201 réponses à ce sujet

[Arppis]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Haha, yeah I like that. Good comedy movie.

Would be funny if someone actualy thought like that.

Because god forbid someone from not thinking like you, right?

Let aside a military officer expecting discipline from his men.

*pats*

[Aimi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

This may be true (or may not, depending on what her orders actually are), but...

Frankly, I think it'd be entirely irrelevant to what could have been: Gestapo-Renegade!Shepard shooting defeatism in the face of retreat and putting more fear in the Asari of him than the Reapers.

Sure, put some consequences down the road (less Asari support later), but that'd be a wicked-evil scene.

APPROV'D.

Butcher_of_Torfan wrote...

Everything in lore regarding Asari military units points to them being geared toward mobility, flexibility and maneuver warfare, and a high degree of variance and flexibility in individual unit make ups. Asari commanders probably are given a lot more freedom to make their own judgement calls than more rigid and top heavy human and turian chains of command.

Regardless, heroic last stands and "hold this spot no matter the cost!" speeches make for good dramatic entertainment. They don't make for battlefield victories. If you're about to get over run in a bad spot, getting pounded with superior firepower and taking casualties, you would need a good reason to hunker down and take even more casualties. Recovering a prothean artifact is a good reason. Some government agent who you've seen on the news a few times over the years saying "because i said so!" isn't.

Odd words coming from a user with that name. 

[SirEtchwart]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Haha, yeah I like that. Good comedy movie.

Would be funny if someone actualy thought like that.

Because god forbid someone from not thinking like you, right?

Let aside a military officer expecting discipline from his men.

I only quoted it because, well, it's Starship Troopers, and isn't that movie a bit campy?


I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

(In your defense, though, it WAS a kind of badass speech)

[Arppis]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Hearts and minds are never won by bullying. And diplomacy hardly works from gunpoint.

Actually it does.

If you are meek and weak then you have nothing to offer.

If you are strong then you've got something. You are worth cooperating with. Doesn't matter if you are nasty or nice they'll put up with you because it is worth it and the cost of being your enemy is too high.

If it takes me showing my strength, sure. But first I'll be using softer means. As I said, no need to be **** about it.

[Kaiser Shepard]

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

[SirEtchwart]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

[Kaiser Shepard]

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

Because what you'd obviously want is to be held back by cowards and weaklings, right?

[didymos1120]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

Yes.  It's an obsolete practice.

[SirEtchwart]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

Because what you'd obviously want is to be held back by cowards and weaklings, right?

Hey, if those cowards and weaklings can kill at least 2 enemies before they die, why not? That's something.

Besides, it's not like people can't changed. If they die, it's at least one worthwhile soldier who didn't. If they don't, they become hardened by war and are no longer cowards/weak.

[nightcobra]

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

Because what you'd obviously want is to be held back by cowards and weaklings, right?

Hey, if those cowards and weaklings can kill at least 2 enemies before they die, why not? That's something.

Besides, it's not like people can't changed. If they die, it's at least one worthwhile soldier who didn't. If they don't, they become hardened by war and are no longer cowards/weak.

ah the old tried and true method of  "letting them live and natural selection will do the rest"  

[Kaiser Shepard]

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

Because what you'd obviously want is to be held back by cowards and weaklings, right?

Hey, if those cowards and weaklings can kill at least 2 enemies before they die, why not? That's something.

Besides, it's not like people can't changed. If they die, it's at least one worthwhile soldier who didn't. If they don't, they become hardened by war and are no longer cowards/weak.

That is assuming that all lives are equal, when in fact they are not. The last thing you'd want is one of your unit panicking and either giving away your position, or hindering/undermining you progress in some other way.

didymos1120 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

Yes.  It's an obsolete practice.

Why hello there, Captain Obvious. I'm proud you're able to click on my link, read the wiki page and repeat what it says. Do you want a medal?

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 10 février 2012 - 09:00 .

[Arppis]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

Because what you'd obviously want is to be held back by cowards and weaklings, right?

Throwing away resources is never a good move. Did you know that commisaries also got killed a lot by "stray" bullets?
Killing your men and applying too much pressure on them, will make them pay you back or rebel. It is very short lived loyalty. They will turn tables on you as soon as they can.

It's a bad strategy in longer term.

But armies have always punished deserters. Understandable in that regard. But the best way to make sure they fight till end is to give them something to fight for.

Modifié par Arppis, 10 février 2012 - 09:03 .

[SirEtchwart]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

Because what you'd obviously want is to be held back by cowards and weaklings, right?

Hey, if those cowards and weaklings can kill at least 2 enemies before they die, why not? That's something.

Besides, it's not like people can't changed. If they die, it's at least one worthwhile soldier who didn't. If they don't, they become hardened by war and are no longer cowards/weak.

That is assuming that all lives are equal, when in fact they are not. The last thing you'd want is one of your unit panicking and either giving away your position, or hindering/undermining you progress in some other way.

I would argue that, while every soldier may not be equal, every life is. That seems more like a fundemental differences in our beliefs, though, so we may just have to agree to disagree.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Arppis wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

It's just not something I'd go for, is all. Especially in a fight that no one in the history of the galaxy has ever won.

Because what you'd obviously want is to be held back by cowards and weaklings, right?

Throwing away resources is never a good move. Did you know that commisaries also got killed a lot by "stray" bullets?
Killing your men and applying too much pressure on them, will make them pay you back or rebel. It is very short lived loyalty. They will turn tables on you as soon as they can.

It's a bad strategy in longer term.

And put the survival of the species in further danger? I think not.

SirEtchwart wrote...

I would argue that, while every soldier may not be equal, every life is. That seems more like a fundemental differences in our beliefs, though, so we may just have to agree to disagree.

It seems we're at an impasse, then.

[Van Der Muchbetter Cosanostra]

There is no time for mental health organisation in the frontlines during a bigass war. The war of survival. You will wonder how people become harsh during that time. When everyone's life depends on his mates' actions, coward caught in the front will never get any compassion from his comrades.

[Aimi]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

Meh. Roman standards of military discipline backfired more than once. Even some of the barrack-emperors were murdered by their own troops. I too have doubts about the policy's efficacy. Besides, it's not really a comparable practice; decimation was punishment, and invariably took place after a battle (usually after a battle lost). This is happening in the middle of a battle. Even martinets like Aurelianus wouldn't have a tenth of their men executed during the fight.

What you're suggesting sounds more like what Stalin did with the NKVD during the Great Patriotic War. They formed the "State" line of defense, behind the front lines of the Red Army - anybody who retreated from the FEBA was gunned down. NKVD detachments were also assigned to chivvy the infamous penal battalions forward. 

[Arppis]

daqs wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

SirEtchwart wrote...

I also have doubts as to the strategic value in murdering your own men.

Ever heard of decimation?

Meh. Roman standards of military discipline backfired more than once. Even some of the barrack-emperors were murdered by their own troops. I too have doubts about the policy's efficacy. Besides, it's not really a comparable practice; decimation was punishment, and invariably took place after a battle (usually after a battle lost). This is happening in the middle of a battle. Even martinets like Aurelianus wouldn't have a tenth of their men executed during the fight.

What you're suggesting sounds more like what Stalin did with the NKVD during the Great Patriotic War. They formed the "State" line of defense, behind the front lines of the Red Army - anybody who retreated from the FEBA was gunned down. NKVD detachments were also assigned to chivvy the infamous penal battalions forward. 

Already told him, but he kept babbling about winning the war like raving lunatic.

[Icinix]

At least there was no paragon or renegade choice.

It had a 'hold your line, some people will die, but we need to."

and a..

"Hold your line, thats an order." - she cracked it.

Paragon would have been - "Pack up your forces, go make some tea and dumplings, I'll take it from here..no, no...I've got it. Go. Breed and make fat happy blue babies."
Neutral would have been - "We need to hold here to get into the temple, its really important"
Renegade would have been - *grabs Asari by scruff of the neck* "Look squidworth! Hold the god damn line!"


Personally I like the games choice a bit bitter - and the top option seemed to get more people killed who maybe didn't need to die, where as the bottom kept more people alive but didn't help you.

[SubZeroMaster]

all i know is IM ABOUT TO DECIMATE SOME REAPERS

[Ricvenart]

"Because the punishment fell by lot, all soldiers in the group were eligible for execution, regardless of the individual degree of fault, or rank and distinction. The leadership was usually executed independently of the one in ten deaths of the rank and file"

How is that relatable to getting rid of cowards and weaklings? How would having Shepard executed for being the 1 in 10 or leader help? You may have had a point as many armies have excluded weak links from joining to keep the unit as one strong chain, but all you want to do is commit genocide to use as a weapon of terror, while people are being killed...Frankly though it's all in your name, thank god for the most part ideas like that have died out with good reason.

[Arppis]

Icinix wrote...

At least there was no paragon or renegade choice.

It had a 'hold your line, some people will die, but we need to."

and a..

"Hold your line, thats an order." - she cracked it.

Paragon would have been - "Pack up your forces, go make some tea and dumplings, I'll take it from here..no, no...I've got it. Go. Breed and make fat happy blue babies."
Neutral would have been - "We need to hold here to get into the temple, its really important"
Renegade would have been - *grabs Asari by scruff of the neck* "Look squidworth! Hold the god damn line!"


Personally I like the games choice a bit bitter - and the top option seemed to get more people killed who maybe didn't need to die, where as the bottom kept more people alive but didn't help you.

This so much.

[Aimi]

Ricvenart wrote...


"Because the punishment fell by lot, all soldiers in the group were eligible for execution, regardless of the individual degree of fault, or rank and distinction. The leadership was usually executed independently of the one in ten deaths of the rank and file"

How is that relatable to getting rid of cowards and weaklings? How would having Shepard executed for being the 1 in 10 or leader help? You may have had a point as many armies have excluded weak links from joining to keep the unit as one strong chain, but all you want to do is commit genocide to use as a weapon of terror, while people are being killed...Frankly though it's all in your name, thank god for the most part ideas like that have died out with good reason.

The point was that the soldiers were judged on the basis of the unit they served in. If the unit committed a "cowardly act", all in it were responsible. In that sense, it's similar to any barrack-room punishment in which the group suffers for the actions of a single member of it. Private Pyle sneaks in food, the whole unit gets extra PT, and his bunkmates promptly beat six shades of **** into him to try to force him to change his ways. Decimation, similarly, was intended to either kill off the "weakest links" or terrify them into never repeating whatever they did.

It wasn't genocide, that's silly. Killing off ten percent of a given military unit has nothing to do with large-scale ethnic violence. And it's not really mass murder, either. Outrageously excessive punishment? Well, yeah. If you ride your men too hard, they'll just figure they've got nothing to lose by fighting against you instead of the enemy. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Renegades gonna be tortured by Paragons in RL.
*goes to his bunker*