RyanCole said:
Revenant, I believe Joshua and I adequately stated reasons why it's much smarter to capture rather than kill prisoners, fighters, & capships. And you're mistaken about the word "war". The word war does not mean lethal conflict. It just means conflict, period. A war could be nothing more than simply words being disputed. Before you post another one of your messages, I suggest you do some dictionary defenition reading of words you're going to use, otherwise you'll just make a fool out of yourself. How would the changes being suggested ruin WC games when the player would not be required to capture prisoners, fighters, and capships, i.e., capturing them would be entirely optional?
Ahem. Since you've repeatedly ignored other posts pointing out the difficulties of such attempts, and the ones stating what little gain you get for taking these huge risks, let me repeat them again. In order.
1) We can and DO capture prisoners, but rarely do so in space, and usually only manage it in ground engagements where the immediate environment isn't as lethal as hard vacuum and weapons aren't generally as devastating in their effect. However, the Kilrathi have the Codices which state, for the most part, that capture is a disgrace and it is generally better to suicide than it is to risk being humiliated in this fashion. This makes it difficult to fight and board an enemy ship, since they can blow the whole damned thing up
and should do so, to deny the enemy any opportunity to gain valuable intelligence from the ship or crew.
2) War is conflict, yes. This is why such games are not considered peaceful, and why your throwing in a reference to another book about violent games makes no sense. Stop contradicting yourself - and remember the lethal environment in which space battles occur. You're using high-powered weapons more likely to explode or otherwise destroy a target than not, at least when it comes to fighter-scaled targets. Also, any hits that would puncture the hull are more than likely to be lethal to the crews within, even if they're armored against vacuum - all it takes is one hit with a particle cannon and you've got flash-frozen dehydrated Kitty Flambe a la gamma-ray bath.
3) "Wars of words" or propaganda are not stand-alone things which occur independently of other methods of 'warfare', and often support physical actions or justify them (look towards psychological operations). If it's only 'with words', then you've got a debate or a heated ideological conflict and not a war, which implies physical force and violence.
4) I'd suggest you actually read the responses, and then address them before telling others to read the dictionary. You fail to refute any of the arguments handed to you, instead choosing to rewrite what you've posted in an effort to look less idiotic.. and only making things worse. Examples being an actual tow cable when we have tractor beams, and paintball guns when we've got leech technology that'll actually DISABLE a ship.
RyanCole said:
Expendable, it wouldn't be for little gain. It would be for tremendous gain as stated in the reasons Joshua & I listed. And remember, there would be many medals of very high honor given out for capturing instead of killing opposing prisoners, fighters, and capships. Campaigns and missions could still be done. How could they not be? According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill", nonviolent media products receive much higher sales than violent media products. So it would be towards Origins' (or whover) advantage to make such equipment for use.
5) You don't usually give medals to dead people, unless they REALLY did something impressive and succeeded in doing so. Capturing ships, while theoretically possible, gains one little if you're talking about fighters, unless they've got some really neat technology like cloaking. Capital ships can be targets for capture if they've got intelligence you need, such as battle plans, though it tends to be difficult enough that most of our WC missions ended up being 'blow ship X up' due to this. Remember, unless you can incapacitate the crew or ship immediately, they can trigger a self-destruct to keep the apes from getting their hands on some technology... even as they let them board, or are boarded, and kill whole squads of Marines.
6) As noted in earlier posts, a Kilrathi who is captured is disgraced. While we've been able to keep some of them alive, for one reason or another, many Kilrathi warriors who are more fanatical about the Cult of Sivar will choose to commit zu'kara (ritual suicide). Even ones who aren't that horribly fanatical, like Kirha, ended up doing so when they felt there was nothing left for them.
7) Again, given that these are -space war simulations-, it's rather nonsensical to expect a solo pilot to board a Kilrathi capship himself to take it over... or, for that matter, expect the game to be non-violent. You STILL have to board the ship, and then kill the crew or hurt them till they stop fighting. It's like drinking booze for temperance, or killing cows to save them from being sent to the slaughterhouse; they tend to be mutually exclusive objectives. Beyond which, we've been training our kids to kill for
centuries now - remember that toy weapons are NOT a new phenomenon, and indeed some religions and cultures (Western culture included) justify and enshrine the warrior ethos through indoctrinating children into the cult of weapons. That Grossman figure probably clammored for a toy gun to play Cowboys and Indians with, just like anyone else at his age... and he isn't a cold-hearted raving sociopath, is he?
Think before posting. This is something both you and Joshua fail to do, and I am starting to suspect that you two are the same person... one trying to look more intelligent by creating his own supporters. It wasn't even a good effort - both of you repeated the same mindless points without considering other arguments in any depth.