Cultural differences

From: Martin Laurie <MLaurie_at_compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:34:26 -0400


Danny Bourne:
>I read with interest Martin's discussion about the British Army - they a=
re
>better than the Yanks (GDW's third world series gives UK divisions an 8
>capability rating, the US divisions only 7s). But I'd like to add that
>Sandy's Art of War in Prax is a fine and good read, but I would also lik=
e
>to say that Archer Jones' book The Art of War, is probably the worst boo=
k
>on military history ever written and should be avoided at all costs beca=
use
>his basic thesis is completely flawed, IMO. Oman is the person to read t=
o
>get a full idea of how Gloranthan miltitary capabilities bar none. =

Funny that as Sandy thinks that Third World War is one =

of the best games ever and he agrees with the ratings for the Brits as I do (though Sandy should defend Archer =

Jones if he wants to as I've not read him yet). However thats not the point. The point isn't that the British =

army is better on average than the American or Soviet =

army, the point is that the whole focus of those armies =

is different. Sure American troops are not as professional, =

trained in accuracy and fire and manouver proficient as =

the British but then the Brits haven't near the amount =

of artillery a US or Soviet formation has or the doctrine =

that makes such things as important. Culture plays =

and even bigger part in warfare and doctrine - the British =

excell at small actions, colonial fights, anti-terrorism, =

street fighting, defence but are average at armoured =

exploitation and assault, The Soviets excelled at armoured =

attack and assault, the Americans excell at the application =

of firepower. Its all relaitve.

Glorantha:

Danny commented that what he says goes as a GM. I agree =

Danny, if you want to have a Glorantha that is radically =

different to that promoted by published sources and those writing then thats entirely up to you. However this digest =

is not about our own gameworlds, its about Glorantha as =

published, written and explored through the common background =

we all know and largely have access too. Sure there is =

variance, sure there is disagreement but if in your Glorantha =

the Lunar Empire wins and in mine it doesn't suddenly we =

don't have that much to talk about. IF however we follow =

the same timeline we _can_ talk about HOW this and that =

happened, WHETHER he or she did this or that and IF someone =

did the other, what would happen. That to me is what the =

digest is about. I don't agree with many people on many =

things but at least we have the same basic foundation to =

study and disagree on.

If you and I had an argument over WW2 then we would use =

evidence to back up our claims. If suddenly you turned =

around and said "sorry, your argument is wrong because =

I believe the Nazis won" then we'd really have problems =

arguing any more. This is precisely what you are =

saying should be applied to Glorantha and I think that =

would end the game world as we know it and ruin it basically.

Martin Laurie=


End of Glorantha Digest V4 #493


WWW at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail