 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)
Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:08:06 +0800 (SGT)
> I know I said I am not going to put my 2 cents in, but I couldn't
>resist...
Heh, I know the feeling. ^_^
>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.
I think he's basically saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that one day, given
the advent of new technology, that ships could become a powerful fighting
force again if upgraded sufficiently...I think not, actually, since no one
has come up with a countermeasure for Minovsky particles and/or MSes after a
long time. It's like inventing guns; no matter how much you refine the
sword, warfare has changed irrevocably now.
>>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...
This is precisely what Edmund told me a few mails ago...(arrrgh, now I'm
arguing against myself again! ^_^) that a lot of Gundam exists because it is
Gundam. If you want hard evidence of things, or rational explanations all
the time, then they don't exist as often as they should. Lim-san's original
point (which started the whole thread) was that technically, he thought
I-Fields on ships were feasible, not whether the creator wanted a plot point.
>>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...
He's arguing for us here, Edmund. ^_^
>>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".
I think that he's talking about the other capabilities of ships, such as
storage, MS carrying capacity, cover fire and such that are important, not
about their fighting power (at least here)
>>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....
I understand (unlike Edmund) what you mean, but read my above post - I
believe MSes have changed the face of Gundam fighting forever. That's why
the Federation decided to create their own type of MS instead of upgrading
their warships - it would be useless.
>>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.
I personally don't mind anyone adding anything, but Edmund has a point -
it's a bit abrupt. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "rude" but you should
try adding some introductory line.
>>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
Basically, he means that everyone isn't a Mark Simmons or -Z-. ^_^
It's a discussion ML, anyone can discuss things as long as they're on-topic
and not offensive. Your extent or lack of knowledge doesn't limit your scope
of discussion. Of course, if you are limited in your knowledge, people will
point that out and you'll need to support your evidence with more points,
which might be hard, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't post - we learn
from mistakes, after all.
>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...
Secondly, Edmund's other point is valid as well - not everyone is going to
read up on books and such simply to discuss stuff in the GML. It would take
too much time, and detract from the fun, casual style of arguing, which I
think should be preserved.
>>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...
Good points, both of you, but I believe my own also applies - if you want to
talk about crop growth, do we need to be an authority on it? If I want to
vote, I don't need to read up on world history. It might be helpful, but
it's not totally required.
Zhou Tai An (kain@pacific.net.sg)
"There is no one simple truth." - Rune Walsh
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Nov 14 2000 - 11:53:03 JST