253 réponses à ce sujet

[DevilBeast]

Klijpope wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...


300, fiction?  The movie adaptation, dramatized, obviously.  But the Battle of Thermopylae?  You think that's fiction?

300 Spartans, and their 5000 or so slaves and Thespians...

Yes, it´s amazing how fiction has made the Spartans take all the credit for the Battle of Thermopylae.

[tetsutsuru]

tetsutsuru wrote...

Know a real-life soldier who's been in an actual combat But you know, you might not even need to, there are lots of realistic movies which portray such: 300, We Were Soldiers, Saving Private Ryan, Act of Valor. Even realistic, science fiction, Battle: Los Angeles.

Outnumbered? Outgunned? So, you gonna just bend over and let the Reapers have their way with you, and you just take it then? Hell, no! I'm gonna die, [u][i][b]but I'm gonna make my ONE, seemingly insignificant life cost them dearly to take.

Not saying that High EMS = High Morale = instant guaranteed victory against the Reapers. Morale is a wildcard which can definitely turn 'victory' from a mere dream or wishful thinking, into a fighting chance of possibility.

Rip504 wrote...

With Reaper forces? No I do not.
Movies=Proof. None of which represent the Reapers force,power,enslaving techniques,indoctrination abilities etc.
Battle:LA Slightly in a small way supports your theory,although it is also completely fictional.

How? The Reapers only concern is victory,if they are wining or are going to win,your sacrifice means nothing. Sorry. 1% possibility of winning is enough for you to throw away our super weapon? I disagree with the endings and would have loved to beat the Reapers conventionally,but it does seem a bit far fetched and unrealistic. IMO

tetsutsuru wrote...

I'm just writing off some of your comments as simple attempts at being cute.

And I do have a few of friends who have served and a couple who are in Active Duty and currently deployed.

300, fiction?  The movie adaptation, dramatized, obviously.  But the Battle of Thermopylae?  You think that's fiction?

We Were Soldiers, fiction?  You might wanna not mention that to Lieutenant General Hal Moore, US Army (Ret.).  If you do, be sure to have someone there to take a picture of his boot up your a**.

Overall, my assessment of your response:  you have missed my point about 'morale'.  Your rebuttal is moot.

DevilBeast wrote...

It´s funny how you mention the Battle of Thermopylae as an example of how morale can win a battle, since they actually lost in that particular battle (another strange thing is how many assume there actually only were 300 men participating in that battle, when they were at least a thousand... If you include the troops from places such as Thespiae and Thebes).

What's funny about it? *shrug* Yes, they lost.  Dead to the very last man.  But at what cost to the Persians?  And that's just the Battle of Thermopylae.  And this paved the way towards the victory at the Battle of Plataea.

As far as the Battle of Thermopylae is concerned, a Phyrric Victory is still a 'victory' nonetheless.  And THAT is what morale is about.

Modifié par tetsutsuru, 14 mai 2012 - 11:02 .

[tetsutsuru]

tetsutsuru wrote...

300, fiction?  The movie adaptation, dramatized, obviously.  But the Battle of Thermopylae?  You think that's fiction?

Klijpope wrote...

300 Spartans, and their 5000 or so slaves and Thespians...

DevilBeast wrote...

Yes, it´s amazing how fiction has made the Spartans take all the credit for the Battle of Thermopylae.

Yeah, that's true.  At least the movie 300 shows the Greeks with them at the line, and also mentions the 5000 Greeks stationed at the mountain pass, if I recall.

[DevilBeast]

tetsutsuru wrote...

DevilBeast wrote...

It´s funny how you mention the Battle of Thermopylae as an example of how morale can win a battle, since they actually lost in that particular battle (another strange thing is how many assume there actually only were 300 men participating in that battle, when they were at least a thousand... If you include the troops from places such as Thespiae and Thebes).

What's funny about it? *shrug* Yes, they lost.  Dead to the very last man.  But at what cost to the Persians?  And that's just the Battle of Thermopylae.  And this paved the way towards the victory at the Battle of Plataea.

As far as the Battle of Thermopylae is concerned, a Phyrric Victory is still a 'victory' nonetheless.  And THAT is what morale is about.

Well, in that particular war you could say, regarding their victories at places like Thermopylae and Artemisium, that the Persians won the battle but lost the war. Eventhough those loses forced the Greeks to reconsider their strategy, since it originally involved them holding Thermopylae and Artemisium.

Anyway, it´s worth to mention that the Battle of Salamis is a good example of how superior numbers aren´t always going to win the battle (or maybe even the war) for you. I´m not sure if the Greek victory at Salamis had anything to do with morale, but tactics certaintly had an influence.

[Karolus_V]

One word: Nukes

A phrase: Mass accelerated Ferrous slug with a core of enriched uranium and after that, lots of nukes.
-----------------------

Marathon battle. Morale(plateans arriving to aid athenians being a good bost to that), and, in opinion of the persians, a fool tactic: Front Charging.

Sometimes a tactic normally unsuitable is the best.

[Sgt. Thompson]

The Dominion. The Founders are wise plus they use clones and crash into enemy ships if need be. Or just the Enterprise-E.

[ReXspec]

Reading the posts from supposed 'experts' have infuriated me, so, I'll try to keep this as short, coherent, and unbiased as I possibly can.  For all of you who are naturally cynical, I want you to stop and consider your own experience or your lack of one and read my words and carefully consider that there are possibilities and factors outside of the realm of mathematical, strategic, or logical understanding.  One of those realms is the realms of war... so, unless anyone here has fought in a ground war, I do not ask you to hold your tongue and consider what I'm about to say, gospel, but embrace humility for a second and read; consider.

I am Infantry.  United States Army.  4-31 IN "Polar Bears"  Charlie Company.  10th Mountain Division.  Roster number:  CM3526.

I was deployed with the 173D Airborne Brigade Combat Team "Sky Soldiers", 1-503D "First Rock" Charlie Company then HHC; previous roster numbers:  CM3526 then HM3526.  Former Paratrooper.

I was deployed to Afghanistan, Wardak Province as a Machine Gunner; my weapon system was the M249 SAW.  For six months I was thrust into theater as a nineteen-year-old Private with a rediculous amount of weight on my back and forced to  walk twenty-one plus clicks over jagged mountains.  Then, for the other six months, I was transferred to HHC as a Battalion Radio Telephone Operator because of PTSD; I had lost a friend in theater.  When I returned home, I was on the cusp of being promoted to a Sergeant, but I had discovered problems with my spine that had developed over the course of deployment, and am now being medically retired at four years of service as a Specialist.  So, I'd like to think that what I say holds some weight.

I apologize for getting too personal, and I don't mean to discredit people that have presented logical arguments thus far, but, saying this as a soldier, the OP is absolutely correct.

The battlefield high is a remarkable tool and weapon used by soldiers who faced insurmountable odds since the beginning of time.  To the educated, it is an extreme burst of adrenaline that pushes soldiers to the edge of human limits or even passed the line from human, to super-human.  Even for a foe as unconventional as the Reapers, the Reapers are still bound by the laws of reality, and therefore, the laws of war.  As such, they still have to deal with the obstacles of mass amounts of soldiers or small elite groups of soldiers who are enraged; having lost their planets, or are fighting for survival, the Reapers pit themselves against a ferocious enemies on all sides.  to counter this, the Reapers have tried a variety of tactics such as demoralization, or overwhelming firepower that has done all but push the front lines back--not annhilate them.  That is not the Reapers goal.  Because of this, the Reapers face a dilemma of bringing whole planets into "compliance" rather then annhilating planets altogether.  Can they annhilate planets?  Yes.  Do they want to?  No, not if they can help it.  The codex specifically states the Reapers don't want to wipe out all life; they need life in order to replenish and increase their numbers and strength.

Therefore, they need to secede to traditional military doctrine to some extent.  As such, they must fight in traditional ground wars.  And I say traditional because the tactics they use on the ground is nothing new--save for Troop Training Procedures that incorporate "harvesting" into their doctrine, but I consider that part of Reaper doctrine similar to what the SS were ordered to do during Hitler's "Final Solution": seek out the target population, bring them to heel, and "process" people on a mass scale (in a nutshell).

So whats the point of this long winded explanation?  Simple.  The Reapers fight with big guns and overwhelming force, so, the natural counter to this is spreading out forces into small teams and hit them where they are weakest.  This puts value on soldiers who (as previously mentioned) are, no doubt enraged and fighting for survival.

I don't know about you, but I know myself and pretty much everyone else in my unit would fight like demons if our homes were threatened.  Now Earth?  Take that to the next level.  NEVER underestimate the power of morale on the battlefield.  High morale coupled with a battlefield high can allow men weighed down with a-hundred pounds of gear to run down men garbed in a man-dress, armed with only an AK-47.  A high morale is what pushes men passed the 25 kilometer mark through jagged mountains and sewage trenches because their objective is in their scopes.

Soldier's who are enraged and have a high morale are a huge threat on the battlefield.  They are something to be feared.  The Reapers understand this--and that is why they design their warfare around breaking them.

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 12:25 .

[Karolus_V]

ReXspec wrote...

Reading the posts from supposed 'experts' have infuriated me, so, I'll try to keep this as short, coherent, and unbiased as I possibly can.  For all of you who are naturally cynical, I want you to stop and consider your own experience or your lack of one and read my words and carefully consider that there are possibilities and factors outside of the realm of mathematical, strategic, or logical understanding.  One of those realms is the realms of war... so, unless anyone here has fought in a ground war, I do not ask you to hold your tongue and consider what I'm about to say, gospel, but embrace humility for a second and read; consider.

I am Infantry.  United States Army.  4-31 IN "Polar Bears"  Charlie Company.  10th Mountain Division.  Roster number:  CM3526.

I was deployed with the 173D Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 1-503D "First Rock" Charlie Company then HHC; previous roster numbers:  CM3526 then HM3526.

I was deployed to Afghanistan, Wardak Province as a Machine Gunner; my weapon system was the M249 SAW.  For six months I was thrust into theater as a nineteen-year-old Private with a rediculous amount of weight on my back and forced to  walk twenty-one plus clicks over jagged mountains.  Then, for the other six months, I was transferred to HHC as a Battalion Radio Telephone Operator because of PTSD; I had lost a friend in theater.

I apologize for getting too personal, and I don't mean to discredit people that have presented logical arguments thus far, but, saying this as a soldier, the OP is absolutely correct.

The battlefield high is a remarkable tool and weapon used by soldiers who faced insurmountable odds since the beginning of time.  To the educated, it is an extreme burst of adrenaline that pushes soldiers to the edge of human limits or even passed the line from human, to super-human.  Even for a foe as unconventional as the Reapers, the Reapers are still bound by the laws of reality, and therefore, the laws of war.  As such, they still have to deal with the obstacles of mass amounts of soldiers or small elite groups of soldiers who are enraged; having lost their planets, or are fighting for survival, the Reapers pit themselves against a ferocious enemies on all sides.  to counter this, the Reapers have tried a variety of tactics such as demoralization, or overwhelming firepower that has done all but push the front lines back--not annhilate them.  That is not the Reapers goal.  Because of this, the Reapers face a dilemma of bringing whole planets into "compliance" rather then annhilating planets altogether.  Can they do this?  Yes.  Do they want to?  No.  The codex specifically states the Reapers don't want to wipe out all life; they need life in order to replenish and increase their numbers and strength.

Therefore, they need to secede to traditional military doctrine to some extent.  As such, they must fight in traditional ground wars.  And I say traditional because the tactics they use on the ground is nothing new--save for Troop Training Procedures that incorporate "harvesting" into their doctrine, but I consider that part of Reaper doctrine similar to what the SS were ordered to do during the "Final Solution" in order to seek out the target population, bring them to heel, and "process" people on a mass scale.

So whats the point of this long winded explanation?  Simple.  The Reapers fight with big guns and overwhelming force, so, the natural counter to this is spreading out forces into small teams and hit them where they are weakest.  This puts value on soldiers who (as previously mentioned) are, no doubt enraged and fighting for survival.

I don't know about you, but I know myself and pretty much everyone else in my unit would fight like devils if our homes were threatened.  Now Earth?  Take that to the next level.  NEVER underestimate the power of morale on the battlefield.  High morale coupled with a battlefield high can allow men weighed down with a-hundred pounds of gear to run down men garbed in a man-dress, and armed with an AK-47.  A high morale is what pushes men passed the 25 kilometer mark through jagged mountains and sewage trenches because their objective is in their scopes.

Morale is something to be feared.  The Reapers understand this--and that is why they design their warfare around breaking it.

Don't get me wrong, as I am one that thinks today wars, when the two contenders are not MILES away in capabilites, are primarily fight and won by land forces(I am not going to enter in the territory of high restrictive rules of engagement in highly asymetrical wars). 

In Mass Effect case, ground combat retains some importance, but even with that, ground forces are secondary. Is stated that council races were surprised as how effective earth ground forces were thanks to combined arms tactics with vehicles.But, fighting the reapers is a lot diferent, for a variety of reasons. Every one of their soldiers are your own population turned a monstrosity(this affects morale), the mere fact that the reapers themselves are kilometers long "living and sentient" warships above even dreadnoughts in raw power and technology are  another.  In mass effect you see a small group(shepards group) being the diference normally...but in the end, in reality, with what we are presented, small team commando operations versus the reapers were not going to make ANY diference in the great scheme. Reapers could keep pumping out converted citizens and crushing strongpoints themselves, and if a particular planet is too hard to take, destroy it(Not a la Death Star, obviously).

After that,  you have to factor the indoctrination capabilites they have, so distrust could(most probably) arise, and hinder morale even more(indoctrination is a lot worst than simple traitors).  And yes, in some ground combats, in how more ground forces are going to be capable to resist and make things harder for reaper ground troops , morale is a BIG factor(for the ones facing the reapers, as reaperized people didnt have morale).

What I am trying to say, is simply that advanced  space combat capabilities and superiority alone ,the reapers have, make the diference, and render moot ground and air forces if needed, only really counting space forces to counter them. So the crucible was born, because they didnt know how to beat the juggernaut enemy they created(yes, the writers at bioware).


Anyway, very interesting read your post, and sad to read the part about your friend. My condolences.

Modifié par Karolus_V, 15 mai 2012 - 12:26 .

[ReXspec]

I agree with you. As a soldier, I cannot even imagine what tactical advantages/disadvantages space combat brings into play in an asymmetrical war. But I also believe people in this thread do not give enough credit to what a soldier with high morale can do on the battlefield.

Again, I don't mean to discredit anyone, but maybe someone has to see it/experience it to believe it. Maybe someone has to come out of a firefight or IED blast unscathed and say to themselves, "Holy !@#$ how did I survive that?!"

And thank you for the condolences...

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 12:36 .

[Karolus_V]

ReXspec wrote...

I agree with you. As a soldier, I cannot even imagine what tactical advantages/disadvantages space combat brings into play in an asymmetrical war. But I also believe people in this thread do not give enough credit to what a soldier with high morale can do on the battlefield.

Again, I don't mean to discredit anyone, but maybe someone has to see it/experience it to believe it. Maybe someone has to come out of a firefight or IED blast unscathed and say to themselves, "Holy !@#$ how did I survive that?!"

I cannot even really imagine, sure when it develops it will do in forms we cannot think(and counters to it are going to arise, sure).

I am not even fired a real weapon ever, but one of the 3 or 4 things history has taught me, is that humans tend to do things at first sight totally out of their capabilites when faced with overwhelming odds, even if it ends bad. And about morale, they only have to see what can do, in world war 2, when greece was capable to contain and counterattack the italian invasion(and no, they werent equals in military terms), or the losses Poland inflicted to the germans, even with the german technical,numerical and tactical superiority.


P.D:As for explosions, expansive shockwaves have a "funny" tendence to "randomness"on what they harm or not.

Modifié par Karolus_V, 15 mai 2012 - 12:43 .

[saracen16]

Morale alone can't win a war. You need fleets, supplies, supply lines, and skill. Morale can only do so much in the short term, but a conventional war would take weeks, months, or even years to finish, and the forces of the galaxy should be prepared to hold out for that long if not longer to fight against the Reapers. Sadly, we see the opposite in the game: even the combined forces that Shepard gathers do only so much as to delay the Reapers.

[ReXspec]

Karolus_V wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I agree with you. As a soldier, I cannot even imagine what tactical advantages/disadvantages space combat brings into play in an asymmetrical war. But I also believe people in this thread do not give enough credit to what a soldier with high morale can do on the battlefield.

Again, I don't mean to discredit anyone, but maybe someone has to see it/experience it to believe it. Maybe someone has to come out of a firefight or IED blast unscathed and say to themselves, "Holy !@#$ how did I survive that?!"

I cannot even really imagine, sure when it develops it will do in forms we cannot think(and counters to it are going to arise, sure).

I am not even fired a real weapon ever, but one of the 3 or 4 things history has taught me, is that humans tend to do things at first sight totally out of their capabilites when faced with overwhelming odds, even if it ends bad. And about morale, they only have to see what can do, in world war 2, when greece was capable to contain and counterattack the italian invasion(and no, they werent equals in military terms), or the losses Poland inflicted to the germans, even with the german technical,numerical and tactical superiority.


P.D:As for explosions, expansive shockwaves have a "funny" tendence to "randomness"on what they harm or not.

Well, explosions, that can be attributed to chance, but firefights is a difference story when you have someone aiming at you.  And it's funny how that is isn't it?  When humans are faced with overwhelming odds of failure, and derive some sort of morale out of the fact that they will take as many of their opponents with them as they can.

To a normal person, that is probably considered madness, but to me, I consider it genius (or perhaps genius born of madness lol).  Such an opponent can devastate morale, and, in strictly battlefield mathematical terms, if a soldier who is going to die takes out a-hundred, ten, or even one enemy before he dies, that is one, ten, or a-hundred less enemies the next guy behind him will have to fight.

[Sodapop VII]

I am pretty sure every soldier and officer could've had an Asari lap dancer straddling them and each one of them a galaxy lotto winner and it wouldn't help one bit in the war. If Reapers can be beaten by opponents who are just united and happy alone well... what a let down they are from what they were built up as.

Modifié par Sodapop VII, 15 mai 2012 - 12:53 .

[magnutz06]

tetsutsuru wrote...

One word which makes a Conventional Victory possible:  Morale.

Shepard managing a high EMS rating means the biggest galactic "Sword" fleet and "Hammer" ground teams ever assembled.  Soldiers will have solid confidence and a high morale.  High morale means every single soldier can fight harder, better, faster, stronger.  This includes EDI, in spite of being synthetic.  Remember the last private conversation with her in the FOB?  She will follow Shepard, now determined and unwavering.  The same goes for the Geth, with full-AI sentience.

You can throw all the math you want at this with fleet ratings, score, strength, or whatever else have you.  But 'morale' is the one big thing which will throw all those equations up in the air.

Know a real-life soldier who's been in an actual combat theatre, let alone one who's been in direct combat?  Go ahead and ask him/her how much of a difference morale affects the situation.  But you know, you might not even need to, there are lots of realistic movies which portray such:  300, We Were Soldiers, Saving Private Ryan, Act of Valor.  Even realistic, science fiction, Battle: Los Angeles.

Outnumbered?  Outgunned?  So, you gonna just bend over and let the Reapers have their way with you, and you just take it then?  Hell, no!  I'm gonna die, but I'm gonna make my ONE, seemingly insignificant life cost them dearly to take.

Not saying that High EMS = High Morale = instant guaranteed victory against the Reapers.  Morale is a
wildcard which can definitely turn 'victory' from a mere dream or wishful thinking, into a fighting chance of possibility.

Just read this and to be very honest it gave me goosebumps. I agree wholeheartedly, all the effort Shep/nplayer go thru to amass an armada from the Milky Way made me believe the Reapers were toast. I can only imagine what a soldier in those fleets would feel like , Id guess invincible tho!!

Hopefully the devs at Bioware shock us all by making things right with the EC.

[ReXspec]

saracen16 wrote...

Morale alone can't win a war. You need fleets, supplies, supply lines, and skill. Morale can only do so much in the short term, but a conventional war would take weeks, months, or even years to finish, and the forces of the galaxy should be prepared to hold out for that long if not longer to fight against the Reapers. Sadly, we see the opposite in the game: even the combined forces that Shepard gathers do only so much as to delay the Reapers.

Of course morale alone can't win a war.  But, more often then not, it is the deciding factor between victory and defeat.

[OdanUrr]

tetsutsuru wrote...

One word which makes a Conventional Victory possible:  Morale.

Do you mean to say one man could defeat an army of millions if he were in high spirits?

[ReXspec]

Sodapop VII wrote...

I am pretty sure every soldier and officer could've had an Asari lap dancer straddling them and each one of them a galaxy lotto winner and it wouldn't help one bit in the war. If Reapers can be beaten by opponents who are just united and happy alone well... what a let down they are from what they were built up as.

NEVER underestimate the power of morale.  If all is right with the world for the soldier, and his sole focus is on his objective, coupled with rage and an adrenaline high, that may very well save his life.  It will keep him focused, alert, quick, and desicive rather then unfocused, numb, sluggish, and hesitant.

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 01:00 .

[Karolus_V]

ReXspec wrote...

Karolus_V wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I agree with you. As a soldier, I cannot even imagine what tactical advantages/disadvantages space combat brings into play in an asymmetrical war. But I also believe people in this thread do not give enough credit to what a soldier with high morale can do on the battlefield.

Again, I don't mean to discredit anyone, but maybe someone has to see it/experience it to believe it. Maybe someone has to come out of a firefight or IED blast unscathed and say to themselves, "Holy !@#$ how did I survive that?!"

I cannot even really imagine, sure when it develops it will do in forms we cannot think(and counters to it are going to arise, sure).

I am not even fired a real weapon ever, but one of the 3 or 4 things history has taught me, is that humans tend to do things at first sight totally out of their capabilites when faced with overwhelming odds, even if it ends bad. And about morale, they only have to see what can do, in world war 2, when greece was capable to contain and counterattack the italian invasion(and no, they werent equals in military terms), or the losses Poland inflicted to the germans, even with the german technical,numerical and tactical superiority.


P.D:As for explosions, expansive shockwaves have a "funny" tendence to "randomness"on what they harm or not.

Well, explosions, that can be attributed to chance, but firefights is a difference story when you have someone aiming at you.  And it's funny how that is isn't it?  When humans are faced with overwhelming odds of failure, and derive some sort of morale out of the fact that they will take as many of their opponents with them as they can.

To a normal person, that is probably considered madness, but to me, I consider it genius (or perhaps genius born of madness lol).  Such an opponent can devastate morale, and, in strictly battlefield mathematical terms, if a soldier who is going to die takes out a-hundred, ten, or even one enemy before he dies, that is one, ten, or a-hundred less enemies the next guy behind him will have to fight.

Mathematics count, that is clear(they always count >.<). And yes, even taking one more with you counts*: Maybe I am wrong, but in a situation like this(terrible overwhelming odds), when you know you are not going to make it, if you do something that makes some difference, you do it, ASAP.  At least go out with a bang*2.


*though with reaperized thingies I dont think it counts much :/
*2, no "well bang, ok?" Jokes of gamerpoop please

[Ticonderoga117]

OdanUrr wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

One word which makes a Conventional Victory possible:  Morale.

Do you mean to say one man could defeat an army of millions if he were in high spirits?

Shepard and company defeated and thoroughly trounced everything in thier way for the entire game.
Now not everyone may be Shep, but he/she cannot be the only competent people around.

Plus Cains, lots and LOTS of Cains. Or Nukes... Or orbital strikes. Or tactics!

[Karolus_V]

OdanUrr wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

One word which makes a Conventional Victory possible:  Morale.

Do you mean to say one man could defeat an army of millions if he were in high spirits?

Morale, as the % of galactic readiness do  in ME3, can be a multiplier force. It has its limits, but when talking about ground combat, can do a world of a diference.There is a gigaton of examples in history. For more in lore references, "Miracle in Palaven" , or how the "stuck up we doesnt stop to fight no matter what roman like alien birds" make Reapers sweat blood.

[OdanUrr]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Or tactics!

Perish the thought! We fight or we die, that's the plan!

[ReXspec]

Karolus_V wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Karolus_V wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I agree with you. As a soldier, I cannot even imagine what tactical advantages/disadvantages space combat brings into play in an asymmetrical war. But I also believe people in this thread do not give enough credit to what a soldier with high morale can do on the battlefield.

Again, I don't mean to discredit anyone, but maybe someone has to see it/experience it to believe it. Maybe someone has to come out of a firefight or IED blast unscathed and say to themselves, "Holy !@#$ how did I survive that?!"

I cannot even really imagine, sure when it develops it will do in forms we cannot think(and counters to it are going to arise, sure).

I am not even fired a real weapon ever, but one of the 3 or 4 things history has taught me, is that humans tend to do things at first sight totally out of their capabilites when faced with overwhelming odds, even if it ends bad. And about morale, they only have to see what can do, in world war 2, when greece was capable to contain and counterattack the italian invasion(and no, they werent equals in military terms), or the losses Poland inflicted to the germans, even with the german technical,numerical and tactical superiority.


P.D:As for explosions, expansive shockwaves have a "funny" tendence to "randomness"on what they harm or not.

Well, explosions, that can be attributed to chance, but firefights is a difference story when you have someone aiming at you.  And it's funny how that is isn't it?  When humans are faced with overwhelming odds of failure, and derive some sort of morale out of the fact that they will take as many of their opponents with them as they can.

To a normal person, that is probably considered madness, but to me, I consider it genius (or perhaps genius born of madness lol).  Such an opponent can devastate morale, and, in strictly battlefield mathematical terms, if a soldier who is going to die takes out a-hundred, ten, or even one enemy before he dies, that is one, ten, or a-hundred less enemies the next guy behind him will have to fight.

Mathematics count, that is clear(they always count >.<). And yes, even taking one more with you counts*: Maybe I am wrong, but in a situation like this(terrible overwhelming odds), when you know you are not going to make it, if you do something that makes some difference, you do it, ASAP.  At least go out with a bang*2.


*though with reaperized thingies I dont think it counts much :/
*2, no "well bang, ok?" Jokes of gamerpoop please

nnnh...applying mathematics to unknowns in war is like trying to predict what cats will do when you herd them.  It can be done, but you can't account for every possible outcome.  For example, I've seen a guy hit with a random AK-47 round that flew OVER a mountain and into our FOB.  Yes, there is mathh behind it, but the sheer chance of it is so baffling and astronomical that I don't even want to geuss.

I've seen dudes get lit up by enemy machine gun positions only to discover they have not been hit ONCE and all the rounds landed around him--it looked like something in a cartoon where the bullet holes created a silhouette of himself.

The only solid, un-radical mathematics in war are logistics and accountability.  Everything else is so damn farfetched it's unbeleivable.

Modifié par ReXspec, 15 mai 2012 - 01:12 .

[Ticonderoga117]

OdanUrr wrote...

Perish the thought! We fight or we die, that's the plan!

Well that's a good general plan, but in the whole "How does this help me?" for the regular trooper, not so much help.

[ReXspec]

OdanUrr wrote...

tetsutsuru wrote...

One word which makes a Conventional Victory possible:  Morale.

Do you mean to say one man could defeat an army of millions if he were in high spirits?

Of course morale alone can't win a war.  But, more often then not, it is the deciding factor between victory and defeat.

^ See above posts.

[Karolus_V]

ReXspec wrote...

Karolus_V wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Karolus_V wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I agree with you. As a soldier, I cannot even imagine what tactical advantages/disadvantages space combat brings into play in an asymmetrical war. But I also believe people in this thread do not give enough credit to what a soldier with high morale can do on the battlefield.

Again, I don't mean to discredit anyone, but maybe someone has to see it/experience it to believe it. Maybe someone has to come out of a firefight or IED blast unscathed and say to themselves, "Holy !@#$ how did I survive that?!"

I cannot even really imagine, sure when it develops it will do in forms we cannot think(and counters to it are going to arise, sure).

I am not even fired a real weapon ever, but one of the 3 or 4 things history has taught me, is that humans tend to do things at first sight totally out of their capabilites when faced with overwhelming odds, even if it ends bad. And about morale, they only have to see what can do, in world war 2, when greece was capable to contain and counterattack the italian invasion(and no, they werent equals in military terms), or the losses Poland inflicted to the germans, even with the german technical,numerical and tactical superiority.


P.D:As for explosions, expansive shockwaves have a "funny" tendence to "randomness"on what they harm or not.

Well, explosions, that can be attributed to chance, but firefights is a difference story when you have someone aiming at you.  And it's funny how that is isn't it?  When humans are faced with overwhelming odds of failure, and derive some sort of morale out of the fact that they will take as many of their opponents with them as they can.

To a normal person, that is probably considered madness, but to me, I consider it genius (or perhaps genius born of madness lol).  Such an opponent can devastate morale, and, in strictly battlefield mathematical terms, if a soldier who is going to die takes out a-hundred, ten, or even one enemy before he dies, that is one, ten, or a-hundred less enemies the next guy behind him will have to fight.

Mathematics count, that is clear(they always count >.<). And yes, even taking one more with you counts*: Maybe I am wrong, but in a situation like this(terrible overwhelming odds), when you know you are not going to make it, if you do something that makes some difference, you do it, ASAP.  At least go out with a bang*2.


*though with reaperized thingies I dont think it counts much :/
*2, no "well bang, ok?" Jokes of gamerpoop please

nnnh...applying mathematics to unknowns in war is like trying to predict what cats will do when you herd them.  It can be done, but you can't account for every possible outcome.  For example, I've seen a guy hit with a random AK-47 round that flew OVER a mountain and into our FOB.  Yes, there is mathh behind it, but the sheer chance of it is so baffling and astronomical that I don't even want to geuss.

I've seen dudes get lit up by enemy machine gun positions only to discover they have not been hit ONCE and all the rounds landed around him--it looked like something in a cartoon where the bullet holes created a silhouette of himself.

The only solid, un-radical mathematics in war are logistics and accountability.  Everything else is so damn farfetched it's unbeleivable.

Often, in war, anything can happen. That example of the bullet is >.< , thats bad luck at a high degree. About mathematics I was thinking more along the lines of space combat,air combat , the machines of war basically.