68 replies to this topic

[Moromillas]

Skylarr, on 24 March 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

[Something about Ulric.]

Ulric? Ulric brokered a truce that saw nearly 10 years of peace. Are you talking about the refusal war? He had every right to demand a trial of refusal.

Edited by Moromillas, 24 March 2013 - 08:13 PM.

[Skylarr]

Ok so you quoted me saying that Ulric brokered a truce. It does not mean that he did not fail to inform the other clain what would be the best way to fight the ComGuards. His stance, as their leader, was that since they did not ask he was not telling them.

Edited by Skylarr, 24 March 2013 - 08:22 PM.

[Uncle Totty]

Skylarr, on 24 March 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Ok so you quoted me saying that Ulric brokered a truce. It does not mean that he did not fail to inform the other clain what would be the best way to fight the ComGuards. His stance, as their leader, was that since they did not ask he was not telling them.

*sigh*

He asked them, they said no, he said okay.

[Skylarr]

Nathan K, on 24 March 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

*sigh*

He asked them, they said no, he said okay.

So why did he not just come out and tell them? He was the IlKahn. He wanted them to fail so he found a way to mae it look like he tried.

[Uncle Totty]

Skylarr, on 24 March 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

So why did he not just come out and tell them? He was the IlKahn. He wanted them to fail so he found a way to mae it look like he tried.

So it was Ulric's fault that the Crusaders were arrogant dumb-*****.

Right.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I hate the Steiners because of their "social" officers of "how deep can I get my nose up his/hers ********?"

I hate the Davions because of their very American "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" mentality.

I hate the Kuritans because they are everything I hate about the clans mixed in with the political gaming of typical IS great houses.

I hate the Mariks because they are too busy infighting, killing their own family for power.

I hate the Liaos because of their extreme "cloak and dagger" antics.

I hate the Crusader clans because of their "might makes right" mentality.

I only like Mercs, Lyrans (not Steiners), and the FRR. Mercs are out looking out for themselves and their friends/family. Lyrans are of German descent so I can't hate my own lineage. And the FRR is about the only amount of sanity in the entire IS. Which is a shame that they go so soon and that they hate Mercs.

[Jack Gallows]

There are things to like and to hate about every faction in Mechwarrior. I can list things I don't like about the I.S., the Clans, Mercs, etc.

Lotta things to like about the different factions, too. There are many Clans I don't mind while some I absolutely hate, and the same goes for the Inner Sphere. I'm big on Davion and Kurita, while also really enjoying the Ghost Bears (Warden).

[guardian wolf]

You know, this thread doesn't get near the attention of it's sister thread over in the Clan section. I wonder why?

[Viper69]

CapperDeluxe, on 21 February 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

I prefer

[guardian wolf]

I LOVE HK-47!!!! He was my favorite character from KOTOR.

[PaintedWolf]

Natasha Kerensky, on 21 February 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Fortifications mean nothing in war. They should have learned from history. (ie. Maginot Line)

So the Medieval Kingdoms spent decades and decades constructing Castles for no reason? Also what about NORAD?

Edited by PaintedWolf, 11 April 2013 - 10:49 AM.

[Dakkaface]

I don't really hate the IS. I dislike most of the factions, but there are some I like more than others. FWL can be interesting, and I do like RR. (Wrasslehogs!) By and large, the reason I don't usually play IS is that I like the look of Clan mechs more, and I enjoy the shenanigans of Clan Nova Cat. ("Call the coinflip." "Edge.")

Honestly, focus fire and grinding elite units under a wave of cheap useless units is much more my preferred play style than Clan 1v1 dueling, but I stick with Nova Cat because I like the look of thier units and mechs, I like their background more than the other faction backgrounds and the Clans generally have better or more interesting battle armors.

PaintedWolf, on 11 April 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

So the Medieval Kingdoms spent decades and decades constructing Castles for no reason? Also what about NORAD?

And yet, the most successful army in the medieval period built no fortifications. The Mongols built an empire in medieval times that rivaled the size of the British Empire of the 19th century, and did so without building fortifications. Fortifications are not useless - strongpoints and defensive positions are valuable, but a fortified position is less advantageous than mobility, especially for an attacking force. NORAD is not impregnable, and it's purpose was not to be such, but to ensure that the upper command structure was preserved in the event of a nuclear war. It's a bunker, not a fortress.

Edited by Dakkaface, 11 April 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Quote

And yet, the most successful army in the medieval period built no fortifications. The Mongols built an empire in medieval times that rivaled the size of the British Empire of the 19th century, and did so without building fortifications. Fortifications are not useless - strongpoints and defensive positions are valuable, but a fortified position is less advantageous than mobility, especially for an attacking force. NORAD is not impregnable, and it's purpose was not to be such, but to ensure that the upper command structure was preserved in the event of a nuclear war. It's a bunker, not a fortress.

http://en.wikipedia....#Fortifications

Quote

In Europe, breakdowns in centralized power led to the rise of a number of groups that turned to large-scale pillage as a source of income. Most notably the Vikings (but also Arabs, Mongols and Magyars) raided significantly. As these groups were generally small and needed to move quickly, building fortifications was a good way to provide refuge and protection for the people and the wealth in the region.

These fortifications evolved over the course of the Middle Ages, the most important form being the castle, a structure which has become linked with the medieval era to many. The castle served as a protected place for the local elites. Inside a castle they were protected from bands of raiders and could send mounted warriors to drive the raiders from the area, or to disrupt the efforts of larger armies to supply themselves in the region by gaining local superiority over foraging parties that would be impossible against the whole enemy host.

Fortifications were a very important part of warfare because they provided safety to the lord, his family, and his servants. They provided refuge from armies too large to face in open battle. The ability of the heavy cavalry to dominate a battle on an open field was useless against fortifications. Building siege engines was a time-consuming process, and could seldom be effectively done without preparations before the campaign. Many sieges could take months, if not years, to weaken or demoralize the defenders sufficiently. Fortifications were an excellent means of ensuring that the elite could not be easily dislodged from their lands - as Count Baldwin of Hainaut commented in 1184 on seeing enemy troops ravage his lands from the safety of his castle, "they can't take the land with them".

Quote

In the Medieval period besieging armies used a wide variety of siege engines including: scaling ladders; battering rams; siege towers and various types of catapults such as the mangonel, onager, ballista, and trebuchet. Siege techniques also included mining in which tunnels were dug under a section of the wall and then rapidly collapsed to destabilize the wall's foundation. A final technique was to bore into the enemy walls, however this was not nearly as effective as other methods due to the thickness of castle walls. Several of these siege techniques were used by the Romans but experienced a rebirth during the Crusades.

Advances in the prosecution of sieges encouraged the development of a variety of defensive counter-measures. In particular, medieval fortifications became progressively stronger — for example, the advent of the concentric castle from the period of the Crusades — and more dangerous to attackers — witness the increasing use of machicolations and murder-holes, as well the preparation of hot or incendiary substances. Arrow slits, concealed doors for sallies, and deep water wells were also integral to resisting siege at this time. Designers of castles paid particular attention to defending entrances, protecting gates with drawbridges, portcullises and barbicans. Wet animal skins were often draped over gates to repel fire. Moats and other water defenses, whether natural or augmented, were also vital to defenders.

In the Middle Ages, virtually all large cities had city walls — Dubrovnik in Dalmatia is an impressive and well-preserved example — and more important cities had citadels, forts or castles. Great effort was expended to ensure a good water supply inside the city in case of siege. In some cases, long tunnels were constructed to carry water into the city. In other cases, such as the Ottoman siege of Shkodra, Venetian engineers had designed and installed cisterns that were fed by rain water channeled by a system of conduits in the walls and buildings.^[13] Complex systems of underground tunnels were used for storage and communications in medieval cities like Tábor in Bohemia. Against these would be matched the mining skills of teams of trained sappers, who were sometimes employed by besieging armies.

Until the invention of gunpowder-based weapons (and the resulting higher-velocity projectiles), the balance of power and logistics definitely favored the defender. With the invention of gunpowder, the traditional methods of defense became less and less effective against a determined siege.

Quote

The Golden Horde would frequently clash with Hungarians, Lithuanians and Poles in the thirteenth century, with two large raids in the 1260s and 1280s respectively. In 1284 the Hungarians repelled the last major raid into Hungary, and in 1287 the Poles repelled a raid against them. The instability in the Golden Horde seems to have quieted the western front of the Horde. The Hungarians and Poles had responded to the mobile threat by extensive fortification-building, army reform in the form of better armoured cavalry, and refusing battle unless they could control the site of the battlefield to deny the Mongols local superiority. The Lithuanians relied on their forested homelands for defense, and used their cavalry for raiding into Mongol-dominated Russia.

Also good luck taking NORAD pal. I am willing to bet it is not as easy as you think, but if you really think you could take NORAD I'd just love to see you try. Just let me get the popcorn and remote first.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 11 April 2013 - 04:52 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Quote

During The Mongol invasion of Europe, Tatars under the leadership of Kadan, experienced a major failure in March 1242 at Klis Fortress in southern Croatia.^[20][21]

[Grey Black]

Why do I dislike the Inner Sphere? Oh, my, where to start....

Steiner: Greedy merchants who wouldn't know sound military strategy if it bit them in the arse.

Kurita: Militant, overbearing, misogynistic arses who keep their population dumb and mute to maintain power.

Davion: militant Mary Sue's who believe their arse doesn't stink.

Liao: A bunch of communist, paranoid arses.

Marik: a bunch of disorganized, schizophrenic arses who tear themselves apart every so often.

FRR: Arses towards mercs.

Mercs: We'll be your arse for cash!

So basically, it comes down to everyone is an arse.

[PaintedWolf]

Grey Black, on 11 April 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

Davion: militant Mary Sue's who believe their arse doesn't stink.

Mary Sue? No, they are Imperialist Aggressors, War Mongers and Mass Murderers:

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 28 March 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Unfortunately you have a neighbor on one side that is a large powerful nation with a strong military just itching for a reason to use it. When Hanse Davion married Melissa Steiner they had created the largest and most powerful nation in the all the Successor States, nearly half the Inner Sphere belonged to them. And on the day of his wedding what did he do? He could have called for the end of all wars, he could have simply stated that he wanted a new era of peace, he could have called a meeting to discuss the reformation of the Star League.

Instead he chose his wedding as a moment to launch another Succession War, just what everyone wants on their wedding day, millions of deaths.

Quote

Hanse Davion murdered 100 million people and left another half-billion casualties in the Fourth Succession War alone! And if that were not enough for him, ten years later he went to war again.

Killing 100 million people is hardly what one would call a Mary Sue. And that is not even taking into account the millions of loyal Kurita and Liao citizens who are forced to rot in Davion Dungeons because they refuse to become vassals and slaves! The political prisoners, who's only crime is staying loyal to the nation on which they are born, is not the sort of thing the Davion media talks about. In fact, Hanse Davion cannot name a single Capellan or Kuritan citizen he has killed in his wars of aggression, or any, of the tens of millions, he has locked away in his dungeons.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 11 April 2013 - 09:22 PM.

[Volt Corsair]

Eh, the IS is pretty much a *********** at this point in history, and have begun ignoring the Ares Conventions, the space equivalent to the Geneva Conventions. The Clans at least have a semi united front, minus the infighting between each Clan. I always opt for the more organized, and more upfront, force. While I don't necessarily agree with the politics the Clans have, at least they're a proud people in their own right. I haven't read all of the novels yet, but this is what I have. I specifically like the Wardens of Clan Wolf. They have the best intentions for the Inner Sphere and Clan space methinks.

[Dakkaface]

PaintedWolf, on 11 April 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....#Fortifications

Also good luck taking NORAD pal. I am willing to bet it is not as easy as you think, but if you really think you could take NORAD I'd just love to see you try. Just let me get the popcorn and remote first.

Okay wiki-warrior. How about you respond to what I actually said, rather than throw up a wall of text about fortifications?

Nowhere did I say fortifications are useless. I said they are less valuable than mobility. Sitting safe in a castle or inside a city wall is all well and good, but it means that your ability to project power is limited. You're locked down and an army can just sweep around you. If the objective is to raze the city, fortify it to hell and back. That's good place to fortify. But in general, having an army that can wheel around and be in another place in short order is better. I notice you don't dispute that the Golden Horde conquered an enormous empire without building fortifications.

Secondly, I have assumed that by NORAD you mean Cheyenne Mountain. It's exactly what I said it is - a bunker. I don't know where you got the idea that I 'think I can take it.' I said it is a bunker, and that's what it is. It has no means to project power from it once it closes up short of launching nuclear missiles. It is not a fortress or bastion where you have murderholes and crenelations to fire from. The facility doesn't sit on an important site, it doesn't hold a vast cache of weapons an ammunition, it doesn't house an entire army. It's literally a bunker to protect the NORAD staff to ensure that we were able to assure mutual destruction in the event of nuclear war. If you had the capability, and were confident NORAD wouldn't go mad and bomb civilians, you could take over the ENTIRE United States and NORAD couldn't do anything about it while sitting in Cheyenne Mountain. That's the limitation of fortifications.

[PaintedWolf]

Volt Opt Construct, on 11 April 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Eh, the IS is pretty much a *********** at this point in history, and have begun ignoring the Ares Conventions, the space equivalent to the Geneva Conventions. The Clans at least have a semi united front, minus the infighting between each Clan. I always opt for the more organized, and more upfront, force. While I don't necessarily agree with the politics the Clans have, at least they're a proud people in their own right. I haven't read all of the novels yet, but this is what I have. I specifically like the Wardens of Clan Wolf. They have the best intentions for the Inner Sphere and Clan space methinks.

What I like about them is how they keep- or at least kept- pre-Reaving all warfare from having too much collateral and politics relatively free of espionage. Perhaps it was overly idealistic/naive when they thought the same ritual could be applied to the Inner Sphere, but it kept their people safe from the ravages of the Succession Wars/Total Wars.

It is a moral point.

[PaintedWolf]

Dakkaface, on 11 April 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

Okay wiki-warrior. How about you respond to what I actually said, rather than throw up a wall of text about fortifications?

Nowhere did I say fortifications are useless. I said they are less valuable than mobility. Sitting safe in a castle or inside a city wall is all well and good, but it means that your ability to project power is limited. You're locked down and an army can just sweep around you. If the objective is to raze the city, fortify it to hell and back. That's good place to fortify. But in general, having an army that can wheel around and be in another place in short order is better. I notice you don't dispute that the Golden Horde conquered an enormous empire without building fortifications.

Secondly, I have assumed that by NORAD you mean Cheyenne Mountain. It's exactly what I said it is - a bunker. I don't know where you got the idea that I 'think I can take it.' I said it is a bunker, and that's what it is. It has no means to project power from it once it closes up short of launching nuclear missiles. It is not a fortress or bastion where you have murderholes and crenelations to fire from. The facility doesn't sit on an important site, it doesn't hold a vast cache of weapons an ammunition, it doesn't house an entire army. It's literally a bunker to protect the NORAD staff to ensure that we were able to assure mutual destruction in the event of nuclear war. If you had the capability, and were confident NORAD wouldn't go mad and bomb civilians, you could take over the ENTIRE United States and NORAD couldn't do anything about it while sitting in Cheyenne Mountain. That's the limitation of fortifications.

http://en.wikipedia....aneuver_warfare

Quote

Limitations in a modern context

A key requirement for success in maneuver warfare is accurate, up-to-date intelligence on the disposition of key enemy command, support and combat units. While such intelligence has been available for many of the higher profile conflicts characterising the last two decades,^[when?] in operations where intelligence is either inaccurate, unavailable or unreliable, the successful implementation of strategies based on maneuver warfare can become problematic.

Furthermore, when faced with a maneuverable opponent capable of redeploying key forces quickly and discretely, or when tempered, the capacity of maneuver warfare strategies to deliver victory becomes more challenging.