[Mongoose]

Seriously.  The initial contact was essentially in the vein of Pearl Harbor.

[Flak]

any chance the Shivans try to redeem themselves by attacking both sides?

[Qent]

I'd definitely like to see how all the cool doodads from WiH work against the Shivans. Must lrn2FRED.

Why can't they all work together? To kill... red-and-black ants.

[-Norbert-]

Erm... because they ARE the ants....

Anyway considering the overuse of the "two sides fight untill they have to unite against a very strong, common enemy"-scenario I doubt the BP team will take that road. Darius strikes me as someone who likes to surprise the players with the way the story goes and this wouldn't be surprising at all.
So most likely the Shivans won't attack both sides, because there will be only one side left, unless the war tapers out into a cold war without any fighting but a lot of distrust.

[Qent]

Erm... because they ARE the ants....

I'm already aware of that metaphor. I was just pointing out the similarity between it and the Shivans' physical appearance.

[Dilmah G]

Seriously.  The initial contact was essentially in the vein of Pearl Harbor.

I quite like this analogy actually. Fits it in more ways than you'd reckon.

[General Battuta]

Seriously.  The initial contact was essentially in the vein of Pearl Harbor.

I quite like this analogy actually. Fits it in more ways than you'd reckon.

Including the fact that it was something of an accident, or at least didn't go off quite the way it was meant to and didn't ultimately achieve its immediate goals.

[NGTM-1R]

It does fall down completely on the planning comparison stage, whereas the original plan probably wouldn't have.

(And I don't think anybody threatened to resign if not allowed to carry out an attack on the Renjian.)

[Dilmah G]

Including the fact that it was something of an accident, or at least didn't go off quite the way it was meant to and didn't ultimately achieve its immediate goals.

Those last two were the reasons on my mind. I'm not sure if you could call Pearl Harbour an 'accident'. I mean, the Navy thought those A6Ms were pretty serious.

Unless of course you were talking in a wider sense, in which case I'd still have to disagree and say that I believed it was a failing of the American Intelligence network.

It does fall down completely on the planning comparison stage,

Of course, I was only thinking in terms of December 7th, rather than a more big picture view of the whole deal.

[General Battuta]

Including the fact that it was something of an accident, or at least didn't go off quite the way it was meant to and didn't ultimately achieve its immediate goals.

Those last two were the reasons on my mind. I'm not sure if you could call Pearl Harbour an 'accident'. I mean, the Navy thought those A6Ms were pretty serious.

Unless of course you were talking in a wider sense, in which case I'd still have to disagree and say that I believed it was a failing of the American Intelligence network.

To my understanding it was meant to follow a formal declaration of war (though just barely), but the timing got screwed up. I could be wrong.

[Dilmah G]

Oh I've never heard about that.

Although after a quick google of the keywords it looks like you're right. Fair enough, in that case.

[Flak]

Any more Gef ships as well? So far they only fly scimitars

[Klaustrophobia]

Including the fact that it was something of an accident, or at least didn't go off quite the way it was meant to and didn't ultimately achieve its immediate goals.

Those last two were the reasons on my mind. I'm not sure if you could call Pearl Harbour an 'accident'. I mean, the Navy thought those A6Ms were pretty serious.

Unless of course you were talking in a wider sense, in which case I'd still have to disagree and say that I believed it was a failing of the American Intelligence network.

To my understanding it was meant to follow a formal declaration of war (though just barely), but the timing got screwed up. I could be wrong.

i don't think that is right.  it was meant to be a complete surprise and a knockout suckerpunch.  japanese ministers had been instructed to stall as much as possible, and were still "negotiating" that morning.

[General Battuta]

Including the fact that it was something of an accident, or at least didn't go off quite the way it was meant to and didn't ultimately achieve its immediate goals.

Those last two were the reasons on my mind. I'm not sure if you could call Pearl Harbour an 'accident'. I mean, the Navy thought those A6Ms were pretty serious.

Unless of course you were talking in a wider sense, in which case I'd still have to disagree and say that I believed it was a failing of the American Intelligence network.

To my understanding it was meant to follow a formal declaration of war (though just barely), but the timing got screwed up. I could be wrong.

i don't think that is right.  it was meant to be a complete surprise and a knockout suckerpunch.  japanese ministers had been instructed to stall as much as possible, and were still "negotiating" that morning.

We're both wrong. It wasn't a formal declaration of war, but it was tantamount to:

Part of the Japanese plan for the attack included breaking off negotiations with the United States 30 minutes before the attack began. Diplomats from the Japanese Embassy in Washington, including the Japanese Ambassador, Admiral Kichisaburo Nomura, and special representative Saburo Kurusu, had been conducting extended talks with the State Department regarding the U.S. reactions to the Japanese move into Việt Nam in the summer (see above).
In the days before the attack, a long 14-part message was sent to the Embassy from the Foreign Office in Tokyo (encrypted with the Type 97 cryptographic machine, in a cipher named PURPLE by U.S. cryptanalysts), with instructions to deliver it to Secretary of State Cordell Hull at 1 p.m. Washington time. The last part arrived late Saturday night (Washington time) but due to decryption and typing delays, and to Tokyo's failure to stress the crucial necessity of the timing, Embassy personnel did not deliver the message breaking off negotiations to Secretary Hull until several hours after the attack.

[NGTM-1R]

We're both wrong. It wasn't a formal declaration of war, but it was tantamount to:

Not at all. Formal breaks in relations are not uncommon without war. Japan didn't even announce the recall of their ambassador, which would usually be the last step on the road. There was nothing tantamount to a declaration of war at all. The comparison works in this respect.

[General Battuta]

We're both wrong. It wasn't a formal declaration of war, but it was tantamount to:

Not at all. Formal breaks in relations are not uncommon without war.

It was 'tantamount to' in the sense that it was an action taken to provide a legal/diplomatic basis for the beginning of conflict. They may not be uncommon, but in this context it meant what it meant.

[Mongoose]

I'm beginning to regret ever introducing the comparison in the first place. Suffice it to say that I meant it solely on ethical/moral grounds, not necessarily on logistical ones.

[Ravenholme]

Gefs using Terran-Vasudan War era GTA fighters. I imagine there must be some lying around out there, and I imagine the Gefs would've stolen them. Heck, even an excuse to reuse the uglies from AoA

[Ypoknons]

^ I was thinking the same thing. Unless they've been all destroyed in inter-asteroid warfare.

I was also hoping for a better space superiority fighter than the Uhlan, which I found a bit too mediocre (though after flying a Nyx I saw how the Uhlan has advantages in several respects - it's faster but still has a decent gun armament). Then I realized the Kent isn't any less durable, so the Kent is really what I was looking for. And also there is the Izra'il ...

Spoiler:

which is kind of a gunship turned missile boat or a super heavy assault fighter, depending on how you see it. I assume we'll see some Izra'il missions and some bomber missions as well in R2.

[Dilmah G]

Gefs using Terran-Vasudan War era GTA fighters. I imagine there must be some lying around out there, and I imagine the Gefs would've stolen them. Heck, even an excuse to reuse the uglies from AoA

Well you could look at it this way. It's something like 50 years since the Great War that this occurs.

To put it into perspective, this is like saying "Why didn't those Bosnian blokes use Supermarine Spitfires?" when talking about Bosnia and why they didn't use old planes. And also, the military has this nasty habit of disbanding squadrons and crushing their aircraft after wars when the need for them becomes redundant.

And also, remember that these aircraft are like, made of material that suffers stress. Much like the aircraft of today, there's a point where you just can't fly it anymore without it being a safety issue due to the frame stress. I'd imagine most TV era fighters have flown to their useful lifespans and now spend most of their days in museums. Like most Spitfires were doing 50 years after WWII.