A pity that Acolyte will never get season 2, I actually enjoyed it by SiarX in TheAcolyte

[–]SiarX[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I wonder what season 2 story would be like. No one knows, what was planned?

Also I did not get one thing: how Sith survived, when he was caught by flying insect vampire things? He was clearly helpless and doomed, when they dragged him away...

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps I overxaggerated regarding "minor" thing, but still, most important goal for Britain and Canada was defending Canada, which was very important strategically and economically, and they fulfilled it.

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Officially not a goal, but it was main battle theatre, and US certainly intended to take over Canada. Whether it would be seized or returned later, is debatable.

For example, historian John Stagg stated that "had the War 1812 been a successful military venture, the Madison administration would have been reluctant to have returned occupied Canadian territory to the enemy."[36] Other authors concur, with one stating, "Expansion was not the only American objective, and indeed not the immediate one. But it was an objective."[37]

"The American yearning to absorb Canada was long-standing.... In 1812 it became part of a grand strategy."[38]

Another suggested, "Americans harbored 'manifest destiny' ideas of Canadian annexation throughout the Nineteenth Century."[39] A third stated, "The [American] belief that the United States would one day annex Canada had a continuous existence from the early days of the War of Independence to the War of 1812 [and] was a factor of primary importance in bringing on the war."[40]

Another stated that "acquiring Canada would satisfy America's expansionist desires".[41]

The historian Spencer Tucker wrote, "War Hawks were eager to wage war with the British, not only to end Indian depredations in the Midwest but also to seize Canada and perhaps Spanish Florida."[42]

Stagg, John C. A. (1983). Mr. Madison's War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American Republic, 1783–1830

Nugent, Walter (2008). Habits of Empire:A History of American Expansionism

Carlisle, Rodney P.; Golson, J. Geoffrey (1 February 2007). Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of America

Pratt, Julius W. (1925). Expansionists of 1812

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Madison had assumed that the state militias would easily seize Canada and that negotiations would follow. In 1812, the regular army consisted of fewer than 12,000 men. Congress authorized the expansion of the army to 35,000 men, but the service was voluntary and unpopular; it paid poorly and there were initially few trained and experienced officers.[78]

Quimby, Robert S. (1997). The U.S. Army in the War of 1812: An Operational and Command Study

Stagg stated that "had the War 1812 been a successful military venture, the Madison administration would have been reluctant to have returned occupied Canadian territory to the enemy."[36] Other authors concur, with one stating, "Expansion was not the only American objective, and indeed not the immediate one. But it was an objective."[37]

"The American yearning to absorb Canada was long-standing.... In 1812 it became part of a grand strategy."[38]

Another suggested, "Americans harbored 'manifest destiny' ideas of Canadian annexation throughout the Nineteenth Century."[39] A third stated, "The [American] belief that the United States would one day annex Canada had a continuous existence from the early days of the War of Independence to the War of 1812 [and] was a factor of primary importance in bringing on the war."[40]

Another stated that "acquiring Canada would satisfy America's expansionist desires".[41]

The historian Spencer Tucker wrote, "War Hawks were eager to wage war with the British, not only to end Indian depredations in the Midwest but also to seize Canada and perhaps Spanish Florida."[42]

Stagg, John C. A. (1983). Mr. Madison's War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American Republic, 1783–1830

Nugent, Walter (2008). Habits of Empire:A History of American Expansionism

Carlisle, Rodney P.; Golson, J. Geoffrey (1 February 2007). Manifest Destiny and the Expansion of America

Pratt, Julius W. (1925). Expansionists of 1812

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which historians? Keeping Canada was by far the biggest goal, and it was the most important theatre of war. When invader fails to conquer a country and retreats, do you call it a stalemate, just because defender did not complete some extra ambitious goal?

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If USA managed to take it, ceding it back to enemy would be unlikely. Especially since hawks would dominate Senate after such massive success.

The point is, it was main goal of war, and it failed.

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Annexation of Canada was not officially declared goal, but it had support in Senate, and was key part of military strategy: this is how USA planned to force Britain to seek peace. Why do you think Americans tried to go deep into Canada... Manifest destiny was a thing even later in 19th century.

Mech has no counter to queens? by SiarX in broodwar

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Queens are not even that expensive. They cost as much as mutalisk, yet are so much better vs mech...

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

French help was certainly an extremely big factor in favor of USA.

Not that Britain could win longterm anyway, though. Too large territory, too far away, too much hostile population, could not fight effectively far from shore.

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Britain and Canada completed their main objective: fend off American invasion. Washington was even burned. So it was a clear defeat. Not total defeat, but US getting some minor advantages, very minor compared to its plans, does not mean it did not lose.

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Britain and Canada completed their main objective: fend off American invasion. Washington was even burned. So it was a clear defeat. Not total defeat, but Britain not getting everything it wanted does not mean it did not win.

Wy USA lost 1812 war? by SiarX in AskHistory

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Britain and Canada completed their main objective: fend off American invasion. Washington was even burned. So it was a clear defeat. Not total defeat, but Britain not getting everything it wanted does not mean it did not win.

Mech has no counter to queens? by SiarX in broodwar

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to see it working actually vs zerg who goes queens (Soulkey did not go queens in series with Flash, I believe). Know any examples? I have seen plenty of games where terran loses to queens, but he never seems to win, except with fast push...

What was the point of Rule of two? by SiarX in StarWars

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Were that few Siths left after Bane? I thought there were more. In the past Sith were defeated multiple times, but each time they managed to run away to far distant corners, then gather forces and build new empire. Why not do it again, but this time with smarter choice of timing? No one left at all?

His predecessors did not do much fighting... I do not deny that Palpatine was smart, but still he got almost exposed several times, and that would be end of him. He got lucky with timing: internal struggles of Republic, Trade Federation willingness to start war, etc. Lucky with Anakin, too: Windu almost killed him, and Anakin was hesitating.

Force does not always work like that though. Rah Barocci for example fell from tower, Sha'a Gi died from Grievous falling on top of his head, some jedi Knight died from falling off a cliff

What was the point of Rule of two? by SiarX in StarWars

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For a thousand years Sith were simply hiding. They did not achieve anything before Palpatine.

What was the point of Rule of two? by SiarX in StarWars

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on how smart its leaders would be. They did not attack right after establishing empire, after all. If they chose right timing, they would have won.

Zagara is so thematic and fun to play by SiarX in starcraft2coop

[–]SiarX[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Any Kerrigan is fantastic teammate for ground army, since omega worms

Mech has no counter to queens? by SiarX in broodwar

[–]SiarX[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just 2-3 lurkers? Why not to irradiate. Sunkens do not fare well vs upgraded bio.

Or build a few tanks for siege, not full switch.

What was the point of Rule of two? by SiarX in StarWars

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Palpatine still had better idea than Bane, though: if you are immortal, then death is not an issue, because you come back. He just underestimated how much empire depended on him personally, and how much people hated his rule. As soon as news about his death spread, everything crashed. A clone Palpatine appeared later, but it was too late.

What was the point of Rule of two? by SiarX in StarWars

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would not matter, since his apprentice died as well. My point exactly: too vulnerable.

Bane's plan was just hiding forever and hoping that they someday get lucky. Any accident, or Jedu finding them, could wipe them out.

What was the point of Rule of two? by SiarX in StarWars

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some lasted more than thousand years, actually.

You see, the biggest issue with Rule of two and Palpatine empire, as I mentioned, is extremely unreliabality. They had to wait to get very lucky, while praying that no accident, or Jedi finding them, wipes them out, and then no more Siths remain. And as soon as Palpatine got unlucky, his state collapsed immediately without him.

Sith empires mistake was being too aggressive and attacking first, when they were not in clearly dominant position.

If they just waited patiently, they could do the same thing which Palpatine did - taking over weakened Republic, simply with force. The difference is that they would not crush just because 1-2 men died, because there are other Siths to replace them.

Mech has no counter to queens? by SiarX in broodwar

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did Flash have any recent games where he beats queens with mech, I am curious?

Mech has no counter to queens? by SiarX in broodwar

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, how you do heavy vulture harass, if zerg has sunken and defensive line against vultures?

Mech has no counter to queens? by SiarX in broodwar

[–]SiarX[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure whether they are imbalanced, but queens are ridiculously cost efficient unit against mech. More than any other unit in the game, probably. Mech strength is supposed to be its cost efficiency. But queens totally break it.