:D MaHuJa - your words, not mine. I had in mind the unwillingness of 1st WW UK generals, many of whom
were cavalry officers to absorb the impact of the tank and German stormtrooper tactics into strategy.
The relevance is the quality and character of military planning and the ability and flexibility to reshape
an organisation in the face of new technology.

The Seawolves saw DW approaching over the horizon and did not set the wheels in motion to reorganise
for 'combined actions' and platform based team play. But then has anyone else yet ? It is , as currently demontrated
by the separation, a painful process which nobody , participants or spectators, enjoys.

MHJ:That remains to be seen. I see no ''error'' in the organisational structure and I see no 'cavalry' type officers.
But ''error''is your term - perhaps you will explain ?

Online fleets can only respond to existing sims and plan for known in-the pipeline ones. The 'integration' of
surface and subsurface branches of existing 'Fleets' is a thorny question. Current sims and I know of none
planned, do not provide the software infrastructure to simulate a naval group with a 'Force Command' structure.
So the mirroring of reality is not possible. We do not have a quasi 'Fleet Command' sim with DW hands-on
implementation. Though I have canvassed this consistently.

Given our existing sim platforms IMO the impact of the subs is strategic, while that of the other platforms is tactical
There existed in the SWs a pool of officers with high levels of expertise in all submarine activity, particuarly DW
- So, forgive the pun - Whose on top ? Whose in charge ? Who should be ? Would submariners accept
integration, and possible subordination, to Surf Brass ?

Questions which are both practical and political.

----- Original Message -----
From: ---- ----
To: Willem Peschier
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Subschool



~S~ sir

the reason for not being at sub school is i am trying to solve a massive problem with my firewalls they wont allow me to play sub command online at all i have asked many people and the tech department and still is no use so i realy dont know at the moment!

sorry Kapitain (name edited)

I suggest that this thread moves on PDQ or at least take the bitchin to PM.

Fascinating debate, much more interesting than your run of the mill soap opera on tv. :arrgh!: :-j :rotfl:

please edit my name fish,

i got nothing against you guys just the way stern handled seawolves made me p***ed

Xab is right.

I have, I think, been analytical, and not personal. I certainly have no axe to grind - real life issues alone
took me out of the Seawolves ranks. So I certainly have nothing but happy memories of a lot of bubblehead MP fun.

I have great respect for the llkes of Paul, Fish and Sparks and many others who put a tremendous amount
into the SW community. I know that wherever they settle, they will maintain very high standards of training and
integrity of play. They are gentlemen in the true sense. Good luck to them all. :|\

With the net at your fingertips (and forums) you don't need to watch soap operas anymore ...

To pick a thought from Bellman (and thus taking this thread a bit OT) ... The integration of DW into a Virtual Fleet is quite possible and can work, that however demands some sacrifices from the existing structures. I experienced this in the USVN where the initial notion was similar to the Seawolves to displace the playable plattforms amongst the current departments, means NAVAIR, SUBFOR, SURFOR. Fortunatly this was seen as futile (after a lot of lobbying) and thus one new Department (7th Fleet) was created to be the homeport for Dangerous Waters. There were multiple Squadrons for the various Units to resemble a Fleet structure, but basically it was one "Division" under a single Commander.

Why I'm talking in the past? Because 7th Fleet was not to long ago disbanded, reason for that mostly lack of people to play. Still the concept was sound (as can be seen at the new Fleet) it just lacked the necessary number of players to make it work and some energetic leaders to hold it together.

GNSF appears to be organised into Task Forces so that is progress in the right direction.

''TASK FORCES

The GNSF are split up into Task Forces. Task Force has air, sea and land combat capabilities. Each TF acts as separate
entities within the GNSF structure. This allows us to have "TF vs TF" engagements. Each Task Forces has a TFC (Task Force
Commander and an Executive Officer (TFXO). Other staff can be added at the TFC's request (Comms, Tactical, Intel... etc)
The TFXO acts in full support of the TFC. Each Task Force has it's own homepage. TFC have the ability to award certain
Ribbons and Medals .''

Their ROEs carry penalties (rightly) for destroying Neutrals -

''All members playing on the same platform in DW will get the points for any legal kills made by that platform.
If a player/platform kills a neutral or friendly, 20 points will be deducted from the total dive score. If the total is
negative, it is brought back to 1 point. All players will still get credit for the legitimate kills, but will NOT receive
the points if a neutral is killed.''

OS criticism is valid in that it was always a struggle to get a predetermined group of players online
at the same time. If a new Fleet has quality Officers at the 'sharp-end' I think it will attract those who appreciate
such an experience and those Officers will motivate and lead, and as OS said ''hold it together.''

The essence of the appeal of Task Force organisation is that it can exploit the existing and future potential of DW
It will bring players together to train as teams, not only on platforms, but as a combined Group
with units cooperating and coordinating their activities. It promises some exciting inter-group battles.

Train together - win together.

Kapitain, how can you expect people to take you seriously on any subject when you come into a thread that is progressing nicely and toss a molotov cocktail like......"More like the league of liars........"???? :o What? Did you think for one second that people were going to sit back and let that unenlightened comment pass without challenge? Being upset with one person because they didn't run things as you saw fit does not give you free reign to call us all "liars." My sincere desire here for you is that some learning takes place. IMHO an apology is owed for the original comment you made.

OK guys, lets stop this, this was only meant to announce a new fleet. Not to start a flame (perhaps a was a litle naive :hmm: ).

Guys,

will you show up in Hyperlobby or will you keep it "exclusive"?...

Every member is free to play where ever he want, there is just one exception, you may not hold a command position in a other virtual fleet.
Oh, and members cannot report dives with people outside the fleet.

Ok!. Hyperlobby would be more crowded if members of virtual fleets joined it sometimes... :ping:

To all Members of SubSIM,
I am TC and I am with the SeaWolves VN. I want to apologize to you all for the bitterness spilled over into your forum. We had it all in the SW Forum before the break up and it was not pleasant to say the least. I am sorry to see that it is still going on here.

I have instructed all SW members to stay away from this forum as far as posting any replies to GFVN members. It is useless and not doing either VN any good.

To FADM Stern GFVN, I wish you and your VN God Speed and Fair Winds on your maiden voyage.

ADM TC CNOSVN
SeaWolf to the core.

TC,

tell SW members to participate actively in the forum... :ping: