Upon reading your new post, I must inform you that it is entirely and utterly illogical. It even contradicts itself, nevermind everything I wrote.

If I may, allow me to recount recent events - I divebombed you, then my ships scattered in all directions. Your forces responded by reorganizing into a line formation and rushing towards the planet - past us, since we were scattering. We then reform behind you, and shoot you in the back.

You chose to remain in formation even at a time where breaking formation would have benefitted you - you could have pursued us as we broke. Instead, you gave us the ideal target for a fast fleet, by spreading yourself into a thin line and advancing. This means you leave us behind, leave us in your wake, so it's just a matter of us reforming behind you and pummeling you. We didn't have to fly through your formation, or into your formation, or even next to your formation to attack your back. Your gunners can't shoot at us, since as my post's entire purpose was to establish that we were behind a line.

It was a glaring tactical error to form into a line, when you're fighting a fast enemy you should bunch up and face them with a solid wall. Make sure they can't flank you or pass between your formation - which we did, I may remind you - because then they can attack you from your weakest point, or force you to move and thus reveal more weak points to attack.

If you have any argument that we wouldn't be behind you, recall that in this new post of yours you begin bombing the planet (hard enough to imagine, since you'd have to be in orbit). To get that close to the planet so quickly, you must have just rushed straight forwards after we broke formation, you must have run straight at the planet. Thus, we have a clear and unobstructed view of the back of your fleet. As you cannot take back your earlier commitment to moving past me in a line formation, your current declaration of somehow inflicting punishing fire as we 'pass by' would have to be removed. Either you break formation, or we destroy you very quickly from behind.

Dolash, as much as I respect you as a writer you are deficient in tactical knowledge.

1 - In post 8, my ships formed line-ahead. You attacked and I order Marg Sabl. This deployment is outlined in the first chapter of Heir to the Empire - fighter formations are cut in half and either side sent out in a broad arc on either flank of the field.

Some of your ships broke, by your own admission, to the flanks of the Imperial formation. Fighters were dpeloyed to the left/port side of my formation this trapping your ships there.

2 - you dive at the rear of my formation. As such. you would have to run directly at the broadsides of Imperial ships, the actual instance in which they were designed for. If your ships tried to head for the rear of the formation they would have to run past a gauntlet of ships firing full broadsides as well as directly into the fighter formation. You would be hit with missiles and lasers frm them as well as the Imperial ships.

3 - Line ahead in this situation is quite beneficial as you cannot break the line because closing range would result in serious damage to you. And also, if you do manage to regoup at the rear of the fleet then all; you can target is one cruiser while we advance.

4 In regards to the planet, my ships arrived oriented at your ships and the world itself, You accelerated away from Tynna at me but I have made no course corrections to date and thusly am still proceeding at that world. So, arriving at it four posts later and commencing an orbital assault is by no means unheard of.

5 - Where do you think you can destroy us from behind, hmm? As I said, you have only ione target, the last heavy cruiser. And now you are caught between the rear batteries of said cruiser and the approaching Destroyers, my reserves.

And also, given your speed, you cannot simply hover behind the fleet, you would eiuther have to fire as you pass and your guns bear or decelerate and maintain position - neither of which you have done.

I ask for a Staff decision on these matters.

Quick note, Telan, I'm sorry I abruptly vanished in our conversation - my internet connection was cut quite suddenly.

Understandable.

There is a bright side to all of this I suppose. At least we, you and I, have shown the TRF community that it is possible to have a disagreement about fleeting and remain amiable.

True, you've got a point there Telan. Here I thought this thread had gone from a good fleet roleplay with lack of fighting to the old style fleet roleplay (5 OOC posts, minimum, of the same arguments for each IC post, resulting in each side hating each other). But instead you two have managed to discuss most of the issues on AIM, even trying to figure them out on that both before bringing the thread to the staff's attention and after.

I would concurr that perhaps a staff judgement call would work best here - both of what we think happened COULD have happened, in theory, within the ambiguous language we used to describe the situation, and so a decision handed down from an authority figure would probably work best.

I agree - I admit I may have misinterpreted what he meant. I am willing to make any adjustments neccessary.,

Okay. What's the hot topic for consideration.

Read above. Position of fleets, Pulse Shielding, effectiveness of his boarding parties - -acceptable losses to this point.

The primary issue is one of fleet placement and firing arcs, more or less.

After diving at him, I declared that my forces scattered, Telan then declared a fighter strategy, and reformed into a one-after-the-other line formation before advancing on the world I'm protecting. That much we can agree on.

The problem comes when I try to regroup. I am of the opinion that he moved forwards in this line, meaning that when my scattered ships regroup we're behind him since we were flying around in circles about a fixed point, which he moved away from. Thus, I would have sustained little damage as well as being in a perfect firing position.

Telan, however, is of the opinion that I wouldn't be behind him, I would be to his side. Since Star Destroyers and Heavy Cruisers are meant to broadside each other, that means that when I try to regroup I'd be doing so right in the middle of his firing arcs, thus being torn to shreds. His argument that I would have regrouped beside him instead of behind him is the fighter maneauver, which he believes would have 'hemmed in' my forces, keeping us trapped near his flank.

The argument is escalated by the ambiguity of each side's writing, since technically it's possible that I regrouped behind him OR besides him, depending on the effectiveness of his maneauver. This decision will have massive ramnifications, since if I am right my forces will be able to tear their way up his line from behind, likely knocking out a number of his ships. If he is right, then my forces - which are thin-skinned, and have already exhausted their special defensive systems - will be torn to bits and are unlikely to reform.

This is, in other words, the pivotal decision of the battle. From behind him, I could probably destroy his line - even if he broke formation to try and stop me, I'd be able to tail him for some time and destroy a number of his cruisers and destroyers. From besides him, I'll be likely to suffer severe damage which my fleet will be unlikely to recover from. We each have our own ace-in-the-hole, his being a unit of reinforcments and mine being boarding parties on his key ships, but if either of us lose here neither is likely to be enough to turn the tide.