Armies

From: Lewis Jardine (JARDINE@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk)
Date: Mon 13 May 1996 - 16:09:58 EEST


Hi All
        In genral answer to lots of specific points from different people.

1) I totally agree with the general consensus that KoW would defeat/drive
off Horali and Iron Dwarfs. However, I do not think it would be caused
because their troops/armies are better (bigger yes, but better no!).

2) I think that the major difference is that KoW commanders are quite
happy with the concept of attrition and suicide tactics if they are tactically
necessary. Unfortunately, Talar and commanders of Iron Dwarfs know that
their troops are not easily replaeable and therefore, despite being
extremely competent, are forced to fight to conserve their troops.
Thus, while they are aware of tactics they are limited in their choice.
Both commanders will take the long-term view (anyone who expects to live
for 1000+ years is bound to) and while they could *live* with the death of
some of their troops they would always have to worry about having enough
for the next KoW army, or even the next enemy (in 100 years!).

3) I don't currently play RQ, my own system (BODGERS) allows unlimited
training (it just takes a very long time to improve at higher levels).
So I am not concerned with figures over 100%.

4) I believe that Horali and Iron Dwarfs fight very well as units and
although I believe that both suffer from *Fear of Death* which degrades
their performance somewhat, I think their real problem with KoW is numbers
and replaceability.

5) Horali are conservative (very conservative) but they are still soldiers
and will obey orders. So clever tactics will definately only work once
and I bet a lot of them have been tried. I agree that the victims of
using new tactics are more likely to be Talars rather than Horali.
A Horali who obeys a talars orders, no matter how novel, is unlikely to
suffer old age. The talar however...

6) Dwarfs are shortsighted, but they use mechanical/magical devices to
rectify this (telescopic sights etc.) Dwarfs definately use glasses for
eyesight correction (we've seen pictures etc. so it must be true).
I suspect that vision correcting lenses are built into the plate helms
of all iron dwarfs. After all it is necessary to have glass eye-pieces
in order to totally seal their armour. So when chucked in the lake they
just wade out.

7) Dwarfs are technologically innovative, they are engineers, they are
from the same background as the majority of the RPers that I know. Now
whether this is true or not I would be interested to find out what the
percentage of engineers/computer freaks to arts and languages people
there are in roleplaying. NB I do not intend to ask the digest in order
to find out (biased sample etc.).
Anyway, dwarfs are imaginative and while sometimes wacky their ideas do
change. Also they are very castebound. Iron dwarfs are only concerned
with combat and do not *do* construction. I believe that this extends
to using prefabricated palisades for marching camps (they can't make their
own from local materials!). However, when it comes to new and imaginative
ways of turning their enemies into dog-meat they are really interested.

"Hey, do you remember that lecture from they quicksilver dwarf on copper
salts, and how they were really toxic to non-dwarven life-forms."
"Yes" (Interestedly)
"Well, you know he said that there were some water soluble ones."
"Yes?"
"Well, my calculations sho that if we dumped 705674321 kg of them in the
rivers of the World we would wipe out approximately 90% of the *Life*
infestation of the World Machine. This would speed up the repair by
5461232 Rock dwarf work periods."
"Good, make the production order to the Quicksilver dwarfs. Ask them
how long the production will take."

Later...

"21345123# Quicksilver work periods sir."
"Damn!"

# = 5754345 Rock dwarf work periods.

Cheers
        Lewis

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:31:24 EEST