Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: The Art Of War

  1. #1
    Dan Medeiros
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    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

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    The Art Of War

    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

  3. #3

    The Art Of War

    > 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

  4. #4
    Waise Azimi
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    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

  5. #5
    c558382@showme.missouri.
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    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

  6. #6
    Waise Azimi
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    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
    >

  7. #7
    Eric Dunn
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    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.]

  8. #8
    Waise Azimi
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    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
    >

  9. #9
    Samuel Weiss
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    >

    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

  10. #10
    Samuel Weiss
    Guest

    The Art Of War

    > 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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.