No-Dachi are a Load of BullShiznik

*Okay people, get ready for a rather long post, please either read it all or don't respond :-)*

I was thinking about this the other day, and I came to a realization-- the way No-Dachi are handled in the game is completely wrong.

If you think about it, No-Dachi troops would have to keep a relatively very loose formation in order to be able to use their huge swords. For this reason they would always need to keep momentum when fighting. If anything were to happen that would close in the formation and push the guys closer together, they would at first have their effectiveness with their swords reduced, and eventually be forced to pull out a katana or some other smaller article and have a go with that.

//EDIT: Also note that their loose formation would also get them into trouble if they faced a pitched fighting situation. They would be caught between staying more fanned out and getting ganged up on, or closing in and either dying there or whipping out a secondary weapon. Neither is a desirable choice.//

This is at least one reason why No-Dachi troops were so rare in Japan, and why everyone went for mostly spears even when they could afford better (the other reasons for spears are ease of training and cost). But currently, No-Dachi are more cost-effective than spears, even if you throw them into battleline melee situations. This is entirely wrong. They should be like they say in the manual-- only useful in a charge.. flanking, breaking an enemy, stuff like that. For all of the reasons stated above, they would in real life die in large numbers if used as 'grunts'.

-------------------------------------------

The spear, on the other hand, makes for a more versatile troop type. These are though, of course, ALSO handled entirely wrong in the game, as there is no accounting for the weaknesses of a spear-- such as if it's not pointed in the right direction, not only is it going to take you a longer than usual while to wheel it round, you are in the meantime totally helpless. Same thing if an enemy makes it inside the reach of your spear. For these reasons Yaris fought effectively IN FORMATION. i.e.: Your flank is covered by your buddy next to you, and there are guys behind you sticking their spears out above yours, so that if an enemy pushes past the point of your spear, he still has at least 1 if not 2 or more layers of spears still to contend with.

But if Yaris were ever to get OUT of this good formation, they too would die in somewhat large numbers, ESPECIALLY vs. cavalry, who are quicker and more elevated than the foot, and would be able to easily jump into a gap and lop off heads. Yet there is no such factor in STW. Aside from the obvious disadvantage that all troop types in the game face of not having a guy beside you to back you up, they are just as effective even in a horribly loose formation, and they still kick the crud out of cavalry (except MHC and NC, obviously).

So in reality Yaris would be a troop type that is versatile and durable, but which would have to turn slower, move slower, and be well-formed up before entering melee. Anything, such as running or wild manuevering or the like, which would disrupt their formation, would be suicide if ample time was not elapsed for them to form up between the completion of such an act and their entrance into melee. Charging, except when facing much inferior troop types (such as musketeers), would be a great big no-no.

-------------------------------------------

Fix the above-mentioned things, and the melee role of a unit such as Samurai archers becomes more clear. They are essentially the equivalent of the short-swordsmen of European and Meditterranean battles, with the exception that they aren't as armored and their primary function is skirmish. They provide a unit in which each individual soldier is effective in melee (think legion vs. phalanx), without the problems caused by the longer swords of the No-Dachi troops. They will defeat Yari troops if the Yaris fall out of formation, and are much better suited to flanking, quick movement, and other more advanced maneuvers than are Yaris. In fact I would be surprised if the Japanese didn't make some use of Samurai, armed with medium-lenth swords and a good measure of armor, that would have served a role much similar to short-sword troops in other parts of the world.

-------------------------------------------

In such a realistic engine as I am dreaming of, Naginata-armed troops would also be more important, as the Naginata has a *few* of the Yari-associated disadvantages, but overall is more versatile than a Yari or a sword. These troops would now make more sense as a high-quality battle line trooptype.

-------------------------------------------

Then all you would have to do would be tone down the effectivness of the Naginata-armed Warrior Monks to more the level of Naginata Heavy Infantry (or just do away with the suckers altogether on the grounds that historically they are hard to justify anyway), and VOILA!! You have a much more balanced, much more historical and realistic game.

-------------------------------------------

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 09-10-2001).]

I think your analysis is good on one level but also quite refutable.

There are plenty of examples of people using long swords to great effect in the pike battles of middleages Europe, William Wallaces own seven foot long sword is kept just up the road from me! Also, while spear and the like are most effective when used with well trained ranks like a phalanx, if both units are equally unruly then it doesn't matter too much, in any case, I believe the drawing of the spear with the Yari Samuri at least is visual shorthand. They rushed with the spear before dropping it for the katana once combat was joined.

Anyway. There are some proper historians here that will put me right.

I haven't read the entire post = so i can't respond.

And exactly how common were long-swords? Did they ever arm whole formations with them? You better believe NOT, for all the reasons stated above. William Wallace leading a charge with one is all good and fine, as long as his buddies next to him stay out of his way :-P, but get a whole formation of them and you're going to run into the same troubles I mentioned above.

Such a weapon is rather hard to use anyway, if only for the "oops! I didn't see you standing there next to me.. sorry chap! we'll get you a good surgeon and he'll get that upper-torso and head attached right back onto that lower-torso and legs, right quick!" reason.

And I'm sure there are others in here who will back me up on the severe disadvantage Yari troops face if not in good order.

//EDIT: I should have said "And exactly how common were *claymores*?" Longswords, or swords that could be labeled longswords, were probably more or less pretty common, but a longsword can be a reasonable size (i.e. much shorter than 7 ft.) and still be a longsword. There are many 'longswords', probably the most common, which would be better considered as 'mediumswords' and were more often referred to as 'broadswords'.

Of course even the additional classes I've just mentioned weren't generally common enough to equip whole units with, though I believe the Celts and Pictish highlanders (Pict = Scot) did something along these lines with the bigger swords. But in general a short sword and a shield is a better setup, at least in a large-scale military context.//

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 09-10-2001).]

Of course there weren't whole formations of them, but there weren't whole formations of anything in that sort of army, in fact there were scarcely formations. My point was that someone fighting in a style that demands space is possible even if the surrounding space is a crush of bodies. I believe that in the War of the Roses there were some battles were more people suffocated than were killed in more tradional ways such was the weight of bodies.

Quote Originally posted by johnmcd:
My point was that someone fighting in a style that demands space is possible even if the surrounding space is a crush of bodies.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but that statement to me seems rather oxymoronical. Please clarify.

From what I can tell in my reading about feudal Japanese battles, the No-Dachi and longer swords were kind of "novelty items." They were often decorative or given as expensive presents, but rarely used in battle except by individual swordsmen who wanted it for shock value. It was generally accepted that in combat the spear was of more use than the sword, though there were no shortage of samurai who maintained that the sword was unquestioningly superior.

I agree with Khan that the spearmen kind of seem to be over-sturdy unless a super shock troop type like monks catches them in the rear while they're already fighitng. In a mixed up mingled close combat where the spear unit has lost formation, they should die a lot faster than they do. In most STW battles I've played, the times where Yari Sam in a big melee don't lose formation and fall into individual fighting outnumbers the times they can stay in formation. The only time they stay in good formation is in isolated one on one unit action.




------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Hokusai"
Now as a spirit
I shall roam
the summer fields.

i say "over sturdy" meaning I don't see a huge marked difference between how long yari sam and naginatas can last in one on one combat with shock troops, and often yari sam seem to kill a lot faster!



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Hokusai"
Now as a spirit
I shall roam
the summer fields.

Well, Yari Sams get a melee bonus of 2, and Nagis get a bonus of 0.. so this is of course a load. Nagis should probably get a better melee bonus and shave off a bit of defense bonus(which only affects the effectiveness enemy swings, anyway).. perhaps even taking off most or all of the defense bonus, as their advantage would be in melee, and their defensive bonus would in reality come from their armor.

//EDIT: oops! My bad.. I believe Yari Samurai also get a melee bonus of 0.//

As far as staying in formation.. I would have to say that if the system were changed to take formation into account.. the system for the behavior of individual Yaris in looking to keep their formation would probably want to be tweaked slightly. Maybe. Not sure.

BTW just so it's clarified, the Naginata is not a weapon that either demands or is necessarily best suited in a tight formation (though obviously fighting as a group is important as it would with almost any troop type, and the nature of the Naginata would allow soldiers to fight closer together than most weapons, if the situation called for or forced it).

Matt

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 09-11-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 09-11-2001).]

I'd just like to point out that the facing of the yari is taken into account when facing cavalry. That is cavalry don't get a penalty for facing yari unless they attack the man from the front. Yari units are much less effective aggainst cav if they are spread out, and the cav can attack individual men from the sides.
For fighting infantry they just whip out their swords if their formation gets messed up.
In future it would be nice to model the position of the spear point, but this'll take more processing power.

Hiya Matt! I agree with most of your points, but it seems to me that a lot of it is already reflected in the game engine. Were they not as visible as you want? I think it's pretty well balanced between cost and usefulness. They are a bit more lethal than spears, but only if used properly.

If you just set ND on a pack of yari, you will loose most of your no-dachi. You'll probably win, but at too heavy losses. Losing 60 out of 80 men is unacceptable in a campaign. They cost 100+ koku more than spears, and require more buildings in the tech tree, so how would that be "more cost effective?"

On the other hand, if you use them effectively (ie: don't let them hang in a fight!) then they deal lots of damage before taking too many losses - but they must have that enemy held in place by spears! It's really only that inital charge bonus that makes ND useful. They die too quick for long-term combat, so they must have another unit around for support.

Also, units DO get penalties for not being in good formation, more morale penatlies than combat penalties, but that's if they're left on Engage At Will. That's one of the reasons for "Hold Formation," is that it makes your yari's a nasty group to try to attack. Spears work best when holding a position and formation, rather than just charging into the battle line. They don't do as much damage, but they'll be hard to force out and kill. Swordsmen, however, lose their attack effectiveness when trying to hold a formation other than assault-wedge. Doesn't that fit with what you were describing as something to fix?

So yari are indeed the better long-term general melee troops, and ND should be used more sparingly, for actual charges to break up enemy formations. Once the formation is broken, anyone is much easier to kill.

For those who want a more "realistic" army, simply follow your own rules: make an army that's 80 percent ashigaru spears, with a couple of veteran spearmen, a handful of archers, and only one unit of the "specialties." Cavalry if you're playing Takeda. Actually, those battles are great fun! It becomes a question of who commands their armies better, rather than who spends their koku better.

-- B)

I was going to dismiss your points out of hand Banzai, but realizing the greater closure I could bring by doing a bit of good research/playtesting, I went ahead and did the following experiment.

I set up 12 matches between a 120 No Dachi and a 120 Yari Samurai. 6 times I was the No Dachi. 6 times I was the Yari Samurai. The only real difference between me controlling the YS and the AI was that the AI holds formation and sits, while I engage at will and charge in headlong.

Data (in terms of men the No Dachis had left at the end, which, with the new morale, was generally achieved with the YS having 5-15 men left, which would die anyway in the ensuing chase):

AI=YS Me=YS

T1 76 75
T2 85 58
T3 92 53
T4 86 49
T5 78 77
T6 81 41

Average ND Left with AI as YS: 83
Average ND Left with Me as YS: 59
Overall Average ND Left: 71

Initial Conclusions:

-No Dachi beats YS consistently, with a wide enough margin to be quite cost effective. They are good grunts, certainly better than YS.

-YS gains no advantage from holding a formation or staying put. In the case of figthing No Dachis, it is actually a DISadvantage to behave in this way. (I have more experience than just this experiment to attest to this).


I would say more, but I've really got to go. Basically Banzai, I would say that you probably spoke without enough experience/testing/thought (whatever, I'm not here to judge), as your statements reflect many of the misconceptions about the game engine I once held myself.

Oh, and I think I'm going to have to go off and beat up on some Cavarly with YS in loose formation to finally and totally prove my point about them.

Matt

Alright, I did a series of engagements with vs. 120 HC with a 4-deep loose formation 120 YS. I tried confronting and charging them head-on, but that got boring pretty quick. I then did a couple where, 4-deep loose formation and all, I just lay my big juicy flank right out perpendicular to their line and sat there. Still beat them EASILY. Yes, I'm SURE the Yari vs. Cav simulation is working JUST fine.

Anyway, now I hope we are all on the same track.

Matt

Hmm.... seems everyone missed a couple of VERY important points. Allow me to add a bit to this discussion.

It seems the main issues are - No-Dachi are too effective and yari samurai are not killed quickly when hit from a flank.

Lets deal with No-Dachi first.
While I agree that the SIZE of the unit as rendered is a misrepresentation - the unit should be about the size of a cav unit - its simply a matter of SCALE in graphix. Getting bent out of shape over it isn't worthwhile. As for the question of effectiveness, your talking about a unit that is classified as a "shock" unit. They are not well armored, but heavy offensively due to their large weaponry. The first moments of contact are when the most casualties are taken if its a 1:1 head to head fight... why? Because the front No-Dachi are basically being impaled and removing the spears from the line... which means the follow up line then attacks weaponless samuria.... causing confusion in the ranks and thus the ability of the No-Dachi to spread an enemy unit. Shock troops are considered expendable, so in losing the first - say 10 men - they disrupt the cohesion of the Yari Samurai - and are thus able to use the superior agility of their weaponry to slaughter the Yari Samurai.
Once the yari cohesion is split - the No-Dachi are in the middle of the unit- surrounded by samuria who have unweildy spears while they can rapidly cut thru before spears are brought to bear against them. Thus you see why in a No-Dachi charge - there is an initial, substantial group of casualties - at which point the No-Dachi begin to really clean house.

As for the issue of Yari Samurai vs a flanking unit - this one is REAL simple - and the reasoning is 2 fold. First - sorry Kahn7, but your testing is flawed, since you used 120 men units. The game is balanced at the default setting of 60 men per unit. What you do by increasing the # of men is create a lopsided result because A> a unit flanked only has so many men on the edge to have killed - and B> these men create a "buffer" that, while they fall, they give their comrades the time needed to reorient to the threat. Due to the larger # of men in the unit - it is not routed nearly as quickly (due to how morale checks work) as would a 60 man unit hit in the flank. Now - take 60 men units in - keep your yari in an "average" spread of 5-6 men deep and hit them in the side with a unit of HC - they will fall at a faster percentage rate and the Yari - while able to reorient - will still end up breaking due to the # of casualties it takes in a short time. They may face the cav for a few moments, but they will NOT sit there forever and take out the cav - provided all honor/weapons/armor settings are the same for the 2 units.

Also realize that the issue of flanking is one that folks are missing yet one other important point on. If a unit sees an enemy bearing down on them from a flank and they are NOT locked into a facing due to combat, the natural reaction is to FACE the threat - so if a unit is NOT locked in facing and is hit from a flank, one cannot complain that they just don't automatically run away - they WILL face the threat and attempt to fight - at least at first. The key is that the morale looks at unit losses vs time and attacker - meaning that having lost - say 12 men out of 60 in the initial flanking - they have already sustained 20% losses before they even have a chance to retaliate... that creates a morale issue which - upon continued combat - will cause the unit to break.

Take the same issue with a loss of 12 men out of 120 and you only suffer 10% losses - making it MUCH more likely that the unit will be able to fight longer - turning the tide easily and defeating the flanking cavalry.
You have to look at the math for the underlying reasons WHY something works the way it does.

Feedback as always is welcome.

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

Khan7,

One more point if I may - your putting the Yari in 30x4 mode - meaning that a flanking unit is only going to be able to get a clean shot at 4 men - out of 120... granted the Yari rotation rate does seem a bit fast - but when only a tiny fraction of the men in the unit are exposed to a flanking - your have to expect that the unit is not going to flank over 4 men or 8 or even 12 men getting cut down. In a formation like that your flankers will be lucky to get 12 men before they are facing the business end of the enemy weapons - and at 10% casualties you cannot expect the enemy to rout quickly...

The key is 2-fold - proper flanking (which alot of ppl do wrong) and locking the enemy into a facing. In your test you cannot do that as your doing 1v1. Still - flanking is not hitting a straight side, as many believe. A proper flanking maneuver hits from the rear flank - about 135 or 225 degrees from the facing of the unit - the reason for this is so that the flanker can "wrap" into the enemy - killing men in the rear and in the side - resulting in MUCH higher casualties as more men are viable targets, along with forcing the enemy to rotate a greater arch to bring their weapons to bear. Run a proper flanking on a yari sam set in a standard 12x5 of 15x4 and you will see 11-22 men fall in the first few seconds. With a 60 man unit this is between around 20% and about 35% casualties - in the first few seconds. Now - do that and the enemy Yari will not be lasting long at all... In fact, most low honor units will break outright. Even on a 120 man unit- a proper flanking can create havoc.

One last thing that I am sure your not guilty of, but alot of ppl are so I will mention it - using a flanker is useless unless you put your men in contact with the enemy - meaning you have to get a good amount of frontal coverage - in a 60 man cav unit used above - you want it to be at least 15x4, better yet 20x3 as this allows 15-20 of your men to strike in the initial seconds. I see lots of ppl charge with a front line of 5-10 men - then wonder why they dont get massive casualties. Its because the men in the front are the only ones that can get clean strikes - so maximixe the # of men that can take these free shots. DO NOT go overboard - more than about 20 in your front line and your asking to be flanked yourself, along with the fact you will be spreading yourself a bit to thin.

Feedback as always is welcome.

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

BSM:

Good analysis. How do you feel about wedge formation for;
a. Frontal attacks
b. Flank attacks
c. No Dachi
d. YC ?

Regards,
Barkhorn.

well i dont know too much about Japan but some simple logic could help i guess....

im not sure how long No-Dachi Swords were but if u base it on an example of a man wilding a 5 foot long Longsword, plus 2 feet for length of arm and swing. this man needs a gap minimum of about 8 feet just so that he doesnt behead his friend. A sword that long is unwieldydy to think of fencing or particular skills..it was swung and its weight, sharp edge and the strength of the user to despatch the opponent. This sort of weapon allows for an advantage in 1v1 fighting but leaves them sorely misplaced in formation fighting. When facing a group of Spear in hold formation, the spears would be say 1-2 feet apart...they then would either run onto the spears or slow so much to get past them that their defenition as a "shock" troop would be inaccurate. Once in that close again No-Dachi become unusable as Khan pointed out.

Also i was under the impression that at this time fighting as a unit was new thing in japan and that fighting mainly involved honour and 1v1 skills as men tested each other in battle. (could be wrong)

Secondly wot would happen even if a unit of cavalry were to charge onto spears?..would the charge just stop dead? would the charge carry them forward enough so that the spear become again ineffective....where the cavalry becomes more effective. In all that i have read cavalry reigns supreme over infantry. The Yari was approx. 3-5 metres in length yet people talk of the men wielding it as if it were a sword.


-Fury

[This message has been edited by RageFury (edited 09-11-2001).]

Thank you RageFury for refuting BSM's No-Dachi arguments for me.

I would also like to comment that not only was my flank to the HC in a 30x4, my guys were in loose formation, and never went out of loose formation the entire time. And having 120 units may skew a flanking test *somewhat*, but overall they are the best way to do these experiments, as Puzz-san will tell you, as they tend to minimize random effects. And I only did one test with my flank exposed, the rest just in a thin, loose formation, so 120 units thing were obviously the way to go. I'm sorry, but I learn from the STW Science master, Puzz3d.

Plus you completely missed my point anyway, which is that Yaris getting out of formation doesn't affect them any more than it does WM or things like that, which is irrefutably a load, as I doubt there is anyone in the world who is going to dispute that Yaris need to be in formation to be effective, simply by the nature of the weapon.

And if you can imagine in REAL life the utter chaos and carnage that would have ensued if you had a 120-man contingent of HC charging down a nice, convenient row of Yari-men arranged like to many stakes with watermelons on them like one would find at a Cavarly training camp. Instead the Cavarly gets stopped cold at the flank, and is held for about 15 straight seconds before the rest of the unit cannot take it any longer and wheels around.

Might I also mention that if a YS unit, even in close formation, were to charge round to meet an immediate flank threat, the resulting confusion and lack of formation would make them easy pickings for Heavy Cavarly.

Look, I don't know if you're just in a bad mood today, as I am, due to, well, the total destruction of the World Trade Center. But you might want to think about not speaking so much unless you can really back it up.

Ragefury: I can't comment on your historical question about fighting as a unit, but I can't imagine that it could've been that recent a development at the time of SJ (could be wrong myself).

And the way things work between Cavarly and Spears is that if the spears can stay in formation and keep their chins more or less up, there is nothing the Cavarly can do. But if the Cavarly is able to work some sort of advantage, get some people to run, make some gap, catch some flank, depending on the relative qualities of the Cavalry and pikemen involved, the Cavalry will tend to wreak all sorts of hell.

But if you want a good idea of this matchup, just take a look at how well the over-confident English Catapracts did against a bunch of ill-equipped but hardy lowlanders (lowlander). Got whupped every time they tried a head-on charge. The English wasted a lot of Heavy Cavalry this way.

And the superiority you have heard about, Cavalry over infantry, is something that in reality sort of waxes and wanes over time. For instance in the Roman Era, cavarly was a flanking and reconnaisance tool (much as it would be in the Napoleonic and Civil War era), which could hardly hold their own in a head-on matchup with medium or heavy infantry of any kind. But when Catapracts, or a cavarlyman and horse that are both fully and heavily armored, became more common, cavalry took the lead as it was able to overrun sword-armed heavy infantry (such as the legion), which had previously been the preferable troop type. Catapracts essentially whup up against all types of infantry save spearmen, in which case they have a real tendency to die.

Are Japanese Heavy Cavalry Catapracts? Someone with good knowledge of Japanese history should be able to answer this, though I initially doubt it.

Matt

Barkhorn - I rarely use the wedge - mainly due to the fact that while it adds a bonus to each little man's attack, in a wedge only a few guys actually get a chance to hit the enemy - so while the front few ppl will get good kills, they cannot get the same number as a wide front of men can.

As for using it with different units - again its all the same to me. Proper positioning for a flank attack is more useful - amd since the wedge decreases the number of active combatants - I don't use it.

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

Also as there is no specific bonus/disadvantage to being in/out of formation, what the wedge is SUPPOSED to do, i.e. break up the formation, doesn't happen.

Thanks for the info gentlemen.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

Hey, folks:

Quite a few veterans seem to have mentioned that, No-Dachi should be used as shock troop to break formation, and should be pulled out after the initial charge instead of keep fighting to ensure the maximum effect and reduce the casualty.

Now how can you pull out a unit out of the heated combat without suffering extra casualty? Even if there is another friendly unit to "pin down" the AI, individual AI soldiers might still pursue, and your No-Dachis are now easy prey with their backs facing the enemy.

Am I missing something big here?

Well, you are missing the point that the way No-Dachi work is a load, and that they should be nearly worthless in a pitched battle, as it says in the manual.

As far as your main point though, you brought up a good issue, but I think I'll comment more on that later.

Matt

OK... I am going to attempt to keep this civil...
Kahn7 and RageFury - I was not stating that Yari Samurai are modeled accurately - especially when dealing with the question of loose vs tight formations. The game engine decides every battle primarily as a bunch of 1 man vs. 1 man battles. This is why you often see single men battling instead of unit vs. unit. However, this allows each individual man to be "flanked" meaning that they can be penalized or attacked by multiple enemies.

My points were directed to the WHY of the No-Dachi effectiveness, along with their ability to engage effectively in tight formation - due to unrealisting graphic sizing. I also pointed out that most "flank" attempts are done incorrectly, and thus do not maximize the damage done.

RageFury - I addressed your concern of "stacked" spears in my first post - in that the front men attacking into a wall of spears die - bringing the spear points low so that the men behind can then kill the enemy. Ever had a man on a spear? His forward momentum and gravity will bear the point downward toward the ground, enabling the man behind to enter the fray without facing the spear points. A charge by a group of men would often pull down the "wall" of spears, allowing close melee troops to decimate the unit.

Kahn7, your statement of using 30x4 and what occured in using it shows that you were using a flanking maneuver incorrectly.

As for your statement on using 120 men per unit - and your admission that doing so skews the outcome - you cannot still claim to stand on the validity of the outcome. Doing so is saying that "Yes I know the test was flawed but I like the results." In addition, you learning how to test from Puzz3D - well bud I am happy for ya. However I don't care if Einstein taught you how to test something, if the test itself is flawed, which you yourself admitted, its irrelevant as to who came up with it.

I never disputed your claim that yari sams were modeled wrong, nor did I differ with your view on the reasoning that No-Dachi were presented in a flawed manner. However, I simply added some points that you did not mention, in addition to pointing out the WHY your test showed what it did, and offered an additional method that would, given the game engine mechanics, present a more accurate result with a modification to your testing methods.

One last note - and again I am forced to attempt to be as civil as I can. We are all horrified, disgusted and angered over the events of yesterday here in the US. However, referencing that as a reason I would post an opinion that you did not like is despicable. Many here know that I give detailed thought to my posts, and I at no time cast any disdain on your views. I simply added a dimension you had neglected. If you are so threatened by the fact that you did not discuss something and that someone else added it, or that someone else has a viewpoint other than your own, well.. thats a personal issue that I hope you learn to deal with.

Your testing, knowledge and skills could be of great use to the community. But not if your ego stands in the way. And just for the record, don't come up with "oops sorry I was upset" again, as #1 its not the first time we have heard it from you (as we hear it every time you get too big-headed and get taken down a notch), and #2 - right now we are all upset over the massive loss of life in Washington and NY.

Final note - I never post anything I cannot back up. The fact that I added a dimension you didn't consider (and cannot rebut with a logical argument) doesnt mean you were wrong, and its too bad your so insecure that you feel a need to disagree just because it was not your presentation. What is sad is that your so unsure of yourself as to have a need to make such useless and baseless comments concerning my views. If you can challenge my post with logic, do so. If not, don't disagree without considering it in light of its purpose - and don't jump to a conclusion that its an automatic contradiction of what your saying. All you end up doing is showing your childish insecurity.



------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

All I had to do was skim your post to realize that we're going to have problems. I suppose sometime when I have time to deal with your shiznik I'll read the whole thing.

But a few choice phrases stick out to me. You keep going on about my ego and my childish insecurity. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to deal with those kinds of worthless points. If you think I have some sort of ego, I would suggest you reread your own ungrounded and truly snobby posts. "Feedback is always welcome." Why wouldn't it be. What you're really saying is "I know with metaphysical certitude that what I say is absolute fact, but you poor mortals are free to talk about it if you like."

You are WAY out of line here buddy. I don't (or a least I didn't) bear you any ill will, but it is very evident from your very first posts in here that you're coming with a real attitude that is, to say the least, not really constructive. I know you've got some sort of long-running problem with me, but I don't give a blank, I still expect you to debate things with me in a civil and reasonable manner.

Matt

I keep going on about your ego do I? I used a total 9 sentences making reference to your continued need to disagree with any who hold a differing opinion to yours, and admonishing you that you should stop such a practice.

As for my "Feedback is always welcome", that is a statement saying that I am OPEN to differing opinions PROVIDED they are stated with LOGIC and TACT. I have been shown avenues of thinking I had not considered before, and I enjoy them. I also enjoy a constructive discussion with someone holding a differing view. Unfortunately - that is not something that anyone in this forum seems to be able to have with you. You asked why feedback would not be welcome - simple - if you post, like you often do, as if your view is the only one to have, then your foolish for considering yourself superior and incapable of discussion. Rather you seem capable of arguement only.

As for your attitude - well the fact you did not read the posts I have made, yet called them groundless, shows your inability to even consider another point of view.

Hmm.. I am way out of line? Maybe - would not be the first time. But your statement that I obviously bear you ill will is patently false. As is your assertation that I had an obvious attitude in my original post in this thread. Why do you say that? I never said you were wrong in that post, but added to your points some of my own. Why does this make me have an attitude? How does this make my posts non-constructive?

Your attack on my reasoning was not based on logic or fact, but rather on your view that an admittedly flawed test using a technique other than I described proved my reasoning wrong. Such a claim does not make sense. If you don't run my test, then you do not know the results. If you see a flaw in my test case logic, point it out. That's what I did. I explained WHY the results you got were skewed and offered an alternate test to prove my point. You didn't attack the logic behind the test, you refused to consider it. If me attempting to answer your concerns in a way that allows you to see the proof for yourself constitutes a lack of constructive posting, then the only other option is one of total agreement with, and worship of, your wisdom and a thankfulness in your willingness to share it with us all. If thats your definition of constructive, then I regret to inform you that my posts will continue to be made in a manner that you don't approve of.

Unfortunately, you feel that my posts are not helpful or informative. Others, however, differ with your opinion. Regretably, you and I differ on what a civil and reasonable discussion consists of. I feel it is the parties considering each other's statements, testing them, pointing out flaws of logic and reason, and allowing for a courteous answer. Too bad you can't agree there.


------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

Uhoh, here we go again.

Time to go back to the strategy discussion, no?

[This message has been edited by Gothmog (edited 09-13-2001).]

Gothmog,

Indeed we do. So let me pose a question. What is the most effective unit to use in a flanking attack? And what unit (disregarding Kensai and BN) are most solid under a flank attack?

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

Well, I have gone back and read carefully through your posts.

First of all, I would like the reassert the point that you DO have a deep-seated problem with me, and I really don't mind that a bit. I can only suggest that you take a hint from the several other guys in this community that share your sentiments, as they all have the good sense to simply steer clear.

And that's about all I'm going to say, cuz as I said I really do not have time for such shiznik. If people can't figure out on their OWN that you are hypocritically running off your mouth, then I don't care what the heck they think.

And that's where *I'm* leaving it, for I really have no more time for this petty fight.

Matt

To get back on topic:

A proper spear formation will have at least 2, if not 3 or more layers of spears pointed toward the enemy. This way, if one of the spears in the first layer gets broken or gets a body stuck on it, there is another spear ready to go, and another one right behind it.

An intersting historical note is that the Phalanx had 5 layers of spears. In the later, more inflexible versions, they even varied the lengths of the spears between ranks, from 9 ft. for the first rank to the massive 23-footers of the fifth rank, so that all of the points came out to form a solid, bristling wall. This was of course a very flawed idea, as it added even more to the inflexibility that was already making the Phalanx obsolete.


The wider a flank is, the less vulnerable it is. For instance, spears formed into a square formation, as they often were esp. in the Rennaissance, are essentially unflankable, as all the spearmen nearer the flank have to do is shift their spears around in the other direction. It would obviously not preferable to be stricken on the flank, due to the shifting involved, and especially not if one was already being attacked from the front. But with a wide flank one is in much better shape than with a skinny one that can be quickly surrounded and overwhelmed.

In fact we can generally state that in all forms of warfare the vulnerability of the flank is due to the fact that it can be quickly overwhelmed with superior numbers, and often surrounded, thereby dealing with your enemy one piece at a time. Depending on the length of the line, the size of the forces involved and esp. the relative size of the flanking force to the flanked force, the specific dynamic will differ, but the basic principle is the same. This is a key component in tactics and strategy, esp. in the need to balance a spread front to better meet the enemy in front with reserves to deal with unexpected contingencies.

------------------------------

Gothmog: to comment more on the point you made earlier about pulling troops back, this is another key flaw in the game. There is no retreating in STW. Only routing. In actual combat of this type you would frequently see one side backing off in good order; disengaging, giving themselves some space. It was as commonplace as any indispensable component of warfare. But there has not even been an attempt to simulate this in STW, and this is often annoying.

Of course there are certain obvious factors in such a pullback, such as what if the enemy surges forward and breaks you as you are getting out.. so you are always wanting to stay in as good order as possible and keep the enemy at bay, and for this purpose it would not be unheard of to do like is done in modern warfare, leave a few choice guys behind to hinder the enemy just long enough for the main force to escape.. though obviously much smaller quantities of time and space are involved than in modern warfare.

But anyway not sure if such a manuever would bring benefits to No-Dachis in real life.. like maybe pull back from a spear formation, for instance, when things get crowded and save yourself some casualties.. but so many would have been lost up to that point that their engagement would be fruitless, and giving the spears time to reform would be suicide if the No-Dachi were going to go back in.. anyway just my feeling for it.

Matt

Kahn7/Matt,

I am not going to argue your above point in actual warfare. However, in the SHOGUN game, the wider the flank the MORE vulnerable it is because of the way the game engine handles combat. Allow me to point out what I mean. A flank charge into a line of Yari Sams strung 20x3 means that the flanking unit can only get an attack (with flanking bonus) on 3 men. However, if your attacking the same line set in a 10x6 arrangement, you are able to attack 6 men at the same time with the bonus applied. This is of course assuming you are in a line/rectangular formation as well. Thus a wide or thick flank allows more men to be cut down quickly, resulting in faster casualties to the unit.

Again - it should be noted that a true flanking attack should come in at 135 or 225 degrees and "wrap" into the sides and rear of a unit - however if your simply hitting a side of a unit then the speed of your kills will be a function of the width of the flank. The more men open to attack, the faster they die.

Realize this is ONLY dealing with the in game model of warfare. In real combat, your correct that a narrow flank is in more danger... its simply to easy to run around and get into rear areas. But then again, modern warfare is not run using line formations any longer LOL.


------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

Well, if we are talking about the Shogun engine yes you are obviously right. This thread is of course largely about improvements that could be made to the engine to more make it reflect actual situations. So this should go on the list :-)

And of course we do not use close-rank line formations in modern warfare, but there are of course lines, so the correlation is nearly perfect in the big picture. This is what I'm talking about.

Matt