Should ships just stand completely still in battle?

Here is one for your dumn brain. [/quote]
unnecessary name calling only servse to upset people please as a favore to the comunity refraine
there are other ways of getting your argument across

[/quote]Also, it's tactic #1: you never, EVER stand still in combat. You'd think they would have figure that out in the future

sorry have to dissagree there you do stand still BUT only when your in cover and as stated in anothere post most battlefield movment is to get from cover to cover

Seeing as in space there is no cover and the devs already stated computers dont miss whats the point of wasting tonns of fule and manuvering huge ships that frigate are in this game unless it to correct for drift

seriosly the devs have in my opinion naild it on the head

2d plane that we are restricted with in Sins.

I don't bother with it -- and I don't even remember the key anymore, it used to be ~, but it changed -- but you can use the Z axis if you REALLY want to.

please read other posts as it avoids going rond in circles

as for the drift on capital ships you may have a verry valid point but i dont know enough about the phisics in zero g, vacum to comment futher

Successfully updated karma reason!

Only a senior by a minute I'm sure, and I always assumed there was no Z in the design.

Don't call people dumb

.

Especially when you can't spell!

I'm sorry for the spelling but I wrote it fast and English is NOT my main language. Yeah, I speak more than one languages, can you?

I don't think your language fluency means you can call people dumb

Please, read the message that I actually was quoting and see why I deliberatly used the word "Dumb".

Successfully updated karma reason!

What I would really want to see implemented is a ‘patrol’ move order that would loop a movement route.

Maneuvering considerations for vessels in space (assuming near 100% accuracy)

1) Energy loss or gain: it may be important in a gravity well to maintain a high orbit in order to conserve energy (especially if fleeing is an option) Exploiting orbital dynamics would also be key. Mission specific reasons for maneuvering are the prime reason.
2) Weapon geometry of offensive vessel. Given the current weaponry and distribution around the hull it is useful to reorient on any given vector to bring maximum firepower to bear or to spread firepower across selected targets effectively. This reorientation can force an opponent to move simply due to the thruster/weaponry geometry of the vessel. This can be bulk applied to fleet tactics in target selection and squadron manuvering.
3) Defensive geometry: there may be weak points on a vessel that need to be kept away from the enemy or damaged sections that need to be rotated out of the line of fire. This introduces behavior like chasing the tail; both ships are aiming for vulnerable components… this can applied to defensive fleet tactics as well.
4) Gunnery drift: recoil would cause substantial drift and may be utilized to shift the vessel rapidly as a defensive or offensive maneuver. (would require multiple vectors of offense and defense to make practical)
5) An effective defensive AI would orient the ship based on all sources of damage probability to best optimize gunnery, it is a risk calculation on how much damage the enemy can deliver along a given vector. This would be combined with tactical knowledge to not expose the vessel to new threats. The offensive AI would attempt to do the opposite to targets.
6) Smaller vessels would maneuver to find optimal positions between enemy fire arcs depending on the vessel design. Frigates would probably make passes or orbit vessels with large spinal mount weaponry or heavy turrets. Closing the distance is usually key as fewer weapons can be brought to bear at point blank range (or exceed mount rotation capability)
7) At long range the maneuverability of the vessel vs. light speed weapons is actually a significant factor in its survivability, especially at ranges over 100,000 km, gunnery orientation is critical at these ranges. Salvos would have a larger spread to bracket an opponent and combined fire would be crucial for bracketing. At shorter ranges the field of fire can become more focused as the bracketing effect is more severe.
8) Energy output vs acceleration trade offs may be very high depending on the tech. A vessel may not be able to accelerate if power is diverted to weapons.

Unfortunately given the lack of subsystems or location based damage there is no reason for 2 and 3. 1 is eliminated primarily by the lack of a proper orbital mechanic, but goal based behavior is a major driver. 4 would be hard to implement even in a pure simulation correctly. 5 is covered by the current target selection AI.
7 could be simulated, but it is better to simply introduce a range/accuracy modifier and hold a suspension of disbelief that vessels aren’t right on top of each other, but rather 10’s or 100’s of thousand of kilometers apart or more. 8 would introduce too much micro management unless the acceleration vs weapon power was an automatic mechanic. In such case it would be very useful to introduce a fleet maneuver tactic setting separate from an ‘aggression/ weapon power’ setting.

6 would be useful as an option especially in cases where small vessels are opposing a ship with spinal weaponry, allowing the frigates to maneuver as a fleet tactic would increase there survivability (but only at close range otherwise 7 would be a better answer)

In short for sins there wouldn’t be much of a point for true maneuverability, however it would be nice to have some bulk drift to battles and occasional small adjustments for ships.

When micromanaged maneuvering has been attempted in the game I have been pleased with the results, in fact I drove a heavily damaged advent capital repeatedly through a pile of kols and laughed as they had to slowly turn around, it was an effective tactic to keep the ship in system while reinforcements arrived.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So far as war is concerned, the tank is to the basic infantryman of WWI onwards what the chariot and mounted knight was to the footsoldier of medieval times. The nuclear weapon, the new siege weapon. The constants didn't change. Just the implementation. Aircraft on the other hand, provided a new paradigm. But only in the sense that it opened a new theater from which war could be waged from. Did it change anything about the fundamentals of warfare?

I do believe that the implementation here is what matters, the broad concepts are just that and really add nothing to this conversation.

And this is the primary point being debated. Ships being able to maneuver while still engaging their targets. If we wanted to argue on what made sense and didn't without changing anything about how the game functions, then we are merely wasting time, effort, for the debatable benefit of ego stroking.

And yes, we are wasting time for the sake of ego stroking. Did it never occur to you to look at the official stance Stardock has?

I would suggest you do a little research on tactical and strategic positioning and repositioning before you claim one's view of reality is skewed.

You haven't played the game extensively have you? And if you find fault in my arguments go tear them apart, do not tease

. That last number was a may or may not. However, why ignore the other seven points? Are they not valid? If so, explain.

Brad, in Starwars, Star Destroyer were still constantly at least moving forward, make it engine push or drifting. You just can't stop a XXXX tons ship just like that.

in the end, like many said, it's about fun. I think it would make the battle more FUN to watch if that were more movement/action on the screen. Right now, you can't wash out the feeling that the ships are just standing there shooting at themself, just like they use to do war when they first colonized America ie: Line up on a plain field, fire at the other line of lined up militia, rince, repeat.

My ships move forward, I don't know about yours but maybe it is because I tell them to because I find that there are advantages in doing such. Perhaps, you should invest in micromanaging your fights every now and then I heard interaction makes a great game!

And you're right about the other point, that is about having more fun but what you've suggested can be done by the player and should be done by the player otherwise we can completely abstract combat and put it on pure dice rolling + number crunching. Master of Orion 2 had an option of doing that same with Medieval Total War... that is auto combat without going to the tactical screen.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is massive irony when you wrote this, but I digress.

We are not restricted to a 2D plane, your ignorance is acceptable since many people don't bother going through the key bindings or reading posts - sometimes I am guilty of that too.

I'll take this comment back then. I must have "miss" that key. I'll check it out myself in a few minute. In any cases, it's obviously not as "user friendly" as the other functions in the game.

However, in regards to your tactics statement, it seems like you aren't paying attention to your own actions. They don't stand still unless you want them to. You can flank. You can drag their aggression, you can do plenty of things and all of them require some movement. But taking up the spirit of your argument, I can only say: You cannot dodge the Death Star. Yes, please, dodge something that has 360 cover , perfect targetting systems, and who has turbo laser bolts that move way faster than you can even conceive of moving - we're talking about frigate class here at minimum.

for the argument, unless I am mistaling, The Kol capital ship for the TEC cannot shoot it's main weapon emitter at all 360 degres. So there would be a tactical advantage to move outside of that weapon's range. Also, and this might need to be researched, but do all weapon to the same amount of damage? do the turrets behind a capital ship make the same amount of damage as the ones located in the front? If not, there is another reason you would want to move away from the fron of a capital ship.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think acceleration/deceleration would work a lot better and probably be simple(r) to implement. Basically when a ship gets in range, or maybe just about in range, the ship's engines will cut out and it'll "drift" into position, maybe giving it a slight random yaw and pitch so they arent in the exact direction they were facing, noticeable enough that you notice it, but subtle enough it doesnt really effect firing arcs that much. If you apply this across a fleet, the net effect would be that you can plainly see that the ship are interacting with the z-axis, and would give you a sense of "ordered chaos" essentially, with the ships being slightly out of formation, at a minor angle, etc. Makes the battlefield a lot less sterile without effecting gameplay at all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To Eville:

4) Gunnery drift: recoil would cause substantial drift and may be utilized to shift the vessel rapidly as a defensive or offensive maneuver. (would require multiple vectors of offense and defense to make practical)

Inertial stabilizers/nullifiers on weapon systems prevents them from moving the ship after firing and beam weapons don't recoil.

But your conclusion is fairly accurate, however drifting might make microing even more of a pain in the ass and would largely be a waste of resources - a better diversion of programming should be the inclusion of super capital to doom star construction or new factions. Go for big swings with small movements, pretty elementary.

And to Hawk:
Read, research, say something. You might get flamed for being an idiot by some people but at least you learn. You should comment regardless so long as you put some thought into it or at least effort failing that. You should also go to Stardestroyer.net and post your thoughts and suggestions there... you'll most likely get a combination of hatred, hard science, speculative science, and opinions. Failing that, there are other sites that debate things like this on a daily basis and many of the contestants hold PHDs in the sciences.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think acceleration/deceleration would work a lot better and probably be simple(r) to implement. Basically when a ship gets in range, or maybe just about in range, the ship's engines will cut out and it'll "drift" into position, maybe giving it a slight random yaw and pitch so they arent in the exact direction they were facing, noticeable enough that you notice it, but subtle enough it doesnt really effect firing arcs that much. If you apply this across a fleet, the net effect would be that you can plainly see that the ship are interacting with the z-axis, and would give you a sense of "ordered chaos" essentially, with the ships being slightly out of formation, at a minor angle, etc. Makes the battlefield a lot less sterile without effecting gameplay at all.

I believe that could be a small change that could actually add a more random/realism to the battles.

Successfully updated karma reason!

for the argument, unless I am mistaling, The Kol capital ship for the TEC cannot shoot it's main weapon emitter at all 360 degres. So there would be a tactical advantage to move outside of that weapon's range. Also, and this might need to be researched, but do all weapon to the same amount of damage? do the turrets behind a capital ship make the same amount of damage as the ones located in the front? If not, there is another reason you would want to move away from the fron of a capital ship.

You're correct on the Kol Battleship using its emitters. But my main point was that you are in charge of those tactical decisions, ships should not move on their own because they do not know what you wish of them . You may change your tactics at whim and you may find that the Kol trying to flank to avoid being fired upon by another Kol has now interfered with your options. That's what my main beef was about your statement in regards to space ships not moving on their own or in the future that they don't move. They do and only do if you tell them to.

Players do not like elements out of their control even in the slightest, we see a MASSIVE complaint about the pirates (and equally massive about why the whiners are just that). If we take that to heart we can understand why ships should not move on their own unless ordered to .

Weapons do different damages. Autocannon/Beam/missiles have different associated damage profiles that have different multipliers depending on what armor they're facing. A typical RTS formula.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Even in our current, modern day warfare, this no longer applies. The majority of combat occurs beyond the horizon (no need for tactical maneuvering other than getting the jump on someone, certainly not weaving); our (U.S.) carrier groups are based around keeping the enemy outside of cruise missile engagement range, because they know that once an enemy is able to get within range, that no amount of maneuvering is going to be able to avoid incoming fire.

If Sins weaponry consisted solely of guided missiles, you might have a point.

Additionally, WWII did not have computer-assisted aiming; I sincerely doubt that if you were to have had just modern day solutions that WWII naval battles would have had as much maneuvering as they did.

They did. Just because they didn't have Pentiums doing the math doesn't mean they didn't have computers then. Or radar slaving, to track where shots landed for recalculations.

Now, a step beyond that, we're talking about futuristic, space based battles. Yes, the distances are larger, but: 1.) The ships are a helluva lot larger (even those frigates vastly outsize what we currently have) and 2.) There is negligible atmosphere/gravity to interfere with firing solutions, making even kinetic rounds deadly accurate.

At the distances involved in a planets gravity well, even mass drivers can miss. All it takes is for a ship to slow down, or change course slightly, and they'd miss.

For a working analogy, think of your kinetic round as an unguided torpedo, and your target is a destroyer/cruiser some five kilometers out. A lot can happen to turn that hit into a miss, especially if they spot it in time. The same principle applies here.

So, again, I see no need for ships to be weaving in and out, or to move much at all. Perhaps if Sins put a higher emphasis on fleet formations and firing arcs, and much longer standard engagement ranges, some maneuvering would become more advantageous, but realistically, there's no real need to move as it stantds.

As it stands, I'd rather see an automated system of bobbing and weaving. Depending on how the code is set up, it could be simply applying the flight behavior(lowered intensity) of fighters to frigates and cruisers. It will be a cosmetic effect anyway, since from observation, Sins applies hit damage even before the projectile makes contact, with the possible exception of missiles. I suspect it may use a base hit percentage rather than any physics based impact calculation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think acceleration/deceleration would work a lot better and probably be simple(r) to implement. Basically when a ship gets in range, or maybe just about in range, the ship's engines will cut out and it'll "drift" into position, maybe giving it a slight random yaw and pitch so they arent in the exact direction they were facing, noticeable enough that you notice it, but subtle enough it doesnt really effect firing arcs that much. If you apply this across a fleet, the net effect would be that you can plainly see that the ship are interacting with the z-axis, and would give you a sense of "ordered chaos" essentially, with the ships being slightly out of formation, at a minor angle, etc. Makes the battlefield a lot less sterile without effecting gameplay at all.

The only problem is that ships interact with each other, bump into each other and what not. More chaos and less control the player has, in essence, it will have an effect and it is superfluous at best. The battle field looking sterile is subjective and if we talk about fun there are better ways to make this game more fun than to make ships drift or whatever else .

Successfully updated karma reason!

Schod declared that HW2 didn't have ship evasion beyond the corvette class. I am setting the picture straight.

Nothing larger the a corvette made any evasive actions. AT ALL. Ships would move to bring the most guns to bear as possible, but SoaSE does that too. Frigates and up can move in combat but the player has to actively order it.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFa0K6MbBU&feature=related

Yes. The Battle cruiser gets in range and stops moving. Wow. So much movement, SoaSE Should totally be like that.

Oh wait.

So far as war is concerned, the tank is to the basic infantryman of WWI onwards what the chariot and mounted knight was to the footsoldier of medieval times. The nuclear weapon, the new siege weapon. The constants didn't change. Just the implementation. Aircraft on the other hand, provided a new paradigm. But only in the sense that it opened a new theater from which war could be waged from. Did it change anything about the fundamentals of warfare?

Hardly.

Sun Tzu's art of war, nearly two millenia old, still holds true today as it did when the best people had were spears, arrows, and swords.

Umm. A tank is more analogous to a knight. A APC is more analogous to chariot. A infantry man is more analogous to a... infantry man. The nuclear bomb is not a siege weapon, it doesn't starve out the a fortress. It blows it up and makes the ground uninhabital for extended periods of time. Sun Tzu's Art of War isn't about how to command on the field of battle, its about strategy and useful tips. Modern war is very different on the tactical level, infantry are much more independent and actively work together with the "cavalry" were they used to be much more tightly controlled and kept more independent between cavalry and infantry. Unless your telling me infantry line up in large blocks and tanks are used as skirmishers, warfare has changed, just not on the strategic level. Oh wait, nukes and air power changed that too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Fortunately we can stop ships in seconds on this game..if we couldn't what would become of all those space ponies?...

Successfully updated karma reason!

At the distances involved in a planets gravity well, even mass drivers can miss. All it takes is for a ship to slow down, or change course slightly, and they'd miss.

For a working analogy, think of your kinetic round as an unguided torpedo, and your target is a destroyer/cruiser some five kilometers out. A lot can happen to turn that hit into a miss, especially if they spot it in time. The same principle applies here.

Depends on how fast the projectile is moving and depends on how fast you can move. Are the specs released for the said weaponry? No.

You make a lot of assumptions about Sins and their technology. The only thing you do know beyond the obvious is that their targeting formulations and systems are flawless.

The standard engagement range is pretty small if you want to take the game and scale it to 'reality', problem is that in itself is a logical error.

As it stands, I'd rather see an automated system of bobbing and weaving. Depending on how the code is set up, it could be simply applying the flight behavior(lowered intensity) of fighters to frigates and cruisers. It will be a cosmetic effect anyway, since from observation, Sins applies hit damage even before the projectile makes contact, with the possible exception of missiles. I suspect it may use a base hit percentage rather than any physics based impact calculation.

... Yeah really. Wait, why are we talking about cosmetic effects when there are better things to do? Do we even want to discuss what cosmetic effects can do to player psychology? Let's just leave it out since it's fine the way it is and most gamers would agree.

If Sins weaponry consisted solely of guided missiles, you might have a point.

It might as well be, pray tell, would you care to dodge a flash light? I bet you I'll hit you regardless of range , in a matter of fact I don't think you'll even know it's coming till you're hit with it.

And who knows, their auto cannon shots might be guided too! They auto hit anyways! Gyro rocket auto cannon rounds with laser guidance and computational adjustments on board! TEC INSIDE!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't know every world war navy movie I have watched the battleships with 1000+ were in constant movement to try and not to get hit. This included the radar guided ships. You stay in constant movement to keep from getting hit. That missile may be guided but if you can move beyond it's fuel range it isn't going to hit you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Umm. A tank is more analogous to a knight. A APC is more analogous to chariot. A infantry man is more analogous to a... infantry man. The nuclear bomb is not a siege weapon, it doesn't starve out the a fortress. It blows it up and makes the ground uninhabital for extended periods of time. Sun Tzu's Art of War isn't about how to command on the field of battle, its about strategy and useful tips. Modern war is very different on the tactical level, infantry are much more independent and actively work together with the "cavalry" were they used to be much more tightly controlled and kept more independent between cavalry and infantry. Unless your telling me infantry line up in large blocks and tanks are used as skirmishers, warfare has changed, just not on the strategic level. Oh wait, nukes and air power changed that too.

Well Busby, I think he was more interested in the fundamentals that is holding high ground, out maneuvering someone though his delivery contained a million fallacies which you have more or less nailed.

That being said, the fundamentals are still obeyed in Sins but the implementation matters just as much and it would be pretty retarded to ignore that simply because it changes the dynamics. That is what we're arguing right now.

There was no real point to this post but to merely reaffirm what we're arguing/debating about.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I won't even talk about the shot guns and beams of light. ok I will talk about them

These weapons would be fired at where the ship is going to be not where it is.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And yes, we are wasting time for the sake of ego stroking. Did it never occur to you to look at the official stance Stardock has?

I'm quite aware of what their stance is, but does that mean those of us who intend to mod the game into incorporating these mechanics when the tools become available should do nothing?

You haven't played the game extensively have you?

Enough to be frustrated by the frigates inability to keep their forward arcs pointed at an opponent while moving. A Kol has 100% coverage, yes, but that doesn't mean their rear arcs are as powerful as their forward arcs.

And if you find fault in my arguments go tear them apart, do not tease

. That last number was a may or may not. However, why ignore the other seven points? Are they not valid? If so, explain.

Since you asked so nicely

1. Frigates in Sins have fixed turrets with the exception of few preventing them from dealing damage while attempting to flank.

Addressed above. I would rather they adopt Soviet gunship tactics of the 1980s that were exceedingly effective. Constantly circling a target zone while facing it to ensure constant fire while minimizing exposure to heavy return fire.

2. Capital ships have almost 360 arcs in covering and often in the rear with the exception of certain heavy weapons such as emitters on a Kol Battleship.

And you want your ships to be in the fire arc of the heavy weapons why? Does it not occur to you that your arguments against are actually arguments for this sort of tactical flexibility?

3. Moving targets do not affect accuracy of incoming fire.
4. Moving targets cannot evade continuous beam weapons.

Addressed in No. 2

5. Ships have reduced maneuverability due to the slowness of their engines and the nature of gaming design that requires them to make wide turns. There have been no posts thus far to explain why they need to do this.

I've seen ships turn on axis, although only when not in motion. This negates your point.

6. There are no hard points , critical spots, or whatever you want to call them on ships.

But there are firing arcs. A Cobalt frigate will survive longer behind an enemy Kol than in front of it.

7. Rotation of a capital ship takes less time and is more efficient than the flanking motion of a combat based frigate (scouts can possibly keep up, but do you really want to micro that?)

Addressed in No. 1

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't know every world war navy movie I have watched the battleships with 1000+ were in constant movement to try and not to get hit. This included the radar guided ships. You stay in constant movement to keep from getting hit. That missile may be guided but if you can move beyond it's fuel range it isn't going to hit you.

There is a flaw in your assertion: You cannot out run a missile as a capital ship in the navy.

Another note: space battles have very little to nothing to do with naval battles. I implore you to think things through and failing that to post your entire thesis on why you think otherwise. More details please.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Marshadar,

When the tools release do as you please, but don't call it realistic.

My arguments are against superfluous movement, as in ships maneuvering themselves without your consent. You have yet to figure that out after reading all my posts.

Knowing that, tell me why ships should move on their own with the additional consideration of those points.

As for your counter to point number five, you still need to tell me why they sometimes make wide turns instead of rotating. Thus, in effect, ships do have REDUCED MANEUVERABILITY.

The whole reason I wrote those points was to point out that moving around was fairly pointless for eye candy purposes excluding TACTICAL movements which I already SAID were in the game and had to be CONTROLLED by the player.

Yeah, sure you would like to have your silly circling and weaving, but it interferes with micro and if your brain was hooked up to the machine you would do that anyways but on YOUR terms.

It's about player control/interaction, eye candy is secondary.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Enough to be frustrated by the frigates inability to keep their forward arcs pointed at an opponent while moving.

Micro better and you might see better results. Do you want everything to be automated?

And you want your ships to be in the fire arc of the heavy weapons why? Does it not occur to you that your arguments against are actually arguments for this sort of tactical flexibility?

For the sake of debating purposes despite the fact that I already addressed what those points were meant for I'll toss out this : In Sins, it's a pure DPS race . I guess you haven't really played or paid attention. The only time where movement is acceptable is when you're being focus fired on otherwise it takes WAY too much time to get into position and make up for the DPS loss. Damage tends to avalanche and losses are exponential , think about it. Your starting position matters a lot more than your engagement position if you review your games carefully. There are a few exceptions and we're not talking about those.

Again, I'd like to point out that the OP post is more about small movements rather than maneuvers a player can execute in which case all my points cover why small movements aren't a benefit and why big ones are unnecessary.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is a flaw in your assertion: You cannot out run a missile as a capital ship in the navy.
Another note: space battles have very little to nothing to do with naval battles. I implore you to think things through and failing that to post your entire thesis on why you think otherwise. More details please.

I think your wrong. I think a space battle will be the same as a naval battle only with more distance involved and a battle field that is 3d instead of 2d. oh wait with aircraft and subs naval battles are 3d as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the last battleship battle ever was fought using radar the two sides never saw each others ships.

Successfully updated karma reason!

any warship that stops during a fight is considered a sitting duck. examples pearl harbor and the 4 british battleships the day after pearl harbor

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nothing larger the a corvette made any evasive actions. AT ALL. Ships would move to bring the most guns to bear as possible, but SoaSE does that too. Frigates and up can move in combat but the player has to actively order it.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFa0K6MbBU&feature=related

Yes. The Battle cruiser gets in range and stops moving. Wow. So much movement, SoaSE Should totally be like that.

Oh wait.

You didn't really read my post regarding this did you. I said post PDS mod.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z61bKT-m0UE

Not moving huh?

Umm. A tank is more analogous to a knight. A APC is more analogous to chariot. A infantry man is more analogous to a... infantry man.

Which more or less fits with what I've mentioned earlier.

The nuclear bomb is not a siege weapon, it doesn't starve out the a fortress.

Siege weapons don't starve out fortresses. They smash them. Do you have any idea what a siege weapon even is?

Sun Tzu's Art of War isn't about how to command on the field of battle, its about strategy and useful tips. Modern war is very different on the tactical level, infantry are much more independent and actively work together with the "cavalry" were they used to be much more tightly controlled and kept more independent between cavalry and infantry. Unless your telling me infantry line up in large blocks and tanks are used as skirmishers, warfare has changed, just not on the strategic level.

And strategy includes, at large scales, flanking maneuvers. Which do require that at said scale, the ones doing the flanking are capable of doing so while keeping the business ends of their weapons pointed in the right direction.

Oh wait, nukes and air power changed that too.

They just added another theater to conduct war over. They didn't change anything at the strategic level.

Successfully updated karma reason!