Elite Riot Armor, Joshua's or Armor of the 87th Tribe?

[brfritos]

Just noticed there was no mention of the Sierra Madre reinforced armour. No plusses to crits or skills or anything but the armour is DT 18 and the helmet is 5 making it a pretty tasty package for light armour.

Well, say no more...

The armors are all good, but depends of your build and strategy. I'm playing LR with my EW build, secondary using melee and some proficiency in explosives for using mines and grenades (not the weapons).
I'm using Sierra Madre Reinforced + Space Suit Helmet + Mobius glasses. I also have the armor implant and reinforced spine.
Total = 29 DT.

My main weapons are the laser rifle modded for sniping, a combination of Compliance Regulator + Recharge Pistol for normal combat, for melee Shishkebab and Knock-Knock, the later I use when needing to face deathclaws (or if is a larger pack I use compliance + shishkebab, I killed Rawr with this combination, didn't even need to use stealth boys or other fancy things).
ED-E is carrying Tri-beam Laser for when a frontal assault is needed.
I have 9 luck, Lexx mod that transform 1st recon beret into a perk and finesse (but in a unmodded game you'll need to take Light Touch). So my critical chance is 19% one way or another.
Since I have Laser Commander perk and the two ranks of Set Lasers for Fun, my damage with laser weapons are enhanced with +15% DAM and +14% critical chance.

For this setup Joshua armor and Courier Duster have good stats but low DT; Legion armor is heavy, I don't use heavy armor; in the end the real choice is between Sierra Madre Reinforced and Elite Riot Gear, because I need DT, not critical chance. Sure, more critical chance don't hurt at all, but I have more than enough at this point.
Really, I'm spawing critical hits back and forth, almost every shot I made is one and if done sneaky is more than enough.

I will go with Sierra Madre Reinforced, because my build is already done, I'm still at the LR beginning and I tailored the build for speed with Travel Light, you only acquire Elite Riot when you are about to face Ulysses, so it came too late for the party. But when I did LR at level 15, wich means I still need to do all the other DLCs and the main game, I choosed Elite Riot Gear when using guns. My explosives focused courier will still go with Sierra Madre, since critical chance means squat for explosives.
And if you need more DT for explosives is better picking Hit the Deck, not an armor.

So depends of how you play, isn't?

PS: Two things I always carry with me, build independent: throwing knifes and some venom. Who needs silencers, neh?

 

[:::SILUS:::]

Here's a recipe for a nigh invincible character.


Rad Child on Deadly.

HP regeneration implant.

Solar Powered.

Tri-Vallence form OWB.

Retarded LR Power armor.


Use that combo and your HP will practically never go down by even a notch.

 

[RRBM]

After mulling it over, I've come to the conclusion that the Desert Ranger combat armor is still the best (looking).

You could maybe replace the helmet with the more operational Elite riot version.

 

[Quagmire69]

marked tribal armour looks great with a chick.

 

[nemo00]

On this whole debate, well...in most points I have to agree with Tagaziel. Well maybe not so much on the first part in the distinction between a PR stunt and a morale booster. Can't we just agree that it may be both of them wrapped up in one package (it wouldn't be unheard of).

Now on the power armor issue, Tagaziel is 99% percent right in my opinion. Power armor should make you almost invulnerable. Hell in Fallout 1 and 2 there were only two effective power armor killers, ok three, the gauss rifle, (if you targeted eyes), the boozar and the vindicator minigun. Plasma rifles did around 30 point of constant damage (well plasma is actually superheated matter so the reflective coating is essentially useless) and it took a couple of shots to kill you. Of course we have to take into consideration the players stats as they also influenced the effectiveness of power armors (a 30 point damage could have easily left you for dead even with power armor, if you had a low level character with a few hit points). Laser weapons and rocket launchers were essentially useless, unless they scored a critical hit. Hell i remember shrugging off gatling laser burst with no problem, and rockets usually just knocked me on my ass (ok in real life you have to consider the impact trauma...).
Now on the issue of that tacky power armor, is it ugly? yes, But would it be so unusual for a NCR type organization to make one.....well no. Just think of it as parade armor...You know like the one the old Soviet generals used to ware, with big ass hats and a chest full of medals.....hell even US versions are decorated, and stand out. Maybe the bombs just caught the good ol’ colonel on a parade day or something. I bet that in the moment armies develop the first suit of powered armor; somewhere there will be an asshole who will "pimp out" his suit. Hell they even make golden plated Kalashnikovs......
And yes power armors were made to stand out, or at least when they were designed they didn't really care about their camo. For God's sake, the original ones were shiny steel, and except the winterized one (which had some white paint smeared upon it but nothing like the winter camo that most modern armies use), most of them were plain grey (yeah ok, it can count as urban camo in fallout 3 if you really wanna push it....but the Mohave is a desert and grey will stick out like a sour thumb, and no, some colored pauldrons do not count as camo in my mind, they are more like unit signs). Just look at the thing, it is a big fucking piece of metal, adding a bear had, wont really make it more visible, as a matter of fact you could paint it bright orange, and put a bull’s-eye on its ass, without altering its tactical usefulness. If you would like to be stealthy you make something like the Chinese stealth suit, or the assassins suit or something or meet it half way in the form of combat armor which, imagine that, had some form of GREEN, or BROWN. Power armor was made to soak up a huge amount of damage, and also by being able to equip it with weapons used on assault vehicles (hence the strength bonus) to dish out some serious destruction, with the added benefit of the mobility of a person. So why not use it instead of a tank (of course with tactics adapted to the situation) If a hummer and a tank would have kids they would come in the form of power amours.
There is only one canonical problem in fallout. It is accepted that power armored units kicked Chinese ass, and also we know that gauss rifles were, maybe the Achilles heal of the suit. But then fallout tactics, which is almost, canon, introduces the Chinese designed MEC gauss minigun. Now that can cut a power armor into shreds....so how the hell didn't the Chinese mount a successful counteroffensive.

 

[Nalano]

There is only one canonical problem in fallout. It is accepted that power armored units kicked Chinese ass, and also we know that gauss rifles were, maybe the Achilles heal of the suit. But then fallout tactics, which is almost, canon, introduces the Chinese designed MEC gauss minigun. Now that can cut a power armor into shreds....so how the hell didn't the Chinese mount a successful counteroffensive.

Not enough in production, too late in the war...?

 

[DevilTakeMe]

Now on the power armor issue, Tagaziel is 99% percent right in my opinion. Power armor should make you almost invulnerable. Hell in Fallout 1 and 2 there were only two effective power armor killers, ok three, the gauss rifle, (if you targeted eyes), the boozar and the vindicator minigun. Plasma rifles did around 30 point of constant damage (well plasma is actually superheated matter so the reflective coating is essentially useless) and it took a couple of shots to kill you. Of course we have to take into consideration the players stats as they also influenced the effectiveness of power armors (a 30 point damage could have easily left you for dead even with power armor, if you had a low level character with a few hit points). Laser weapons and rocket launchers were essentially useless, unless they scored a critical hit. Hell i remember shrugging off gatling laser burst with no problem, and rockets usually just knocked me on my ass (ok in real life you have to consider the impact trauma...).

Tagaziel was very quick to point out "Gameplay and Story Segregation". What happens in-game does not equate to what happens in the story. The problem is that Tagaziel was cherry picking events in the Fallout timeline without simply pointing at the story itself.

Again, the Brotherhood of Steel, descendants of a group consisting of former US military, show us repeatedly that power armor is very strong, but not invulnerable.

Fallout 1: The Glow shows us what happened to four soldiers who thought they were invincible with their power armor. One was cut to ribbons, the others slowly died from either radiation or security robots.

Fallout 2: The Brotherhood proper doesn't even show up because they're hiding from the Enclave. The Chosen One deals with the Enclave, who are wearing even -more- advanced armor.

Fallout 3: Power armor-wearing corpses are found throughout the Capital Wasteland. You come across at least three dead paladins in power armor during your -first- encounter with Sarah Lyons - two are already dead, the third dies in a scripted event right in front of you.

New Vegas: You can wind up being tasked with finding the bodies of three different brotherhood patrols (who are wearing power armor) and retrieving holotapes from them.

And those are the examples you see in-game. The other examples are from NPCs and told in history, like Operation Sunburst, etc. etc.

Simply put, if power armor made you invincible, like you are suggesting, none of the above characters would be -dead-.

Now on the issue of that tacky power armor, is it ugly? yes, But would it be so unusual for a NCR type organization to make one.....well no. Just think of it as parade armor...You know like the one the old Soviet generals used to ware, with big ass hats and a chest full of medals.....hell even US versions are decorated, and stand out. Maybe the bombs just caught the good ol’ colonel on a parade day or something. I bet that in the moment armies develop the first suit of powered armor; somewhere there will be an asshole who will "pimp out" his suit. Hell they even make golden plated Kalashnikovs......

Mind you, you're using Russian generals as examples for a colonel in a military based on the pre-war US government.

Those "russian generals" with the full dress uniforms are there to look good for parades and military ceremonies, political functions, etc.

Parade uniforms or Full Dress Uniforms are worn at ceremonies, official receptions, and other special occasions; with order insignias and full size medals.

Here's a comparison between a couple such examples, from World War 2:

A picture demonstrates how to make yourself seen and how to minimize your presence.

#5 is one of those generals that you speak of, and he's notably in "Full dress." Notice how much he stands out compared to the others in the picture. Compare that General with a Colonel in field uniform (#3).

Which rolls right back around to the point. Fielded, practical equipment is not made to stand out. The Scorched Sierra Power Armor is a -working- set of armor, unlike the ones that have been sent to the Mojave.

Even the T-45d which it's based on is a muted grey color.

You can say that Colonel Royez is wearing a parade uniform all you want. What I'm saying is that he's wasting valuable resources by making such a suit into a "parade uniform."

And yes power armors were made to stand out, or at least when they were designed they didn't really care about their camo. For God's sake, the original ones were shiny steel, and except the winterized one (which had some white paint smeared upon it but nothing like the winter camo that most modern armies use), most of them were plain grey (yeah ok, it can count as urban camo in fallout 3 if you really wanna push it....

"Shiny Steel?"

The regular T-51b power armor is green, with a paint job similar to that of the old burned out military trucks you find lying around both the Capital Wasteland and the Mojave.

It is notably faded, and the Brotherhood in the Mojave tend to wear those that are mostly bare metal.

US Soldier in power armor.

Rhombus' armor is faded after many years. But is still quite green.

Pre-War US Military truck in the solid green color

but the Mohave is a desert and grey will stick out like a sour thumb, and no, some colored pauldrons do not count as camo in my mind, they are more like unit signs). Just look at the thing, it is a big fucking piece of metal, adding a bear had, wont really make it more visible, as a matter of fact you could paint it bright orange, and put a bull’s-eye on its ass, without altering its tactical usefulness.

I do believe I linked this before:

So, tell me, why don't they paint more supposedly "invulnerable" targets with bright colors? Or put a bulls-eye on them?

Even the T-45d power armor is a muted grey rather than a shiny silver color. It looks more like a US Navy ship than an army tank, but still.

I'll chalk it up to Bethesda for not understanding that.

If you would like to be stealthy you make something like the Chinese stealth suit, or the assassins suit or something or meet it half way in the form of combat armor which, imagine that, had some form of GREEN, or BROWN.

Again, the T-51b is Green, but much of the paint has either chipped off or is faded.

Tanks are not exactly stealthy, however, they use camouflage:

Tanks are made to soak up a huge amount of damage and are equipped with portable artillery. Yet they follow the rules of camouflage in order to mitigate loss.

In World War 2, The Germans (probably the best known of the tank-builders in the world) used camouflage for their -tanks- during the Battle of Normandy to tremendous effect, using the foliage to hide their numbers and fire at the Allied Invasion so that they would not suffer as much loss as if they were to just stand out and slug it out.

Power armor was made to soak up a huge amount of damage, and also by being able to equip it with weapons used on assault vehicles (hence the strength bonus) to dish out some serious destruction, with the added benefit of the mobility of a person. So why not use it instead of a tank (of course with tactics adapted to the situation) If a hummer and a tank would have kids they would come in the form of power amours.

If a hummer and a tank had kids, they'd have Infantry Fighting Vehicles, not power armor.

You use power armor troops instead of tanks in certain situations because they are smaller and capable of navigating through buildings and are rapidly deployed through the use of other vehicles (vertibirds, troop carriers, etc. etc.), just like infantry.

Tanks can get going on their own, with speeds up to 40 mph so that they can traverse a combat zone and deliver their ordnance as well. They simply roll over a lot of terrain that would slow down anyone on foot, including power armor.

There is only one canonical problem in fallout. It is accepted that power armored units kicked Chinese ass, and also we know that gauss rifles were, maybe the Achilles heal of the suit. But then fallout tactics, which is almost, canon, introduces the Chinese designed MEC gauss minigun. Now that can cut a power armor into shreds....so how the hell didn't the Chinese mount a successful counteroffensive.

The real canonical problem is simply Fallout Tactics. The only thing truly canonical about that particular game is that a Brotherhood chapter went East. Everything else is implied or ambiguously canonical.

 

[nemo00]

First, I admit that most of your points have a certain degree of validity. Second let’s agree that all this debate is more of an intellectual exercise, so I really would like to keep it civil without taking it to personal (I red most of the debate between you and Tagaziel, and at some point it became quite hostile, I don’t know who started it and I don’t care, I am just stating it). Second, I please permit me not to structure this whole issue, into clearly defined points, and also I won’t include pictures and stuff, as I stated before this whole thing is more of an intellectual exercise, and I simply don’t have the time to cosmeticize it. Oh and if somebody will start criticize my spelling....well let me tell him from the start to go f*** himself.
Now for the actual reply. As I said power armor should make you ALMOST invulnerable. This invulnerability I believe can be summed up with the “size doesn’t matter, it’s the way you use it” phrase. Any combat unit can be characterized by two types of defenses: active, passive, and then there is the psychological factor. The invulnerability of the power armor is the result of these three. Passive defense: the ability to shrug of small and medium weapons fire (the truth of the matter is that I don’t know how well would it fare against a browning 50 cal. but they don’t really use those in the wastes) and active defense: agility, and size. (Please do not start to nitpick my definition of active defense as it would derail the whole debate, and even if incorrect they have to be added to the supposed effectiveness of power armor). I that in F1 and F2 power armor made you quite large, but still it is smaller than a jeep, and it is also made from composites (we don’t know what those composite exactly are) so it should have a small radar signature, and maybe if I am permitted to state that it could have also small heat signature (it has to have a cooling mechanism and some form of waste disposal as without that it would be pretty much a torture chamber all it remains is the shielding of the power source). That would mean that assault vehicle weapon systems, would have a hard time locking onto it, so if it is not concentrated artillery fire, power armor should be able without too much problem to destroy a tank platoon. The vulnerability of the single tank against infantry is pretty well documented….. Also we have to take into consideration any sensor array that is incorporated into the helmet. Yes I know that nowhere in the game play is this taken into consideration but in the artwork, which you successfully used to prove that indeed power armor did use some form of camo, we can also clearly see that they had some sort of sensors. A man incorporated organically incorporated into a weapon system, which is more of an extension of himself, will always be more effective and flexible that a machine that has to be commanded with the use of a crew.
The psychological factor is that first time you see a man in steel wilding a minigun, your impulse will be to get the fuck out of there, especially after when you emptied ( if you had the chance) a couple of AK mags into it, and the dam thing won’t slow down (hell it may even shrug off RPG fire, especially the B variant). So the shock factor for the Chinese at Anchorage could have been great which could explain the huge initial success of the t-51d. We also have to take into consideration the terrain of Alaska, which if I may be permitted to make an educated guess, would be hell for any tank platoon that has to fight a foe with even with the limited capability of a T-51D.
The other factor is that, indeed as you pointed out there are several cases when during the fallout games we can find, destroyed power armor, BUT, in F3 (bleah) and FNV, these are the D variants. These had a series of limitations, as pointed out in the timeline, as the US troops became bogged down in Asia, maybe somewhere with more open terrain, and couldn’t advance where the limited mobility became an issue until the introduction of the B variants. In the case of the brotherhood soldiers in the West Teck labs, I think it was more of a combination of radiation (the suits offer only limited radiation protection), concentrated firepower, (they were only a handful of guys against a whole bunch of robots, with advanced weapons), lack of experience (the only thing they had to fight against until then were poorly equipped riders, growing careless and dependent on their armor, remember Maxon died because he was to proud to put his helmet on) and in cases like this I am 100% sure that panic broke out and this was the main reason of their death. The limitation of the 51D is what you can see in most of the cases mentioned by you, and I don’t care what armor are you equipped with, a couple artillery shells will put you out of your misery even if you are in a tank.
Well how does all this link to camo? Simple. Camouflage is also a type of defense, against a series of threats and vulnerabilities, BUT when you have other more effective means of countering these, it becomes irrelevant, and yes sometimes the last thing you want is NOT being seen. Because the power armor had the means of countering most of the offensive capabilities that the Chinese could throw at it, the US didn’t really care about hiding…..the same cannot be told about modern tanks. (Yes I know and I won’t debate the usefulness and advantages of hiding/camouflaging large units, BUT sometimes it is also very useful to draw attention, as Tagaziel also pointed out. It is a question of context and strategy). Power armor in the form and design of the ones in fallout especially the B variant, wouldn’t need an APC. 1. It is bulky so to carry a large number and you would need a big ass APC, which is a sitting duck, in a warzone and kind of redundant as troops with power armor are almost infected by fatigue. If you deploy power armor units like shock troops, or storm troopers, effectively rushing your enemy or flanking it, camo is not a primary concern, and in some cases you would actually make it more visible and terrifying, ( like the advanced power armor, which looked scary and nasty, and even the original ones evoked by medieval knights) to inspire terror and break defensive lines. And in this case you could paint it orange . This tactic is extremely effective, and the only reason for which it is not used anymore is because the advancement in offensive weapons (especially the light machine gun like the Gatling gun, Vickers, and Browning 50 cal.) compared to armors (that is why armies abandoned the use of armor in the first place, until the development of Kevlar). IFF you take that advantage away, as it happened when the power armor was introduced, you would very much dust of the older tactics manuals and reuse them. (They worked for thousands of years after all)
Also it is understandable why in the case of the super mutants especially in F3 the T-51D power armor didn’t fare that well. It was a case of large numbers (a super mutant is the organic solution to the same problem for which the power armor was developed) and resupply. Eventually you will be able to destroy a unit, after you threw a bunch of super mutants at them (thus the degradation of weapons and armor introduced in F3, if I remember correctly, the ones you took from dead soldiers were in pretty bad condition), but super mutants could be made, and thrown into battle without too much training. The loss of a single brotherhood soldier, is much more badly felt, that that of 100 mutants (material loss, plus the time needed to train new recruits, which were a commodity, lack of supply lines needed to maintain the armors…the essentially they were left for dead in Washington, let’s not speak about the psychological impact of the loss of a loved one as most of the new recruits were actually family). The same thing happened in the case of NCR and Brotherhood, overwhelming numbers in case of the NCR, and idiotic “management” on the side of the Brotherhood, which couldn’t maneuver, acting like sitting ducks (so effectively robbing them of half of the advantages given by power armors.). So all the NCR had to do is actually pick them off with 50 cal. sniper rifles which they had, by trained snipers (actually I would state that snipers were the ace in the sleeve of the NCR, being in case of most battles the ones who tipped the scales). When fighting the legion using power armor (even D variants) as shock troops would be incredibly effective, essentially negating the close quarter advantage of the Legion, mêlée which attacks would be incredibly ineffective against power armor troops in mass, the latter ones being armed with light machineguns, for the use of which they didn’t have go prone, could be more accurate, and didn’t fatigue, supported by snipers and lighter troops. The legion had no effective way of countering power armor in a direct traditional confrontation (the ranged capability of the legion was laughable, and I have serious doubts about how effective throwing dynamite sticks would be against power armor, and they only had one broken down howitzer). In this case again it is irrelevant how ornate or what color does the armor have, and that ugly armor could actually be used, and as in the case of medieval knights to rally the troops and sustain morale, by projecting the presence of the leader. Because as someone stated on a documentary regarding tactics, there is a huge difference between a commander that sits back and yells “charge”, and the one that says “follow me boys”. The only way the legion could win is if as Lanius planned, it would attack on multiple fronts, the NCR having to disperse its troops. (Cesar realized this and I would guess that this is the reason for delaying the attack on the Dam, trying to establish multiple bridgeheads, and Oliver is too dumb to realize, trying to provoke the legion into a full frontal assault) Essentially what we are witnessing is NCR adopting legion tactics and vice versa.
And in case of parade armor well even US parade armor even if it is simpler, and I admit much more tasteful than the Soviet one, it is still pretty dam ornate, and can be spotted by any grunt. Rank does not really matter; the only difference between a generals and a colonel’s parade armor is that the latter one would have fewer medals, but still enough to get noticed. And yes it used usually on formal occasions, but as Tagaziel states we can’t be really sure how far the base was stationed from the front lines, and even then there are numerous examples in modern times that some jack ass general uses parade uniform on every occasion.
Regarding the argument that it would be stupid to use an important piece of equipment for parade purposes, I completely agree, however it does not mean that they wouldn’t. It wouldn’t be the first stupid thing that the NCR does, just speak to chief Hanlon. Oliver uses elite rangers as cannon fodder, which is idiotic (they being the key behind the NCR’s success), so pimiping out power armor wouldn’t be that much of a surprise.
Ok so I think I covered most of the topics waiting for a reply .

 

[Courier]

Holy wall of text Batman!

 

[DevilTakeMe]

I'd like to ask that you use the enter key once more between paragraphs. That was a wall of text.

Notes: The examples of broken down power armor are T-51b. With the exception of the Fallout 3 examples, those are T-45d. The New Vegas patrols who are found dead are wearing T-51b.

I'm going to break this down into two parts for easier consumption and reading.

I. Power Armor

Camouflage is never irrelevant when it's other defenses are not always certain or reliable. Which is why there are layers of protection, camouflage being but one of many defensive countermeasures. Camouflage is one such defense, which also includes concealment and deception. Every example given by Tagaziel and yourself have a little reasoning for why the armor failed, and that's why it's not military thinking. Redundancy is the concept of having a back up when one system fails.

Camouflage is the first line of defense. Simply put, you cannot hit what you cannot see. Again, as proven time and time again, camouflage, cover, and concealment have saved a lot more lives than armor ever has. I can go on about how concealment has helped in many battles throughout the many centuries of warfare. There's no good reason -not- to have it, even for parades.

Armour is the next countermeasure. If you -do- get hit, armor is there to help protect you by mitigating the damage. As I continue to state, Power armor is not invulnerable. It degrades, it gets damaged, and the person wearing it can die if the armor is not completely intact and working at full operational capacity.

Mobility is another defensive countermeasure. You cannot hit what moves out of the way of danger. It's not simply jumping out of the way of incoming fire, but it's also the ability to scale and travel over obstacles, across water, snow, etc.

These are fundamental aspects of military thinking. Fiction sometimes forgets about that and clings to comic book logic insofar as the storytelling proceeds, as though power armor turns the wearer into Iron Man or Captain America. Sometimes that thinking leaks into Fallout, but we're also shown that sort of thinking doesn't work in the Fallout universe.

Using yourself to take fire is generally considered suicidal, even if it is selfless. Again, jumping on a grenade to save your comrades is commendable,but you're sacrificing yourself with no real guarantee that you'll survive yourself. Power armored troops stepping into the line of fire? Just as suicidal.

No, the entire concept of covering fire is to stop the OTHER guy from shooting. Not at your allies, not at yourself, but entirely. If they don't move out of the way, they risk death. If they move behind cover, they can't shoot at you or your allies. If they are opening up on you, you're gonna take cover as well, regardless of whether you're in power armor or not. You don't know what those guys are armed with or if they have an anti-tank weapon hidden behind that wall that they're gonna try and catch you with.

It's something you learn real quick.

Again, the NCR fought a war with the Brotherhood of Steel, who were trained in power armor tactics. Who better to learn from than your enemy? The Brotherhood appears to have fought a guerilla war with the NCR, ambushing the army, destroying principle targets (the NCR's gold reserve for instance) and so forth. All this meaning that the BOS understood when to hide and when to come out and attack, because when they made a stand at places like Helios-One (see Operation Sunburst), they were made vulnerable and many of those supposedly invincible power armor-wearing soldiers were killed.

The lessons of the NCR-BOS war (Colonel Moore managed to serve -four- tours during that war, so it wasn't exactly "short") should help people immediately get clued in that power armor does not make one invincible. It helps a lot, but it's not the only thing that will save you. This failure of simple understanding just makes Royez look like a clown, despite the fact that he's one of the few in the NCR with both a working set of power armor and the training to use it. He's also a Colonel, which means someone thinks he has enough competence to have such a rank and supposedly, such a command. Yet, he decides the best use of this supposedly invulnerable and strength-enhancing armor is to paint it with obvious colors and decorate it with a bear.

Veteran soldiers, new recruits, travelers, etc. alike will pass through the I-15 on their way to the front, and a Colonel who is wasting a valuable resource like said power armor will be noticed. Mind you, he's only a colonel, not a general, he doesn't have the kind of leeway that Generals do.

What you've been saying is that power armor has no need for camouflage because it's armor makes it invulnerable. But again, every example cited has the armor failing or being damaged or degrading and allowing the wearer to be killed, as though they were exceptions. I've yet to see an example in-game where someone wearing power armor survived an impossible amount of damage (who wasn't player, anyway). And mobility? Power armor doesn't allow the wearer to move any faster than infantry, so no, not particularly mobile by themselves either.

The use of shock troops isn't really about instilling fear in your foes, it's about delivering enough power in the right place to make your foe enough of a non-issue that you can continue forth, even at a high cost. Either you kill or capture your target, or you force them to withdraw and open their defensive lines for you to advance.

Shock Troops since the Napoleonic Wars are simply troops who were sent in to penetrate enemy positions and lines with high risk and high expectation of casualties. They were called Troops of Forlorn Hope, and were sent in first. In the US Civil War, the Irish and Iron Brigades would charge a position in an attempt to open up a hole in the defense, and subsequently were the units that took the most casualties.

It was in World War I and World War II that the idea of shocktroops changed, with the advent of machine guns and focused artillery. In World War I, the German Stormtroopers worked as initial assault groups, as did the Italian Arditi. They were sent in to break up enemy lines and took massive casualties doing so. But they were glorified for many years, up to World War 2, which also became the last time anyone used “shock troops” in the way you describe.

The most effective “shock” used in World War I, however, was none other than the tank. Tanks were armored, practically invulnerable to gunfire, could just run over barbed wire, and were shaped so that they could drive over trenches with little problem. Of course the germans were going to get out of it's way. However, those early tanks were slow (about as fast as people can walk) and vulnerable to artillery.

When you're using a trench as cover, and suddenly something like this rolls over you? Yes, you're gonna get out of the way:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq7lYO-hWXY[/youtube]

In World War 2, the Soviet Army adopted shocktroops, but they changed up their tactics as weapons changed. Rather than sending in waves of troops to assault a position, the Soviets simply had their Shock Army go in with artillery, grenadiers and tanks and blasted fixed positions open with superior firepower to let infantry and tanks go in through the hole in the enemy defenses (another reason why you shouldn't make yourself stand out and make yourself a target). And that's what the Soviet Shock Armies built around for the rest of the Cold War.

The tanks' first appearance on the battlefield would not be unlike that of power armor debuting on the Alaskan front, for all the reasons outlined – strong against small arms, capable of carrying significant heavy weapons, but again, not notably discolored for the Alaskan climate. It makes the wearer even as slow or even slower than infantry, particularly across the arctic terrain.

The difference of course, is that by the time of the Anchorage campaign, well over a century and a half has passed since the introduction of tank armor, and the Communist Chinese would have weapons other than AK-based assault rifles with which to attack American tanks and fortified positions, especially as they intend to assault and hold American fortifications and assets, which include American vehicles – trucks, vertibirds, tanks, etc. etc. Mortars, mines, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and even heavy weapons like heavy lasers (like the one supposedly mounted on the Chimera). Turning such weapons against power armor is really not a stretch, but -limiting- the Chinese to only small arms would most definitely be unbelievable, when they have access to advanced submarines and nuclear weapons.

Russian RPG-2, predecessor to the more well-known RPG-7, with Korean and Chinese made variants used during the Korean War. Before that was the US Bazooka and the German Panzerfaust. All would be an inspiration for cheap and reliable antimaterial weapons that the Chinese could easily produce or buy.

II. Location of the target on the Long 15.

Here's the reason why I don't believe Ulysses could have targeted any place deeper into NCR territory than Barstow, California, which is situated right between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

On top of the Sunstone Tower, you can ask him about his plans, and you discover from Ulysses that he's specifically targeting the Long 15 to "cut the Bear's throat". He goes on about cutting off supplies and what not by cutting off the Long 15, which gives us a target zone on which to look at for potential locations.

Now, there's only one place on the map that we know of that has any particular meaning southwest of Primm and the mountain pass that acts as a stopover for caravans, has enough strategic importance to have a military posting, or is otherwise commercially important for facilitating trade within the NCR. And that place is none other than Barstow, CA.

For starters, Barstow, California, or it's corresponding location, is known to the rest of the Fallout universe as the Hub. It's dead center on the I-15 between LA and Las Vegas, at an actual highway interchange. If you go due west from Barstow, you end up in a place called Bakersfield (aka "The Necropolis").

Due east, and you walk straight into Legion territory. And not only Legion Territory, but straight towards Flagstaff, Arizona, also known as the first capital of Caesar's Legion. It would be in a prime position to cut the NCR in half, so it's very easy to see why there would be NCR military posted there.

Of course, then the Hub is the home of the water merchants who have supplied most of the NCR with fresh water for 120 years or so. It's absolutely important if the NCR can't maintain clean water supplies.

Why not further south? Mostly because there's nothing of any importance between Barstow and San Diego. At the furthest south of the I-15 is San Diego, which is known as Dayglow. Any target between San Bernadino and San Diego, and you can just take an alternate route to get around.

Any target between San Bernadino and Barstow, and you have to answer why The Hub, a rather major trading hub in the Fallout universe, gets skipped over. You can argue that Victorville area would be important, but it makes no more sense to destroy that area than it would be for Barstow.

This shrinks the likely target areas between Barstow and say, Primm. A target would have to be southwest of the mountain Pass where the Mojave Outpost is at, and northeast of Barstow, giving you less than 100 miles of road and only a handful of potential targets.

Baker, California is a tiny stop between Barstow and Primm, and the junction at which Death Valley road connects to the I-15. There really aren't any other locations along that way where ulysses can target and have any meaningful impact. It doesn't have any further utility other than a stopover for travelers heading towards Vegas.

 

[Tagaziel]

Late reply, earning my Master of Laws degree was more important.

But before I go ad rem, Devil, maybe you should check your sources first? Barstow is not the Hub and San Diego is definitely not Dayglow. You're making all of this up. Here's an actual map of the Core Region:

Deviating from it is HERESY.

I'm sorry, all you've been doing is trying to nitpick and stick to literal and figurative language as your defense. That's about as strawman as one can get.

I don't think you're in any position to accuse anyone of nitpicking when you were the person who nitpicked a single expression I used (tank) and then blew it up into an entire argument.

The arguments you've given are full of contradiction with broken comparisons.

Then point them out. Show, don't tell.

Kimball's speech was politically fueled because he picked a spot that was symbolic of the war, not a place where he could help boost the morale of the troops by giving a more personal talk or being supportive. he didn't stop to talk to any of the troops, as actual commanders do in order to boost morale.

Daniel Morgan, a general during the US Revolutionary War, was known to walk around camp and speak with -every- soldier in his command individually, and thus his soldiers often became some of the best motivated soldiers in the Army.

Presidents now would at least shake a few hands and say "keep up the good work" as he moved through a crowd of soldiers, even he couldn't say so to everyone on the way out. He doesn't even stop to talk with the men in charge - notably Moore and Oliver are nowhere to be found even close to the speech area.

Instead, Kimball is just in and out. His visit calls attention back to Hoover Dam as opposed to whatever might be plaguing his administration back home, rather than to the troops for whom he is supposedly there for.

It's a statement made, not for the military, but for the families of the military, for the people who don't like the NCR's presence, as well as dissuading anyone who originally agreed with the War and now find it to be far too taxing on them to continue to support. To placate his constituency when they hear that he went over to the front for about five minutes before disappearing back to the Core Region. People need to be reminded of who they should support, which is exactly what Kimball is doing.

It's been a few years since Kimball's election or re-election, and even he needs to remind people that he's the guy responsible. And if he's going to remain in power, he needs to make sure he's the guy with the popular vote.

It's been a couple years since the First Battle of Hoover Dam, and he's calling attention back to the front line to reiterate the need for the War. He's making this calculated risk of visiting the Dam as a grand gesture for the people who already support him, and need a reaffirmation that this war for a Dam so far from home is the right way to spend their thinning resources.

People don't have to like it, they just have to agree that the war is still worth the taxes and the deaths to continue being there, and that Kimball is trying to make sure the NCR knows that his way of fighting this war is the right way.

That's why it's called politics. That's why it's a political stunt. He's making a grand gesture for the rest of the NCR to see he's not forgotten about the war, the people sacrificing their lives, or why they are fighting.

It's a stunt because he believes the benefit of publicity and support generated by an appearance at Hoover Dam greatly outweighs the danger of being in the line of fire.

Instead of a long winded reply, I'll simply quote Kimball's entire speech and highlight the parts where he speaks directly to the soldiers.

Thank you, Colonel Moore. And thank you, my fellow Californians, who have come so far to answer the call to service put forth by the republic. It is for you that I have come here, and it is because of you that I am able to do so. We enjoy our privileges because you take the greatest of risks and are prepared to make the most noble of sacrifices. It is because of men and women like Private First Class Jeremy Watson that Nevada and the New California Republic remain free and secure.

Born in a tin shack on the outskirts of One Pine, Jeremy Watson never had it easy. His father worked as a caravan guard on the Short Loop, and his mother, like many Californians, braved the ruins of the Old World as a prospector. They suffered through water shortages, raider attacks, and the Brotherhood War. Like our mighty Sierra Nevadas, they endured. But the time came when they could no longer shoulder the burden alone. Twelve years ago, they called out for help, and the republic heard them.
Troopers and rangers, just like you, answered the clarion call. Men and women stepped forward to say, "I will carry the weight." And at Owen's Lake, we made true on our promise, driving out the raider tribes to establish a lasting peace in the eastern Sierra Nevadas. We carried the weight, and though we left behind many of our brothers and sisters on that battlefield, it did not break us.

Ten years ago, Chief Elise met with representatives of the Desert Rangers to discuss terms of what would become the Ranger Unification Treaty. The treaty was more than a resolution to welcome the Desert Rangers into the republic. It was a covenant to protect southern Nevada against Caesar's Legion and the tyranny of his regime.

There are some back home who ask me, "But who are we protecting? What is Nevada to us?" Sometimes we forget that the light of our society shines beyond our borders. Sometimes we take those privileges for granted that our forebears fought so hard to achieve. We must always remember that wherever Californians stand, we carry our principles with us: equal respect, representation, and protection under the laws of a just republic. This was the same fire that burned in the heart of the Old World that preceded us. We are the heirs of that civilization, torchbearers eastward of the Pacific, into the darkness of this wasted land.

When the republic called on the men and women of California to carry that fire across the Mojave, Jeremy Watson answered. You answered. Together, you carried the weight. And when PFC Watson's platoon came under attack at Forlorn Hope, he took the greatest risk, not only for his fellow Californians, but for California itself. He was prepared to make the most noble of sacrifices, to defend the principles of our republic, even here, on Nevada soil.

His actions are a beacon to all of us who stand here today in tribute to his valor. Private First Class Jeremy Watson, on behalf of the senate and people of the New California Republic, it is my honor to present you with the Star of Sierra Madre.

Not far from this spot, a monument stands as a tribute to the sacrifice made by those who came before us, the men and women who fulfilled the promise we made to the Desert Rangers. Its back is inscribed with the names of the troopers and rangers who carried the weight. And because they made the most noble of sacrifices, it did not break us.

Four years ago, we held this dam. Four years ago, we carried the weight. Four years ago, we drew a line through the Mojave as clear as the Colorado River, a line that Caesar cannot cross. Today, you stand here with our brothers and sisters to hold that line. Today, you honor all Californians by carrying that weight. Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevadas, defiant and enduring. You are the great western light of California, torchbearers in the darkness, living reminders of all that is best in our republic.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hardly a political speech. I wouldn't really call it a gesture either, as despite your claims to the contrary, Kimball, along with Moore and Oliver, are warhawks that are openly supporting the Mojave campaign. They don't really need to call attention to it or prove that they remember about it.

Moving on.

Your Hitler argument is that he exposed himself to danger. I didn't say he didn't, I said that he didn't go very far out of his way to be out of his safety net. A stray artillery shot could have killed him, a stray artillery shot could have also collapsed the Chancellory on top of his bunker, trapping him inside. Again, he decided to stay to the bitter end, still trying to rally his people to victory from the relative safety of his bunker.

As a person who holds more than a passing interest in military history, with a focus on World War II... the above is incorrect, thoroughly. Attempting to list all that is wrong with what you write would be too time consuming, so let me just give you the broad strokes:

1. The Fuhrerbunker was not built directly underneath the Chancellory (which was in a state of total ruin by the end of the War). It was also reinforced to withstand direct artillery hits.
2. Adolf Hitler didn't try to rally his people to victory. He was still giving out orders, refusing to accept defeat. When he did accept it, he became depressed, decided that Germany betrayed him, married Eva Braun (which he didn't do previously, as he considered himself to be married to Germany) and promptly shot himself.

You're also employing double standards. Both Kimball and Hitler exposed themselves without venturing very far out of their respective safety nets (Hitler the Bunker, Kimball his Vertibird and Ranger entourage).

Moving on.

You continue to argue with my points on Graham, when I'm telling you in plain, simple language, that yes, Graham's strategy was just to mob the defenses of Hoover Dam. They sent the newer soldiers first, and then started throwing on more soldiers in after them when they got held up. What you're ignoring from my argument is that it was actually working until Hanlon ordered officers to be picked off to prevent any change of tactics or a signal to halt forward advancement. The result is that the legion, being a mob without leadership, kept charging forward, heading into Boulder City.

You really can't see the fault in your logic here? If Graham's strategy was to just mob the defenses, then the death of officers wouldn't matter, since legionaries would continue to mob the defenses.

Moving on to Power armor, and why it's an idiotic idea to paint it bright colors, whether you see it at a distance or not.

Power armor troops are a hybrid of both infantry and tank, sharing many of the capabilities of both, as well as mixing their weaknesses.

Power armor provides excellent protection and enhanced strength like a tank, enabling an individual to field heavy weapons where needed.

Power armor allows you to act like infantry, which means you're going to -think- like infantry. Using cover, enter buildings and use it as a strong point, hot wire cars, walk around or over or under a car. But again, the figurative comparison is that they are "walking tanks," with an added emphasis on "walking.'

Fallout's Power armor can't run up to 40 mph by themselves, traversing rocky or craggy terrain, they can't fly by themselves, since they're less mobile on foot. They require a vehicle, such as a vertibird or other personnel carrier, to make them rapidly mobile.

They're less mobile than infantry because of weight and size. While the armor helps carry itself, the terrain is not guaranteed to support it. Crawling up a hill of sand, rubble, or dirt is much more difficult if one is carrying a large amount of weight, regardless of how strong he is.

This is especially true and relevant in a combat situation - infantry march with loads of up to 85 pounds, but in a combat situation, the extra weight is thrown off to allow the infantryman more mobility. The power armor trooper is already carrying a great amount of weight, and much of it cannot be taken off for combat.

What's your point? All you're saying is true, but what does it prove? I already stated that power armor is about increasing the combat effectiveness of a single infantryman. In fact, what you're posting is supporting my points: power armor isn't going to be as fast as a tank or going to fly (tanks don't fly either, except for Soviet ones ). But I fail to see how power armor is going to be significantly less mobile than infantry. You mention rocks, sand, rubble and dirt, but all of these can be easily traversed by power armor, with the exception of sand, as in case of soft, sandy deserts, it is possible that it may sink under the combined weight of the soldier, armor and his weapons.

But let's examine that: for the purpose of this calculation lets assume that the average power armor operator weighs 100 pounds, as does the armour (see: Fo1/2), heavy weapon with spare ammunition and the theoretical extra equipment a soldier may carry. That gives us 400 pounds or 180 kilograms of total weight. Tell me, is a tin man weighing 400 pounds going to be less mobile than an average infantryman, considering that he does not actually carry all this weight (the suit does) and that the servomotors never tire? Sure, it's not going to be comfortable crawling in this suit, but hoofing it would be much easier.

The same is true for NBC conditions. World War I, troops fighting on the lines had to live with the reality of chemical gas attacks. They were issued gas masks, which they didn't always wear.

The same is true for modern infantry. They only put on specialized equipment if the situation warrants it. They'll leave it aside if it comes to that case.

By nature of the power armor, one does not have to keep it in mind because it's already integrated into the suit. Just by going into a tank, they're also running inside a sealed environment.

Again, what's your point?

That's unlike the power armor of the fiction you've referenced, like Starship Troopers - the power armor used by the Mobile Infantry have rockets and jump jets that allow them quick movement around the battlefield, thereby getting around the need for vehicles or traversing rough terrain.

How is the mobility of Heinlein's Mobile Infantry suits related to the specialized equipment and sealed environment you listed above?

Like I said, Fallout's power armored troops share this problem with infantry, limited by each single trooper's personal ability to cross rugged terrain.

I wrote that power armor troops are still infantry?

And you don't need 120mm cannons on power armor, they have heavy weapons such as fielded shoulder-mounted missile launchers, rocket launchers, and especially man-portable nuclear weapons.

All of these weapons are designed to be man portable and handled without power armor, although yes, a power armor trooper would be able to carry more ammunition and use the weapon with more ease than a trooper in regular combat armor.

Your argument is that power armor troopers would willingly put themselves in the line of fire as a "common tactic." Again, our evidence lies with the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel, as people who put their faith in power armor over common sense or tactics, as well as the above statements that power armored troopers are infantry as well.

Both of these organizations are descended from the US military and, as shown in both games, adhere to the regimes of pre-War military training.

Furthermore, as I listed in the first or second reply, since T-51b power armor can safely withstand most weapons the enemy can field against them and the Enclave advanced power armor is even more powerful in that aspect, then troopers wearing said armor are far safer and thus for them leaving cover and engaging the enemy stops being suicide, but becomes a calculated risk. Simple as that.

If power armored troopers are to behave like infantry, they must also think like infantry as well. That means a desire for self-preservation included, using cover, using better tactics than simply running straight up the middle, including flanking maneuvers and taking and sending fire.

Suppressive fire preys on natural instinct. If the target is not smart or fast enough to move out of the way, they are likely to become disabled or dead. And if the target is behind cover, they are not returning fire.

And where did I say that they should run straight up the middle? I specifically stated that power armor troops would draw fire and suppress, while regular infantry advances and flanks the opponent.

It works in reverse, too. When people are shot at, the natural instinct is to get out of the way. The only times in history when man has ever been trained to overcome their natural survival instinct and stand still has been massed formation combat, like the Redcoats (again, a great reason why modern combat units don't wear bright colors), or the Phalanx, or the historical Roman Legion.

Strange, I thought that the military nowadays also trained their soldiers to suppress natural instincts like "flee", "panic" or "don't risk, no matter what" in favour of installing the ability to think rationally and calculate under extreme stress. I guess every single publication, both fictional and factual, that I read about basic and military training are wrong.

It's funny that you mention Greek hopplites or Roman legionaries, two of the most effective fighting forces in ancient history, which were succesful precisely because they were trained to keep formation and not budge.

With Redcoats, British soldiers who wore bright red on the battlefield and didn't budge when fired upon. Lots of them died, but killed many in return fire, leading to insane numbers of casualties.

If I recall the development of military in the 18th and 19th century, firearms were generally ineffective and short ranged. Casualties resulted from both armies having to literally see the whites of each other's eyes to be succesful. Thus, camouflage was a non-issue and armies generally won fancy, colourful dresses. It's quite interesting to note that although crossbows would've been far more accurate and effective in combat, they were hardly existent on the battlefield (at least Europe).

Furthermore, officers were being sniped because they stood out even more among their easily visible troops. Henry Morgan and his sharpshooters used cover to avoid being detected and simply picked off officers because they were easy to single out (and this was long before the modern rifle was even conceived). Officers simply wore a different black hat from the rest of the troops.

A black hat is a bigger and more obvious target than knee joints painted red under the armour plates.

You used the Mujahadeen as an example, a group with notable sniper abilities. Meaning they have good eyes and can pick out targets at a distance, and have weapons that can do damage.

As the clown picture illustrated, bright colors just make targets easier to pick out. It's psychology. Neutral colors like the matte grey or camouflage green do not draw the human eye to them.

It illustrates the point well: it is contrasting, amusing and memorable. The problem here is that you are creating a false dichotomy, a binary situation: either you are camouflaged, or you are not, you're either the Ranger or the clown. This is not conductive to a healthy discussion.

Psychological tests have shown that the eye moves to red and evokes a reaction that ambiguous shapes of that color are more dominant.

Again, size and placement are important too. I don't really know why you are ignoring that.

Royez's armor starts with a gunmetal grey, with a nice splash of neon green that remains pretty clear at 25 meters, and the splash of red on the guys knees that's actually quite clear at even 50-75 meters, according to your pictures. Even when blurred, the red is rather noticeable.

Normal troops would be able to pick him out against the more subdued matte colors much more easily, even if they have to be closer to do so. Let alone by snipers with skilled eyes or scopes.

See? Distance is key. If the enemy has to be closer to make you out, he automatically becomes easier to notice and defeat. 75 meters is a lot in a city; not a lot in open terrain. Sharpshooters and snipers aren't really a factor, since as you state, skilled eyes and scopes make it a lot harder to hide, camouflage or not.

But your argument relies on him being able to be seen in order for power armor to be effective as a 'decoy' for infantry, but you're now pushing pictures to illustrate that he can't be seen because he's hard to see at a distance. Which is your stance? Because that is more than contradictory.

Depends on the situation. The former argument concerns combat situations at ranges that are below your proposed threshold of 75 meters, when Royez and men under his command engage the enemy. The latter argument concerns engagements at distances beyong 75 meters or non combat situations, where the enemy isn't in the immediate vicinity.

A modern army understands how the best way to survive is not to get hit. That means not making yourself a target, through camouflage, cover, and maneuverability, regardless of armor. That means not painting your uniform bright colors.

Not making yourself a target increases your chances of fulfilling your mission, which is the most important part of modern military.

Unnecessary danger goes against human nature of self perservation, singling yourself out as a target. There is still a human being wearing power armor, and suppressing survival instincts is impossible, even with all the military training you flaunt as being able to do otherwise. The concept is reactionary, harkening back to pre-modern military, not a modern fighting force with enhanced tactics and an understanding of the battlefield or any notion towards compassion between soldiers.

In general, "don't get hit" was the basic principle of every military in every epoch (save for the early firearms period, that was pretty messy). Ancient armies recognized this principle too. Why do you think the Greek phalanx or the Roman line were so effective? They presented the enemy with a wall of spears and shields and advanced together, in an effort to expose the soldier inside as little as possible.

You'll keep seeing my concept as reactionary as long as you keep ignoring a key second component: suppressing the enemy with heavy weapons carried by the powered armor trooper. I'm not talking about running out and flailing arms around, screaming "Here I am, shoot me!", because that's stupid. I'm talking about leaving cover, suppressing the enemy with accurate heavy weapons fire (strength provided by the powered limbs would significantly reduce recoil and make aiming with a multiple kilogram weapon significantly easier) in order to allow regular troops to flank and advance. Taking and returning fire, as you said.

 

[Lexx]

Uhm, since when is the Hub *not* Barstow? Even New Vegas hints towards it with the Barstow Express cargo trains. Also The Vault says that:

The Hub was founded in 2093 by a man named Angus, who set up camp around a filthy oasis in the desert and an old town, Barstow, relatively untouched by the Great War,[1] and proceeded to begin trading with other settlements.

Same with San Diego = Dayglow:

Dayglow, originally known as San Diego in the Wasteland before 2162

/Not a wall of text post.

 

[Tagaziel]

It's Barstow only because the Fallout Strategy Guide says so. Its actual location is to the west of Barstow, whereas Necropolis (Bakersfield) is where Barstow should be. It doesn't make much sense, but ignoring Fo1 when discussing is silly.

 

[DevilTakeMe]

Late reply, earning my Master of Laws degree was more important.

But before I go ad rem, Devil, maybe you should check your sources first? Barstow is not the Hub and San Diego is definitely not Dayglow. You're making all of this up. Here's an actual map of the Core Region:

Deviating from it is HERESY.

Barstow is closest to where the Hub would be, unless there's another change for Gameplay and Story Segregation like the Bakersfield/Necropolis example below.

Dayglow's revealed name is from the Fallout 1 Official Strategy Guide. If it's not canon, forgive me. I haven't seen anything anywhere that refutes that.

Gameplay and Story Segregation is responsible for Necropolis being Bakersfield, and being in the completely wrong area. Bakersfield is on the other side of Barstow from where it appears on the map. However, according to in-game documents, Necropolis is indeed Bakersfield. Necropolis had been moved during playtesting by someone who didn't read the notes.

Moving on.

You continue to argue with my points on Graham, when I'm telling you in plain, simple language, that yes, Graham's strategy was just to mob the defenses of Hoover Dam. They sent the newer soldiers first, and then started throwing on more soldiers in after them when they got held up. What you're ignoring from my argument is that it was actually working until Hanlon ordered officers to be picked off to prevent any change of tactics or a signal to halt forward advancement. The result is that the legion, being a mob without leadership, kept charging forward, heading into Boulder City.

You really can't see the fault in your logic here? If Graham's strategy was to just mob the defenses, then the death of officers wouldn't matter, since legionaries would continue to mob the defenses.

There's no fault there. It's called a rout. The Legion was winning the battle. They had the NCR routed and were chasing them across the Dam into Hanlon's trap. The NCR was using a tactical withdrawal, feigned retreat, whatever you want to call it. They were pulling the Legion into a trap.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_(military)

"In ancient warfare, the main goal of an army was demoralizing an enemy and routing them from the battlefield. Once a force had become disorganized, losing its ability to fight, the victors could chase down the remnants and attempt to cause as many casualties or take as many prisoners as possible. Undisciplined troops could not be prevented from breaking ranks and chasing the routed enemy, making themselves completely vulnerable to counterattack by a reserve force. Thus there was value in a feigned retreat."

Instead of a counterattack, Hanlon and the Rangers simply blew up Boulder City with the Legion still there.

Again, the problem was that the officers were picked off so they couldn't call a halt or relay orders to return and secure the Dam. Arguments whether they would have been successful are moot, since the officers were simply taken out of the equation.

What's your point? All you're saying is true, but what does it prove? I already stated that power armor is about increasing the combat effectiveness of a single infantryman. In fact, what you're posting is supporting my points: power armor isn't going to be as fast as a tank or going to fly (tanks don't fly either, except for Soviet ones ). But I fail to see how power armor is going to be significantly less mobile than infantry. You mention rocks, sand, rubble and dirt, but all of these can be easily traversed by power armor, with the exception of sand, as in case of soft, sandy deserts, it is possible that it may sink under the combined weight of the soldier, armor and his weapons.

Simple point. Power armor is less mobile than tanks because they're on foot. They're less mobile than infantry because of their size. They might be able to make the same foot speed, but finesse is not exactly equal.

The difference is somewhat small, but enough to be reflected by a drop in agility in-game. Justify it with an impairment of range of motion. Even though the suit is mostly an extension of your own movements, it's still thick compared to clothing and lesser armor, and that just limits how far you can move your arms and legs.

It's enough to slow you down just a half-second here and there. You might jump out of cover awkward to fire at someone than if you were unarmored, etc.

But let's examine that: for the purpose of this calculation lets assume that the average power armor operator weighs 100 pounds, as does the armour (see: Fo1/2), heavy weapon with spare ammunition and the theoretical extra equipment a soldier may carry. That gives us 400 pounds or 180 kilograms of total weight. Tell me, is a tin man weighing 400 pounds going to be less mobile than an average infantryman, considering that he does not actually carry all this weight (the suit does) and that the servomotors never tire? Sure, it's not going to be comfortable crawling in this suit, but hoofing it would be much easier.

Again, what's your point?

That infantry won't use equipment if they don't need it at that very moment?

That's unlike the power armor of the fiction you've referenced, like Starship Troopers - the power armor used by the Mobile Infantry have rockets and jump jets that allow them quick movement around the battlefield, thereby getting around the need for vehicles or traversing rough terrain.

How is the mobility of Heinlein's Mobile Infantry suits related to the specialized equipment and sealed environment you listed above?

That Heinlein's Mobile Infantry replace tanks on a battlefield because of their rapid mobility and ability to deliver heavy firepower where they are needed, while Fallout's Power Armor is limited to shorter ranges and require another vehicle for rapid deployment.

And you don't need 120mm cannons on power armor, they have heavy weapons such as fielded shoulder-mounted missile launchers, rocket launchers, and especially man-portable nuclear weapons.

All of these weapons are designed to be man portable and handled without power armor, although yes, a power armor trooper would be able to carry more ammunition and use the weapon with more ease than a trooper in regular combat armor.

Real world heavy weapons are deployed in fire teams, actually. One guy to carry the weapon, another to carry the projectiles/ammunition. If the assembly requires a large tripod or another mounting system, a third person carries that. Power Armor would allow just one person to carry the entire system by himself.

Your argument is that power armor troopers would willingly put themselves in the line of fire as a "common tactic." Again, our evidence lies with the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel, as people who put their faith in power armor over common sense or tactics, as well as the above statements that power armored troopers are infantry as well.

Both of these organizations are descended from the US military and, as shown in both games, adhere to the regimes of pre-War military training.

And yet many years removed from what they had been pre-war. We also see how they've changed over the years. Brotherhood of Steel transformed from a pre-war army unit with noble intentions into a techno-religious paramilitary group who believe in their armor a little too much.

Enclave stop being the US Government, and became "Enclave".

Your argument is that power armor troopers would willingly put themselves in the line of fire as a "common tactic." Again, our evidence lies with the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel, as people who put their faith in power armor over common sense or tactics, as well as the above statements that power armored troopers are infantry as well.

Both of these organizations are descended from the US military and, as shown in both games, adhere to the regimes of pre-War military training.

Furthermore, as I listed in the first or second reply, since T-51b power armor can safely withstand most weapons the enemy can field against them and the Enclave advanced power armor is even more powerful in that aspect, then troopers wearing said armor are far safer and thus for them leaving cover and engaging the enemy stops being suicide, but becomes a calculated risk. Simple as that.

That's assuming that people actually know what they're about to face. This can only prove true if the Chinese were only packing AK-type assault rifles, but how can any invading force get by with a major invasion without heavier weapons and artillery to back them up?

The chinese have nuclear weapons and nuclear subs, but don't have access to cheap RPGs or other explosive devices, which have proven rather effective against power armor? Those weapons would be justified in being used against trucks and other vehicles, and using them against power armor wouldn't be a stretch.

Again, more examples:

In 2151, the Brotherhood of Steel's High Elder, runs into some Vipers. He fully expects simple raiders to break and run from the sight of power armored troops, but he doesn't expect poison, and shortly dies afterwards.

2237, the Mariposa Military Base. A single squad of Enclave is left to wipe up the mutants, but get destroyed because the Super mutants have a cache of weapons stored away.

Strange, I thought that the military nowadays also trained their soldiers to suppress natural instincts like "flee", "panic" or "don't risk, no matter what" in favour of installing the ability to think rationally and calculate under extreme stress. I guess every single publication, both fictional and factual, that I read about basic and military training are wrong.

You're mistaking my point as supporting cowardice and self-preservation over mission success rather than survival instinct and training. They actually teach you how to mentally prepare yourself to do what it takes to survive.

That doesn't mean retreat, hide, or run away. It means being smart and not unnecessarily putting your life at risk. A calculated risk can still be unnecessary. Drawing attention to yourself specifically can be unnecessary.

It's funny that you mention Greek hopplites or Roman legionaries, two of the most effective fighting forces in ancient history, which were succesful precisely because they were trained to keep formation and not budge.

Who are again, outdated and ancient concepts of warfare. When machine guns and other forms of massed destruction came into play, formations of tightly organized troops marching together against the enemy became obsolete.

Machine guns and more accurate massed gunnery fire led to Trench Warfare, which in turn led to tanks and other innovations on the battlefield, like camouflage and modern armor.

With Redcoats, British soldiers who wore bright red on the battlefield and didn't budge when fired upon. Lots of them died, but killed many in return fire, leading to insane numbers of casualties.

If I recall the development of military in the 18th and 19th century, firearms were generally ineffective and short ranged. Casualties resulted from both armies having to literally see the whites of each other's eyes to be succesful. Thus, camouflage was a non-issue and armies generally won fancy, colourful dresses. It's quite interesting to note that although crossbows would've been far more accurate and effective in combat, they were hardly existent on the battlefield (at least Europe).

Indeed. Crossbows, at least the European ones, had a few drawbacks like long reload times (some required a winch which could take a while to redraw), but yes, they were powerful and accurate.

Compare that, to say, the English Longbow, which was powerful, accurate and had tremendous distance. It's drawback was that you pretty much had to be a dedicated archer for your entire life to be useful. Really, you and I might think it's easy to pull the string on a bow, but English longbows had really heavy pulls and there was a particular technique needed to get the most out of the weapon.

When those early guns came around, one didn't need a whole lot of training to learn how to care, load, and fire muskets and rifles. Bows and arrows still outclassed guns for a good long time, it was just easier to field those guns.

Furthermore, officers were being sniped because they stood out even more among their easily visible troops. Daniel Morgan and his sharpshooters used cover to avoid being detected and simply picked off officers because they were easy to single out (and this was long before the modern rifle was even conceived). Officers simply wore a different black hat from the rest of the troops.

A black hat is a bigger and more obvious target than knee joints painted red under the armour plates.

It also serves the point that a trained eye knows what to look for, as I said, everyone was wearing black hats in the British Army. Snipers like Daniel Morgan (not Henry, my bad. Henry Morgan was the Caribbean Pirate, Daniel was the Colonial Sharpshooter) were trained specifically to snipe officers among a group of soldiers who were similarly dressed and wouldn't stand out to a less-discerning eye.

It illustrates the point well: it is contrasting, amusing and memorable. The problem here is that you are creating a false dichotomy, a binary situation: either you are camouflaged, or you are not, you're either the Ranger or the clown. This is not conductive to a healthy discussion.

Well, to be fair, there's several soldiers in that picture, and viewing them from a distance, I can't tell if any of them are officers without a clearer or closer look. One can pick out the clown, however, and he'll be easy to observe because of how contrasting he is to the environment he's in.

And that's really all I was trying to illustrate.

Psychological tests have shown that the eye moves to red and evokes a reaction that ambiguous shapes of that color are more dominant.

Again, size and placement are important too. I don't really know why you are ignoring that.

Here's my question - with non-modified T-45d armor, at the same distances. Which would get your attention more?

Royez's armor starts with a gunmetal grey, with a nice splash of neon green that remains pretty clear at 25 meters, and the splash of red on the guys knees that's actually quite clear at even 50-75 meters, according to your pictures. Even when blurred, the red is rather noticeable.

Normal troops would be able to pick him out against the more subdued matte colors much more easily, even if they have to be closer to do so. Let alone by snipers with skilled eyes or scopes.

See? Distance is key. If the enemy has to be closer to make you out, he automatically becomes easier to notice and defeat. 75 meters is a lot in a city; not a lot in open terrain. Sharpshooters and snipers aren't really a factor, since as you state, skilled eyes and scopes make it a lot harder to hide, camouflage or not.

Distance is a factor in any engagement, I'm not denying that. I'm saying when it comes down to observing targets, would it not be easier to pick up on one that had bright colors?

A modern army understands how the best way to survive is not to get hit. That means not making yourself a target, through camouflage, cover, and maneuverability, regardless of armor. That means not painting your uniform bright colors.

Not making yourself a target increases your chances of fulfilling your mission, which is the most important part of modern military.

Unnecessary danger goes against human nature of self perservation, singling yourself out as a target. There is still a human being wearing power armor, and suppressing survival instincts is impossible, even with all the military training you flaunt as being able to do otherwise. The concept is reactionary, harkening back to pre-modern military, not a modern fighting force with enhanced tactics and an understanding of the battlefield or any notion towards compassion between soldiers.

In general, "don't get hit" was the basic principle of every military in every epoch (save for the early firearms period, that was pretty messy). Ancient armies recognized this principle too. Why do you think the Greek phalanx or the Roman line were so effective? They presented the enemy with a wall of spears and shields and advanced together, in an effort to expose the soldier inside as little as possible.

The difference is that Ancient militaries could maybe use two kinds of defense at best during battles. Charioteers and mounted knights/cavalry had armor and mobility. The Phalanx was reliant on the shield walls and their armor to avoid injury, but being so tightly packed tended not to work too well for their mobility or concealment (it worked well in the Greek hills or between them where you didn't need the mobility, not so well on the open field). Every so often they might be able to use an element of a third option, but they were the exception, not the rule.

The Modern military has several layers of protection, redundancy in case one form of protection fails. If Evasion fails, you still have armor and mobility. If mobility fails, you have armor and evasion. Etc. etc. If you lose two, you still have another option to minimize threat.

You'll keep seeing my concept as reactionary as long as you keep ignoring a key second component: suppressing the enemy with heavy weapons carried by the powered armor trooper. I'm not talking about running out and flailing arms around, screaming "Here I am, shoot me!", because that's stupid. I'm talking about leaving cover, suppressing the enemy with accurate heavy weapons fire (strength provided by the powered limbs would significantly reduce recoil and make aiming with a multiple kilogram weapon significantly easier) in order to allow regular troops to flank and advance. Taking and returning fire, as you said.

Which is an even better reason to be concealed or camouflaged. If someone is looking for you, that means they don't see you, so they can't shoot you.

Say you pop out from cover and lay down suppressing fire, but the enemy doesn't quite know where you are. They either get hit because they're looking for you and don't know where you are, or they'll spend more time hiding and trying to find where you are rather than shooting back or at your flanking troops.

It's the edge snipers try to have. It wouldn't be a bad thing if the guy with the heavy weapons were more difficult to locate. Regardless of whether you're power armored or not, it gives you just that much more advantage.

 

[Lexx]

It's Barstow only because the Fallout Strategy Guide says so. Its actual location is to the west of Barstow, whereas Necropolis (Bakersfield) is where Barstow should be. It doesn't make much sense, but ignoring Fo1 when discussing is silly.

It might not be 100% correct, but it's still just a game anyway. Necropolis alias Bakersfield is originally to the west, yes. But that's all about it. Arguing about it seems to be a bit silly to me though, as New Vegas, for example, is much closer to the Shady Sands than the Hub, still apparently New Vegas wasn't explored by the NCR for years, even though they should have been able to go there much earlier.

 

[DoubleRubix]

Well see this conversation wasn't about superior armor in general but what is the best armor that gives critical plus. which 4 body armor do. The Duster, The Elite Riot Gear, The 87th Tribe, and Josh's armor.

 

[Tagaziel]

Barstow is closest to where the Hub would be, unless there's another change for Gameplay and Story Segregation like the Bakersfield/Necropolis example below.

Dayglow's revealed name is from the Fallout 1 Official Strategy Guide. If it's not canon, forgive me. I haven't seen anything anywhere that refutes that.

Gameplay and Story Segregation is responsible for Necropolis being Bakersfield, and being in the completely wrong area. Bakersfield is on the other side of Barstow from where it appears on the map. However, according to in-game documents, Necropolis is indeed Bakersfield. Necropolis had been moved during playtesting by someone who didn't read the notes.

It's a case of "we moved it, but forgot to update the names". Necropolis is actually Barstow, whereas Hub matches Edwards AFB. Check Google Maps and compare SoCal in Fallout with the real-life map. Pay close attention to terrain features.

There's no fault there. It's called a rout. The Legion was winning the battle. They had the NCR routed and were chasing them across the Dam into Hanlon's trap. The NCR was using a tactical withdrawal, feigned retreat, whatever you want to call it. They were pulling the Legion into a trap.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_(military)

"In ancient warfare, the main goal of an army was demoralizing an enemy and routing them from the battlefield. Once a force had become disorganized, losing its ability to fight, the victors could chase down the remnants and attempt to cause as many casualties or take as many prisoners as possible. Undisciplined troops could not be prevented from breaking ranks and chasing the routed enemy, making themselves completely vulnerable to counterattack by a reserve force. Thus there was value in a feigned retreat."

Instead of a counterattack, Hanlon and the Rangers simply blew up Boulder City with the Legion still there.

Again, the problem was that the officers were picked off so they couldn't call a halt or relay orders to return and secure the Dam. Arguments whether they would have been successful are moot, since the officers were simply taken out of the equation.

Never argued the way in which NCR won the battle. I argue the claim that Graham was a moron who didn't use tactics.

Simple point. Power armor is less mobile than tanks because they're on foot. They're less mobile than infantry because of their size. They might be able to make the same foot speed, but finesse is not exactly equal.

The difference is somewhat small, but enough to be reflected by a drop in agility in-game. Justify it with an impairment of range of motion. Even though the suit is mostly an extension of your own movements, it's still thick compared to clothing and lesser armor, and that just limits how far you can move your arms and legs.

It's enough to slow you down just a half-second here and there. You might jump out of cover awkward to fire at someone than if you were unarmored, etc.

So? The armour's defensive parameters compensate for a comparatively small loss in mobility.

That infantry won't use equipment if they don't need it at that very moment?

Which is relevant to power armor... how?

That Heinlein's Mobile Infantry replace tanks on a battlefield because of their rapid mobility and ability to deliver heavy firepower where they are needed, while Fallout's Power Armor is limited to shorter ranges and require another vehicle for rapid deployment.

I don't recall any mention of vehicles being used to deploy power armor. I'd argue that since it's equipped with a waste recycling system (primarily urine into drinking water), it's actually designed to be worn for extended periods of time, for instance, during a march. Again, servomotors don't tire.

Real world heavy weapons are deployed in fire teams, actually. One guy to carry the weapon, another to carry the projectiles/ammunition. If the assembly requires a large tripod or another mounting system, a third person carries that. Power Armor would allow just one person to carry the entire system by himself.

I mentioned that. "Considerably more ease" = doesn't need two other people.

And yet many years removed from what they had been pre-war. We also see how they've changed over the years. Brotherhood of Steel transformed from a pre-war army unit with noble intentions into a techno-religious paramilitary group who believe in their armor a little too much.

Enclave stop being the US Government, and became "Enclave".

Neither of which imply a backwards change in military tactics or abandonment of military training. The doctrine might change, but the training won't.

That's assuming that people actually know what they're about to face. This can only prove true if the Chinese were only packing AK-type assault rifles, but how can any invading force get by with a major invasion without heavier weapons and artillery to back them up?

The chinese have nuclear weapons and nuclear subs, but don't have access to cheap RPGs or other explosive devices, which have proven rather effective against power armor? Those weapons would be justified in being used against trucks and other vehicles, and using them against power armor wouldn't be a stretch.

Yes, proper recon would be mandatory in order for what I propose to work. Obviously, I wouldn't advise facing anti-armour weapons in armour. I never suggested that. My tactic hinges on one condition: the enemy is unlikely to possess anti-armour weapons or isn't likely to be trained in their proper use (eg. various militants).

In 2151, the Brotherhood of Steel's High Elder, runs into some Vipers. He fully expects simple raiders to break and run from the sight of power armored troops, but he doesn't expect poison, and shortly dies afterwards.

Correction: Maxson II was nicked by a single poison arrow in the short while during which he had his helmet off. He died because he made a stupid mistake; not because power armour didn't protect him. It's aking to taking off your helmet in a firefight where shrapnel flies left and right.

2237, the Mariposa Military Base. A single squad of Enclave is left to wipe up the mutants, but get destroyed because the Super mutants have a cache of weapons stored away.

Operative word is hidden. The Enclave didn't anticipate armed resistance. When they ran into it and suffered casualties, they fell back and collapsed the entrance.

You're mistaking my point as supporting cowardice and self-preservation over mission success rather than survival instinct and training. They actually teach you how to mentally prepare yourself to do what it takes to survive.

That doesn't mean retreat, hide, or run away. It means being smart and not unnecessarily putting your life at risk. A calculated risk can still be unnecessary. Drawing attention to yourself specifically can be unnecessary.

Hindsight is 20/20. Power armor gives that much more advantage, as I said, repeatedly.

Who are again, outdated and ancient concepts of warfare. When machine guns and other forms of massed destruction came into play, formations of tightly organized troops marching together against the enemy became obsolete.

Machine guns and more accurate massed gunnery fire led to Trench Warfare, which in turn led to tanks and other innovations on the battlefield, like camouflage and modern armor.

Yes, development of weapons is a constant thing. Point?

Indeed. Crossbows, at least the European ones, had a few drawbacks like long reload times (some required a winch which could take a while to redraw), but yes, they were powerful and accurate.

Compare that, to say, the English Longbow, which was powerful, accurate and had tremendous distance. It's drawback was that you pretty much had to be a dedicated archer for your entire life to be useful. Really, you and I might think it's easy to pull the string on a bow, but English longbows had really heavy pulls and there was a particular technique needed to get the most out of the weapon.

When those early guns came around, one didn't need a whole lot of training to learn how to care, load, and fire muskets and rifles. Bows and arrows still outclassed guns for a good long time, it was just easier to field those guns.

Same for crossbows. If I recall correctly, the only reason firearms were fielded en masse was because of the psychological effect a cloud of smoke and a loud BOOM had on the enemy.

It also serves the point that a trained eye knows what to look for, as I said, everyone was wearing black hats in the British Army. Snipers like Daniel Morgan (not Henry, my bad. Henry Morgan was the Caribbean Pirate, Daniel was the Colonial Sharpshooter) were trained specifically to snipe officers among a group of soldiers who were similarly dressed and wouldn't stand out to a less-discerning eye.

But when you add trained eyes to the equation, you are completely changing the equation itself. We are discussing combat engagements without factoring in snipers. They completely change the balance of battle with their high powered weapons able to hit enemies far outside their retaliation range. Furthermore, snipers would engage enemies when they are unaware of their presence, thus giving a sniper and spotter ample time to pick out a target and assess its priority. At this point, any camouflage below stealth would be useless.

And IIRC, I did mention that trained eyes know what to look for, so I'm not sure if you're agreeing, disagreeing or digressing.

Well, to be fair, there's several soldiers in that picture, and viewing them from a distance, I can't tell if any of them are officers without a clearer or closer look. One can pick out the clown, however, and he'll be easy to observe because of how contrasting he is to the environment he's in.

And that's really all I was trying to illustrate.

Well, it's not really fair to Royez, since he's operating in a company of T-45d armoured suits with similiar silhouettes and gray colours. His is darker and has a handful of vivid details.

Here's my question - with non-modified T-45d armor, at the same distances. Which would get your attention more?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User:Tagaziel/stuff

At two closest distances, Royez would stand out (never stated he wouldn't). At the two farthest, very much doubt it. Unless he wasn't wearing a helmet, that is.

Distance is a factor in any engagement, I'm not denying that. I'm saying when it comes down to observing targets, would it not be easier to pick up on one that had bright colors?

Yes, it would. Which limits this scenario to snipers, I believe, as at long ranges, you need either binoculars or a weapon scope to pick Royez out. I'm not denying that he'd be a sitting duck for snipers; then again, every officer would be a sitting duck for anyone with a reasonably powerful scope.

The difference is that Ancient militaries could maybe use two kinds of defense at best during battles. Charioteers and mounted knights/cavalry had armor and mobility. The Phalanx was reliant on the shield walls and their armor to avoid injury, but being so tightly packed tended not to work too well for their mobility or concealment (it worked well in the Greek hills or between them where you didn't need the mobility, not so well on the open field). Every so often they might be able to use an element of a third option, but they were the exception, not the rule.

The Modern military has several layers of protection, redundancy in case one form of protection fails. If Evasion fails, you still have armor and mobility. If mobility fails, you have armor and evasion. Etc. etc. If you lose two, you still have another option to minimize threat.

I don't really see how that doesn't apply to ancient militaries. Sure, it wasn't the exact form of protection modern militaries use, but with entirely different circumstances of warfare in ancient times, you can't compare protection types and their redundancies without compensating for the tech difference. The Roman legions and phalanx didn't require mobility, because their fighting relied on outmaneuvering the enemy first and engaging him with precise, devastating strikes using overwhelming force (sound familiar?). They didn't need ample mobility, because outside bows and siege machines, the enemy had to close in to fight them.

Which is an even better reason to be concealed or camouflaged. If someone is looking for you, that means they don't see you, so they can't shoot you.

Say you pop out from cover and lay down suppressing fire, but the enemy doesn't quite know where you are. They either get hit because they're looking for you and don't know where you are, or they'll spend more time hiding and trying to find where you are rather than shooting back or at your flanking troops.

With the amount of lead powered armor troops can send their way (as you said, crew operated weapons used by a single trooper with an ample supply of ammunition), I think the enemy would find returning fire excessively risky; moreso if the enemy is wearing armor that is likely to withstand return fire. Which, again, boils down to the trooper making a calculation and deciding upon the proper course of action: take a calculated risk or remain in cover and try to attrition the enemy.

It's the edge snipers try to have. It wouldn't be a bad thing if the guy with the heavy weapons were more difficult to locate. Regardless of whether you're power armored or not, it gives you just that much more advantage.

Yes, but the point is, power armor amply protects the squishy person inside, giving enough protection to make breaking cover non-suicidal, merely dangerous.

 

[DevilTakeMe]

As a person who holds more than a passing interest in military history, with a focus on World War II... the above is incorrect, thoroughly. Attempting to list all that is wrong with what you write would be too time consuming, so let me just give you the broad strokes:

I have more than a passing interest in World War 2. I've worked and spoken with more than a couple guys who served during.

1. The Fuhrerbunker was not built directly underneath the Chancellory (which was in a state of total ruin by the end of the War). It was also reinforced to withstand direct artillery hits.

Are you saying it wasn't under the New Reich Chancellory? The garden isn't part of the Chancellory? I think you should inform the misinformed, then.

The Fuhrerbunker article at wikipedia. Or this website about the Third Reich's ruins. I'd think they'd like to know where the Fuhrerbunker REALLY is.

The Russians had something to do with the Reich Chancellory being demolished.

2. Adolf Hitler didn't try to rally his people to victory. He was still giving out orders, refusing to accept defeat. When he did accept it, he became depressed, decided that Germany betrayed him, married Eva Braun (which he didn't do previously, as he considered himself to be married to Germany) and promptly shot himself.

It's why he stayed, remember? He was adamant in not going anywhere, even when his own people were trying to get him to leave to take up a new HQ. He remained to command the defense of Berlin, even if he stopped believing he could do so successfully. What did he do? He accused many of his officers and senior men of treachery - some he had shot, others arrested. Until he was cut off from Germany, Hitler still believed was still commanding.

It was only after he couldn't communicate with anyone that he decided he wouldn't be taken alive. Hence, shooting himself and he and Eva Braun were carried outside and lit on fire.

You're also employing double standards. Both Kimball and Hitler exposed themselves without venturing very far out of their respective safety nets (Hitler the Bunker, Kimball his Vertibird and Ranger entourage).

What? Your point? I never said anything about Kimball and Hitler not putting themselves out there. I just said that they didn't go far out of their way for a quick ceremony before leaving again.

Barstow is closest to where the Hub would be, unless there's another change for Gameplay and Story Segregation like the Bakersfield/Necropolis example below.

Dayglow's revealed name is from the Fallout 1 Official Strategy Guide. If it's not canon, forgive me. I haven't seen anything anywhere that refutes that.

Gameplay and Story Segregation is responsible for Necropolis being Bakersfield, and being in the completely wrong area. Bakersfield is on the other side of Barstow from where it appears on the map. However, according to in-game documents, Necropolis is indeed Bakersfield. Necropolis had been moved during playtesting by someone who didn't read the notes.

It's a case of "we moved it, but forgot to update the names". Necropolis is actually Barstow, whereas Hub matches Edwards AFB. Check Google Maps and compare SoCal in Fallout with the real-life map. Pay close attention to terrain features.

Overlaying a map over the Fallout 1 map, and it looks much more like the Hub corresponds to an area that's between the area of Edwards and Barstow, at the junction between the 58 and the 395. Edwards would be on the west side of that square, Barstow on the East side. It's close enough to be either.

Simply put, the Fallout 1 map doesn't equate all that well to a real map of SoCal.

The problem is that the Fallout 1 map would follow a more compressed map of the California coastline. It doesn't match at several areas. The western coastline veers north where it should continue west northwest for a while longer, and the southern coastline veers more south when it shoud be mostly a steady southeast direction.

Necropolis' corresponding location would be northeast of Barstow, approaching where that I-15 marker is on this map. Edwards' AFB location would be above the 'a' in "Lancaster" and just below California State Route 58. The Hub would be a little further East.

If the map is accurate, then... It'd raise some other questions... like why Shady Sands and the Vaults are in Death Valley.

I think it would just make things easier to digest if the map were simply a new map made after the war, and wasn't particularly accurate. Because once we start factoring in the other games, it probably cause an aneurysm.

Like the Fallout 2 map, where the aforementioned Shady Sands/NCR is just east of San Francisco.

It could be either, really, if you lean one way or another. The Big Green circles are not exactly pinpoint locations, afterall, (The Boneyard should cover Culver City, Downey, and Norwalk, which are further south near the Cathedral, afterall.) The "Boneyard" mark on the map is further north, in up in the hills of Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank areas.

Necropolis could only be Barstow if the map actually followed the contour of the Coastline, and San Diego were off the map. But then it wouldn't follow the terrain outline.

Using Los Angeles as a reference, San Diego and Barstow are about the same distance from LA, which would mean San Diego or it's approximate location would still be on the map. It would be on that southern side of the map, not far from the Glow, and on the coast.

If we're using terrain features, Barstow is mostly flat desert land with a handful of rolling hills not unlike the area of Edwards. I live in the area, and I can tell you that Edwards and Barstow are in similar terrain. I was there as recently as last weekend, actually.

Once you cross the mountains out of LA county, into San Bernadino area, it's a lot of flat land, with a gentle rise up north.

On the other hand, Necropolis is way too far east to be Barstow. It's also too far north if the Hub is indeed Edwards. It looks much more like the area that Baker, San Bernadino County, CA is in, if the geography is to follow the California desert.

What it looks like to me is that whoever was drawing up the map seemed to have Bakersfield confused with Baker, California (the one with the airport - search for "Baker Airport, CA") or another small town in that area. Barstow is not in that general area, but Baker is, right before the mountains on the I-15 headed towards the Nevada border.

Never argued the way in which NCR won the battle. I argue the claim that Graham was a moron who didn't use tactics.

I didn't say he was a moron, either. I just said that Graham wasn't good with tactics (again, he even says so himself). He was used to fighting more simplistic tribals and leaning on his training and combat prowess to win the day. He's clearly better than the warchiefs he's had to contend with, but not as good as his contemporaries like Hanlon or Lanius. I'd argue he's definitely better than Oliver.

All I'm really saying is that communication and officers can make or break a battle. An example I want to use is that of the Alabama Brigade at the "Bloody Lane" during the Battle of Antietam (during the US Civil War).

The Sunken Lane was a very bloody, combative fight during the Battle between the Confederate and Union forces. The Alabama Brigade was holding the Lane against the Union behind what amounted to a white picket fence, and doing really well - they'd stopped every Union advance that day in spite of a very bloody battle.

That is, until an order was misunderstood by one of the officers of the Sixth Alabama. Instead of moving to the right to reinforce a position, the officer misunderstood it as an order to 'move to the rear'.

He gave the order "About face, march!" which the other five units of the Brigade also though applied to them, and soon the whole Brigade was retreating from their position, giving up the ground to the Union, despite having been successful. It took several other officers, including a general, to stop them and turn them around to continue fighting. But by then, the Lane had been taken by their enemies.

What happened at Hoover Dam was an inverse of such a situation. The Legion was advancing, and winning, but without officers to stop them and hold their ground, they just kept going forward right into the trap.

Even if Graham were a capable strategist and understood that a trap was coming, he had no way of communicating that with his lines because the officers who would have been in a position to do something about it were dead.

Simple point. Power armor is less mobile than tanks because they're on foot. They're less mobile than infantry because of their size. They might be able to make the same foot speed, but finesse is not exactly equal.

The difference is somewhat small, but enough to be reflected by a drop in agility in-game. Justify it with an impairment of range of motion. Even though the suit is mostly an extension of your own movements, it's still thick compared to clothing and lesser armor, and that just limits how far you can move your arms and legs.

It's enough to slow you down just a half-second here and there. You might jump out of cover awkward to fire at someone than if you were unarmored, etc.

So? The armour's defensive parameters compensate for a comparatively small loss in mobility.

Again, mobility. Defensive parameters or not, if you're too slow to move out of the way, you get hit, and all you have is your armor.

That infantry won't use equipment if they don't need it at that very moment?

Which is relevant to power armor... how?

It's not important, but there was a comment made about how infantry can put on NBC equipment and take it off because it's unnecessary weight, as opposed to power armor, which always has it on.

I don't recall any mention of vehicles being used to deploy power armor. I'd argue that since it's equipped with a waste recycling system (primarily urine into drinking water), it's actually designed to be worn for extended periods of time, for instance, during a march. Again, servomotors don't tire.

Vertibird teams transport power armor troops here and there. The Fallout 2 opening cinematic, and then expanded in Fallout 3 (by both the Enclave and when they get a Vertibird, the Brotherhood), and examples shown in the Operation Anchorage simulation (if one is to believe at least part of the simulation). The Enclave Remnants use their Vertbird as this sort of deployment.

The comparison was made to Mobile Infantry who do have rockets and jets for rapid deployment on the battlefield. Fallout's power armor simply has to get around on foot like anyone else in the field.

Servomotors don't tire, but people do. Muscle fatigue still sets in because the motions are still working on the muscles involved in those ranges of motion.

And yet many years removed from what they had been pre-war. We also see how they've changed over the years. Brotherhood of Steel transformed from a pre-war army unit with noble intentions into a techno-religious paramilitary group who believe in their armor a little too much.

Enclave stop being the US Government, and became "Enclave".

Neither of which imply a backwards change in military tactics or abandonment of military training. The doctrine might change, but the training won't.

Which is true, however, sticking strictly to the old US pre-war policy and training also would take into account the situation, and have to adapt accordingly.

Yes, proper recon would be mandatory in order for what I propose to work. Obviously, I wouldn't advise facing anti-armour weapons in armour. I never suggested that. My tactic hinges on one condition: the enemy is unlikely to possess anti-armour weapons or isn't likely to be trained in their proper use (eg. various militants).

2237, the Mariposa Military Base. A single squad of Enclave is left to wipe up the mutants, but get destroyed because the Super mutants have a cache of weapons stored away.

Operative word is hidden. The Enclave didn't anticipate armed resistance. When they ran into it and suffered casualties, they fell back and collapsed the entrance.

Simply put, goes in line with the need for accurate information, as above. Intel is always a good idea to have, but never quite gives you the complete picture.

Same for crossbows. If I recall correctly, the only reason firearms were fielded en masse was because of the psychological effect a cloud of smoke and a loud BOOM had on the enemy.

The loud bang and the smoke was a nice side-effect of the development of the gun, but it remained firmly a weapon intended for killing. Those early massed guns were more powerful than most crossbows, but had slow rates of fire and terrible accuracy, which led to the popular idea that they were really used to scare horses, barbarians, and so on. They probably didn't start out that way, but it became clear that loud bangs were more useful than the terrible gunshots.

Well, it's not really fair to Royez, since he's operating in a company of T-45d armoured suits with similiar silhouettes and gray colours. His is darker and has a handful of vivid details.

Which is really the whole point. It's not fair to Royez, but if he's to be commanding a squad of power armored troops in a field exercise, he's the one who gets picked up easier out of a group.

It's one thing if he gets picked out by trained eyes with a sniper scope. It's another if he gets detected by the average sentry with a pair of binoculars and gives away the position of his unit because of a handful of vivid colors.

It's again, why even large targets like planes and tanks are given camouflage paint jobs.

The difference is that Ancient militaries could maybe use two kinds of defense at best during battles. Charioteers and mounted knights/cavalry had armor and mobility. The Phalanx was reliant on the shield walls and their armor to avoid injury, but being so tightly packed tended not to work too well for their mobility or concealment (it worked well in the Greek hills or between them where you didn't need the mobility, not so well on the open field). Every so often they might be able to use an element of a third option, but they were the exception, not the rule.

The Modern military has several layers of protection, redundancy in case one form of protection fails. If Evasion fails, you still have armor and mobility. If mobility fails, you have armor and evasion. Etc. etc. If you lose two, you still have another option to minimize threat.

I don't really see how that doesn't apply to ancient militaries. Sure, it wasn't the exact form of protection modern militaries use, but with entirely different circumstances of warfare in ancient times, you can't compare protection types and their redundancies without compensating for the tech difference. The Roman legions and phalanx didn't require mobility, because their fighting relied on outmaneuvering the enemy first and engaging him with precise, devastating strikes using overwhelming force (sound familiar?). They didn't need ample mobility, because outside bows and siege machines, the enemy had to close in to fight them.

The concept remains the same. If you're able to move and put yourself in a superior position, but your enemy can't, then you have the advantage. Cavalry is the most mobile combat arm of ancient warfare - they can go in, strike, and then move to where they are needed.

Infantry, by virtue of being on foot, are slowed down and not as mobile. The Phalanx at Cynoscephalae were outmaneuvered by a Roman Legion. The Phalanx simply could not move into a better position.

Cannae was where the superior Roman infantry was surrounded and crushed because they could not maneuver when they were enveloped. They cut into the less "elite" Carthaginian forces with ease, but were caught in a trap and found themselves surrounded and packed in with their own forces like sardines.

The concept remains true in modern military.

World War 2, the 300,000 strong German 6th Army and a Division of the 4th Panzer Army was cut off and surrounded by Russian forces and died a slow death, whittled down to 90,000 men before being forced to surrender.

Of course, those are large numbers of infantry and soldiers.

With the amount of lead powered armor troops can send their way (as you said, crew operated weapons used by a single trooper with an ample supply of ammunition), I think the enemy would find returning fire excessively risky; moreso if the enemy is wearing armor that is likely to withstand return fire. Which, again, boils down to the trooper making a calculation and deciding upon the proper course of action: take a calculated risk or remain in cover and try to attrition the enemy.

Oh, I agree. But it's the same as if you weren't in power armor and you have heavy weapons. It's the idea behind a SAW and other light machine guns. Except now you have access to a heavy weapon like a heavy machine gun, minigun or something with a little more punch.

Your frame of mind should not be about what the enemy can or cannot do to you. Your armor can save your life, but you should not come to depend on it or make it a part of your calculations for risk, for all the reasons above. Your armor might be damaged, it might be fouled or flawed somehow, it may have degraded - all of these things have led to the downfall of those who have come to rely on them, again like the BOS or the Enclave.

Your frame of mind should be about what you can do to your enemy. The weapons that the Power Armor enables you to use should be what you're thinking about and completely eliminating the threat.

That's your military survival training. "Kill or be killed." If you don't kill them, incapacitate/subdue them, if you can't do that, make them run.

The psychological effect isn't so much that weapons aren't effective against power armor (that's actually somewhat minor), it's that the power armor is bringing a lot more firepower than the grunt with the AK is carrying.

Simple show of force.

One trooper in power armor with a minigun is bringing 60,000 RPM to the field. A second trooper with a minigun brings another 60,000 RPM. Two more? 120,000 Rounds per minute.

The psychological effect is that a wall of a quarter-million 5mm rounds is coming at you.

And compare that to the 600 or so rounds a minute those Chinese assault rifles are doing?

I hate using this example, but it's a lot like the North Hollywood Shootout. Two guys with heavy armor against LAPD Swat and AR15s. The Armor certainly helped those two, but it didn't keep them safe forever, nor did they have the sufficient firepower to push back enough to make their getaway. (The robbers had armor, and some cover, but not camouflage or mobility, having been blocked off).

This is something similar to what the NCR had to deal with with the BOS, and what they learned about, or at least, tried to learned, about power armor.

NCR Heavy Troopers have great armor, but they're also armed with big guns like machine guns and flamers. I don't know if that's a great idea, what with they have to be strong by themselves to carry the armor and those big weapons, and the loss of agility and movement might make them a little less accurate.

Instead, an illustration of using power armor as a show of force is shown beautifully in the Anchorage Liberation Simulation in "Operation Anchorage", one might miss it or disregard it, however (it is a Fallout 3 DLC and simulation, afterall) - there's a moment before your final meeting with General Jing-Wei. Four or five power armor troops with gatling lasers firing on turrets at the gate.

As you approach, however, they switch to the Fatman system and let loose a coordinated volley of mini nukes, obliterating the gate, and all the turrets.

I don't know about you, but that would do a lot more to my psyche than having to deal with a guy with armor where my shots won't penetrate.

 

[Walpknut]

Take that dicussion to messenger or to another thread, what does it have to do with which Armor is better? The Scorched Sierra Power Armor is colorful and full of ornaments because it was worn by a Showoff Colonel that wouldn't have to go into direct conflict that woudl require him to use camuflage.

 

[DevilTakeMe]

Take that dicussion to messenger or to another thread, what does it have to do with which Armor is better? The Scorched Sierra Power Armor is colorful and full of ornaments because it was worn by a Showoff Colonel that wouldn't have to go into direct conflict that woudl require him to use camuflage.

It's just a discussion.

That showoff colonel is wasting a valuable resource of functional power armor when people are being sent into war, many of whom are under-equipped as it is.

Yes, the NCR is corrupt, we know, but we're talking about whether people would really use combat-capable armor as a showpiece during a War.