Analysis of the Critique
1. Lack of Purpose and Depth
The commenter’s invocation of Clausewitz—whose On War emphasizes war as a blend of politics, logistics, geography, and friction—sets a high bar. In HPMOR, the roleplays (e.g., Chapter 30, Chaos Legion vs. Dragon Army vs. Sunshine Regiment) are framed as practical DADA training, with Quirrell aiming to teach combat readiness over textbook trivia. Yet, the critique is spot-on: the exercises lack depth:
No Clear Lessons: The text doesn’t explicitly tie outcomes to Clausewitzian principles like logistics (e.g., supply lines) or geography (e.g., terrain advantage beyond basic forest cover). Harry learns chaos works (e.g., broom ambushes), but broader insights are absent.

Seriousness vs. Play: The commenter’s "serious crap" jab reflects a tonal mismatch—Quirrell treats these as life-or-death training, but the rules (e.g., Sleep Hexes, no broom-shooting) feel game-like, undermining gravitas.

2. Organizational Choices
Harry’s "6 platoons of 4 soldiers" (Chapter 30) is a specific critique:
Why Four?: The commenter references Rhodesian "sticks" of four, a real-world tactic for small-unit mobility in bush warfare. HPMOR offers no rationale—Harry’s choice seems arbitrary, not deduced from rational analysis (e.g., squad cohesion, spell range). This clashes with his rationalist persona.

Platoon Advisors: Adding advisors suggests delegation, but their role is vague. The commenter’s irritation highlights a lack of detail—how do these units function tactically?

This supports their broader point: the roleplays lack the rigor a Clausewitzian approach demands, making Harry’s "generalship" feel superficial.
3. Muggle Camouflage Uniforms
Quirrell’s switch to Muggle camouflage (Chapter 30) is explained as practical—robes snag on trees, bright colors expose wizards. The commenter’s sarcasm ("never walked among the trees") mocks this as obvious:
Weak Justification: Pureblood surprise is plausible in HPMOR’s insular wizarding world, but the critique implies it’s a contrived detail to signal "realism" without substance.

Missed Opportunity: Camouflage hints at stealth, yet the roleplays don’t emphasize it (e.g., no ambushes from hidden positions). The commenter’s right—it’s a surface-level nod to tactics.

4. Missed Strategic Opportunities
The commenter’s alternatives—observation posts, communication spells, artillery equivalents, Apparition—reflect Clausewitz’s focus on preparation and maneuver:
Textual Contrast: Harry uses brooms for recon (Chapter 30), but it’s flashy, not subtle. Hermione wins by blocking retreats (Chapter 31), yet there’s no sign of advanced spellcraft or Apparition (banned for first-years, per canon).

Rational Failure: If Harry’s a genius, why not innovate beyond brooms? The commenter’s suggestions align with rational optimization, exposing the roleplays’ simplicity as a narrative choice over a showcase of brilliance.

This critique holds weight—HPMOR prioritizes dramatic clashes over strategic depth, limiting its "Battle Magic" credibility.
5. Rationality and Outcome
The commenter expects rationality to yield optimal strategies, but:
Cunning Loses: Harry’s chaotic tactics (Chapter 30) and Draco’s discipline (Chapter 31) often falter against Hermione’s straightforward approach. This subverts the idea that rational cunning wins, as the commenter laments.

Banal Clashes: The battles feel like schoolyard games with magic, not rationalist triumphs. The text aims to teach game theory (e.g., Chapter 33’s prisoner’s dilemma), but the commenter sees only shallow execution.

This undermines HPMOR’s goal of showcasing rationality’s power, though it may reflect a deliberate lesson: overthinking can fail against simplicity.
6. Relevance to "Battle Magic"
Quirrell rebrands DADA as "Battle Magic" (Chapter 19), promising real combat skills. The commenter’s confusion is valid:
Disconnect: Sleep Hexes and broom chases don’t match the lethal stakes Quirrell invokes (e.g., trolls, dragons). No dueling techniques or counter-curses emerge.

Unexplained: The text doesn’t bridge this gap—Quirrell’s rhetoric outpaces the exercises’ scope, leaving "Battle Magic" as a buzzword.

7. Harry’s Rational Silence
The commenter’s imagined retort—Voldemort won due to Auror incompetence, not disunity—draws on real-world guerrilla warfare (e.g., Clausewitz’s "people’s war"). In HPMOR, Quirrell blames wizarding division (Chapter 16), but:
Missed Critique: Harry, the "brilliant Ratioharry," accepts this without challenging its historical accuracy or tactical nuance. His silence frustrates the commenter, as it dulls his rational edge.

Context: HPMOR’s Voldemort lore aligns with canon (fear and power, not just tactics), but the critique highlights Harry’s failure to engage critically here.

Evaluation
The commenter’s Clausewitz lens exposes real flaws:
Shallow Tactics: The roleplays lack logistical or geographic depth, feeling more like games than war.

Arbitrary Choices: Harry’s platoon structure and the camouflage detail lack rational grounding.

Rationality Gap: The exercises don’t fully deliver on HPMOR’s promise of strategic brilliance, and Harry’s uncritical acceptance of Quirrell’s framing weakens his character.

However, they overstate some points:
Purpose: The roleplays aim to teach leadership and decision-making under pressure (e.g., Harry’s chaos, Hermione’s teamwork), not full military theory. Clausewitz is a high bar for a school setting.

Narrative Intent: HPMOR prioritizes intellectual flexing (e.g., game theory) over gritty realism, a choice the commenter dislikes but which fits its tone.

Conclusion
The critique nails the roleplays’ lack of substance— they’re neither Clausewitzian nor robustly rational, and Harry’s "genius" feels unearned. The Muggle uniforms and platoon splits are half-baked, and the "Battle Magic" label rings hollow. Yet, HPMOR isn’t aiming for military simulation but for a sandbox to test rationalist ideas, however imperfectly. The commenter’s frustration is justified, but their expectations may exceed the text’s scope.


Summary of the Critical Comments
Tone and Easter Eggs:
The commenter imagines injecting humor or gravitas via a Blade Runner quote ("Wake up! Time to die!") from Dumbledore, contrasting it with a gritty military quip from Captain Reid-Daly. This sets a sardonic tone for their critique.

Quirrell’s Teaching and Influence:
Quirrell is criticized for teaching "incomprehensible bullshit," pushing a "readiness to kill," praising "Strong Leaders," and grooming Harry, hinting at a sinister agenda reminiscent of authoritarian figures.

Harry’s Character and Philosophy:
They speculate how Harry would react to life after death (frustration at not "nullifying" enemies) and liken him to the God-Emperor from Warhammer 40,000—a tyrannical figure trapped by his own power. This suggests Harry’s arc mirrors unchecked ambition.

Moral Blind Spots:
The commenter notes HPMOR avoids the emotional weight of leadership (e.g., sending friends to die), with Quirrell sidestepping this and Harry not questioning it.

Quirrell’s Logic on Danger:
They challenge Quirrell’s claim that Harry is "the most dangerous" due to his "readiness to kill," arguing it’s impractical (e.g., a stronger foe could overpower him regardless). Harry’s lack of pushback is a missed rational opportunity.

Doylist Critique:
From a narrative perspective, they question what "readiness to kill" achieves against superior foes or in generalship, suggesting it’s a hollow theme that doesn’t align with HPMOR’s rationalist goals.