A Preliminary Framework for Warfare and Conflict in General

In which I fumble with my thoughts and attempt to outline some concepts for warfare in the future.

WARFARE
Warfare between players, or within a player's empire between factions being influenced by a player or players, should remain consistent with rules and such. If a player just wants to have a coup happen and change government, I don't really care. That's a topic for another time. But, warfare between differing groups should take into account a few things.

The things that should be taken into account, I believe, are;

WRITING ABILITY: Writing ability, or how well you describe what you are doing, should play a part in the outcome of any engagement. But wait! I hear you interject. Wouldn't this give the people who are strong writers a significant advantage over people who are not? Well, dear forum whisperer, you would be correct in that assumption, if writing ability was the only thing that was being measured. Thankfully, it is not.

HARD DETAILS:Things like technology, numbers, tactics, etc, are going to have a significant effect on the outcome of any confrontation between warring factions. Congratulations, friend. You came up with an extremely elaborate plot as to how you are going to defeat these extremely advanced invaders who are trying to destroy you. If they attacked you, surely you would make them pay for it in a ground invasion! Unfortunately for you, they decided to just glass your planet. That's how space works. But that's unfair! you interject, dejected about how the Swarm just completely overran your poor civilization. I wrote my defenses extremely well, but if I am just going to lose anyway, what is the point of writing? Which brings us to the next point.

MODERATION/FAIRNESS:
A battle should not go like this.
Player A uses "Fortify the Homeworld!"
Defenses increased by 50%!
Player B uses "Fuck you, I am the Swarm."
It was extremely effective!
Player A faints. (I merely use the Swarm as an example because I can foresee some points of contention in future engagements.)

Rather than using what passed for the previous system, where two players write things out and possibly argue over what happens and also giving the players unfair advantaged in being able to see what the other person is doing when they post first, or throwing in wild cards that were supposedly "in play," I propose that a war thread should merely set up the context of a fight first, with both players sending private messages or discussing in a private discussion, without the knowledge of the other combatant, what their own sides are doing, what they have in play, etc etc. The moderator is the one who will make judgments and set the pace of a battle, and possibly a second moderator as well to make sure that the judgments are fair. PACING should also be considered, since I can imagine plenty of situations where there could be numerous phases in a battle, rather than a single decisive act that hands one player victory or defeat. Also, allowing other players to get involved in a conflict (I am looking at you, Swarm Unification Wars) would go a long way towards Making Space Great Again.

This means that if a player declares that they are mobilizing their ground forces, setting up fortifications on their homeworld (describe them), mining the streets and the roadways, setting up anti-air emplacements to shoot down troop transports, keeping the air force in reserve so that they don't get targeted, etc etc, and the opposing player decides to try and use brute force to overcome the defenses, expect the second player to take significant losses, and the battle to have multiple stages, from the initial landing, where each player assesses the situation and reacts accordingly, to larger melees and sieges, guerillia engagements, etc etc. Uses for espionage will come into play here, allowing players to receive information on the other player, depending on what the moderator decides they will be able to know, dependent upon other factors previously listed. This should create a more dynamic war scene than the ones seen previously.

Which brings me to another topic.

LUCK:
In history, there have been many occasions where luck has decided the course of a battle. What do you do when two sides are almost equally matched, and they decide, for instance, to just charge eachother? Well, having the moderator just "decide" what happens may not be "fair" enough. In this case, a random number generator may be in order to decide the results. It could be anything from a stalemate with few losses, to a slaughter with large losses on both sides and with no decisive winner, etc. I expect this to be fairly rare, but still. This is easily one of the more controversial ideas, one that I am not entirely convinced of, and this whole framework is a very loose one, in its rough stages, but part of that is to give it the versatility to accommodate a wide variety of circumstances.

I would like to hear your thoughts and recommendations on this. Thanks.

[Swarm Grumpiness] Hey I gave people Three exact weeks to be involved in the Swarm Unification War, that seems fair enough.

Also The swarm wouldn't glass a planet, they have neither the technology nor the incencitive (how would they then settle it?) to do so.

I was mixing things up, don't worry about it. Do you have any thoughts on the ideas themselves?

Well, I can see the controversy behind luck, especially as it should spread out over such a large battlefield. However it might be the only way to settle the more equal battles.

I have also reflected a lot over orbital bombardment (as it is something the Khendros, who lack the forces for a ground invasion on a heavily populated and defended planet, would often choose to do) as it is on the one hand fair from a realism standpoint but extremely unfun for the defender. I think that we should have clear rules for when a player is allowed to do a full orbital bombardment (as in the kind that could on it's own wipe out all defenses, not the supportive kind):


1. Raids are not allowed. And by this I mean you can't just send in a small fleet while the enemies are away and blow up the planet before they return.

2. You must have full control over space to do so, while you shooting a bit at the defenders while there is a space battle going is allowed on you should not be able to just wipe everything out while battle rages. An example could be the battle which ended the aftermath roleplay when Zuko, just before he retreated, let down a bomb which destroyed all surface life.

3. You must of course have a clear justification to do such a thing, both in terms of species ideology and the situation you are in. Arbitrarily blowing the planet up because you are angry at the other player should not be allowed.

These sorts of things would be handled by both the players and the moderators, hopefully using common sense, to avoid allowing the things you mentioned to happen. However, the rules you mention here are fair.

In summary. Attempting to destroy a planet is ALLOWED, but requires full control over orbit (defense stations must be taken care of, and defending fleets must be defeated), and must be done using the technology at your disposal, and in accordance with the species' ethics and war tactics.

Raids where your fleet somehow escapes notice, hits an enemy's planet and runs away before any sort of response, are not allowed. There must be some sort of response allowed from the player, at various stages. If you are using warp or hyperlanes, for example, system scans WILL pick up fleet movement, and will allow a response from the defending player. Wormholes are a bit tricker, since under some circumstances, they can jump directly into a home system, but even then, a home system SHOULD have some type of defense station in place, a spaceport to defend, as well as a small fleet. There must be conflict of some sort.

But yeah, the goal is that a planetary invasion is not settled in one fell swoop, but instead settled through a series of engagements, which will allow for more storytelling even if defeat is inevitable (which is realistic), but with time given for new things to come up, like pleas for help to other players, etc. With, of course, a moderator or two to make an unbiased decision when necessary, and the random number generator when such a decision is impossible.

Reading through this post I think this might be the best idea for this we have, but a few thinks I have to say that I think my improve it.

Vagrant Hero wrote:Rather than using what passed for the previous system, where two players write things out and possibly argue over what happens and also giving the players unfair advantaged in being able to see what the other person is doing when they post first, or throwing in wild cards that were supposedly "in play," I propose that a war thread should merely set up the context of a fight first, with both players sending private messages or discussing in a private discussion, without the knowledge of the other combatant, what their own sides are doing, what they have in play, etc etc.

I would simply point out that I can create areas in which only certain people can create and see topics. I can't do this easily on the fly but should be able to in roughly 10-15 minutes after I know of the request to do so.

Vagrant Hero wrote:In history, there have been many occasions where luck has decided the course of a battle. What do you do when two sides are almost equally matched, and they decide, for instance, to just charge eachother? Well, having the moderator just "decide" what happens may not be "fair" enough. In this case, a random number generator may be in order to decide the results. It could be anything from a stalemate with few losses, to a slaughter with large losses on both sides and with no decisive winner, etc. I expect this to be fairly rare, but still. This is easily one of the more controversial ideas, one that I am not entirely convinced of, and this whole framework is a very loose one, in its rough stages, but part of that is to give it the versatility to accommodate a wide variety of circumstances.

I would approve of this idea, however it should be important to note that while in history luck has decided the course of battles, it is possible in cases where enough information is known to break down "luck" into many small factors that play large roles. So as such when it is role played out the reasons might be broken down, the general was distracted at a crucial point by something trivial, this commander gets killed at a crucial point being a decisive factor in either lead their side to victory (if they were a complete idiot) or to defeat (if they were worth all those fancy stripes on their uniform). As well another point is that in most cases where a battle is a slow meat grinder it is caused mostly by both sides making many mistakes and neither capitalizing causing the immense bloodshed rather then both sides making no mistakes as that tends to lead to the battle being indecisive rather than a bloodbath.

Vagrant Hero wrote:In summary. Attempting to destroy a planet is ALLOWED, but requires full control over orbit (defense stations must be taken care of, and defending fleets must be defeated), and must be done using the technology at your disposal, and in accordance with the species' ethics and war tactics.

I would only add that doing such an action is likely to be considered extremely disapproved by the majority of species in a galactic community. Ignoring any ethical qualms a species might have from a purely pragmatic view you complete remove that world from the galactic resource pool, (at least until someone gets to work on terraforming) and further reduce the number of remotely livable worlds. One who does this too often might find themselves with little gain from conquests and many new empires who might not like them too much. I would also like to point out the difference over killing a world and the militarists full orbital bombardment the killing of a world is actually rather easily done, if you have complete space superiority, while full bombardment is simply not caring who or what is in the the way of eliminating resistance. It is when there are fortifications all throughout a city destroy the city with the heavy fortifications but using a precise strike for destroying the small guard post in the midst of a city.

And that about all I have to say. Feel free to expand upon, question, or disagree with anything I say, but please tell us why you do so.

I've still not persuaded myself yet if luck is truly a necessary feature, since as you said, things can usually be broken down. In lieu of better alternatives, moderation will have to suffice in this regard, since both the meat grinder and the stalemate can happen, and have happened historically, and not necessarily due to poor tactics. In WWI, for instance, according to my research, the tactics used were not necessarily bad in all cases. However, they failed to account for just how devastating the new technology was at the time, and since personal body armor had been declining after the 16th century (which many claim was due to firearms, despite firearms and body armor having coexisted for two centuries), as well as extremely poor health conditions in trenches, it made the body counts exceptionally high. But I digress.

I do not mean to say that these are the only things that can happen, but generally speaking, things do not always go according to plan, which perhaps could be utilized by moderators to make events more interesting, but should never give one side or the other an advantage that they don't deserve unless the players agree to it.

In regards to genocide, I am a fan of Clausewitzian thought. "Warfare is merely politics continued through other means." Naturally, one must take into account the reactions of other peoples in the galaxy when making decisions such as genociding a planet with billions of people on it, to sending in troops/ships to aid an empire against an expansionist foe, etc. I've always thought of Full Orbital Bombardment as being like the Turians in Mass Effect during the First Contact War with the humans. According to canon, they would bombard military targets as small as squads moving around from orbit, which is incredibly excessive. If an orphanage happens to be next door, these things happen in war.

Those private threads will also be very helpful.

Joe Joerson wrote:

I would only add that doing such an action is likely to be considered extremely disapproved by the majority of species in a galactic community. Ignoring any ethical qualms a species might have from a purely pragmatic view you complete remove that world from the galactic resource pool, (at least until someone gets to work on terraforming) and further reduce the number of remotely livable worlds. One who does this too often might find themselves with little gain from conquests and many new empires who might not like them too much. I would also like to point out the difference over killing a world and the militarists full orbital bombardment the killing of a world is actually rather easily done, if you have complete space superiority, while full bombardment is simply not caring who or what is in the the way of eliminating resistance. It is when there are fortifications all throughout a city destroy the city with the heavy fortifications but using a precise strike for destroying the small guard post in the midst of a city.

Of course, while this is merely a question about what is allowed in a meta sense being on a exterminatus spree will have in-world consequences as well.

This all sounds pretty good and I support this. However, as for luck, I think the that aspect should only be implemented when it's particularly even fighting or otherwise especially warranted, since RNG feels kind of cheap to me in this scale of combat. I'm the kind of person that likes to see the reasons behind things, even if they're minor or complicated.

Anyways, the issue of bombardment is pretty tricky to handle in my opinion. I had to grapple with this when I was privately talking with Theclans about Stellaris speed. In Stellaris, the ships outside of combat go at like 60% the speed of light nonchalantly, and that's using the starting chemical thrusters. AKA the tech we use IRL for rockets so far.

Some math for those who are interested in how god damn OP Stellaris thrusters are:

A 1000kg object moving at 60% the speed of light will have a kinetic energy of 1.62*10^19 joules, or 16.2 quintillion joules. For comparison, the kinetic energy of a handgun is typically in the hundreds of joules while rifles are in the thousands. The meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and caused a mass extinction event was 7.26*10^22 joules, or 72.6 sextillion joules. So basically what I'm saying is that a lone fighter craft kamikazeing a planet would probably be enough to wipe out most of its life.

Given that "strap a rocket to a space rock to make a doomsday weapon" is the exact kind of pragmatism that I've been going for with my nation, I had to go with "This is what they'll use for orbital bombardment" and just have them not do omnicide to avoid political repercussions. Haven didn't get proper WMDs before unification so they don't really have experience with "horrors of the Cold War" or other public fear of nuking things, so it's kinda tricky. Thanks Theclans for convincing me to have this be their weapon for orbital bombardment as a compromise between pragmatism and fairness.

Edit: Also, forgot to mention part of the reason why it was such a conundrum for having instant mass-death a button press away: There isn't the "Well we can't conquer it if we destroy it" motivation for preservation. They don't want to conquer aliens, there isn't a reason to do it. They're a democratic society of free people, not a conquering empire. If people don't care about those foreigners, then they don't care. Think America with drone strikes and other intervention. America isn't trying to annex territory, just ensure it's security and prosperity, including access to resources.

I've always taken Stellaris' various idiosyncrasies with a grain of salt. For example, in Vanilla Stellaris, each ship fires its weapons once per day, and combats can last for weeks between single ships. This is obviously unrealistic, and as such, should be treated as simple representation. The same goes for subspace transit using chemical thrusters, in my mind. However, strapping asteroids to a rocket seems like a perfectly legitimate method to me, so by all means, keep at it. XD

As for how to implement RNG, I have various ideas for it. However, I am leaning towards not using RNG since moderator and player collaboration should be able to work out the kinks in most circumstances.

I'd like to keep things as civil as possible, meaning that a war must have a purpose, whether it's to humiliate an enemy or take their territory. Looking at history, several ethnic groups have been wiped out due to disease and no more than a city's worth of people have ever been completely put to the sword at a time. The only place where I can think where more people were killed, was during Japan's invasion of China. Small groups try to wipe each other out all the time, but with the intent of taking territory or resources. The extermination of Native Americans from the New World was done mostly by plagues of apocalyptic proportions, leaving a remaining 1-10% of the population to harass the brutal expansion of Spain and America. Even the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were done in the name of expansion and the acquisition of resources; the eradication of undesirables was a side benefit.

If you intend to invade a planet, you had better do so with the intent of seizing it, using it as a bargaining chip for some other negotiation, or to spend the time required to round up the population and put them in camps or reservations. Despite how conceivably easy it would be to do with the technology in Stellaris, there will be no eradication of populations without prolonged effort. Which is to say, full planetary bombardments are for the weakening of armies on the ground, with circumstantial civilian death. There will be no instant death devices, no glassing. Empires and planets are no different than scaled up nation states and cities. Even Xenophobes must be (un)willing and able to sit at the negotiation table to sue for peace. After all, throughout the entirety of human history, ideology has only ever been an excuse for war and an instrument of political unity. It colors people's perceptions of other groups but the people at the top of, not just government but every institution, only really care about carrying out goals for either their own or their institution's material interest.

While I understand the reasoning for this, I must point out that we are talking about aliens here, who do not have the same morals, principles, history, thinking, etc. Complete extermination and obliteration may well be par for the course in an alien culture. However, this is your RP, so I will not contest this decision.

Vagrant Hero wrote:While I understand the reasoning for this, I must point out that we are talking about aliens here, who do not have the same morals, principles, history, thinking, etc. Complete extermination and obliteration may well be par for the course in an alien culture. However, this is your RP, so I will not contest this decision.

It's the philosophy of the Stellaris devs, and I don't see any reason to stray from it. We're playing in a universe of war and diplomacy, not one of casual indifference like the Cthulhu Mythos, Hitchhiker's Guide, or Rick and Morty. Nation states don't expend great amounts of materiel and personnel for something as frivolous as wiping out the competition and going home. Not without an expectation of a return on investment in territory, cash, and/or resources. It doesn't matter if the government itself profits, or those in power profit from it, or the power behind the throne profits. Only population rich tribes go on genocidal rampages, and even then they expect to use the other tribe's hunting grounds afterward.

As I said, I am not going to contest this. However, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on some of the other ideas that have been tossed around. Do you have any suggestions, recommendations, etc?

Vagrant Hero wrote:As I said, I am not going to contest this. However, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on some of the other ideas that have been tossed around. Do you have any suggestions, recommendations, etc?

Tragically, I don't have any other thoughts. I'm just going to sit back and see what y'all discuss it until I form some opinions. Anything else I say here will mostly be Devil's Advocate to deconstruct arguments so they can be put back together more solidly. I don't want to give a full or half formed opinion yet, just in case such a half based opinion frames the discussion in a way that isn't productive. Basically I want to sit back and observe from my moon base, instead of vigorously probing the natives.

Very well then. I shall continue to ponder the mysteries of Clausewitzian thought. If anyone else has anything they want to discuss, please do share.

Theclans wrote:I'd like to keep things as civil as possible, meaning that a war must have a purpose, whether it's to humiliate an enemy or take their territory. Looking at history, several ethnic groups have been wiped out due to disease and no more than a city's worth of people have ever been completely put to the sword at a time. The only place where I can think where more people were killed, was during Japan's invasion of China. Small groups try to wipe each other out all the time, but with the intent of taking territory or resources. The extermination of Native Americans from the New World was done mostly by plagues of apocalyptic proportions, leaving a remaining 1-10% of the population to harass the brutal expansion of Spain and America. Even the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were done in the name of expansion and the acquisition of resources; the eradication of undesirables was a side benefit.

If you intend to invade a planet, you had better do so with the intent of seizing it, using it as a bargaining chip for some other negotiation, or to spend the time required to round up the population and put them in camps or reservations. Despite how conceivably easy it would be to do with the technology in Stellaris, there will be no eradication of populations without prolonged effort. Which is to say, full planetary bombardments are for the weakening of armies on the ground, with circumstantial civilian death. There will be no instant death devices, no glassing. Empires and planets are no different than scaled up nation states and cities. Even Xenophobes must be (un)willing and able to sit at the negotiation table to sue for peace. After all, throughout the entirety of human history, ideology has only ever been an excuse for war and an instrument of political unity. It colors people's perceptions of other groups but the people at the top of, not just government but every institution, only really care about carrying out goals for either their own or their institution's material interest.

While you do have a point, first and foremost the Stellaris Developers don't allow it as much because it could extremely missused as much as anything else 8and here we have modders to oversee things). Also it is not as if WMD haven't been used in human history (although it was almost a one-of-a-kind thing) and these are more or less the same thing but more mass. I can understand that you would not allow glassing for the sake of the fun of the defender but I can see situations where some species would do it.

Caspoi wrote:

While you do have a point, first and foremost the Stellaris Developers don't allow it as much because it could extremely missused as much as anything else 8and here we have modders to oversee things). Also it is not as if WMD haven't been used in human history (although it was almost a one-of-a-kind thing) and these are more or less the same thing but more mass. I can understand that you would not allow glassing for the sake of the fun of the defender but I can see situations where some species would do it.

WMD's were used, but for America to end the war with Japan, and to make Japan into a protectorate and to build military bases on its island. Basically the bomb was dropped to conquer Japan and then release it as a vassal nation. Megalomaniac American general Douglas MacArthur also wanted to throw nukes around like candy during the Korean War to bring it to a swift end, but was removed before he could go rogue. The US and USSR both had plans to wipe each other out with nuclear weapons, but these also featured plans for invasion and occupation until there were so many bombs that mutual annihilation was the only possibility if such a war happened. We've grown out of using nuclear weapons as a means of extermination almost right after we used them. If a species has the use of using weapons of mass destruction on their enemies, then they are fictitious as they would have destroyed themselves before reaching space.

I can think of only one possibility for a species wiping out a planet in a war, and that's if the ruling elite were somehow replaced with their lower level puppets. Or, what happens just prior to a company's collapse, people in middle management somehow find their way into executive positions and crowd out the psychopaths that used to run it.

I could imagine that species A uses it on a colony of species B so as to show that they are not to be messed with and that species B should surrender.

Caspoi wrote:I could imagine that species A uses it on a colony of species B so as to show that they are not to be messed with and that species B should surrender.

If Species B was smart, that would result in an empire wide propaganda machine to encourage the defense of the homeland. See Starship Troopers, America's entry into World War 2 with the destruction of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, England being shelled once by accident(?) by German battleships in World War 1, England's resolve during the terror bombings of London by Germany in World War 2, and September 11th and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Acts of terror only strengthens a nation's resolve. That would only work on a nation so technologically inferior that such a weapon would inspire absolute awe.

Committing either an atrocity or an overreaction in order to convince people not to mess with you only works on the personal level, or through a dedicated campaign against weaker targets.

I had this large post and everything then Theclans ninja'd all of it. Oh, well, except for a small portion about how easy it would be to render a planet uninhabitable for a large population for several decades but that is almost irrelevant.

I would also add England's and France's resolve during the Zeppelin bombings of Paris and London during World War 1.

And would have to agree with the last sentence there.

Theclans wrote:

Caspoi wrote:I could imagine that species A uses it on a colony of species B so as to show that they are not to be messed with and that species B should surrender.

If Species B was smart, that would result in an empire wide propaganda machine to encourage the defense of the homeland. See Starship Troopers, America's entry into World War 2 with the destruction of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, England being shelled once by accident(?) by German battleships in World War 1, England's resolve during the terror bombings of London by Germany in World War 2, and September 11th and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Acts of terror only strengthens a nation's resolve. That would only work on a nation so technologically inferior that such a weapon would inspire absolute awe.

Committing either an atrocity or an overreaction in order to convince people not to mess with you only works on the personal level, or through a dedicated campaign against weaker targets.

It is possible, although at this point I think that you should separate how a human would react and how an Alien would react.


And if my planet is blockaded by an Alien fleet that has orived itself both able and willing to use such weapons I might surrender against them. There is one thing to do some terror bombings that people still Think that they can fight against and win moreover, it is quite Another to be facing an enemy that could annihalate you, everyone you know as well as billions of others with a single button and you wouldn't be able to stop him. Under such circumstances I Think that most humans would surrender.

Caspoi wrote:

Theclans wrote:

Caspoi wrote:I could imagine that species A uses it on a colony of species B so as to show that they are not to be messed with and that species B should surrender.

If Species B was smart, that would result in an empire wide propaganda machine to encourage the defense of the homeland. See Starship Troopers, America's entry into World War 2 with the destruction of the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, England being shelled once by accident(?) by German battleships in World War 1, England's resolve during the terror bombings of London by Germany in World War 2, and September 11th and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Acts of terror only strengthens a nation's resolve. That would only work on a nation so technologically inferior that such a weapon would inspire absolute awe.

Committing either an atrocity or an overreaction in order to convince people not to mess with you only works on the personal level, or through a dedicated campaign against weaker targets.

It is possible, although at this point I think that you should separate how a human would react and how an Alien would react.


And if my planet is blockaded by an Alien fleet that has orived itself both able and willing to use such weapons I might surrender against them. There is one thing to do some terror bombings that people still Think that they can fight against and win moreover, it is quite Another to be facing an enemy that could annihalate you, everyone you know as well as billions of others with a single button and you wouldn't be able to stop him. Under such circumstances I Think that most humans would surrender.

If aliens were to show up and attack Earth right now? Totally. Maybe. Probably after we launch all of our nukes at them. People only surrender when all other options are off the table especially governments who can go into exile if they're forced to capitulate power. Also, for all intents and purposes, alien and human psychologies may as well be the same in this RP, except viewed through different lenses as dictated by their Ethos. Like I said earlier, this isn't the Cthulhu Mythos where alien beings are all powerful and completely unknowable. Alien leaders are going to want to do the same thing that human leaders do, to manipulate the lower masses with ideology to meet a more logical goal like acquiring more territory, material or financial resources, or political power for themselves.

Joe Joerson wrote:I had this large post and everything then Theclans ninja'd all of it. Oh, well, except for a small portion about how easy it would be to render a planet uninhabitable for a large population for several decades but that is almost irrelevant.

I would also add England's and France's resolve during the Zeppelin bombings of Paris and London during World War 1.  

And would have to agree with the last sentence there.

History Buff Bros. ... ACTIVATE! Form of...

Caspoi wrote:It is possible, although at this point I think that you should separate how a human would react and how an Alien would react.


And if my planet is blockaded by an Alien fleet that has orived itself both able and willing to use such weapons I might surrender against them. There is one thing to do some terror bombings that people still Think that they can fight against and win moreover, it is quite Another to be facing an enemy that could annihalate you, everyone you know as well as billions of others with a single button and you wouldn't be able to stop him. Under such circumstances I Think that most humans would surrender.

 

Ah but what if the Humans don't know that if they surrender whether they get to live or not or if the aliens will just massacre them in a more planetary body friendly way?

Theclans wrote:History Buff Bros. ... ACTIVATE! Form of...

Hmm...

Go Histron Force:

Theclans wrote:History Buff Bros. ... ACTIVATE! Form of...

...an angrier and somewhat larger guy!

Spoiler: