Moderator: Vympel
To everyone emailing me: yes, I know Frito is farting around Youtube. But no, I don't care. Again, outside of an occasional video, or making fun of assclowns like Frito, I'm done with the VS debate.Jedi Master Spock wrote:I presume he's referring to the "hotmail registration fee," whereby one is expected to pay out $5 for any non-ISP account.
That said, the above posts do smell a bit like trollbait to me.
Well, what reason is there? The ST/SW debate is pretty much long and dead, so there's very little much to say on it. And there's enough data out there now that your site (or Wayne's) aren't as vital as they were beforehand, I think. There's no real need to keep up on all the latest crap so faithfully (the forums do that anyhow.) and you have alot of other things interesting you.Darth Wong wrote:I would say I'm done with the "vs" debate as well, but it does annoy me that my website is so horribly out of date. The problem is that I can't find the time or motivation to do the work necessary to bring it up to date.
)Kinda my thoughts too. The only people left in the debate still rooting for the UFP in the military sense are raving, rabid children like SSFPhoenix and Huskerjay, or die hard RSA acolytes that will never admit that they're wrong no matter how many times proven so (lest they realize that the one thing they've devoted their lives to is lost) such as JMSpock.Connor MacLeod wrote:Well, what reason is there? The ST/SW debate is pretty much long and dead, so there's very little much to say on it. And there's enough data out there now that your site (or Wayne's) aren't as vital as they were beforehand, I think. There's no real need to keep up on all the latest crap so faithfully (the forums do that anyhow.) and you have alot of other things interesting you.Darth Wong wrote:I would say I'm done with the "vs" debate as well, but it does annoy me that my website is so horribly out of date. The problem is that I can't find the time or motivation to do the work necessary to bring it up to date.
What I tend to find your site more interesting or useful as is a "general" sci fi resource, and that has always seemed to be more of your recent trend: The reworked "Shields" page, the planet killers and plasma weapons page, your destruction page, etc. It seems to be a more interesting (and fruitful) topic, and is less confined than the ST/SW debates (after all you've familiar with other universes too, like LEXX
If you were inclined to work on your site, I at least would be more interested in seeing more "general" artticles on things like sci fi stupidity or brain bugs, or concepts that sci fi doesnt seem to address.
Or the poster's complete lack of a grip on even the most basic principles of fighting.It's amazing how many people insist that certain empires would do certain things for no reason other than cliche.
Whoiewhat now? *scratches head*Thanatos wrote:Or the poster's complete lack of a grip on even the most basic principles of fighting.It's amazing how many people insist that certain empires would do certain things for no reason other than cliche.
Like that poser GStone and his idea of running forward with "human" shields....
Look Here (Search for the word 'Jemmies' on that page)Aratech wrote:Whoiewhat now? *scratches head*Thanatos wrote:Or the poster's complete lack of a grip on even the most basic principles of fighting.It's amazing how many people insist that certain empires would do certain things for no reason other than cliche.
Like that poser GStone and his idea of running forward with "human" shields....
Darth Wong wrote:It seemed to me that a misunderstanding (or more accurately, complete ignorance) of the basic concept of strategy is so widespread in sci-fi debates that it needed to be addressed somewhere. It's amazing how many people insist that certain empires would do certain things for no reason other than cliche.
General Schatten wrote:Look Here (Search for the word 'Jemmies' on that page)Aratech wrote:Whoiewhat now? *scratches head*Thanatos wrote: Or the poster's complete lack of a grip on even the most basic principles of fighting.
Like that poser GStone and his idea of running forward with "human" shields....
First impressions: Much cleaner layout. Simple, no-frills, good use of text color for emphasis. The menu in particular is a lot more suited to the theme, while the Stardestroyer.net logo on top provides visual continuity without drawing undue attention. As with most good revisions, the page also loads much quicker than the previous one. The only problems I can see are the somewhat cluttered footnote, which could be solved by perhaps half an inches separation from the main text, and the blue color of the link text, which isn't readily visible on a dark screen. But that's all.Darth Wong wrote:Well, in that case, you might be pleased to know that I'm working on something that's still in the very embryonic stages, but which is intended from the ground up to be much more generalized.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Strategy/
The wiki is meant to be community-editable for the purposes of being current and comprehensive, since I can't promise to keep the website current. That doesn't mean it's going to necessarily have superior arguments or more detailed discussions, although I would certainly not object if people try to create such depth.Zablorg wrote:I always thought the wiki was really intended to surpass the main site in terms of arguments and such.
Thanks. I've been irritated by the old layout for a long time.Eleas wrote:First impressions: Much cleaner layout. Simple, no-frills, good use of text color for emphasis. The menu in particular is a lot more suited to the theme, while the Stardestroyer.net logo on top provides visual continuity without drawing undue attention. As with most good revisions, the page also loads much quicker than the previous one. The only problems I can see are the somewhat cluttered footnote, which could be solved by perhaps half an inches separation from the main text, and the blue color of the link text, which isn't readily visible on a dark screen. But that's all.Darth Wong wrote:Well, in that case, you might be pleased to know that I'm working on something that's still in the very embryonic stages, but which is intended from the ground up to be much more generalized.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Strategy/
In short: If this is the new look of the site, I can only applaud.
Logistics is strategy. Sounds cliche but it's true.Connor MacLeod wrote:Darth Wong wrote:It seemed to me that a misunderstanding (or more accurately, complete ignorance) of the basic concept of strategy is so widespread in sci-fi debates that it needed to be addressed somewhere. It's amazing how many people insist that certain empires would do certain things for no reason other than cliche.
Are you going to cover things like logistics as well as doctrine? I think Tony was talking about the importance of doctrine.
In terms of logistics I keep thinking of shit like replicator wanking or Old Fiver First One wanking (where they inssited the First Ones biowank and supposed "enegy ot matter" conversion ability rendered them immune from logistics)
Quite. I've seen the question as to what the difference is between "tactical" and "strategic" scale posed before, and the answer always boils down, ultimately, to "tactical" reffering to engaging and defeating the enemy on the battlefield, while "strategic" means defeating the enemy's ability to wage war in the first place.Knife wrote:Logistics is strategy. Sounds cliche but it's true.Connor MacLeod wrote:Darth Wong wrote:It seemed to me that a misunderstanding (or more accurately, complete ignorance) of the basic concept of strategy is so widespread in sci-fi debates that it needed to be addressed somewhere. It's amazing how many people insist that certain empires would do certain things for no reason other than cliche.
Are you going to cover things like logistics as well as doctrine? I think Tony was talking about the importance of doctrine.
In terms of logistics I keep thinking of shit like replicator wanking or Old Fiver First One wanking (where they inssited the First Ones biowank and supposed "enegy ot matter" conversion ability rendered them immune from logistics)
Wasn't Napoleon who said "amateurs think about tactics, Generals think about logistics"? The point being that a good part of fighting a war isn't about brilliant tactics, but about getting men and supplies where their needed. A good general is a manager.Peptuck wrote:Quite. I've seen the question as to what the difference is between "tactical" and "strategic" scale posed before, and the answer always boils down, ultimately, to "tactical" reffering to engaging and defeating the enemy on the battlefield, while "strategic" means defeating the enemy's ability to wage war in the first place.Knife wrote:Logistics is strategy. Sounds cliche but it's true.Connor MacLeod wrote:
Are you going to cover things like logistics as well as doctrine? I think Tony was talking about the importance of doctrine.
In terms of logistics I keep thinking of shit like replicator wanking or Old Fiver First One wanking (where they inssited the First Ones biowank and supposed "enegy ot matter" conversion ability rendered them immune from logistics)
I understand, and I'm not arguing, but I just wanted to wonder if Mike intended to include that in strategy. More often than not people tend to ignore all those facets. The replicator example was a legit one, because if you've thought about trekkie tactics (their ability to incorporat eor mass produce "exotic" technologies like phase cloaking or the Genesis device, sometimes in conjunction with one antoher) or replicator wanking (in short: "its magic") they seem to have no real concept of the inherent problems involved with what they propose. Or that there might even BE problems.Knife wrote: Logistics is strategy. Sounds cliche but it's true.
I tend to think of it this way.Peptuck wrote:Quite. I've seen the question as to what the difference is between "tactical" and "strategic" scale posed before, and the answer always boils down, ultimately, to "tactical" reffering to engaging and defeating the enemy on the battlefield, while "strategic" means defeating the enemy's ability to wage war in the first place.
