just clearing up misunderstandings

From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au)
Date: Fri 17 May 1996 - 11:17:47 EEST

>> I don't know that you can separate commander ability from army
>> quality. The best forces always have good general commander quality
[Excellent 'counter-examples' provided by Nick and Sandy, such as the
B.E.F. during WWII]
        Then they aren't the best forces.... what I meant was that IMHO
Sandy was implicitly considering commander ability when he compared armies
- - Loskalm is partly so poorly rated because its commanders have little idea
what they are doing (and there is no facility to train them other than the
hard way), the Lunar Army is rated so high partly because it has excellent
staff colleges and a strong chain of command, and so on. If Loskalms troops
had commanders as competent as the Lunar Army, and no other real changes,
then they would be rated significantly higher.

Sandy furthermore said
> In the first place, see above, and in the second place, I
>AM including the quality of their _officers_ -- just not the grand
>commander. The fact that the top leadership of the KoW is incredibly
>crafty and skilled does add to their might. The fact that Loskalm's
>leadership may not be able to general their forces well is a big
>problem for them.

        You can separate troop quality and commander quality, but both are
parts of what makes up overall army quality. Obviously. I apologise for any
misunderstanding, its probably due to our habit of relying on English.....

>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:
        I was not intending any slight on you, the excellent TOTRM
freeforms, or the rules you use. Yes, you did clearly set out your meaning.
You, of all people, getting so sensitive!
        All I meant was to make it clear that what you described was not
only specific to your group in the details, but also the whole sweep of the
game and your basic starting points, lest the alleged freeform wary Swedish
LARPers or other people who might be put off by particular aspects of the
rules of your games (not that anyone who had played in them or even heard
of the enormous fun had by all would be put of by something as peripheral
as the rules :-) ) think that your general practice was representative of
standard practice of freeform playing groups everywhere.
        And even people with excellent English skills presume the strangest
things on occasion. For example, you assuming I meant any personal derision
- - perhaps you had best assume I am wearing a big cheesy grin when ever I
refer to you.
        :-) <----- quality cheddar


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