Karagin
06/12/02 06:15 PM
63.173.170.26
|
In the case why not big your entire army to defend?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
06/12/02 07:33 PM
12.91.116.73
|
>some one will turn gurrillea since you didn't cow the populus.
That's what the thousands of infantry are for. Blowing up a city most people on the planet never went to won't bother them as much as soldiers on every street corner and kicking down every guerilla's door. Warships can't even find guerillas unless they're the stupid hide-in-obvious-wilderness-camp sorts.
>The best way to that is destory something they will notice and that would be a city...
Only Clans, Capellans, and Snakes do that. I have no intention of playing any of those factions.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
06/12/02 07:38 PM
12.91.116.73
|
>Thus Nicholas setup a system that would vent the warrior drive and not wipe out the whole system of government at the same time
But that system is wasteful. Ironic, considering the Clans' penchant for avoiding waste.
Really, they should've just set up some sporting events, emphasized energy-sapping efforts like colonization and industrial growth, and eschewed war all together.
Nicholas was one sick puppy. A warrior society indeed.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
06/12/02 07:41 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Bingo.
Me, I cling to the brain fever argument. And I figure it was a heck of a lot more infectious than one would think (i.e. it got to Jerome Winson, et al.).
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
06/12/02 07:43 PM
24.44.238.62
|
I am not arguing against the idea that small battles are less wasteful than large battles.
What I'm arguing against is the (nutty) idea that, in a battle of *any* size, combat between equal forces is less wasteful than combat between outmatched forces. It isn't, plain and simple.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
06/12/02 07:43 PM
12.91.116.73
|
Yeah, it is wasteful, because:
1) The Clans fight in the first place when other people would've settled matters at the negotiating table or with mud wrestling or something else not involving the tremendous waste of mechanized warfare.
2) The Clans funnel all their culture's wealth into war, which is an utterly non-productive pursuit. Waste.
3) The Exodus society had no need to turn to continuous war after the Exodus Civil War did. The Clans have embraced continuous waste.
Avoiding army-level combat for smaller scale combat in the name of avoiding waste is missing the forest for a tree.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
06/12/02 07:44 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Once again, this is not about the size of the forces.
This is about the ratio of the sizes of the forces, and the manner in which those forces fight.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
06/12/02 07:46 PM
24.44.238.62
|
However, total losses are greater in a 1:1 ratio fight than a 3:1 ratio fight.
Let's take this for an example: 1 star vs. 1 star, or 1 star vs. 1 trinary.
The total losses of the former engagement are greater than the total losses of the latter. It's that simple ("n-squared law").
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Spartan
06/12/02 07:51 PM
172.141.125.77
|
This is all true. However the losses are limited to the military rather than thrown upon entire populations. I.E. it's more wasteful to destroy a city rather than a couple of mech stars. The waste avoidance is a couple of steps removed but it is there in one way or another. The point wasn't to avoid military waste and horror but to avoid inflicting those things upon civilians.
But then it doesn't always work out like it's supposed to... *cough*Turtle Bay*cough*
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Cray
06/12/02 08:14 PM
12.91.116.73
|
>However the losses are limited to the military rather than thrown upon entire populations
The Clan concept missed the forest for the trees. The post-Exodus Civil War SLDF exiles had no reason to fight at all.
>But then it doesn't always work out like it's supposed to... *cough*Turtle Bay*cough*
Shoot, the Clans have forgotten the whole protect-civilians-from-war idea. They slaughter their own laborers at the first whif of a rebellion.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
06/12/02 08:19 PM
24.44.238.62
|
How did people get the impression I'm for bombarding cities?
All I'm talking about is how it's wasteful for clans to fight battles with even forces, and it's wasteful for clans to use zellbrigen.
And how that's a contradiction of the Clans' stated objective of avoiding waste.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
06/12/02 08:20 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Gotta love how the whole Ares Conventions / Legitimizing War theme gets played out again and again, right?
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Bob_Richter
06/12/02 09:20 PM
4.35.174.250
|
I hate to say this, but you've got it all wrong.
Yes, Zellbrigen is wasteful, thus why it has been largely dispensed with once the Clans started fighting real war again.
(But at the time, honorable combat was considered the purpose of a warrior's life, and therefore not wasteful.)
The Batchall, however, is not.
It is merely a formalization of sane warfare:
1) You commit the forces you believe necessary to take an objective (the final bid)
2) If that proves insufficient, you call in the reserves (the semifinal bid.)
3) If even that proves isufficient, you can commit your last reserves (the initial bid) though by this point, the battle is probably already lost.
Batchall is simply a way to avoid overcommitting your forces, which can be a very serious blunder.
The side-effect is that it CAN (not will, CAN) limit the scale of conflict, a good thing from the perspective of waste.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
06/12/02 10:00 PM
63.173.170.147
|
How is it wasteful? A small force is used to fight another smaller force...thus whole armies are not fight each other in an area the size of Washington.
The losses are limited to the two forces and their machines and pilots thus the rest of the army on each side is still intact.
I don't see this as wasteful.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
06/12/02 10:02 PM
63.173.170.147
|
The idea I think you are missing is that two equal forces should cancel each other out. By this I mean that the losses on each side should be the same.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
06/12/02 10:04 PM
63.173.170.147
|
If you say so, I disagree and think you are missing the point, but you and Nathan have made up your minds and thus we are going circles.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
06/12/02 10:19 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Are you familiar with what is known as the "N-squared law"?
It states that, over time, the advantage conferred by numbers increases itself.
A good summary, geared for naval combat buffs (I am one, I admit) but applicable in general nonetheless, is here, at warships1.
The idea is this: if, at the beginning of a battle there is a disparity of forces, that disparity increases over time. If you start the battle with a 4:3 advantage (numerical or otherwise) this does not mean the battle ends with you suffering 3/4 the damage of your opponent; you suffer far less (and there are equations to prove this): 34% damage.
Look up "n-squared law" or Frederick Lanchester (the theorist behind it) in any search engine and you should find some helpful information.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Karagin
06/12/02 10:23 PM
63.173.170.147
|
I followed what you posted and I am giving my opinion based on the facts given to use from the canon text.
But as I said I don't agree with your take on this and feel that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this so I am bowing out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
KamikazeJohnson
06/12/02 10:25 PM
209.202.47.12
|
Simple...
Everyone would know that you insist on winning at any cost, so next time someone challenges you, they would bring enough troops to outnumber your entire planetside defensive force 3:1 or so, and commit all of it. Or at least equal numbers, since presumably the attacker is "honourable". The long-term result? Instead of risking a single Trinary in each of two Trials of Possession, you handily destroy the first attacker's forces, and then fight on even terms with your entire force for every battle for the rest of time.
It's kind of like the "prisoner's dilemma"...you can win this battle handily right now, but be forced to field a much, much larger force, and therefore take much heavier losses, for every future battle, or you could "play by the rules", and commit only a smal force each time, just like everyone else.
Not to mention that after a few large battles, your forces would likely be heavily outnumbered by Clans that fought using only minimal numbers of units.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
KamikazeJohnson
06/12/02 10:33 PM
209.202.47.12
|
>>Avoiding army-level combat for smaller scale combat in the name of avoiding waste is missing the forest for a tree.<<
I agree with you...the same sort of thing happened under the Ares Conventions. In general, military encounters did less damage than they had previously. Therefore, military actions are a much more feasible answer to a number of problems. Therefore, more military action. Therefore, roughly the same cost, since governments are willing to commit a total of x amount of resources to military actions.
Naturally, it never occurs to any one to simply stop fighting.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
KamikazeJohnson
06/12/02 10:52 PM
209.202.47.12
|
Zellbringen, of course, eliminates the n-squared law, since at any point in the battle, the numbers of active units are even, so at the end of the battle, the side with the larger force should be left with exactly that difference as their margin of victory, which kind of defeats the purpose of a huge advantage in numbers. Although I suppose a large numerical advantage allows for better area control, preventing flanking manoevers, etc. The larger force also has more flexibility to choose who takes part at any given time, further minimizing casualties.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Greyslayer
06/13/02 03:50 AM
137.172.211.9
|
Clanners from birth are taught to waste (their birth in fact is a point in wastage).
Clan warriors are born of metal wombs, genes matched between generally two closely match relatives (inbreeding which can leed to problems in later gene-pools) to get the desired triats. Spending massive amounts of resources to produce 1 single sibko (not to mention such things as using warrior ashes to 'feed' the featus).
During their upbringing many are 'weeded' out, badly injured or killed through the continual trials that are close to 'real life' as possible (rather than spending lesser resources on very close simulations). Their graduation is in fact a darwinism in itself with some clans (like Steel Cobra) lucky to have 1 member per sibko graduate. The amount of trained personnel and materials destroyed in this is sheer looney-bin material.
This is before the 'wasteful' combat begins. Also the objective of combat is wasteful. Clanners being such as they are would fight to the death for ownership of Alexander Kerenski's 300 year old used hankerchief rather than something of tactical or strategical importance *shrugs* must be good to be mental eh?
Greyslayer
|
Cray
06/13/02 06:23 AM
64.83.29.242
|
>How is it wasteful?
Clan society endorses violence to settle disputes that other cultures would have settled peacefully. By fighting in the first place (with big or small groups), the Clans are wasting resources other cultures would have put into more constructive venues, like colonization, industrialization, housing, rock concerts, motorsports, and the NFL.
That the Clans avoid large scale warfare is a moot point. The Clans are on a continuous war footing that generates the same level of waste with or without big battles.
The Clans:
1) waste their finest materials and technology on war machines, and waste a large percentage of their resources on war machines
2) spend enormous amounts of resources (relative to their nations' size) on warriors who are nothing more than glorified welfare cases (i.e. produce nothing in return for the investment in them)
3) Effectively continuously throw all those resources into trash incinerators (use them in war) rather than get something out of them
And this avoids the "waste" of large scale war? It amounts to the same thing.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (06/13/02 06:38 AM)
|
Cray
06/13/02 06:26 AM
64.83.29.242
|
Next time Clan Rabid Rabbit and Clan Frothing Ferret fight over the rights to DNA of the Ubermunch bloodname and, in doing so, destroy a total of 8 omnimechs worth 100 million C-bills, ask yourself:
Had this been resolved peacefully, what could the Clans have done with that 100 million C-bills/~$300 million?
By legitimizing violence to resolve disagreements, the Clans are incredibly wasteful on a per capita basis. See Greyslayer's post about a waste regime.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
06/13/02 06:30 AM
64.83.29.242
|
>The side-effect is that it CAN (not will, CAN) limit the scale of conflict, a good thing from the perspective of waste.
That's fine, but the Clan implementation is still screwy: they use mechanized warfare to settle disputes other people would've settled at the negotiating table. An ironic waste.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
06/13/02 06:48 AM
63.173.170.205
|
If you say. I disagree with your postion on this but I can see that nothing I say will get you change your mind so I am bowing out of the topic.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
06/13/02 06:50 AM
63.173.170.205
|
Again as I have said the small scale is where the least amount of damage to the whole group is done, but you and Nathan can't or won't see that. So seeing how we are again covering the same ground and beating it into dust I am bowing out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
06/13/02 07:26 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'rock concerts, motorsports, and the NFL.'
Wow you just named three things even MORE wasteful than the Clan system of combat  .
Greyslayer
|
Cray
06/13/02 07:55 AM
64.83.29.242
|
Exactly. I have to admit that societies that nominally avoid the waste of mechanized warfare to settle business and family disputes are not necessarily pictures of thriftiness.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
06/13/02 08:17 AM
64.83.29.242
|
Actually, we're talking about different topics.
You seem to be focusing on combat. Yes, small scale battles inflict less damage (i.e. waste less) than big ones.
I'm trying to point that even small scale battles are wasteful compared to the alternative (peaceful conflict resolution).
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|