Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 4648626" data-attributes="member: 834">Do you have any idea how many stupid people there are in the world?We've been warring since the dawn of time and 80% of the time the result of the battle was a foregone conclusion.  How moronic do you think the Egyptian's leadership was to start the six day war, in hindsight?  Even the Axis in WWII can be seen as a bunch of stupid idiots from that angle.  They purposefully started a fight they couldn't really win.  Surprise and tactical brillance got them a few years where they seemed on top of the world and provided for some of the most harrowing battle in history, sure.  But the bottom line is that they had willingly picked a fight with an assortment of countries that grossly outmatched them in terms of industrial production and manpower.  Germany, Italy and Japan vs the rest of the world...  Do you have any idea how much more soldiers and tank the allies could produce in the long run?  Which is exactly why after a series of stunning victories, they still hadn't won the war and then got their ass kicked in the second half. It's just like a D&D band of monsters ambushing a bunch of PCs, thinking surprise will make this an easy fight but without realizing that the opposition has far more staying power than they suspect.  When they think the battle should be over, it is just beginning.  Looks pretty stupid in hindsight, but that's what happened all the time in history.  It's like that line from Gladiator when Maximus and his aide are looking at the assembled barbarians.  It goes something like:-''Don't they know that they are beaten?''-''Does any man know when he is beaten?  Would we?''And then they proceed to slaughter the barbarians.  The roman empire did execute countless slaughter like this one at its height.  These were one-sided affairs that should never have occured by your logic.That's why I said fight and start the alarm.Beside, all those game theory is balderdash once the fight start.  It's the kind of things leaders consider before deciding to fight or not.  And as demonstrated by history, the leaders still often choose what seems like stupidity.  In their defense they usually have imperfect informations and in D&D's specific case the PCs are oftens the one who starts the fight anyway.  Beside, just because one has the quality to win leadership doesn't mean one has the quality required to lead.  Two very different things.  The troops on the ground, they think of nothing at all.  There is no game theory when PCs crash the gate;  There is only fight or flight and these monsters have been conditionned to fight.  It's that simple.  No soldier in history has ever considered game theory when being shot at.  He shoots back; that's what he's trained to do.  His field commander might order a reatreat before long, but even he will need some time to assess he situation (remember that the PCs tends to be fewer than the monsters, it skews evaluation) because he hasn't been trained to give ground at the first challenge either.  There is a reason he is occupying that area and you don't concede it lightly.  For example; you don't concede the gate!</blockquote>

Verification