Army Quality; Freeforms

From: Nick Brooke (100270.337@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Wed 15 May 1996 - 02:45:16 EEST


___________
David Cake:

> I don't know that you can separate commander ability from army
> quality. The best forces always have good general commander quality

What about the "lions led by donkeys" -- British infantrymen, First World War?
Also, look at Gallipoli. In the recent history for HtWwO we had the infantry
component of a Loskalmi force butchered by the Kingdom of War because their
knightly officers (inc. Meriatan) hadn't worked out how to command them properly
in battle, dashing off on glorious cavalry charges rather than rallying and
protecting their men.

On Freeforms:

> Just to make a point lest any of those unfamiliar with this style
> think Nick's answer is in some way authoritative...

Anyone utterly unfamiliar with the English language could, I suppose, have
missed the following disclaimers liberally splashed throughout my post:

: The rules are created by the authors of each game, depending on what's
: important ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: The rules we use in our games owe a huge debt to Kevin Jacklin...
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^

: MASS COMBAT: depends on the game. In our freeforms...
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: SKILLS: in our games these have been handled by printed cards...
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Frankly, I don't see how anyone (other than the remarkable Mr Cake) could
mistake my reply for an "authoritative statement". I was just answering Jesper's
question and explaining how we'd written our Gloranthan freeforms. I would
apologise for any confusion, but I can't work out which language to do it in!

====
Nick
====

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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:31:27 EEST