Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Why isn't SL a MELEE Profession?
KJFett3 wrote:
ShadowLightning wrote:
When was the last time you ever saw a battle scene when the leader/general/commander/king takes his men out to war with a Gun or a Bow?? Leaders grab their sword and go into battle!
"We were soldiers".
Didn't see your post till after I made mine. Great movie.
Sasher Redo
yeah..notice he didn't respond with, "I'll pull my pocket knife out."
DrakkoFett wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
ShadowLightning wrote:
When was the last time you ever saw a battle scene when the leader/general/commander/king takes his men out to war with a Gun or a Bow?? Leaders grab their sword and go into battle!
"We were soldiers".
Didn't see your post till after I made mine. Great movie.
Sasher Redo
<3 ObsidianWrath
Not only did you say exactly what I'm thinking, but you say it so well, too. 
As for the rest, I agree completely. And I never would want to see SL have melee in it as a requirement. Yes, in history people did use swords, but this isn't set in the past....okay, well, maybe it was, after all it is said, "A long time ago..."
, but no, keep ranged with SL.
ObsidianWrath wrote:
When was the last time you saw a guy with a club run towards an equally skilled gunman and not have his head blown into a fresh canoe? Games like this, fantasy novels, and Hollywood like to sensationalize the myth that melee weaponry is just as effective in open combat as a firearm, but unfortunately anyone who knows anything at all about the art of war agrees that there is no place for the practical application of melee weaponry in an age of guns.
Rather than remove the Marksman requirement of Squad Leader, I would rather see SOE remove "Brawler," "Swordsman," "Fencer," "Teras Kasi," and "Pikeman" from the game entirely, in order to capture a feel that is decidedly unlike Everquest and very Star Wars-centric. Obviously, I know that will never happen, but when one attacks my chosen profession, I'll bring it up. Call that harsh, but I'm an avid hater of everything Melee in this game, with the noted exception of Lightsabers. Lightsabers are an intrinsic part of Star Wars, and it is established from the films and expanded universe that the only reason the highly skilled warriors who wield them can even compete with ranged combatants is due to supernatural senses and powers. Beyond that, they also use a weapon that is vastly more technologically advanced than a "mere sword."
As far as instances when I can think of leaders / generals / commanders taking their men out to war with a Gun, there are a plethora of noteworthy examples. I could call to mind images of General Patton in World War 2 with his ivory-gripped pistols. I could invoke imagery of Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore and Sergeant Major Basil Plumley on 14 November 1965, whose stories were captured in the movie mentioned earlier in this post: "We Were Soldiers."
And there are others, too.
- Lieutenant Colonel Danny McKnight and Captain Mike Steele, during the Battle of Mogadishu on 3 October 1993.
- Sergeant First Class Paul Smith, during Operation Iraqi Freedom on 4 April 2003.
- Private First Class Stuart Stryker, during World War II on 24 March 1945.
- Then Lieutenant Colonel Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, during World War II on 24 October 1942.
- Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon, during the Barbary Wars on 27 April 1805.
- Private First Class Lewis Albanese, during the Vietnam War on 1 December 1966.
Need I really go on much further?
Virtually half of the recipients of the Medal of Honor in the United States have been awarded on account of bravery in action that inspired subordinates and fellow warriors. Melee weapons are certainly capable of the same level of honor and valor in combat, but your trivialization of firearms is fairly disrespectful in my eyes. Swords had their age. They are beautiful, elegant weapons ... but they do not have a place in the domain of firearms, which can be wielded by honorable men and women just as easily as a blade.
As for failures of leaders charging guns with inferior technology, the examples are also nearly limitless. Perhaps you have forgotten the fairly accurate depiction of what would have happened when the noble warriors in the end of "The Last Samurai" made their valiant and honorable charge against the line of gattling guns at the end of the film. They were butchered for their efforts, though they did die with honor. Perhaps you would rather hear about Lord Cardigan's men during the Crimean War, who are more commonly known for their depiction in the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade." Charging Russian artillery batteries and fortified positions, they were largely decimated for their lack of foresight in maneuvering, and valor did not prove to be an effective enough shield.
The faulty maneuvering of British troops during the American Revolution is also worthy of mention. Despite their use of firearms at the time, formations and marches were largely dictated and governed utilizing tactics that were learned under warfighting with melee implements. Due to the lack of swift adaptation, they were time and time again cut down by American sharpshooters hiding amidst brush with long rifles.
On 8 January 1815, near the end of the War of 1812, General Parkenham and his Officers' corps found themselves dreadfully underestimating the precision of American cannoneers and riflemen during the Battle of New Orleans, and were largely decimated. During the battle, in a desperate attempt to rally his troops (Squad Leader?), General Parkenham seized command of the bulk of his scattering forces and charged to the front lines on horseback. He was struck in the spine by a precise shot from an American rifleman, and killed.
Romanticizing the sword is fine, but those who cannot honor the valor and courage of modern combatants with firearms really need to evaluate the foundation of their ideology.
I'm done.
For...
...the...
...win
You know, normally, I'd jump all over the OP for making a statement like that....hell..I'd jump on anyone for even suggesting something like that, but I don't see the point 
Everyone here seems to be of a "sane" and rational mindset when it comes to the implementation of weapons in realistic combat situations.
I too would like Jedi to be the only melee profession in the game....save for pikeman...because I have a soft spot for pikes. If it were my way...there would be melee' in the game, but it would be relegated to some type of "supplementary" fighting style...if that makes sense. It would be useful in certain situations, but it would not dominate like it does.
I don't care what anyone argues, it is MY opinion that melee' dominant combat (save Jedi) has no place in a STAR WARS game where battlefields are rife with ranged weaponry.
Let'salso notforget a fundamental FACT. A gun become incrementally more dangerous the CLOSER you get to its muzzle. That's why modern officers are issued pistols and not swords. Contrary to what Hollywood tells you...a gun is DEADLIER than a sword in Close-Quarters-Battle. Only in extreme cases, for example...amartial artist with years upon years of solid training and discipline going against a relatively untrained gunslinger...would the melee' fighter ever emerge victorious.
The only severe drawback of a firearm in CQB is the reliance on a finite ammunition source (magazines...or power packs in the case of blaster weaponry) which could become a liability if the operator gets intoa hairy situation, however...guess what...then the gun suddenly becomes a club or bludgeoning weapon, and there ya go...you now have your precious melee'weapon
Message Edited by HarlequinMK19 on 10-05-2005 08:21 PM
Message Edited by HarlequinMK19 on 10-05-2005 08:51 PM
Aye... she doesn't write that much, but whatever she writes is great... i am impressed.
Now that was some good writing.
I could see melee having a good, strong place if we had realistic ranges and damages from guns (meaning, I can start shooting my rifle at someone still 100m away, and if I get a good chest or head shot in, they won't get a change to swing their sword or fist at me). Make them effective short range then, and add things you can do with guns at short range.
But, the game isn't designed for that. I've never been a huge fan of melee in the game either, and really hated it when it was the dominant profession-type for combat characters in the game. If I wanted to play with a sword, I'd pick up Guild Wars, WoW or EQ2 or another game that was set up and built for ancient/medieval/early renn weapondry. I didn't. I got Star Wars. They have blasters, rifles, carbines. BTW, the Gamorrean axes? They sure helped against Han, Chewie and Lando (Luke had a lightsaber, so not going to count him). Never did see what the Royal Guards could do with theirs, and no, I wasn't a fan of the Crimson Empire comics. Not a fan of comic strips in general.
Battle or Recon would make more sense.
Take a look on who currently has access to assault, there is some picture behind that. In terms of game mechanics assault might not be the best choice, but in terms of style anda appearance it fits very well.
Recon is for the lightweight troopers, battle is for the regular troops, assault is for the elite key units who go in the thickest of battle, makes very good sense that it's Commandos and SLs who wear it. (BHs... oki, they are somewhat also in the line, but rather because a BH would surely also try to grab the best he can get his hands upon.)
Of course, if you then check game mechanics and see what weapons are mostly used, especially in large scale PvP battles, the assault armour turns out to be far from the best choice, but that doesn't break the "style" point