Printable View
almost every time when i'm defending my left flank got crushed
many times i lost a general by trying to save that flank.
it happened to me in very crucial battles and i've studied a bit and it happened to alexander in gualgamala and to king Harold of england vs William the conquerer he was killed on the left flank miles away of the place were he supposed to be in the center.
does this kind of things happens to anybody else or do i have to adapt my fighting style
I think the AI has a tendency to go for the left flank, now that you mention it.
It seems to go for the lefte flank more, right flank is mostly untoched...
Another little bit of historical accuracy in the game? Attack from the right flank.
No wonder I counter the comps moves so well, I decided to change history and attack from the left in most cases. The real reason I do this is because all your veterans are on the left of your cards most of the time.
Try and put an army of 2 Levy Pikemen, Phalanx Pikemen and Silver Shield Pikemen each into a battle. Notice that the Levy are the left, the normals are in the center and the Silver Shields at the right. The game is simply set up to put the strongest warriors on the right, the place of honour.
That is what I've begun to notice as well. And if the AI puts its strongest units on the right, it tends to want to hit you the hardest from its right/your left. The historical aspect makes sense, and is a nice touch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Now if I could only figure out why it stacks my Parthian general's bodyguard in the center of an eastern infantry unit on the far right everytime... Obviously, there are still a few initial deployment bugs to work out.
I do not fight historically, I am just contrary to all sorts of norms, I attack from both flanks and just sorta fling things together, I usually make a balanced army that will put up a good showing everywhere. Or I make a strong center so that I can push through and flank both sides or get at archers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Attacking on both flanks with cavalry was common, its just that the better cavalry was commonly placed on the right.
Also attacking on the right was the general rule for a flat featureless battlefield. A swamp, a tall cliff, rugged terrain or some other feature that created an obstacle for flanking would possibly cause both armies to put there best troops at that flank. And then theres the concept you know your elite troops are better than there's so you go all out and put your best troops on the left flank.
Left Flank???
seems to me they attack were they thought you are weakest,
not that they are always attack on your left flank,
heres a deal.... form your line making your left flank weakest(peasants, auxillia, etc) then when they set to attack you there, swing rapidly your powerfull units in the left and charge the mtfs :furious3:
not that its easy, i know i know it becomes chaotic when you do just that!!!!!!
An easier way to do it is to have the weak units 'cover' the strong ones, by standing in front of them. Then when the enemy comes at them attack them with the strong ones. It seems to work well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redz " Preatorian Knights"
yes the left flank not a cav charge from both just a allout cav charge on my left flankQuote:
Originally Posted by Redz " Preatorian Knights"
greece vs seleucids
i had a base line of 10 spartans no weak spots 2 flanking heavy peltast
and some cretan archers and siege weapons
first the lined up their cav on both sides then bring al to their right
line up for about 4 minutes and get shot but they are cataphracts so minor casualties and the totaly crush my left flank and their was nothing that i could do because al my spartans were fighting after that even the spartans routed after several charges in their rear :charge: :duel:
so yes left flank
Oddly the right flank is traditionally the weak one, since it's unshielded. This is why historically the strongest units were used to hold the right.
According to the documentary I watched on the Battle of Issus, armies of this period deployed with their best troops in the positions of honour on their right flank.
These were the troops most likely to win the battle and so most generals launched their main thrust with thier right flank against their enemies left. As both Alexander and Darius did at Issus.
Not saying that the reason it happens in the game its probably just a weird coincidence.
Reading this thread made me curious: left-handed people make up a reasonable percentage of the population. Is there any historical mention of units consisting completely of lefties, holding shields in the right hand, placed on the right flank?
Makes sense, but it might not fit into the general unit recruitment/equipment schemes. I'm sure the Spartans killed/exiled lefties for being non-conformists... ~D Maybe it created a weakness at the point where the righty/lefty units met in the lines. Just curious if there is any historical evidence of this.
All I know is that left-handed people were considered sinister and untrustworthy hence the use of the word in modern language as sinister was the word for left.
Certainly in medieval times the assumption was that all arms would be bourne in the right hand. Hence the term right-hand man, meaning the man I trust to guard my exposed right. Also all castles were built with stairs which spiralled anti-clockwise as this favoured the defenders.
This has been the case until quick recently, in fact my mother told me that at school she was forced to write with her right hand and use her knife and fork right-handed and was punished if she was caught doing otherwise.
Even if there were lefties back then the army needed to make them conform to norms, so they would use their right hand like all the others.
I always seem to attack from the right too, but my best defences are almost always on my left. this makes the battles more interesting, as the enemy comes up against my good defences and I have to figure out how to take out his best troops.
A question pops to mind. Were there any left handed great generals? and if so, did they attack on the right?
Excellent argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parmenio
Fascinating. I think also there is a somewhat subconcious impulse to lead with the right side. I fought several battles where I rushed the enemy with cheap infantry and then came in from the side with cavalry and more or less unintentionally I prefered to attack my enemies left flank almost every time.
You can also argue that since it is your unshielded side you have an easier time turning into a flankattack, that your weapon will always be at the edge of the turn. Generally in a 1v1 people with shields tends to walk counterclockwise round to get their weapon into range. So maybe this was something that was a leftover from Heroic times where chieftains would duke it out with each other in 1v1.
There is no evidence of any lefthanded warriors, meaning that all lefties were forced to use the right. It didn't cost them all that much really as you quickly learn to use the other hand. I'm lefthanded, but I use knife and fork like the rest of you (but if I have to cut wood or something I always use the knife in my left hand), and I use the mouse in the right hand as well.
So a lefthanded legionary would not be any different from the rest of them. But imagine if he used his sword lefhanded... That would be a major disruption in the unit. He and the guy to his left would likely injure each other in a battle.
Of course it would like in boxing be an advantage in a 1v1 with a chosen enemy (which still happened).
One reason left handed people were thought to be untrustworthy is that since you shake with your irght hand you couldn't stab the other person or pull a sword on them, but if you were left handed you could easily stick him in the gut.
I don't have evidence of this but I was told this by a reliable person.
The answer to all your troubles:SLINGERS
Just put them on you left flank and they fire onto the unshielded side of enemies. ~:cheers:
I have heard a slight variation of this idea which states that shaking hands with the right hand evolved as a gesture of good faith. By presenting ones empty right hand you openly declared that you were not carrying a weapon in it, and by mutally clasping each others right hands you were actually preventing each other from drawing a weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
I recent used this idea in a roleplaying game I run.
Except for the fact that it's the RIGHT flank that is usually unshielded, as it's usually the RIGHT hand that hold the weapons...Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavius Julius
Wasn't that Octavius' point ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
Which again means that grapping the other's hand with both of yours is even more of a friendly gesture, as it stil is, because now you can't even use your left hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I would have SWORN that it was written "left" and not "right" when I quoted him...
Ok, I must have abused tea, then. Bad effect on the mind. Gah.
Also, in modern warfare, infantry group attacks on the left are more vulnerable than right. Its the way you hold your gun and take cover at the same time. Think about it.
In "Rogue Warrior", the Navy SEALs were trained to shoot both ways before going to Vietnam, so while on patrol at least 3 rifles (out of a 7 man squad) would be covering each side.Quote:
Originally Posted by derF
Christian (European-style) weddings are traditionally arranged according to right-handed weapon use.
Right-hand drive, driving on the left side of the road, has it's roots in this as well.
Perhaps, but here at least infantry has the option to fight lefthanded. I used my assault rifle and machinegun lefthanded. Yes it was rather painful when expended cartridges hit my forearm, and pulling the reload lever had to be done with the shooting hand, but it was by far made up for by the better accuracy. Naturally I would have loved lefthanded weapons (I'm surprised that 13% of all weapons aren't made for lefthanded use, you 'merely' have to invert some of the parts).Quote:
Originally Posted by derF
Then you would love the H&K GMG, it can be loaded from either side without having to take tools to it! Good ol' H&K making great guns for the future, thank god they are phasing ot the old M-16 family...
It was a H&K, but a rather old model.
Isn't the GMG a bullpup? Those aren't used in the danish military.
And the machinegun, well since it let the cartridges falls directly down it was no problem with me being lefthanded. In fact I rather liked it as I found the secondary hand to be more of a problem to place (you had to hold the weapon on the stock quite far back), also it kept the weapon firmly in place while I reloaded (beltfed). The only problem arised when I had to change the barrel, that could be done singlehanded if you were righthanded, but not me, I had to let it go completely (as most did), but again the difference was marginal, a second or so added to the three seconds perhaps (those old MG42s have really nice short changetimes for their barrels).
Here in the Canadian Army we are also taught to shoot with both hands. It's for different reasons such as patrolling (coverage both side) and Urban warfare. When rounding a corner you may have to switch to your left-hand (or right for lefties) to properly round the corner without exposing your whole body before you can shoot. We're also allowed to shoot left-handed if we choose to. I'm right-handed though.
p.s. I was reading on the Diemaco website that the Danish uses the C7 family of weapons now. Those weapons are really easily used by lefties.
Yep, the army made the transition soem years ago, but the navy don't get as money for personal arms (all goes into the ships and Harpoons and such), so they are a bit slower.
I think they are changing over now...
Now the C7 is much similar to the short M16 right? Or is it a big one with only 20 shots in the magazine?
Historically, the most honoured position on the battlefield was the right flank.
i thought somebody already sead that
What is this thread coming to?
Misunderstandings :dizzy2:
Modern warfare(I thought RTW was a historical game?)
and guns(look at notes to the above)
:help:
Hey sometimes threads get a little sidetracked.
Anyways. A C7 is a variant of the M16 with a few little differences. IT's not the short version. That would be M4/C8. The C7 has some changes like a spent casing deflector, full-auto, longer barrel and some other little tweaks and there is 30 bullets in a mag. It's that curved type of magazine that holds 30 rounds. BTW I just got back from an army exercise today and they are such a fine weapon, I love it everytime I play with them.
well did anyone tried the m1 garand or the ak 47
The GMG is a grenade machine gun, it is quite a cool weapon. Here is a link http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/milita...tions/gmg.html. 330 40mm grenades per minute, gives me that warm tingly feeling... Anyone here ever use a G-36, XM-8 or any other type of H&K assault rifle? I have only read bits about their guns from Rainbow six, their website and Mail Call but they seem to be really good...
They are making 4 versions or so of the XM-8, including sharpshooter, carbine and LMG variants. The US is phasing out the M-16 family in 2005 in favor of these new guns...
Tried the Garant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1
It is fun... pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom klang. Quite possibly one of the best sounding weapons, but also very bad in a real fight, *klang* and your enemy knows you are reloading.
Kenshin the older H&K I have experience with (as I mentioned earlier), one of those that look like big assault guns. They are very accurate if you know what you are doing, and they pack a serious punch, but they also have a kickback like a mule. You don't want to fire one standing up (but then again you don't want to do that period), it will mess up your aim impossibly. Several of the guys I was in with had big black spots on their shoulders after we had been on the range. In fact we were allowed to use our barets as padding when firing.
But to be honest I always found the MG42 to have a much more serious kickback (can't imagine it with a 7.92mm instead of the 7.62mm now). After firing one of those you need not go get a massage, your whole body is shaken apart.
LOL, I have only fired a shotgun, 12 gauge but then again I am pretty young to be trying out an assault rifle or machine gun. I shot like 15 rounds or so and to be honest the kickback was not that bad, anyone know how the kickback on a single shotgun shell compares to 1 5.56mm or 7.62mm round?
Lee Enfield Mk1 .303 bolt action for me. And after a few magazines it really starts to hurt, especially if you don't keep it tucked in really tight.
That very much depends on the weapon. The MG42 fires the same round as the assault rifle I used, but the kickback was much worse, even in a single shot. We first tried a single shot then a few shots and finally full belts, though not in full long bursts, only tapping 3 rounds off (which is so fast that all three are off before you know it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
But I suspect that a 12 guage is more powerful than a normal round.
I bet the round I fired was less though, it was not a very heavy shot. I tried several including grouse and duck shot. The grouse got caught in the milk jug!