>> As for beating Tarsh and Sartar, I'd say that they just wore them out. The
If you look at KoS you'll notice that lunars had a few conflicts with their future subjects before conquering them. Then they always came with great force or cunning and defeated their foes. The the core of the empire didn't suffer from any of these wars.
Lets say that 2% of the population (6G?) of the empire are soldiers/warriors/"people useful in situations involving combat" and half of them are used in each war. That would be 60 000 useful combatants! That's probably more than Sartar and Tarsh could muster together! Even if half of them would die, it wouldn't matter that much.
When they come again with 90 000 men and the Bat with them I think that whoever is against them is in trouble.
> I don't. The hoplites are *professional* soldiers. Why should the thanes
> be any better? The only argument I could see is reducing the hoplite
> close combat while introducing a formed unit combat ability, which would
> be better for the hoplites than the thanes. But, as I said, hopefully
> Issaries will tell us something.
The thanes have seen more combat. I think that the low end of the numbers are soldiers/thanes that haven't seen much of it. The lunars certainly have much more of those. On the other hand they also have veterens who were a part of those hypothetical 30 000 that survived. :-)
Hoplites have higher degree of specialisation in a culture that affords one. Weaponthanes are from a culture that is more familiar with fighting. It takes a lot of training to train that Dara Happan citizen to a Dara Happan soldiers.
It's lovely to watch colorful shadows in the planets of the eternal light.
Powered by hypermail