Jimmy

Maybe this has been covered somewhere else, I'm not sure, but to me the oaths look like the way that people deal with their "brokenness." Kaladin is the character I can relate to most in this, even to the point of having a Syl on the shoulder. "Why aren't you doing X when it could make you happy?" You just can't. It doesn't work. You can try to do the things that everyone else enjoys and if you try really hard it might take your mind off it for a while, but when its over you're back to remembering all the people who died because you screwed up. You shut down to the outside world and focus only on the people you care about to the exclusion of everything else. Ask any veteran what they'd do to protect their family and the answer will be a variation on "anything and everything." Us and them thinking, who is Us? Whoever you believe it is, really. Back to the point, because I do wander a bit when it gets dark, the Ideals seem to be a way of moving forward from this. "I will protect those who cannot protect themselves." Good, thats a way to cope. "I will protect even those I hate," is another step in the right direction. Recognising that just because you don't like someone doesn't make them your enemy and that you still have a duty to some of them. The fourth Ideal should be about letting go again. Understanding that if someone like you tried to save the world that you'd end up killing the rest of it. Because you can and you will feel driven to do it. "I will let others live their own journey and understand that I cannot protect everybody all the time." "I am the guardian in the storm and the spear against the void." Goes well for a fifth I reckon.

58% Windrunner 39% Skybreaker 33% Willshaper 29% Lightweaver 28% Dustbringer 28% Stoneward 24% Elsecaller 12% Edgedancer 12% Bondsmith 0% Truthwatcher

I was talking about deflecting a round from the main gun with magic. How much foresight do they have? If its an hour, then yes, they may understand that they aren't going to win this fight head on. If its anything under ten minutes then irrelevant. Tank rounds can explode. Over a large area. They are designed to hit targets that move at speed. Nobody can run 60+ kph that I've seen. A solid round is used against armour only, no gunner in their right or wrong mind is going to use it against infantry. An anti infantry shot wipes out everything up to 600 metres. Hells, the concussive force of just standing too close to the gun when its fired can be lethal. Modern tanks are also designed as anti air platforms. They can quite easily shoot down a helicopter. A push won't get you to the tank fast enough and you will not survive 1,098 3⁄8-inch (9.5 mm) tungsten balls or the three (or four, depending on the commander) machine guns that the tank carries. If they did get in close then they'd need a lot of explosives to take out a tank. More than you'd think, unless you've also got modern military gear. Most likely case is that you'd take out the tracks. Tank doesn't care, just replaces the track and keeps firing and the crew inside would only be irritated. If we're using soldiers as the shooters then no, rifles are not more accurate than machine guns. Effective range of an M4 is 300 metres. Effective range of a SAW is 400. If we're talking about civilian target shooters then they have no business being on a battlefield in the first place. Completely anecdotal evidence ahead: I'm a good shot. A very, very good shot. At 300 metres I can choose which eye I want to put a hole in with a standard service rifle (Australian), the F88 and it's not a very good rifle. I enjoy shooting rifles much more than guns. I find it relaxing and its hard to beat the feeling of putting a couple of hundred rounds into a target and seeing a single, small hole at the other end. But guns are more accurate. Its the way they're used that gives them the bad reputation. That and video games. Games are unrealistic. End anecdote. Accuracy isn't a matter of getting one, perfect round on target. Anyone can do that. Accuracy is a function of consistency, being able to land all 30 rounds in a space the size of a 50 cent coin is what you want from a shooter. Guns perform better at range because they are fired from a more stable platform, either a bipod or a fixed position and the gunner is also in a much more stable position. Rifles are not designed to do this and soldiers do not train to do it. Conversely, guns are, and soldiers do. The reason people think that rifles are more accurate is that guns and rifles are designed for different roles. The gun is a platoon level weapon, it isn't supposed to fire single rounds like a rifle. It is supposed to either perform killing bursts or suppressing fire on an enemy position. If you're basing the argument off things like civilian target shooting or long distance kill records using specialised weapons and rounds then I can understand. But snipers are rare and they don't appear on the battlefield very often. When they do it is for other things like high value target acquisition and commentary. Yes, snipers commentate on the battlefield and spend a lot of time directing the fire of... the machine gunners. Because guns can fire reliably at targets up to a kilometre away. Been there, done that. The famous 50.cal will punch through the engine block of an armoured vehicle. That is what its designed for, its literally written on the label. If you really want I'll go into a lecture about barrel harmonics, flight time, machine gun theory and small unit tactics. TLDR: Foresight is just going to show you all the fun ways a tank will kill you. Guns are seen as less accurate because of the way they're used. They're actually more accurate because of the stable firing platform.

Machine guns are more accurate than rifles. If a tank can see you, it can kill you. Shard plate or no, flying or not, speed doesn't matter and magic won't do anything to deflect, stop or even irritate a round from the main gun. The only foresight that matters is if you had enough to avoid annoying the tank. You either need another tank, preferably two, or grunts who know what they're doing.

Tanks can fire pretty fast, much faster than you'd think. Modern ones can fire accurately at targets 800-1000m away, while moving up to 60kph. An experienced crew can get first round hits at that range while moving in the complete opposite direction if they wanted to. And thats only taking into account the main gun, there are coaxial machine guns, 40mm grenade launchers, different ammunition types... Unless you've got grunts that REALLY know what they're doing, tanks win. I'd put my money on a single tank against a dozen shard bearers or more. Unless we're on the shattered plains, but what idiot would put his tank there in the first place? Bullets, yes maybe. Tanks... No. Not even slightly. Nobody in Hollywood knows what modern armour can do and so they don't show it. Pretty sure thats what turned me off the walking dead after the first episode (maybe second) where they showed the zombies killed a tank. Utterly implausible. I'm not too sure on how atium works exactly, but it should be impossible to avoid an explosion that has a hundred metre kill zone. If you see it coming and move the gunner would have ample time to aim at your new position. Paradox of potential explosions! Or the main gun could airburst an explosion while the coaxial tracks the target, while screening smoke and HE with separate launchers.

Then we're going to plan #6. Mutually assured destruction. Personally my least favourite as ideally it doesn't blow up, irradiate, enslave or otherwise destroy stuff. After sending millions and millions of my loyal, but mindless, lemming-like creations to their death, the BAM is lured to the strange world where they are being sent forth from. Once there, a treaty is proposed to their maker. Either the BAM's are shut down from the source or I send millions and millions more of my lemmings at them, forcing the BAM to replicate further and destroy all life on the BAM's creator's home world. All ways off the planet are the first on the list of things to be destroyed. I win by simple fact that if my people are all going to kick a great big cosmere-y shaped bucket, then I'm not too bothered if all yours go too. Once all the resources are gone through overproduction of BAM's anyway, we're back to an incredibly damaged square one. If they can't be shut down, well, we need to use scorched earth plan #5 and build our own self replicating nano tech abominations. Simply awaken a dust storm and give it a cleverly worded (and un loopholeable) command to destroy the BAM. I'm not sure how world hopping works precisely, but they're the first things that are destroyed by my incredibly expendable minions when the BAM goes looking for them. As an aside, I looked up an Orion pulse drive and think it is an awesome idea. The fact that these scientists combined huge explosions with feasible space flight is like a dream come true.

Deprive it of its goal. If its "follow this group's orders" - Kill the group. If its "Replicate" then we need to think bigger. Destroy the planet. Evacuate what you want to keep to another world while beginning scorched earth plan #3. Shattered plains were shattered somehow. Do it again, but bigger. Over and over again until the BAM is dropped right into the core of the world. This may take time but thats what vast numbers of koloss are for, to soak up the punishment in the meantime. Don't watch it burn because that has a side effect of death. But you'll know it works because there is a lack of planet there any more. Failing that we're going to need some sort of Exterminatus, or scorched earth plan #1. Dirty nukes, millions of them, dropped from orbit. Pretty sure Jashah can figure how how to make unstable soul castings of uranium and then its just a matter of maths - Navani - and controlled explosions to build a nuke. Go bigger and dirtier. #You don't want to meet scorched earth plan #2. Its nasty.

"You get a bullet, and you get a bullet, EVERYBODY GETS A BULLET!" But seriously, Alethkar is where the action is going to happen. Why go to a place like this to sit it out somewhere? Plus I've got light eyes, excel in small unit tactics with years of training to back it up and with the lighter gravity on Roshar would set some sort of strength record, increasing chances of getting shards. Because killing the enemy indiscriminately before they know they're your enemy is probably dishonourable in some circles. Looking at you Syl... Hanging out with this guy because engineers are awesome.

Koloss use 12 foot long swords, correct? To swing these things they'd need twelve feet of clearance on either side or they'd hit each other in a fight. I don't recall them ever half swording or having the brains to even consider it. Then when they did hit the shield wall that force is divided by the amount of shields it hit. So yes, they could hit very hard, but I don't think they're strong enough to rip apart a good shield wall. Using your example, World War Two soldiers fought in places like Kokoda and the Pacific and did very well there despite having trained for WW1 conditions. They also fought in trenches on the western front, bitter cold on the eastern front, the desert in places like Tobruk, urban war in France and Germany and guerrilla war in India and China. They'd have done better if they were trained for those environments, but the 2AIF went from the middle east to Papua New Guinea and routed the Japanese there without having been trained for either of those environments. Back to the point though. Ahem. Concentration of force is more important than total numbers on the field. You can have all the hundreds of thousands you want but if they cannot fight together as a cohesive unit then numbers will always be against them. The main advantage Scadrial has is that huge number of koloss. Roshar can counter that quite effectively without having to adapt overly much. That brings it back to magic, which Scadrial has the advantage in so far. Give Roshar until the end of the first series and I think that'll be reversed though. Wind runners alone are disturbingly overpowered. Kaladin tanks an entire army without even really knowing what he was doing or how he was doing it. Granted he might be the main character and a bit OP because of that, but he's the only one we have to measure so far.

My money goes to Roshar in this one. "I'd rather fight against an army of lions led by a sheep, than an army of sheep led by a lion." - Someone who knew what they were talking about. Scadrial spent too long pacified under TLR. Without constant training and experience in fighting these skills atrophy. Badly. Horribly. Humorously even. On the other hand, veterans who know what they're doing will butcher anything they're thrown against. Look up the 3rd Battalion in Maryang San and Kapyong during the Korean war for a timely example. Goes to show what veterans with a plan can do against a far stronger enemy. I think its easy to get distracted by massive numbers and maths, especially when we're talking about hundreds of thousands. You simply cannot have that many anythings involved in a single battle. Roshar would be cheering if Scadrial even tried. The Greeks, then the Romans, dominated the ancient world through discipline and formations. Hoplites fought as a tight unit. It doesn't matter how strong a koloss is, they can't use their weapons effectively if they're standing close to one another. They'd hit each other with each swing. But a tight formation of disciplined men? Each can use his weapon perfectly. Koloss are as strong as four men? A hoplite is as strong as thirty men and they take up the same space, with thirty sharp pointy things to the koloss' one. Now apply that to large scale warfare. Koloss are straightforward and simple. They'd charge and continue charging until the enemy was dead. I cannot stress enough how stupid it is to charge blindly like that. The Romans found that out the hard way at Canae. The Alethi stood up to freaking lightning being thrown at them and I'm pretty sure they hadn't trained for that. That's about as close to fearless as it gets.

Cheers mate, I enjoy a good argument and never thought to take offence even if it had been implied. Which is wasn't, so all good. Same goes in return. Too many points to answer without starting a new topic. A copper mind would be better for a marksman because, unless you're blind, vision doesn't count for that much. Its all about maths at range. Machine guns naturally fire in a pattern. The extra coin shot wouldn't make any difference compared to a rifle. The rifles are there to keep the enemy off the guns, sticking them close enough to coin shot would just make them even more of a target to the enemy without providing much more firepower. You'd also have to have some amazingly awesome reflexes to get all those casings coming out and aim them all properly. They all spit out differently. The main problem with water is that it takes up room and its heavy. Depending on the heat and workload, eight litres will last one and three days for one man. Give or take. In the tropics you can go through that much in a single morning and still be thirsty. Given that a normal load for a light infantryman is about 50 kilograms, that extra 8-16 is really going to hurt if he's carrying it for someone else. Coming back to topic though, it all depends on numbers. One on one I think a shard bearer should take it. One against ten the soldiers should win. Ten against ten it goes back to the shards. Any larger numbers become a bit silly because who has that many shard bearers?

Jah Keved or Alethkar. Become a despotic warlord (by deposing the previous one) and fortify the blazes out of the place. Make a fabrial that explodes (is nuclearspren too much overkill or should I settle for bazookaspren?) and dare the voidbringers to come at me. Then sit back and enjoy the desolation. Maybe have my engineers work on a fabrial that can increase the draw weight on a longbow without needing powerlifters to use it = Shardbow free for all! Spears tipped with firespren for those pesky non rock voidbringers. Shields that had the repulsion field like Navani was playing around with to make that floating fort. Crazy thought, was that how they made half shards? Could get some seriously pimped out darkeye cannon fodder going if we mass produce this madness. Soulcast a loose cotton weave shirt into steel for instant tailored chainmail. Add in a pain blocking and rage inducing fabrial and you've got the closest thing to berserkers around, the perfect shock troops for when those ten foot tall baddies come knocking. Maybe for this to work I'd have to kidnap Navani. There's a lot of engineering to be done. Don't see how this plan could backfire at all, it is clearly foolproof... But anyway, we rescue enough people and the Radiants are going to have to show up to help out eventually. Convince said Radiants that saving people is the honourable path I've burdened myself with to avoid developing a case of "burnt out eyes." EDIT: There is no such thing as overkill. There is only "open fire" and "I need to reload."

Shard blades cut through anything non organic. They'd do very well against bullets. Not sure how they'd go about actually hitting one though.

I stand corrected, thought pewter only gave strength. For modern weapons I assumed a modern battlefield, which includes any terrain you can think of and urban. At the same time. It isn't unheard of for the fight to start well outside a town and then move into one as you push forward then go back to open fields and forest after that when you've gone through the place. Soldiers carry their own food and water regardless of any other supply plan you have in progress. Couple of reasons; the grunts don't trust officers, officers don't trust grunts, supply clerks think their job is not to issue supplies and all the good stuff usually stays with the bloke driving the truck anyway. The issue with water is not that you aren't strong enough to carry it, but that there isn't any room to. To use a gun properly you almost have to be lying down so you can't put too much on your chest. You don't need pewter to shrug off the damage, just a bad attitude is sometimes enough, but the gun is stuffed after that. I'd hate to be the bloke taking a club to a shard bearer...

The problem isn't so much strength as it is how to carry it. Ammunition for guns needs to be linked together and these links are actually quite fragile. If they come loose then the gunner needs to stop firing to reconnect them all and make sure that all the rounds are lined up properly or the gun will jam. Sometimes it's not so bad and you can get by with cocking it a few times. Other times you can't pull the cocking handle back and you need to bash it against something. Sometimes the round gets stuck in the barrel and you can't get it out without the entire thing blowing up in your face. Had it happen. It sucks. Guns are far from perfect weapons. They're just better than any alternative so far. You can't keep it all those bullets in a backpack because how are you going to get at it when you need it? Where are you going to carry your water and food if you do that? You might be able to fit four pouches on your chest and six more around your waist but that leaves you with around 1000 -1500 rounds. Or about 3 minutes of continuous fire. The traditional solution is to have a crew to operate the gun. One to carry and fire it, another to carry extra ammunition, reload and check the link as it goes in. Preferably a third for when one of those two gets killed and to spot for fire support. Every other soldier also carries as much spare ammunition as they can for their gunners, maybe 400 rounds each if you're lucky. Also relevant is that modern infantry carry about 40-60 kilograms of equipment as it is, depending on the mission type. Strength alone won't cut it, you need serious endurance. An 8 kilometre fast march, 2 day fight then 8 k's back was a regular occurrence. That might involve a lot of pewter.