Progress on 2e

[tneva82]

its not about the tech, its about the amount of weapons the Narn put on that ship, its not technical at all, its a brick with lots of guns.

Brick with lots of gun that is still inferior to first one ships.

1 on 1 duel between first one and younger race ship results in quick&messy destruction of younger race ship.

Bring out more of your friends and hope you might survive before he has time to shoot all of you.

But one younger race ship just won't equal first ones biggest ships.

If that would be true shadow war wouldn't have been such a problem afterall. Just create several ships with heaps of guns. Shadows dealt with. Vorlons dealt with. Problem solved.

 

[katadder]

apart from one ka'bin'tak probably couldnt stand upto a HC dueto the crits caused on it. some ships are better than others 1v1 and other ships are better as part of a fleet.

 

[Reaverman]

its not about the tech, its about the amount of weapons the Narn put on that ship, its not technical at all, its a brick with lots of guns.
think of a man with a machine gun versus 1000 men with spears, yep he can kill alot but he wont get them all before he dies.

He will if he is out of range, and behind a moat :twisted:

 

[Hash]

its not about the tech, its about the amount of weapons the Narn put on that ship, its not technical at all, its a brick with lots of guns.
think of a man with a machine gun versus 1000 men with spears, yep he can kill alot but he wont get them all before he dies.

He will if he is out of range, and behind a moat :twisted:

Actually I think its a good analogy, assuming of course the men with spears don't run away screaming from the man with the gun (yeah sure we'll get him eventually but that doesn't mean I want to be first in line!)

There becomes a point when tech gets too advanced for that argument to hold water though though...I'm suddenly reminded of the original Civilisation computer game where, occasionally, a Phalanx (a very early tech defence unit) would defeat (and sink) an attacking Battleship (an advanced naval unit capable of attacking coastal cities).

My point is that technology doesn't just change how effective you are but also HOW you fight. Lets go back to the man with a gun vs. 1000 spearmen, at a sufficient tech level you don't NEED men with guns to take on spearmen...you bombard them with rockets, confuse and disorient them with gas, gun them down with machine gun nests...etc. Of course the spearmen will adapt...(i.e. not march down in easily targeted formation but perhaps disperse in cities using only their spearheads to sneak up and kill occupying forces in their sleep or whatever) but then I'm rambling...

 

[Reaverman]

its not about the tech, its about the amount of weapons the Narn put on that ship, its not technical at all, its a brick with lots of guns.
think of a man with a machine gun versus 1000 men with spears, yep he can kill alot but he wont get them all before he dies.

He will if he is out of range, and behind a moat :twisted:

Actually I think its a good analogy, assuming of course the men with spears don't run away screaming from the man with the gun (yeah sure we'll get him eventually but that doesn't mean I want to be first in line!)

There becomes a point when tech gets too advanced for that argument to hold water though though...I'm suddenly reminded of the original Civilisation computer game where, occasionally, a Phalanx (a very early tech defence unit) would defeat (and sink) an attacking Battleship (an advanced naval unit capable of attacking coastal cities).

My point is that technology doesn't just change how effective you are but also HOW you fight. Lets go back to the man with a gun vs. 1000 spearmen, at a sufficient tech level you don't NEED men with guns to take on spearmen...you bombard them with rockets, confuse and disorient them with gas, gun them down with machine gun nests...etc. Of course the spearmen will adapt...(i.e. not march down in easily targeted formation but perhaps disperse in cities using only their spearheads to sneak up and kill occupying forces in their sleep or whatever) but then I'm rambling...

During the 19th century in Africa, I think two European soldiers kept thousands of Africans at bay with a Mitraleuse Machinegun. No one got close enough, and the enemy (the chaps with spears) were wiped out to the man.

 

[animus]

During the 19th century in Africa, I think two European soldiers kept thousands of Africans at bay with a Mitraleuse Machinegun. No one got close enough, and the enemy (the chaps with spears) were wiped out to the man.

I saw that movie. It starred Michael Caine didn't it? There was a bunch of soldiers though or am I thinking of something else?

 

[prelude_to_war]

You're thinking of 'Zulu' - great movie but they didn't have any machine guns...just bolt action rifles fired in ranks. I watch that movie whenever it's on - my wife can't stand it.

 

[Reaverman]

You're thinking of 'Zulu' - great movie but they didn't have any machine guns...just bolt action rifles fired in ranks. I watch that movie whenever it's on - my wife can't stand it.

I got the DVD, its a sterling movie. Though the characterization of Hook is a little inaccurate!

I keep expecting one of the Zulu's to drop to the floor, shouting "Ahhhhh, I stubbed my toe on that bleedin rock" :lol:

 

[Reaverman]

During the 19th century in Africa, I think two European soldiers kept thousands of Africans at bay with a Mitraleuse Machinegun. No one got close enough, and the enemy (the chaps with spears) were wiped out to the man.

I saw that movie. It starred Michael Caine didn't it? There was a bunch of soldiers though or am I thinking of something else?

Oh, and the Zulu's withdrew, they did not get wiped out. The British grossly misjudged the Zulu's, thinking they were an undisciplined force. How wrong they were, these chaps fought in proper formations. They had rankings, and military tactics.

Did you know, that they forced their soldiers to march on thorn bushes. That way toughening the soles of their feet, making them as tough as a pair of boots.

 

[captainsmirk]

You're thinking of 'Zulu' - great movie but they didn't have any machine guns...just bolt action rifles fired in ranks. I watch that movie whenever it's on - my wife can't stand it.

Ahhh!!!! //Pedantic mode on.

The Martini-Henry wasn't a bolt-action rifle...

//Pedantic mode off.



I'll get my coat...


Nick

 

[emperorpenguin]

You're thinking of 'Zulu' - great movie but they didn't have any machine guns...just bolt action rifles fired in ranks. I watch that movie whenever it's on - my wife can't stand it.

I got the DVD, its a sterling movie. Though the characterization of Hook is a little inaccurate!:

Not just Hook, the characterisation of Bromhead and Chard is inaccurate too. Not to mention more than 17 British soldiers were killed in the film!

 

[Reaverman]

You're thinking of 'Zulu' - great movie but they didn't have any machine guns...just bolt action rifles fired in ranks. I watch that movie whenever it's on - my wife can't stand it.

Ahhh!!!! //Pedantic mode on.

The Martini-Henry wasn't a bolt-action rifle...

//Pedantic mode off.



I'll get my coat...


Nick

No it was a Lever Action rifle with one hell of a kick, and reknowned for coking up

 

[Hash]

During the 19th century in Africa, I think two European soldiers kept thousands of Africans at bay with a Mitraleuse Machinegun. No one got close enough, and the enemy (the chaps with spears) were wiped out to the man.

Indeed so - however isolated anecdotal evidence does not constitute sufficient argument to draw an objective conclusion.

Sorry I just wrote that in a report I'm writing and thought it sounded cool if a bit obscure...and appropriate!

It does sound doubtful that out of "thousands" not a single one escaped and every single person died from the machine gun bursts alone...far more likely that many were killed quickly, some died slowly from injuries or exposure, others wounded and survived to be killed later and some escaped having run rather than try to storm the bodies of their comrades to get at the gun...then that's what you get from anecdotal evidence, statistics man, STATISTICS!

EDIT: Hmm...didn't refresh the webpage before reading the subsequent posts!

 

[katadder]

yep, if you wanna go anecdotal theres always the many stories of lone guys charging machine gun nests.

 

[prelude_to_war]

You're thinking of 'Zulu' - great movie but they didn't have any machine guns...just bolt action rifles fired in ranks. I watch that movie whenever it's on - my wife can't stand it.

Ahhh!!!! //Pedantic mode on.

The Martini-Henry wasn't a bolt-action rifle...

//Pedantic mode off.

 

[Target]

During the 19th century in Africa, I think two European soldiers kept thousands of Africans at bay with a Mitraleuse Machinegun. No one got close enough, and the enemy (the chaps with spears) were wiped out to the man.

Indeed so - however isolated anecdotal evidence does not constitute sufficient argument to draw an objective conclusion.

Sorry I just wrote that in a report I'm writing and thought it sounded cool if a bit obscure...and appropriate!

It does sound doubtful that out of "thousands" not a single one escaped and every single person died from the machine gun bursts alone...far more likely that many were killed quickly, some died slowly from injuries or exposure, others wounded and survived to be killed later and some escaped having run rather than try to storm the bodies of their comrades to get at the gun...then that's what you get from anecdotal evidence, statistics man, STATISTICS!

EDIT: Hmm...didn't refresh the webpage before reading the subsequent
posts!

Not the battle with 2 men vs 1000 but ask any Saffa about Blood River, 1000's of native were killed & the Boers settlers lost 0 people or so they told me.
Back to the point, none of the younger races have a planet destroying ship, Vorlons probably way HC than younger races Armagedon ships. It's just we are playing a balanaced battle so they don't get bring them all just like Minbari had a Sharlin or two for every Earth ship or aleast what we see on scren.

 

[Da Boss]

of course Rorkes Drift followed a huge disaster where several thousand British troops with rifle, cannons and rockets where wiped out - by well trained Zulu warriors.

There are, appaently, so many factors in war apart from sheer firepower

CTA tries to make a balanced game - try fighting the battle of the line with the Minbari outnumbering the EA ships.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

CTA tries to make a balanced game - try fighting the battle of the line with the Minbari outnumbering the EA ships.

You know, I've spend hours this last week playing an excellently balanced, fast-paced and rather attractively presented game name of Victoria Cross: The Battle of Roarke's Drift.

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

CTA tries to make a balanced game - try fighting the battle of the line with the Minbari outnumbering the EA ships.

You know, I've spend hours this last week playing an excellently balanced, fast-paced and rather attractively presented game name of Victoria Cross: The Battle of Roarke's Drift.

Wulf

I bought that game last year, a lot of fun!

of course Rorkes Drift followed a huge disaster where several thousand British troops with rifle, cannons and rockets where wiped out - by well trained Zulu warriors

Isandhlwana

yep, if you wanna go anecdotal theres always the many stories of lone guys charging machine gun nests

like Col H Jones in the Falklands

 

[Target]

One marine "Stein" at iwo-jima took out several jap bunkers by himself but he had a magine gun, modified aircraft machine gun fired 100 rounds in several bursts. He keeped on having running back to the beach for ammo, which he done bare foot so he was faster apparently even carried a wounded marine back one time while under heavy mortar fire from the japs.
How off topic are we getting, nothing to do with 2nd Ed :lol: