[Discuss] Marshal System Rules

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 2 Apr 2008 at 21:09, David Kester wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Hari N <hari2n at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Now if you observe these events, when Alex posted his orders, it was
> > after making sure that he was in the right chain to post orders. He
> > was appointed as the second-in-command, only after which he posted
> > this order.
> 
> The problem is that he was appointed second in command for the sole
> purpose of being able to give orders.  If this weren't a problem,
> every general would lead every army.

That is 100% *wrong*. Not only that, it doesn't make sense. Of course he was 
appointed for the sole purpose of giving orders. Is there any other reason to 
appoint a marshal/SiC?

It is prefectly legal, acceptable, and possible for a general to be appointed as 
Marshal or SiC in order to give orders directly to the army.

The problem in this particular case was that the general told people that he was 
going to be giving them orders when he was *NOT* the marshal or the SiC. 
(Yes, he was appointed 4 hours later, but that's irrelevant. When he told people 
he was going to give them orders, he was not allowed to do so.)

If you don't have any red paper, then don't tell people to treat the 
black/blue/green paper like it's really red. Wait until the red stationary is 
delivered.


-- 
Rob

Stupidity - Quitters never win, and winners never quit,
but those who never win AND never quit are idiots.