Author Topic: controversial statement s  (Read 17115 times)

It's hard to suspend my disbelief when untrained, chaotic rebels win wars.
this so much. the federation has legions of highly trained sharpshooters, but not one of them manages to hit any of the rebels who are literally just random farmers who first picked up a gun 2 days ago.

yeah since when have random farmers ever beat advanced militaristic natio-

yeah since when have random farmers ever beat advanced militaristic natio-
what are you talking about lamof

haha lamof hahahhahahahhha i lamof hahahhahahah  l a mof i lamof all the lamof big time lamof yes yes


what are you talking about lamof
literally the united states revolutionary army - they were untrained or poorly trained civilians who fought a war of attrition that eventually forced the british to give up. meanwhile the british at the time were considered the most advanced in military training and tech.

you might point to the french helping the usa but note that they only sent like a few officers to help with training. that doesnt mean the soldiers were suddenly efficient effective fighting units - it just made them slightly more disciplined and able to follow orders.

please take school seriously and pay attention in class or else you’ll end up like master matthew
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 05:31:07 PM by Conan »

and before you start saying “well im sure the british were better shots so im technically still right”, no, they were not. american farmers/civilians were used to hunting game and so were generally just as good at shooting as the british were. on top of that american long rifles developed for hunting had much higher accuracy than the standard british rifles of the time. the difference in soldier performance was purely military discipline and training to function as a unit/army - washingtons army had huge issues with desertion or breaking apart mid battle due to morale.



to round out the brown townogy, the rebels in star wars generally came from frontier planets afaik so would have had to face dangerous flora/fauna and would not have been nearly as untrained as you suggest. given that their top leadership did have experience fighting wars previously, its not too far fetched to suggest that they could fight effectively against the empire. they’d never win a full frontal fight, but they didnt need to to win. like most gigantic bureaucratic governments, the empire was slow to respond and had a lot of territory to defend while the rebels didnt.

this doesnt excuse the stuffty deus ex machina plot devices, just explains why its feasible for the rebels to win/not be immediately crushed upon forming.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 05:41:43 PM by Conan »

stans and stan culture are loving stupid and are some of the most obnoxious, entitled people on the planet.
it's literally a combination of stalker and fan, and people willingly call themselves this.

stans and stan culture are loving stupid and are some of the most obnoxious, entitled people on the planet.
it's literally a combination of stalker and fan, and people willingly call themselves this.
they know and they embrace it. be glad you aren't famous or else you'd have to actually deal with those parasites

literally the united states revolutionary army - they were untrained or poorly trained civilians who fought a war of attrition that eventually forced the british to give up. meanwhile the british at the time were considered the most advanced in military training and tech.
you might point to the french helping the usa but note that they only sent like a few officers to help with training. that doesnt mean the soldiers were suddenly efficient effective fighting units - it just made them slightly more disciplined and able to follow orders.
please take school seriously and pay attention in class or else you’ll end up like master matthew
this is a valid interpretation of crook's post and also entirely true, however I think he was referring to the vietnam war

also can u imagine saying "I like the bad guys more because the good guys don't have a well-defined chain of command"? couldn't be me
if you like the empire, you missed the point. I bet u aspire to be like walter white
« Last Edit: July 10, 2020, 06:13:54 PM by Foxscotch »

they know and they embrace it. be glad you aren't famous or else you'd have to actually deal with those parasites
yeah but even phrases like "we stan" annoy the forget outta me
something about that word is aggravating

last 2 pages remind me of that time someone posted a sideways map of europe on r/worldbuilding and everyone complained about how unrealistic and uncreative the literal geography of europe was

lamof you do realize that the americans won because they got pretty lucky, the british generals made bad moves because of pride, and america went almost bankrupt because of it. in fact, i'd estimate if the war took 1 or 2 years longer the usa would not exist

Tbh I just like how calm and collected Darth Vader seems. Especially whenever something goes wrong. Compare that to Kylo Ren's childish temper tantrums and you'll be able to understand why I've always sympathised with Vader the most out of any character. That said, I've always leaned towards the Empire than any other faction. Mostly because they are incredibly disciplined, structured and efficient. Other factions have always seemed so chaotic and unstructured to me.
He is not calm, but he is collected. His ability to weaponize his rage is what made him one of the most powerful sith to ever exist. In the comics he has slaughtered many defenseless civilians with no remorse.

they got pretty lucky, the british generals made bad moves
doesn't sound like luck to me