So what happened in the end?, CGL, state of Dumpshock, etc. Options

[Smirnov]

I have to agree here. I'm a huge fan of dragons in general and in Shadowrun in particular (duh), but what the late fourth edition did with them is an abomination. It is as if the writers haven't read anything on the subject. The dragons are supposedly superior to metahumans (by suprematist estimations) not because they're larger and can swallow a metahuman whole, but because they're hyperintelligent and play an extremely long game. That's why you shouldn't ever deal with a dragon, too. How can this possibly be combined with eating tens of thousands of metahumans just because or attacking own mercenaries for being metahumans is anyone's guess.

In all honesty the abomination started with Ghostzilla and it was way before current team took over in fullest

[Fatum]

Yeah, but it wasn't anywhere near in scale.
And, frankly, I figure a powerful metahuman magician could do basically the same Doll-Maker did.

[Smirnov]

Any present great dragon could be easily swapped for 'powerful metahuman magician' without any harm to the plotline. Hell, some things would make more sense then. But this had nothing to do with the fact that it was Ghostzilla who broke the setting, and he was a dragon, and still is there in all his unreasonable (un)beauty. I mean, yeah, he could be swapped. But he is a dragon. And if we talk about great dragons being inadequate in current setting, we should point to the first offender, who made this all possible. One great dragon already messed up the whole political system of entire continent, including one (or two depending on your mileage) superpower. Any present writer accused of dragon, pardon me, fappery, could easily point at the fact and say 'hey, they did it, so can I'. And he would have a point. After all, Alamais ate some humans. That's not a big deal. The same amount was _officially_ killed in Syria and no one gives a damn. Compare it to an abolishment of international law which was preventing a full-scale war in the Americas.

[apple]

'. And he would have a point.

Not really, if you consider the shitstorm after Year of the Comet. Which would mean that the authors of dragon-fappery (awesome name) didn t know or didn´t care. Probably both. After all they produced some other gems in the FATAL region.

SYL

[Smirnov]

Good to know there was a shitstorm. Wasn't here at the time to witness, but all this Year of the Comet is story is just... well, you know.

[Grinder]

Great Dragons weren't always that bad, but they've reached the level of ridiculousness that the Immortal Elves had in late 2nd edition.

Too bad that the same writers are still with CGL.

[Fatum]

Any present great dragon could be easily swapped for 'powerful metahuman magician' without any harm to the plotline.

Can totally see a powerful metahuman magician eating metahumans in GeMiTo and then attacking his own mercs. Yeah.

[kzt]

And frankly, having recently played Harlequin with a group of players who started SR in 2006 and seeing their reaction, I'd say it may not deserve so much praise (though, lousy GM, that doesn't help).

It's a complete railroad. If the players don't happily jump aboard and start shoveling coal then things might not work so well. But they usually do.

[Sendaz]

Can totally see a powerful metahuman magician eating metahumans in GeMiTo and then attacking his own mercs. Yeah.

Dunno, does sound kinda like the last Aztechnology Company Picnic.

Good times, except for the potato salad and when the guys in R&D slipped that conjoined twin cyberzombie into the three legged race.

I mean, come ON!

[Koekepan]

High-intensity modern wars? Oh, they do. As technology develops, each army turns into an ever-more complex mechanism of inter-dependent components, and destroying just one spells doom for the entire arrangement. A good example would be loss of anti-air in a modern war.
We're not at WWI level, where you could dig in and fight back attackers as long as it takes; neither at WWII level where concentrating a force to punch through a defense line took weeks to months. Nowadays bringing overwhelming firepower to a particular part of the frontline, thus toppling it over, takes hours. And where we put our minds to it, nothing survives.
Look at the RL examples. The American invasions of third world nations, the Second Chechen War, the 888 War all had full-scale army combat end in weeks if not days, the winner largely reaching his strategic goals and only having to clear out stragglers later on.
With Shadowrun, the situation gets even more drastic. I mean, they have goddamn invincible flying tanks. LAVs. Large-scale magic. All of that means that a static frontline is something that just can't happen if at least one of the sides is pushing hard (and this is why Eurowar was such a subpar book).

I'm not entirely convinced by this line of argument. Not because I think that your premises are incorrect - they're historically demonstrably true - but because I disagree with your analysis.

First and foremost: I do agree that a static front line isn't going to be occurring any time soon. We can just deliver so much payload that any strong point turns into an open cast mine in a matter of hours at most. If the allies at Normandy had been able to use modern bunker busters, cruise missiles and similar with their air superiority, all the defensive placements would have been reduced to gravel and scrap before a single grunt hit the beach. Where I disagree is what the consequences are for duration and nature of war.

When concentration of forces makes a too attractive target, the reaction is diffusion and mobility. This isn't a modern idea, either. When cannon made closely packed blocks of men too costly to maintain, the british invented the thin red line. A cannon ball would maybe take out two or three men at a time, rather than dozens. When machine guns made mass charges too expensive, fire and movement, leapfrogging cover tactics worked out better. Guerillas are hard to defeat, not because they're so effective (although historically some were) but because the return on every hard strike, regardless of how individually successful, is so small. Devoting a regiment to wiping out a dozen boys and girls with antiquated battle rifles and rusting AKs is not an efficient victory.

Basically, I expect increased diffusion of combat, but a scenario in which the better (trained, equipped, supplied) soldier is able to exert more pressure around him on the opposition, and (with battlefield communications) coordinate better with his fellows. I expect greater fluidity and flexibility.

[kzt]

If the allies at Normandy had been able to use modern bunker busters, cruise missiles and similar with their air superiority, all the defensive placements would have been reduced to gravel and scrap before a single grunt hit the beach.

You can't kill what you can't find, or and you are unlikely to find something that you don't suspect is there. IIRC, one machine gunner in a bunker at Omaha that wasn't even known to exist before he started shooting fired something like 12,000 rounds of ammo and was largely responsible for pinning down the entire force for hours. Camo and secrecy just becomes more required.

But the problem works both ways, antiship missiles are hugely more lethal, to the point where amphip operations need to be launched from well over the horizon. Which is why USMC keep trying to make their combined armored personnel carrier/speedboat design work.

[Fatum]

Basically, I expect increased diffusion of combat, but a scenario in which the better (trained, equipped, supplied) soldier is able to exert more pressure around him on the opposition, and (with battlefield communications) coordinate better with his fellows. I expect greater fluidity and flexibility.

First, the strategic goal of starting a war is not destroying the opponent's army. It's a resource grab, or changing the government, or mass genocide, or what have you. Guerrilla fighters aren't going to interfere with that significantly, other than forcing the occupants to invest into local corroborators to keep them at bay. Neither is going a dispersed force. See the aforementioned Second Chechen War as an example, where self-reliant terrorists still struggle to this day, while the war in any conventional sense has ended.

Second, guerrillas don't present a fighting force able to face a conventional military. No man-portable anti-air system is capable of challenging even a modern fighter, much less a bomber (unless, of course, employed at direct approach to its airfield). So unless the guerrillas are willing to always face overwhelming firepower - infantry against tanks, aircraft, artillery and god knows what else - they need the aforementioned incredibly complex machine of the rest of the army. And a good deal of it can't be concealed (at least for long) at all, such as long-range radars, capital ships, etc.

Third, guerrillas can't operate for any significant amount of time unless they're supported by the local population, and any prolonged amount of time unless externally supported. Simply for the lack of food, ammo, medicine and other basic necessities.

You can't kill what you can't find, or and you are unlikely to find something that you don't suspect is there.

You can with ease. Modern multiple rocket launchers have their impact zone measured in tens of hectares. We have thermobaric launchers even now, too, so cover's not going to help much. So there's no problem with guaranteed neutralizing any enemy presence in any given area of sane size.

[Sengir]

I'm not entirely convinced by this line of argument. Not because I think that your premises are incorrect - they're historically demonstrably true - but because I disagree with your analysis.
...
Basically, I expect increased diffusion of combat, but a scenario in which the better (trained, equipped, supplied) soldier is able to exert more pressure around him on the opposition, and (with battlefield communications) coordinate better with his fellows. I expect greater fluidity and flexibility.

So, where exactly is your disagreement with his argument that flying tanks would make static frontlines a thing of the past? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Fatum]

Imagine how much fuel these things chug.

[Sengir]

Imagine how much fuel these things chug.

No need to imagine, it's spelled out in the old rigger books...

[ Spoiler ]

A Banshee has an operational range of ~350 km, same as a modern tank

[Fatum]

Don't confuse LAVs and actual tanks.
See the stats for the Stonewall in MilSpecTech for example, it's actually a flying tank with Speed 400, Accel 20/100, Body 36, and Armour 28.

[kzt]

You can with ease. Modern multiple rocket launchers have their impact zone measured in tens of hectares. We have thermobaric launchers even now, too, so cover's not going to help much. So there's no problem with guaranteed neutralizing any enemy presence in any given area of sane size.

Well, I was an artillery officer, so I tend to laugh at people who make that kind of claim. As an example, how about Grozny?

How did the invasion of Grozny, Dec 31, 1994 work out? They had lot of BM-21s, tube artillery and total air dominance. How many hours did it take for the massive Russian force to take control of a small city (400,000)? Oh, and what happened on August 6th, 1994?

[Fatum]

Well, I was an artillery officer, so I tend to laugh at people who make that kind of claim. As an example, how about Grozny?

How did the invasion of Grozny, Dec 31, 1994 work out? They had lot of BM-21s, tube artillery and total air dominance. How many hours did it take for the massive Russian force to take control of a small city (400,000)? Oh, and what happened on August 6th, 1994?

When these were used, it took 42 days to clear the city completely, taking care not to hurt the civilians. The Second Battle of Fallujah took about as long. It would've taken much less if there had been no reason to care for civilians, like Azt has no reason to care for Amazonians.
Of course, using combat swimmers and anti-terrorist spec-ops units as mechanized infantry, like in the New Year Assault, proved a tad bit less effective than that - although I fail to see how this is characterizing the effectiveness of modern artillery, rather than the Russian leadership in the 90ies (as dear it was to the West, unlike the current one).
As for August 6th, 1994, dunno, Avturkhanov and Gantamirov planned their attack on Grozny? Dudaev prepared his armour and aviation units? Heavy fighting between the local forces started in September, anyway.

[binarywraith]

Well, I was an artillery officer, so I tend to laugh at people who make that kind of claim. As an example, how about Grozny?

How did the invasion of Grozny, Dec 31, 1994 work out? They had lot of BM-21s, tube artillery and total air dominance. How many hours did it take for the massive Russian force to take control of a small city (400,000)? Oh, and what happened on August 6th, 1994?

'Modern' and 'What happened 20 years ago between forces both fielding equipment that was already 30 years old and was significantly behind the tech curve from the day it went into service' isn't terribly relevant to honest to God modern artillery. The science of warfare has advanced a weee bit since the BM-21s went into service in the 1960's.

Doesn't have much bearing compared to, say, the US flying B-2 sorties into Iraq from Omaha, Nebraska during the second Iraq war, or Predator drone kills made remotely from halfway around the world.

[kzt]

When these were used, it took 42 days to clear the city completely, taking care not to hurt the civilians. The Second Battle of Fallujah took about as long. It would've taken much less if there had been no reason to care for civilians, like Azt has no reason to care for Amazonians.

Well, considering that most of the city was methodically and block by block demolished by airstrikes, artillery barrages and MRLs using thermobaric warheads what exactly does "care to not hurt the civilians" mean? The Russians say 27,000 civilians were killed. That's out of the 400,000 total population, most of which fled the city prior or during the fighting.

So yeah, I'm unimpressed with these sort of claims. People who are willing to fight and willing to die can put up one hell of a fight against modern forces. And the fact that you have 18 airplanes based 12 hours away that can drop bombs is really not that decisive.

The AFV counts of the observers watching the Serbs leaving Kosovo were also another example. The Serbs drove out with more AFVs than USAF had claimed they had at the start, much less had left after the weeks of airstrikes. When people went and looked for the wrecked AFVs where USAF claimed to have killed AFVs it turns out that the zoomie claims for AFVs destroyed were just a tiny bit overstated. Like over 10x.

[Fatum]

Well, considering that most of the city was methodically and block by block demolished by airstrikes, artillery barrages and MRLs using thermobaric warheads what exactly does "care to not hurt the civilians" mean? The Russians say 27,000 civilians were killed. That's out of the 400,000 total population, most of which fled the city prior or during the fighting.

I am sure the proof you have for these claims is as exceptional as they are. Not based on the oh-so-unbiased media reports at all, calling the terrorists "insurgents" if not "freedom fighters" as they are.

So yeah, I'm unimpressed with these sort of claims. People who are willing to fight and willing to die can put up one hell of a fight against modern forces.

And that leads them where, exactly?
Is Hussein still ruling Iraq? What about Gaddafi? Oh, I guess Taliban's still the acting government in Afghanistan, and Maskhadov is still launching raids across Russian Caucasus from Chechnya? Or maybe the overwhelming, almost uniform, Belorussian participation in guerrilla regiments or support of them freed them from the Nazi rule? Oh no you say, it just left more than 25% of Belorussian civilians dead, and it was the Red Army's Operation Bagration that drove the fascists out? So much for putting one hell of a fight.

[Not of this Worl...]

Nostalgia is rarely a good guide. First, the very definition of it makes it for people who still hold one to replace it with a new for something that came out a decade later. Maybe in a few years you will see younger players nostalgic about Ghost Cartels or The Twilight Horizon.

And frankly, having recently played Harlequin with a group of players who started SR in 2006 and seeing their reaction, I'd say it may not deserve so much praise (though, lousy GM, that doesn't help).

Well now that history can judge 4th edition as a historical edition with all the others I don't think history will be too kind in general, especially on the plot side. As for sales, well Shadowrun was the primary game keeping FASA in the green during its years and Fanpro nearly killed. CGL has to be commended for basically resuscitating the franchise, still I've seen no sign in game stores of 4th edition being nearly as popular as 2nd and 3rd edition Shadowrun were in their days. But if you think Ghost Cartels can compare to Universal Brotherhood or Renraku Arcology in popularity then I'd be curious to hear how.

As for Ghostwalker I think his initial take-over of Denver made sense. It was a surprise attack by a previously unknown major power, in a very divided situation. Aztlan was able to hold him off in a few wars but eventually the other nations decided to join him and his team of Spirits to gang up on Aztlan. If an Ancient Immortal Elf or Nosferatu suddenly woke up and had a small army then he should be able to take over a city by surprise as well. So it rather made sense that he one initially. Him staying in power and getting away with being ruthless is another matter. Take over a city is one thing, keeping 5 major nations that have major magical or technological military powers of their own? Not really, they should have spanked Ghostwalker into toeing the line.

[kzt]

I am sure the proof you have for these claims is as exceptional as they are. Not based on the oh-so-unbiased media reports at all, calling the terrorists "insurgents" if not "freedom fighters" as they are.

That was the figures of Sergei Kovalev, who was the Chairman of the President's Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Commissioner for the Duma.

Oh, and if you want a picture of what Grozny looked like after Russians fought there with "care not to hurt the civilians", here are some:
http://anthonysuau.photoshelter.com/image/I0000ol85worpKDo
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I000...r-eru102563.jpg
http://cdn4.list25.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/grozny.gif

It's hard to tell from Berlin in late 1945.

This isn't just Russians, all urban combat is incredibly violent and bloody. It's room to room fights with rifles, grenades and sometimes knives; booby traps everywhere; houses being blown to pieces by tanks from 25 yards away and guys sneaking out of the sewers to place mines and set up sniping positions in "safe areas". It's about as far from the concept of surgical application of violence as you can get.

Anyhow, back to the original point, which is that until you go to using nukes or chemical weapons you won't have a war over in a few hours or days against people who are willing to fight. The US has been pretty careful to not fight people who were really serious opponents for the last few decades. Our opponents have been ones who can't shoot down propeller driven drones, much less ones who can jam or shoot down satellites or spread scatterable mines over airfields with ballistic missiles.

It's also worth pointing out that in about 10 years of combat in Vietnam USAF had shot down or lost in action about as many fixed wing combat aircraft as USAF currently posses (2141 aircraft lost). As far as I can determine we've lost 26 fixed wing combat aircraft in over 10 years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that because we are so much better, or because the caliber of the opponent (and their outside support) is so much less?

[Fatum]

That was the figures of Sergei Kovalev, who was the Chairman of the President's Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Commissioner for the Duma.

Oh, the Sergei Kovalev who hanged out with the Chechen commanders during the First War, promising blocked armour regiments safe passage out of Grozny in 1996 if they provide their exfiltration routes? With results rather predictable?

Oh, and if you want a picture of what Grozny looked like after Russians fought there with "care not to hurt the civilians", here are some:

Which shows us that there were destroyed buildings in Grozny. That's... eye-opening. That must mean that all the civilians went down with their homes, because evacuation is just not a concept a Russian can grasp, I understand.

This isn't just Russians, all urban combat is incredibly violent and bloody. It's room to room fights with rifles, grenades and sometimes knives; booby traps everywhere; houses being blown to pieces by tanks from 25 yards away and guys sneaking out of the sewers to place mines and set up sniping positions in "safe areas". It's about as far from the concept of surgical application of violence as you can get.

And surgical application is necessary in a full-scale war why, exactly? I have to remind you we started this chain of discussion with massed artillery strikes. You yourself claim a city can be leveled in fourty days with modern-day tech; Shadowrun has seventy years of destructive technology extra.

Anyhow, back to the original point, which is that until you go to using nukes or chemical weapons you won't have a war over in a few hours or days against people who are willing to fight.

You'll just have their leader hung after a parody trial, control their resources, and generally do what you want on the vast majority of their territory, with the exception of straggler-controlled enclaves which change nothing on strategic level, eh? So why exactly should that be different in Shadowrun, again?

The US has been pretty careful to not fight people who were really serious opponents for the last few decades. Our opponents have been ones who can't shoot down propeller driven drones, much less ones who can jam or shoot down satellites or spread scatterable mines over airfields with ballistic missiles.

That's more a question of detecting them, since even AA cannons can shoot these down. But yeah, sure, the US wars have been pretty one-sided lately. The 888 war wasn't; neither were the Chechen Wars in their initial phases.

It's also worth pointing out that in about 10 years of combat in Vietnam USAF had shot down or lost in action about as many fixed wing combat aircraft as USAF currently posses (2141 aircraft lost). As far as I can determine we've lost 26 fixed wing combat aircraft in over 10 years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that because we are so much better, or because the caliber of the opponent (and their outside support) is so much less?

You might also notice that modern aircraft (also, armour and infantryman gear) cost massively more than they did in the era. Which means modern aircraft can't be produced by thousands. Exchanging airframe quantity for quality has been the trend ever since WWII.
Also, are you only counting aircraft completely destroyed by enemy fire, or what?

[kzt]

I'm working from a list USAF published in one of their journals. There were also over 5000 helicopters shot down or otherwise lost in Vietnam vs 250 or so in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Either the US got a lot better at this warfare thing or we are fighting people a lot less skilled at this whole warfare thing than the NVA/VC. I'd guess it's both, but I'd wager the majority is the opponents. The whole idea of projecting the future of warfare based on these wars seems kind of risky.