Sorry to hear that, hope things get better you and your family soon.
I’d certainly say we’ve seen that not having banesense would be at least an added difficulty in Sabres and Guns, though it being the sole measure of ability would be silly.
Yet another reason why the baneless being made officers is not necessarily a good idea.
Damn @Rogar, this was unexpected. My sympathies bro, we are here for you if you need to talk or just get all the hate for the world off your chest. You are great, man.
Thank you he was more of a father than my actual father to me. No fault of my biological father he just didn’t have a real hand in raising me during the formative years. Where my stepfather Gary was constant in my life. Even during and after the military when I move back home.
@ruhenri thank you so much brother!
As ruhenri and zoilus said:
We’re here. Just ask if you need something.
Wow you have my condolences man. Like everyone else is saying we’re here if you want to talk
I’m worried about my mother too she heart broken. This is a man she’s been with close to 20 years. To lose him for no reason because someone was being careless. Thank you guys I mean I’m sorry to vent. Many of you feel like good friends to me in this nerdy fab club we have here. The woman that hit him not even getting charged not even a ticket. All she got out of those a sprained wrist!
Wouldn’t it be interesting if a progressive MC ended up absolutely despised by most of the Tierran aristocracy and military high command, but then ended up being rehabilitated by the historical community of the future, where such opinions would be common?
Kind of like how some historical figures were seen as radicals for having opinions that are today commonplace.
Oh, man, Rog, I can’t imagine how that must feel to you. But PM me if you need to talk about anything, you’re a good one.
No. Some regiments are just authorised two Lieutenants colonel for various reasons.
Well that sucks. My condolences. Add me to the “here if you need anything” list.
Today those groups are in the minority. The general consensus seems to be that Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, etc. were great guys.
Once the new artillery and rifles render banetraps obsolete, banesense can become less of an issue.
That said, I doubt the ranks are going to swell with baneless and female officers once they are allowed. You need people who are confident enough to take that step after being told they were incapable for thousands of years.
But I think the Baneless would be best put to use in a vastly expanded Experimental Corps. Mainly for the reasons that Lewes has already cited.
As for the female officers… outside of the 5th of Foot, they may just be consigned to desk work or low value assignments. We do need to remember that the army’s high command is still predominantly elderly men.
I’m pretty sure that banetraps are not going to be obsolete just because artillery and rifles can also be highly destructive.
Pretty sure it will. A few well-placed mines or a well-aimed artillery strike can fulfill almost the exact same role as a banecast. And you don’t need a banecaster to use them.
And since there are so few banecasters, why risk them on the battlefield when you can have them all take up healing?
Which does not make them obsolete. It means battlefields where you can expect both.
I’d suggest asking the survivors of the attack on Cunaris’s brigade, but there aren’t very many in a state to answer questions.
And for example, something like Hunter’s ambush is without any artillery on the battlefield, so a nice banecast is still a possibility - with or without mines to magnify the effect.
For the same reasons that they’re not all forced to become healers now?
Even if “baneblood = nobility = leadership ability” is dismissed, I’d rather have men like Hunter on the battlefield. And in certain regards, it’s going to be hard to find a way “men like Hunter” (can do, brave, work well with others, inspiring) are ever not desirable leaders.
The artillery was equally if not more deadly than the banecast, so they could have achieved the same result had they doubled the amount of artillery, and saved more lives during the entire battle had they committed those banecasters to healthcare.
They’re not all forced to become healers because banecasting on the battlefield is still viable. Whatever cultural reasons are added to the mix can eventually change with time.
I don’t think Banecasting made Hunter the way he was.
Doubled the amount of cost for potentially a better result.
Odds are the opposite would have been true. There is a reason every troop is not outfitted with a Banehealer: The training to make one a half decent healer is long, and not everyone is cut out for it. Putting Banecasters who only know how to kill and making them heal will do nothing but cause more wounded to die.
Also because they have the choice. Any one of them could have become knights of the blue.
That doesn’t really address whether or not banecasting is still effective. If you can kill five hundred guys with banecasting, and let’s say 1100 guys with banecasting and artillery (so six hundred with artillery alone), my response to “twice the artillery kills 1200 guys” is “but twice the artillery and banecasting kills 1700.”
I’ll take the option that kills 1700 guys than the response that kills 1200 guys. And I’m sure I could argue that killing 1700 guys means they’re less able to inflict casualties to begin with, but that’s only part of the question.
It’s not purely cultural reasons and hang-ups that means (some) individual banecasters on the battlefield are better than said 'casters as banehealers.
I never said it did. But if you’re pulling all the banecasters from the battlefield, you’re pulling men like Hunter as much as hypothetical 9th caliber banecasters who have no skill at war or leadership at all.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t have been a better or equal result.
I’m saying that had those offensive banecasters been trained how to baneheal from the beginning, they would have been better off. Of course, they don’t have psychic knowledge and didn’t know banecasting would eventually be surpassed, but future generations should be geared more towards banehealing.
Okay, it can be effective. But it’s very situational and you need to put actual banecasters at risk in order to use it. It’s safer and more efficient to just use artillery.
Also I realize I forgot to address this:
I don’t think that would be the best idea. If the landmines detonate before the banecast, the baneseals get destroyed and the cast can’t be completed.
And although remote explosions are a long way into the future, and we will likely never see them developed in the game, they are definitely superior to the banecast and more or less serve the exact same role.
Will we still see banecasting used in the story to great effect, even as tech progresses? Definitely. But tech isn’t going to stagnate after our MC dies. Eventually it will reach the same level as our modern world, and the weaponry we have today definitely renders banecasting obsolete.
Because what you can do with banecasting is completely static and cannot, in any way, combine with what you can do with technology.
What is this, Arcanum (highly recommended, but definitely a different relationship between technology and “magick” than the Infinite Sea)?
If I was using modern landmines and banecasting, I’d find a way to use 'casting to work with the landmines.
Especially if I could lure an enemy to think one path is safer.
Just off the top of my head.
Everything we have seen so far seems to indicate that the Bane is on the decline. I don’t see how it will improve as time goes on, especially as technology replaces it.
Given what we know of the laws banecasting operates by, I’d say a better scientific understanding of the world would make banecasting more effective than a cruder understanding.
Banehealing was described in a way that it seems like it would be especially relevant, bane-weapons depend on the weapon part.
But even if you can’t directly make say, practical baneruned grenades, you can still take advantage of being able to make heat for example.