Basically, the gist of that section was to provide counter ideas for multiple situations based on numbers, since numbers are an essential factor for the use of that tactic. Terrain was also introduced at the end because I forgot about it and just threw it in. That's a product of me writing as I usually do: no outline, no organization, just flow as thoughts enter my mind.For the italicized portion, the point it is driving towards isn't very clear. Could you clarify it? Also, the last sentence above introduces terrain right at the end, under notes for firepower, which is not very relevant. Perhaps it would be better to make the last section something like general notes on the usage of the Fluid Line?
On the whole, the Fluid Line tactic is put forth somewhat coherently, enough to understand, but it's not very "user friendly" as you've mentioned. And some of the points could be elaborated on to give a greater scope to the Arcticle.
All of the points can be elaborated on. But as earlier stated, there are countless many more tactics articles in need of writing. Some other articles in the Theory need these tactics explained before they make sense. That's another fault I have, I'm bad at explaining these things. In wars, I execute tactics subconsciously, there's no conscious thinking involved in most of them. That makes them difficult to understand.
Whenever I write a Tactical Theory article, it may be used [and edited] for the purpose of the new site. That way, I don't have to write two complete sets of articles for two sites.But you have to want to build it and be willing to create a good amount of content for it (unless, of course, DX is willing to write 100+ Arcticles for it, though I'd find that odd for DX to be writing for another site and not using the material at SoakerMedia).
