A lesson for Cyrodiil

Anazasi

John Bartram, Field archaeologist, geophysical surveyor, man of the world and family man.
Answered Dec 2, 2016 · Author has 2.5k answers and 5.6m answer views

So we have, for the sake of argument, three forces of more-or-less equal power, with one between the two others and these two are at war with the central force. Logically, the central force will lose; however great commanders may overcome reason and exert their will on the battlefield over larger forces.

Napoleon developed the corps with that in mind:

Corps

The French Army under Napoleon used corps-sized formations (French: Corps d'Armée) as the first formal combined-arms groupings of divisions with reasonably stable manning and equipment establishments. Napoleon first used the Corps d'Armée in 1805 . The use of the Corps d'Armée was a military innovation that provided Napoleon with a significant battlefield advantage in the early phases of the Napoleonic Wars. The Corps was designed to be an independent military group containing cavalry, artillery and infantry, and capable of defending against a numerically superior foe. This allowed Napoleon to mass the bulk of his forces to effect a penetration into a weak section of enemy lines without risking his own communications or flank. This innovation stimulated other European powers to adopt similar military structures. The Corps has remained an echelon of French Army organization to the modern day.

Until then, dividing an army in two was regarded as a fatal weakness. Napoleon thought differently. With the intention of conquering Europe, he knew he would face multiple enemies, often at the same time. The corps was his answer.

He sent one corps to hold an enemy army and then personally engaged the immediate target with his own corps. Holding one army at ‘arm length’, he then expected to defeat the other; after his anticipated victory, he then moved his own corps rapidly to join the other and so overwhelm that enemy.

To achieve this, of course, he needed superior generals to head those corps; by and large, so he did; he called them ‘lucky’ and to some extent, they probably were.

Seen at a national scale, the strategy is to hold one enemy whilst defeating the other, then switching attentions. Again, it is not bound to work, but when faced with overwhelming odds, nothing is.

AD needs to learn to hold the home keeps above all else and when numerical superiority exists each day push the stronger (the faction winning) and hold against the the other.
EP will win again as long as they are permitted to hold Alessia and Alswell for most of each day.

When this is not possible. Factions in second and third place must follow this: Guerrilla tactics – Involves ambushes on enemy troops. Usually used by insurgency. By using small groups at strategic times (eval time) the winning faction can be bled of the points they are gaining by holding Alessia and Alswell.

Organized play is the critical in PVP. Even when outnumbered sometimes a direct attack isn't what's needed.

Aztlan

Good stuff, Taran. Who knows what the randoms will do, but all organized groups, large and small, should follow that advice.

VaranisArano

Yes, an AvAvA game mode like Cyrodiil is designed for and unsurprisingly rewards organized groups and objective-focused gameplay.

And if you want to win campaigns, you have to have those organized groups focus on objectives, not just AP farming or "We're just looking for good fights."

That's nothing new, the problem is that PVPers are like a bunch of cats and equally difficult to herd.

Sandman929

Good advice in the age of "TL:DR", sadly.

Anazasi

There is no need to point out Waterloo, we all know how that battle ended. The concept is valid, especially when Waterloo emphasizes how effective groups "corp" play can be. We have all seen the mindless zerg gather its full force and strike head long into 1 keep, i.e. roe alessia alswell and chalman. The contingency for this has been to either give up quickly or try and hold. Rarely, unless organized play is involved, does this full frontal attack precipitate a strike deep into enemy territory which results in pulling their entire force back into their own territory or dividing their forces making them easier to handle. The goal should always be holding home territory for scoring purposes.

usmguy1234

Anazasi wrote: »

John Bartram, Field archaeologist, geophysical surveyor, man of the world and family man.
Answered Dec 2, 2016 · Author has 2.5k answers and 5.6m answer views

So we have, for the sake of argument, three forces of more-or-less equal power, with one between the two others and these two are at war with the central force. Logically, the central force will lose; however great commanders may overcome reason and exert their will on the battlefield over larger forces.

Napoleon developed the corps with that in mind:

Corps

The French Army under Napoleon used corps-sized formations (French: Corps d'Armée) as the first formal combined-arms groupings of divisions with reasonably stable manning and equipment establishments. Napoleon first used the Corps d'Armée in 1805 . The use of the Corps d'Armée was a military innovation that provided Napoleon with a significant battlefield advantage in the early phases of the Napoleonic Wars. The Corps was designed to be an independent military group containing cavalry, artillery and infantry, and capable of defending against a numerically superior foe. This allowed Napoleon to mass the bulk of his forces to effect a penetration into a weak section of enemy lines without risking his own communications or flank. This innovation stimulated other European powers to adopt similar military structures. The Corps has remained an echelon of French Army organization to the modern day.

Until then, dividing an army in two was regarded as a fatal weakness. Napoleon thought differently. With the intention of conquering Europe, he knew he would face multiple enemies, often at the same time. The corps was his answer.

He sent one corps to hold an enemy army and then personally engaged the immediate target with his own corps. Holding one army at ‘arm length’, he then expected to defeat the other; after his anticipated victory, he then moved his own corps rapidly to join the other and so overwhelm that enemy.

To achieve this, of course, he needed superior generals to head those corps; by and large, so he did; he called them ‘lucky’ and to some extent, they probably were.

Seen at a national scale, the strategy is to hold one enemy whilst defeating the other, then switching attentions. Again, it is not bound to work, but when faced with overwhelming odds, nothing is.

AD needs to learn to hold the home keeps above all else and when numerical superiority exists each day push the stronger (the faction winning) and hold against the the other.
EP will win again as long as they are permitted to hold Alessia and Alswell for most of each day.

When this is not possible. Factions in second and third place must follow this: Guerrilla tactics – Involves ambushes on enemy troops. Usually used by insurgency. By using small groups at strategic times (eval time) the winning faction can be bled of the points they are gaining by holding Alessia and Alswell.

Organized play is the critical in PVP. Even when outnumbered sometimes a direct attack isn't what's needed.

Pretty sure Napoleon or his enemies didn't have people dedicated to resurrection or forward camps.

Anazasi

Are we recreating the battle of Waterloo in Cyrodiil?

Adept Rider
2 – 2975 Spell Resist
3 – 2975 Physical Resist
4 – 1206 Max Health
5 – While mounted, you gain Major Evasion, increasing your dodge chance by 15%. Dismounting spawns a dust cloud at your position for 12 seconds that deals 1436 Physical Damage every 1 second to enemies who stand inside it. You and group members inside the dust cloud gain Major Evasion. The dust cloud can be created once every 12 seconds.

Charge of the British heavy cavalry
Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve.

— Wellington.[72]

Scotland Forever!, the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo painted by Elizabeth Thompson
At this crucial juncture, Uxbridge ordered his two brigades of British heavy cavalry—formed unseen behind the ridge—to charge in support of the hard-pressed infantry. The 1st Brigade, known as the Household Brigade, commanded by Major-General Lord Edward Somerset, consisted of guards regiments: the 1st and 2nd Life Guards, the Royal Horse Guards (the Blues), and the 1st (King's) Dragoon Guards. The 2nd Brigade, also known as the Union Brigade, commanded by Major-General Sir William Ponsonby, was so called as it consisted of an English, the 1st (The Royals); a Scottish, 2nd ('Scots Greys'); and an Irish, 6th (Inniskilling); regiment of heavy dragoons.[73][74]


British Household Cavalry charging
More than 20 years of warfare had eroded the numbers of suitable cavalry mounts available on the European continent; this resulted in the British heavy cavalry entering the 1815 campaign with the finest horses of any contemporary cavalry arm. British cavalry troopers also received excellent mounted swordsmanship training. They were, however, inferior to the French in manoeuvring in large formations, cavalier in attitude, and unlike the infantry some units had scant experience of warfare.[72] The Scots Greys, for example, had not been in action since 1795.[75] According to Wellington, though they were superior individual horsemen, they were inflexible and lacked tactical ability.[72] "I considered one squadron a match for two French, I didn't like to see four British opposed to four French: and as the numbers increased and order, of course, became more necessary I was the more unwilling to risk our men without having a superiority in numbers".[76]

The two brigades had a combined field strength of about 2,000 (2,651 official strength); they charged with the 47-year-old Uxbridge leading them and a very inadequate number of squadrons held in reserve.[77][o] There is evidence that Uxbridge gave an order, the morning of the battle, to all cavalry brigade commanders to commit their commands on their own initiative, as direct orders from himself might not always be forthcoming, and to "support movements to their front".[78] It appears that Uxbridge expected the brigades of Sir John Ormsby Vandeleur, Hussey Vivian and the Dutch cavalry to provide support to the British heavies. Uxbridge later regretted leading the charge in person, saying "I committed a great mistake", when he should have been organising an adequate reserve to move forward in support.[79]

Anazasi

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

John Bartram, Field archaeologist, geophysical surveyor, man of the world and family man.
Answered Dec 2, 2016 · Author has 2.5k answers and 5.6m answer views

So we have, for the sake of argument, three forces of more-or-less equal power, with one between the two others and these two are at war with the central force. Logically, the central force will lose; however great commanders may overcome reason and exert their will on the battlefield over larger forces.

Napoleon developed the corps with that in mind:

Corps

The French Army under Napoleon used corps-sized formations (French: Corps d'Armée) as the first formal combined-arms groupings of divisions with reasonably stable manning and equipment establishments. Napoleon first used the Corps d'Armée in 1805 . The use of the Corps d'Armée was a military innovation that provided Napoleon with a significant battlefield advantage in the early phases of the Napoleonic Wars. The Corps was designed to be an independent military group containing cavalry, artillery and infantry, and capable of defending against a numerically superior foe. This allowed Napoleon to mass the bulk of his forces to effect a penetration into a weak section of enemy lines without risking his own communications or flank. This innovation stimulated other European powers to adopt similar military structures. The Corps has remained an echelon of French Army organization to the modern day.

Until then, dividing an army in two was regarded as a fatal weakness. Napoleon thought differently. With the intention of conquering Europe, he knew he would face multiple enemies, often at the same time. The corps was his answer.

He sent one corps to hold an enemy army and then personally engaged the immediate target with his own corps. Holding one army at ‘arm length’, he then expected to defeat the other; after his anticipated victory, he then moved his own corps rapidly to join the other and so overwhelm that enemy.

To achieve this, of course, he needed superior generals to head those corps; by and large, so he did; he called them ‘lucky’ and to some extent, they probably were.

Seen at a national scale, the strategy is to hold one enemy whilst defeating the other, then switching attentions. Again, it is not bound to work, but when faced with overwhelming odds, nothing is.

AD needs to learn to hold the home keeps above all else and when numerical superiority exists each day push the stronger (the faction winning) and hold against the the other.
EP will win again as long as they are permitted to hold Alessia and Alswell for most of each day.

When this is not possible. Factions in second and third place must follow this: Guerrilla tactics – Involves ambushes on enemy troops. Usually used by insurgency. By using small groups at strategic times (eval time) the winning faction can be bled of the points they are gaining by holding Alessia and Alswell.

Organized play is the critical in PVP. Even when outnumbered sometimes a direct attack isn't what's needed.

Pretty sure Napoleon or his enemies didn't have people dedicated to resurrection or forward camps.

Well it is a game ya know.

Rin_Senya

Napoleon was a war genius and had a very strong personality. He knew what he wanted and how to achieve it, making the French army one of the strongest in Europe.
Sadly you can't say any of these things about AD faction leaders. Instead of actually taking the lesson from Napoleon and trying to make their own armies stronger they prefer to spend their time on forums making such kind of posts and complaining about "enemy cheaters", faction imbalance, the purple alliance, town placement and unfair bridges. I doubt that Napoleon would win any fight if he had this type of attitude.

Anazasi

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Napoleon was a war genius and had a very strong personality. He knew what he wanted and how to achieve it, making the French army one of the strongest in Europe.
Sadly you can't say any of these things about AD faction leaders. Instead of actually taking the lesson from Napoleon and trying to make their own armies stronger they prefer to spend their time on forums making such kind of posts and complaining about "enemy cheaters", faction imbalance, the purple alliance, town placement and unfair bridges. I doubt that Napoleon would win any fight if he had this type of attitude.

Sadly you are correct. But what does it say about the factions that find farming AP amongst the lowest populated faction? Or better yet just stacking the entire faction on 1 location like it is often done at Alessia, ROE, Chalman, and Alswell? Food for thought perhaps. "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions."

Don't misconstrue my remarks as a personal affront. You are hands down one of the best healers in the game.

NordSwordnBoard

Discipline: real armies have it, and a means to enforce it.

Joy_Division

Anazasi wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Napoleon was a war genius and had a very strong personality. He knew what he wanted and how to achieve it, making the French army one of the strongest in Europe.
Sadly you can't say any of these things about AD faction leaders. Instead of actually taking the lesson from Napoleon and trying to make their own armies stronger they prefer to spend their time on forums making such kind of posts and complaining about "enemy cheaters", faction imbalance, the purple alliance, town placement and unfair bridges. I doubt that Napoleon would win any fight if he had this type of attitude.

Sadly you are correct. But what does it say about the factions that find farming AP amongst the lowest populated faction? Or better yet just stacking the entire faction on 1 location like it is often done at Alessia, ROE, Chalman, and Alswell? Food for thought perhaps. "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions."

Don't misconstrue my remarks as a personal affront. You are hands down one of the best healers in the game.

It tells me that those who are getting farmed should read de Caulaincourt's memoirs and see what happened to Napoleon when he faction stacked the Grande Armée during his 1812 invasion of Russia.

MaximillianDiE

Joy_Division wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Napoleon was a war genius and had a very strong personality. He knew what he wanted and how to achieve it, making the French army one of the strongest in Europe.
Sadly you can't say any of these things about AD faction leaders. Instead of actually taking the lesson from Napoleon and trying to make their own armies stronger they prefer to spend their time on forums making such kind of posts and complaining about "enemy cheaters", faction imbalance, the purple alliance, town placement and unfair bridges. I doubt that Napoleon would win any fight if he had this type of attitude.

Sadly you are correct. But what does it say about the factions that find farming AP amongst the lowest populated faction? Or better yet just stacking the entire faction on 1 location like it is often done at Alessia, ROE, Chalman, and Alswell? Food for thought perhaps. "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions."

Don't misconstrue my remarks as a personal affront. You are hands down one of the best healers in the game.

It tells me that those who are getting farmed should read de Caulaincourt's memoirs and see what happened to Napoleon when he faction stacked the Grande Armée during his 1812 invasion of Russia.

I have read on a number of occasions that Napoleon was suffering from piles or was epileptic or some other miscellaneous illness or disorder so was off his game on that particular day which is why he performed subpar and Wellington took the field. Perhaps this is an example of how to kill a ball group by chain cc'ing its crown - or perhaps it was simply bad latency and Napoleon was dropped from the server at critical moments making the crown default proxy to Marshal Ney at a crucial point in the battle (and we all know how that ended up)... we will never know?

Rohamad_Ali

Vilestride

Napoleon needed more earthgores.

Joy_Division

MaximillianDiE wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Napoleon was a war genius and had a very strong personality. He knew what he wanted and how to achieve it, making the French army one of the strongest in Europe.
Sadly you can't say any of these things about AD faction leaders. Instead of actually taking the lesson from Napoleon and trying to make their own armies stronger they prefer to spend their time on forums making such kind of posts and complaining about "enemy cheaters", faction imbalance, the purple alliance, town placement and unfair bridges. I doubt that Napoleon would win any fight if he had this type of attitude.

Sadly you are correct. But what does it say about the factions that find farming AP amongst the lowest populated faction? Or better yet just stacking the entire faction on 1 location like it is often done at Alessia, ROE, Chalman, and Alswell? Food for thought perhaps. "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions."

Don't misconstrue my remarks as a personal affront. You are hands down one of the best healers in the game.

It tells me that those who are getting farmed should read de Caulaincourt's memoirs and see what happened to Napoleon when he faction stacked the Grande Armée during his 1812 invasion of Russia.

I have read on a number of occasions that Napoleon was suffering from piles or was epileptic or some other miscellaneous illness or disorder so was off his game on that particular day which is why he performed subpar and Wellington took the field. Perhaps this is an example of how to kill a ball group by chain cc'ing its crown - or perhaps it was simply bad latency and Napoleon was dropped from the server at critical moments making the crown default proxy to Marshal Ney at a crucial point in the battle (and we all know how that ended up)... we will never know?

His group comp was off for Russia: half his army was faction-hopping Germans and not core. Though his greatest disappointment was trying to farm the Russians at Moscow which never happened as Tsar Alexander ordered his armies not to potato and try to mindlessly take it back.

MaximillianDiE

Joy_Division wrote: »

MaximillianDiE wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Napoleon was a war genius and had a very strong personality. He knew what he wanted and how to achieve it, making the French army one of the strongest in Europe.
Sadly you can't say any of these things about AD faction leaders. Instead of actually taking the lesson from Napoleon and trying to make their own armies stronger they prefer to spend their time on forums making such kind of posts and complaining about "enemy cheaters", faction imbalance, the purple alliance, town placement and unfair bridges. I doubt that Napoleon would win any fight if he had this type of attitude.

Sadly you are correct. But what does it say about the factions that find farming AP amongst the lowest populated faction? Or better yet just stacking the entire faction on 1 location like it is often done at Alessia, ROE, Chalman, and Alswell? Food for thought perhaps. "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions."

Don't misconstrue my remarks as a personal affront. You are hands down one of the best healers in the game.

It tells me that those who are getting farmed should read de Caulaincourt's memoirs and see what happened to Napoleon when he faction stacked the Grande Armée during his 1812 invasion of Russia.

I have read on a number of occasions that Napoleon was suffering from piles or was epileptic or some other miscellaneous illness or disorder so was off his game on that particular day which is why he performed subpar and Wellington took the field. Perhaps this is an example of how to kill a ball group by chain cc'ing its crown - or perhaps it was simply bad latency and Napoleon was dropped from the server at critical moments making the crown default proxy to Marshal Ney at a crucial point in the battle (and we all know how that ended up)... we will never know?

His group comp was off for Russia: half his army was faction-hopping Germans and not core. Though his greatest disappointment was trying to farm the Russians at Moscow which never happened as Tsar Alexander ordered his armies not to potato and try to mindlessly take it back.

Don't forget (the French) Warband 2 was getting tower farmed by Wellington in the Penninsular campaign at the same time!

Rohamad_Ali

I don't personally read that much into what is going on . When AD's best organized is away , they simply have to rely on who's around and since we are closest to the water it seems to always be ...

usmguy1234

Anazasi wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

John Bartram, Field archaeologist, geophysical surveyor, man of the world and family man.
Answered Dec 2, 2016 · Author has 2.5k answers and 5.6m answer views

So we have, for the sake of argument, three forces of more-or-less equal power, with one between the two others and these two are at war with the central force. Logically, the central force will lose; however great commanders may overcome reason and exert their will on the battlefield over larger forces.

Napoleon developed the corps with that in mind:

Corps

The French Army under Napoleon used corps-sized formations (French: Corps d'Armée) as the first formal combined-arms groupings of divisions with reasonably stable manning and equipment establishments. Napoleon first used the Corps d'Armée in 1805 . The use of the Corps d'Armée was a military innovation that provided Napoleon with a significant battlefield advantage in the early phases of the Napoleonic Wars. The Corps was designed to be an independent military group containing cavalry, artillery and infantry, and capable of defending against a numerically superior foe. This allowed Napoleon to mass the bulk of his forces to effect a penetration into a weak section of enemy lines without risking his own communications or flank. This innovation stimulated other European powers to adopt similar military structures. The Corps has remained an echelon of French Army organization to the modern day.

Until then, dividing an army in two was regarded as a fatal weakness. Napoleon thought differently. With the intention of conquering Europe, he knew he would face multiple enemies, often at the same time. The corps was his answer.

He sent one corps to hold an enemy army and then personally engaged the immediate target with his own corps. Holding one army at ‘arm length’, he then expected to defeat the other; after his anticipated victory, he then moved his own corps rapidly to join the other and so overwhelm that enemy.

To achieve this, of course, he needed superior generals to head those corps; by and large, so he did; he called them ‘lucky’ and to some extent, they probably were.

Seen at a national scale, the strategy is to hold one enemy whilst defeating the other, then switching attentions. Again, it is not bound to work, but when faced with overwhelming odds, nothing is.

AD needs to learn to hold the home keeps above all else and when numerical superiority exists each day push the stronger (the faction winning) and hold against the the other.
EP will win again as long as they are permitted to hold Alessia and Alswell for most of each day.

When this is not possible. Factions in second and third place must follow this: Guerrilla tactics – Involves ambushes on enemy troops. Usually used by insurgency. By using small groups at strategic times (eval time) the winning faction can be bled of the points they are gaining by holding Alessia and Alswell.

Organized play is the critical in PVP. Even when outnumbered sometimes a direct attack isn't what's needed.

Pretty sure Napoleon or his enemies didn't have people dedicated to resurrection or forward camps.

Well it is a game ya know.

My point exactly. Stop comparing games to real life.

Anazasi

Perhaps someone should spend a little time reading Plato. There exists a dark cave.......

Plato Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Music is a moral law. Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge. You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.

frozywozy

Anazasi wrote: »

When this is not possible. Factions in second and third place must follow this: Guerrilla tactics – Involves ambushes on enemy troops. Usually used by insurgency. By using small groups at strategic times (eval time) the winning faction can be bled of the points they are gaining by holding Alessia and Alswell.

Organized play is the critical in PVP. Even when outnumbered sometimes a direct attack isn't what's needed.

This is definitely the best and most skilled gameplay of all time. Capturing ressources before eval.

Anazasi

frozywozy wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

When this is not possible. Factions in second and third place must follow this: Guerrilla tactics – Involves ambushes on enemy troops. Usually used by insurgency. By using small groups at strategic times (eval time) the winning faction can be bled of the points they are gaining by holding Alessia and Alswell.

Organized play is the critical in PVP. Even when outnumbered sometimes a direct attack isn't what's needed.

This is definitely the best and most skilled gameplay of all time. Capturing ressources before eval.

I laughed a little when i read your comment. AD resources are red more times at eval than any other faction. The fact is this is a game and there is no mechanic in place other than scoring which is tied to evals to determine after a set period which faction wins or loses. If the game was based on engagements of groups to determine win or loss that would be cool. Unfortunately it's not possible nor would I think we would want it that way considering the role attrition plays in most victories. The fact that each eval is a numerical balance sheet that should looked at every hour, teaches players to plan, organize, and cooperate. If they don't their faction or current hosting faction, for those that enjoy playing multiple factions, reflects the disorganization.

I began this thread in hopes that a little history lesson would help explain or perhaps offer some insight to Cyrodiil. The two front war concept originated in 1815 during the Napoleonic War. The concept to hold against one enemy while pushing against another revolutionized war strategy. In fact you find it a very common theme from 1815 to 2012 when the idea was de-emphasized. Gaming can teach us many things that Christopher Weaver calls "insights" It was by no chance that Cyrodiil was modeled after the idea of fighting a two front war. It was clearly on the mind of every major country in the 1990's. At some point the players simply have to learn how to take real life strategies and apply them to the mechanics of what Bethesda has created. I wonder if by some weird coincidence, that since 2012 and the emphasis of a two front war has changed that the leaders of the zerging factions are playing out this new strategy each day?

Plato Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Anazasi wrote: »

Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
Lao Tzu

Rohamad_Ali

Anazasi wrote: »

Perhaps someone should spend a little time reading Plato. There exists a dark cave.......

Plato Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Music is a moral law. Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge. You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation.

Anazasi

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
Lao Tzu

something i wish you would practice more often when stalking around the forums especially threads that i post or post on.

Is this to be a collision of Western and Eastern Philosophies? This could be more interesting than the current game.

VaranisArano

Can we go back to Napoleon jokes instead of baiting each other with pretentious quotes?

Why the whole faction should work together:

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Anazasi wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
Lao Tzu

something i wish you would practice more often when stalking around the forums especially threads that i post or post on.

It seems you have much to study.
Some other Lao Tzu lines you may wish to consider.

"He who talks more is sooner exhausted"
"Respond intelligently even to unintelligent treatment"

They may help you with your replies.

Anazasi

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
Lao Tzu

something i wish you would practice more often when stalking around the forums especially threads that i post or post on.

It seems you have much to study.
Some other Lao Tzu lines you may wish to consider.

"He who talks more is sooner exhausted"
"Respond intelligently even to unintelligent treatment"

They may help you with your replies.

I like to speak to most people in a language and level they can understand in order to make sure my point is not misinterpreted. I so hope that short and concise responses are easily and universally understood by all readers. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread please stop trolling it. You are aware the topic is about strategies for fighting two front wars. Which was designed after the Napoleonic War which was meant to teach combat strategies based on the 1990 War College model of Western civilization. Perhaps you should reflect more on the topic instead of submitting / interjecting bad commentary because the topic exceeds your ability to comprehend. I'm just thinking if you have nothing new to offer the actual topic you have chosen to say something irrelevant.

VaranisArano

Less bait, more meme!

The appropriate response to people whining "You zerged me, you filthy zerger!" after being defeated by an organized raid.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Anazasi wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Quotes. Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know.
Lao Tzu

something i wish you would practice more often when stalking around the forums especially threads that i post or post on.

It seems you have much to study.
Some other Lao Tzu lines you may wish to consider.

"He who talks more is sooner exhausted"
"Respond intelligently even to unintelligent treatment"

They may help you with your replies.

I like to speak to most people in a language and level they can understand in order to make sure my point is not misinterpreted. I so hope that short and concise responses are easily and universally understood by all readers. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread please stop trolling it. You are aware the topic is about strategies for fighting two front wars. Which was designed after the Napoleonic War which was meant to teach combat strategies based on the 1990 War College model of Western civilization. Perhaps you should reflect more on the topic instead of submitting / interjecting bad commentary because the topic exceeds your ability to comprehend. I'm just thinking if you have nothing new to offer the actual topic you have chosen to say something irrelevant.

Sorry for the delayed reply, was travelling home from work.. as I'm sure you know "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."

It seemed you were happy enough to discuss philosophy when you were the one attempting to post it. Its always interesting when someone who likes to appear intellectual how quickly that veneer can fade once challenged. I'm not sure Plato would be proud.
Much like the war strategy often displayed in Cyrodiil, especially by certain leaders who will remain a'nonymous .

You want to discuss Napoleon's tactics. Sure. He created very strong small units; something which many of us have been practising (not just preaching) for a long time. However he attempted to invade and control multiple countries (resources), annoying everyone who then banded together against him and ultimately met a force (Russia) who he could not conquer vastly due to being unprepared for the fight.

You may wish to make a more considered reply. Remember.

"The best fighter is never angry."

SaKGEE

I agree attacking Russia in the winter isn't a very good idea