Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added example(s), General clarification on work content
Changed line(s) 5,7 (click to see context) from:
Traditionally[[note]]well, in Anglo-Saxon tradition, anyway[[/note]], the planning and execution of a war was broken down into two levels:
to:
Focusing only on the short-term often ends up screwing you over in the long-term. In storytelling this is sometimes ignored or glossed over; the immediate result is all that matters. Then there are the stories ''about'' how tough it can be to stick to the strategy when it might be simpler and more gratifying to do the thing that looks more honorable or piles up more meaningless victories. As long as there is a polarity of this sort, the story will be able to mine some good conflict.
** ''Who the practitioners are:'' Heads of state, heads of government, lawmakers, very senior civil servants, and the very highest ranked military officers.
** ''Who the practitioners are:'' High ranking admirals and generals, backed by large staffs of mid-level officers, themselves assisted by experienced enlisted personnel.
** ''Who the practitioners are:'' Somewhat less senior generals and admirals, backed by somewhat more modest staffs of mid-level officers.
** ''Who the practitioners are:'' Mid-level to junior officers commanding units of many enlisted personnel led by junior officers and senior enlisted.
Changed line(s) 30 (click to see context) from:
** ''Scope:'' This is how the individual fights. The type of weapons and armor they use, the way they use their equipment and the environment in a firefight, the kind of training that they have received, and the actual techniques they use in combat. This includes long-range weaponry like rockets and sniper rifles, medium and short range firefights, bayonet and "knife fight range" techniques, and martial arts and ground fighting.
to:
** ''Who the practitioners are:'' In principle, enlisted personnel, but can be anyone who winds up in a fight by accident or intention.
** ''Scope:'' This is how the individual fights. The type of weapons and armor they use, the way they use their equipment and the environment in a firefight, the kind of training that they have received, and the actual techniques they use in combat.This includes long-range weaponry What this looks like rockets will vary wildly by era and sniper rifles, medium and short range firefights, bayonet and "knife fight range" techniques, and martial arts and ground fighting. region, but it encompasses every method of fighting available to everyone involved in the conflict.
** ''Scope:'' This is how the individual fights. The type of weapons and armor they use, the way they use their equipment and the environment in a firefight, the kind of training that they have received, and the actual techniques they use in combat.
Changed line(s) 40,41 (click to see context) from:
Focusing only on the short-term often ends up screwing you over in the long-term. In storytelling this is sometimes ignored or glossed over; the immediate result is all that matters. Then there are the stories ''about'' how tough it can be to stick to the strategy when it might be simpler and more gratifying to do the thing that looks more honorable or piles up more meaningless victories. As long as there is a polarity of this sort, the story will be able to mine some good conflict.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Web Video]]
* ''WebVideo/CheckmateLincolnites'': In "Did the CONFEDERACY Have BETTER GENERALS?!," Billy Yank makes the case that although the Confederacy's commanders were indeed brilliant tacticians, the Union had a far better sense of strategy and logistics. Ultimately, the South's most prominent victories, such as the Battle of Chancellorsville, were tactically impressive maneuvers but did little to further their overall war aims, whereas each Union victory, especially in the West, brought the Confederacy one step closer to defeat through tearing out its logistical base.
-->'''Billy Yank:''' You thought small, we thought big. That's why we won.
[[/folder]]
* ''WebVideo/CheckmateLincolnites'': In "Did the CONFEDERACY Have BETTER GENERALS?!," Billy Yank makes the case that although the Confederacy's commanders were indeed brilliant tacticians, the Union had a far better sense of strategy and logistics. Ultimately, the South's most prominent victories, such as the Battle of Chancellorsville, were tactically impressive maneuvers but did little to further their overall war aims, whereas each Union victory, especially in the West, brought the Confederacy one step closer to defeat through tearing out its logistical base.
-->'''Billy Yank:''' You thought small, we thought big. That's why we won.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
It's been decided
that Manhua and Manhwa examples shall be placed into their own folders. Moving example to the correct section.
that Manhua and Manhwa examples shall be placed into their own folders. Moving example to the correct section.Deleted line(s) 59 (click to see context) :
* As the author of ''Manhua/RavagesOfTime'' said himself, the manhua is all about strategy vs. strategy. Plans are often ''years'', if not ''decades'', in the making, with the levels IKnowYouKnowIKnow going into the ''dozens'' because each faction has genius-level strategists.
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Manhua]]
* As the author of ''Manhua/RavagesOfTime'' said himself, the manhua is all about strategy vs. strategy. Plans are often ''years'', if not ''decades'', in the making, with the levels IKnowYouKnowIKnow going into the ''dozens'' because each faction has genius-level strategists.
[[/folder]]
* As the author of ''Manhua/RavagesOfTime'' said himself, the manhua is all about strategy vs. strategy. Plans are often ''years'', if not ''decades'', in the making, with the levels IKnowYouKnowIKnow going into the ''dozens'' because each faction has genius-level strategists.
[[/folder]]
