StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dark Lords of the Sith also controlled enormous wealth in secret. I'd be more inclined to believe that the army was entirely funded via Dooku and/or Sidious while Dooku operated under his "Tyrannus" alias. While I agree that it would have been very easily to misappropriate funds, there would be less risk of being discovered by Tradefed bean counters and thus less risk to the control they had. I could be wrong though, the only mention of it is in Labyrinth of Evil and it doesn't go into enough detail.

I am not certain how much the Trade Federation military cost to build, but they built a decent-enough sized army and navy. Granted they converted merchant hulls into warships, but that can still be expensive. I think we are seriously underestimating the amount of wealth in the galaxy. Look at it this way, in RL there are individuals who possess more money than some governments. So saying that a single individual who has inherited thousands of years of wealth couldn't possibly pay for the creation of an army is slightly absurd. The question of hiding the creation of the army is a slightly different matter, but with automated shipyards, or shipyards with clone labor, one could just as easily hide large manufacturing centers, shipyards, and mines as one could hide an entire planet (i.e. Kamino).

Thanas wrote:Prove that this is the case, especially with imprint changes.

Flashed with pre-existing personality is what I come across repeatedly.

Do you have any evidence that existing personalitywhatever they use to flash can be easily changed without ill effects?

Are you serious? Do you know anything about persian armies? They did not employ chariots in any meaningful manner anymore.

Except as shock force to open the battle, for which area was cleared out to make it more efficient

Why? Every clone unit we see fighting in SW has efficiency far above standard crews. Karrde even makes that claim. You are ignoring direct evidence from the books. Why?

Then why droids were not super effective when they can be mass produced same way as clones and preprogrammed in a moment?

As I have stated, it is tactically and strategically unwise to mold commanders of army from same mold.

No, you will defend your nonsense in here.

How about you proving it nonsense. I have never said that clones would be inferior to "normal" person on individual basis. I have stated that their uniformity is weakness and reasons behind it.

Prove it is not.

Metahive wrote:Yeah see but that wasn't what defeated the persian army.

No, but it defeated one portion of it rendering shock force into uselessness.
Darius lacked any creativity in use of his forces.

EDIT: There's also one thing you ignore. You forget that trying to predict one's enemy's steps is not a one-sided affair. Both sides are in fact at it in battle. So you might train to exploit a certain weakness but the enemy might expect that and lure you into a trap instead. Face it, warfare is more complex than Command and Conquer.

And have I denied this? No. But for one to predict use of any weakness requires knowledge of this weakness.

Face it, warfare is built on anticipating the opponent. Better you are familiar with opponent and their thinking, more effective that is.

It was a reckless gamble, if Dareios had had a bit more nerve the Persians would have rolled the macedonian army up from the flanks which Alexander had to weaken for his plan. The flank did in fact break as you might know.

Yes, but Dareios had already also established habit of running in battle of Issus.

You forget that Persians also managed to break through Macedonian lines and get to their camp.

No, he gambled and got lucky. Having fortuna smiling at you is what made many a commander a great commander. Just consider the Miracle of Haus Brandenburg that pretty much decided whether Frederick II would be known to in history as a great commander or a warmongering fool.

Alexander had bad habit of getting lucky don't you think? I myself would say that he was lucky, everyone needs little luck (Richard the Lionheart was unlucky and ended his life with crossbowbolt through the head). But luck alone does not take you from Macedonia to India, kicking out armies twice larger on the way.

Lucky commanders do not get strings of victories.

False dichotomy, it's not between "predictable as clockwork (or bad AIs)" or "complete random chaos". Humans are to a point predictable, but as the rule says, no battleplan survives the first shot.There are simply way too many variables that need to be accounted for. Stop treating real life like a videogame.
Also, you overstate the current state of psychology and criminal profiling. They are still pretty much in their embryonic phase.

And we are not speaking of society which is in state of ours.
Could you point out where I have made any claim that humans are predictable as clockwork?

Or where I have stated that clones being identical mentally is automatic "I-win"-button?

Nowhere. I have simply stated that use of spaarti-clones, which have all skills and personality imprinted, as any commanding level troops would have risk of making them more predictable for enemy command due to uniformity.

Not automatic victory, simply benefit which can be used to gain some level of advantage.

BTW, I agree with Thanas that this ought to be argued in the open.

Fine by me. I simply did not wish to derail the subject of thread.

And have I denied this? No. But for one to predict use of any weakness requires knowledge of this weakness.

Face it, warfare is built on anticipating the opponent. Better you are familiar with opponent and their thinking, more effective that is.

Way to ignore what I said.

Yes, but Dareios had already also established habit of running in battle of Issus.

You forget that Persians also managed to break through Macedonian lines and get to their camp.

So what? Basing your entire strategy around a successful zerg-rush is still reckless gambling. As for the latter, d'uh, that's what I said! The flank crumbled due to Alexander weakening it!

Alexander had bad habit of getting lucky don't you think? I myself would say that he was lucky, everyone needs little luck (Richard the Lionheart was unlucky and ended his life with crossbowbolt through the head). But luck alone does not take you from Macedonia to India, kicking out armies twice larger on the way.

Lucky commanders do not get strings of victories.

Read any sort of history book concerning military history. It's ridiculous how much blind luck was involved in many successful military careers and yes, luck can get you quite far at least as long as you do your homework. It goes so far that you can say that unless one party holds virtually all the trump cards that there's no such thing as a guaranteed victory.
Take the example I brought up. Frederick II actually got lucky twice, once after the disastrous battle of Kunersdorf where he was pretty much out for the count yet his enemies were too timid to exploit their victory, and then when the russian Tsarina Elisabeth suddenly died and her successor was a childish admirer of Frederick who reversed the alliances. Two strokes of luck that saved Frederick from becoming known to history as a warmongering thief and probably be called a proto-Hitler by lesser historians.

And we are not speaking of society which is in state of ours.

Who cares? SW society isn't too alien to disallow real life comparisons.

Could you point out where I have made any claim that humans are predictable as clockwork?

Or where I have stated that clones being identical mentally is automatic "I-win"-button?

You're the one claiming that behaviour can be exploited like a shoddy game AI, that's what's clearly implied by your statements.

Nowhere. I have simply stated that use of spaarti-clones, which have all skills and personality imprinted, as any commanding level troops would have risk of making them more predictable for enemy command due to uniformity.

Not automatic victory, simply benefit which can be used to gain some level of advantage.

Yes, you assert that for quite some time now. It's about time you prove it.

Metahive wrote:Read any sort of history book concerning military history. It's ridiculous how much blind luck was involved in many successful military careers and yes, luck can get you quite far at least as long as you do your homework. It goes so far that you can say that unless one party holds virtually all the trump cards that there's no such thing as a guaranteed victory.
Take the example I brought up. Frederick II actually got lucky twice, once after the disastrous battle of Kunersdorf where he was pretty much out for the count yet his enemies were too timid to exploit their victory, and then when the russian Tsarina Elisabeth suddenly died and her successor was a childish admirer of Frederick who reversed the alliances. Two strokes of luck that saved Frederick from becoming known to history as a warmongering thief and probably be called a proto-Hitler by lesser historians.

As Pasteur says, chance favours a prepared mind.


And re this whole "automated" "same" nonsense, we been through this back when TPM was brought up. Armies are trained and drilled the SAME WAY. For simple variations, all you would need is for some soldiers to have been thought to say throw grenades and dodge left, others would be dodge right and throw grenades to come up with utterly unpredictable scenarios.

And this was with regards to droids!

I like it how you all ignored me completely.
Even thou it is the obvious answer to your debate.

I think other than Tiwaz nobody is denying that clones can be imprinted with variable templates.

Metahive wrote:I think other than Tiwaz nobody is denying that clones can be used with variable flash-imprint templates.

You know, you would be much smarter if you bothered to read arguments.

I have repeatedly stated that yes, you can change template. But for every clone which you want to be different, it requires completely NEW template.

Present any evidence that templates can be easily changed without need for completely new template. As long as one template is used, it produces 100% identical clones mentally and physically. There is ZERO evidence for ANY divergence inside that batch.

Prove it is not so.

Tiwaz wrote:You know, you would be much smarter if you bothered to read arguments.

I have repeatedly stated that yes, you can change template. But for every clone which you want to be different, it requires completely NEW template.

Present any evidence that templates can be easily changed without need for completely new template. As long as one template is used, it produces 100% identical clones mentally and physically. There is ZERO evidence for ANY divergence inside that batch.

Prove it is not so.

First you're not making arguments, you're making assertions. Second it's proven in AOTC that clones can be customized and don't have to completely resemble the original, the whole thing about lowered independence and increased docility remember?
Third, you will now support the assertion that you've made in the beginning that using clones made from just one template creates some sort of liability.

Ball's in your park, now deliver.

Metahive wrote:
Way to ignore what I said.

You should say something worthwhile.

So what? Basing your entire strategy around a successful zerg-rush is still reckless gambling. As for the latter, d'uh, that's what I said! The flank crumbled due to Alexander weakening it!

And you offer what kind of alternative? Be unimaginative and go for slugfest?

Alexander was badly outnumbered. If he did NOT go for decisive hit he would not have won. His flanks would have still been flanked and rolled up if he had fought like Dareios.

Read any sort of history book concerning military history. It's ridiculous how much blind luck was involved in many successful military careers and yes, luck can get you quite far at least as long as you do your homework. It goes so far that you can say that unless one party holds virtually all the trump cards that there's no such thing as a guaranteed victory.

Take the example I brought up. Frederick II actually got lucky twice, once after the disastrous battle of Kunersdorf where he was pretty much out for the count yet his enemies were too timid to exploit their victory, and then when the russian Tsarina Elisabeth suddenly died and her successor was a childish admirer of Frederick who reversed the alliances. Two strokes of luck that saved Frederick from becoming known to history as a warmongering thief and probably be called a proto-Hitler by lesser historians.

Every decent "lucky" commander has in his history proof that they actually know how to weight situation to their favor.

I guess in your mind there is no military genius. Take just lottery winner and they will win battles through luck.

False. Read history and you see that majority of those "lucky" guys actually did more than their homework.
Caesar taking over Gaul, beating up all opponents and becoming de facto emperor. Just pure luck! No skill needed!

Luck is what unskilled use.

Who cares? SW society isn't too alien to disallow real life comparisons.

You whined that our psychology and profiling are at immature phase. We are not talking about our society but one which has had millenias to work on their profiling.

You're the one claiming that behaviour can be exploited like a shoddy game AI, that's what's clearly implied by your statements.

And you are pretending humans cannot be predicted, profen false by profiling.
Prove profiling is false and we can get somewhere.

Yes, you assert that for quite some time now. It's about time you prove it.

Read my posts with thought and you find it there. Also, go study psychology.

No evidence exists to suggest that it would be trivially easy to change personality for each spaarti-clone.

Lack of that means they are profilers wet dream, people who have identical way of thinking and doing.

I have repeatedly stated that yes, you can change template. But for every clone which you want to be different, it requires completely NEW template.

No you don't.

As I have said, you don't need new templates for each clone. You don't need each commander to be his own person.
All you need is sufficient templates to make it impossible for the enemy to know what template he is confronting.

Even with just 2 templates your entire premise falls apart.
The enemy now no longer knows if he is facing Template A or Template B.
And he can no longer make accurate predictions.


Yet you seem to refuse this altogether.
So I will ask you. What is the problem?

Present any evidence that they could not pick up 10 random people and use them as templates.
And that could be quite sufficient to decrease predictability by a fair margin.


Also, so you need a new template. So what?
I mean, this is the galaxy that gave us an army in the matter of a few years.
This is the galaxy that built a death star in months.

Considering all those things. How much of an extreme investment would be to pick up 10 random people of the street and use them as templates?


I mean, the only thing that could possibly hinder this is if the templates are somehow hard to make.
And you have presented no evidence to support that.

And even if they were. It still returns us to my earlier point. The sheer amount of resources available to the Republic/Empire.

As long as one template is used, it produces 100% identical clones mentally and physically. There is ZERO evidence for ANY divergence inside that batch.

Than you mix the batches up. That should be so extremely hard to do.

Tiwaz wrote:How about you prove your assertion that producing clones from the same template creates any sort of liability first? You know, the thing you keep asserting but never proving.

That he brought himself into a position where nothing but a reckless gamble could save him says a lot about his "genius".

Every decent "lucky" commander has in his history proof that they actually know how to weight situation to their favor.

I guess in your mind there is no military genius. Take just lottery winner and they will win battles through luck.

False. Read history and you see that majority of those "lucky" guys actually did more than their homework.
Caesar taking over Gaul, beating up all opponents and becoming de facto emperor. Just pure luck! No skill needed!

Luck is what unskilled use.

Caesar? The guy who wrote the history on the gallic war himself and with the clear intention of self-aggrandizing and propaganda? Yes, that's some trustworthy source as far as judging his capabilities is concerned. Not denying that the guy did his homework, but hey, he eventually fell for a plot that anyone but him saw coming. Some genius.


The rest re:profiling and psychology is irrelevant bickering and nagging I won't deign with a response.

Now answer to my post above.

Purple, I think it's not even necessary to use different templates since, as I stated higher above, there's canon evidence that clones can be custom-edited and differ from the original. Of course we are not told just how much they can deviate, but customizability is definitely a feature of the cloning process, rendering Tiwaz objections moot for good I think.

Perhaps, but he is going to argue with you.
And me presenting the fact that they can render his point moot by simply picking up 1 random person off the streets and adding 1 template more should seal it. I mean, there it is. 100% customizable. 0% similarity. At the cost of just 1 random person.

I mean, the whole idea is idiotic anyway. Don't real world profilers work for weeks if not months? And don't they usually work from the safety of an office rather than under the pressure of a battlefield?


And even than, they can't magically predict what a person is doing. The best profilers can do is take several acts, and extrapolate based upon them what kind of personality the criminal is (is he alcoholic, insane etc.). They can't provide you with the sort of in dept detailed information that would be required to defeat an opponent unless under special conditions.

Although I will admit that under ideal circumstances, they could give you some sort of an edge. They can tell you stuff like is the commander a generally more cautious person or not. But that is under ideal circumstances with plenty of observation time. In a war, you have nether.


But these ideal circumstances just fall apart once the war budget is increased by 1 random person.

Also, he seems to think that profilers are magical mind readers that can make a template of someones brain and tell you what he is going to do under any conditions.

Metahive wrote: First you're not making arguments, you're making assertions. Second it's proven in AOTC that clones can be customized and don't have to completely resemble the original, the whole thing about lowered independence and increased docility remember?

And each difference required different batch to be designed.
Do you have ANY evidence for differences INSIDE the batch?
Is one clone inside one batch much more independent than other one when out of tube?
No, nothing even hints on that.

Third, you will now support the assertion that you've made in the beginning that using clones made from just one template creates some sort of liability.

One personality template and no time spent becoming inviduals equals 100% identical thinking. Psychological profiling of one means you understand them all.

You should read up more on that history you love to speak of. Having dogmatic way of doing something WILL be outmaneuvered by someone who is not so limited and understand your dogma. And this is with humans who are not identical in their thinking.

It does not need to be revolutionary idea but can be. Read up on Napoleon, Nelson, Caesar and the like.

Nelson if you like at Trafalgar. His opponent proceeded to battle in way "it was always done". Easily predictable.

Nelson chose to trust his ships and used unorthodox method. Crushing defeat for French.

Dogmatic, tradition relying and highly formal way of war will always lose unless backed with massive numbers or against opponent who shares same weakness.

Having your commanders think identically leads to precisely this kind of situation.
Single batch of spaarti-clones would be epitome of this system. Identical in every aspect.

You and your friends have established that it is trivial to change programming of clones. How about taking that ball in your end and proving your claim.

And purple, you are right on ability to get more templates. But you ignore that with template come skills as well as far as we know.
10 random people gains you 10 random templates with completely different skillsets.
Also, we have no proof of how easy it is to change the template. Or do you have some? There is no evidence that it is trivial thing to change template in any way.
Kaminoans, masters of their trade spent clearly immense amount of time to just iron out some attributes out of their desired template.
Third, enemy does not need to know before battle which template they meet. They can deduct it from the behavior of the commander during it, unless all battles were over immediately. Which they weren't.

But have it your way gentlemen, I'll concede the issue. Spaarti clones were clearly superior in every way.
That is why, because of simplicity and excellence, they were all on par with ARC-troopers. Because why not? There is no danger in having one template so you could just as well make it from existing fully trained clone! Instead they had clones training others, specially commanderst to be more individualistic.
(for verifiable source example: http://www.starwars.com/search/?query=c ... er&x=0&y=0
http://www.starwars.com/databank/organi ... etroopers/)

Why if flashing was so simple and effective why need for training and why accept training for commanders which underlines individuality?

Answer this question and I will happily accept that your argument must be superior.

Good to see that you two are so proficient profilers that you clearly know what I think since you both spend great deal of time describing what I think instead of arguing what I actually said.

Specially so good that you know that in my view profiling is magic when I have specifically said it not to be so.

And forgetting that CIS employes droids and such in great number. Are those going to be stressed badly over combat situations?

Well, I think that he's treating this all like exploiting a crappy game AI, where figuring out the patterns would grant you cheap victories (certain Total War AIs come to my mind...) and I have stated why I think taking this attitude to real life battles is...simplistic to say the least (actually I think he was inspired by a certain quote from Ghost In the Shell that made a similar point now that I think of it, something about having to feature a normal human among an entire squad of cyborgs to keep the enemy guessing).

The SW media themselves as far as I know never state that predictability is a problem for either clones or droids so his objection was moot from the beginning as far as I'm concerned.

Is this guy for real.
For a start, how do you imagine the enemy would be able to find out what template he is facing?
The only way I can think of is if he engages the enemy in a whole host of probing actions checking out their reactions and looking them up on some sort of check list.

But to do that, you would need a massive expenditure of time and resources. It is simply not feasible beyond the drawing board.
And how do you even make a check list? You have to analise the same person over and over again over the course of many battles.

And to do that you must know what commander you are facing at what time. Let's say you are watching an army over the course of 10 battles examining the strategy of the commander. But wait, the enemy army has 2 commanders, and since they are not conveniently color coded in red and blue, you have no idea who you are facing at what time.

I mean, you are relying on having infinite time and resources to examine the enemy. And by the time you do that, the commander in question might just decide that he should actually do his job, fight the war and defeat you while you are busy analyzing him.

I mean, real world armies newer had more than say 20 top level commanders at a time.
Why than did the generals of WW2 not focus on reading their enemy? Because the resources were better spent doing something actually worth while, like say fighting said enemy.


And if predictability was such an issue, why did the droids not do it to the Jedi. After all, all the Jedi were clearly distinguishable and you knew exactly what Jedi you are facing at the time. In fact, the Jedi are the perfect control group for your sort of analysis. Than how come no one did it reliably?

Trafalgar? Really? Another battle based around a reckless gamble that was also helped by circumstances that were for the most part out of Nelson's control and which might as well have been a total disaster if only the gunners of the spanish-french fleet had a better day? Stop with this simplistic approach to history, will you? This whole "History is shaped by few great men" mantra is so 18th century. Here, "Young Alexander conquered India. He alone?" a Brecht quote for you to ponder over since you seem to like Alexander very much.

Tiwaz wrote:But have it your way gentlemen, I'll concede the issue. Spaarti clones were clearly superior in every way.
That is why, because of simplicity and excellence, they were all on par with ARC-troopers. Because why not? There is no danger in having one template so you could just as well make it from existing fully trained clone! Instead they had clones training others, specially commanderst to be more individualistic.

Take your strawman and your dishonest pseudo-concession and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. O yeah, and I am not ploughing through the articles (well, that one article since the other link leads nowhere) to scoop up support for a claim you've made, that's your duty.

Tiwaz wrote: You know, you would be much smarter if you bothered to read arguments.

I have repeatedly stated that yes, you can change template. But for every clone which you want to be different, it requires completely NEW template.

Present any evidence that templates can be easily changed without need for completely new template. As long as one template is used, it produces 100% identical clones mentally and physically. There is ZERO evidence for ANY divergence inside that batch.

Prove it is not so.

You know what it would take to be utterly creative? When you're under fire, one template takes cover, one templates dodge left/right, one charge. Just add in the last template of freeze and then go wah wah wah and you essentially duplicated the entirity of human behaviour.

Strategy? Hmmm.... Sun Tzu and Sun Bin stated that all strategy comprises of two options. The direct and the indirect.

The SW media themselves as far as I know never state that predictability is a problem for either clones or droids so his objection was moot from the beginning as far as I'm concerned.

Let's be fair. The whole Clones can be "creative" thing is canon and did spark a whole debate vis a vis lousy droids. This even as the pre AOTC novels had the droid armies not being able to shoot as accurately as sentients, being slower to react than sentients and etc etc etc(From the character viewpoint).

It was a bullshit argument then, its still a bullshit argument now, even if its applied to clones as opposed to droids.


Let's just repeat this again then. Armies are DRILLED in combat. How does one conduct a retrograde movement to the rear? Smoke grenade out, establish base of fire, move out in groups(drilled as per team).

Knowing what the enemy does doesn't provide an exploit if that means the enemy is superbly trained and etc. Basing specific "exploits" to known tactics and strategy utterly breaks down when all one has to do is simply learn more and more tactics/responses. Oh, there's an enemy position that's blocking your route. Flank it, suppress it and charge, move away from it. How the fuck do you exploit that?

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Still, if your officers are trained absolutely identically and have little or nothing to differentiate them, they're going to be homogenous and maybe even the way they think would be similar/identical. That has disadvantages. Imagine if the enemy manages to steal or get its hands on the flash-programming used on these clones, then they'd have a good idea of how these guys fight.

Psst. You know, that's what they do do in OCS. Teach officers how to react to a scenario. There's even OMG.... textbook answers, ranging from the inane two up formation for advance to the "an assembly area should be situated in a blah blah blah blah, this is why spot A is a lousy assembly area. Spot B has this disadvantage of only a single road, but you can .........."