Why Are Logistics Being Eradicated Instead Of Embraced?

Think what you will, you are simply stating false things about something you dont know about, and then when someone tells you it does not even work that way when fake, you throw the word nerd around. you likely then turn around and in said hissy fit eat some Cheetos and play a video game or hit F5 on a video game forum.... nerd, you're funny.

In the real world, military logistics is raw material ------> factory ----->theater------>depot------>front. The goal in real war is the protection of your chain of supply while disrupting or anihilating the enemies chain of supply. Any Star Trek Teleportation is a break in the chain of supply which brings us to.....

....Video Games. The goal of a video game is to capture the flag, because developers have to put the spawn points in, otherwise the first place you gamers would put a spawn point is around the enemy warpgate without any chain of supply to defend.

Stop defending Star Trek Teleportation.

Maybe you didn't watch Star Trek...you realize they're flying around in a freaking starship, right? They're not at home on earth in their bathrobes stepping into a teleporter to travel anywhere instantly with no limitations.

Just as the wheel and the internal combustion engine solved significant logistics problems, they also just expanded scope of everything and created new logistics problems to replace the previous ones.

So logistics aren't "solved" in Star Trek, and transporters just happen to be the "best we've invented so far" method of conveyance. They're still a form of logistics.

Even if they were perfect teleport-everything-anywhere-instantly, they'd still be the solitary form of logistics in that world because logistics involves the transportation of military personnel and materiel. (Notice how it's still a phrase, still a full concept with context, even though you feel back on your word-matching nonsense.)

again, for the 3rd time I used star trek teleporters as an example of how a break in the chain of supply negates the military science of logistics, not get into a Trekkie nerdathon.

What you said originally was, "In video game terms: Logistics is something that is highly visible, persistent, and interdictable by the enemy; the total opposite of Star Trek transporter technology." So I take it from your revised stance in this most recent post that you're rescinding the original false claim, and admitting transporters are a form of logistics. Good. Truth triumphs.

Although this latest post also makes me think you didn't even read my post of why logistics is still relevant in their fictional universe, so your comment about transporters "negating" logistics is wrong. Put some thought into this stuff if you're going to bother posting...

Uses example to try to illustrate why future transporter technology will eliminate logistics.

Told that the very example he uses actually is a form of logistics, why that is, and why his example in no way, shape or form actually illustrates what he thinks it illustrates.

Essentially says, "Guys, don't read too much into the example I used, stop tearing apart my example! Nerds."

Oh Tuco...

Wrong, teleportation is the anti-thesis of military logistics.

Gee wiz, how is teleportation visible when it's instant and travels distances, and gee wiz how does one interdict something that is instant and travels distances?

Remember the part where you quoted the definition of logistics and neither of those two concepts were part of the definition?

...yeah.

Uh, nope. Unless you're of the opinion that the handcart, horse-drawn carriage, or motorized vehicle are also the anti-theses of military logistics.

All those things, and future teleportation technology, are simply an evolution of logistics. Just a change in the way that you get things from point A to B. Faster, sure. More efficient, yes. But it all boils down to using teleporters or transporters to fill a logistical role.

Not to mention of course that teleporters/transporters/nanites all require power and resources to operate... necessitating secondary logistics to bring in those supplies should the primary system fail. Sort of like when you're car runs out of gas, you're forced to walk to the gas station and come back with a full can.

Nope. Motorized vehicles didn't magically teleport from point A to B instantly making the defense of your, and attack of the enemies, chain of supply.

Nope. It would be the complete obsolesence of the military science of logistics.

Nope.

Nope. Anything done instantaneously and at zero risk is not logistics.

Remember how you ignore the last 10,000 years of warfare, and completely lose perspective when trying to argue a losing point?

Logistics is logistics. The word's meaning is known, and that meaning doesn't include the parts you're describing.

Sorta-Logistics (oversupplying tanks/aircraft) in WWIIONLINE is spawning one tank at some base and spending 5 minutes to drive 10 kilometers to another base and then despawning, oversupplying that base with 1 whole tank. This is a terrible design.

This is a better design:



Logistics is bot work.

You could say Nukes or Tungsten rods are the evolution of warfare, but that's just terrible design.

I think Reinforcement deploying, the successor to the old Instant Action, was one of the worst things to happen to logistics.

no that's "strategy" or whatever fancy sounding sophisticated word I can think up at the time.

Doesn't sound like "logistics" at all.

It really isn't. Even with the old Instant Action, I still remember seeing taxi galaxies at warpgates because IA didn't always take you to the fight you wanted to go to (it doesn't do that at all now but in the past it had a success rate above zero). But Reinforcements Needed gave hard spawns across the map for defenders, nullifying the need for one half of a battle's participants to ever need to worry about spawning logistics.

Now I don't know if Reinforcements applies to AMS now that they made all of them accessible at all times, but if it does then the other half of the participants don't have to worry as much either. I mean, I like how they're trying to increase the importance of Sunderers, but this is not how you do it.

Frequent teleportation destroys the ground vehicle game and contributes to mass pileups of vehicles from one empire around bases, it also makes swinging the balance too easy in front line fights for either attackers or defenders (ie spawning in a platoon to a 1-12 (enemy) fight with 1 minute to go on the timer, any biolab defense etc.

I am all in favor of people being able to quickly get near to the front lines when they first join or login, but teleportation needs to be restricted further thereafter or for mechanics to be put in place to allow disruption of reinforcements by teleportation during base fights.

If more people had to drive, fly or be passengers then there would be a wider spread of vehicles and aircraft (en route to the fight), more for vehicles/air to do than sit around bases camping spawns and more dynamic vehicle and air play in general, there would be less reason for dedicated vehicle/air players to be clumping up around base points instead moving their focus to dealing with reinforcement vehicles traveling from other places.

I would like to see redeploy, reinforcements needed and instant action changed so that you could only teleport to one base away from 'the fight' rather than directly to the base under contest so that you would at least have to travel a short distance in order to get to the front lines. This would have a few advantages over the current system, newer players would be more likely to spawn in safer places, all players would be more likely to utilize transport, both attackers and defenders would have more opportunity to disrupt reinforcements before they get to the base under contest.