Why the Preston Garvey hate?

[Moraelin]

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Willing to push forward in an untenable position is probably what cost a lot of people in Quincy their lives.

 

If you read the terminals in Quincy, you find out that Hollis lied to the people of Quincy that reinforcements would come, even when it became obvious there wouldn't be any. And even up then it was more like wishful thinking in action. Now it may seem like the kind of comoforting white lie, but not when it's the kind of information on which people decide whether to stay or evacuate while they can. Selling hope ain't as nice as it sounds IMHO when it gets people killed.

 

If Hollis and Preston had evacuated Quincy, it would have resulted in a lot less death, both in the attack and in that death march to Concord. They wouldn't have been as easy a prey for the ghouls in Lexington, for example, if they had a whole company of minutemen there instead of the couple that survived trying to hold Quincy.

 

And one could point out that Quincy only fell when a traitor told the Gunners how unprotected the town is from above. And it would even be correct. But that's not the whole picture.

 

That guy didn't CREATE the vulnerability. He didn't disable some turrets on roofs or anything. The fact is that for all the fortification efforts Hollis did, they left a big gaping hole in the defenses that anyone could exploit. It was simply the tactical incompetence of "Colonel" Hollis and his gang that created that Achilles heel, not some act of treason.

 

And I'll put forward the idea that it was just a matter of time until someone else came to the same idea. Gunners use those elevated highways ALL OVER the commonweath, not just in Quincy. Remember for example where those two guys are in MacCready's quest. Yeah, they're up there. And in about half a dozen other places. It was just a matter of time until someone tried putting at least a scout up there (good observation points are basic military thinking), or maybe a sniper, and discovered that way that the city has nothing to shoot in that direction.

 

Hell, even without the highways, if the Gunners were that determined to take Quincy, it was only a matter of time until they brought a vertibird or two and discovered that the town is unprotected from above that way. Because, yeah, I don't know if you've paid attention enough later in the game, but the Gunners have vertibirds too.

 

Basically, sure, in this version of history, some guy figured out that his options are to die for nothing by following an utterly incompetent officer, or join the Gunners. I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, to be honest. But even without that, the vulnerability in the defenses was still there all along, and it was just a matter of time until someone else notices it too.

 

And let's be honest, what Hollis was doing there was a glorious last stand. Going out in a blaze of glory. Which is heroic and all, and I normally wouldn't dream of discouraging him from earning his place in Valhalla, but... NOT when it involves also getting civillians AND his men killed pointlessly. If he wants to die a hero, he can commit suicide by Gunners by himself. Not only I doubt that most civilians were OK with getting killed because Hollis is tired of living, but judging by that betrayal, not all his men were OK with that plan either.

 

 

Which brings us to Preston Garvey... *sigh*

 

 

Simply put, Garvey is a stonking moron. He learned absolutely nothing at Quincy, fer fork's sake.

 

His attitude -- apparently shared by the rest of the commonwealth -- that anything else than showing up to die in an untenable position is nothing short of high treason, isn't a quality, it's a PROBLEM. I mean, I'd admire that kind of single-minded dedication to getting killed in a soldier, maybe. But that guy had and has no business being an officer. If single-minded stand-and-get-shot is the only kind of tactical thinking that he knows, he shouldn't even be a lance corporal.

 

I put forward the idea that the role of an officer isn't to get his men heroically killed (well, unless you're still stuck in WW1;)), but to keep them alive. And his duty as a minuteman was to protect the civillians, not to glorify a course of action that got many many civillians pointlessly killed as the only expected course of action.

 

 

And I'll further put to you that that sentiment that anyone not taking part in a pointless last stand is some kind of traitor to the Commonwealth, is an ideological problem too. You're not going to get many more people to join with that attitude.

 

Frankly, that's not even the point of an army, and paradoxically it's not even conducive to getting the men to stay and fight. The reason you stay there and get shot at is basically because the alternative is worse. And not just as in "you'll get court martialled if you run". The idea is that if you act as a cohesive unit, less of you will come back in a pine box, than if you don't. And you must trust the officers to use that cohesive unit in a way that won't get you all home in pine boxes.

 

That's why you put up with the drill sergeant wiping the floor with you, and all the crawling through mud, and the marches and all. Because it might just get you out of a real fight alive. And you have to trust that your officers too know what they're doing to get as many of you out alive as possible.

 

And the moment an officer has lost that trust, sure enough, the unit as a whole becomes a lot less effective.

 

If you start from the get go with the idea that no, anything short of everyone dying gloriously is treason, that any kind of even thinking of retreat to a more defensible position, any feint, anything short of stay there and get shot from above, is treason, that's NOT a way to get the morale and cohesion up. It's not even a way to get them to stand and fight. If your men get the idea that they're just there to stand until they get shot, then they'll actually be less inclined to stand there until they get shot. Unless you have some NKVD commissar or such to shoot anyone in the head if they don't stand and fight, that is.

[Deleted2433418User]

I don´t hate Garvey.. he´s a nice guy.. but nice guys get you killed.period... and,boy is he trying.. best to just ignore him after Concord

[Deleted2433418User]

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Willing to push forward in an untenable position is probably what cost a lot of people in Quincy their lives.

 

If you read the terminals in Quincy, you find out that Hollis lied to the people of Quincy that reinforcements would come, even when it became obvious there wouldn't be any. And even up then it was more like wishful thinking in action. Now it may seem like the kind of comoforting white lie, but not when it's the kind of information on which people decide whether to stay or evacuate while they can. Selling hope ain't as nice as it sounds IMHO when it gets people killed.

 

If Hollis and Preston had evacuated Quincy, it would have resulted in a lot less death, both in the attack and in that death march to Concord. They wouldn't have been as easy a prey for the ghouls in Lexington, for example, if they had a whole company of minutemen there instead of the couple that survived trying to hold Quincy.

 

And one could point out that Quincy only fell when a traitor told the Gunners how unprotected the town is from above. And it would even be correct. But that's not the whole picture.

 

That guy didn't CREATE the vulnerability. He didn't disable some turrets on roofs or anything. The fact is that for all the fortification efforts Hollis did, they left a big gaping hole in the defenses that anyone could exploit. It was simply the tactical incompetence of "Colonel" Hollis and his gang that created that Achilles heel, not some act of treason.

 

And I'll put forward the idea that it was just a matter of time until someone else came to the same idea. Gunners use those elevated highways ALL OVER the commonweath, not just in Quincy. Remember for example where those two guys are in MacCready's quest. Yeah, they're up there. And in about half a dozen other places. It was just a matter of time until someone tried putting at least a scout up there (good observation points are basic military thinking), or maybe a sniper, and discovered that way that the city has nothing to shoot in that direction.

 

Hell, even without the highways, if the Gunners were that determined to take Quincy, it was only a matter of time until they brought a vertibird or two and discovered that the town is unprotected from above that way. Because, yeah, I don't know if you've paid attention enough later in the game, but the Gunners have vertibirds too.

 

Basically, sure, in this version of history, some guy figured out that his options are to die for nothing by following an utterly incompetent officer, or join the Gunners. I'm surprised it didn't happen earlier, to be honest. But even without that, the vulnerability in the defenses was still there all along, and it was just a matter of time until someone else notices it too.

 

And let's be honest, what Hollis was doing there was a glorious last stand. Going out in a blaze of glory. Which is heroic and all, and I normally wouldn't dream of discouraging him from earning his place in Valhalla, but... NOT when it involves also getting civillians AND his men killed pointlessly. If he wants to die a hero, he can commit suicide by Gunners by himself. Not only I doubt that most civilians were OK with getting killed because Hollis is tired of living, but judging by that betrayal, not all his men were OK with that plan either.

 

 

Which brings us to Preston Garvey... *sigh*

 

 

Simply put, Garvey is a stonking moron. He learned absolutely nothing at Quincy, fer fork's sake.

 

His attitude -- apparently shared by the rest of the commonwealth -- that anything else than showing up to die in an untenable position is nothing short of high treason, isn't a quality, it's a PROBLEM. I mean, I'd admire that kind of single-minded dedication to getting killed in a soldier, maybe. But that guy had and has no business being an officer. If single-minded stand-and-get-shot is the only kind of tactical thinking that he knows, he shouldn't even be a lance corporal.

 

I put forward the idea that the role of an officer isn't to get his men heroically killed (well, unless you're still stuck in WW1;)), but to keep them alive. And his duty as a minuteman was to protect the civillians, not to glorify a course of action that got many many civillians pointlessly killed as the only expected course of action.

 

 

And I'll further put to you that that sentiment that anyone not taking part in a pointless last stand is some kind of traitor to the Commonwealth, is an ideological problem too. You're not going to get many more people to join with that attitude.

 

Frankly, that's not even the point of an army, and paradoxically it's not even conducive to getting the men to stay and fight. The reason you stay there and get shot at is basically because the alternative is worse. And not just as in "you'll get court martialled if you run". The idea is that if you act as a cohesive unit, less of you will come back in a pine box, than if you don't. And you must trust the officers to use that cohesive unit in a way that won't get you all home in pine boxes.

 

That's why you put up with the drill sergeant wiping the floor with you, and all the crawling through mud, and the marches and all. Because it might just get you out of a real fight alive. And you have to trust that your officers too know what they're doing to get as many of you out alive as possible.

 

And the moment an officer has lost that trust, sure enough, the unit as a whole becomes a lot less effective.

 

If you start from the get go with the idea that no, anything short of everyone dying gloriously is treason, that any kind of even thinking of retreat to a more defensible position, any feint, anything short of stay there and get shot from above, is treason, that's NOT a way to get the morale and cohesion up. It's not even a way to get them to stand and fight. If your men get the idea that they're just there to stand until they get shot, then they'll actually be less inclined to stand there until they get shot. Unless you have some NKVD commissar or such to shoot anyone in the head if they don't stand and fight, that is.

Brilliant.. as you point out Garvey is the worst kind of NCO and Hollis the worst kind of Officer.. Wars are not for Heroes.. it´s for a** holes that get things done.. no matter what it takes

[jones177]

My take on Preston is, You meet him, he asks you to join a team, you join & then you find out you are the team.

 

This has happened to me a lot in life.

 

To me he is just another polite abuser.

 

Later

[Fkemman11]

My take on Preston is, You meet him, he asks you to join a team, you join & then you find out you are the team.

 

This has happened to me a lot in life.

 

To me he is just another polite abuser.

 

Later

 

Your not lying there friend. I cant count how many times I "join" a team only to find out I am the only one that knows what should be done and how. I actually just ran into a guy in FO4 that just says it like it is; " We are going to going through the town infested with Mirelurks to turn on these turrets. And when I say "WE"- I most definitely mean "YOU" !! I laughed at this as the first guy to actually say it like it is. I mean I am quite used to having to do things myself to ensure it is done right. It is so refreshing to actually meet someone else that is competent at least in what they do.

What is Preston good at? Getting people killed. Hell he SAID SO when you first meet him. Says he can defend a position against overwhelming odds- but cannot understand common sense like why the hell did you pass Diamond City? He reminds me of so many people that cannot or will not think and make good decisions for themselves. They NEED to be told what to do. :nuke:

[Moraelin]

Brilliant.. as you point out Garvey is the worst kind of NCO and Hollis the worst kind of Officer.. Wars are not for Heroes.. it´s for a** holes that get things done.. no matter what it takes

Well, you're not wrong, but I don't know if I'd put it as it being for a-holes. I suppose that is one way it would look like from outside, but a-hole or not, what I'd want in an officer is to be:

 

1. intelligent and know what the hell he's doing, and

2. a pragmatist.

 

I don't want someone who's just married to the idea of static trench sieges like in WW1. I want someone who can also think a bit along the lines of elastic defences, pulling back to a more defensible position, etc.

 

In fact, I'd like someone who can outsmart the enemy, rather than, as you correctly point out, a hero.

 

The idea that you CAN win even if you don't hold a fixed line at all cost isn't even new. One of THE most famous battles, still taught in all military academies, is the battle of Canae, for example. Hannibal didn't just hold the line. He actually gradually retreated his centre to draw the romans into a trap and annihilate them. Or take Zama. Scipio didn't try to play hero against the elephants. He just got his troops to open paths for them, until they get hit by enough javelins to keel over.

 

Even those weren't the first. Alexander the Great beat them to it, for example.

[Fkemman11]

 

Brilliant.. as you point out Garvey is the worst kind of NCO and Hollis the worst kind of Officer.. Wars are not for Heroes.. it´s for a** holes that get things done.. no matter what it takes

Well, you're not wrong, but I don't know if I'd put it as it being for a-holes. I suppose that is one way it would look like from outside, but a-hole or not, what I'd want in an officer is to be:

 

1. intelligent and know what the hell he's doing, and

2. a pragmatist.

 

I don't want someone who's just married to the idea of static trench sieges like in WW1. I want someone who can also think a bit along the lines of elastic defences, pulling back to a more defensible position, etc.

 

In fact, I'd like someone who can outsmart the enemy, rather than, as you correctly point out, a hero.

 

The idea that you CAN win even if you don't hold a fixed line at all cost isn't even new. One of THE most famous battles, still taught in all military academies, is the battle of Canae, for example. Hannibal didn't just hold the line. He actually gradually retreated his centre to draw the romans into a trap and annihilate them. Or take Zama. Scipio didn't try to play hero against the elephants. He just got his troops to open paths for them, until they get hit by enough javelins to keel over.

 

Even those weren't the first. Alexander the Great beat them to it, for example.

 

 

Probably my favorite general is Julius Caesar. In one battle against the Gauls ( French) he had managed to surround and lay siege to a fortress I think. But enemy reinforcements -another army- surrounded his army and essentially trapped them. He ordered his army to build lines of defence in both directions as his army was now trapped and heavily out-numbered. They eventually won the battle with Caesar riding with a small reactionary force to plug any holes as the Gauls attacked relentlessly for days. It is said that more battles were won by the Roman E-tool than by the sword. I admire any leader that leads through action and not just forming a battle plan and then safely watching from a distance. :happy:

 

I obviously understand that Generals and officers cannot lead in modern battles as they will be targeted first. The advent of gunpowder weapons changed the face of the "Brave Leader" forever sadly. But modern gun battles are still decided in part by superior positioning. Holding the high ground in an engagement still gives a big advantage for example. This should have been the first thing any reasonably competent leader would have recognized at Quincy.

[CiderMuffin]

My take on Preston is, You meet him, he asks you to join a team, you join & then you find out you are the team.

 

This has happened to me a lot in life.

 

To me he is just another polite abuser.

 

Later

Oh, ok. But one thing, what quest shows the Sole Survivor actively recruiting members, discovering settlements and potential settlements to help, sending out patrols, organizing trade deals to supply the troops and everything else? Because there is a lot the Sole Survivor doesn't do that Preston is implied to do. Minutemen patrols show up before the castle quest and they're all armed. Someone has to do that, the soldiers all carry weapons and armor provided by the Minutemen and Preston also keeps an ear out for settlers that are in trouble or potential help.

 

If anything the Sole Survivor only does the dirty work but everything else is done by Preston and most likely Ronnie Shaw when she shows up. You're not the team, you're part of the team.

 

By the way you sound you think everything revolves around you than you miss details that the other team members do.

Edited March 31, 2017 by CiderMuffin

[Fkemman11]

 

My take on Preston is, You meet him, he asks you to join a team, you join & then you find out you are the team.

 

This has happened to me a lot in life.

 

To me he is just another polite abuser.

 

Later

Oh, ok. But one thing, what quest shows the Sole Survivor actively recruiting members, discovering settlements and potential settlements to help, sending out patrols, organizing trade deals to supply the troops and everything else? Because there is a lot the Sole Survivor doesn't do that Preston is implied to do. Minutemen patrols show up before the castle quest and they're all armed. Someone has to do that, the soldiers all carry weapons and armor provided by the Minutemen and Preston also keeps an ear out for settlers that are in trouble or potential help.

 

If anything the Sole Survivor only does the dirty work but everything else is done by Preston and most likely Ronnie Shaw when she shows up. You're not the team, you're part of the team.

 

By the way you sound you think everything revolves around you than you miss details that the other team members do.

 

 

Well. You make a good point. I think what he is saying is that a general does not typically put themselves in the line of fire - especially not ALL the time. If the general dies it is clear that there is no one that can replace him/her. Preston said as much in the game. However it is also clear that you MUST do these things in the game. I personally would just like some more examples of group tactics where you decide how a team is going to do something.... and grateful settlers bowing to me. :tongue:

[CiderMuffin]

 

 

My take on Preston is, You meet him, he asks you to join a team, you join & then you find out you are the team.

 

This has happened to me a lot in life.

 

To me he is just another polite abuser.

 

Later

Oh, ok. But one thing, what quest shows the Sole Survivor actively recruiting members, discovering settlements and potential settlements to help, sending out patrols, organizing trade deals to supply the troops and everything else? Because there is a lot the Sole Survivor doesn't do that Preston is implied to do. Minutemen patrols show up before the castle quest and they're all armed. Someone has to do that, the soldiers all carry weapons and armor provided by the Minutemen and Preston also keeps an ear out for settlers that are in trouble or potential help.

 

If anything the Sole Survivor only does the dirty work but everything else is done by Preston and most likely Ronnie Shaw when she shows up. You're not the team, you're part of the team.

 

By the way you sound you think everything revolves around you than you miss details that the other team members do.

 

Well. You make a good point. I think what he is saying is that a general does not typically put themselves in the line of fire - especially not ALL the time. If the general dies it is clear that there is no one that can replace him/her. Preston said as much in the game. However it is clear that you must do these things in the game. I personally would just like some more examples of group tactics where you decide how a team is going to do something. And grateful settlers bowing to me. :tongue:

 

That's actually not founded anywhere. The Minutemen have been around for over 100 years and the reason that they fell apart was because the Castle, their main base of operations, was destroyed and lost to them. If anything the general position is really only a figurehead to organize around. Also for the General going out to fight isn't a new concept. In fact the idea of a general sitting behind a desk is actually a new idea if we're talking about military history. Historically generals would fight in battles, hell a lot of times so would the ruler of an actual country. Even massive powers like Ming China and the Ottoman Empire had their heirs, emperors and generals all fight on the battlefield.

 

Even in the Fallout universe we see generals and leaders going to battle (High Elder Roger Maxson II would go out on patrols with his knights, both Legate Lanius and Joshua Graham went out on the battlefield and fought with their troops)

Edited March 31, 2017 by CiderMuffin