Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Madman198237]

I'm...really not sure you understand either the mechanics of such an action, the mechanics of WWII munitions, or the decency involved in blatantly ignoring someone's arguments just because their internet manners aren't quite up to YOUR particular standard.

Yes, Milo (And myself) could've addressed that better. Perhaps he and I should have. Ozarck should most certainly have not ignored him, nor me.

For the sake of argument, let's discount my point that there's enough munitions in that bunker to level the base and/or start enough chain reaction explosions in OTHER munitions (Such as those stored in ready condition inside the hangar, or more fuel silos, etc.) to kill us all. This leaves us with a very loud explosion on the base bringing every single German for fifteen miles around running back towards the base. This is definitely NOT a good condition for a stealth mission.

Furthermore, as I mentioned, Ozarck is working on immediate exfil without the rest of the team, which is, again, breaking a rule of the military that is almost sacred in importance. He can't justify that. Not while remaining IC.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: Are spoilers even warranted in a containment thread? (click to show/hide)

I'm...really not sure you understand either the mechanics of such an action, the mechanics of WWII munitions, or the decency involved in blatantly ignoring someone's arguments just because their internet manners aren't quite up to YOUR particular standard.

Oh, don't worry, I'm not dismissing your argument on the basis of you being a jerk--indeed, it's the sole reason I'm actually attempting discussion with you--I'm dismissing your argument on the basis of you failing to provide any logical reasoning for your opinion.

Let me summarize how this argument has gone, up to this point:

First, Ozarck did a thing, which he believed would be beneficial for the team.
Second, Milo said that that thing would not be beneficial (the rudeness of it is mostly irrelevant; it just meant he failed to persuade anyone, not that he was wrong).
Third, Ozarck and Milo engaged in an empty dialogue through which nothing was communicated beyond mutual disagreement and dislike.
Fourth, they disengaged, while you came in to take up the slack.
Fifth, I came in as the devil's advocate and attempted to provide solid, logical reasoning for the unsupported side.
Sixth, GOTO: Fourth.

We *could* stop that little loop at the end, either by you giving up, or providing the reasons why you believe what you do... or we could exchange words and no information.  Quite frankly, I'm perfectly fine with any of those possibilites--you can choose whichever suits you best.

Yes, Milo (And myself) could've addressed that better. Perhaps he and I should have.

You're right, we've well established the point that you two have been childish, and you've acknowledged that here.  I guess I probably jumped on that as an easier argument to make, too.  I apologize; I'll stop calling you out on the ad hominems.

Ozarck should most certainly have not ignored him, nor me.

Uhh, I'm pretty sure he thought you (not Milo) were trolling him.  He gave a pretty standard troll response.  I don't think you're a troll, that's why I'm talking to you, but I can see how he'd make the mistake.

As for Milo, Oz didn't ignore him, he just disagreed.  Despite disagreeing, he didn't even change his action to not set the bomb if an ally didn't want him to.  In fact, I believe it was even specifically pointed out to Milo that he should change his bolded action if he wanted the bomb to not be set, advice which Milo ignored.

I'm honestly confounded as to what Oz did wrong.  Assume Milo would take advice?  Assume that he didn't need to specifically illustrate exactly what would happen if Milo didn't change his action?  Are either of those great crimes?

For the sake of argument, let's discount my point that there's enough munitions in that bunker to level the base and/or start enough chain reaction explosions in OTHER munitions (Such as those stored in ready condition inside the hangar, or more fuel silos, etc.) to kill us all.

See, this is a useful statement!  It provides me with knowledge of what you think, which allows me to understand where I made the error in my logical, or to correct your mistake if you made one.  Speaking of:

I do not agree with the assertion of there being enough munitions to level the base.  I fully believe there's enough to level the building, and possibly the couple directly adjacent to it, but no further.

Supporting me is the large distance between the munitions storage and the team.  Do you feel the munitions explosion will seriously damage a building hardened against bombing, four hundred feet away, with intervening obstacles?  Do you disagree with one of those things I just described?

Another bit of support is that the munitions storage does not seem to have as much ordnance as you believe it does.  Remember, Piecewise specifically described what was contained inside, and the only explosives named were hundred pound bombs, which are relatively small bombs with visible damage radii around forty feet, on open ground.  I don't blame you for assuming worse; most people don't research such things before stating their opinions--and virtually nobody has actual experience with this subject.

Finally, as a single OOC argument to complement the two IC ones, I don't think Piecewise as a GM would make the munitions dump so disastrous.  If you recall, he more or less encouraged blowing it up.  Piecewise does not encourage wipes, ever, and he usually doesn't set them up--beyond nukedoor (which he still gets flak over, heh), I don't remember him ever setting up a wipe so trivial to create as the one you believe the munitions dump to be.

...Well, maybe amps, but that's more him fucking up before the game ever began, and not being able to go back on.  It was a mistake to think people could be given magic implants made from poking God's Left Testicle, and not misuse them with disastrous results.

This leaves us with a very loud explosion on the base bringing every single German for fifteen miles around running back towards the base. This is definitely NOT a good condition for a stealth mission.

This is actually a really good point which I had not considered!  I fully agree--the explosion will call more nazis to the scene.

I do believe that problem is outweighed by the distraction value the explosion would provide, however.  Currently, the majority of our team is acively engaging in a firefight, with little hope of retreat.  To win the firefight, they need to outright beat the base's entire garrison.  Yes, some soldiers are distracted with firefighting, but I have no doubt that they will be recalled before the firefight is ended.  It's not like they're completely uncoordinated, at least some of them have radios.

A massive explosion in the South would call them back faster, but it would also provide a very useful distraction, which the team could make use of to escape the firefight they're engaging in.  That is very likely to save their lives, unless you feel they would win when outnumbered by more than four to one?

Furthermore, as I mentioned, Ozarck is working on immediate exfil without the rest of the team, which is, again, breaking a rule of the military that is almost sacred in importance. He can't justify that. Not while remaining IC.

He's not exfiltrating, he's running away from the bomb he set, in the only way that's safe to run to.  It's not a direction that he can exfiltrate in, because there's a river in the way, and he'd be fucked if he tried to run through the firestorm alone, anyway.  A very logical IC perspective would be that he doesn't think he can get to the team if he runs North, thinks he'll probably be seen (and shot--he doesn't have a gun, remember) if he goes to the West or East, but if he runs to the South, he can then loop around and return to the team.  Do you disagree?  Please tell me where the error in my judgement is.

OOC, he's heading to my truck, which will immediately take him around to reinforce the team from behind, or perhaps flank the enemies from the only direction they wouldn't suspect.  No problem there.

[Madman198237]

Spoilers are pretty much not warranted, but if we're being THAT long-winded then I suspect any later users of this thread would enjoy your use of spoilers, else it's a long scroll down to the bottom.

I believe that the cumulative effects of a munitions "bunker" (I haven't read it for a while, but I don't think it was ever called "reinforced" in any way) will reach far enough to do measurable damage to most of the base, including setting off other flammables and explosives. If nothing else, flying glass is BAD, especially when it's WWII, and therefore glass is of the nasty plate-glass varieties, which shatter into what is effectively large razors when hit.

And again, perhaps you're right: What about the MASSIVE number of firefighting soldiers he's about to bring crashing down on the base?

IC, he knows the rules of a stealth op---things do NOT get to explode until and unless it's time to explode them.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: Highlight of my day right here, not that that's hard (click to show/hide)

Spoilers are pretty much not warranted, but if we're being THAT long-winded then I suspect any later users of this thread would enjoy your use of spoilers, else it's a long scroll down to the bottom.

I doubt it really matters for "future users", since the thread is pretty clearly just a 'go argue here' thread.  PW tends to make similar threads for his games when I   people do this.  But eh, I'll keep with it.  Force of habit if nothing else.

I believe that the cumulative effects of a munitions "bunker" will reach far enough to do measurable damage to most of the base, including setting off other flammables and explosives.

Here's my question: Why?

Fairly simple.  I've explained the reasons behind my beliefs; if you disagree, and you wish for more than a pointless argument, please explain the reasons behind yours.

(I haven't read it for a while, but I don't think it was ever called "reinforced" in any way)

It wasn't said explicitly, but it simply stands to reason.  This base is clearly important (not only is it an airbase, which by default is very valuable, but they're conducting special research projects here--beyond the kids, there's also the apron men with weird guns).  Additionally, they've clearly planned to defend it from attack; there's a lot of AA, despite the relatively small air garrison.  Finally, they've got a suspiciously large garrison of infantry despite this ostensibly just being a small strategic airbase.

Now, what sort of person would go through all that effort to fortify the place, and then position a munitions building such that if it explodes, it will take out everything valuable in the base, without fortifying it against the bombing which they've clearly acknowledged is a possibility?  If the ammo dump isn't hardened against explosives, then it would just take one mildly lucky hit to destroy everything... or at least that's what you're arguing.

I, in contrast, am arguing that the designer of the base wasn't completely incompetent with military fortification.  Admittedly, OOC that is kinda asking a bit of Piecewise, but the point still stands.  Assuming idiocy seems... unwise.

If nothing else, flying glass is BAD, especially when it's WWII, and therefore glass is of the nasty plate-glass varieties, which shatter into what is effectively large razors when hit.

Most of the team has hard obstacles between them and the munitions dump, and I wouldn't expect there to be so many windows in a munitions building that a significant portion of those in the radius would get hit by glass.  I do think those that have direct line of sight will likely have to roll for minor shrapnel damage--but nobody will die from that, due to how the system works.  Players need damage greater than a satchel charge and a horrible roll to be oneshot in this system.

And again, perhaps you're right: What about the MASSIVE number of firefighting soldiers he's about to bring crashing down on the base?

It's been about forty minutes since the start of the mission, and therefore the firebombing which began the fires.  How many soldiers do you think are already so far away that they wouldn't hear gunfire, but would hear an explosion?  How many of them will decide to ignore their current orders (stop the fire that's threatening to destroy their current home), to turn around and head towards an explosion which they very well might not be able to do anything about?  How many of them wouldn't turn around when command (who certainly knows there's attackers regardless) radios them and actually changes their orders?

If you really think that there will be significantly more soldiers due to the explosion than there would be otherwise... well, can't say I know how to respond.  Hopefully you can explain it well enough that I understand your perspective.

IC, he knows the rules of a stealth op---things do NOT get to explode until and unless it's time to explode them.

When is the time to explode them?  Stealth has already been broken, the Nazis are already coordinating to deal with us.  If we wait to blow the dump until we're gone, we very well might miss the chance, and will not get any benefit beyond property destruction.  If we blow it now, we confuse the Nazis as to what's happening (They're down there?!  We just redistributed men from that area!), and hinder their efforts to kill us all.

I think that's kinda valuable, seeing as the main team is currently gearing up to engage in a massive firefight against the entire garrison.  It's hard to make the situation worse, stealth-wise.  But, if we distract the enemy, maybe they can disengage and move somewhere else, avoiding the bulk of the enemy forces.

[Madman198237]

"Cumulative effects" pretty well explains it all. I think there's enough munitions, even if it's just 20mm and 88mm antiaircraft shells, to deal more damage than necessary to waste a lot of the base. Not only that, but a bunker can only contain so much. A well-built bunker would be partially underground, directing the majority of the blast's force upwards. Otherwise, you're just adding a shell of containment.

As far as whether or not its a bunker, without specific mention I assumed it was vaguely ramshackle like the rest of the base.

And the Nazis are carrying out sensitive experiments on an AIRBASE. This pretty well rules out logic. Deep underground or in a nice hidden cottage in the forest would've been the sensible locations to do this at, as opposed to doing these in the midst of a prime bombing target.

As for blast damage, assuming "the mechanics will protect us" aren't really a good plan, since IC it's still a reason not to blow the base.

As for bringing soldiers in....Do you know how loud a fire gets? There might be sirens (I can't remember), but there's certainly men shouting, wind gusts, crackling, stifling smoke, and quite a bit of distance between the men and the base. They're not likely to hear gunfire that well, especially if several of us on the base can't even hear it that well. A gigantic explosion, on the other hand, pretty well says "Here I am, I'm the target, SHOOT ME".


Anyway, it seems to be moot since I doubt PW will retcon anything, even if Ozarck gets off his high horse and undoes his action. Maybe we can still get that disarmed somehow.

[Ozarck]

Looks like madman is actually starting to respond to points with points. Well done. Now a genuine case for not blowing the munitions dump has formed.

If these points were raised before the last update, I may very well have changed my stated action so as to wait a turn or two before triggering the satchel charge.

It would have been a matter of "what is the risk of delaying the action and getting caught in a building with one exit, losing half the team to Nazi counterattack, and generally losing any chance of completing the mission?" Verses "What is the risk of blowing this place now in terms of friendly fire, alerting more enemies, and destroying our chance to fulfill at least one other of the mission objectives?"

Oh, and syvarris: I am not 100% certain, but I believe that this kind of discourse does work better on me than getting shot in the back, so you may take that into consideration when doing your science experiment.

[Madman198237]

Ozarck, don't push it, would you?

You failed to make points, instead you committed ad hominem in response to a mix of ad hominem and simple bluntness.

[Ozarck]

"Choose your battles."

In my experience, it's not worth reasoning with someone who repeatedly insults you and shows little evidence of listening to what you've already said to begin with.

So, I chose not to try to explain myself against what i considered to be an unreasonable assault.

It was also entirely unnecessary. I had no real stake in the outcome of the argument. My posted action speaks for itself - a point that has been repeatedly disregarded and ignored by yourself, and most of the team seems entirely uninterested in the issue, so why bother?

Besides, syvarris made excellent arguments, and enjoys the challenge. I felt he did just fine without my input.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: Shush, Ozarck.  This doesn't involve you. (click to show/hide)

"Cumulative effects" pretty well explains it all. I think there's enough munitions, even if it's just 20mm and 88mm antiaircraft shells, to deal more damage than necessary to waste a lot of the base.

And if someone else doesn't think the same, do you have any reason why your gut feeling is any more correct than theirs?  If not, that's fine, plenty of people like to just go with their gut without rationalizing things.

Not only that, but a bunker can only contain so much. A well-built bunker would be partially underground, directing the majority of the blast's force upwards. Otherwise, you're just adding a shell of containment.

I agree!

...So, why do you assume the bunker isn't partially underground?  It's a fairly built-up airbase, and digging a big hole isn't that expensive, not even during WWII.

As far as whether or not its a bunker, without specific mention I assumed it was vaguely ramshackle like the rest of the base.

Now, now, Madman.  When you assume you make an ASS of U and ME.  Why do you think the rest of the base is "vaugely ramshackle"?  To my recollection, nothing of the sort has been stated, and I don't recall anything which particularly pointed towards the base being poorly constructed.  Except, perhaps, for the munitions bunker being near the hangar--but that's what we're arguing about, isn't it?

And the Nazis are carrying out sensitive experiments on an AIRBASE. This pretty well rules out logic. Deep underground or in a nice hidden cottage in the forest would've been the sensible locations to do this at, as opposed to doing these in the midst of a prime bombing target.

I disagree.  The airbase provides a single extremely useful function: the ability to transport large amounts of data and supplies.  Judging by the massive metal canisters the children are contained inside--which, might I add, look suspiciously like bombs--the research projects they're conducting need the latter capability.

Additionally, this research would be a prime bombing target regardless of being on an airbase or not, and as the airbase is a secret installation, it wouldn't be bombed unless spies revealed information about it anyway.

Finally, in the event of a bombing, you'd want to either make the entire research site immune to bombs, which requires a massive amount of excavation--or just fortify it the same as you'd fortify any important installation: build a lot of AA emplacements, and make sure the buildings are solid.  One of these options is cheaper, and facilitates your research.

As for blast damage, assuming "the mechanics will protect us" aren't really a good plan, since IC it's still a reason not to blow the base.

It's not assuming, it's years of experience of exploiting Piecewise's game mechanics.  Anyway, IC, the risk of blowing a bunker sending so many plate glass shards a long distance that your allies take significant wounds... just doesn't really figure in, especially when you know they're already actively being shot at.

As for bringing soldiers in....Do you know how loud a fire gets? There might be sirens (I can't remember), but there's certainly men shouting, wind gusts, crackling, stifling smoke, and quite a bit of distance between the men and the base. They're not likely to hear gunfire that well, especially if several of us on the base can't even hear it that well.

Oh, agreed.  I think the majority won't hear the firefight, and won't turn around because they heard distant pops.

I do think that they'll be recalled soon, since enemies in the base are a much more pressing issue than a distant firestorm.  Unless you think the Nazis are completely incompetent in yet another way, and they don't have radio communication with the firefighting teams.

A gigantic explosion, on the other hand, pretty well says "Here I am, I'm the target, SHOOT ME".

...Not really?  I mean, shooting something that just exploded is kinda redundant, don't you think?  Sure, if it were due to enemy action, that's a valid response, but they're faaar more likely to think they lost track of the fire, and that the munitions building cooked off.  Remember, these are people who can't hear the gunshots, and never saw any infantry.

There's also the fact that even if the explosion does indicate enemy action, their orders are to fight fire, not to chase down and shoot attackers.  You claimed that there's no IC reason for soldiers to violate the major rules of their military, yeah?  Following your orders, to the letter, even when you disagree, is basically the holy grail of every military.  Not to mention, most soldiers (especially during WWII) really didn't want to get into a firefight, and would generally prefer to stay safe if their orders allowed it.

Anyway, it seems to be moot since I doubt PW will retcon anything, even if Ozarck gets off his high horse and undoes his action. Maybe we can still get that disarmed somehow.

Heh, dude, it was moot long before you joined the conversation.  That doesn't mean we can't discuss it, though.

[Egan_BW]

Anyway, it seems to be moot since I doubt PW will retcon anything, even if Ozarck gets off his high horse and undoes his action. Maybe we can still get that disarmed somehow.

Heh, dude, it was moot long before you joined the conversation.  That doesn't mean we can't discuss it, though.

...Have him tell you about the elevator argument, Madman.

[Madman198237]

Elevator argument?

Please, enlighten me. This sounds suspiciously like an entertaining anecdote.

[syvarris]

*sigh*

...ER.  Why must you bring such things up?

Short version:

Are you trying to be so annoying that I give up the argument?

...
Yes.

The argument did not end there.

Long version:

Lars, a character in ER, got a bad feeling about what was behind the elevator door on the floor they'd just gone to.  GreatWyrmGold's character was in the elevator with him, and was quite vehement that the bad feeling should be ignored.  I disagreed, in OOC, and lured him into an argument about it (I didn't actually care).

What followed was a back-and-forth "debate" containing spoilered text walls that took literal hours to construct, and nothing of intellectual value.  GreatWyrmGold felt a need to prove he was correct; I felt a need to see how inane of a debate I could get him to take seriously.  More than a week after the elevator door was opened, GWG won through superior endurance, and got a crown from Piecewise as his reward.

That crown is still in his sig, to this day.


Bonus:

Syr trying to usurp GWG from his soapbox throne. I wonder if these two will ever decide to end their dispute in the ring?

Well, before they can, we need a ringside announcer and those girls with bikinis and round signs. Training montage is optional, but the old man Irish ringside coach is not.

I'm hoping they get the romantic ending instead, where they make sweet forbidden love to each other and afterwards build a relationship based on arguing who left the toilet seat up, despite the fact that they're both male.

We need someone to write a fanfic about this, now

It would be nothing more then meaningless, long-winded arguments interspersed with descriptions of genitalia and phrases like "Quarrelsome Thrusting" or "Pugnacious cuddling." Like a harlequin romance written by a grumpy needlessly contrary  librarian.

[Madman198237]

You people are insane.


ABSOLUTELY INSANE!

[piecewise]

You people are insane.


ABSOLUTELY INSANE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYGWF6qrts

[Radio Controlled]

You people are insane.


ABSOLUTELY INSANE!

Nobody show him the ER subforum, his head'll explode.