Re: [FT] (LONG) The Balance of Power -- Fighters and a Defense

--- Shawn M Mininger <smininger@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In most cases, as long as the rules are followed,
> thses things tend to work themselves out.  Usually
> what happens is that for a few games, a new tactic
> (fighters swarms, missile swarms, etc.) will totally
> catch an opponent off gaurd.	then the opponent will
> come up with a strategy to compensate.  This is the
> history of war!!!!!  

There's a maxim somewhere about the number exclamation
points used before you hit the point of dimishing
returns.  But at any rate, all I know is that I'm real
hesitant to send fighters into a ADFC/PDS-heavy
environment.  Say, any given IF task force.

> Way back in history...there was a terrible weapon
> called the crossbow.	This one weapon changed the
> face > of warfare.  Suddenly, a relatively untrained

Actually, no.  Crossbows were an adjunct to armored
warfare and added no more complexity to the situation
than existed before (Willie the Bastard managed
combined arms tactics without it, for instance).  And
relatively untrained crossbowmen weren't worth that
much--in fact the French imported Genoese crossbowmen
because their native troops were of such poor quality.

> footman > could take down the best Knight!!!!  Did 
Actually you're speaking of the pike--pike blocks will
stop lancers cold.

everyone> just > start complaining and stomp thier
feet and threaten > to > 'tell Mommy'?	Nope, heh heh
heh the technology and > tactics of warfare changed to
accommodate this new > developement.

Actually there was much moralizing on the unfairness
of infantry standing up in front of heavy cavalry. 
However most of it was done by armchair strategists
(hmmm. . . do we see a theme?). The actual soldiers
were out buying wheellock pistols to shoot pikemen
with.
 
John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.