Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Warcards rant.

  1. #1
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    Clayton F. Hinton wrote:

    > >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general with the
    > >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
    > >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've used
    > >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE TWO
    > >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he chooses
    > >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
    > >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect that you
    > >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
    >
    > Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
    > randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if you
    > take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to pick
    > and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving him
    > more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system we're
    > using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle with
    > it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using weighted
    > dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
    > allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is the +1.

    I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks with a
    disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a quarter
    won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
    appologize for the following rant in advance. But....

    I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said it. I feel
    better already.

    I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games that have
    inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we are
    stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that is about
    as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.

    Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact that I
    am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were little
    tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered an
    "official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games might very
    well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch of things
    I don't like about it.

    Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you couldn't get
    dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but anything
    other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There were like
    two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were far outside
    the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits. Chits were
    just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers printed on them
    to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them like
    lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So inevitably a few
    of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get vacuumed up or
    Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the drain
    with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.

    My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits. I mean,
    I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
    twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy, thank you
    very much) cards.

    Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper game.
    Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game? What if the
    NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
    Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to play
    things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than to
    suddenly switch.

    So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them only
    as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
    dice.

    - -Gary

  2. #2
    The Olesen`s
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    Gary V. Foss wrote:
    >
    > Clayton F. Hinton wrote:
    >
    > > >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general with the
    > > >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
    > > >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've used
    > > >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE TWO
    > > >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he chooses
    > > >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
    > > >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect that you
    > > >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
    > >
    > > Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
    > > randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if you
    > > take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to pick
    > > and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving him
    > > more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system we're
    > > using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle with
    > > it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using weighted
    > > dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
    > > allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is the +1.
    >
    > I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks with a
    > disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a quarter
    > won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
    > appologize for the following rant in advance. But....
    >
    > I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said it. I feel
    > better already.
    >
    > I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games that have
    > inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we are
    > stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that is about
    > as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.
    >
    > Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact that I
    > am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were little
    > tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered an
    > "official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games might very
    > well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch of things
    > I don't like about it.
    >
    > Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you couldn't get
    > dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but anything
    > other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There were like
    > two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were far outside
    > the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits. Chits were
    > just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers printed on them
    > to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them like
    > lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So inevitably a few
    > of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get vacuumed up or
    > Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the drain
    > with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.
    >
    > My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits. I mean,
    > I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
    > twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy, thank you
    > very much) cards.
    >
    > Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper game.
    > Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game? What if the
    > NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
    > Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to play
    > things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than to
    > suddenly switch.
    >
    > So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them only
    > as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
    > dice.
    >
    > -Gary

    You do have a point. The cards are nice for seeing what units move
    where and where hills are, etc. (like miniatures) but why not just make
    a table for the results? Its not like it is that hard. If I felt like
    it (which I may) I could make a nice chart up on Excel that would do the
    same as the battle result cards but with dice.

  3. #3
    Alain Pouliot
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    - ----------
    > From: The Olesen's
    > To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    > Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Warcards rant.
    > Date: 25 mai, 1998 18:57
    >
    > Gary V. Foss wrote:
    > >
    > > Clayton F. Hinton wrote:
    > >
    > > > >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general
    with the
    > > > >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
    > > > >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've
    used
    > > > >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE
    TWO
    > > > >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he
    chooses
    > > > >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
    > > > >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect
    that you
    > > > >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
    > > >
    > > > Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
    > > > randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if
    you
    > > > take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to
    pick
    > > > and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving
    him
    > > > more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system
    we're
    > > > using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle
    with
    > > > it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using
    weighted
    > > > dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
    > > > allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is
    the +1.
    > >
    > > I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks
    with a
    > > disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a
    quarter
    > > won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
    > > appologize for the following rant in advance. But....
    > >
    > > I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said
    it. I feel
    > > better already.
    > >
    > > I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games
    that have
    > > inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we
    are
    > > stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that
    is about
    > > as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.
    > >
    > > Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact
    that I
    > > am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were
    little
    > > tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered
    an
    > > "official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games
    might very
    > > well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch
    of things
    > > I don't like about it.
    > >
    > > Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you
    couldn't get
    > > dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but
    anything
    > > other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There
    were like
    > > two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were
    far outside
    > > the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits.
    Chits were
    > > just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers
    printed on them
    > > to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them
    like
    > > lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So
    inevitably a few
    > > of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get
    vacuumed up or
    > > Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the
    drain
    > > with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.
    > >
    > > My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits.
    I mean,
    > > I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
    > > twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy,
    thank you
    > > very much) cards.
    > >
    > > Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper
    game.
    > > Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game?
    What if the
    > > NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
    > > Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to
    play
    > > things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than
    to
    > > suddenly switch.
    > >
    > > So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like
    them only
    > > as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to
    accompany
    > > dice.
    > >
    > > -Gary
    >
    > You do have a point. The cards are nice for seeing what units move
    > where and where hills are, etc. (like miniatures) but why not just make
    > a table for the results? Its not like it is that hard. If I felt like
    > it (which I may) I could make a nice chart up on Excel that would do the
    > same as the battle result cards but with dice.

    Well... We are waiting for your table :-)

    Snag
    >> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
    line
    > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

  4. #4
    DKEvermore
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    In a message dated 98-05-25 18:31:18 EDT, you write:

    > So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them
    > only
    > as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
    > dice.
    >
    > -Gary
    >
    I think the warcards themselves are okay. After all, if you're used to using
    cardboard, paper, and miniatures with your roleplaying, then using cards to
    represent units on a battlefield is also acceptable (and far less tedious than
    hauling out the entire miniature army every other game session).

    I sympathize with you on the card resoluction side though. My players asked
    me why they couldn't just roll dice to resolve the fights instead of trying to
    draw from a mere 9 card (18 card in my case ;) stack of combat resolution
    card. They have to roll dice already for magic saves anyway. So I agreed and
    did a fairly precise (+ or -1% accurate) conversion. Now, the players can
    roll percentiles and look on a quick chart I created, but still get to use the
    war cards themselves.

    Maybe this is something that might relieve your mental pain from the warcards?
    :)

    - -DKE

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Warcards rant.

    At 03:25 PM 5/25/98 -0700, you wrote:
    >Clayton F. Hinton wrote:
    >
    >> >The same general thing comes into effect when you have a general with the
    >> >"Battlewise" blood ability: some of the time, the modifier which the
    >> >general gets actually makes the result WORSE. To resolve this we've used
    >> >the simple addition to the rules: the general gets the BETTER OF THE TWO
    >> >OPTIONS, either the modified or unmodified score, whichever he chooses
    >> >(and he may choose to take the hit, if he's setting up some kind of
    >> >gambit, but that hasn't happened in any of our games). I suspect that you
    >> >could use something similar in the case of a Modified Unit.
    >>
    >> Wait, are we all remembering that the Battle cards are designed for
    >> randomness? A +1 shift will result in a better overall average, if you
    >> take ALL the battle cards into account. By allowing a commander to pick
    >> and choose for himself which bonuses he gets to use, you are giving him
    >> more of an advantage than he should get. It's not a dice system we're
    >> using for the battles, it's a Card system. In the end, if you fiddle with
    >> it you are fiddling with the randomness, which is just like using weighted
    >> dice. This is the equivalent of allowing both a +1 to a d6 roll, AND
    >> allowing all 1's to be re-rolled, when the only bonus called for is the +1.
    >
    >I'm going to go out on a limb here, so let me preface these remarks with a
    >disclaimer that this is only my opinion and that this opinion and a quarter
    >won't even get you a pack of bubblegum nowadays. In addition, I should
    >appologize for the following rant in advance. But....
    >
    >I don't like the card system for birthright battles. There. I said it.
    I feel
    >better already.
    >
    >I think it's a stupid, half-assed nod to the popularity of card games that
    have
    >inexplicably sprung onto the RPG scene in recent years. As a result we are
    >stuck with a simplistic method to determine large scale conflicts that is
    about
    >as sophisticated as a game of Go Fish.
    >
    >Now, I must admit that a large part of my objection comes from the fact
    that I
    >am an "old-timer" who started playing D&D back when the rulebooks were little
    >tan pamphlets and every time Gygax cleared his throat it was considered an
    >"official" rule change, so my chagrine at the influence of card games
    might very
    >well be based on some traditionalist rigidity. But there are a bunch of
    things
    >I don't like about it.
    >
    >Battle cards. Back in the days when I started playing RPGs you couldn't get
    >dice. Oh, you could snag six-siders from the family Monopoly game, but
    anything
    >other than the traditional cubes were as elusive as a unicorn. There were
    like
    >two stores in Southern California that sold the things and they were far
    outside
    >the reasonable travel radius of my Schwinn. Instead we had chits. Chits
    were
    >just a page of glossy, card stock paper with the various numbers printed
    on them
    >to represent dice. You cut them out, put them in a cup and drew them like
    >lottery numbers in order to determine hits and damage, etc. So inevitably
    a few
    >of the little things would get bent, fall onto the floor and get vacuumed
    up or
    >Mom would reclaim her cups and the whole set would get washed down the drain
    >with the rest of the dishes like Charybdis sucking down Argonauts.
    >
    >My point is that drawing Battle Cards is no different than using chits. I
    mean,
    >I've got dice RIGHT THERE ON THE TABLE, man! Just gimme a chart and a
    >twenty-sider. Keep the lousy card stock (that aren't even glossy, thank you
    >very much) cards.
    >
    >Plus, I really don't like the idea of using cards in a pen & paper game.
    >Suddenly we have to stop one method of play and start a card game? What
    if the
    >NBA suddenly required players to stop and play out a couple of hands of
    >Blackjack to determine the winner? It just makes more sense to me to play
    >things out using dice and charts like the rest of the game rather than to
    >suddenly switch.
    >
    >So anyway, I avoid using the card system as much as possible. I like them
    only
    >as a reference. It makes more sense to me to modify the rules to accompany
    >dice.

    I don't like the cards either. Does anyone have rules to use for dice
    instead?

  6. #6
    The Olesen`s
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    Someone said that they didn't like the fact that all the units were the
    same from kingdom to kingdom. Well that is only 1/2 right.

    First of all, all the kingdoms were once under a common rule, not
    nessesarily in resent times but back in the days of the six tribes they
    were, so the kingdom's have common likes and dislikes when in comes to
    war and thus common unit types.

    Now, who says all knights are the same? That is the regent's decion. In
    Roesone the knights could wear green tunics and carry lances, an ax, and
    a long sword. Now over in Diemed the knights mihgt wear red tunics
    carry langes, a warhammer, and a hand ax.
    Same effectiveness (thus the same combat values) but diffrent in small
    ways.
    Now making something out of the ordinary takes extra cash simply because
    knights aren't trained with longbows and need to be trained as part of
    the modify unit actions cost (50 longbows might cost around 1 GB but
    what about RP? It is for training them! And the time? Training too.)
    Teaching knights how to effectivly use longbows takes a new approach and
    will be more expensive the first time around just to learn how to do
    things. Afterwards it is a known thing and the unit will only cost more
    to muster and maintain becuase of the additonal equipment and training
    time.

    Is thier that much diffrence between a Soveit Union tank and an Iraqi
    tank of the same type? Nope. Same concept.

  7. #7
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    > >>
    > Is thier that much diffrence between a Soveit Union tank and an Iraqi
    > tank of the same type? Nope. Same concept.
    > >>
    > Actually, the T64 and T72 tank models used by the Iraqi's are
    > Soviet/Russian made.
    > The tanks are the very same type.
    >
    Well, there are some rumors that the Russians, not being stupid, sell
    "stripped down" versions of their equipment to their "allies", taking out
    most of the neato electronic junk, and thus making versions found in the
    hands of a variety of 3rd world armies very effective for crushing street
    demonstrators and pesant revolts, but less effective in battle with real
    armies. Now, this is just a "rumor", not confirmed, but it would help to
    explain the uniformly abysmall performance of such equipment in the hands
    of, Hmmmmn. . .no way to put that politely, is there?
    There's also the considerable fact that these guys just aint up to snuff,
    training and technical-wise. Which is another thing that is somewhat
    lacking in BR: dudes with the same equipment perform roughly the same/have
    roughly the same effectiveness, but equipment is far from the most
    important determining factor when you are considering combat efficiency (cf
    the excellent "How to Make War" books by Dunnigan and. . .darn, the
    co-author is sliping my mind, and I ain't got time to go dig up the books.
    Sorry).
    But now we're getting *way* off BR topic here.

  8. #8
    craig@finance.econ.usyd.
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    At 11:32 AM 27/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
    >
    >> >>
    >> Is thier that much diffrence between a Soveit Union tank and an Iraqi
    >> tank of the same type? Nope. Same concept.
    >> >>
    >> Actually, the T64 and T72 tank models used by the Iraqi's are
    >> Soviet/Russian made.
    >> The tanks are the very same type.
    >>
    >Well, there are some rumors that the Russians, not being stupid, sell
    >"stripped down" versions of their equipment to their "allies", taking out
    >most of the neato electronic junk, and thus making versions found in the
    >hands of a variety of 3rd world armies very effective for crushing street
    >demonstrators and pesant revolts, but less effective in battle with real
    >armies. Now, this is just a "rumor", not confirmed, but it would help to
    >explain the uniformly abysmall performance of such equipment in the hands
    >of, Hmmmmn. . .no way to put that politely, is there?
    Both the US and Russia do this.
    > There's also the considerable fact that these guys just aint up to snuff,
    >training and technical-wise. Which is another thing that is somewhat
    >lacking in BR: dudes with the same equipment perform roughly the same/have
    >roughly the same effectiveness, but equipment is far from the most
    >important determining factor when you are considering combat efficiency (cf
    >the excellent "How to Make War" books by Dunnigan and. . .darn, the
    >co-author is sliping my mind, and I ain't got time to go dig up the books.
    >Sorry).
    > But now we're getting *way* off BR topic here.
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >
    >

  9. #9
    Ryan B. Caveney
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    On Wed, 27 May 1998, James Ruhland wrote:

    > training and technical-wise. Which is another thing that is somewhat
    > lacking in BR: dudes with the same equipment perform roughly the
    > same/have roughly the same effectiveness, but equipment is far from the
    > most important determining factor when you are considering combat
    > efficiency

    Not necessarily. If we adopt the war card = 100 HD/hit rather
    than 200 soldiers, as does the oft-mentioned "Cry Havoc" article from
    Dragon Annual #2, then skill is indeed a major factor. For example, that
    means orog infantry equals human infantry, even though outnumbered 3-1.

    > the excellent "How to Make War" books by Dunnigan and. . .darn, the
    > co-author is sliping my mind, and I ain't got time to go dig up the books.

    My copy (1983 revised ed.) lists only Jim Dunnigan (Mr. SPI). But
    yeah, it's a good book, though not really relevant to the topic at hand
    (too much emphasis on modern (i.e., tanks'n'planes'n'nukes) warfare). If
    you want a serious (perhaps *too* mathematical) numerical analysis of war
    in general, try a book Dunnigan recommends, Trevor Dupuy's "Numbers,
    Predictions and War". If you are seriously interested in the history and
    theory of war, I cannot too-highly recommend Hans Delbrueck. Clausewitz
    and Sun Tzu are also very cogent and relevant, but it can be hard to pick
    the best translation for your needs: both suffer from having become a bit
    too popular lately. =)

    - --Ryan

  10. #10
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    Warcards rant.

    >
    > Not necessarily. If we adopt the war card = 100 HD/hit rather
    > than 200 soldiers, as does the oft-mentioned "Cry Havoc" article from
    > Dragon Annual #2, then skill is indeed a major factor. For example, that
    > means orog infantry equals human infantry, even though outnumbered 3-1.
    >
    That's true, but just "tougher" individuals isn't even the sole component.

    .
    >
    > My copy (1983 revised ed.) lists only Jim Dunnigan (Mr. SPI). But
    > yeah, it's a good book, though not really relevant to the topic at hand
    > (too much emphasis on modern (i.e., tanks'n'planes'n'nukes) warfare).
    >
    True, but some of the discussions of what makes for combat effectiveness
    certainly have some bearing. I.E. the German (FedRep) and American armies
    have roughly the same quality equipment, I'd hardly argue that Germans are
    more "tough" (indidually experienced/higher "level") than Americans, but
    the German army is/was considered more effective. Why? Lots of other
    factors (esp. leadership/training; though with the NTC that gap started to
    close).
    Btw, I'm thinking of doing something like the NTC in the future in this
    PBeM (since straight ModUnit has been outlawed), and am wondering what kind
    of effect vigourous, ongoing training excersises/wargames might have in BR
    terms on unit quality.

    > If
    > you want a serious (perhaps *too* mathematical) numerical analysis of war
    > in general, try a book Dunnigan recommends, Trevor Dupuy's "Numbers,
    > Predictions and War".
    >
    I have yet to read that specific work but I know and respect the author so
    I should go pick it up.

    > If you are seriously interested in the history and
    > theory of war, I cannot too-highly recommend Hans Delbrueck.
    >
    Already made some use of "History of the Art of War vol. 1: Warfare in
    Antiquity" in this debate. Unfortunately that's the only volume of that
    work that I actually own. Have to find the rest.

    > Clausewitz
    > and Sun Tzu are also very cogent and relevant, but it can be hard to pick
    > the best translation for your needs: both suffer from having become a bit
    > too popular lately. =)
    >
    As for something that ya'll could learn a bit from but probably haven't
    heard of, Maurice*'s Strategikon is very useful in several areas.

    *Emperor of the Romans, late 6th century.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Custom Warcards
    By Nameless One in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 12:33 AM
  2. Lotr: Return Of The King - Rant And Spoilers!
    By Benjamin in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-05-2004, 02:04 AM
  3. Rant
    By Baragos in forum Birthright.net support
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-12-2002, 10:52 AM
  4. Netbook Rant
    By Sepsis in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-19-1998, 09:09 PM
  5. New warcards 4 u !!!
    By Darkstar in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-1998, 02:07 PM

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.