|
Arquinsiel posted:Same as the truck earlier, trying to not get shot up by a plane.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:30
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I believe the truck from before was from El Alamein, meaning the goal was to fool reconnaissance aircraft as part of a larger deception operation. While that German one might well be to just avoid getting poo poo on by a wandering P-47.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:So guess what: HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Hegel, how do you feel about the development of national armies over mercenary bands? It sounds as if you prefer the drunken exploits of your landsknechts over the cold atrocities of a uniformed New Model Army. How do you feel about that development of armies into hierarchical, nation-focused, uniform-wearing groups?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Hegel, how do you feel about the development of national armies over mercenary bands? It sounds as if you prefer the drunken exploits of your landsknechts over the cold atrocities of a uniformed New Model Army. How do you feel about that development of armies into hierarchical, nation-focused, uniform-wearing groups? Edit: I personally prefer this model, because it gives people the opportunity to govern their own lives, more or less, no matter what their backgrounds are. I am pretty sure that any common soldier can serve on a court committee, for instance, so you get tried by your peers. It's no accident that the New Model Army you denigrate (which was actually not like the stereotypes--and I say that as a person who grew up massively biased against Protestants, so if I can do it so can you) was full to the brim with leftists. However--and this is a massive "however"--war gets a lot less hosed up in the century immediately after my own. Casualties in battle rise precipitously, but when battles are not occurring the soldiers of the 18th century are much less of a hazard to everyone around them. If I studied civilians during the Thirty Years' War I would have a very different opinion of these guys. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The line between cause "plane" and effect "shot up" may be long and involve several steps of communication and an artillery barrage, but at the end of the day you just don't want that plane to figure out who you are. Not by the time the Germans lost air superiority. After that, allied fighters would roam the skies at low altitude looking for targets of opportunity to engage freely; which would consist of trucks, trains, cattle, Rommel's staff car, tanks, allied troops, and whatever looked like it might create a wicked explosion. You don't want to look like any of these things when a P-47 is flying overhead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
I'm honestly pretty surprised that war hasn't been reduced to a form of ritualised competition where victory/defeat terms are agreed to, and then the amount of time and money a given nation is willing to put into it's contest entry determines the winner. Like formula 1 but with killing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:The funny part: Wilhelm and Tirpitz envisioned being Britain's ally, a partner and equal to rule the world with. After bludgeoning them out of their naval supremacy, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm honestly pretty surprised that war hasn't been reduced to a form of ritualised competition where victory/defeat terms are agreed to, and then the amount of time and money a given nation is willing to put into it's contest entry determines the winner. Like formula 1 but with killing. The problem with this is, whats to stop a combatant from saying "Actually no, we will not comply with the terms. We will just keep fighting!"? Even when faced with nuclear annihilation a lot of governments will rather go down swinging rather than concede defeat under structured terms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Whereas my guys will consistently refer to "weapons and muskets" in their contracts. So you're saying the samurai accorded more honabru to the gun than their European contemporaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Animal posted:The problem with this is, whats to stop a combatant from saying "Actually no, we will not comply with the terms. We will just keep fighting!"? Even when faced with nuclear annihilation a lot of governments will rather go down swinging rather than concede defeat under structured terms. I was meaning in some sort of contained arena environment. You don't race cars on the road, you have a purpose built race track. Don't wage war in the countryside, have a purpose built war-reserve the size of wales.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
the JJ posted:So you're saying the samurai accorded more honabru to the gun than their European contemporaries. Edit: Also, that doesn't stop people from increasing the musketeer ratio and talking about how useful they are. Nobody's refusing to use muskets because they're less honorable. And where I've had a chance to look at different muster rolls for the same company a few months apart it became apparent that people switched back and forth between pike and musket a whole lot, but those rolls were from the 80s and I haven't found anything that detailed from earlier. Slavvy posted:I was meaning in some sort of contained arena environment. You don't race cars on the road, you have a purpose built race track. Don't wage war in the countryside, have a purpose built war-reserve the size of wales. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm honestly pretty surprised that war hasn't been reduced to a form of ritualised competition where victory/defeat terms are agreed to, and then the amount of time and money a given nation is willing to put into it's contest entry determines the winner. Like formula 1 but with killing. Have you been reading Battletech again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:As far as I can tell, a gun's just a freaking tool. I guess unless you're having it made special by some metalworking weirdo, all inlaid and poo poo. Like, the dudes who made the revolversword were probably really into that. Maybe more than they should have been. Cult of pike get's replaced by the cult of the bayonet eventually, seems to really skip over the musket. I guess you could argue for the American West getting some of that going, and eventually we get down to the whole 'this is my rifle' shtick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:As far as I can tell, a gun's just a freaking tool. I guess unless you're having it made special by some metalworking weirdo, all inlaid and poo poo. Like, the dudes who made the revolversword were probably really into that. Maybe more than they should have been. Seriously? Eej posted:Have you been reading Battletech again? Isn't that a mechwarrior thingy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I was meaning in some sort of contained arena environment. You don't race cars on the road, you have a purpose built race track. Don't wage war in the countryside, have a purpose built war-reserve the size of wales.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Don't wage war in the countryside, have a purpose built war-reserve the size of wales. And call it Wales-halla.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:What's to stop me bombing your staging area? Further, this kind of thing kind of assumes a rough parity in force strength. It's very unlikely you would ever get someone to agree to that when the USA, Russia, India or China could just fill it with bodies and "win". Exactly. Most leaders with a conception of chivalrous warfare got killed in either the American Civil War or the fields of WWI. The idea that war can be tamed ends when the enemy decides that they don't want to be beaten and start gassing your assembly areas and blowing up your cities. And that dilemma has continued to this very day, with NATO forces being disabused of their idea of a "humane war" in the form of IEDs and sectarian conflict, and jihadists being disabused of their idea of a "heroic war" in the form of Reaper drones and crippling economic sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:What's to stop me bombing your staging area? Further, this kind of thing kind of assumes a rough parity in force strength. It's very unlikely you would ever get someone to agree to that when the USA, Russia, India or China could just fill it with bodies and "win". ...so we're just inventing table top wargames. You'd never get actual generals to agree on point costs of T-90 vs. Abrams, and sounds of "Javelin OP" would ring into the night. Plus, it would lead to all sorts of shenanigans where small countries, likely limited max points by their military size, would try to win Hawaii or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Isn't that a mechwarrior thingy? Yes, the Clans are basically exiled soldiers who (d)evolved into a tribal social system where to minimize unnecessary personnel and materiel losses they have a high ritualized procedure where they declare where a duel/battle/war will happen and what they will bring, with both sides attempting to bargain down how many troops they will commit in an attempt to gain honour which is essentially a social currency. When they go invade the home systems which have regressed technologically due to constant warfare they get their asses kicked because they spent all their time practicing ritual warfare and get ground down by pesky things like ambushes, overwhelming odds and combined arms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
JcDent posted:...so we're just inventing table top wargames. Its already hard enough to get rid of incompetent generals, imagine how much worse would be if they could just blame the dice for all their losses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:What's to stop me bombing your staging area? Further, this kind of thing kind of assumes a rough parity in force strength. It's very unlikely you would ever get someone to agree to that when the USA, Russia, India or China could just fill it with bodies and "win". No, that's part of the whole thing. Madagascar doesn't start a war with the US IRL because they have no chance of winning; nothing is different in that sense. War is quite literally just a gigantic machine for turning money time and people into a strategic result, so it makes no sense that it's so messy and unregulated. You don't try to establish cost parity, you just bring whatever you feel like bringing and the loser is whoever decides it isn't worth it first. Like an auction! Eej posted:Yes, the Clans are basically exiled soldiers who (d)evolved into a tribal social system where to minimize unnecessary personnel and materiel losses they have a high ritualized procedure where they declare where a duel/battle/war will happen and what they will bring, with both sides attempting to bargain down how many troops they will commit in an attempt to gain honour which is essentially a social currency. When they go invade the home systems which have regressed technologically due to constant warfare they get their asses kicked because they spent all their time practicing ritual warfare and get ground down by pesky things like ambushes, overwhelming odds and combined arms. This sounds interesting but I'm certain that all literature on the matter is beyond terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
We already have war regulations. They're called treaties. The more powerful countries can ignore them with out consequence (No cluster weapons? lol nope  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:No, that's part of the whole thing. Madagascar doesn't start a war with the US IRL because they have no chance of winning; nothing is different in that sense. War is quite literally just a gigantic machine for turning money time and people into a strategic result, so it makes no sense that it's so messy and unregulated. You don't try to establish cost parity, you just bring whatever you feel like bringing and the loser is whoever decides it isn't worth it first. Like an auction! JcDent posted:...so we're just inventing table top wargames.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:War is quite literally just a gigantic machine for turning money time and people into a strategic result, so it makes no sense that it's so messy and unregulated. Is this a thing that actually concerns you? The fact that war is messy and unregulated? The fact that it's "messy" is arguably part of its appeal - because it's so uncertain, if you're running out of options you can always throw the dice on war and hope that you get a better result than you would with your steadier options. And if you're doing badly at first you can always try to escalate one way or another in the hopes of pulling something out your sleeve at the last minute! Also, look at the way you get football riots over bad results or referee calls, or the way people argue endlessly and bitterly over balance changes in online games. Now raise the stakes to include major strategic national resources, potentially devastating economic impacts, and actual people dying. You'd basically have wars starting over the results of a war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Also, look at the way you get football riots over bad results or referee calls, or the way people argue endlessly and bitterly over balance changes in online games. Now raise the stakes to include major strategic national resources, potentially devastating economic impacts, and actual people dying. You'd basically have wars starting over the results of a war. One might argue that this has already happened. Bitterness over past wars have been a major influence in starting new ones, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Funnily enough, the German version of Command & Conquer basically had this. They changed it so that wars in the future (or in alternate timelines) are fought by cyborgs, well away from major cities, in areas where no civilians are allowed. Highlights include a crumpling sound when a tank ran over infantry and "I'm losing oil!" as a standard response of infantry being fired on. I guess the German rating agency feared that giving German children actual soldiers to play with activated the sleeping Nazi genes and would make us invade France again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Funnily enough, the German version of Command & Conquer basically had this. They changed it so that wars in the future (or in alternate timelines) are fought by cyborgs, well away from major cities, in areas where no civilians are allowed. Highlights include a crumpling sound when a tank ran over infantry and "I'm losing oil!" as a standard response of infantry being fired on. I guess having running down actual people (instead of zombies) in Carmageddon would awaken dormant Teutonic knight routines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Well, wouldn't it? It wouldn't.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
So uh, I bought one of those replica Waterloo 200 British soldier medals from the internet now. I kind of hoping I got in early and received one with a number of some poor sod that witnessed the battle.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:No, that's part of the whole thing. Madagascar doesn't start a war with the US IRL because they have no chance of winning; nothing is different in that sense. War is quite literally just a gigantic machine for turning money time and people into a strategic result, so it makes no sense that it's so messy and unregulated. You don't try to establish cost parity, you just bring whatever you feel like bringing and the loser is whoever decides it isn't worth it first. Like an auction! The whole premise behind the technology gap was stupid as gently caress too. It basically existed on the premise that when you build the plant that builds the plane you staple all the documentation on how to build the plant and the plane on the outside of that plant and oops if it gets blowed up we no longer know how to do that 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
To be fair it's more about the plans to the machines inside the plants than anything else and considering how nuke-happy they got about blowing up those factories and the general breakdown of everything it's not *too* far-fetched. Of course it's also a plot tool to allow for the whole 'dark ages after a more enlightened time' setting it originally had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I guess having running down actual people (instead of zombies) in Carmageddon would awaken dormant Teutonic knight routines. I think there was an anime about that
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
In real life, wars happen because people simply do not agree who would win. ISIS doesn't just sit and think 'oh gently caress, there is zero chance we can win vs the US'. They think they have some special sauce that is going to make the difference. Whether that's God, fancy new blitzkrieg tech, the element of surprise, allies who will come to their aid, some theory the other side doesn't have the stomach for casualties... When both sides agree on the result, the war in general simply doesn't happen. Edit: vvv or that, yeah. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:When both sides agree on the result, the war in general simply doesn't happen. Or it happens really fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
100 Years Ago French co-operation is secured for the Dardanelles expedition, and the Germans are launching a few limited attacks, some more successful than others. Meanwhile, the most interesting thing in the paper is a rather bombastic mineral water advert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Slavvy's idea was practiced in southern parts of Africa before the 19th century. Warring clans would meet, throw spears at each other from a distance, and avoided all trying to kill each other in hand-to-hand combat. Sometimes each side would choose a representative to fight in single combat, and the losing side would accept defeat and retreat. Other times they'd fight with blunted weapons and accept that a defeat with those would mean being killed in a real conflict. Then King Shaka came along and when his enemies came to the battlefield for some ritualized shadowfighting, his warriors would encircle and kill them all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In real life, wars happen because people simply do not agree who would win. When people ask questions like "why didn't the Confederates or Japanese or Iraqis just give up" it seriously ignores the issue of imperfect information. It is easy for us to see ex post facto that the odds were very long or whatever but they don't necessarily know that at the time. Also this is the reason behind maintaining a strong standing military (or at least the appearance of one) as a deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
bewbies posted:When people ask questions like "why didn't the Confederates or Japanese or Iraqis just give up" it seriously ignores the issue of imperfect information. It is easy for us to see ex post facto that the odds were very long or whatever but they don't necessarily know that at the time. Also this is the reason behind maintaining a strong standing military (or at least the appearance of one) as a deterrent. Also sometimes people beat even long odds (e.g. Frederick the Great in the Seven Years War; he was fighting Russia which was ruled by an anti-Prussian monarch, she died, her son was all about the bratwurst and changed sides). Hitler was actually hoping for a repeat at the end of World War 2 when Roosevelt died.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:22
|
|
