TEXT
|
|
COMMENTARY
|
| 1. |
Original: "A cavalry charge consists of the combination of the offensive force of all four of an army's cavalry regiments, which must be aligned without a break along a series of squares, horizontally, vertically or diagonally, with, in the leading position, one such unit placed in direct contact with an enemy unit" (page 15).
Correction: "A cavalry charge consists of the combination of the offensive force of all those cavalry units which are aligned without a break..."
|
|
This is the English translator's worst mistake, since it concerns the rules and will prevent his readers from being able to play the game as intended. The French original does not contain the word "four" at all. The point is that one can charge with any number of cavalry units, from one to four. The particular game recorded in the book has several examples of cavalry charges involving two or three cavalry units (pp. 124, 127, 128, 132, etc.). And one can charge against the same enemy unit from more than one direction (see p. 132, where two of the North's cavalry units charge diagonally, and a third on its own from one side).
|
| 2. |
Original: "The offensive range of cavalry charging together in a single column may, of course, cover four squares in the case of the rearmost regiment, whose offensive factor is effective as far as the square taken by the leading cavalry unit" (page 15).
Correction: "... is effective as far as the square which the leading cavalry unit is in contact with".
|
|
That's to say, the square containing the enemy unit being attacked by the line of cavalry units. The word "taken" is confusing: squares aren't "taken," since the side which successfully destroys an enemy unit has no obligation to move unto the empty square left behind, and very possibly no interest in doing so.
|
| 3. |
"the overall agonistic process" (page 25)
|
|
This isn't so much wrong as ludicrously stilted and overblown. "Agonistic" is here translating the French word "conflictuel." Why not just "the overall process of conflict"? This is the only "stylistic" correction I've included in this list, but it's just one of several very pompous and/or dated English expressions that this translator has used: "sundry conventions" (p. 20); "invested" to mean "invaded" (p. 20); "the quantitative constraints upon the forces available," instead of simply "the small number of units" (p. 25); "knowledge of all enemy movements is vouchsafed instantly" (p. 26); "North's two separate wings achieve junction," instead of simply "link up" (p. 118). We're a long way here from the effortless elegance of Debord's French!
|
| 4. |
Original: "Troop morale and fatigue are taken into account only marginally: they are reflected in the instant paralysis of fighting strength afflicting all units whose communications are cut (including units garrisoning forts, which here have no stopping power, and serve the purpose of tactical support alone)" (page 25).
Correction: "... (including units garrisoning forts; so that forts cannot be used to "rest" the units which are placed inside them, but only to reinforce their tactical strength)".
|
|
I have replaced the translator's very literal "stopping power" with a much freer version, because I doubt that the meaning will be clear otherwise. Debord's point is that a fort doesn't function as a refuge where one can leave a unit "out of harm's way." Being inside a fort gives a unit no protection if its line of communication is cut; and even if it remains in communication, it could still be vulnerable to attack in some circumstances, if left isolated, in spite of the fact that its defensive strength is increased by being inside the fort, and even though a cavalry charge cannot be used against it while it remains there.
|
| 5. |
Original: "the deep range of charging cavalry" (page 25).
Correction: "the cavalry charging in depth" (or simply "together").
|
|
|
| 6. |
"To borrow the words of an old French proverb, 'L'ost sait ce que fait l'ost'..." (page 26).
|
|
The translator has gratuitously added all the English words quoted here, which don't exist in the French original. It's not a proverb, but a quotation from the 16th century military memoirs of Blaise de Montluc.
|
| 7. |
"the units at G9 and E11 communicate indirectly with that arsenal via the communications units at H8 and F10" (page 32).
|
|
In the original French it's just: "via the units at H8 and F10." And they're not communications units (i.e. "relay" units), but infantry units. The two units at G9 and E11 are in indirect communication with their arsenal because they're on squares adjacent to the units at H8 and F10, which are themselves in direct communication with the arsenal.
|
| 8. |
"It is worth noting that the attackers would have gained five extra points if they had been able, as part of their operation, to move the mounted artillery unit at E7 to E8, whence it would have destroyed the unit at H8" (page 33).
|
|
It would be more accurate to translate: "... from where it could have fired on the unit at H8," because of course it wouldn't have destroyed that unit all on its own, but only in combination with the fire-power of several other units.
|
| 9. |
"Figure 6 shows two armies positioned to do battle, both having marched some distance to establish these initial deployments" (page 34).
|
|
Debord doesn't say "initial deployments," but "certain starting positions." He means they've now got themselves into positions where battle is about to begin. It would be better to keep the term "initial deployment" (as Debord does) for the positions chosen by each player at the start of the game.
|
| 10. |
"On the secondary front in the south, South moves a mounted cavalry unit forward" (page 59).
|
|
This should, of course, be "a mounted artillery unit."
|
| 11. |
Original: "North finds itself unable to exploit its superior strategic position for want of manpower. This shortfall, which its victory in the recent tactical encounter could not offset" (page 108).
Correction: "... This shortfall, which it hasn't been able to correct by means of a victory in the recent tactical clash"
|
|
The point here is that the North didn't have any victory in that recent clash (see back on p. 104: "The brief cavalry engagement has inflicted equal losses on both armies, but North has emerged strategically weakened: it is easier for South to carry on strengthening its right wing than it is for North to support its left, reinforcements for which are much further away".)
|
