Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-97.81.240.58-20130603234626/@comment-24261859-20140403083900

Smoking.Chimp wrote: Coppermantis wrote: Smoking.Chimp wrote: I dunno - there's a number of possibilities.

Titus Mede II may not have been the "brilliant" strategest behind the preceding victories. He may have simply made consistently bad decisions which his generals managed to bail him out of - which would work for him just like they worked for Napoleon. In short, signing the the treaty was the one bad decision his generals couldn't bail him out of. In-game books suggest that, tactically, the opposite was true. The strategy that allowed him to claim victory in the Imperial City was one which his generals vehemently opposed, but he ignored them and was eventually vindicated.

While we cannot discount the possibility that this was imperial propaganda, there is nothing else to suggest that this is the case. I think that Titus Mede II's inability to negotiate a valid treaty gives it away. I doubt that a person who can't just say no is really capable of "fighting the ship".

And yes, I think his generals would have opposed his overall strategy - which would not have worked had those generals not been brilliant enough and, perhaps "lucky" enough, to pick up the pieces and organise all the details necessary to make it work.

I disagree. It's fully possible for someone to be tactically capable but not politiclly adroit, or vice versa.

Furthermore, you could say that of any plan. Even the most well-laid grand strategy will fail if those who actually execute it are not equally skilled, so yes, it is indeed true that the plan would not have worked if they had not been skilled enough to make it work. This doesn't reflect anything about the plan's overall validity.