Why the Preston Garvey hate?

[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 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 (The founder of the BoS would go out on patrols with his knights, both Legate Lanius and Joshua Graham went out on the battlefield and fought with their troops)

 

 

Then I- as an opposing force would make it a point to cut their silly leaders down the instant anyone had an opportunity. I would gladly sacrifice a pawn to win the game!! :wink:

[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 (The founder of the BoS would go out on patrols with his knights, both Legate Lanius and Joshua Graham went out on the battlefield and fought with their troops)

 

Then I- as an opposing force would make it a point to cut their silly leaders down the instant anyone had an opportunity. I would gladly sacrifice a pawn to win the game!! :wink:

 

In ancient kingdoms and nations nobles and royalty would be trained from childhood to be a talented warrior, being a general was also often also based on merit in battle rather then just earning it for tactic brilliance. So killing a general or royalty wasn't exactly that easy, especially considering that they were often on horse back which made it harder for ground troops to hit.

Edited March 31, 2017 by CiderMuffin

[Fkemman11]

@CiderMuffin Yes. But we are not talking about a time when battles were fought with swords and the like. We are talking about modern times when all it would take is ONE bullet to put your silly leader down. Then what?

[Moraelin]

Some did, some didn't. There's a reason why there was such a thing as a lieutenant title very early. He's the guy who'd command the troops in lieu of the actual liege. Also why just about any monarchy in Europe had a constable/marshal/steward/watchamacallit in charge of all the troops.

 

I'd also add, if we're talking history, that some of the best generals didn't actually put themselves in the line of fire. The Mongol leaders for example didn't charge at the front of the troops like idiots, but DIRECTED the battle from a vantage point. It is in fact commonly cited as a reason for their successes.

 

But be that as it may, I can assure you that even the most heroic western commanders did not show up personally for every case of some village being harrassed by bandits. There's a reason there was a rank of sheriff or reeve, to deal with the problems in a shire, and why Robin Hood has to deal with the sheriff of Nottingham, instead of being personally chased by King John.

 

The big cheese or his appointed lieutenant would show up for major battles, but not personally deal with every disturbance.

 

Or in more FO4 terms, well, look at Maxson. He does show up to personally lead his troops in battle for a major battle like the assault on the Institute, but he DOESN'T personally do every mission. Hell, not even fairly important ones like Fort Strong.

[CiderMuffin]

@CiderMuffin Yes. But we are not talking about a time when battle were fought with swords and the like. We are talking about modern times when all it would take is ONE bullet to put your silly leader down. Then what?

The practice of a general and leader fighting in a battle goes as far as when guns are introduced into warfare. Again, it's a REALLY new concept that was only created when communications technology advanced to radios. In Fallout we see a less civilized world where almost everyone has a basic knowledge of how to work a weapon or fight, so in a militia that is based around volunteers the General fighting alongside troops to better relay commands wouldn't be farfetched. The only known group to actually use radios to talk to troops and give orders would probably be the NCR due to their re-building of antennas (which in the case of Bitter Springs also didn't exactly work as planned) and maybe the Institute but given they need to relay messages via messengers I wouldn't exactly say they have advanced long range communications.

 

Some did, some didn't. There's a reason why there was such a thing as a lieutenant title very early. He's the guy who'd command the troops in lieu of the actual liege. Also why just about any monarchy in Europe had a constable/marshal/steward/watchamacallit in charge of all the troops.

 

I'd also add, if we're talking history, that some of the best generals didn't actually put themselves in the line of fire. The Mongol leaders for example didn't charge at the front of the troops like idiots, but DIRECTED the battle from a vantage point. It is in fact commonly cited as a reason for their successes.

 

But be that as it may, I can assure you that even the most heroic western commanders did not show up personally for every case of some village being harrassed by bandits. There's a reason there was a rank of sheriff or reeve, to deal with the problems in a shire, and why Robin Hood has to deal with the sheriff of Nottingham, instead of being personally chased by King John.

 

The big cheese or his appointed lieutenant would show up for major battles, but not personally deal with every disturbance.

 

Or in more FO4 terms, well, look at Maxson. He does show up to personally lead his troops in battle for a major battle like the assault on the Institute, but he DOESN'T personally do every mission. Hell, not even fairly important ones like Fort Strong.

A Marshall was actually more of a kingdom's top general that would lead the main forces or attend to other administrative matters of a nation whereas a constable was often seen as the same as a sheriff, focused more on patrols in order to take care of bandits and would handle legal affairs on behalf of the monarch. A monarch would rarely do everything when it comes to administrating their kingdoms and would often hire advisers to sit on a council to handle certain matters such as the master of the mint or a chamberlain that saw the administration of the monarch's holdings from ordering supplies and stuff for the castle or talk to prominent citizens to speak to the monarch.

 

While yes not all generals and leaders fought on the frontlines it was still a very common thing in some cases and a lot of these positions were given to people with a history of martial combat.

 

As for Maxson, Maxson has a large force. When we're introduced to the Minutemen it's just Preston. Even if we rebuild the minutemen by building settlements and gaining support the Minutemen are still a small group that would require as much help among it's ranks as possible. The general fighting or doing missions wouldn't really be all that surprising. It's also note-worthy that radiant missions from Minutemen radio doesn't exactly tell the general to go solve these problems and the General, as I've said, is mostly a figurehead to represent the Minutemen. What better way to show the Minutemen are serious business? Have the leader show up to help settlements and prove that the Minutemen is lead by a competent person who can handle the fight against raiders, super mutants and everything else.

Edited March 31, 2017 by CiderMuffin

[Fkemman11]

 

@CiderMuffin Yes. But we are not talking about a time when battle were fought with swords and the like. We are talking about modern times when all it would take is ONE bullet to put your silly leader down. Then what?

The practice of a general and leader fighting in a battle goes as far as when guns are introduced into warfare. Again, it's a REALLY new concept that was only created when communications technology advanced to radios. In Fallout we see a less civilized world where almost everyone has a basic knowledge of how to work a weapon or fight, so in a militia that is based around volunteers the General fighting alongside troops to better relay commands wouldn't be farfetched. The only known group to actually use radios to talk to troops and give orders would probably be the NCR due to their re-building of antennas (which in the case of Bitter Springs also didn't exactly work as planned) and maybe the Institute but given they need to relay messages via messengers I wouldn't exactly say they have advanced long range communications.

 

Some did, some didn't. There's a reason why there was such a thing as a lieutenant title very early. He's the guy who'd command the troops in lieu of the actual liege. Also why just about any monarchy in Europe had a constable/marshal/steward/watchamacallit in charge of all the troops.

 

I'd also add, if we're talking history, that some of the best generals didn't actually put themselves in the line of fire. The Mongol leaders for example didn't charge at the front of the troops like idiots, but DIRECTED the battle from a vantage point. It is in fact commonly cited as a reason for their successes.

 

But be that as it may, I can assure you that even the most heroic western commanders did not show up personally for every case of some village being harrassed by bandits. There's a reason there was a rank of sheriff or reeve, to deal with the problems in a shire, and why Robin Hood has to deal with the sheriff of Nottingham, instead of being personally chased by King John.

 

The big cheese or his appointed lieutenant would show up for major battles, but not personally deal with every disturbance.

 

Or in more FO4 terms, well, look at Maxson. He does show up to personally lead his troops in battle for a major battle like the assault on the Institute, but he DOESN'T personally do every mission. Hell, not even fairly important ones like Fort Strong.

A Marshall was actually more of a kingdom's top general that would lead the main forces or attend to other administrative matters of a nation whereas a constable was often seen as the same as a sheriff, focused more on patrols in order to take care of bandits and would handle legal affairs on behalf of the monarch. A monarch would rarely do everything when it comes to administrating their kingdoms and would often hire advisers to sit on a council to handle certain matters such as the master of the mint or a chamberlain that saw the administration of the monarch's holdings from ordering supplies and stuff for the castle or talk to prominent citizens to speak to the monarch.

 

While yes not all generals and leaders fought on the frontlines it was still a very common thing in some cases and a lot of these positions were given to people with a history of martial combat.

 

 

The reason for a leader to personally lead a battle are for morale and maybe better coordination of the people under their command. This is a significant (and unnecessary) risk. This is why an army has a chain of command as Moraellin pointed out. Even in ancient warfare there was a chance of being hit by a projectile or shrapnel from a bomb. This is why most of the time- a general did not lead from the front- line. :geek:

[CiderMuffin]

Again, as I pointed out it's still common and the General is nothing but a figurehead. You are a representative of the Minutemen and are suppose to show what all Minutemen are like. As the General you job is to make the Minutemen look good and by doing that is getting settlements to support you. The Minutemen are a volunteer army and what better way to show they mean business if the General themselves can actually fight and prove the Minutemen are more then just talk.

 

The General basically has no real control over the minutemen and most of the work in the group is actually done by lower ranking members like Preston or Ronnie. You just go out to settlements, look good, prove yourself to these settlers and get their support. It's the basic principle behind "Talk is cheap, actions speak loudly".

[Moraelin]

Well, it depends on the country and the age. As is usually the case when we're talking about a whole continent and about 2000 years or so. After about the 14'th century or so, the constable could be called a mashall in England, for example.

 

As for the rest of the points, well, the Minutemen radio may not mention you by name, nobody else shows up anyway. I've never had a kidnapped settler NOT die if I don't personally show up. Nor do I remember ever having a settlement join because someone ELSE than me solved their ghoul problem.

 

There's a difference between pitching in for the team and discovering that, as jones177 aptly put it, I AM the team.

 

Now mind you, that's kind of a general issue with RPGs, so I'm kinda resigned to the idea that no matter what faction I choose, and no matter what rank I might theoretically have, I'm the one that gets to do all the work. At least they don't treat me like scum, as was the case in Morrowind, I guess. I could be the leader of the imperial legion, imperial cult, the major noble house controling a city, and guards would still act like I'm the lead suspect in a murder investigation. (Although, to be fair, I probably was the one who did the murder. :wink:)

 

My beef with Preston is purely: would it have hurt that much to include a "Not now" option in the dialogue? Even granting that they probably need all the help they can get, that's not the same thing as my lacking all self-respect and being obsessive-compulsive to impress Preston with my obedience. He said I'd be a general, not that I get to be the Adoring Fan from Oblivion :tongue:

[Gruffydd]

Just to throw a monkeywrench into things...

So many of you are talking about the Minutemen like it's an army. The ranks are a bit confusing on that because they adopted military ranks, but they aren't an army. They're an affiliation of glorified neighborhood watch programs. That's why there was so much trouble before Quincy... each little organization was too obsessed with their own issues, and weren't willing to head out and help other groups anymore. That's not an army, that's an affiliation of militia at best.

My point here is that expecting them to act with the discipline and skill of the BoS, for example, is downright silly. They aren't trained soldiers, they aren't a military force, they're your neighbors, with silly hats and laser muskets. The name should give it away. They're modeled after the original Minutemen, who were civilian colonists who independently organized into militia companies during the American Revolutionary War. They called themselves that because they were supposed to be "ready at a minute's notice". And supposedly, that's what the current incarnation are supposed to be as well. In case, you know, someone gets kidnapped, or raiders attack your settlement, or suchlike.

[CiderMuffin]

Just to throw a monkeywrench into things...

So many of you are talking about the Minutemen like it's an army. The ranks are a bit confusing on that because they adopted military ranks, but they aren't an army. They're an affiliation of glorified neighborhood watch programs. That's why there was so much trouble before Quincy... each little organization was too obsessed with their own issues, and weren't willing to head out and help other groups anymore. That's not an army, that's an affiliation of militia at best.

My point here is that expecting them to act with the discipline and skill of the BoS, for example, is downright silly. They aren't trained soldiers, they aren't a military force, they're your neighbors, with silly hats and laser muskets. The name should give it away. They're modeled after the original Minutemen, who were civilian colonists who independently organized into militia companies during the American Revolutionary War. They called themselves that because they were supposed to be "ready at a minute's notice". And supposedly, that's what the current incarnation are supposed to be as well. In case, you know, someone gets kidnapped, or raiders attack your settlement, or suchlike.

This. The only real thing giving the Minutemen any structure was the castle and a figurehead to rally behind, the General. The castle was the only real holding the Minutemen had and served as their base of operations, that's why when it was lost there was a power struggle between the various Minutemen company leaders. I'd actually say that the real factor for the Minutemen disbanding was the lose of the Castle rather then the lose of the General.