The Art Of War

[Dan Medeiros]

Sorry for the late response.. been really busy. I noticed something very
interesting going through this thread. Mainly that Samuel's agression
tactics would be seriously impeded by Waise's guerrila defense tactics.

See imbedded notes....

At 23:03 25/01/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> Any ideas for Aggressor tatics out there?<
>
>Oh dear. I might not be a good one to ask this.
>Well, let us start with the simplest. Although it requires a good 30-40
>years to undo the damage, genocide has proven to be a most effective
>offensive tactic for long term conquest.

You can only kill the race off after you've conquered the country. And if
you go around killing everyone in a race, you'll have a hell of a lot of
partisans and guerillas on your hands. People will know that they have to
fight for their very lives. I wouldn't give them that motivation. Better off
to throw them to the farthest ends of your empire, where they can't have any
contact with eachother, and give 'em hard manual labour to do in poor
conditions so they don't have a chance at thinking of anything nasty to do
to you. Ofcourse, you'll still only be able to do this after you conquer
them. Oh, and no reason to pick on a specific race, do it to everyone; be an
equal-opportunity conquerer.

>It is very easy to avoid a
>rebellion when all the potenetial rebels are fertilizing the soil for your
>devoted colonists.

The only problem is killing them... very difficult to pick off those well
armed guerrilas who know the terrain better than your guys do.

>For those less evil, indeed those preferring the opposite end of the
>spectrum, "hearts and minds" becomes the primary choice. This takes about
>the same time, but has a lower success rate. Also, it can be countered by
>similar tactics on the part of your target.

Naturally there's still the trouble of trying to change the views of a bunch
of guerrilas who'd rather kill you.

>You will also still have to
>eliminate part of the old ruling class before you take over. The biggest
>plus is the almost totally intact infrastructure.

Killing old ruling class is a definate must, I agree with you there. Don't
take their infrastructure. These worthless barbarians lost, remember? Use
yours, its much better. Oh, and don't forget to send in a whole bunch of
your guys to become the new upper class in the area.

>If the first is too much, and the second too expensive, we head into
>military confrontatons. Here, I would go with Clausewitz on choice of
>targets. First, eliminate his army. After that, the land will be yours by
>default.

Not if you're threatening genocide.. people will take to the hills and then
everybody's your enemy.

>Second we have the practice mentioned in Shaka, never leave an enemy behind
>you. Mercy for those that surrender is one thing, but that European concept
>of not destroying rival kingdoms permanently is for the birds.

That makes sense! No enemies in your kingdom! But, there's still the problem
of getting your hands on the enemy. If you can, then go for it. Especially
if the place is far away from your lands. Carthage kept on pestering Rome
until Rome finally went over, burned the place to the ground, and threw salt
over the whole area.

>Along that
>line is never agree to a peace unless you have no other choice. End it, and
>move on to the next threat to you kingdom. On again-off again wars with two
>or more rival eventually means a two or more front war. And that is major
>bad.

The problem with this is that you gain a reputation, and then people around
you realize that if they attack you all at once you'll get squished. You
should set out to have borders with countries who would never dream of
helping eachother. That guarentees that you are unlikely to enter a
two-front war until you start one. Still, if they're smart they'll attack
you at the same time anyway. And be careful about making non-aggresion
treaties. Remember what happened with Russia and Germany during WWII.

>Lastly we go to Machiavelli, kill all those you think you will have to
>right away and get it down with. Lowers the fall out long term as opposed
>to repeated purges of the less than loyal old order.

To be truly Machiavellian, you need to have your new subjects be happy that
you are killing they're old class. Make them realize how much happier
they'll be now that the burguois are all gone. And you are so much more
generous than their old rulers were... at least in the beginning you will
be(hahaha).

>And if you feel from reading this that i am less than LG, I will repeat.
>Leave me and my people alone and you won't have to worry about it.
>Hope that is what you were interested in, or did you mean smaller scale
>strategies and tactics?

You make the laws, and it's for your kingdom's good. Hell, that's Lawful
Good if I've ever seen it ;^)

Well done, really. But you need to have the subjects love you.
Macchiavelli says that he'd rather be feared, but where did he ever end up?
Now what about those terrible, charismatic leaders? THEY got far. Hitler,
Mau Tse Tung. They promised people something far better than what they had
known, and thus they rose to power. If they wanted conquered people to be
subjects as well, they would have gone far.
The romans granted citizenship to all conquered peoples who were not
of the elite. They said that they were welcome in this new country, and that
they should welcome it also. They should be proud and happy to be part of a
vast empire, the greatest in the world. And you CAN convince them of this.
Don't tax them too hard to begin with. Shower them with trade from all over.
Improve their quality of life. Why would they resist your rule if you
treated them nicely? You are a vast empire, and you can spare this wealth
for a while. Keep giving it to them until they have raised their children to
love your empire, and die off. Then you can really turn them into a cog in
the great machine of your empire if you so wish. If any do happen to resist
during this process ship them off to your empire's equivilant of Siberia.

Hope that helps....

- -Dan

[John]

> I've also just seen a Fistful of Dollars, and was thinking that the
> Mexican Bandits make a nifty rolemodel for Goblins - obviously we don't
> want to use the 'Comedy Mexican' accent, because it's pretty insulting
> to Mexican's, but some sort of 'Comedy Goblin' accent could be pretty
> cool. I was imagining something with a with very strong 'k's and a sort
> of z/th lisp for 's' (based on the sorts of names that Goblin kingdoms
> have).
Hehe. Cool.

> "Tho Meethter Boend, Ah thuppoth yu think yu've been werry klever."
>
> Although when I try to pronounce it, I find myself slipping into 'Comedy
> Frahnch' accent. Oh well.
Yes, I did that as well. It's the old Monty Python Frenchmen from the
Holy Grail isn't it?

"Ah bleu ma nose at yu so called Arthur king and yure silly k-nigts."

Maybe if we built a giant wooden badger?.......

John.

"Once I was a lamb, playing in a green field. Then
the wolves came. Now I am an eagle and I fly in a
different universe."
"And now you kill the lambs," whispered Dardalion.
"No, priest. No one pays for lambs."
- David Gemmel, Waylander

[Dan]

At 11:38 28/01/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Hitler was referenced only in regards to his taking over of germany. His
>inability to seize power outside his country is well known, and is why he
>will never be used as an empire builder model, only a power seizing one.
>Similarly with Mao, it is the power grab being referenced, not external
>affairs.

Thanks Samuel, that's basically how I would have responded to Neil. I had
reffered to their power grab within their own country, rather than their
external affairs, at which both were notoriously bad. The point I was making
was that if they kept the same tactics when trying to deal with external
conquests, it may have been a good idea. Rather than marching with the
"Legions of Doom" idea, march with the "Liberation Army" approach. While the
prior is a lot more fun and does give you a sense of more power, the second
can be much more effective. The idea was used quite recently in the new
People's Republic of Congo by Kabila's forces. They gained international
support because of their image. Not that he will be much different than the
old Mobuto (sp. on all of the above uncertain...). Then all you have to do
is toss the old regime into prison. While it is less ethical, it would be
more useful to kill them off, but whatever you do, don't deport them (they
can rebuild their power).
By the way, Samuel, for one reason or another I didn't recieve your
original response to my post. Would you mind sending it directly to me?

- -Dan

[Waise Azimi]

HIstory has shown that not all battles are conclusive and absolute.
Even the greatest of empires can be overthrown by force of arms! The
way a leader uses his forces and deploys them is a great part of the
defense of his realm. When faced against overwhelming odds one must
take care never to give the invader a clear fight and deny of him of
every possible advantage. Here are some basics on the art of guerrilla
warfare.
1. Disband the army! ( Drastic measures )
2. Soak up your cites and towns with your now disguised forces
3. Occupy Difficult terrain such as Mountains and Thick forests or
swamps
and establish temporary bases capable of moving location at a moments
notice
4. Strike at small forces with lightning quick terror raids to decrease
moral
5. Destroy anything that would give the enemy any advantage. I.E. Burn
and Destroy fortifications, Obliterate food sources, poison water
sources
6. Turn the wilderness against them and use it as a refugee
7. Prolong revenge on till the weather is at your utmost advantage and
then strike hard from two different directions

True Empire would view these setbacks as temporary and minor, however,
given a few years..Na... A few months and the chaos will be felt.
Troops morale will crash as they: Starve, Tire and die due to the
above. People within the empire will grow restless and and angry with a
seemingly fruitless pointless and costly war, they will start to
withdraw their support as at the same time troops start to walk away in
increasingly large numbers and soon enough the mighty king who dared
defy your land and people will find his campaign crash in ruins

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Waise Azimi wrote:

> 5. Destroy anything that would give the enemy any advantage. I.E. Burn
> and Destroy fortifications, Obliterate food sources, poison water
> sources
> 6. Turn the wilderness against them and use it as a refugee
> 7. Prolong revenge on till the weather is at your utmost advantage and
> then strike hard from two different directions
>
> True Empire would view these setbacks as temporary and minor, however,
> given a few years..Na... A few months and the chaos will be felt.
> Troops morale will crash as they: Starve, Tire and die due to the
> above. People within the empire will grow restless and and angry with a
> seemingly fruitless pointless and costly war, they will start to
> withdraw their support as at the same time troops start to walk away in
> increasingly large numbers and soon enough the mighty king who dared
> defy your land and people will find his campaign crash in ruins

While your list was a good primer in the "little" war, that style of war
is ignoble, and bound to cost a regent who employs them regency at the
best and blood strength at the worst. Destroying the resources of your
people breaks your bond (by degrees) with them. The three points
reproduced above are all likely to risk regency. I tend to view regency
as having an element of political capital. To abandon the tenants of
noble war is to risk your claim to rule.

Now if the people themselves were to aid your war using these tactics that
could hardly break your bond with your people.

A cunning regent prepared for guerrilla warfare will have established a
few holdings in advance of the war. They will agitate in their own favor
and against the existing regent. By establishing their own support among
the people, they will defeat the existing regent in both in the little war
and the large one.

Better for the defender to fall back to his strong points and spare his
people and his land the hardships of war. Let the aggressor's destruction
reinforce your bond with the land and act as an obsticle against his own
investment.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Waise Azimi]

c558382@showme.missouri.edu wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Waise Azimi wrote:
>
> > 5. Destroy anything that would give the enemy any advantage. I.E.
> Burn
> > and Destroy fortifications, Obliterate food sources, poison water
> > sources
> > 6. Turn the wilderness against them and use it as a refugee
> > 7. Prolong revenge on till the weather is at your utmost advantage
> and
> > then strike hard from two different directions
> >
> > True Empire would view these setbacks as temporary and minor,
> however,
> > given a few years..Na... A few months and the chaos will be felt.
> > Troops morale will crash as they: Starve, Tire and die due to the
> > above. People within the empire will grow restless and and angry
> with a
> > seemingly fruitless pointless and costly war, they will start to
> > withdraw their support as at the same time troops start to walk away
> in
> > increasingly large numbers and soon enough the mighty king who dared
>
> > defy your land and people will find his campaign crash in ruins
>
> While your list was a good primer in the "little" war, that style of
> war
> is ignoble, and bound to cost a regent who employs them regency at the
>
> best and blood strength at the worst. Destroying the resources of
> your
> people breaks your bond (by degrees) with them. The three points
> reproduced above are all likely to risk regency. I tend to view
> regency
> as having an element of political capital. To abandon the tenants of
> noble war is to risk your claim to rule.
>
> Now if the people themselves were to aid your war using these tactics
> that
> could hardly break your bond with your people.
>
> A cunning regent prepared for guerrilla warfare will have established
> a
> few holdings in advance of the war. They will agitate in their own
> favor
> and against the existing regent. By establishing their own support
> among
> the people, they will defeat the existing regent in both in the little
> war
> and the large one.
>
> Better for the defender to fall back to his strong points and spare
> his
> people and his land the hardships of war. Let the aggressor's
> destruction
> reinforce your bond with the land and act as an obsticle against his
> own
> investment.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> c558382@showme.missouri.edu
>

Thank you Kenneth... I I'm truly interested in Ideas and
possibilities of battle that Birthright can provide for cunning players,
I hope that this article will see more like it detailing not only
warfare but Diplomacy and Administration methods. To clarify the
above: It does indeed punish both the land and people but our own
history has shown that this method while simple works.

Note the line

> "Now if the people themselves were to aid your war using these tactics
> that
> could hardly break your bond with your people."
>

This method of warfare is only possible if you have the support of
the "people" They are the vital component to the above. Note that this
"Little War" and is used in extreme cases where it is quite clear that
victory is unobtainable by normal methods of warfare. Also please note
this method of warfare is extremely effective for Rujirk and Vos rulers
not Anuirens ( At least usually )

Lastly I am disturbed by the term "ignoble war" War is never noble
and never mark me never has a noble war been fought in the history of
this planet ( Earth). A ruler must do what he must to ensure the lives
of his people by using what ever methods he may, for in the end it is
the people which makes him king.

Kenneth I am exteremly grateful for your reply : ) The initail
point of this article was for someone to point out the flaws and
difficulties and more importantly give me an idea on how I could
translate the above into rules with defining effects.

Waise Azimi.


>
>
> *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
>

[Eric Dunn]

Lastly I am disturbed by the term "ignoble war" War is never noble
>and never mark me never has a noble war been fought in the history of
>this planet ( Earth). A ruler must do what he must to ensure the lives
>of his people by using what ever methods he may, for in the end it is
>the people which makes him king.


>
> Waise Azimi.
>


AYEE! That's all I can say :) Well, okay, I can say a lot more, but my
point of that first exclamation is --that kind of statement "never has a
noble war been fought in the history of this planet" is bound to spark a
good deal of conversation.

In one respect of course, you are right. War is not "noble" in the sense
that it involves the loss of life, and at many times, innocent life at
that. Through the ages it has encouraged the spread of disease, the
crushing of hope and sometimes the spread of civilization. Of course, at
other times, it has done just the opposite. Neither of which is
particularly "noble."

I do think what we are referring to here, though is what people (or nobles)
in medieval times thought of as "noble" and particularly what encompassed
the idea of "chivalry."

I won't detail those here, as it's been done many times, in many places,
but one of those ideas of course, was knightly combat, and "noble" war.
It's hard to define "honorable" and "noble" combat, when quite frankly,
people's lives are at stake, but that's what they tried to do in medieval
times. They tried to establish guidelines by which war could be fought, so
that those who did not abide by those guidelines would be shunned or
attacked by all. That was never the greatest idea, and it was never really
effected very well, but it was an attempt. Much like today we've tried with
the League of Nations, and again with the United Nations. We've also tried
to enforce the Articles of War.

I don't think anyone would disagree that a horrible death at swordpoint, or
halberd slash is far from noble. Of course, it sure seems more noble than
a knife in the back, or impalement.

It jast has to be realized that we aren't defining HOW we DIE, but rather
HOW war is fought, not why.


Eric Dunn
eric@cyberserv.com
ICQ#4332602
[This space for rent.]

[Waise Azimi]

Samuel Weiss wrote:

> noble
> and never mark me never has a noble war been fought in the history of
> this planet ( Earth). A ruler must do what he must to ensure the
> lives
> of his people by using what ever methods he may, for in the end it is
>
> the people which makes him king. >>
>
> There are two methods of defining "noble warfare", quite similar to
> the
> methods of defining "fair fight".
> The first is the one used by those of overwhelming strength compared
> to the
> one being attacked. You know, when the 6'6" person tells the 5' 3"
> person
> that kicking or some such is unfair and they should stop doing it and
> "fight fair".
> The second type is derived form the highly ritualized terms of
> engagemnet
> developed by either "civiliized" people to restrain themselves, or
> people
> who have accepted their inherent savagery and are attempting to limit
> the
> collateral damage.
> Regrettably, the terms agreed on in the second case are usually tossed
> by
> the wayside, either by a far surpeior party who knows there will be no
> one
> left to hold them to account for such violations, like certain less
> than
> ethical things done by the Allies in WWII, or by the inferior party
> doing
> as suggested, and as they should, by Waise Azimi.
> To which I offer the Sam Weiss definiton of the fair fight. To wit,
> any
> fight at the end of which nothing on me or of my people is hurt,
> injured,
> or damaged in any way, shape, or form. If that means I get nukes and
> you
> get bone knives, and you do not like this, simple solution. Leave me
> in
> peace.
> Not that Haelyn would agree.
>
> Samwise

Once again thanks Sam : ) when I wrote his document it was from the
"DEFENSE VIEW" . It also must be recognized that the simple tactics
used by the weaker force are the only wall that prevents them from being
annihilated by much superior aggressor.

Any ideas for Aggressor tatics out there?

Waise Azimi

> ************************************************** *************************
>
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
>

[Samuel Weiss]

>

There are two methods of defining "noble warfare", quite similar to the
methods of defining "fair fight".
The first is the one used by those of overwhelming strength compared to the
one being attacked. You know, when the 6'6" person tells the 5' 3" person
that kicking or some such is unfair and they should stop doing it and
"fight fair".
The second type is derived form the highly ritualized terms of engagemnet
developed by either "civiliized" people to restrain themselves, or people
who have accepted their inherent savagery and are attempting to limit the
collateral damage.
Regrettably, the terms agreed on in the second case are usually tossed by
the wayside, either by a far surpeior party who knows there will be no one
left to hold them to account for such violations, like certain less than
ethical things done by the Allies in WWII, or by the inferior party doing
as suggested, and as they should, by Waise Azimi.
To which I offer the Sam Weiss definiton of the fair fight. To wit, any
fight at the end of which nothing on me or of my people is hurt, injured,
or damaged in any way, shape, or form. If that means I get nukes and you
get bone knives, and you do not like this, simple solution. Leave me in
peace.
Not that Haelyn would agree.

Samwise

[Samuel Weiss]

> Any ideas for Aggressor tatics out there?<

Oh dear. I might not be a good one to ask this.
Well, let us start with the simplest. Although it requires a good 30-40
years to undo the damage, genocide has proven to be a most effective
offensive tactic for long term conquest. It is very easy to avoid a
rebellion when all the potenetial rebels are fertilizing the soil for your
devoted colonists.
For those less evil, indeed those preferring the opposite end of the
spectrum, "hearts and minds" becomes the primary choice. This takes about
the same time, but has a lower success rate. Also, it can be countered by
similar tactics on the part of your target. You will also still have to
eliminate part of the old ruling class before you take over. The biggest
plus is the almost totally intact infrastructure.
If the first is too much, and the second too expensive, we head into
military confrontatons. Here, I would go with Clausewitz on choice of
targets. First, eliminate his army. After that, the land will be yours by
default.
Second we have the practice mentioned in Shaka, never leave an enemy behind
you. Mercy for those that surrender is one thing, but that European concept
of not destroying rival kingdoms permanently is for the birds. Along that
line is never agree to a peace unless you have no other choice. End it, and
move on to the next threat to you kingdom. On again-off again wars with two
or more rival eventually means a two or more front war. And that is major
bad.
Lastly we go to Machiavelli, kill all those you think you will have to
right away and get it down with. Lowers the fall out long term as opposed
to repeated purges of the less than loyal old order.
And if you feel from reading this that i am less than LG, I will repeat.
Leave me and my people alone and you won't have to worry about it.
Hope that is what you were interested in, or did you mean smaller scale
strategies and tactics?

Samwise

[Samuel Weiss]

Gee Dan, we are in perfect agreement I do believe. The problems with some
of the things that you pointed out are more incomplete explanation on my
part than disagreement.
1. Genocide. I meant this only as killing off the population of your enemy
country. Any races in it, and only those of a particluar that happen to be
in it. Not really genocide but I suppose nationocide. Too clumsy a term for
me.
2. Guerilla problems when attempting this. Yes exactly. That is why it can
be so dang hard. That and finding enough dehumanized psychopaths in your
own nation to do that much killing.
3. Guerillas when doing the hearts and minds. Actually the whole goal of a
hearts and minds campaign is to avoid haviong such an opposition spring up.
Ideally you would end the resisitance before you even invaded through a
propoganda campaign. Then when you know they will welcome your entry, you
declare whatever formal war is needed and just roll on in. Anschluss time
and all. Vietnam was too late, the enemy already ahd their hearts and minds
campaign in place.
4. Labor camps. Not worth it IMO. Requires too much support from your own
infrastructure and offers almost no real return. Kill them and get it over
with or integrate them are what I would advise.
5. Miltary invasion with threat of Genocide. If doing the genocide thing,
you roll forward and exterminate. You do not conquer then do it, you kill
as you go. If doing basic military conquest and integration, you use the
Clausewitzian tactics I mentioned.
6. Captured infrastructure. It may not be as good as yours, but you can't
beat the price on it!
7. Poor international reputation. Well that is what your dilomatic corps is
for. The main thing is to make it clear that this what happens to those
that start trouble with you, not to any neighbor you feel like.
8. Your points on Rome vs. Carthage, Machiavellian tactics, and charismatic
dictators taking over are 100% accurate as far as I am concerned. Note, do
not set out to ba a Hitler or Mao, but if you want a blue print for seizing
power, thay wrote the books people, you can not deny that.
We need to get together and plot our takeover now dude. And let the world
know fear...

Samwise, Emperor Samwise the First to the rest of you.

[Neil Barnes]

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Samuel Weiss wrote:
> 8. Your points on Rome vs. Carthage, Machiavellian tactics, and charismatic
> dictators taking over are 100% accurate as far as I am concerned. Note, do
> not set out to ba a Hitler or Mao, but if you want a blue print for seizing
> power, thay wrote the books people, you can not deny that.

Hitler lost. And Mao was reading Sun-Tzu - and he never got really
outside of China's traditional borders (except for Tibet, which I think
had been a Chinese possession before?).

The best examples of gratuitous world conquest are Alexander the Great
and Gengis Khan. Other good examples are Julius Caesar and the British
Empire (gotta get a bit of nationalism in there :).

neil

[Samuel Weiss]

Hitler was referenced only in regards to his taking over of germany. His
inability to seize power outside his country is well known, and is why he
will never be used as an empire builder model, only a power seizing one.
Similarly with Mao, it is the power grab being referenced, not external
affairs.
And sorry, can't include the Brits in the "gratuitous world conquest"
category. it wasn't. it was "incidental world conquest". Your silly
merchants, explorers, and other do gooders ran rampant, and by the time
things started settling down, The Widow of Windsor wound up with an Empire.
( Yes I love Kipling. I would reccommend him too for any would be empire
builder as well. Some good advice on manangeent policies there.)

Samwise

[Neil Barnes]

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Samuel Weiss wrote:
> And sorry, can't include the Brits in the "gratuitous world conquest"
> category. it wasn't. it was "incidental world conquest".

That's the point. By land area, it's the second largest empire in
history (I think), by population again somewhere in the top three. And
it was pretty much acquired by accident.

There may be a lesson in there for all of those who want to conquer
Cerilia...

neil

....and it's probably that breach loading rifles and disciplined
infantry are the way to go :)

[Neil Barnes]

On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Dan wrote:
> At 11:38 28/01/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hitler was referenced only in regards to his taking over of germany. His
> >inability to seize power outside his country is well known, and is why he
> >will never be used as an empire builder model, only a power seizing one.
> >Similarly with Mao, it is the power grab being referenced, not external
> >affairs.
>
> Thanks Samuel, that's basically how I would have responded to Neil. I had
> reffered to their power grab within their own country, rather than their
> external affairs, at which both were notoriously bad.

This is what comes from only skimming a conversation & then butting in.
Oops.

With vague reference to Hitler, I've just seen the Ian McKellan film
version of Shakespeare's Richard III. Very cool - set in 1930's Britain,
but lot's of stuff that can be mined for BR campaigns. I've decided that
all my Anuirean characters are going to refer to peoplke by the name of
the domain they rule - "My lord Ghoere" for example - because it sounds
so good in the plays.

I've also just seen a Fistful of Dollars, and was thinking that the
Mexican Bandits make a nifty rolemodel for Goblins - obviously we don't
want to use the 'Comedy Mexican' accent, because it's pretty insulting
to Mexican's, but some sort of 'Comedy Goblin' accent could be pretty
cool. I was imagining something with a with very strong 'k's and a sort
of z/th lisp for 's' (based on the sorts of names that Goblin kingdoms
have).

"Tho Meethter Boend, Ah thuppoth yu think yu've been werry klever."

Although when I try to pronounce it, I find myself slipping into 'Comedy
Frahnch' accent. Oh well.

neil

(This is the same sort of thinking that gave my Triads in a Feng Shui
game comedy New York Italian accents. :)

[Samuel Weiss]

Ok Dna, let me take care of these two.
1. "Legions of Doom". Quite right there. For any who want to be totally
shocked, go the wargaming route and try "Days of Decision II" from
Australian Design Group. It lets you start WWII in 1936 and do some major
political maneuvering. Play thoses Nazi scum like civilized people and
watch the minor powers come to your camp. Then add in the free Czech,
Yugoslav, and a few others to your GErman army and watch The Allies and
Soviet Union collapse like wet noodles. Kind of scary actually.
2. Lost post. Ok I think I know the one you mean. I addressed 8 points back
to you on where we seemed to disagree. Mail me at
sweissbb@worldnet.att.net
and I will send it on to you.
As for Kabila, I guess that is one case where, "Image is everything, thirst
(for power) is nothing. Build your image."

Samwise

[Samuel Weiss]

>There may be a lesson in there for all of those who want to conquer
Cerilia...

neil

....and it's probably that breach loading rifles and disciplined
infantry are the way to go :)<

Well we can't get breech loaders, but we can get the disciplined infantry.
Then again, the Empire used some serious non combat tactics as well. I am
no fan of the british Empire, mind you, but they had some few tricks of
their own there. Maybe the real lesson here is read your history people, or
Santayana's curse will surely fall upon you.
As for conquering Cerilia, bear in mind this even more important thing. Not
Alexander, not Caeser, not Genghis, not anyone of our people had to deal
with the Gorgon. Now there is some perspective for you.

Samwise