Starfleet Jedi

In that vast topic about Star Wars ground forces incompetence, I remember that SB.com thread, quickly closed by an obviously open minded mod (...).

Beyond the fact that you immediately see how it's just bad to even argue that something about SW might suck in a way or another (who said SB.com wasn't completely converted to SDN's dogma anyway?), we had a couple of interesting points shown there.

I concede that I never wanted to be too harsh with ROTJ, because it's a movie I've seen as a kid, and it was part of my pop culture.
But seriously, rookies or not, the tactics displayed at Endor are extremely terrible.
Leaving aside the fact that they should have completely leveled the entire forest around the base (as somehow envisionned in the artworks), the point is that the imperial troops should have folded back inside the bunker, like any army would.

The squad commanders were incapable to giving orders, the troops would either not listen and get disorganized as much as it can be, spreading across the forest.

Safe for extreme incompetence, no military tactical sense whatsoever, and an absurd overconfidence against an unquantified force, I can't reason the imperial behaviour on Endor.

Right now, though, I wonder if we should argue about the topic, or the way this thread was moderated.
Two members were banned for a week for apparently posting opinions rather than proofs, and apparently, it seems that if the some books in the EU paint the stormtroopers in a better light, the movies have to be dismissed to a degree.

As for the prequels, besides the fact that the clones are depicted as being more hot headed than the galactic troopers who'd be used decades later, I'm not sure we saw anything exceptionally formidable, though there are good points to make:

In AOTC, the rescue of the Jedi in the Geonosis arena. Using superior firepower to destroy robots on the ground, and using the ships' armour for extra protection, the Jedi were pulled out of this mess rather quickly.

In ROTS, the attack on the world where Grievous found refuge (where the coreship was parked on a cliff).
What is interesting is seeing a trooper jump on a droid to finished it off at point blank range, outside of the droid's fire sight.
We have soldiers dropped down along cables (a bit the inverse of the Naboo troops in TPM).

But aside from that, really, what's good to notice?

The Kashyyyk beach battle is a joke, from both parties, and is nothing more than another World War I syndrome, just like on the plains of Geonosis, safe that there's no excuse here about supposedly training soldiers whatsoever (a terrible excuse, by the way).

On Neimoidia, you see, again, a Ki Adi Mundi (Jedi master) and snow clonetroopers rushing towards a group of enemy soldiers supported by a sort missile firing heavy craft on legs.
Again, what the heck?
There were fighters buzzing around, yet they didn't bring any support for that particular group. Which is critical, when you consider that, according to the EU, a Jedi master was leading each army on each planet that was assaulted.
The republic's group quickly lost an AT-TE, shot down at close range by a missile - we have to believe that beyond that range, they were unable to hit each other!
Why didn't anyone, on both sides, ask for some supression fire or else?

In the OT, on Hoth, the rebels are supposedly led by many generals and commanders who defected from the imperial army, according to the EU, and yet their organization and lack of preparation against a well known mechanized force is baffling. There's no excuse like saying no one could have foresaw the deployment of AT-ATs and sort of assault AT-STs for crissake.

As far as Clone Wars animes are concerned, despite the great amount of wank they display, they still manage to show disputable tactical deployments.

Globally, it seems that Star Wars tactics are most of the time good enough with very small squads in entanglement situations, but completely blow when you immediately multiply the legions by a few or by a lot. Medium to large scale battles are completely absurd, no matter the era.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Right now, though, I wonder if we should argue about the topic, or the way this thread was moderated.

Both seem fairly open and shut, IMO.

Mr. Oraghan wrote:But seriously, rookies or not, the tactics displayed at Endor are extremely terrible.

But they weren't rookies, the Emperor himself told Luke that:
"A legion of my best troops are on Endor..."

I truly don't know how someone could argue that he meant rookies with that sentence.

Praeothmin wrote:

Mr. Oraghan wrote:But seriously, rookies or not, the tactics displayed at Endor are extremely terrible.

But they weren't rookies, the Emperor himself told Luke that:
"A legion of my best troops are on Endor..."

I truly don't know how someone could argue that he meant rookies with that sentence.

The EU apparently came with an explanation, which mind, you is not that bad.

The legion on Endor is apparently the 501st one, and I hear in terms of EU lore that his is a bad ass legion or so. But by that time, the theory is that casualties were so high, exceeding 100% by a large margin, that its ranks were filled with total noobs, and that what really remained of the legion was, above all, its name.

When you look at it, there's not much evolution in ROTJ. We see the arrival of TIE interceptors, but there's nothing new in terms of heavy warships.
The Death Star II is likely sucking even more funds than ever, the rebellion obviously becomes more important, and in the end, the Empire can only dispatch something like a few dozens warships or so to trap the rebel fleet.

Others say that Palpatine was bluffing, which admitedly, could be possible, especially to force Luke to release his anger, seeing that he's loosing everything, and that the only thing left he could is at least KILL someone on that battle station.

That said, it does not excuse the lack of absolutely basic tactics. If this 501 legion is made of noobies and is so awful at tactics, and yet is said to be the best, meant to protect the Empire's most important project at this very moment, then what to think of all the other legions, really?

Following that logic, it would mean all other stormtrooper legions suck even more! (Which mind you, is nothing new, since 20 years ago, that's pretty much what people thought after hearing Palpatine gloating.)

It means that, if you piss the ewoks off enough, they could take on the Empire and win easily with only loosing a few lives.

This would explain why Palpatine didn't level their beautiful forests, and didn't dare use them as slaves.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:That said, it does not excuse the lack of absolutely basic tactics. If this 501 legion is made of noobies and is so awful at tactics, and yet is said to be the best, meant to protect the Empire's most important project at this very moment, then what to think of all the other legions, really?

Exactly.
And I might've accepted that EU retcon if not for the fact that the Stormtroopers were immensily incompetent in ANH, during the Tantive IV boarding...

Nice revisionism going on here. Two arm chair generals who had been warned multiple times about their continued burden of proof issues get banned after re-creating part of a closed thread (which requires moderator approval) and suddenly I am a disciple of Wong as part of the global SDN conspiracy to silence any criticism of Star Wars!

So this is how low it goes? I cannot enforce anything even remotely related to SW because that makes me affiliated with a site I never visit and a universe I have criticized repeatedly? This is downright Orwellian to the point that Spock should filter "Mike Wong" to "Snowball" and give up the pretenses.

You claim that "burden of proof" issues led to the closing of the thread.

FBH, I note, did the following:

• Cites scenes from AOTC, ROTJ, and ANH, which everyone can be assumed to be familiar with.
• Posts a screencap of the battle of Geonosis.
• References multiple EU novels.
• References accepted historical fact (Massing troops in the open = bad idea with weapons >= modern rifles.)

In response, Connor MacLeod makes a vague reference to two bits of information from the same EU novels and states his opinion without backing it up.

You quote Kodiak to say: "You're both banned for a week from VS Debates for continued burden of proof violations" - by which I'm guessing, since FBH started the thread and you quoted Kodiak, you meant Kodiak and FBH - and close the discussion by presenting an interpretation of the Endor battle alone for which you provide no supporting evidence.

Simply your statement offered as "fact."

First off, you're being hypocritical. You haven't yourself cited any sources to back up your sole contention - simply your own alleged expertise - and FBH clearly has been producing evidence in order to back up multiple points that he's making.

It looks like you used your moderator powers to get the last word without actually providing any citation beyond your own claimed personal authority, precisely what you complained they were doing.

At worst, it's highly biased. FBH seemed to be making a remarkably full effort to provide evidence, and even Kodiak was also describes the battle of Endor accurately to support his claims.

Connor MacLeod wasn't even trying to introduce any evidence to back up his flat denials and ad hominem attacks. If I've interpreted your close of the thread correctly (and I hope I have not), he wasn't even warned for his flagrant failure to produce evidence for some 90+% of his points.

FBH and Kodiak had been warned before about burden of proof in regards to IRL military tactics multiple times in their previous threads and told them that if they wished to make claims about what the proper military tactic in a situation, they would have to provide proof. While Conner was particularly abrasive, it is understandable since this was a continuation of an extremely heated argument and so I usually give it a general warning to the whole thread. Asking him to tone it down when I was closing a thread (it would have been closed either way since it had been posted without permission) would have been redundant in the extreme. Furthermore, the grand bulk of his replies was him repeatedly asking for proof. Had the thread progressed further and had Conner not responded to the call for proof in FBH's last reply, than he would have gotten a warning. You need to fail to provide proof when challenged in order to get a warning.

And no, they did not even post remotely adequate evidence. Of course, you believe that assumptions, conjecture and just plain making shit up is evidence, so its not surprising you think he did a good job. Hell, you cite "referenced accepted historical fact" as one, when FBH actually made a large historical mistake where he claims that Geonosis showed Napoleonic tactics.

And of course, you don't even have the full fucking story (like it ever stopped you from seeing a SW conspiracy at every turn. Its all snowballs doing!), because I gave advice to FBH on how to provide proof (since he has no personal experience to call upon) in regards to military matters after this event in PMs.

Before I forget: Fuck you for believing you can call into question someone's service record, and use that as a debate tactic. Grow a set, you fucking coward.

I'm through with this though, so you'll just be wasting your times with your inevitable bullshit response aside from all the free rimjobs you'll get from people who believe snowball is behind everything.

Thanatos wrote:FBH and Kodiak had been warned before about burden of proof in regards to IRL military tactics multiple times in their previous threads and told them that if they wished to make claims about what the proper military tactic in a situation, they would have to provide proof. While Conner was particularly abrasive, it is understandable since this was a continuation of an extremely heated argument and so I usually give it a general warning to the whole thread. Asking him to tone it down when I was closing a thread (it would have been closed either way since it had been posted without permission) would have been redundant in the extreme. Furthermore, the grand bulk of his replies was him repeatedly asking for proof. Had the thread progressed further and had Conner not responded to the call for proof in FBH's last reply, than he would have gotten a warning. You need to fail to provide proof when challenged in order to get a warning.

And no, they did not even post remotely adequate evidence. Of course, you believe that assumptions, conjecture and just plain making shit up is evidence, so its not surprising you think he did a good job. Hell, you cite "referenced accepted historical fact" as one, when FBH actually made a large historical mistake where he claims that Geonosis showed Napoleonic tactics.

The fact I referred to is that Napoleonic tactics are not a great idea; the bone of contention was whether or not something resembling that was present at Geonosis.

He posted a rather suggestive picture showing a large group of clonetroopers firing away at a large group of droids, both roughly lined up in the open in order to support his claim.

That's quite enough to start with, and definitely substantial enough to be worth addressing rather than dismissing as not being evidence. By all means, I'm quite interested in hearing what you think that picture shows.

And of course, you don't even have the full fucking story (like it ever stopped you from seeing a SW conspiracy at every turn. Its all snowballs doing!), because I gave advice to FBH on how to provide proof (since he has no personal experience to call upon) in regards to military matters after this event in PMs.

How is anybody reading that thread supposed to come to that conclusion? How is anybody supposed to be able to know anything beyond the fact that you came into an argument where someone providing about as much evidence as was possible for them to give, arguing with someone who was providing none, and handed a "burden of proof" ban to the one who was trying his best to provide evidence?

Before I forget: Fuck you for believing you can call into question someone's service record, and use that as a debate tactic. Grow a set, you fucking coward.

When did I ever call anyone's service record into question? I simply stated:

"without actually providing any citation beyond your own claimed personal authority,"

This is perfectly accurate whether or not you have an illustrious service record. Moreover, you haven't even cited your own service as a source in your post - is someone reading the thread supposed to divine this from thin air?

Thanatos wrote:Before I forget: Fuck you for believing you can call into question someone's service record, and use that as a debate tactic. Grow a set, you fucking coward.

I'm through with this though, so you'll just be wasting your times with your inevitable bullshit response aside from all the free rimjobs you'll get from people who believe snowball is behind everything.

This is your third warning about being polite. The rules here are very simple, and I've linked you to them twice already. If you haven't yet read them, now would be a good time to start.

Thanatos wrote:FBH and Kodiak had been warned before about burden of proof in regards to IRL military tactics multiple times in their previous threads and told them that if they wished to make claims about what the proper military tactic in a situation, they would have to provide proof. While Conner was particularly abrasive, it is understandable since this was a continuation of an extremely heated argument and so I usually give it a general warning to the whole thread. Asking him to tone it down when I was closing a thread (it would have been closed either way since it had been posted without permission) would have been redundant in the extreme.

Ah. Both lack of proof and ad hominem are violations of rules. It is redundant to warn a member of his immediate resort to insults, but it is not when it comes to two members who, somehow, seem to do post evidence.

Furthermore, the grand bulk of his replies was him repeatedly asking for proof. Had the thread progressed further and had Conner not responded to the call for proof in FBH's last reply, than he would have gotten a warning. You need to fail to provide proof when challenged in order to get a warning.

Please. Connor was repeatedly asking for so called "proofs" based on the movie.
Those proof requirements were nothing more, for their whole majority, than a way to dismiss what simply happened in the movies.
It is, however, obvious why one used to eat ICS "facts" everyday, would also do all that is possible to deny such pieces of unacceptable and itching reality that could break this same one's wet dreams.

An example:

Kodiak1 wrote:Pretty much as soon as they’d driven back the initial Ewok attack, they seemed to lose all coordination, and ended up dispersed in the woods in penny packets and cut to bits by Ewok ambushes and a single hijacked light vehicle.

Connor McLeod wrote:Again, more vague claims, no proof backing them up. So sorry, try again.

Seriously... WTF? The film clearly shows that the Imperial troops were disbanded. The Ewoks are spreading out. Small Imperial groups decide to go out with their speeder bikes full throttle, "somewhere", like if the source of the assault occured miles away. Do we even see those bikes actually return to the bunker to actually provide cover? No. Do they even fly at a higher altitude to precisely gain extra sight and the advantage of being able to shoot at the ground and cause area damage? No.
They just buzz like mad pilots across the woods, a pretty much useless thing, since we wonder what they hell they could be pursuing that way, the Ewoks had no way to move that fast...
They run through the woods, without cover, against unquantified troops. They have zero intel, but spread like loonies in small teams (2 or 3 at best) and got totally owned because of the sheer stupidty of their actions.

And I mean, this is just an example. FBH and Kodiak1 had only been pointing out scenes from the movies, observing what happened, and drew rather sensible conclusions. What they did in another thread shouldn't obscure what they actually did in the one I linked to.

Connor didn't even directly doubt the conclusions. That would be ok.
No. He doubted the very information itself.

His repeated demands for proof were completely unsubstanciated, and made no sense. They were nothing but a poorly disguised ignorance & denial trick.

What he did was basically pick each fact from the film posted by both Kodiak1 and FBH, and ask for proof in exchange. And it's not like Connor formulated much evidence on his side. However, insults, that he could do.

Globally, a nice application of "screaming lalala and thumbs in my hears" tactic.

Trolling, denial, call that what you want, but that is as bad as the errors Kodiak1 and FBH were called on.

And no, they did not even post remotely adequate evidence.

I think they clearly did. And it's not like they, or at least Kodiak1, didn't go through discussions about SW large scale ground tactics in the past. I know Kodiak1 already had gripes against those, in older threads, and his detailed points back then were legit enough.

Of course, you believe that assumptions, conjecture and just plain making shit up is evidence, so its not surprising you think he did a good job.

Well, obviously we're treading eggs here, because the bans are rather fueled by an opposition of opinions, a disagreement, rather than a clear cut violation of the rules.

Hell, you cite "referenced accepted historical fact" as one, when FBH actually made a large historical mistake where he claims that Geonosis showed Napoleonic tactics.

Let's make it simple.



This is suicidal. For both sides.

What about Napoleonian tactics?
Although Napoleon did introduce many new ways to divide his own armies into more efficient cells, the fact remains that his troops were limited by their rifles' inaccuracy, and as such, Bonaparte kept his troops massed to get more bang for the buck... or, at least, to make it as efficient as possible.

What we see in SW, as far as large scale battles are concerned, is a mix of outdated tactics that both come from WWI, WWII and moves that were outdated even in Napoleon's era (like the spartan head to head opposition until one side would crumble).

If one would say that, probably based on some EU rationalization, that the clonetroopers were send there to get their first training.
We could already dispute the validity of such a decision, if there had been a competent army on the other side.

Fortunately, it was not the case. :)

With the application of Napoleonian tactics, read: massing troops, in an era of such advanced weapons, and even the more absurd real application of the myth of the polish cavalry against nazi tanks... minus the cavalry (we can observe the complete lack of speederbikes, equivalent of an armed super fast infantry with good guns, or anti-tank weapons), such conditions would have logically led to extremely high casualties in a flash instant, on both sides, with rapid extermination of large portions of the clonetrooper and droid divisions.

The best proof of this is probably the application of less linear formations and Napolenian tactics in the Civil War.

We have to remember that there weren't that many clones to boot. We also have to consider that the Kaminoans were not creating clones just for the kicks either. Clonetroopers were logically not that cheap to produce.

Massing troops out in the open, to face a mechanized force supported by heavy units, would be theoretically absurd. One would think that the CIS tank-like units could be capable of easy vague shots and count on the area damage to mow down enemy legions.

However, looking at the low yields of the weapons of the heaviest CIS walkers, we understand that the republic legions did have more than many chances. Not only did they appear to be incapable of scoring direct hits, but even nearby explosions wouldn't even threaten clonetroopers.

It seems that we can always count on the droids' very horrible aim.
In close encounters, that would mean quick defeat. But against the republic army, this should have not been a concern, when you have so many droids piled up. It should not have been such a concern, because a shot that would miss a man would probably hit the one standing next to him, on and on and on.
Yet it did. Because we know that it is unbelievably terrible (TPM ahoy!), and that the CIS' total incapacity to destroy the republican infantry led to that stupid situation.

We can suppose that the republican tactics applied at Geonosis were quickly drawn from a very limited experience and little to no historical data, and former intel on the CIS's ground abilities.
That said, their application was truly embarassing, but still got the final word.

For example, the sort of Blitzkrieg tactic, which true form was very effective in WWII, was horribly coordinated here.
The Republic's aerial support (which was a major advantage here, considering the absolute lack of CIS AA units or atmospheric units deployment, along the other mechanized troops), only came late in the battle, at a point where both armies were already way too close to each other.

Fortunately, the CIS' lack of tactics proved good for the Republic's average organization.

As said above, it was incredible that for one of the most important battles, not even a single geonosian fighter was dispatched to harass the Republic's troops.
All of the CIS' AA droids were packed around the Banking Clan's ships, and were doing an average job there, despite the large concentration of units present, which is explained by LAATs flying very high, and the droids' traditionnal horrible aim.

The difference here is that on the frontline, the republican gunships were flying low. The AA wheeled droids would have had better chances at shooting a couple down with a concentrated barrage as seen later on. But even then, this would have not been enough. The LAATs had missiles, and though they fired them at very close ranges (again, that's stupid), these fire & forget weapons would have still proved superior.
Still, we can continue to complain against the CIS, about the utter absence of proper anti aerial defense there.

The CIS had the same wheeled droids carrying missiles entering the battle on the front line a bit late.
Whether those missiles were capable of shooting down LAATs or not is not known, but it would have been very ressourceful, in fact, precisely because these missiles were an accurate weapon.
We can see, though, that by the time those wheeled missile turrets were deployed, the other CIS heavy units were largely absent from the battlefield, likely mowed down by republic walkers and air cover.

But the main gripe that people like Kodiak1 had, and I could only concur, was that the CIS had no reason at all to keep their cannons at such low yields, had no reason not to shoot a few 100 tons shots, or even not apply a premise of the scorched earth tactic by really cratering entire countries, if only to destroy clone legions and destroy the foundries which the Republic could use against the CIS.

Absurd claims such as escalation of destruction were presented, but they didn't hold in a context where entire planets were being wasted, where spaceships exchange nuclear firepower on a constant basis, especially when one side was utterly loosing... and yet, at this point, had nothing left to loose.

As a whole, it shows that SW tacticians have little audacy nor capacity to adapt when it comes to ground battles. Their choices are globally quite poorly thought, and for some factions, also greatly limited by inappropriate ressources.

And of course, you don't even have the full fucking story (like it ever stopped you from seeing a SW conspiracy at every turn. Its all snowballs doing!), because I gave advice to FBH on how to provide proof (since he has no personal experience to call upon) in regards to military matters after this event in PMs.

Before I forget: Fuck you for believing you can call into question someone's service record, and use that as a debate tactic. Grow a set, you fucking coward.

I'm through with this though, so you'll just be wasting your times with your inevitable bullshit response aside from all the free rimjobs you'll get from people who believe snowball is behind everything.

As for the coward remark, you obviously miss the fact that this forum is precisely there to be able to comment on outer boards' activities and other webpages's content. It is also more interesting to be made public rather than kept confined within PMs.

A small note to Thanatos:

Thanatos wrote:and on a random tangent: What Leo1 said was not a Red Herring and Argumentum ad logicam is a fallacy too.

When you state that, you are as much as admitting that Leo1 was offering fallacious arguments... and still did not as much as offer a token warning in turn.

Again, as with the case discussed in this thread, the most flagrant rules violations went completely unpunished; again, it was a debater arguing in favor of Star Wars against clear and overwhelming evidence. This is not convincing me, or anyone else, that SB.com has unbiased moderation.

If anything, the timing of Oragahn calling you biased here and your coming down hard on him over at SB.com is going to convince anyone following the matter that you can't act in a "professional" manner by keeping your personal opinions out of your activity as a SB.com moderator.

I think, actually, that l33telboi may well have the right of it: On SB.com, VS debate moderators feel they have the right to decide which arguments are right and which arguments are wrong.

When you state that, you are as much as admitting that Leo1 was offering fallacious arguments

I see you have suffered a slight reading error. I was saying to little boy that argumentum ad logicam was also a fallacy in reply to his declaring a fallacy.

And as for your allegations of bias and retribution: He broke an utterly black and white rule with absolute precedent. If you wish to participate in VS debates, you cannot put someone on ignore without moderator approval. This was after me warning him this issue. He can have his VS specific ban lifted as soon as he conforms to rule number 10 and PMs me to confirm it. He can then get back to arguing whatever he wants after the standard one day ban. He could be back tomorrow if he gets it to me in the next 3.5 hours.

That was the only official moderator action taken in that thread. I did not decide anyone had a "right" argument and did not even comment at all on the debate except for the Red Herring comment.

This was not retribution in any way. My retribution methods would be far, far more vicious and total than this to start out with.