02-07-2003, 06:44 PM
So Strategy, are you trying to say that "real" ancient combat is not Rock Paper Scissors? You say that that mindset is atypical historically, how so?<br>
<br>
If you have a force of pure calvary, and you face an enemy of similar size heavy in spears/pikes, you're trying to tell me that you would actually charge your horse into those spears and expect to win (or if you win, without losing 2/3rd of your force in the process)? ie, scissors beats rock?<br>
<br>
Or if instead, your cavalry unit came across a predominatly lightly armed archer army-- on anything but drastically unequal terrain-- and you decided to charge, you would expect to lose the fight? ie, paper actually beats scissors?<br>
<br>
I think its been shown fairly well that archers of any time period will completely decimate infantry (either physically or their morale) if given enough time and ammunition to continually pummel their opponents without having to close in hand to hand. ie, paper beats rock. rock, of course, will slaughter those archers if they must cease being paper and become a rock (by engaging in hand to hand)....and what general would ever knowingly/willingly place his archers in this position?<br>
<br>
(Wasn't it a spartan battle where the enemy knew this and told the trapped spartan leader that they would suffer under a cloud of arrows so thick, it would block out the sun, in the hopes that the very thought of it would break the spartan will to fight? (of course, the response was great--'then we'll fight in the shade!'-- on the same level as the WWII quote of 'Nuts!' in the battle of the bulge))<br>
<br>
Now, if you are playing STW or any game that basis its combat system off of this principle, its up to you to make sure you have a diverse enough force on the field of battle to counter everything that is sent against you. But isn't this the same thing in "real" life? If I'm foolish enough to march my Roman 'rock' into Parthian lands with no counter to their mounted 'paper', am I not insane if I think I'm going to win? Rock-Paper-Scissors. It *is* that simple, really.<br>
<br>
Is it 'overly simplified' in these types of games? Sure, but what game can accurately portray whether or not in "real" life a unit would break and run from any threat they face, or rather, overcome tremendous odds, forge ahead, and by their own determination, force the enemy to break and run (even though the enemy still maintains numerical superiority). The odds say that Agincourt shouldn't have happened. Boudicea's routing by Agricola shouldn't have happened. The very young and green 10th mountain division should not have taken all those hills in WWII, etc. But the majority of battles out there, I believe, *does* follow a rock paper scissors mindset, and it is from this mindset that all battlefield tactics are initially created. I doubt strongly you've ever heard in a commanders tent the words "Okay, we'll start by charging our archers into their calvary..."<br>
<br>
Just curious. People criticize these types of games for this reason, but I'd like to hear about generals who were successful and did NOT follow the basic tenet of 'attack my enemy's strength with their own weakness'.<br>
<br>
Uale!<br>
<br>
Britannicus<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
If you have a force of pure calvary, and you face an enemy of similar size heavy in spears/pikes, you're trying to tell me that you would actually charge your horse into those spears and expect to win (or if you win, without losing 2/3rd of your force in the process)? ie, scissors beats rock?<br>
<br>
Or if instead, your cavalry unit came across a predominatly lightly armed archer army-- on anything but drastically unequal terrain-- and you decided to charge, you would expect to lose the fight? ie, paper actually beats scissors?<br>
<br>
I think its been shown fairly well that archers of any time period will completely decimate infantry (either physically or their morale) if given enough time and ammunition to continually pummel their opponents without having to close in hand to hand. ie, paper beats rock. rock, of course, will slaughter those archers if they must cease being paper and become a rock (by engaging in hand to hand)....and what general would ever knowingly/willingly place his archers in this position?<br>
<br>
(Wasn't it a spartan battle where the enemy knew this and told the trapped spartan leader that they would suffer under a cloud of arrows so thick, it would block out the sun, in the hopes that the very thought of it would break the spartan will to fight? (of course, the response was great--'then we'll fight in the shade!'-- on the same level as the WWII quote of 'Nuts!' in the battle of the bulge))<br>
<br>
Now, if you are playing STW or any game that basis its combat system off of this principle, its up to you to make sure you have a diverse enough force on the field of battle to counter everything that is sent against you. But isn't this the same thing in "real" life? If I'm foolish enough to march my Roman 'rock' into Parthian lands with no counter to their mounted 'paper', am I not insane if I think I'm going to win? Rock-Paper-Scissors. It *is* that simple, really.<br>
<br>
Is it 'overly simplified' in these types of games? Sure, but what game can accurately portray whether or not in "real" life a unit would break and run from any threat they face, or rather, overcome tremendous odds, forge ahead, and by their own determination, force the enemy to break and run (even though the enemy still maintains numerical superiority). The odds say that Agincourt shouldn't have happened. Boudicea's routing by Agricola shouldn't have happened. The very young and green 10th mountain division should not have taken all those hills in WWII, etc. But the majority of battles out there, I believe, *does* follow a rock paper scissors mindset, and it is from this mindset that all battlefield tactics are initially created. I doubt strongly you've ever heard in a commanders tent the words "Okay, we'll start by charging our archers into their calvary..."<br>
<br>
Just curious. People criticize these types of games for this reason, but I'd like to hear about generals who were successful and did NOT follow the basic tenet of 'attack my enemy's strength with their own weakness'.<br>
<br>
Uale!<br>
<br>
Britannicus<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
