obselete units

[MizuKokami]

ok...here's the deal. in single player games, we build and build to get to the point where we can finnally make chiv sargeants, chiv knights, chiv men at arms....etc.... but in multi player, you can purchase militia sargeants at such a low cost, and upgrade them to be deadly against top of the line units. now wait a minute....doesn't anyone realize the the most technologically advance people win the battles? i don't care how much valor a man has, if he goes up against superior fire power, he gonna die.
so my thought is this....in multi battles, restrict the units to which ones are available for the period....in other words, if you are fighting a battle in high period, regular spearmen, regualar archers, feudal knights are not available, or, at the least, more expensive to upgrade.

[Hamburglar]

That shouldn't be the case. The prettiest toys don't always win. There's been plenty of times in history where the "technology underdog" has either defeated the more advanced nation or at least put up a really good showing in the war.


Oftentimes it IS about the men and not the equipment. Experienced troops with second class equipment can often beat green troops with first class equipment. Has happened ALL the time in the real world.

[Knight_Yellow]

battle of bannockburn

starving militia of scotland defeated the superior numbers/horses/archers/armour/weapons of the english.

WW2

the allies most notably the russians eventualy rout the mutch superiour german tanks/guns/planes/artillery

brittish empire defeated by guys with spears "Zulu"



not even the greatest equipment can match a peasent who is willing to fight for his life.

[solypsist]

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Aug. 12 2003,14:14)]WW2

the allies most notably the russians eventualy rout the mutch superiour german tanks/guns/planes/artillery

brittish empire defeated by guys with spears "Zulu"
well this also has something to do with quantity over quality. the Russians died by the thousands for every few Germans, as did the Zulus.

[jLan]

Experience is at least as important as equipment. Veterans will beat green boys any day.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Aug. 12 2003,20:58)]
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Aug. 12 2003,14:14)]WW2

the allies most notably the russians eventualy rout the mutch superiour german tanks/guns/planes/artillery

brittish empire defeated by guys with spears "Zulu"
well this also has something to do with quantity over quality. the Russians died by the thousands for every few Germans, as did the Zulus.
True but often the Technological Underdogs are more willing to accept larger losses than their "Superior" counterparts.

Vietnam was an example of this, the forces there were more determined and after a few heavy losses in battles with the US Forces, they changed their tactics to ambushes and guerrilla warfare and refusing to meet the Americans in open combat.

Even so it is not always the case that the technological underdog will take heavy losses... Think of the sinking of the Bismark, massive, expensive battleship loaded with the biggest guns, crewed by a couple of hundred men, crippled by a torpedo dropped from a piddly little cheap airplane flown by one man.

[Spino]

Interesting story that has bearing on this argument...

During the Korean War the U.S. Air Force had the opportunity to test and evaluate a few state of the art MiG-15s that were delivered to them in mint condition thanks to North Korean fighter pilots who defected to the South. At the airbase where these Russian built planes were being evaluated an Air Force colonel who flew the F-86 Sabre (the best U.S. fighter of the time) got in a heated conversation with other pilots over the topic of dogfighting. This particular colonel believed the key to achieving victory in the skies was to field the superior fighter plane and that the aerial successes of the U.S. Air Force over its North Korean and Chinese counterparts was primarily due to the fact that the F-86 was, for the most part, technologically superior to the MiG-15. One of the test pilots took great exception to this colonel's theory and challenged him to a two part duel: the first part of the duel would have the test pilot flying the F-86 and the colonel the MiG-15; for the second part both pilots would land, exchange planes, take off and do it again.

In both parts of the duel the challenger emerged the clear victor, positively embarrassing the boisterous colonel regardless of which plane he was flying. After the duel was over the victorious pilot ran over to the colonel and in so many words told him, "Colonel, it's the MAN, not the machine."

That pilot was Chuck Yeager.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[RZST]

off topic,about ww2

to my knowledge, the russians only beat the germans because of the weather. hitler DID NOT fully equip his troops with with winter clothing, since he thought the russians would just retreat. nonetheless, a good commander would have seen this coming. another factor would have been stalingrad, that city had no strategic value whatsoever other than the fact that it was stalins namesake. the 6th army could have just passed it and thus heading on to their obj which was the oil rich provinces.

yes the russians did eventually push back the germans, BUT germany was also fighting on 2 other sides. the west through france, the south through italy. most of the panzer divisions were on the western allied side, instead of the eastern side.

vietnam, if it werent for the damn media always showing people dying then i doubt the war would have stopped.

the fact is, numerical superiority will always win regardless of technology.

not sure but wasnt it 10 russians for every german?.

[-Isapostolos-]

Quote[/b] (Ky Kiske @ Aug. 12 2003,17:22)]off topic,about ww2

to my knowledge, the russians only beat the germans because of the weather. hitler DID NOT fully equip his troops with with winter clothing, since he thought the russians would just retreat. nonetheless, a good commander would have seen this coming. another factor would have been stalingrad, that city had no strategic value whatsoever other than the fact that it was stalins namesake. the 6th army could have just passed it and thus heading on to their obj which was the oil rich provinces.

yes the russians did eventually push back the germans, BUT germany was also fighting on 2 other sides. the west through france, the south through italy. most of the panzer divisions were on the western allied side, instead of the eastern side.

vietnam, if it werent for the damn media always showing people dying then i doubt the war would have stopped.

the fact is, numerical superiority will always win regardless of technology.

not sure but wasnt it 10 russians for every german?.
It's quite naive to say that the only cause of defeat harsh winter weather. True many germans died because of bad winter clothing, but there were other factors too. For instance german command was in serious disunity about what to do after the intial succes of the invasion. The highest german generals thought it was wise to first take the 2 biggest cities(leningrad, stalingrad) and therafter march toward moscow. Guderian and others believed it would be wise to immendiantly go toward the nervecenter of russia, moscow, and ending the war in just a few weeks since most of the russian army was in retreat already.

As you know the first plan got through (thanks to hitler's ignorance) and the russians managed to rally and split the forces of germany and the war was lost.

Stalingrad wasn't just a name, it was one of the biggest industrial cities of Russia and it guarded the oil plains of the plains behind the city. Aquiring these would be of vital importance for the advance of the invasion. Since the army was stalled the germans, who already had slow and insufficient supply lines, were robbed of the vital oil they needed to keep their army running.

The Panzers were mostly occupied in Russia (or what was left of them). Only after the allied invasion did troops get moved from east to west, but this only happened in 1944. In the eyes of germany, defeating Russia was the key to victory, so most of germany's power was in the east.

Africa, Greece and Italy were mostly seen as Italy's job. Since Italy was so unsuccesfull Germany send some able commanders and equipment to help them. Only after the allied invasion of sicily did Germany start to worry and started sending large numbers of troops. But sending troops there, wasn't that big of a deal. Sending more troops to the west was...

the fact is, numerical superiority will always win regardless of technology.[B]

You should know that evantually the zulus were beaten by the english. I remember a particlar battle between the brits and zulus were there died 3000 zulus opposed to 19 british soldiers. Now that's what I call techonological superiority. Later the zulus would subdue themselves to Britain because they found the british to be greater warriors than themselves.
You should know better as an american, your army has the biggest techological advantage in the world. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan stood a chance in face of all that US equipment. I'm not saying equipment always wins, but saying numbers always wins is a great overstatement.

[Mega Dux Bob]

I think the differances in the units, like Militia sergeants to chiv sergeants isn't as that great, a bigger factor would be how well the units were trained to fight together than if they are equiped with pole axes or halberds. Anyway in terms of the game period quality always beats quanity is just not true; hords of cheap, poorly trained handgunners did in the expensive, well equiped, well trained knights.

[jLan]

Gonna go a bit OT here, sorry...

In WW2, part of the reason the germans lost was indeed bad clothing, food supply etc. but I would hardly call it the main reason. The russians had a numeral advantage, as well as a large enough landmass to move factories out of german reach. This coupled with the fact that they were far more productive, and recieved equipment from the allies, made them able to outnumber the germans in vehicles as well as men. The russian main battletank was also far better than most german tanks (most of the early Panzers, which were what the german panzer divisions mainly consisted of) save the infamous Tiger. The russians also eventually crushed the Luftwaffe in the air.
Yes, the cold played its part, but I wouldn't call it the ultimate factor that caused the german defeat..

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Aug. 12 2003,14:58)]
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Aug. 12 2003,14:14)]WW2

the allies most notably the russians eventualy rout the mutch superiour german tanks/guns/planes/artillery

brittish empire defeated by guys with spears "Zulu"
well this also has something to do with quantity over quality. the Russians died by the thousands for every few Germans, as did the Zulus.
The Russians actually had some very fine equipment by mid war. They had one of the best tanks (perhaps the best at the time), they had superior aircraft machine guns, and more maneouverable fighter aircraft, as well as the best ground attack aircraft of the war. What they lacked was training and decent officers. Stalin's officer purges and mismanagement of the military made them extremely vulnerable early in the war. Their trained troops were of low morale and their supply of standing troops and pilots were quickly exhausted by the devastating surprise attack (partly because of Stalin's foolish forward placement). It would be years before such men could be replaced. In the meantime it was seasoned veterans vs. rookies with little or no training.