Effective soldier? I believe the standard counter to that is that he would be picked on by other soldiers. Also they do not want soldiers forming romantic attachments to each other, part of this arguement is used to discriminate against women in combat roles.
As for the church bit Zig, we arent allowed to discuss that feature in this thread, so I'm going to have to hold my tongue.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
I still can't help but find it funny... you look at the current military, with its strictures, with a man most well-known for almost choking to death on a pretzel at the head. Then you take a look at the Roman Empire... most notably Alexander's army, who conquered the Known World. And a great majority of his soldiers were **** (I will not say entirety, as there *is* the possibility that a handful were not). His thought was that you fought harder if your lover was at your side, to keep them safe. And it quite apparently worked very well.
I think that bringing back at least part of the Roman way of thinking would do a lot of good.
Comments
As for the church bit Zig, we arent allowed to discuss that feature in this thread, so I'm going to have to hold my tongue.
Then you take a look at the Roman Empire... most notably Alexander's army, who conquered the Known World. And a great majority of his soldiers were **** (I will not say entirety, as there *is* the possibility that a handful were not). His thought was that you fought harder if your lover was at your side, to keep them safe. And it quite apparently worked very well.
I think that bringing back at least part of the Roman way of thinking would do a lot of good.
But modern tactical doctrine is such that you dont have to fight HARDER as such, but more with precision, cool thinking and tactics.
Having a loved one on the field does NOT promote that.