Re: 2nd/3rd rate powers

Hello 

I have been thinking about this whole thread, and I feel that Tom
Barclays original one-dimensional ranking has some problems. Mainly for
trying to press 'military quality' into a single number (1-4) and by
not stating clearly how he arrived at that number.

In his remarks on various powers, he mentions several criteria for his
ranking:

1) fighting skill at the 'small unit' level
Example: the Gurkhas.
I take it that this is the quality of units you would see on an SG or
DS table, up to bataillon level, perhaps.

2) operational skills of handling large units
Discussed as the reason for downgrading e.g.the Scandinavians

3) budget/equipment/logistics capabilities
Example: the OUDF downgrading

Not that I have particular problems with that, but what was the
intended overall statement ?

What was TomB's list supposed to mean: 

* The performance of such troops on the gaming table ? 
In which case, only point 1) seems relevant, with 3) dictating the
equipment.

* The capability of a nation to win a war against another ?
Here 2) and 3) seem the most relevant.

A case in point:

The Gorkha Empire : I'll grant you the 1st rank in fighting skills. But
do we have any reason to assume it is top-notch in the other aspects,
too ? If they are 2nd rate competent in operations (probably generous,
anybody ever heard of a Gurkha Army Corps ?) and 3rd rate in budget
(they are a small nation) and just average out the numbers, they end as
a 2nd-rate military power. Competent but not top-notch.

Such an explicit, detailed ranking might have made the discussion more
meaningful.

Greetings