Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII

On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Brian Burger wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> (As an aside, the Yanks never lost,
> AFAIK, a serious engagement in Vietnam. It was politics and the steady
> trickle of bodybags from the smaller engagements...)

'to win a hundred battles is not the acme of skill. to subdue the enemy
without fighting is the acme of skill' - sun tzu, roughly. the Lows in
this scenario could win, but not by facing the Highs in open battle.
experience shows that Lows are more than capable of winning these wars,
especially if they have a few Highs behind them (think nam, afghanistan,
algeria, india).

> > what does 'light armour' mean in this context? scale mail or kevlar?
> > 
> 
> If scale mail, I think they'd be pretty useless vs. firearms. If
Kevlar,
> why didn't the person who gave the primitives that give them real guns
as
> well?

i think body armour has lower maintenance needs than an assault rifle.

> > i think this is a pretty interesting idea you have here!
> >
> 
> 
>  

silences speak louder than words :-).

Tom