Archonsod said:
Or, to quote the masters: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
Rock Paper Scissors
- Thread starter Deserath
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Or, to quote the masters: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.
RedHaze
Recruit
This man is stupid and likely knows nothing about warfare or ancient history.Corvus said:
The Romans were extremely smart. Their men were disciplined, outfitted well, well-trained and well-paid. They had all the right reasons to go to war and fight eagerly.
First of all, they were an excellent fighting force, as they fought together as a unit.
They were paid well, and were not at all forced into the army. Many men went willingly because of the gleam of gold.
They were also well-motivated. Roman officers performed cruel punishments if men broke ranks, like stoning every tenth man in the unit that ran. Unless I'm misremembering, I think they also made the soldiers stone their unlucky comrades.
They didn't have to pull off elaborate sword faints. Like I said, they fought as a cohesive unit, thus all they needed to do was stab at the guy in front of them, usually.
However, they also did hundreds of drills, for hours and hours upon end.
The tortoise, for example, was a great technique which the Romans used to defend against arrows. Google it if you do not know about the technique.
Nor does it matter about the type of man.
What matters is the ******** leader. If the general inspires admiration, respect, or fear and dread (either works), then the army will follow their leader. However, it is not just about the leader's attitude and personality. He also needs to be highly strategical and, basically, be a master at chess. They need to know their soldier's weaknesses and strengths intimately. All of these things and more.
@LordofShadows: I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you're saying tactics don't matter, you're retarded. I'm sorry, but if that's what you're saying, it is true. You simply must be retarded to think that.
RedHaze said:
I suggest you study more. I was quoting, and it is quite true. If I can put 15 soldiers onto the battlefield for every 1 of yours, you will lose. If I can destroy your logistics trail, you will lose no matter what. If I can supply my soldiers better, you will lose, except in exceptional circumstances.
RedHaze
Recruit
Hmm. I feel you're forgetting the fact that, if I do everything pretty much the same way you have, except I employ tactics like attacking you from behind as well as from the front, then I could kick your arse.
I didn't say tactics mattered more than logistics, or that logistics don't matter, just that tactics do matter, and if you don't use them you're likely to get your testicles stuffed down your throat via a sword edge.
I didn't say tactics mattered more than logistics, or that logistics don't matter, just that tactics do matter, and if you don't use them you're likely to get your testicles stuffed down your throat via a sword edge.
RedHaze said:
Twit. You can only attack me from behind if you have enough manpower to support multiple avenues of attack, otherwise you are inviting defeat in detail.
I also never said that tactics don't matter. To expand on what I said, the amateur studies tactics elusively, while the professional studies the factors that influence tactics, of which by far the most important is logistics.
Another quote for you: "My logistics corp are a humourless lot, because they know if I fail in a campaign they will be the first to be blamed" Alexander the Great.
RedHaze said:
Look at my name. It was more fun this way, plus I found out just how much of a retard you are.
RedHaze said:
I also believe you to be a misguided jackass with brains of a slug, and that was what it was mostly about.
RedHaze
Recruit
Mmm, yes, the key word being believe.
If everything people believed was true, the tooth fairy and Santa Clause would be real, Lady Gaga would be actually good and talking dogs would run up to you and greet you, Vikings DID wear cow horns on their helmets and Christopher Columbus DID discover America.
If everything people believed was true, the tooth fairy and Santa Clause would be real, Lady Gaga would be actually good and talking dogs would run up to you and greet you, Vikings DID wear cow horns on their helmets and Christopher Columbus DID discover America.
Still funny that for all your talk, that you believe viking is a noun and not a verb.
It;s proper use is: "I am going viking today."
Or as a noun: He is a Vikingr
Notice the difference?
It;s meaning is to trade/raid.
Vikingr is the proper noun for a trader/raider. Or plural
It;s proper use is: "I am going viking today."
Or as a noun: He is a Vikingr
Notice the difference?
It;s meaning is to trade/raid.
Vikingr is the proper noun for a trader/raider. Or plural
RedHaze
Recruit
Why does it really matter? It's one letter, the word hasn't changed drastically.
Also, in this instance, you can't be lazy and ignorant - that doesn't make sense.
In this instance, if you're too lazy to put the extra letter on Viking, then you obviously know it is spelt Vikingr - otherwise you wouldn't be lazy as you don't know.
But this is getting off topic, we shouldn't be talking about laziness, ignorance and the spelling of Vikingr.
Also, in this instance, you can't be lazy and ignorant - that doesn't make sense.
In this instance, if you're too lazy to put the extra letter on Viking, then you obviously know it is spelt Vikingr - otherwise you wouldn't be lazy as you don't know.
But this is getting off topic, we shouldn't be talking about laziness, ignorance and the spelling of Vikingr.
Kobrag said:
It's lazy that you didn't say:
"It;s lasich not to taken the extra esfort and preserve the weg of things.
Being lasich and ignoraunt? That is criminalis."
Saying Viking is fine.
Exactly, hence language changes. He is just as right saying viking or vikingr so as long as people understand what he means.
RedHaze
Recruit
I dislike the word ignoramus.
It annoys me because everyone is ignorant of some things, you can't know everything (which is the only way you can not be ignorant).
If you are using it as I'm stupid, then that's just incorrect because my IQ is 145. What you were gauging is ignorance, not intelligence. Since I'm in grade nine, I think I'm well justified in being ignorant of most subjects. After all, I can't research everything, and I don't have an idyllic memory.
It annoys me because everyone is ignorant of some things, you can't know everything (which is the only way you can not be ignorant).
If you are using it as I'm stupid, then that's just incorrect because my IQ is 145. What you were gauging is ignorance, not intelligence. Since I'm in grade nine, I think I'm well justified in being ignorant of most subjects. After all, I can't research everything, and I don't have an idyllic memory.
