The fact is, your very first, overly-simplistic response was2046 wrote:Snip huge volumes of aggressive posturing
represented a complete misrepresentation of my original point. The implication of saying I am claiming it's perfectly fine would suggest I think there is near-zero chance of any danger. I have not claimed this, but you certainly implied I had claimed this, then went off on one about points-scoring, posturing etc (I think you're projecting a lot of your own methods on to me).1. Hyperlanes are only a road safety thing. Going off-lane is perfectly fine.
You seem (judging from the bluster, the little insulting remarks placed throughout your posts, and misrepresentation of my points) quite keen for me to resurrect a ten-year old page. Judging on the evidence thus far, I'd be quite justified in doing so.
Since Mike DiCenso pointed out the lanes business to me, my position has been consistent. I'm sorry if I have not simplified my explanation enough for you, but perhaps, instead of attacking my comprehensive skills you should work on your own?
For example, I do not claim a
, nor do I claim any problems can beslight lack of velocity or slight lack of safety
Saying it can be done is not the same as saying it's easy and simple - something you are not grasping about my arguments even though I've said it repeatedly.mitigated easily
Again, you're misrepresenting me. I do not claim the Republic is automatically going to learn of Separatist movements down slower routes - I say if[/] the Republic learns of such a move, it would leave the Separatists vulnerable, which obviously it would. In such a scenario, depending on what the Separatist targets are, they might leave some targets undefended by anything except static defences and others might have small defensive fleets - but this is a nitpick on your part, since the point of my argument is clear - taking the slower path in the hope of surprising the enemy is a tactical risk if discovered.2046 wrote:The above is total nonsense, and not just because of "unguarded Separatist targets" as if the Separatist military doesn't understand leaving some defensive units behind. All you have provided is an imagined notion that the Republic might realize Separatist ships are missing and launch an all-out attack, which seems kind of silly if they don't know where all those ships are, eh?
[/quote="2046"]No, that would be a silly analogy because (1) it presumes the Chinese just go en masse . . . good grief, that's twice you've argued that military folks have no brain . . . and (2) it has jack all to do with going off-road when defenders are only defending roads, which was the point you chose to try to pretend to miss.[/quote]
Of course it's a silly analogy - your original scenario was silly, so any responses are destined to be. It's not my fault you've constructed a poor example.
I can see I have to spell it out for you - and perhaps address my own choice of words a little better.
Whether the Chinese commit all their forces or even a significant percentage of them (say, 40%, to try and get in behind the lines or to outflank the Americans), they will leave themselves potentially vulnerable. If the Americans were to get wind that 40% of Chinese forces had left their positions and were traveling along a slower route in the hope of secretly attacking US positions, the US could then send say, 80% of their own forces, attack a weakened Chinese defensive force, and still get back to their own positions in time to defend them against the Chinese offensive force. This is not a difficult example to grasp, and applied to The Clone Wars, you get similar problems for both the Republic and the Separatists - neither side is quite prepared to risk getting their positions smashed, in case any longer attack plans are discovered and they leave themselves open to attack.
2046 wrote:Utter nonsense as already described, and in addition this "difference of a few days could be crucial" thing strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to feign having an argument given the months of Ryloth and Geonosis and such.
Embedded conflict in certain locations is inevitable in any war. This does not disprove anything I have said about chancing surprise attacks. And of course, the other major consideration is having the ships available for such attacks - and they may simply not be available.
2046 wrote:By your rationale, the Republic strategy meeting the Seppies tried to blow up with the fuel from the Void planet was, by virtue of so many Republic ships being off the front lines, certain to have resulted in the loss of a Republic world or something. That's just nonsensical.
Not what I am claiming either.
2046 wrote:No, I don't presume the system is the same. I demonstrate it. But if you know of another system in the Star Wars galaxy with an identically-colored planet and triad of moons, feel free to point it out.
I would consider that a more impressive feat than your inability to understand that seeing orbiting bodies from wildly different angles is not the same thing as "beyond remarkable" orbital mechanics.
But hey, even if you're right about the orbital mechanics, guess what? You're wrong, because it's still Hoth:
No, you don't demonstrate it. For the system to be Hoth based on your pictures, would require either fast-swinging ecliptic orbits for the other planets/moons, and it would require at least one of them to change size as well. In the end though, it's not vital either way whether it's Hoth.
Why you ask? Because Death Squadron obviously didn't start the film in the Hoth system - they jumped to Hoth from another, unknown location. You will no doubt point out the original notion that a probe can be used to scout safe hyper routes - this remains possible (the ISD launched several probes in different directions - there is little point in them all remaining in the same system).
2046 wrote:Please work harder to make arguments worth taking seriously. Currently you appear to be engaged only in "resistance typing" . . . tossing out words only so that you can appear to have replied and so that the debate can appear to still be on.
But on any logical level, the debate on these topics is currently over. You can re-open debate at your leisure by posting topical arguments.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Ok, so fair enough, at the end of the last post, I made a mistake. I will try to be more careful in the future, but, it would be appreciated if you can drop the aggressive rhetoric and posturing that has been quite prevalent in your posts thus far.