Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

darobin (1316)

darobin
  (email not shown publicly)
http://berjon.com/

Journal of darobin (1316)

Thursday March 13, 2003
07:46 AM

Strategy

[ #11018 ]

Picture this completely imaginary situation: you have an ennemy which you think you have proof detains a solid amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction (attack:+200;defense:+5;magic:+CNN). You have a couple hundred thousand soldiers that you can deploy pretty much everywhere except in countries eaten during national holidays. Would you:

  • deploy the vast majority of those soldiers concentrated in a tiny area, within arms reach of your WMD-equiped ennemy;
  • OR

  • deploy them in smaller separated patches, close enough but mostly where the Other Guy's WMDs can't reach?
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Would you:

    • deploy the vast majority of those soldiers concentrated in a tiny area, within arms reach of your WMD-equiped ennemy;

      OR

    • deploy them in smaller separated patches, close enough but mostly where the Other Guy's WMDs can't reach?

    At the risk of sounding trite, I'd lift a few pages from the Gene Rodenberry Manual of 23rd Century Strategy instead:

    • The Kobyashi-Maru Maneuver: create a third acceptable option (like deploying a lot of automated weaponry that removes the need for 100K troops deploy
  • Strategy is for SISSIES !