Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 4832759" data-attributes="member: 1879">I'm not sure what you mean by modern warfare. WW I is almost the opposite of modern warfare, regardless of the fact that it took place in the modern age.Modern warfare is typified by three things. The primacy of offense, mobility, and rapid clear communications. Static defense is impossible, stealth and ambush are the only ways for a force without air supremacy to achieve anything at all. In medieval warfare emplaced defenses were more powerful than offense. A castle could only be reduced by seige warfare which is a slow, ugly, brutal form of warfare.This shifted during the renaisance with the development of cannon that could breach existing defenses in short order. This shifted back, briefly during World War I. From the development of the machine gun to the introduction of the tank the balance shifted back to emplace defenses, which is what led to the trench warfare and horrors of WWI. So really WWI is kind of a restatement of medieval warfare with defense winning over offense leading to stalemate and seige. The war in the sky takes place with griffons and manticores replaceing sopwiths and folkers. Green slime grenades (at night) replace gas attacks and fireballs and call lightnings serve as artillery. BTW if I recall correctly the Gulf War was the first war in history where more people died due to enemy action than to disease. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" /></blockquote>

Verification