Edmund Chiu (edf91@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:50:43 -0800


    I know I said I am not going to put my 2 cents in, but I couldn't
resist...

    PS. You switch to html style again. It's just for your own information,
nothing more...

----- Original Message -----
From: Chaos025@aol.com
To: gundam@aeug.org
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [gundam] Role of Warships in UC: Was: I-Fields..

In a message dated 11/13/00 3:25:51 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
edf91@worldnet.att.net writes:

>Its not your theory I have an opinion on, only the breakdown of your
theory.
Mobile Suits in Gundam have changed the face of combat in UC from ships
shooting at each other while sending hordes of fighters to kill each other
to
ships shooting at each other while sending hordes of better fighters to kill
each other. Saying that all these ships are good for is suppressive fire as
an excuse for not upgrading them to include some relatively breakthrough
technology just isn't a winnable argument, in my opinion.

    You did miss my point - my point is that everything else that matter in
the UC warfare still exists - ships can still kill other ships, but the
emphasis is now on MS, since no matter what you can do to advance the
weaponary systems of ships, you still won't be that effective against MS.

>Could ships support I-Fields? Probably. Why should ships support I-Field?
There isn't really a point for ships to support I-Fields as it would draw
attention away from the human element of the story, personified by the
knight
in his armor bringing the fight to his opponents in honorable hand to hand.
Why are I-Fields used at all, then? A plot point to move the story.

    Isn't that part of the whole point with Gundam - they are trying to get
the human element back into the war. Currently, with long range missiles and
high tech bombers, most people wouldn't notice that they are killing people,
since they are so far from the action. With Gundam and its "story
limitation", it forces people to use "ancient" warfare tactics and apply it
to modern warfare. If you want to go "this way" (arguing whether NOT using
thing as an example of glamorize MS), then you already won because the
creators want it that way. Try to follow the rules of the universe (the one
in Gundam, not the real world), or you wouldn't be going anywhere, simply
because there's no real way to argue against you on that...

>An electromagnetic field powerful enough to support a ship sized I-Field
either takes too much power, is too difficult to create and maintain, or is
too impractical to implement.

    You seems to forget that I-Field is really specific in what it can
defend, so if all fleets start to use other projectile based weapons (MS can
easily adopt to that, since they can just start to carry bazokas or missile
launchers), the I-Field is useless. It isn't like tougher armor that can
withstand all type of hits...

>Why does the Federation maintain huge fleets of ships armed with capital
weaponry when any one MS can kill any one ship, and MSs are far more
economic
to build and maintain? Ships move MSs, ships hold territory, and ships
provide habitats for those people providing the first line in defense
against
any threat to the body politic they are the fight arm for. Its same for
Gundam as it is for us on today's Earth.

    I don't see what's the point of this, since relatively speaking, the
role of MS has become larger - the ships always had the roles you mention
(support MS, hold territory, provide living quarters), and it won't change
with time, but the emergence of MS force the ships to move further from the
battlefield because the closer they are, the more likely for them to be shot
down. With Minorsky particles all around, all long range warfare has pretty
much reduced to "keep on firing, hoping the shots will hit something".

>You basically just said that we are arguing the same thing, but from
different sides. Carriers are warships. And warfare in UC is the same as
warfare today, or even warfare from centuries past. Tools get better or
become different, tactics are developed to utilize these tools as much as
possible, yet strategy stays the same. How a weapon is used isn't quite as
important as why a weapon is used.

    I am really confused here....

>The thread about the Role of Warships in UC is only days old, and I jumped
in
where a question of mine needed to be asked. As to "minor" and "basis" and
"details," I have only questioned and answered as I saw fit, much like
yourself I would imagine.

    I expect some "coming in" line, or at least something to show what
you're trying to add.

>Again, I apologize for the inconvenience of my earlier post. I had just
change some software, and it throw off my settings. I still haven't figure
out how to correct the problem, but I am manually correcting it with each
post I send until I have it fixed. I wasn't intending to give you a "smart"
answer, only to relay to you that I'm not having a problem editing out the
html, so I see no reason way others should be have a problem with doing the
same.

    You seems to forgot that by converting the message back to text, it will
lose the quotes that separate the other messages from the "original"
message, which mean that unless you put quote marks on the stuff you write,
my stuff would be the same as yours. I don't know about you, but I hate the
html style of e-mails - they are way too fancy and somtimes hard to read...

>Maybe its the lack of details on your part that created an argument in the
first place? Or maybe not, maybe its my lack of details that are causing you
strife. It doesn't really matter in the end.

    Of course I am lacking in details - as I have been pointing out to Mr
Zhou a few (yeah, right ^_^) post ago, that "details" in Gundam world aren't
exact numerous and pretty hard to get, so does that mean that unless we have
access to various books Bandai put out, we cannot use our knowledge from the
anime itself to try to discuss topics from the anime itself? Like I have
said before, real life and anime world are different, and you cannot assume
they behave the same, especially with science fiction. Do you honestly
believe the founding fathers of America would actually imagine that one day,
the process of election they "invented" would create so many problems that
politicans can use for their own purposes? Of course not, just as people in
the past never imagine that we can actually go into space...

>All I'm suggesting is that you should read up on naval tactics and general
strategy before making declarations about how naval battles work. And just
because the fighting is in space, with mecha, and animated doesn't mean that
what is seen is gospel, and what is assumed is correct. Form following
function leads many of us to figure out why something was built that way to
do that job. And you are doing this, I know, as I do understand your
position. I'm just injecting my point of view at a point when I believe that
you are assume the wrong thing. And of course, I'm using my opinion of what
is right and wrong when I see things from my point of view.

    As I have said before, the anime universe is much difference than our
own world in some sense, and it's the creator's intention to create the
ancient style of warfare using "new" technology. I believe it's OK to use
some real world knowledge to explain some of the things in Gundam, but I
don't think it's right to keep on "dragging" that knowledge on everything,
since the whole Gundam can be described as a joke (you have to agree that a
lot of the things in Gundam doesn't make any real sense). I know you believe
in using "real world" knowledge when trying to discuss something, but when
you're talking about stuff in anime, you better try to "follow the rules" of
anime...

SJ

EXO Mechanical Editor & Mecha Designer
http://www.exo-armor.com

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Nov 14 2000 - 09:26:25 JST