|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:46 am
I die a bit inside evertime I see someone that have calculated the effectiveness of a certain unit gonk
Must be because I try to imagine my 40k battles as "real" battles where the fates of maybe a whole planet is decided. But seeing people transforming the entire game into statistics and numbers sort of breaks the illusion confused
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:12 am
I hate it when people post those statistics, makes them sound so smart and educated. Educated people die first in wars, either in the front lines or by subterfuge. I think that Pol Pot dude was on to something there... stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:05 pm
Lt. Brookman I hate it when people post those statistics, makes them sound so smart and educated. Educated people die first in wars, either in the front lines or by subterfuge. I think that Pol Pot dude was on to something there... stare Don't really care that they sound "smart" but it sort of takes away the "Mystery" behind the game... and it degenerates into a game of calculation. People that do these calculations just seem more worried about winning then having fun sweatdrop That's just my opinion though. Besides... statistics aren't always a good thing to rely on wink "There are three kinds of liars...men, women, and statistics!" --College Economics Professor "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" --Benjamin Disraeli And here's another statistics quote that works very well to the 40k universe: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic" --Joseph Stalin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:49 pm
Bobbovski Lt. Brookman I hate it when people post those statistics, makes them sound so smart and educated. Educated people die first in wars, either in the front lines or by subterfuge. I think that Pol Pot dude was on to something there... stare Don't really care that they sound "smart" but it sort of takes away the "Mystery" behind the game... and it degenerates into a game of calculation. People that do these calculations just seem more worried about winning then having fun sweatdrop That's just my opinion though. Besides... statistics aren't always a good thing to rely on wink "There are three kinds of liars...men, women, and statistics!" --College Economics Professor "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" --Benjamin Disraeli And here's another statistics quote that works very well to the 40k universe: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic" --Joseph Stalin the idea behind the calculations isn't to bring the game down to a pen and paper calculation at all. It's just supposed to give you a better feel for what your soldiers are capable of. It may also give you more of an idea of an enemy's capabilities. Just because 20 laz guns shots are supposed to be a gaurnteed marine kill dosn't mean you have to go by it directly, it just gives you an average to go by. as for being smart or not. What you know dosn't make you smart. It's what you have, and how you use it. Ignorance is merely the lack of knowledge. Stupidity is inability to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:28 pm
Nuclearwinter the idea behind the calculations isn't to bring the game down to a pen and paper calculation at all. It's just supposed to give you a better feel for what your soldiers are capable of. It may also give you more of an idea of an enemy's capabilities. Just because 20 laz guns shots are supposed to be a gaurnteed marine kill dosn't mean you have to go by it directly, it just gives you an average to go by. as for being smart or not. What you know dosn't make you smart. It's what you have, and how you use it. Ignorance is merely the lack of knowledge. Stupidity is inability to use it. At the same rate, 10 space marines may not take out a single gaurdsman, and 1 in rapid fire may take out two space marines. I don't bother using statistics and calculations, as the rolling of the dice is all about luck. Sure, there are tactics, like, don't run a squad of 10 IG across open ground into 5 space marines. or vice versa. I try to imagine like a real battle, the dice more determines wether the poor sods have been lucky enough to dive down before the shots rip past them. *Pictures IG vs marines, all movie style* Ahhhh......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:10 pm
All I have to say is this:
Julius Caesar was a very cold and calculating general, caring little for the death toll or who was to die so long as his objectives were met. In battle he would be the kind of person to make calculations of how many people he would need to kill however many of another.
Alexander the Great on the other hand led first hand and with great passion. Each and every death was a tragedy, and making those into a statistic was an affront. It wasn't about the numbers to him, it was more of... the sport of it.
I would prefer to lead my men as Alexander the Great did. I wouldn't want to view my men as expendable tools to meet an end. Call me a romantic, but I'd prefer my miniatures to be more as my comrades then as mere units that may be used and sacrificed to complete objectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:43 pm
Xenos Mortium All I have to say is this: Julius Caesar was a very cold and calculating general, caring little for the death toll or who was to die so long as his objectives were met. In battle he would be the kind of person to make calculations of how many people he would need to kill however many of another. Alexander the Great on the other hand led first hand and with great passion. Each and every death was a tragedy, and making those into a statistic was an affront. It wasn't about the numbers to him, it was more of... the sport of it. I would prefer to lead my men as Alexander the Great did. I wouldn't want to view my men as expendable tools to meet an end. Call me a romantic, but I'd prefer my miniatures to be more as my comrades then as mere units that may be used and sacrificed to complete objectives. I'd have to lead from the front, i hate losing any men in 40k, from the lowliest gaurdsmen, to the elite stormies. Funnily enough, i don't feel as bad about losing my commanders.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:29 pm
angelfire5x Xenos Mortium All I have to say is this: Julius Caesar was a very cold and calculating general, caring little for the death toll or who was to die so long as his objectives were met. In battle he would be the kind of person to make calculations of how many people he would need to kill however many of another. Alexander the Great on the other hand led first hand and with great passion. Each and every death was a tragedy, and making those into a statistic was an affront. It wasn't about the numbers to him, it was more of... the sport of it. I would prefer to lead my men as Alexander the Great did. I wouldn't want to view my men as expendable tools to meet an end. Call me a romantic, but I'd prefer my miniatures to be more as my comrades then as mere units that may be used and sacrificed to complete objectives. I'd have to lead from the front, i hate losing any men in 40k, from the lowliest gaurdsmen, to the elite stormies. Funnily enough, i don't feel as bad about losing my commanders..... then don't ever become an army commander, at least not a high ranking one. You'll get shot real fast. But I can see you're point. Some people enjoy commanding troops from the front. The thing is, the 40k universe is a brutal and unforgiving place. Billions can go unaccounted for, an entire worlds lost just because an adept forgot to write a "0" in some book. A good commander expects causilties, they are unavoidable. You'll save more lives by accepting that some will die for the greater good, (lol, tau) while the majority must move on to do their jobs. High ranking officers have no choice but to lead away from the front. Snipers would have a field day. If I was a commander I would be no less or more than a a mile from the front lines. That if men fall back I will be ready for a last stand, should it be nessecary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:28 pm
Nuclearwinter angelfire5x Xenos Mortium All I have to say is this: Julius Caesar was a very cold and calculating general, caring little for the death toll or who was to die so long as his objectives were met. In battle he would be the kind of person to make calculations of how many people he would need to kill however many of another. Alexander the Great on the other hand led first hand and with great passion. Each and every death was a tragedy, and making those into a statistic was an affront. It wasn't about the numbers to him, it was more of... the sport of it. I would prefer to lead my men as Alexander the Great did. I wouldn't want to view my men as expendable tools to meet an end. Call me a romantic, but I'd prefer my miniatures to be more as my comrades then as mere units that may be used and sacrificed to complete objectives. I'd have to lead from the front, i hate losing any men in 40k, from the lowliest gaurdsmen, to the elite stormies. Funnily enough, i don't feel as bad about losing my commanders..... then don't ever become an army commander, at least not a high ranking one. You'll get shot real fast. But I can see you're point. Some people enjoy commanding troops from the front. The thing is, the 40k universe is a brutal and unforgiving place. Billions can go unaccounted for, an entire worlds lost just because an adept forgot to write a "0" in some book. A good commander expects causilties, they are unavoidable. You'll save more lives by accepting that some will die for the greater good, (lol, tau) while the majority must move on to do their jobs. High ranking officers have no choice but to lead away from the front. Snipers would have a field day. If I was a commander I would be no less or more than a a mile from the front lines. That if men fall back I will be ready for a last stand, should it be nessecary. thats mostly what commanders are for, but most people see no problem in having them in there frontline armies. Most of my armies tend to be based on the 'freedom fighter' style of play, so there are no real commanders as such, just people who have more experience then others. the new army i'm converting is giong to be an almost entirely mercenary army, even using kroot mercs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:04 am
Officers in the Imperial Guard more often then not lead by example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:34 am
Lt. Brookman Officers in the Imperial Guard more often then not lead by example. really? I wouldn't say so. It's more the commisars that feel the need to lead by example. Not to say that the high ranking Guard officers are cowards, they just prefer to lead their armies from the command tent/center untill they have no options left. Low ranking officers are different, they lead on the front line, but not usually by example. They're not gods amgongs men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:04 am
Nuclearwinter Lt. Brookman Officers in the Imperial Guard more often then not lead by example. really? I wouldn't say so. It's more the commisars that feel the need to lead by example. Not to say that the high ranking Guard officers are cowards, they just prefer to lead their armies from the command tent/center untill they have no options left. Low ranking officers are different, they lead on the front line, but not usually by example. They're not gods amgongs men.
Colonel-Commisar Gaunt is the only one I've ever seen decribed as leading men from the front, and maybe Colonel Shaeffer. Maybe Yarrik, as he's rather decorated.
Creed and Kell I assume don't do that much.
-Mykal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:21 am
A.R.G.U.S Mykal Nuclearwinter Lt. Brookman Officers in the Imperial Guard more often then not lead by example. really? I wouldn't say so. It's more the commisars that feel the need to lead by example. Not to say that the high ranking Guard officers are cowards, they just prefer to lead their armies from the command tent/center untill they have no options left. Low ranking officers are different, they lead on the front line, but not usually by example. They're not gods amgongs men.
Colonel-Commisar Gaunt is the only one I've ever seen decribed as leading men from the front, and maybe Colonel Shaeffer. Maybe Yarrik, as he's rather decorated.
Creed and Kell I assume don't do that much.
-Mykal Theres also commisar Cain, who is quite a coward, and has achieved a good reputation more through luck, and his rather unclean, not to smart aide, who seems to have great ability in handling a melta. Although his officers tend to lead from a tent, and get stuck in when they feel they can (they are usually kept away from it, wether they want to be or not)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:54 am
A.R.G.U.S Mykal Nuclearwinter Lt. Brookman Officers in the Imperial Guard more often then not lead by example. really? I wouldn't say so. It's more the commisars that feel the need to lead by example. Not to say that the high ranking Guard officers are cowards, they just prefer to lead their armies from the command tent/center untill they have no options left. Low ranking officers are different, they lead on the front line, but not usually by example. They're not gods amgongs men.
Colonel-Commisar Gaunt is the only one I've ever seen decribed as leading men from the front, and maybe Colonel Shaeffer. Maybe Yarrik, as he's rather decorated.
Creed and Kell I assume don't do that much.
-Mykal Yarick and Gaunt are both commisars, it's their job to lead by example. shafer is what I would consider a low ranking officer. The guys who give the commands from tents and such are the generals. Not Colonels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:48 am
Nuclearwinter angelfire5x Xenos Mortium All I have to say is this: Julius Caesar was a very cold and calculating general, caring little for the death toll or who was to die so long as his objectives were met. In battle he would be the kind of person to make calculations of how many people he would need to kill however many of another. Alexander the Great on the other hand led first hand and with great passion. Each and every death was a tragedy, and making those into a statistic was an affront. It wasn't about the numbers to him, it was more of... the sport of it. I would prefer to lead my men as Alexander the Great did. I wouldn't want to view my men as expendable tools to meet an end. Call me a romantic, but I'd prefer my miniatures to be more as my comrades then as mere units that may be used and sacrificed to complete objectives. I'd have to lead from the front, i hate losing any men in 40k, from the lowliest gaurdsmen, to the elite stormies. Funnily enough, i don't feel as bad about losing my commanders..... then don't ever become an army commander, at least not a high ranking one. You'll get shot real fast. But I can see you're point. Some people enjoy commanding troops from the front. The thing is, the 40k universe is a brutal and unforgiving place. Billions can go unaccounted for, an entire worlds lost just because an adept forgot to write a "0" in some book. A good commander expects causilties, they are unavoidable. You'll save more lives by accepting that some will die for the greater good, (lol, tau) while the majority must move on to do their jobs. High ranking officers have no choice but to lead away from the front. Snipers would have a field day. If I was a commander I would be no less or more than a a mile from the front lines. That if men fall back I will be ready for a last stand, should it be nessecary.The risk of damage to a chain of command can be reduced by removing/concealing features which would otherwise indicate an officer’s rank. Also, armies nowadays tend to avoid saluting to officers and eliminate rankings on BDUs because snipers tend to target officers and specialists first. Just thought you should know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
