confed cruiser can dodge missiles!!

------------------

Long Live the Confederation! (I just thought it's about time someone stands up for the Confederation.)

When comparing ships, one should always keep the comparison at AI vs. AI since that is the only fair measurement. Everyone acknowledges the fact that Humans can exploit the advantages of ships more than AIs can. A match between Human and AI usually results in the victory of the former. (tactics such as Monty Python and circling are among the reasons why) With this in mind, let us take a look at the line up:

cruiser: Confed wins (superior shields and more armaments such as neutron blaster)
destroyer vs. frigate: Rebellion wins (more torpedoes, more maneuverable allowing it to turn around faster and fire the secondary weapons)
Manta vs. gunboat and patrol ship: Confed wins (gunboat is more heavily armed. A direct rocket hit accompanied with primary weapons blazing sends any Manta to an inglorious end)

When comparing territory, the Confed had the advantage. Any strategist can tell you that a tighter and more rounded territory is geographically better. Some might argue that geography matters little in 3-D space. I disagree. In EV, travel is based on hyperspace paths. (as opposed to real space free travel such as Master of Orion II and Star Control III) As a result, inner systems are more well-insulated. Rebels don't appear (or at least infrequently) in the core of the Confederation.

The Rebellion on the other hand is spread throughout the galaxy. Although it does have the effect to encircling the Confederation, the advantages of that effect is significantly reduced by the fact that there are no other states beyond Rebel territory that the Confed must trade with. Encirclement sounds fine in theory but since Confed is a self-sustaining entity, it means much less. Strategically speaking, having territory spread on the ends of the galaxy with the middle blocked by hostile territory makes travel difficult. Suppose the Confed launches an offensive on one side of Rebel territory, the Rebellion has to dispatch its fleet there. By the time it gets there, Confed forces had already withdrawn because it was a decoy force. The real force was attacking the other side of the galaxy. By the time the Rebel fleet gets there, the battle would be over. In warfare, time is of the essence. The bad configuration of Rebel space gives that advantage to the Confeds.

Ideologically speaking, the Confeds are still better. After all, they were the organization that won the Great War. A central government is far more desirable than anarchy which appeared to be the state of affairs before the Great War. Every Human colony was for itself. The Confederation managed to organize them. Finally, most people tend to ignore the fact that the current war was started by the Rebellion. If they didn't oppose the Confederation, this war won't even begin.

The Confeds! All right, I know that if they were to have EV3 past the Civil War, the Rebels would win. The underdog, et cetera. It's straight out of Star Wars. But, I think that if we programmed a complete AI battle of Rebels versus Confeds, the Confeds would come out on top. The Rebellion's cause may be worth fighting for, but the Confeds are better armed, better trained, have more money, and more pilots that they can lose. It's the Confeds hands down.

------------------
"All will bow before the Icelandic Emperor."

"Join the Icelandic Coalition -- or be killed!" Someone should understand that.

Quote

Originally posted by Whurp:
**confed cruiser can dodge missiles!!
**

They can't turn.

------------------

(This message has been edited by Captain Carnotaur (edited 06-25-2000).)

Another advantage the Rebels have is cause. All the Confeds want to do is put people into slavery and get fat and rich. The Rebellion could convince independent worlds to join them because they are fighting for freedom! The Rebellion can also get more personel to work for them because of their cause! Who would want to help slavery?

------------------

Quote

Originally posted by htjyang:
**Long Live the Confederation! (I just thought it's about time someone stands up for the Confederation.)

Ideologically speaking, the Confeds are still better. After all, they were the organization that won the Great War. A central government is far more desirable than anarchy which appeared to be the state of affairs before the Great War. Every Human colony was for itself. The Confederation managed to organize them. Finally, most people tend to ignore the fact that the current war was started by the Rebellion. If they didn't oppose the Confederation, this war won't even begin.**

I am really sorry, but that is scrap. How on earth can you say that? The rebels started rebelling because they were being exploited - they had enough guts to stand up and fight for the most basic of human rights - liberty. The freedom to make your own decisions. You know, you can’t claim to be a mature adult until you do start making all your own decisions, by yourself, accepting all the responsibility. They may, and in fact most likely will, be wrong decisions, but they were yours. You learn from those mistakes and move on, and eventually most of the decisions you make, if you learned well, will be the right ones. Regardless, everything in your life will be a product of yourself, your failures, your triumphs, the sum and total of your very existence will be you. Any system of government that tries to tell you what you should do, what is right, is wrong. Even if what they are saying is right that government is still a bad one, because they have placed themselves above you. How would you like it if I started telling you what is right and FORCING you to comply? Well, since the Confeds started exploiting the outlying systems for the benefit of the richer, closer-to-Sol ones, it was obviously not a system by which those planets had a decision in ANYTHING - of course they started a revolution! They wanted a future for their children! By the way, if you worship stability over all else - and don’t mind exploitation of regional territories - I recommend you look at the Soviet Union during the Seventies. For the record, my dad and my grandfather both came from there, so I have a pretty good Idea of what went on. And it was stable. Not to mention miserable.
But if that sounds attractive, then I recommend you start taking your medication again.

In closing, I should like to say that I think, when it comes to cause, and it comes to ideology, the Rebellion has the Confederation beat the same why massage beats body piercing, thankyouvermuch.

------------------
We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.

I see this topic JUST WON'T DIE. It's been here since January!

Anywho, the Rebels are better to work for. You get TWO extra items and their ships are more manoverable (sic), faster, and MUCH, MUCH cooler. Plus, Satori Station dosn't have any Confed missions

If EVMP ever comes, and if it has EV ships in it, I'll enjoy beating the crap out of all the Confed Crusier owners here...We just have to wait and see.

------------------
"It's clearly a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it." -George W. Bush

AIM-OctoberFost

Yahoo Messenger-OctoberFost

(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost")http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost(/url)

Right on the money. So will I.

By the way, this is a fun topic!

------------------
We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.

(quote)Originally posted by Begemotike:
**I am really sorry, but that is scrap.

**(/quote)

Your eloquence amazes me.

**The rebels started rebelling because they were being exploited - they had enough guts to stand up and fight for the most basic of human rights - liberty. The freedom to make your own decisions.

**

Obviously, the rebels also decided to make the decision of life and death for many other innocent civilians. The greatest casulaties from war are the civilians. By declaring war against the Confederation, they made the choice of life and death for countless civilians. In effect, by mouthing nonsense about a struggle for freedom, they took it away from many innocent civilians. There can be no liberty if a person is dead.

**You know, you can’t claim to be a mature adult until you do start making all your own decisions, by yourself, accepting all the responsibility.

**

I agree completely. That is why the rebels should be despised. Aside from making decisions about themselves by themselves, they also made decisions for innocent bystanders but left them at the mercy of the Confederation. The rebels can hide behind their fleet for protection. Normal civilians have no such luck. The rebels have been incredibly callous and irresponsible in this aspect. Therefore by your definition, they are childish, immature,...etc.

**They may, and in fact most likely will, be wrong decisions, but they were yours. You learn from those mistakes and move on, and eventually most of the decisions you make, if you learned well, will be the right ones. Regardless, everything in your life will be a product of yourself, your failures, your triumphs, the sum and total of your very existence will be you.

**

This statement is only valid if those decisions do not harm other innocent people.

**Any system of government that tries to tell you what you should do, what is right, is wrong. Even if what they are saying is right that government is still a bad one, because they have placed themselves above you.

**

I see. And I suppose your grounds for thinking every government that has ever existed were and are bad ones because they all informed their citizens that killing other people is wrong, that stealing from other people is wrong, that committing armed robbery is wrong,...etc. In short, you are advocating anarchy, the only situation in which the very absence of government means that no government will ever tell you what to do and what is right.

**How would you like it if I started telling you what is right and FORCING you to comply?

**

You can tell me what to do all you like. The question is whether I will comply. What do you think my reaction will be?

**Well, since the Confeds started exploiting the outlying systems for the benefit of the richer, closer-to-Sol ones, it was obviously not a system by which those planets had a decision in ANYTHING - of course they started a revolution!

**

May I speak on behalf of those who are benefiting from that exploitation and say that things are just fine? Please consider all sides of the situation before making your arguments.

**They wanted a future for their children!

**

So many ruthless dictators committed so many brutal crimes simply because they told their people that they wanted their children to have a future. So many idealistic concepts have been perverted by the immoral and the unethical. A sound byte or a ringing slogan is usually used by all kinds of people including those who advance dubious causes.

**By the way, if you worship stability over all else - and don’t mind exploitation of regional territories - I recommend you look at the Soviet Union during the Seventies. For the record, my dad and my grandfather both came from there, so I have a pretty good Idea of what went on. And it was stable. Not to mention miserable.

**

Obviously you know too little about capitalism. Capitalism is all about the exploitation of others so a minority can live more comfortably. Unless you're writing from North Korea, (which is on its way to be converted to capitalism) otherwise you belong to a small elite who has access to the Internet while the shirt you wear was created by low-paid Third World workers working more than 12 hours a day in a sweatshop with no hope for medical or retirement plans.

**But if that sounds attractive, then I recommend you start taking your medication again.

**

I've always learned that resorting to personal attacks is an indication that the other side is beginning to lose the argument.

**In closing, I should like to say that I think, when it comes to cause, and it comes to ideology, the Rebellion has the Confederation beat the same why massage beats body piercing, thankyouvermuch.

**(/QUOTE)

Apparently your idea of massage involves Klingon pain sticks.

**Obviously, the rebels also decided to make the decision of life and death for many other innocent civilians. The greatest casualties from war are the civilians. By declaring war against the Confederation, they made the choice of life and death for countless civilians. In effect, by mouthing nonsense about a struggle for freedom, they took it away from many innocent civilians. There can be no liberty if a person is dead.

That is why the rebels should be despised. Aside from making decisions about themselves by themselves, they also made decisions for innocent bystanders but left them at the mercy of the Confederation. The rebels can hide behind their fleet for protection. Normal civilians have no such luck. The rebels have been incredibly callous and irresponsible in this aspect. Therefore by your definition, they are childish, immature,...etc.**

Made the choice for countless civilians? How? Unless they personally attacked them, or used them for body shields, or as decoys, or whatever, you cant’ say that -they never touched them. If the Confeds were brutal enough to kill innocent bystanders, well, what does that make them?
Granted, you could argue that the Rebels should have known that the Confederate Navy was that callous and cruel to begin with (Hence the rebellion). That civilians didn’t have a fleet to hide behind. Well, let’s say my daughter is getting raped by a gang leader. I go over there and prepare to defend her (putting it mildly). The gang tells me that if I do anything, call the cops, beat them up, whatever, they will burn the neighborhood down.
Well, I would go ahead and defend my daughter anyway, then do my best to defend the neighborhood. But if those thugs are actually inhumane enough to do that, then that means they were only looking for an excuse, they had no compunction in doing so. It was only a matter of time before they did that, or, as an alternative, raped every woman in the area over time. Fact is, they would continue terrorizing, and over time the neighborhood would get destroyed anyway. I would prefer to take action while I could, and at least try to change things. Well, the rebels have always protected the systems they revolted on, what’s more, successfully. So those innocent civilians can hide behind a fleet as well.

I see. And I suppose your grounds for thinking every government that has ever existed were and are bad ones because they all informed their citizens that killing other people is wrong, that stealing from other people is wrong, that committing armed robbery is wrong,...etc. In short, you are advocating anarchy, the only situation in which the very absence of government means that no government will ever tell you what to do and what is right.

I should clarify what I mean here. A government has no right to tell its citizens what is right or wrong, what it should do, as long as what they do does not directly harm others. Killing, robbery, etc. is covered under that rule. What should be done to those who break that rule?
By the way, I would prefer anarchy to being a robot. Then at least I would actually be a human being, whose survival and success depended on myself, rather than an automaton. If you have no choice, then what sense is there in living?

You can tell me what to do all you like. The question is whether I will comply. What do you think my reaction will be?

Okay, I tell you that you must give away 80% of your income to people who have bribed me, and make it impossible to pay the medical bills on your wife who's liver has failed. If you do not comply I will kill you, your family, and all your friends. What is your reaction? Buckle under? What if I do this once, twice, thrice? And to people you know and love as well? Then what?

May I speak on behalf of those who are benefiting from that exploitation and say that things are just fine? Please consider all sides of the situation before making your arguments.

Under this argument exploitation is fine, so long as somebody is benefiting, right? So basically, so long as the Rebels start to benefit from their revolution it becomes fine. Really, all argument becomes a moot point, one way or the other.

So many ruthless dictators committed so many brutal crimes simply because they told their people that they wanted their children to have a future. So many idealistic concepts have been perverted by the immoral and the unethical. A sound byte or a ringing slogan is usually used by all kinds of people including those who advance dubious causes.

ALL causes use a slogan, it is an excellent way to raise moral. And anything can be used for evil purposes. Any object, any idea, LITERALLY anything at all. If we are to stop using those things because of that then we might as well commit suicide because the human body and mind causes lots of evil.

Obviously you know too little about capitalism. Capitalism is all about the exploitation of others so a minority can live more comfortably. Unless you're writing from North Korea, (which is on its way to be converted to capitalism) otherwise you belong to a small elite who has access to the Internet while the shirt you wear was created by low-paid Third World workers working more than 12 hours a day in a sweatshop with no hope for medical or retirement plans.

May I speak on behalf of those who are benefiting from that exploitation and say that things are just fine? Please consider all sides of the situation before making your arguments.

I've always learned that resorting to personal attacks is an indication that the other side is beginning to lose the argument.

Actually, you are right there, nothing I can say.

Apparently your idea of massage involves Klingon pain sticks.

This ‘attack’ is as personal as mine was.
Okay, I admit it made me laugh out loud. Rats.

------------------
We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.

Originally posted by htjyang:

" (B)The rebels started rebelling because they were being exploited - they had enough guts to stand up and fight for the most basic of human rights - liberty. The freedom to make your own decisions.

Obviously, the rebels also decided to make the decision of life and death for many other innocent civilians. The greatest casulaties from war are the civilians. By declaring war against the Confederation, they made the choice of life and death for countless civilians. In effect, by mouthing nonsense about a struggle for freedom, they took it away from many innocent civilians. There can be no liberty if a person is dead.(B)"

The people that revolted were the civilians! The Confederation was making civilians do forced labor! And even if that wasn't true, the Rebellion would have had lots of support from the civilian population!

" (B) Any system of government that tries to tell you what you should do, what is right, is wrong. Even if what they are saying is right that government is still a bad one, because they have placed themselves above you.

I see. And I suppose your grounds for thinking every government that has ever existed were and are bad ones because they all informed their citizens that killing other people is wrong, that stealing from other people is wrong, that committing armed robbery is wrong,...etc. In short, you are advocating anarchy, the only situation in which the very absence of government means that no government will ever tell you what to do and what is right. (B) "

He didn't mean it that way! He meant that if a government is a dictartorship, it's bad. The Nazis helped the German people alot when they first came to power, and were they good?

" (B) How would you like it if I started telling you what is right and FORCING you to comply?

You can tell me what to do all you like. The question is whether I will comply. What do you think my reaction will be? (B) "

The Confeds weren't just "telling the Rebels what to do, they were FORCING them to do it!

" (B) Well, since the Confeds started exploiting the outlying systems for the benefit of the richer, closer-to-Sol ones, it was obviously not a system by which those planets had a decision in ANYTHING - of course they started a revolution!

May I speak on behalf of those who are benefiting from that exploitation and say that things are just fine? Please consider all sides of the situation before making your arguments. (B) "

So what if the Confeds were doing just fine! If someone else is suffering horribly, then it doesn't matter if just a few people are happy! If someone is getting rich because of the sorrows and pains of others, it isn't good.

If you look at one of my previous posts about the Rebels, you can see some more of my views on the Rebels and Confeds.

Rebellion Rules!!!

(This message has been edited by Captain Carnotaur (edited 06-27-2000).)

Quote

Originally posted by Begemotike:
**Made the choice for countless civilians? How? Unless they personally attacked them, or used them for body shields, or as decoys, or whatever, you cant’ say that -they never touched them.

**

By declaring war against the Confederation, the rebels forced the Confederation to respond in force. One can easily assume that the Confederation may not be too careful in choosing their targets and is probably callous in eradicating the rebels. The rebellion's aggression had the side effect (or maybe even the desired effect) of causing innocent civilians to suffer from the Confederate response.

**If the Confeds were brutal enough to kill innocent bystanders, well, what does that make them?

**

That makes them brutal bastards. Please note that I do not make excuses about the Confederation. I do not deny that they are oppressive. I was simply attempting to point out that the rebellion had no greater claim to moral superiority than the Confeds. So many people have posted otherwise that I deem it necessary to make that argument.

**Granted, you could argue that the Rebels should have known that the Confederate Navy was that callous and cruel to begin with (Hence the rebellion). That civilians didn’t have a fleet to hide behind.

**

**Well, let’s say my daughter is getting raped by a gang leader.

**

I truly hope not.

**I go over there and prepare to defend her (putting it mildly). The gang tells me that if I do anything, call the cops, beat them up, whatever, they will burn the neighborhood down.
Well, I would go ahead and defend my daughter anyway, then do my best to defend the neighborhood. But if those thugs are actually inhumane enough to do that, then that means they were only looking for an excuse, they had no compunction in doing so. It was only a matter of time before they did that, or, as an alternative, raped every woman in the area over time. Fact is, they would continue terrorizing, and over time the neighborhood would get destroyed anyway. I would prefer to take action while I could, and at least try to change things.

**

You should've contacted the local police force. I for one am a complete opponent to vigilanteism. Which brings up the following point: Your analogy is not applicable since the rebels had no higher authority to appeal to. In the scenario you just described, you do. Please select a better analogy.

**Well, the rebels have always protected the systems they revolted on, what’s more, successfully. So those innocent civilians can hide behind a fleet as well.

**

First of all, I should point out that rebel star systems are raided more often than Confed star systems. Second, more rebel star systems are being raided vs. the Confeds. They are protecting the systems they captured, but their effectiveness is in doubt. Moreover the rebels still can't protect the civilians in Confed territory.

The bottomline is this: The introduction clearly pointed out that the conflict had gone on for some time and is settling into a stalemate. A stalemated war is fatal to civilians. The rebels, by rebelling against the Confeds, did not anticipate that the war would become stalemated. As a result, innocent civilians continue to suffer with no end in sight. That is why in my previous post I accused the rebels of being callous. In the official version of EV, no star system ever changed hands. The stalemate situation is clear. If the rebels are truly defeating the Confeds, (which they weren't) then you and I would not be having this conversation because once the rebels win, they supposedly will return all the civilians back to liberty, prosperity and peace. (The keyword here is "supposedly." Too many revolutions in history has been perverted for me to be optimistic.) By failing to anticipate stalemate, the rebels bear responsibility for the suffering of the masses.

**I should clarify what I mean here. A government has no right to tell its citizens what is right or wrong, what it should do, as long as what they do does not directly harm others. Killing, robbery, etc. is covered under that rule. What should be done to those who break that rule?

**

I appreciate your clarification.

**By the way, I would prefer anarchy to being a robot. Then at least I would actually be a human being, whose survival and success depended on myself, rather than an automaton. If you have no choice, then what sense is there in living?

**

I sincerely doubt it. In anarchy, you won't be a human being. You will be an animal. If you don't believe me, just move to Somalia where as they say in the X-Files movie: Survival is the ultimate ideology. In anarchy with the total absence of law and order, people would not hesitate to kill, steal, rape, maim, just to get by. I can assure you, anarchy is not a place anyone would enjoy being in.

**Okay, I tell you that you must give away 80% of your income to people who have bribed me, and make it impossible to pay the medical bills on your wife who's liver has failed. If you do not comply I will kill you, your family, and all your friends. What is your reaction? Buckle under? What if I do this once, twice, thrice? And to people you know and love as well? Then what?

**

Do you have any idea what you just did? I could report to the police that I've been threatened and they'll trace you and police officers will knock on your door and get you into legal trouble.

**Under this argument exploitation is fine, so long as somebody is benefiting, right? So basically, so long as the Rebels start to benefit from their revolution it becomes fine. Really, all argument becomes a moot point, one way or the other.

**

I can see you're beginning to understand. What I see from EV is not a benevolent rebellion attempting to overthrow the malevolent, tyrannical, oppressive Confederation. What I see is a self-centered rebellion wishing to replace the Confederation as the new oppressors.

**ALL causes use a slogan, it is an excellent way to raise moral. And anything can be used for evil purposes. Any object, any idea, LITERALLY anything at all. If we are to stop using those things because of that then we might as well commit suicide because the human body and mind causes lots of evil.

**

I do not advocate throwing all the slogans away. I was merely trying to point out the dangers in believing what people do in the name of slogans.

**May I speak on behalf of those who are benefiting from that exploitation and say that things are just fine? Please consider all sides of the situation before making your arguments.

**

Again, I'm pleased to see you are beginning to see my point.

**This ‘attack’ is as personal as mine was.
Okay, I admit it made me laugh out loud. Rats.

**

Thank you. Since I absolutely loathe putting a smiley at the end of jokes just so people can understand, I don't. It is rare that people can understand humor in writing without a smiley sign. I'm glad that your sense of humor is well-developed. If we end up not agreeing on anything, at least we can agree that both of us have a sense of humor.

(QUOTE)Originally posted by Captain Carnotaur:
**The people that revolted were the civilians!

**

Are you sure? Are you sure there weren't ex-Confed officers involved? Besides, not all civilians rebelled against the Confeds did they?

**The Confederation was making civilians do forced labor! And even if that wasn't true, the Rebellion would have had lots of support from the civilian population!

**

No quibbles here. But the problem is that the rebellion was doing little to help rebel sympathizers.

**He didn't mean it that way! He meant that if a government is a dictartorship, it's bad.

**

He clarified his position for me, so I don't see the need to respond here.

**The Nazis helped the German people alot when they first came to power, and were they good?

**

No, because they helped them initially due to their ambition to enslave them to do their biddings. They need to earn their trust before they can turn them into loyal pod people. Their original intention was nefarious, the consequences grave.

**The Confeds weren't just "telling the Rebels what to do, they were FORCING them to do it!

**

I think it is necessary to make a distinction here. The Confeds can't tell the rebels to do anything. The Confeds can only control their own civilian population.

**So what if the Confeds were doing just fine! If someone else is suffering horribly, then it doesn't matter if just a few people are happy! If someone is getting rich because of the sorrows and pains of others, it isn't good.

**

Fine sentiment. Might I suggest that you put that sentiment into practice? Allow me to repeat something that I stated earlier to Begemotike: Obviously you know too little about capitalism. Capitalism is all about the exploitation of others so a minority can live more comfortably. Unless you're writing from North Korea, (which is on its way to be converted to capitalism) otherwise you belong to a small elite who has access to the Internet while the shirt you wear was created by low-paid Third World workers working more than 12 hours a day in a sweatshop with no hope for medical (and) retirement plans.

Now, are you about to tell me that you are about to move to Malaysia, change your citizenship to Malaysian, and start championing workers' rights? That you will be donating everything in your possession to those poor workers in Indonesia who has to work in the conditions that I just described? Unless you're about to do either, allow me to paraphrase Shakespeare and say that your statement "is filled with sound and fury/signifying nothing."

**If you look at one of my previous posts about the Rebels, you can see some more of my views on the Rebels and Confeds.

**

You could've told me where your posts were. Considering that this topic is 6 pages long, leafing through the whole thing looking for yourname can be tiresome. The fact that I have a slow modem, a bad Internet connection, and a slow computer makes it that much more troublesome.

**Rebellion Rules!!!

**

Caveat: Only in the star systems they control. In Confed territory, the Confeds rule.

Quote

Originally posted by htjyang:
You could've told me where your posts were. Considering that this topic is 6 pages long, leafing through the whole thing looking for yourname can be tiresome. The fact that I have a slow modem, a bad Internet connection, and a slow computer makes it that much more troublesome.

My posts were at the end of page 5 somewhere, and somewhere on page 6.

------------------

(This message has been edited by Captain Carnotaur (edited 06-27-2000).)

The independent worlds would not side with the Rebels nor would they side with the Confeds. The independent worlds do not get involved in Confed/Rebel conflicts. They have their freedom, they'd rather live freely and govern themselves.

Plus, why would they send their children off to war if they were all ready free ? It's like World War II, America didn't join until Japan threatened them (and Iceland and independent country was not involved because there was no threat).

My third and final point is that they would lose trade if they sided with one side over the other.

------------------
"All will bow before the Icelandic Emperor."

"Join the Icelandic Coalition -- or be killed!" Someone should understand that.

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Carnotaur:
**Confed ships look like pieces of super ugly junk.

**

I disagree. Their color may be a bit bland, but their design is superb. Then again, when we're talking about tastes, as the Greeks say: Tastes are not subject to debate. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

**The Confed cruiser can't turn a bit!

**

I believe you are exaggerating because I can assure you they most certainly can. I've seen it done many times by the AI. If they can't turn, they would lose in a fight against the Rebel cruiser. They usually don't.

**Even an expertly piloted Manta can take out 3 Confed Gunboats!

**

That "expertly piloted Manta" had to be piloted by a Human player. In an equal contest between AI vs. AI, the Manta can't out fight even 1 gunboat let alone 3.

**Come on! The Confed cruiser ain't worth a nickle! You can't buy an RCS upgrade to make it turn! And the Rebel cruiser could fly circles around it!!

**

Again, in a fair contest of AI vs. AI, the Rebel cruiser never flies circles around it. I can also assure you that that the Confed cruiser is worth a lot. I know, I paid for it. I can assure you that you can buy an RCS upgrade to help it turn.

**Rebels Rule!!!

**

Only in their own star systems. In Confed territory, the Confeds rule.

**But hey, remember what happened to Sebulba when he raced Anakin? And also remember EVO. Not many people liked the HUGE amount of systems it had. Also, the Confed cruiser can't turn. So the Rebel cruiser has a BIG advantage. So always remember, bigger is not always better.

**

Whether Confed cruisers can turn or not has been dealt with earlier on in this reply. I can only suggest you to monitor AI battles in which a single Confed cruiser fights a single Rebel cruiser with no outside help from you or other ships. From the ones I've seen, the Confed cruiser always wins.

Bigger may not be always better. Then again, smaller is not always better either.

**All the Confeds want to do is put people into slavery and get fat and rich.

**

I can assure you, in the future, weight loss programs are highly advanced and effective. As for getting rich, I would like to open up this question to whoever happens to read this insanely long reply: How many people would like to stay poor for the rest of their lives? You won't find me raising my hand.

**The Rebellion could convince independent worlds to join them because they are fighting for freedom!

**

As for this point, Grundle_04 answered it better than I can. I would just like to extend his argument about the desirability of neutrality by pointing out the profitability of neutrality. Being neutral means you can sell arms (a highly profitable business) to either side. Therefore as a neutral party, it is in your interest to sell arms to both sides to make sure that the war lasts forever thus guaranteeing a constant market. If one side appears to be losing, you would increase the amount of arms sold to that side to guarantee a stalemate.

**The Rebellion can also get more personel to work for them because of their cause! Who would want to help slavery?

**

If you have a time machine, I suggest that you travel back in time to the United States in 1860. Plenty of people at that time would fight and die to preserve their way of life.

Reply to htjyang:
First of, I switched the order of replies around a bit to make the line of thought in this post more coherent. As far as I can tell that did not detract from the effectiveness of your arguments in any way.

By declaring war against the Confederation, the rebels forced the Confederation to respond in force. One can easily assume that the Confederation may not be too careful in choosing their targets and is probably callous in eradicating the rebels. The rebellion's aggression had the side effect (or maybe even the desired effect) of causing innocent civilians to suffer from the Confederate response.

The entire regional population was being oppressed as it was. Over time, it would have made little difference, especially considering that if you live under a government that is capricious enough to kill innocent people as an example it is more than likely that other horrors will be visited upon them for a different ‘reason’. All the rebels did was accelerate the process, but with the knowledge that what they were doing was the only chance they had to stop it altogether.

I truly hope not.

Thank you.

You should've contacted the local police force. I for one am a complete opponent to vigilantism. Which brings up the following point: Your analogy is not applicable since the rebels had no higher authority to appeal to. In the scenario you just described, you do. Please select a better analogy.

My analogy works fine, because I presented only three options: Call the cops, try to do something yourself, or watch. As you so accurately noted, the rebels did not have the first option, leaving them only the last two. If you think about it, In my hypothetical situation the option is basically the same because the likelihood of the police arriving in time to prevent anything is somewhere between slim and none. This is not their fault, it is just a physical impossibility. So both the rebels and I would be in the same soup. I outlined previously the potential results of both actions.

Do you have any idea what you just did? I could report to the police that I've been threatened and they'll trace you and police officers will knock on your door and get you into legal trouble.

And if the police are corrupt and don’t listen? What if I AM the police? What do you do then?

**Begemotike:May I speak on behalf of those who are benefiting from that exploitation and say that things are just fine? Please consider all sides of the situation before making your arguments.

htjyang:Again, I'm pleased to see you are beginning to see my point.**

That was sarcasm. I think of Capitalism as more of a ‘every man for himself’ system. Ultimately, to analyze capitalism without considering the form of government it functions under - Republic, Democracy, etc. makes it very difficult to quantify

First of all, I should point out that rebel star systems are raided more often than Confed star systems. Second, more rebel star systems are being raided vs. the Confeds. They are protecting the systems they captured, but their effectiveness is in doubt. Moreover the rebels still can't protect the civilians in Confed territory.

Granted, and true. Nonetheless, my original point holds true as well, that you can’t accuse the rebels of hiding behind their fleet while ignoring the plight of the rest of the population.

**I can see you're beginning to understand. What I see from EV is not a benevolent rebellion attempting to overthrow the malevolent, tyrannical, oppressive Confederation. What I see is a self-centered rebellion wishing to replace the Confederation as the new oppressors.

The bottomline is this: The introduction clearly pointed out that the conflict had gone on for some time and is settling into a stalemate. A stalemated war is fatal to civilians. The rebels, by rebelling against the Confeds, did not anticipate that the war would become stalemated. As a result, innocent civilians continue to suffer with no end in sight. That is why in my previous post I accused the rebels of being callous. **

That is only if you assume that the rebels are not interested in a treaty or cease fire, and if you assume they have not attempted to start negotiations.

In the official version of EV, no star system ever changed hands. The stalemate situation is clear. If the rebels are truly defeating the Confeds, (which they weren't) then you and I would not be having this conversation because once the rebels win, they supposedly will return all the civilians back to liberty, prosperity and peace. (The keyword here is "supposedly." Too many revolutions in history has been perverted for me to be optimistic.)

Sad, but true. I can probably only think of about two (Of the myriad of revolutions that have happened) instances in history where a revolution was actually successful in it’s stated goals.

By failing to anticipate stalemate, the rebels bear responsibility for the suffering of the masses.

Whenever you start something there is always the possibility for failure. If you let that stop you from doing things then you will be effectively paralyzed.

Overall though, I agree that at the point it is now the conflict is essentially meaningless (unless one side somehow gets a tremendous advantage), it is high time for a cessation of hostilities. Good theme for a plug-in actually, and one I have been thinking about.

In summation let me say this. Our basic difference is the following: I believe that the rebellion is fight for its stated goals - freedom, justice for all, equality, etc., etc., while you believe that they are basically fighting to gain the same amount of power as the confederation and commence being the same. Really, without a bunch of data to study, which we don’t have, there is no way to resolve that. Would you agree?

The following two subjects are not exactly relevant to the above, so they are treated separately. I just wanted to comment.

I sincerely doubt it. In anarchy, you won't be a human being. You will be an animal. If you don't believe me, just move to Somalia where as they say in the X-Files movie: Survival is the ultimate ideology. In anarchy with the total absence of law and order, people would not hesitate to kill, steal, rape, maim, just to get by. I can assure you, anarchy is not a place anyone would enjoy being in.

No, no, and I never said it was. In my opinion anarchy is one of the worst things that can happen, and should be avoided at almost all costs. But if it’s a choice of living in a state of anarchy, or living under constant control and sustained terror, well, I would have a hard time deciding.

I should like to point out though, that the Rebellion has demonstrated order and unity. Historically revolutions that were brutal ended up disintegrating into several factions due to infighting. The fact that the rebels have had a single, stable (by stable I mean no squabbling and faction splitting, etc.), central government for a prolonged period of time seems to show that the leadership is not a selfish, self centered group of psychopaths. Granted, this is proof of nothing, just something to think about.

Thank you. Since I absolutely loathe putting a smiley at the end of jokes just so people can understand, I don't. It is rare that people can understand humor in writing without a smiley sign. I'm glad that your sense of humor is well-developed. If we end up not agreeing on anything, at least we can agree that both of us have a sense of humor.

Absolutely. With that in mind I should like to insult you.... Just kidding! Just kidding!

------------------
We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.

(This message has been edited by Begemotike (edited 06-27-2000).)

(QUOTE)Originally posted by Begemotike:
**The entire regional population was being oppressed as it was. Over time, it would have made little difference, especially considering that if you live under a government that is capricious enough to kill innocent people as an example it is more than likely that other horrors will be visited upon them for a different ‘reason’. All the rebels did was accelerate the process, but with the knowledge that what they were doing was the only chance they had to stop it altogether.

**

More people die from war than from the oppression that preceded it. The rebels "accelerate(d) the process" through their own judgment even when that decision will cost the lives of many other innocent people. They made the decision of life and death for others. I would assert that they had no right to do so. Furthermore, there can be no way to predict what might have happened. Maybe the Confederation will correct itself and war would have been averted. But that is impossible now. That possibility is forever erased by the rebellion's irresponsible actions.

**My analogy works fine, because I presented only three options: Call the cops, try to do something yourself, or watch. As you so accurately noted, the rebels did not have the first option, leaving them only the last two. If you think about it, In my hypothetical situation the option is basically the same because the likelihood of the police arriving in time to prevent anything is somewhere between slim and none. This is not their fault, it is just a physical impossibility. So both the rebels and I would be in the same soup. I outlined previously the potential results of both actions.

**

Then allow me to point out another difference. The actions of the rebels caused many other innocent people to die. Suppose in your analogy, the gang threatened to release a toxic nerve gas into the city and kill 1 million people if you intervene, what would you do?

**And if the police are corrupt and don’t listen? What if I AM the police? What do you do then?

**

I'll contact the internal affairs department. I'll sell it as a news story to the local newspaper about corruption in the local police department. I'll call my Congressional representatives. I'll call local radio talk shows. I'll put out signs denouncing you. I may even hire someone to file suit against you.

**Granted, and true. Nonetheless, my original point holds true as well, that you can’t accuse the rebels of hiding behind their fleet while ignoring the plight of the rest of the population.

**

Of course I can. Their ineffectiveness caused others to suffer is why I can.

**That is only if you assume that the rebels are not interested in a treaty or cease fire, and if you assume they have not attempted to start negotiations.

**

I am assuming that the rebels are not interested in unconditional surrender, which will end the war instantly.

**Whenever you start something there is always the possibility for failure. If you let that stop you from doing things then you will be effectively paralyzed.

**

Please note: I am not talking about investing in Yahoo!'s stocks. The rebels' decision costs many innocent lives. Failure will only add much more misery to the population than the misery that was already present.

**In summation let me say this. Our basic difference is the following: I believe that the rebellion is fight for its stated goals - freedom, justice for all, equality, etc., etc., while you believe that they are basically fighting to gain the same amount of power as the confederation and commence being the same. Really, without a bunch of data to study, which we don’t have, there is no way to resolve that. Would you agree?

**

Agreed. Not to mention the rebellion's appalling disregard for the safety of others.

**I should like to point out though, that the Rebellion has demonstrated order and unity. Historically revolutions that were brutal ended up disintegrating into several factions due to infighting. The fact that the rebels have had a single, stable (by stable I mean no squabbling and faction splitting, etc.), central government for a prolonged period of time seems to show that the leadership is not a selfish, self centered group of psychopaths. Granted, this is proof of nothing, just something to think about.

**

Historically, after revolutions ended, the victors end up squabbling over power. Just ask the Jacobins in France. Even after the defeat of the Whites in Russia, Stalin later still conducted multiple purges.

Somone's taking this sh it WAYYYY too seriosuly...

------------------
"It's clearly a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it." -George W. Bush

AIM-OctoberFost

Yahoo Messenger-OctoberFost

(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost")http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost(/url)

Originally posted by htjyang:

<<'The Confed cruiser can't turn a bit!'

I believe you are exaggerating because I can assure you they most certainly can. I've seen it done many times by the AI. If they can't turn, they would lose in a fight against the Rebel cruiser. They usually don't.>>

I'm not exaggerating. When I play EV, the Confed cruiser never turns, under AI control or human control. I don't know why though, on EVO the UE carrier (which has the same turning as the Confed cruiser) does turn.

------------------

(This message has been edited by Captain Carnotaur (edited 06-28-2000).)