Campaigns Vs. Wars

[Salvanous]

Alright, I know this is a very trivial thing, but I was looking over this, and looking over how we talk about wars, and I have seen "Well, the are done with the wars on Reach..." and "We won't have any more Reach wars..." And I have to wonder if what all these "Wars" we are having aren't really just Campaigns.

By definition, a Campaign is "A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large scale objective during a war".

Now can really call it one or the other, but in reality, Campaign is a more correct fit, also making us be able to simply say we finished the Reach War, and to call it a Campaign provides that all the "Wars" were more purposeful than just discarded as nothing happened at the end of the war(s).

I mean hell, look at the conflict between the Covenant and the UNSC, it wasn't so much a series of wars, as it was operations and campaigns. If REDD and BLUE didn't constantly going back to duking it out the minute the bell starts ringing for round two I would feel more comfortable calling it a War, but this is closer to Campaign than a War. >.>

[Nicholas Sapien]

1st 3 wars were blue taking all the resources and the 4th and 5th were red picking up the scraps
jk
I guess you can call them that, it does make more sense than using wars.
I'll stick to wars though :tank:

[Coda]

hm. You have a good point

[UNLUCKY NUM13ER]

Yea, you have a point there. Maybe we can change our terminology for H4.

[Fuzzy]

We have called them wars since the beginning of FC. It is true that using the terminology 'Campaign' rather than 'War' is more fitting and suitable but due to the history of FC it is more of a tradition to call them war. It is to minuscule of a change to challenge tradition.

[Salvanous]

Also, I don't' know of a time that is called a "Peacetime" were both sides continue to figure out how to better smash in the other's face. I simply think that to call it a Campaign, and make the battles done over a game be called the War. Yeah, "War" is easier to type, but I really don't understand how it can be accurately called a war. :/

I tried to recruit of my friends who is a huge military buff to FC, and when I was running him through the systems of ranks, what they did, how many of them their were, and our terms used, he just about drove to my house to shoot me in the face for some of the things we butcher. I understand that some things we can't fix, as Battalions are made up of a lot more people than just 50, but we SHOULD be able to use the correct terms if we want to claim to have a war sim, or atleast a good war sim.


We have called them wars since the beginning of FC. It is true that using the terminology 'Campaign' rather than 'War' is more fitting and suitable but due to the history of FC it is more of a tradition to call them war. It is to minuscule of a change to challenge tradition.

Fuzzy, in that context, if a kid thinks that 3+3=7, but he knows later that 3+3=6, he should continue to say it's 7, just because it's tradition? Look we brag about our War-Sim, and frankly there are a good sum of things that any person with a military background and some common sense would shake their head at because it looks like a bunch of kids wanting to play "war". I can't change a lot of things, but to use the correct terms seems pretty easy to change, and shouldn't the easy changes be the ones we make.

On a side note, nice signature Fuzzy.

[bazongaman502]

then whats lower then a fireteam?

[Salvanous]

then whats lower then a fireteam?

Frankly I don't know, but it is the smallest unit used by the military, so that it is the lowest of the potential unit groupings is fitting.

"A fireteam is a small military unit of infantry. It is the smallest unit in the militaries that use it and is the primary unit upon which infantry organization is based in the British Army, Royal Air Force Regiment, Royal Marines, United States Army, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force Security Forces, Canadian Forces, and Australian Army. Fireteams generally consist of four or fewer soldiers and are usually grouped by two or three teams into a squad or section."

Now back on point.

[VerbotenDonkey]

That would be well and all, and I agree it should TECHNICALLY be called a Campaign, but it would actually irk me more if we switched it. It's easier to tell the Wars apart rather than "Campaign 1, Campaign 2" etc. Maybe if we used code-names for the Campaigns? I don't know. I still prefer War though. We could easily use lore to say that the peace-time between Wars was longer, as the War of 1812 as categorized as different than the Revolutionary War.

[Salvanous]

Well Campaign 1-3 would be annoying, but that's a given. We would either code name them or something.

[UNLUCKY NUM13ER]

Salv if your friend got that worked up over a "War-SIM" based off of a video game I think he takes things a bit too seriously.

[Raider0614]

Naming them Campaigns sounds like the smartest thing to do. If we are trying to be a war sim shouldn't we at least respect the terminology. Tradition is one thing but common sense seems to be a heavier outlook.

In the end, if we don't decide on Campaigns then giving the "wars" codenames seems to be a better alternative.

[Gargoyle]

1. Peace Time SHOULD be spent bettering the community and bettering each army to just run better and more smoothly. If anyone is spending it to beat red/blue worse than before, you're spending peacetime wrong.
2. I do agree with Salv. He's an Idea. Switching from halo 3 to reach, we renamed FC: FC Revolutions. Why not put some fictional lore to the wars. Which is an entirely new subject that I wanna bring up in WC meeting two days from now, but sticking to this. Example: Revolutions was the renamed portion of our the community for Reach. The Revolution wars. Reach being invaded by Rebel forces to 'revolt'. 1st 'campaign' was the landing of blues, blah blah blah. You get the idea. Mix up some story people!
3. It's a simulation BASED of militarism. Things are taken straight from the army. We're mostly teenagers and younger adults, not marines. Things don't have to be exact.

adding 4. Tradition is important, but I don't know if I'd call the term 'war' so much tradition.

[Nicholas Sapien]

1. Peace Time SHOULD be spent bettering the community and bettering each army to just run better and more smoothly. If anyone is spending it to beat red/blue worse than before, you're spending peacetime wrong.
2. I do agree with Salv. He's an Idea. Switching from halo 3 to reach, we renamed FC: FC Revolutions. Why not put some fictional lore to the wars. Which is an entirely new subject that I wanna bring up in WC meeting two days from now, but sticking to this. Example: Revolutions was the renamed portion of our the community for Reach. The Revolution wars. Reach being invaded by Rebel forces to 'revolt'. 1st 'campaign' was the landing of blues, blah blah blah. You get the idea. Mix up some story people!
3. It's a simulation BASED of militarism. Things are taken straight from the army. We're mostly teenagers and younger adults, not marines. Things don't have to be exact.

adding 4. Tradition is important, but I don't know if I'd call the term 'war' so much tradition.

Then you should bring it to the WC forums if you want it changed, and I wanted to have some sort of story whenever major military action has taken(I wanted this since I joined D: )

(bad)Example:
The Brotherhood has set their sights on Tritan, which is one of the most valuable Mac cannons still active after the 1st battles of reach. A imperial officer stated" We will not let the rebel scum take this facility, we will hold them off." As both armies move into the positions, local residents are now either evacuating the area or moving to the shelters built for them. Some of the locals have already started fighting and created their own militias, each fighting for a different flag. As more rebel activity continues the southern area is already cut off from imperial marines to move in. we have also received reports that the northern industrial sector has seen sabotaging in many of the industrial facilities owned by the Empire. Many of the Saboteurs, in this assault have been taken into custody, and were either brotherhood soldiers or anarchists.

We will bring you more news, right after this message.

"did you ever want a bigger penis?"
WELL LOOK NO FURTHER
*Nick shuts TV off*

[VerbotenDonkey]

I wanted those types of things weekly in the Attacks thread D:

[bazongaman502]

Camapign in Iraq or War in Iraq


hmmmm

[Nicholas Sapien]

Camapign in Iraq or War in Iraq


hmmmm

A Campaign is meant to achieve a certain goal(s)
Such as: big long list I don't wanna type

A war is a Nation attacking another nation, for reasons like spreading anti stuff of the other nation

[Silko]

pointless thread is pointless. Who cares if we call them wars or Campaigns. How about we focus on real issues like recruitment in stead of arguing over stupid shit like this.

Once again


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0

[OPOC1L1PSE]

pointless thread is pointless. Who cares if we call them wars or Campaigns. How about we focus on real issues like recruitment in stead of arguing over stupid shit like this.

Once again


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0

^ Couldn't... Agree... More :) :thumbs up:

[Mythonian]

I tried to recruit of my friends who is a huge military buff to FC, and when I was running him through the systems of ranks, what they did, how many of them their were, and our terms used, he just about drove to my house to shoot me in the face for some of the things we butcher. I understand that some things we can't fix, as Battalions are made up of a lot more people than just 50, but we SHOULD be able to use the correct terms if we want to claim to have a war sim, or atleast a good war sim.

I'm intrigued what was so bad that he got mad? There are maybe 2-3 things that are actually incorrect. Most things are fine in terms of understanding the context.



"War" is defined as "A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

It has nothing to do with length or severity. There are no requirements about what a "war" actually is. If there is an armed conflict, it can be called a "war" irrespective of other details.

"Campaign," "operation," and even "battle" or "skirmish" are all just more specific and have more detailed requirements. Technically, a war can be a single engagement. Or it could be like the Cold War, for instance.

They are "wars" within FC, because after the war is done, the two factions are no longer in "a state of armed conflict" and are therefore not at war anymore. Just because they continue to hate each other doesn't relate to the war still happening or not. When the two factions start fighting again, a new war is started, since they have entered a new "state of armed conflict" that was different then the previous one.


So, therefore, technically it's perfectly fine to call them wars and still be totally accurate.

[Nicholas Sapien]

Myth=sense

[Silko]

Myth=sense


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaSqH8lhB0M

[Ex Zen Mute]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDgk2YMzGpY

[MedeDust]

You just need some imagination. Seriously.

[VerbotenDonkey]

I think the topic is well deserved and I thank you for bringing it up Salv. It IS the Suggestion subforum, after all. It's not like we can't focus on other things as well, and debate this. I wouldn't call it arguing, Silko. It's debate. Terminology is important, and having more suggestions like this gets people thinking, thus spurring other suggestions. So having an open mind to suggestions like this are very important, no matter how trivial or major they may seem at the time. Most of the time I suggest something, it's a rebound off of someone else's idea.

[Guzzie]

If you scale things down, your definition of a campaign could be considered what we do every Sunday, a battle night. Every battle night is a part of the war or simply replace "battle night" with the word campaign, and see which one you like better. I understand what you are saying, using the "correct" terminology to improve that war sim feel, but this is the way it has been since I can remember.