my rants and put them on my blog. Right now the only post of significance in this field is one about why reactivating the Iowa class battleships is a terrible idea that shouldn't even be considered.

.

13 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

What I need to do is start writing out my rants and put them on my blog. Right now the only post of significance in this field is one about why reactivating the Iowa class battleships is a terrible idea that shouldn't even be considered.

I'd love to read them.

9 minutes ago, Baltanok said:

I'd love to read them.

Reactivating the Iowa Class Battleships, or Bringing a Gun to a Missile Fight

60,000 Tons of Hype, or A Realistic Assessment of the New Chinese Aircraft Carrier Liaoning

There are a couple more that arguably qualify, but that are also overtly political, and reveal my geostrategic leanings in a way rarely popular on the Internet. If anyone wants to discuss any of these, feel free to shoot me an email or PM me.