>yfw new generation of /a/ skips this masterpiece
When did this place go to shit? Was it after 2008 during Code Geass sundays?
>most people on /a/ actually have lives
>Was it after 2008 during Code Geass sundays?
yeah pretty much. also the /jp/ split.
So instead watch hundreds of episodes worth of the latest seasonal garbage and spam /a/ with retarded threads about "why is she so perfect" or "which x would you y" then complain about a great series that needs at least a hundred to fully do itself justice. This is retard logic.
> You have no right to complain about new posters while abusing greentext
At this point, only the oldest of oldfags have spent more than half of their 4chan lives in a world without institutionalized greentext abuse. It's no longer a sign of newfags.
>mfw I know an /a/non who's the most cancerous kind of anime fan, watching 5 billion new shows each season but not having watched any significant show before the 2010's, much less classics
>At this point, only the oldest of oldfags have spent more than half of their 4chan lives in a world without institutionalized greentext abuse
>It's no longer a sign of newfags.
sure it is. some things don't change.
it might have to do with heaving one of the worst fanbases out there that builds the show up as something its not, half the shows strongets points are never illustrated cause the fandom is so far up their own ass building the show up on a pedestal to actually talk about the show it is.
I always feel really weird when I see posts by people who have watched twice as many shows from the last two years as I have but still have fucking F/Z or something on their backlog. It makes me feel really out of place.
Well, I remember there used to be a post every once in a while with a recommendations image, I haven't seen one of those in a while
I guess that's also one of the reasons we get so much stupid people asking for recommendations lately
That's not a nice way to make someone interested though.
Last time i know, there was the stream thing, that was not really stream but a sync between anons and needed you have a program and download the series.
You can't really expect anons to have it in their backlog, not everyone fucking cares about old stuff. Make threads about it and make people get interested if you think it's worth it.
It's just "easier" to watch seasonal stuff over the "classics". There's one new episode of a seasonal show a week while classics have all he episodes already available so a lot of people feel the need to marathon them as they're dumb NEETs with no self-control so they burn out.
When I decided to get into Gundam, I marathoned literally everything, from 0079 to AGE in a month, and burned out so hard I stopped watching anime entirely for an entire season.
UC Gundams also have high shitposting value, but LOGH is the king.
I dropped it after twenty or something episodes. LOGH was just a forgotten ova until one day in 2008 it suddenly tops mal and anidb ratings. Even thought it is a blatant yaoi circlejerk with terrible art. It's like Boku no Piko, but unlike bnp there's people who actually baited and watched this shit. I pity them.
Everyone has a backlog. You cannot fault people for tryign to keep up on current anime while slowly working through their old lists.
I had the luxury of watching the 90s shows in the 90s, and watched a minimum of 15-20 fansub series a season from 1999-now. Even I have a backlog I never expect to fill.
I cannot even imagine how a younger anime fan could hope to keep up. You cannot fault people for watching more of the currently airing anime than the classics. /a/ is primarily focused on the current season of anime an it has always been this way.
/v/ and /vg/ have this same problem. Some autist will tell people to stop what they are doing and go play this 8-bit classic right fucking now, and they will declare are modern games are shit and that people need to play the classics first.
It is elitist bullshit.
>UC era Gundam is the only thing worth watching
You forgot Turn A.
I'm amazed /a/ discovered in the first place.
It was virtually unknown for years than all of sudden everyone knows about it. What happened? Did some famous blogger or something talk about it.
The first time I heard about it was a on star trek forum.
>no beta MC
It's like you didn't even watch S4
>not getting triggered by Relena or Marina
Dubfag le 90s kid spotted.
Dude, I work on a TV network, I even work on weekends. Yet I had time to watch at least two o three episodes before going to bed. It took me almost 6 months to finish it but it was worth it.
There are people out there who unironically like peace loving princess characters?
>I'm amazed /a/ discovered in the first place.
Before the hivemind declared it was a masterpiece, most people on 4chan just thought of it as "an old meme anime".
>are you frustrated?
>Alcohol is humanities friend. Can I abandon a friend?
>what is that? (pointing at culturally enriched crew member)
In the early days of fansubbing there was very little interest in LoGH in the west. Even as late as 2002 fansubbers had only got around to around 42 of the episodes. It took central anime quite a while to fansub the rest of them.
Despite people claiming otherwise, the fanbase to this series is relatively new in the west.
How is this considered classic when it had no impact on the medium? Creating a show that relies so heavily on otherwise minor details, with hundreds of episodes, and a fuckload of characters, you start to see the need for breaks in between seasons. It's too much to absorb for what is still a chinese cartoon.
>BRILLIANT, NO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT
"Declared to be genius without any actual demonstration of intellect" is the definition of a gary stu, anon
On holidays and weekends I spend 16 hours a day watching anime to burn through my backlog. It's efficient and fun, and easy to accomplish if you're not some ADHD tween who thinks watching 10 episodes of anime a day is a lot
How is a show ostensibly about smart people but actually about retards supposed to be appealing?
That's even worse, a good strategy used only once is a deus ex machina.
If Julian was flawless, he would have
made it in time.
Are YOU retarded? Here, let me spell it out:
Are Yang and Reinhard geniuses in their universe?
If yes, how do you explain them never doing anything more intelligent than the average Starcraft player can figure out in a few minutes of playing?
If no, why does everyone around them express the sentiment that they are? Is it not the case that a character that is universally praised by other characters despite not having the praised trait is a classic tell-don't-show Mary Sue character?
>never doing anything more intelligent than the average Starcraft player can figure out in a few minutes of playing
Except for the part where you don't really get a lot of insight into the intricacies of LOGH battles to even tell anything about what exactly they're doing most of the time. Also, you seem to have an odd understanding of warfare. Real life warfare isn't like Starcraft where you can freely order units around on a map. I wonder what you'd consider "intelligent". In warfare, all too intricate things usually don't work out, because war is chaos, and the high command usually gives rather general instructions, which in place are executed by the various generals and commanding officers. It's not one mastermind pulling all the strings.
LoGH is sort of interesting in that a lot of its space battles are grounded in reality (or reality based science fiction). The distances, 3D battle logistics and resource management, just to name a few, are all very solid.
You say the average starcraft player can figure out the same strategies, but starcraft doesn't take place in a 3D battlefield set in outer space, it's far more like conventional warfare. How do you flank a 3D formation in vast emptiness?
I even agree with you that the show does more telling than showing when it comes to Reinhard's and Wen-Li's intellect, but I would assume someone has to be extremely competent to rule over 40 billion people while waging a war and not having everything be burning or under the control of power hungry corrupt government officials.
So they're geniuses despite never doing anything to show how ingenious they are? They don't perform any brilliant politics, or devise any clever intelligence operations, either. They make obvious, boring, straight-out-of-ancient-military-history-even-today, forced plays. That's not genius except to drooling idiots who've never opened a book in their lives.
>>Was it after 2008 during Code Geass sundays?
>This show raised the pleb level to unprecedented levels.
Not more than Haruhi or whatever the hell was also popular the time. Only way to avoid that is to have no popular shows at all.
>So they're geniuses despite never doing anything to show how ingenious they are?
Yang conquered Iserlohn through trickery and he successfully survived at minimal losses while severely outnumbered in several battles. Reinhard overthrew the local government, restructured the military, put the right people in charge, etc.
I don't know what you're expecting. Most of what Yang and Reinhard did is based on historical/legendary figures - it's not like all of this was unique - and intentionally so, since one of the central themes of the show is that history repeats itself, which is why you can find all kinds of references to historical battles, mythical heroes, etc. If you don't think anything they did was impressive, then nothing people people did in history was impressive either I guess.
I don't know what kinds of expectations you have, and people who use phrases like "never opened a book in their lives" are usually people who don't read a lot and have very little knowledge on the subject they're opining about.
You're killing me, anon. My sides are approaching lightspeed in a mockery of einsteinian physics. I'm bleeding to death. Stop.
okay. So, first of all, clearly you missed where the SPEHSS COMBAT in LoGH is inexplicably treated as 2D, repeatedly depeicted as flat shapes even in real space, etc. But let's pretend that's just an abstraction and that it's really 3D. The "surround as a sphere-segment to concentrate fire" tactic generalises trivially to this case. The starcraft player still wins, even without his UI and APM advantage.
But let's back up a bit. Reality-based science fiction? You've never touched one. Reality-based science fiction, you hide in the Kuiper belt and throw the largest, heaviest rocks at the enemy's planets and orbitals that you can. If possible and economical to do so, stealth them first. Now, Yang does do this with some ramjets - but mercifully restrains himself to merely striking orbital facilities at near-c, thereby dooming everyone on the planet below to a lingering death of radiation sickness. Oh wait, that doesn't happen because LoGH is to realistic sci-fi what my sweaty asscrack is to a steak sandwich.
More than that, but not a majority, it's true. Maybe they saved all their good content for after anyone with anything better to do had left. That would be commensurate with the level of intelligence they put behind their characters, at least.
>It's not one mastermind pulling all the strings.
Militarily-wise, Reinhard and Yang, along with some other admirals, weren't geniuses. They were just praised for their ability to organise fleets efficiently and rally the people to their cause. You're not so stupid as to believe that Mittermeyer's fleet is so fast because their ships or something are faster, right? No, it's because he is capable enough to organise the fleets, his officers, travel routes and supply lines in a manner that he can just get somewhere faster. This all gets explained.
The reason Yang mainly won nearly all his battles is because he literally wants to be a historian rather than an Admiral. His nearly autistic levels of time spent on studying history and military tactics gave him insight on battles other contemporary Admirals didn't have. He was also a great organiser, planner and never hesitated to trick the enemy to beat them, which helped him pull off great stunts like at Iserlohn.
Same with Reinhard - he wasn't an unparalleled genius, he was just a charismatic leader with a great eye for talent and people skills. He efficiently reorganised a corrupt Empire into a well-functioning one just by undoing all the damage the previous Kaisers had done, taking full advantage of meritocracy, instead of relying on the aristocracy like the Goldenbaum Dynasty did, to find the best of the best and put them in charge. He was a benevolent ruler as well, which drew people to him, and started a cult of personality that portrayed him as a genius.
He was never shown as perfect or a genius, he had several personality flaws and was still naive in terms of relationships with other actual people.
Finally, this Anon >>124112640 said what I was going to say about >one of the central themes of the show is that history repeats itself.
It was alright. Unique and interesting. Had some pretty big flaws, in that, for a show centered largely around politics and not the development of individual characters, the political plot mostly felt really contrived and hollow. And of the four or five central characters who got most of the character development , the 3 most central of the central were bland and boring as FUCK.
Reuenthal arc was, I think, indisputedly the best and most interesting part of the show.
If you haven't seen it and you want to: stay away from /a/ threads.
>So, first of all, clearly you missed where the SPEHSS COMBAT in LoGH is inexplicably treated as 2D
You clearly never paid attention. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me, but to my knowledge this scene has three dimensions. The ships aren't only facing forward on a horizontal plane. This is pretty explicable if you ask me.
LOGH telling characters are amazing without showing exactly why they're amazing is a pretty annoying part of the show.
Just look at the Gestapo leader. Sorry, forgot his name, the Reich dude with the dog.
We're told his an indispensable tool and advisor for Reinhard, but his actions don't reflect that. His only arguably positive contribution was allowing that one planet to be nuked to end the civil war faster.
Compare that to all of his blunders: Disarming Kircheis out of pettiness and leading to his death. Letting an imprisoned enemy smuggle a weapon and almost kill the kaiser. Hiring and conspiring with a traitor who antagonized all the major fleet admirals. Directly causing Reuenthal's rebellion, costing the Reich the lives of thousands of talented troops. Letting that one cripple almost kill Reinhard. Getting himself killed.
The guy was the biggest failure of a chief of intelligence I have ever seen.
Oh look, in this one the ships are firing upwards. This looks pretty inexplicably 2D to me.
It was pretty annoying how they only shot at each other from the front. How could they let a blunder like this happen?
The ships always, ALWAYS fought on a single plane. It's what made me drop this show on episode 0! Unrealistic sci-fi that doesn't meet my strict autistic criteria for sci-fi that ALL shows must meet? Give me a fucking break, fucking overrated shit!
Well, okay. I will abandon that point - clearly they got around to abandoning their 2D tacticool battle map sometime after I abandoned punishing myself by watching it.
That actually makes sense if we assume their weapons are a linear-accelerated particle beam*. Firing from the front allows you to maximise the accelerator length (= range, power) and minimise the profile you present the enemy to fire back against.
* - why the twitching badgercunts do we have to assume this? why is it not explained, even as a momentarily-glimpsed labelled cut-section of a ship (not even during the credits or something)?
>okay. So, first of all, clearly you missed where the SPEHSS COMBAT in LoGH is inexplicably treated as 2D, repeatedly depeicted as flat shapes even in real space, etc. But let's pretend that's just an abstraction and that it's really 3D. The "surround as a sphere-segment to concentrate fire" tactic generalises trivially to this case. The starcraft player still wins, even without his UI and APM advantage.
First of all, you clearly didn't pay attention, because battles in LOGH make use of 3D formations. Second, planar manoeuvring is more efficient than spatial manoeuvring when it comes to minimising the firing effectiveness of enemy formations. Thirdly, you don't even get a bit of insight into the technicalities of battle. You don't know anything about the effectiveness of their weapons, you don't know about the movement/manoeuvring capabilities of their ships, etc. etc. - LOGH hides a lot from the viewer in order to not get stuck in meaningless tech babble and boring the viewer with meaningless terms about fictional science. People who criticise the warfare LOGH are on the same side as people who criticise linear formations in 18th century warfare. They look at it from a modern perspective, lacking knowledge of the limitations of the period's firearms, thinking they knew better than the generals of the time because they've played a lot of Call of Duty.
Isn't the whole point of the show is that it's told from a point-of-view of a historian? Doesn't translate well for alot of scenes, but it does create a rather unique show.
Also, I needed an excuse to post this.
>after I abandoned punishing myself by watching it.
They've been doing that from the very beginning, also refer to >>124113489. Planar manoeuvres are more efficient when it comes to outmanoeuvring enemy formations. A formation that stretches in x-dimension needs to rotate around the y-axis in order to counter a planar manoeuvre and put itself in a firing formation. This means that all the spaceships have to realign themselves and are unable to fire for quite some time. A formation of slow moving ships can thus easily outmanoeuvred. A spatial manoeuvre only requires the formation to rotate along the x-axis, which is much easier and faster done.
Of course this is something someone who takes his military knowledge from Starcraft wouldn't know about, because there these concepts don't apply because units don't block the firing line or the line of sight.
In real life, this has been done since forever however. It's one of the reasons why the faster British ships did so well against the more heavily armed but slower ships of the Spanish Armada.
>why is it not explained, even as a momentarily-glimpsed labelled cut-section of a ship (not even during the credits or something)?
Why are you so autistic that you need every single little bit of technical detail explained? What happened to "show, don't tell"? If you want to satiate your autism, go watch Starwars and buy all the 500 lore books and technology books explaining every little detail about how this fictional piece of technology you saw in the background of a scene for 10 seconds works. It is inane details that genuinely don't impact that plot at all and wastes screen time.
Hint: The show isn't a hard sci-fi show with an emphasis on the future and technology, it's a military/historical show focusing on the past and how common themes repeat themselves throughout time.
People just don't think space is cool anymore.
No, you're just wrong there. A formation in 2D (eg line) of 27 ships must do a lot of maneuvering to bring all its ships into range on a cube of 27 ships, while the cube only has to move at most two-thirds of its number, and only a fraction of the average distance.
A flat plane would be better than either of those in its best-case scenario (starts with normal vector towards the enemy) e.g approximately >>124113414.
If you want literary fiction so much, fine. But it seems obnoxious to tell me that science fiction is badwrongfun and I'm not allowed to be put out that something lauded as the greatest space opera in anime isn't at all a space opera. It would be like getting a tasty pink ice cream and taking a bite only to find it's rum-raisin flavored. It's not a bad flavor, but I wanted strawberry.
No, you mistook space opera for hard sci-fi. Legend of the Galactic Heroes is by nature a pure space opera. The definition Google gives me, is "a novel, film, or television programme set in outer space, typically of a simplistic and melodramatic nature."
Take that as you will, but it sounds like LoGH to me.
For what purpose would you even use a cube as a formation? It would leave most of the ships unable to fire most of the time. Someone who uses a linear formation would - with the same number of ships be able to defeat the cube formation easily.
You could argue that a square formation might make sense, but a square formation would require a lot of intricate manoeuvring to move around - making movement take even longer. I'd argue that a linear formation makes the most sense. And the movement that counters the linear formation best is a coplanar movement.
Pew pew pew.
Billions of soldiers dying and millions of spaceships lost in space.
Two faggots discuss behind a table.
More than 100 episodes of drama deaths and boring dialogues about no-one-cares planets and galaxies.
I'm not really sure what else you're imagining here, maybe you could explain? When you say a square formation takes intricate maneuvering, for example. Suppose I want to alter a square facing forward to one facing up. I move the top row down, the row below left, and the one below that right. Further rows take longer to reach the edges, but not as long as a line would take to bring its most extremely positioned units into range, so I'm not losing anything.
Coplanar formations are optimal unless you have a numeric difference, since the aim here is to avoid being flanked. But the point stands: a line is terrible. Absolutely the worst formation short of a diffuse cloud.
A cube makes no sense because you end up with lots of ships unable to fire since they're either lined up behind other ships (e.g. if it's a "filled" cube) or they're facing away from the enemy, e.g. if you're thinking of an empty cube, sort of like what you'd expect from an 18/19th century defensive square against cavalry in 3D.
By square I mean a formation which is essentially a line formation stacked up high.
Assume you'd have to manoeuvre such a formation to counter a planar manoeuvre to surround it, then the ships wouldn't just have to mind the ships next to them, but also those on top of them while manoeuvring, slowing them down immensely. Also, rotating a linear formation along the x-axis is fairly easy. Rotating a square formation is not.
I'd argue: if you have lots of ships at your disposal it is more effective to line them up like >>124113489, using multiple line formations rather than stacking them in one big square.
I'm in the middle of watching it, and it's pretty fantastic.
I would peg it more as a political drama than a sci fi action show. The battles can be interesting, sure, but the intrigue and scheming is far more compelling, and the attention to the lives of the characters and their relationships gets a lot more spotlight than the tech.
You could conceivably set this story in a fantasy setting reminiscent of medieval Europe or Japan and still have it be just as compelling.
A bunch of lines on top of each other IS a square. Maybe the best organisational structure is to have a subcommander for each line in the square (I wouldn't be convinced), but even so - practically speaking, there's no difference. Your ships have the same distances to all other enemy and allied ships regardless of whether you call the shape a square or a stack of lines.
I think the thing here is you're imagining formations as sort of irreduceible? Like, if I say "I put my ships in a square" you think "okay, they have to always hold that square, so the whole thing swings around to rearrange" or a cube has to stay a cube and can't become a square. And when I say "A cube beats a line" you think "a defensive square beats a line on a real 18th-cen battlefield" (obviously false). But there just isn't an analogous shape for a line in space on a real battlefield. Square translates to line (a flat shape of one less dimension than the field of play) and cube or sphere to square or circle, but line just doens't have meaning if you 'flatten' it.
Line loses to everything, from every starting arrangement. In its best case, it starts out outnumbered and can't move more ships into range as fast as another shape. In its worst, it gets slurped up like a delicious piece of space spaghetti
>You could conceivably set this story in a fantasy setting reminiscent of medieval Europe or Japan and still have it be just as compelling.
I maintain that Game of Thrones is just a shitty LoGH ripoff in a fantasy setting.
>You could conceivably set this story in a fantasy setting reminiscent of medieval Europe or Japan and still have it be just as compelling.
If your story can be told everywhere, it shouldn't be told anywhere. Stories and worlds should fit together as snugly as possible.
>using starwars as example of hard scifi
Hahahaha, /a/ never ceases to amaze me. How can people here be so dumb and so smug at he same time? Not even who you were talking to either.
SW and logh are both space opera, moron.
>A bunch of lines on top of each other IS a square.
If the lines function separately, and if they got enough distance to manoeuvre, then they're not a square formation. They're multiple line formations.
Keep in mind: it's not just about how your ships are initially set up, it's also about how they manoeuvre. And if you instruct them to maintain a square formation - especially a tight one - then this will make realigning your formation a lot more difficult. Obviously a square formation (i.e. a plane that stretches along x- and y-dimension) has the same amount of ships able to fire as a line, but as I said before, it can't manoeuvre as well if it's supposed to maintain the formation. A cube formation will at the same amount of ships have less ships able to fire at the enemy, thus it will lose to a line or square formation.
No, you fucking moron. I wasn't talking about Starwars being "hard sci-fi", I was talking about how his need for information on literally every piece of technology is similar to that of Starwars autists literally writing several books on the technology within the universe it self. If
>If you want to satiate your autism, go watch Starwars and buy all the 500 lore books and technology books
Star Wars isn't hard sci-fi and all that stuff is basically bullshit. Hard sci-fi would be like Planetes or Moonlight Mile.
Read the whole post, I already said exactly that. If the ships are in the same positions, it's the same formation, because what happens after that only depends on the positions.
It's LoGH guys. The battles are based on cavalry battles, which are inherently two dimensional and don't translate well to space. Examining the strategies on a deep level is missing the point of them anyway. The battles are some cool action set pieces that have implications for the political drama that's the meat of the show.
>all that stuff is basically bullshit
Exactly my fucking point. Who the fuck cares about how the fucking laser cannons in a 1990s anime adaptation works? The same people who have fucking train collections arranged by colour and size in mm in their basement, that's who.
Not that guy,but since space is big as fuck and their communications are hampered by electronic countermeasures,co-ordination becomes difficult with large fornations
Essentially,you'll need a commander for each individual line at minimum in order to co-ordnate decently,since their communication is optical and hence limited to line of sight,and generally tricky to execute.
Or messanger shuttles,which have obvious flaws
So yeah,large square formations wil lhave serious difficulty in co-ordination.
However,a series of smaller units,composed of lines or very small 3x3 squares,each commanded by a sub commander,who in turn recieve orders from the main commander,will be able to be far more effective than a square with a single commander telling everyone what to do.
As for being attavked from the sides,that's flanking,and generally tends to fuck shit up.
Cubes are no solution for it,since a cube means reducing your concentration of forces,both at a single point in the enemy lines,and as a whole,reduces your firepower at any point in time.
Both are major factors in battle.
Adnittedly though,their 3D maneuvers are lacking,however,it would be difficult for us to really know what would work,since the closest thing we've had to 3D Ccombat with large vessels is submarine warfare,and that's almost never happened,so we have no real experience and are restricted to mere speculation.
>If the ships are in the same positions, it's the same formation.
No, that's factually wrong. It doesn't matter how they are initially set up it also matters how they are trained, how they are instructed to manoeuvre, etc. - and it's a fact that maintaining a square formation is harder than a line formation (which is already hard enough and required quite a bit of effort on 18th century battlefields, let alone doing it in space with huge space ships).
Please reread that post again, retard. It's not a long or complicated post. Pay special attention to the word that starts with "trans" and ends with "lated". Once you're done, kill yourself.
You're responding to a post positing that aSoIaF started long before LoGH was translated, which post had the goal of suggesting that it could not have been a LoGH rip-off, and you're not disputing either of those things. Shut the fuck up.
At this point I'm not even sure we're talking about LoGH any more.
Also, >>124117428 and
I'm really not sure I can understand you at all. If you can't predict how events will work out - if the rules of the setting are a mysterious black box and the victor in the next battle determined entirely by plot convenience - how can you enjoy the show? Especially when it's so gradually paced and there's plenty of time to think things over. If you're not thinking "hmm, how can [character] get out of this one (be it political or combat-based)?," how do you end up sympathising with them? If events are just random, there's no immersion.
Then what the fuck are you trying to say, moron? Someone else read it and summed it up for GRRM and he decided to rip it off?
This is an anonymous discuss, you don't need to pretend you didn't misread out of your idiocy, you can just stop posting and no one will ever be able to associate these dumb posts with your future dumb posts.
>Adnittedly though,their 3D maneuvers are lacking
Again, I would argue that when facing linear formations, planar manoeuvring is the most efficient. Spatial movement would be the exception.
How about not watching twenty current shows like an autistic fucking retard just so you can have LE EBIN "DISCUSSIONS" with your friends on /a/?
Watching forgettable trash instead of something you're actually going to remember is objectively retarded. Just because it's airing doesn't mean you need to fucking watch it, i've gone whole seasons without watching anything.
You retards probably don't even actually like anime, you just use it as a medium so you can talk to strangers on the internet.
Look at it this way. At some point, I will have watched both the "classics" and a massive amount of forgettable anime. I would rather watch the forgettable stuff when people are discussing it and there are more experiences to be had than put it off until that time has passed so I can watch classics right now that will probably get just as much discussion in five years as they do now.
I would agree with this, actually. You seem to have thought it through. A cube isn't a good suggestion, just a random dense formation that beats a single line. The idea is just to have the smallest possible change to reach a plane facing in any direction you're attacked from (as that gives best concentration of fire)
Introducing lots of communications complications seems fair, but again, you found a perfectly good way to split up your command structure and still attain a near-optimal concentration of firepower.
Of course, really we're just discussing the generalisation of cavalry combat to three dimensions, as >>124117428 says. Real space combat is ruled by fast-travelling sand grains, probably.
I think you're looking at LoGH from the wrong perspective. LoGH was written long before Eva, and pre-Eva Japanese media tends to be plot-driven rather than character-driven. The individual characters matter a lot less than in modern anime.
it has been ages since the announcement
Hmm, an interesting point. But I would argue that world-coherence is even more important to plot than characters. After all, if the plot is hard to work with because the events don't follow a cohesive set of rules (stuff like the laws of physics, I mean - including obviously whatever 'magic' laws you need to put in to have your show), the plot is just not there. The characters suffer less. You can maybe still like Reinhard's hard consequentialism or Kircheis' quaint optimism in spite of their universe being essentially powered by convenience. But how can you follow the plot? I mean, enjoyment of plot comes from stuff like "huh, didn't see that coming, obvious in retrospect though" and "ha, I figured that one out" and "that was a big development, all the established rules change now. I'll have to rethink things." But if you never establish any rules to the setting, there's not much left. Will the fleet be in position to reach the planet in time? There's no way to guess since the fleet could be anywhere and the means of its travel is ambiguous. So it basically comes down to "do the writers want this planet to be nuked as a tragic backstory or not," and that's not the same.
Nobody really knows how space combat would work,or whether it is even possible in a meaningful sense.
Fast moving sand grains would indeed be a potent weapon,but others exist.
For example,shaped nuclear charges are rather promising,and are far easier to make than light speed sand grains.
And hell,when one actually considers the size of space,it becomes obvious that even lasers are damn slow.
So probably launching massive waves of unmanned semi-intelligent craft to close enough ranges where they can actually attack is a feasible option,but even this seems iffy to me.
Interstellar travel itself is another can of worms best left unopened.
Probably it's best just to target his planets and fuck them up.
I'd say we have no real knowledge to base it on.
Everything we would say here would end up being baseless speculation.
Even with that however,many maneuvers seem damn odd.
It's not a good shape,since most of your forces cannot fire because their own ships are in front of them,although it is somewhat resistant to breakthroughs,it will be damn vulnerable to encirclements/flanking.
What would seem far more feasible than that would be some sort of empty,almost-hemisphere. around an opponents forces.
2D force deployments in a 3D environment seem far too vulnerable to flanking to me,to be honest,even if they may have some maneuverability advantage.
Do we even see the semi-circles in action? I wonder whether they're a representation of the actual positioning of the forces or some sort of value correlated based on statistics or something. Otherwise, I could think of them of some sort of spatial oblique-order equivalent.
In any case, I don't think arguing about LOGH tactics is wise either. Foremost they're meant as a stylistic device - they look what they look like due to the directors wanting to bring a bit of that 18th/19th century atmosphere into space. However, I'd still argue that if you want to circumvent a linear formation, you must do so in a planar fashion, since that requires most movement and coordination on the enemy side to counter it.
I think once you have to start saying "everything we see of the space battles is just an elaborate abstraction of the real thing," the hypothesis that the writers just didn't really care about their setting as much as their aesthetic starts to dominate.
They should just do a nicely animated movie and be done with it. From what I've read there's plenty full engagements that are described in the novels that are simply mentioned in the show.
Perhaps they are something along the lines of what you suggested,but anyway,there's no definitive way to tell what they meant by it,since it was not shown in 3d,on a volumetric display,or something like that.
Anyway,it is mostly a stylistic device,and is most certainly not a main element in the show.
In addition,we know nothing about how 3D battles like that would go.
My suggestion was something like a planer formation though.
It was a portion of a hemisphere,but with little thickness,so it is more like a curved sheet.
In the end,what you want is a way to expose the maximum surface area of yours to the opponent,so you can focus the most fire at him.
As long as you keep a reserve,it should be alright.
I'd say that something like this would outdo a planar formation.
As for if one is faced with a planar formation as a linear formation,probably the best move would be to try at reform yourself into some shape that can focus fire,and break through at his weakest point.
It also depends greatly on the situation.
A formation with a large volume could potentially be very useful as well,in the right situation,like Bucocks.
> From what I've read there's plenty full engagements that are described in the novels that are simply mentioned in the show.
The novels have the craziest descriptions of battles ever.
There was a blog which was translating the novels,go and give a few chapters a read.
You'll be alarmed by the descriptions of things like photon missiles exploding.
Regardless,how on earth do you make a movie out of a 100+ episode anime?
I think that's a fair criticism of the show. The plot is very much driven by politicking and the characters' responses to each others' actions, rather than development of the characters or the setting itself, and I think that's really the main appeal. So much of the fun comes from speculating about their reactions and how they plan to get out of political traps set by their rivals, and things of that nature. Reinhard gets defeated by Yang, and you watch and speculate about how that will affect his ambitions, and how he'll prevent the other nobles from taking advantage of it. Reuental gets accused of plotting insurrection, and it's fun to see how those accusations interact with things like his inability to find satisfaction in peacetime, his desire to die in battle against a worthy enemy, and his tendency toward suicidal actions that have largely been responsible for his military success.
Watching LoGH is more like reading a history book than anything, which is by design. However I agree that it would have been better if the setting was been more fleshed out and had more consistent rules. I would have liked to see more focus on character development as well, but again that's a post-Eva thing that largely gets ignored in older Japanese media.
These elements were never the focus of the show though.
I wouldn't say that they cared more about their aesthetics than setting though,the setting is paid quite a bit of attention to,but mostly the bits that relate to people.
>If your story can be told everywhere, it shouldn't be told anywhere. Stories and worlds should fit together as snugly as possible.
Or, you know, stories are universal because people are the same no matter what place or time. Didn't LoGH make a point about that?
>Regardless,how on earth do you make a movie out of a 100+ episode anime?
this. good luck adapting that and making sense out of it. maybe a trilogy or something, but even then you couldn't feasibly do it without omitting certain arcs and cutting down on characters.
It's like a garden. A story's plot may be fairly universal, and its characters can be transplanted without killing them, but it will never grow as fully as it would have if it had had the right place to grow in. You can grow lilies in a swamp, if you make enough effort, but they won't be as good. Lilies are universal, yes. They look as pretty here as on the moon. But they would not grow on the moon, and you should not plant them there.
It depends on whether you hold a rigoristic point of view on morality. Oberstein always acted in a fashion he saw necessary to achieve the greater good, however, he disregarded the rights of many individuals in doing so. It is a very difficult subject. Is it right to do something good for many at the cost of doing something bad to few - without their consent even? I don't think so. What Oberstein did was evil. He had good reasons and good intentions, but it was evil nonetheless.
Is not sacrificing the lives of many more soldiers also something that happens without consent?
Whether you decide to stop the nukes or let them go,you end up with a lot of blood on your hands.
1 option merely lands you with a lot less blood.
In either scenario,you consign millions to death without their permission
It's always ideal to have them as rational beings and get their consent,but that's an overly idealistic option,and impossible in reality.
You're still thinking too utilitarian - a deontologist would say soldiers agreed to risk their lives. We might say that a soldier's life is not less valuable than a civilians, but that's just not the terms in which they would see it.
>Is not sacrificing the lives of many more soldiers also something that happens without consent?
I would argue that there are differences. The first difference is: the soldier is aware of his position. He's in a position of a combatant and is thus fully aware that he might get killed doing what he does. Not to mention that the soldier might be voluntary - depending on how your military recruits them.
There are also rules of warfare which people have agreed on historically, e.g. to not make civilians military targets.
However,at that point in the conflict,with the war having raged on for so long,and the population having decreased so much,I would be very surprised indeed had conscription not been implemented for both alliance and imperial military.
It's even more likely when you consider how morally bankrupt the aristocracy was.
They had most likely requisitioned people and resources to help quash Reinhards rebellion.
Yeah, I was just thinking that. I'm not really sure how my straw deontologist can justify conscripting your civilians and then sending them to be killed. From utilitarian reasoning, it's easy enough - if the enemy does it, and you don't, you'll all be wiped out anyway, so better to do so. Unless you get into the more meta-level prisoner dilemma stuff, but that seems sketchy and didn't happen in our own history
The soldier is aware of the possibility of his death,but by not saving his life,you have doomed him to death,just as much so as if you had shot him yourself.
I don't believe the civilian bit ever has worked,or ever will.
Civilians are easy targets,and powerless, and when have the powerful ever not abused such a scenario?
The conscripting is a bit of supposition however.
In a society with no social mobility,and where the military offers a hope of social mobility,they are often swamped with volunteers,like,for example,Pakistan's.
Then again,the war has been raging for so long by then that even that source would have dried up.
>The soldier is aware of the possibility of his death,but by not saving his life,you have doomed him to death,just as much so as if you had shot him yourself.
It depends on the situation. I don't think it is right to sacrifice a soldier for a political reason either. A soldier can only be sacrificed to achieve a goal of war*. Sending soldiers wave after wave to take a well defended objective? That is something that may be done. Killing your own soldiers and blaming the enemy in order to stage a massacre of pows or something? No.
The civilian bit has worked to some extent. Up to WW2 the civilian losses in war weren't really that high. Only with WW2 this changed. Obviously, there have always been massacres against the local populace, but there was a period where war has been successfully constrained to a certain extent. It is not in your interest to blur the lines between combatants and non-combatants not even from a humanitarian perspective but from a mere practical perspective. You don't want to deal with partisans. You want the local populace to be friendly towards you or at least as neutral as possible.
*[Clausewitz distinguishes between goal and purpose of war; goal of war being the objectives to be achieved through military force via the use of battles (strategy) and the command of troops (tactics) and reason of war being the political objectives to be achieved through war itself, i.e. the political decisions you want to force upon your opponent.]
Preventing partisans is only worthwhile if you intend to occupy significant portions of the land.
If you do not intend to rule the whole of it,then it is effective to support one group and pit them against the other.
I don't quite get how you support sacrifice for a goal of war,but not sacrifice to achieve the political objectives for which the war was started and to which the achievement of goals of war contributes.