Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[TCO]

1. nice post, Volcano.

2. Some people here are not just complaining about the basic system (no FP/HP) but saying that they think the computer doesn't even do the claimed system correctly. Let's get it straight. Can't defend two fronts here. My suspicion is that the latter are "hate losing a unit-whiners".

3. Is anybody else tired of this thread?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
What nonsense! I'm talking about fortress/city siege of course! After you had taken out the best defenders one by one, the last guy always had some 'extra zing', i.e. it didn't go out as easily as it should judging from its stats.

Yeah, like that extra "zing" packed by the transport or engineer that was left in the city.

Really, Civ2 judged defense order by defense values, so hp/fp was not used (i think) to judge who defended first. So it's possible that your lowest D unit has a high hp and that would be a tough final defender, but there was no actual feature in the game that stipulated that the last defender had to be better than its predecessors, or that made the last defender stronger on simple cirtue of being last.

[TCO]

Grim Legacy, you seem like a whimpy whiner. Civ2 was easy!! And the comp did not cheat on combat. If the others are like you, that is useful info to judge their arguments.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by GP
Grim Legacy, you seem like a whimpy whiner. Civ2 was easy!! And the comp did not cheat on combat. If the others are like you, that is useful info to judge their arguments.

You seem pretty masochistic about wanting the odds stacked against you. Deity not hard enough?

Go play a Koei game. I recommend Genghis Khan 2. Good luck trying to beat it. Ever. I never could conquer more than half of the map before it all fell apart.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GP
3. Is anybody else tired of this thread?

Yes, it's like arguing that the bishop in chess should be incapable of beating the knight and that there's not historical relavence for the Queen being able to move as she does.

I challenged them (Venger) to use the editor and show us some numbers to prove that combat is broken, but "where are they now"?

As far as I can tell this is an argument based on the fact that the WORKING game mechanics offends some people sense of reality. Well, I've got bad news, very little in this game is an accurate depiction of reality.

[Roman]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Yes, it's like arguing that the bishop in chess should be incapable of beating the knight and that there's not historical relavence for the Queen being able to move as she does.

Bad analogy - unlike chess, civilization is a combination of strategy and simulation that tries to evoke historical relevance. Hence there is a need to be able to represent relative strengths of units reasonably accurately.

I challenged them (Venger) to use the editor and show us some numbers to prove that combat is broken, but "where are they now"?

As far as I can tell this is an argument based on the fact that the WORKING game mechanics offends some people sense of reality. Well, I've got bad news, very little in this game is an accurate depiction of reality.

My complaint does not center on specific units. It centers about the removal of the concept of Firepower, thus giving us fewer options in designing units for scenarios. Civ3 therefore has an inferior combat system as compared to Civ2. (At least that's what it sounds like - I haven't bought it)

[Velociryx]

After reading this entire thread (and yep...that took a while!) I have come to the conclusion that this thread is PROOF POSITIVE that the Civ series is clearly NOT a wargame.

The complexities you guys are looking for exist in.....well, just about every wargame ever made (just check out any of Gary Grigsby's games....he's the Sid Meier of war games, btw).

If that's what you're looking for, I would humbly submit that you're playing the wrong game.

The fact is that Civ3 is an abstraction....6000 years of history compressed into a weekend of gaming.

I've played scores of partial games from ancient to the industrial age, and a handful all the way through.

In those games, there have been scores, if not hundreds of combats.

In all those combats, I've had perhaps ten results that were total surprises.

Ten, in perhaps 60,000 years of Civ history.

I'd say that's a pretty good record, and a strong selling point to the fact that the combat system is not broke.

But, that's just me.

-=Vel=-

[Steve Clark]

Awww, Vel, you had come in here and raise the IQ of this thread considerably. (Actually, I would put John Tiller right up there with Gary Grisby as well.)

It is absolutely amazing how some of you seem to know the game engine better than Soran Johnson, who has said that firepower is not needed for this type of abstract combat. I think Vel's experience proves that, but some of you don't want to listen.

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Let's analyze this:

A cavalry unit with muzzle-load rifles (civil war era) is defeated by a unit of longbowmen.

Why, Here's why:

Longbows are actually more accurate than these 19th-century firearms, especially when you consider that fighting from horseback made the fire ever more innacurate. Firearms used during the civil war actually had a very short effective range, and I would not be surprised if longbowmen inflicted serious damage on riflemen in favorable circumstances. Cavalry should do even worse, given that they are large targets and must close to melee before fighting. Cavalry really isn't a missile unit; swords and even pikes dominated even into WW1. A cavalry charge against a block of longbowmen would result in heavy casualties to the cavalry, perhaps even loss.

A civil war rifleman was lethal at over 600 yards whereas the longbow's range was only 200 yards. I fail to see how the longbow is superior to the rifle and if it were, why were rifles used instead of longbows? History does not support your opinions in this matter.

For more information on longbows and rifles check out these sites:

http://www.student.utwente.nl/campus...w/longbow.html


http://www.germantown.k12.il.us/html/weapons.html

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Roman
Bad analogy - unlike chess, civilization is a combination of strategy and simulation that tries to evoke historical relevance. Hence there is a need to be able to represent relative strengths of units reasonably accurately.

I guess that's where we disagree. You're looking for a game that is a reflection of reality (good luck) and I'm looking for a game that competitive and fun.

The fact of the matter is that in all the time I spent playing Alpha Centauri there was never a big uprising when an impact rover (4 attack) happend to beat a silksteel garrison (defense 4). The reason being that there was no sense of history to refer to and therefore the game was played as a game of rules and mechanics, not a historically accurate simulation of man's accent to transcendence.

As Vel points out, the things that are being sought after by the forum historians are just not possible in a game spanning the from the dawn of civilization to the near future, and I might even argue that it is nearly impossible to do in a game that merely covers one theatre of any war. I don't see any complaints about the quality of the Panzer vs. the Sherman here because in this game it's irrelevent, just as it's irrelevent whether an unit that represents longbow men can defeat cavalry. It's an abstraction. It's not as if one year the world used cavalry and then the next they used tanks, correct? Yet this isn't relfected in game play either.

As others have mentioned, if you're looking for a historically accurate war simulation this is the wrong game for you. This game, like any other game, is an abstraction of reality. I would think that would be painfully obvious from the get go.

I would presume you don't load up Unreal Tournament and are peeved because you shot someone with your pistol once in the face and they didn't die, no? It's because you came to the game with certain expectations, just as you've came to this game with certain expectation and the fact remains that those expectations haven't been met. If you want to change the nubmers do so, but know that you may be sacraficing gameplay in order to appease your realistic senseabilities in a game that is a far cry from reality just as the game of chess is an inaccurate simulation of feudal combat, yet survives to this day simply because it is a complex and "good" game.

I patiently await the results of the test you've all been doing with the editor.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by davwhitt
A civil war rifleman was lethal at over 600 yards whereas the longbow's range was only 200 yards. I fail to see how the longbow is superior to the rifle and if it were, why were rifles used instead of longbows? History does not support your opinions in this matter.

Then you probably also know that during the Civil War those weapons were never (harldy ever) used at those ranges so theoretically they could have used longbows and been nearly as effective.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by davwhitt A civil war rifleman was lethal at over 600 yards whereas the longbow's range was only 200 yards. I fail to see how the longbow is superior to the rifle and if it were, why were rifles used instead of longbows? History does not support your opinions in this matter.

But a rifle's effective range is less than that, and it is very innacurate. Why else would Civil War commanders have their troops mass fire, and basically charge into eachother? The tactic with these rifles is to send up a wall of bullets so that you're bound to hit somebody.

In addition, the scenario in question involves cavalry who are carrying pistols (optimally, carbines) and not rifles. Thus, their range is much shorter than a rifle's. Add that to the fact that the cavalry is on horseback (an unstable shooting platform) and that they basically have to close to melee with the bowmen to do any real damage, and it should be obvious that longbowmen could defeat a force of cavalry.

[Cyclotron]

In addition, I did not say that a longbow was superior to a rifle. Riflemen should be able to win most times against longbowmen, especially if the riflemen are attacking. But the scenario involves cavalry defending, an obviously stupid tactic that puts the cavalry at serious risk and the archers at an advantage.

My denigration of rifles was not to prove they are inferior, but rather to point out that gunpowder is not an "automatic victory" chemical, and there shouldn't be any appreciable difference between units on the simple basis that they are "gunpowder units." In no way should a unit receive more power than it's ADM simply because it uses gunpowder to propel a projectile rather than a bow.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


What nonsense! I'm talking about fortress/city siege of course! After you had taken out the best defenders one by one, the last guy always had some 'extra zing', i.e. it didn't go out as easily as it should judging from its stats.

Can you provide any documentary evidence about this? Anywhere? An Apolyton thread? Civ2 has been pretty rehashed so it should appear somehwere other than this thread. Can you provide some proof? Cause I've played the game literally a hundred times, on Deity, large maps with 8 Civs, all bloodlust, and have never, EVER noticed a problem killing the last member of a stack.

Venger

[nato]

I think I may have a kind of answer to whether tech advantage matters for units or not.

If tech does not matter signifigantly then you should feel no real need to use high tech units. Therefore low end units are all you need. You should be able to conquer anyone just with archers and spearmen. If hard pressed, swordsmen can be used.

Think of what you can save on science! Who needs it at all? You won't get city improvements, but starting cities can handle producing such low cost units. To get galleons maybe ... hopefully you can just buy that tech from someone.

Even if you play concventional, you still have the option of building low end units late game, and they cost fewer shields.

So my point is, would you feel confident playing this way? If so, then there really is no difference. If not, tech must count for something ... at least enough to cover the enormous cost and lost gold of game long research.

The revealed preference, as seen through your play, should then give the answer.

[Venger]

Originally posted by zapperio
I think we may be talking about two different things here. As far as I know the question is whether technology does matter and whether it should have more impact on the combat? Am I close?

We are talking of a whole lot of issues, though in this thread in particular we are really dealing with the fact that the there is not enough separation between medieval age weaponry and imperial age weaponry.

Well that is the question I was addressing. And my conclusions, backed by some experimentation, and sharing of data is that, on the whole, technology does matter and that the combat system, because it allows less advanced units to have a chance against stronger units, thereby emphasizing tactics and supporting the resource system, is better than it was in SMAC and Civ2.

It has potential. But to handicap the system to give older units a "chance" trades one problem for another - the first problem isn't a problem but simply a matter of fact, that those who lead in technology will field superior units. Instead of crippling gunpowder units to encourage "parity", they should be given the power they really had to encourage "research" by those who want to field bowmen.

Venger

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
In addition, I did not say that a longbow was superior to a rifle. Riflemen should be able to win most times against longbowmen, especially if the riflemen are attacking. But the scenario involves cavalry defending, an obviously stupid tactic that puts the cavalry at serious risk and the archers at an advantage.

My denigration of rifles was not to prove they are inferior, but rather to point out that gunpowder is not an "automatic victory" chemical, and there shouldn't be any appreciable difference between units on the simple basis that they are "gunpowder units." In no way should a unit receive more power than it's ADM simply because it uses gunpowder to propel a projectile rather than a bow.

The majority of your posts have been to point out the superiority - in your opinion - of the longbow to the rifle. If the longbow was in any way remotely equal in offense or defense to even the crossbow much less the musket or rifle it would have been used a lot more. Considering the progression of this debate I'm suprised you haven't started going in about how much better the longbow is to the machine gun.

[Venger]

Originally posted by volcanohead
Venger,

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to have two problems with the Civ3 combat system. One is the choice of values for A/D/M for ancient and modern units, and the other is the random number generator throwing up too many results which are favourable to weaker units.

I have alot more than that, but those are two important ones, although the combat results really deals more with the lack of the firepower concept which helped keep the results fairly real...

If you want to have an informed debate on this second point, why don't you sit down with the game for a bit, carry out a few thousand battles, write down the results and perform a systematic analysis of the results. Then you can make a useful contribution.

People did this in Civ2 all the time - alas it's nigh impossible from what I hear from people using the editor. In Civ2 you just put 10 units of X next to 10 units of Y and simply went at it. Not anymore...can't be done.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by jbird
I've read at least 2 references to a Battleship being sunk by a phalanx on this thread. Now, I know that there are no phalanx in Civ3, and in Civ1 this happened often,

It didn't happen that often, but it happened enough to highlight a flawed design.

and in Civ2 less often.

Never. Ever. You could put a phalanx on a coast and attack it with a battleship and you will likely never ever see it sink.

Also, I hear a lot on this thread about "my Cavalry died when a Longbowman attacked it". Also, "my Battleship lost when I attakcked an Ironclad". I hear very little about "my invasion force of 20 Cavalry, 30 Musketmen, and 10 Cannon lost to a force of 40 Knights, 30 Spearmen, and 3 Catapults on the plains that lay before Moscow."

I could destroy a force of 20 Cavalry, 30 musketmen, and 10 cannons with 40 knights, 30 spearmen, and 3 captapults, on the plains anywhere. The Knights have an attack strength of 4, and will overwhelm the musketmen and savage the cavalry. That leaves 30 spearmen to throw against the wounded remnants.

That's broken dude. You know why I can take that force of knights and beat you? No firepower. And that sucks.

My point being, small numbers of combatants on either side lead to greater dissapointment when a technologically advanced unit loses one fight to an inferior unit.

Are you playing a different version of Civ3 than me? Because all combat happens one unit at a time. There is no giant battle where 40 units have at it, there are 40 battles.

In Civ3, a tech advantage in combat is different than in Civ1 or Civ2. In Civ3, a tech advantage gives you an *edge* in combat, unit for unit. However, it does not *determine* combat.

What kind of nonsense is that? I swear you guys actually haven't played another other game in the Civ series - a technology allows you to field new more powerful units. This in turn gives you an advantage in combat. Discovering mobile warfare doesn't "determine" the combat in any game...

I actually have had great success in using "force preservation" techniques with "battlefield isolation" concepts, and have had some moderate success in all ages of warfare, with and without a tech advantage.

That's great, and totally besides the point. A bowmen unit should not beat cavalry 50 percent of the time, PERIOD.

Venger

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
...it should be obvious that longbowmen could defeat a force of cavalry.

Again consult history. Longbowmen have defeated a force of knights. Longbowmen have never defeated a force of cavalry or riflemen. Are you suggesting Lee could have defeated Grant if his troops were arms in the same manner as King Henry's army at Agincourt over 400 years earlier?

[Monoriu]

I still remember my first game of civ1. The moment I saw that it took 20 years to move from the distance between Vancouver and Seattle I knew its not a game about historical accuracy, and I never expected it to be.

To the people who don't like the system as it is:

go to the editor, and double, triple, do whatever you like to the defence and attack values of the modern units as you like. This will achieve the same results as adding firepower back to the game.

To those of us who like playing the game:

Just play the game The other side obviously will never give up, since we have to devote most of our time enjoying the game (or stuck in the office, but that's another story) while they can stay here all day and complain

[Venger]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Let's analyze this:

A cavalry unit with muzzle-load rifles (civil war era) is defeated by a unit of longbowmen.

Why, Here's why:

Because the cavalry has a defense of 3 and no firepower bonus, and the longbowmen attack with 4. That's why.

Longbows are actually more accurate than these 19th-century firearms, especially when you consider that fighting from horseback made the fire ever more innacurate.

Argh! Dude, most cavalry fought dismounted...

Firearms used during the civil war actually had a very short effective range, and I would not be surprised if longbowmen inflicted serious damage on riflemen in favorable circumstances.

Which explains entirely why nations abandoned gunpowder in favor of the compound bow...not.

Cavalry should do even worse, given that they are large targets and must close to melee before fighting.

You are thinking of knights. Knights use swords and charge into combat. Cavalry use guns and more often ride to the battle and dismount to fight. They are the first mobile infantry...

Cavalry really isn't a missile unit; swords and even pikes dominated even into WW1.

Yes, the British were very effective with their cavalry charge into German gunpowder units.

A cavalry charge against a block of longbowmen would result in heavy casualties to the cavalry, perhaps even loss.

This flies against any reasonable understanding of medieval combat. The knight is what was used to destroy longbowman - riding into their ranks as they are only effective if supported with ground troops.

In addition, people seem to forget that the longbow is an incredibly powerful weapon. British Longbows were documented as being able to pierce the armor on a knight's leg, go through his leg, go through the armor on the other side of his leg, through the saddle, and into the horse from 100 yards. Since cavalry do not wear armor, a single shot is very likely to kill the rider or disable the horse.

So why did they stop using it?

I hear a lot of arguments relating to this idea of "gunpowder supremacy," the idea that units with gunpowder are somehow inherently superior to those without.

This is completely false.

Oh Lord...what color is the sky on your planet?

Gunpowder is simply another way to propel a penetrating projectile; so is using a bow or a sling. Gunpowder is an improved way of throwing things, but it is not some magical wand that causes the enemy to perish in droves as some people are suggesting.

So I guess that the Indians who went after the guns of fallen soldiers were trading down?

Your argument is simply beyond belief.

For anyone who cares, bows were used in world war 2 by United States special forces operating in Southeast Asia, and continue to be used in some 3rd-world militias.

So now the bow is a superior weapon to the modern rifle? Way to overplay what little hand you had...

From all this compelling evidence, I would be surprised and dismayed if cavalry were able to hold ground against attacking longbowmen more than 30-40% of the time,

Do you think the cavalry just stand there and shoot when engaged by bowmen?

and I strongly support the Civ3 combat system and the attack-defense rates of 3 and 4 for the cavalry's defense and archer's offense, respectively.

That may suit your copy of Bow Hunter magazine on your desk, but it doesn't fit any understanding of how things work.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants

Yes, it's like arguing that the bishop in chess should be incapable of beating the knight and that there's not historical relavence for the Queen being able to move as she does.

Do you really think these are two comparable game models?

I challenged them (Venger) to use the editor and show us some numbers to prove that combat is broken, but "where are they now"?

You go conduct a 100 ironclad against 100 caravel battle and report to me the results. Where are you know? I don't recall getting a memo telling me that I was your manservant.

As far as I can tell this is an argument based on the fact that the WORKING game mechanics offends some people sense of reality. Well, I've got bad news, very little in this game is an accurate depiction of reality.

Which is why people are decrying it. Your mindset is better suited for Warcraft than Civ.

Venger

[Venger]

Oopsie...deleted.

[WhiteElephants]

You go conduct a 100 ironclad against 100 caravel battle and report to me the results. Where are you know? I don't recall getting a memo telling me that I was your manservant.

There's nothing like someone trying to avoid the evidence when it's right under his nose. I'm not doing the testing becasue I'm not the one complaining (demanding?) that the combat system is broken. Besides, would you really believe my results?

Which is why people are decrying it. Your mindset is better suited for Warcraft than Civ.

I imagine this is some half-witted attempt at insult. I don't know what your "mindset" is pal, but a game is a game is a game. When soldiers start marching out of your monitor let us know.

While you may not have proven that the combat is broken, I will grant you the fact that you have proven your tenacity nonetheless.

Venger, you can be my longbow man any time!

Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage! Rage against the dying of the light!

[orc4hire]

Sorry, cyclotron, you're wrong right down the line.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Let's analyze this:

A cavalry unit with muzzle-load rifles (civil war era) is defeated by a unit of longbowmen.

Why, Here's why:

Longbows are actually more accurate than these 19th-century firearms, especially when you consider that fighting from horseback made the fire ever more innacurate. Firearms used during the civil war actually had a very short effective range, and I would not be surprised if longbowmen inflicted serious damage on riflemen in favorable circumstances. Cavalry should do even worse, given that they are large targets and must close to melee before fighting. Cavalry really isn't a missile unit; swords and even pikes dominated even into WW1. A cavalry charge against a block of longbowmen would result in heavy casualties to the cavalry, perhaps even loss.

First, the minie ball firing rifle musket could range out to 1000 yards, compared to about 400 for the longbow (effective range closer to 600-800 yards, and 250-300 respectively). That's comparable to the effective range of a modern assault rifle. Longbows in combat were not generally aimed at a specific target, but volley fired at a high angle to create a 'beaten zone' covered with incoming arrows. Accuracy wasn't the key, using mass fire to fill the area with arrows was.

Second, the rifles weren't fired from horseback except in VERY rare circumstances (I can think of one occasion of some Boer commandoes trying to break out of a British encirclement, but that's about it). When fighting mounted cavalry would close and use their pistols. On the defensive they would dismount and use their rifles (or carbines; some cavalry units were equiped with breech loading repeating carbines instead of rifles; shorter range, but much higher rate of fire). Longbowmen attacking cavalry would be faced with a dispersed force under cover, a very hard target for their mass fire, either knocking them off from outside the longbow's effective range with rifles (longbowmen would have to be in a very dense formation, almost impossible to miss), or putting down a scathing fire at close range with repearters. Swords and lances most certainly did NOT dominate cavalry weaponry after the early part of the 19th century, though they were retained by some units. For example, Custer's 7th Cavalry did not even carry sabers at Little Big Horn. And cavalry were depending more on pistols than swords as early as the 16th century.

In addition, people seem to forget that the longbow is an incredibly powerful weapon. British Longbows were documented as being able to pierce the armor on a knight's leg, go through his leg, go through the armor on the other side of his leg, through the saddle, and into the horse from 100 yards. Since cavalry do not wear armor, a single shot is very likely to kill the rider or disable the horse.

Not as impressive as it sounds when you recall that the knights wore chain mail, not plate at this time (plate was a later response to... guns). But you're right in that a knight hit by a part of the longbowman's arrow storm might well be injured. Though they were typically only unhorsed (the horses weren't as well protected as the men). On the other hand, 19th century cavalry would present a much more dispersed target than mediveal knights even when on horseback, and MUCH more dispersed on foot. And while a minie ball fired at 100 yards probably won't go through the horse after hitting the knight's leg that would be because the soft lead slug would expend all it's energy totally shattering the knight's leg. Look up the term 'overpenetration.'

I hear a lot of arguments relating to this idea of "gunpowder supremacy," the idea that units with gunpowder are somehow inherently superior to those without.

This is completely false.

Gunpowder is simply another way to propel a penetrating projectile; so is using a bow or a sling. Gunpowder is an improved way of throwing things, but it is not some magical wand that causes the enemy to perish in droves as some people are suggesting.

No, actually, I'm afraid it is completely true. The historical record is against you; gunpowder equiped armies consistantly beat those who didn't have it, and those who didn't got their hands on the new weapons as fast as possible. If the longbow was the super weapon some like to believe, why was the English Civil War fought with those useless muskets?

Gunpowder is indeed simply another way of moving a projectile, but it is one that does not depend on the physical condition or strength of the user. A longbowman, ill from dysentary and exhausted from fighting all morning isn't going to be able to propell an arrow very hard. Gunpowder shoots just as hard no matter how tired the user is.

The internal combustion engine is just another way of moving a vehicle. Taken your car for a good push lately?

For anyone who cares, bows were used in world war 2 by United States special forces operating in Southeast Asia, and continue to be used in some 3rd-world militias.

Indeed. And so were knives and garrotes. Are you going to suggest that those are superior to rifles as well?

Trevor Dupoy has done a lot of work on calculating military outcomes, relative effectiveness and such in his work for the Army's Historical Evaluation and Research Organization. He's spent more time on this than anyone here... possibly more time than EVERYONE here. As I look at his table of relative lethalities I see that a Longbow rates a 36 (compared to a 10 for the arquebus; not bad). But the mid 19th century rifle rates a 102. Almost 3 times the lethality of the longbow. And easier to make and train someone to use on top of it.


--Robert

[dexters]

Looking at the last few pages of posts, it looks like we have forgotten the point of the thread.

the thread has lost its point anyways. If you hate the combat system, go home. Stop whining.

[zapperio]

It is a classic grognard vs gamer debate, we should frame it.
And then throw darts at it. ...from 15 feet and 10 inches away using only 4 4/9 inch, 280 gr wellington darts with tiger stripes as those are proven to handle soo much better.

Zap

[Kc7mxo]

Looking at the last few pages of posts, it looks like we have forgotten the point of the thread.

hah. like thats a helpful comment. heh heh. oops, neither is mine! ahhhh!

[TCO]

Venger,

if you're going to make the argument that the game is being unfair* in favor of ancient units, even according to the stated combat system, you'll have to back this up with statistics. The burden of proof is on you.


*This is a very childish view and lots of the pro-FP people don't hold it. But it is evidence of the wimpiness of the combat loser whiners.