Rock Paper Scissors

[Lazyman]

@Devercia; RTW has a mod called EB, which solves all those problems.

[Devercia]

Have it. No it didn't. Soldiers within units were still cookie cutters with exception to the captain, musician and standard bearer.

What did you really mean? Or did they do something radical within the past....3 years?

[Roach XI the Magnificent]

Composite formations were indeed common. See the Persians who conquered an empire with a lot of small, composite units of archers, spearmen and javelinmen supported by cavalry on the flanks.

[Lazyman]

Have it. No it didn't. Soldiers within units were still cookie cutters with exception to the captain, musician and standard bearer.

What did you really mean? Or did they do something radical within the past....3 years?

We use a separate EDU for multiplayer.

[NacroxNicke]

Bumping...

The less R P S game that I have played are tactical wargames like Close Combat or Combat Mission, but those are like that because of the period settled in (ww2), and the importance of terrain and stuff.

So basically without external factors you transform the thing in RPS, but adding the factors like terrain and stuff it transforms in tactics

PD: I just realized that the last post was from two months ago, my bad.

[LordOfShadows]

The problem is the number of battles decided by the actual troops can probably be counted on one hand. Generally speaking battles aren't won or lost because your bunch of blokes with swords were better than the other guy's, they're lost because it started raining at an inconvenient moment, or an inconvenient bout of mass dysentery breaking out the night before, or because you forgot to recon that nice big forest that would be ideal for a sneaky flank attack, or simply because some wag spent last night telling ghost stories around the campfire and now all your men are ready to leg it if someone so much as shouts boo.

None of which makes for particularly compelling gameplay.

Or, to quote the masters: amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

[RedHaze]

I think you really need to think about the fighters rather than what they were equipped with, especially if you look into ancient warfare. The majority of soldiers in say, Roman Republican times, were not professional soldiers. Think of the bit in '300' when Leonidas asks the soldiers they meet on the way to war "what is your profession?" and they answer blacksmith etc. They might be strong men, but they were not particularly skilled fighters. They probably couldn't pull off elaborate sword faints, they probably just knew and had drilled for a few hours on some basic techniques.

This man is stupid and likely knows nothing about warfare or ancient history.
The Romans were extremely smart. Their men were disciplined, outfitted well, well-trained and well-paid. They had all the right reasons to go to war and fight eagerly.
First of all, they were an excellent fighting force, as they fought together as a unit.
They were paid well, and were not at all forced into the army. Many men went willingly because of the gleam of gold.
They were also well-motivated. Roman officers performed cruel punishments if men broke ranks, like stoning every tenth man in the unit that ran. Unless I'm misremembering, I think they also made the soldiers stone their unlucky comrades.
They didn't have to pull off elaborate sword faints. Like I said, they fought as a cohesive unit, thus all they needed to do was stab at the guy in front of them, usually.
However, they also did hundreds of drills, for hours and hours upon end.
The tortoise, for example, was a great technique which the Romans used to defend against arrows. Google it if you do not know about the technique.

Nor does it matter about the type of man.
What matters is the ******** leader. If the general inspires admiration, respect, or fear and dread (either works), then the army will follow their leader. However, it is not just about the leader's attitude and personality. He also needs to be highly strategical and, basically, be a master at chess. They need to know their soldier's weaknesses and strengths intimately. All of these things and more.

@LordofShadows: I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you're saying tactics don't matter, you're retarded. I'm sorry, but if that's what you're saying, it is true. You simply must be retarded to think that.

[LordOfShadows]

*snip*
@LordofShadows: I'm not sure what you're saying, but if you're saying tactics don't matter, you're retarded. I'm sorry, but if that's what you're saying, it is true. You simply must be retarded to think that.

I suggest you study more. I was quoting, and it is quite true. If I can put 15 soldiers onto the battlefield for every 1 of yours, you will lose. If I can destroy your logistics trail, you will lose no matter what. If I can supply my soldiers better, you will lose, except in exceptional circumstances.

[RedHaze]

Hmm. I feel you're forgetting the fact that, if I do everything pretty much the same way you have, except I employ tactics like attacking you from behind as well as from the front, then I could kick your arse.
I didn't say tactics mattered more than logistics, or that logistics don't matter, just that tactics do matter, and if you don't use them you're likely to get your testicles stuffed down your throat via a sword edge.

[LordOfShadows]

Hmm. I feel you're forgetting the fact that, if I do everything pretty much the same way you have, except I employ tactics like attacking you from behind as well as from the front, then I could kick your arse.
I didn't say tactics mattered more than logistics, or that logistics don't matter, just that tactics do matter, and if you don't use them you're likely to get your testicles stuffed down your throat via a sword edge.

Twit. You can only attack me from behind if you have enough manpower to support multiple avenues of attack, otherwise you are inviting defeat in detail.

I also never said that tactics don't matter. To expand on what I said, the amateur studies tactics elusively, while the professional studies the factors that influence tactics, of which by far the most important is logistics.

Another quote for you: "My logistics corp are a humourless lot, because they know if I fail in a campaign they will be the first to be blamed" Alexander the Great.

[RedHaze]

Then why the hell did you reply? Where was the god damned contradiction?
God, and you call me a twit?
I said IF you are saying tactics are useless. AND ONLY IF. Learn to ******** read for god's sake.

[LordOfShadows]

Then why the hell did you reply? Where was the god damned contradiction?
God, and you call me a twit?
I said IF you are saying tactics are useless. AND ONLY IF. Learn to ******** read for god's sake.

Look at my name. It was more fun this way, plus I found out just how much of a retard you are.

[RedHaze]

So basically you did it to be a retarded arsehole.

[LordOfShadows]

So basically you did it to be a retarded arsehole.

I also believe you to be a misguided jackass with brains of a slug, and that was what it was mostly about.

[RedHaze]

Mmm, yes, the key word being believe.
If everything people believed was true, the tooth fairy and Santa Clause would be real, Lady Gaga would be actually good and talking dogs would run up to you and greet you, Vikings DID wear cow horns on their helmets and Christopher Columbus DID discover America.