Poll: The most important aspect in a battle
- Thread starter The Cheezy One
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Giant Robots!
But we don't have those yet....well, not working properly anyway.
So for now......I'll go with either support or equipment. Because an army of robots, or a giant nuke will easily take care of the thousands of super trained badasses the enemy has.
But we don't have those yet....well, not working properly anyway.
So for now......I'll go with either support or equipment. Because an army of robots, or a giant nuke will easily take care of the thousands of super trained badasses the enemy has.
Yes, but I was harldy going to launch into an in depth explanation now was I?Eadd said:
My post did it's job -> disagreeing that england won due to supplies, they didn't. They won because of a few factors. But germany would of beaten england if not for invading russia (imo).
Range is very important, if you can hit your enemy and they can't hit you, you won't ever have to worry about casualties. Your main force can avoid the enemy force while support hammers the other side out.
After all, Napoleon was originally a general who commanded a group of artillery before he became a dictator. He was definately advantageous with support.
After all, Napoleon was originally a general who commanded a group of artillery before he became a dictator. He was definately advantageous with support.
You say this is in the Napoleonic era, eh? Well, I know a thing or too about that.
Intel
Ultimately, intel in the middle of a battle of this scale is of little use. While scouts, spies and intel did play an important role in the Napoleonic wars, this was mainly on a large scale where armies would try to out maneouver their opponents for long periods of time, constantly weighing up their opponent for a sign of weakness. In a battle of 200 people, a leader would be able to stay close enough to his troops to react to problems as they arose.
However, knowing the plan of attack of the enemy would be useful, as a suitable counter would be devastating against certain attacks in the Napoleonic era.
Training
Now really, it depends on what kind of training this is. For the common musket-armed soldier, accuracy took a back seat to fire rate. The best soldiers were those who could reload and fire the fastest. Soldiers with superior marksman skills were assigned rifled muskets, but since those presumably come under the heading of 'Equipment', we won't have those. In a straight up fire fight (two firing lines opposed to each other), the superior fire rate gained from better training could help.
Equipment
As noted above, the key 'weapon upgrade' of the Napoleonic was the rifled musket, which took longer to reload but was far more accurate. It's hard to say whether this would be a worthwhile choice, as it really depends on what the army has as basic and what the superior equipment would be. Bayonets would be a necessity to implement a 'cold steel' attack (aka a bum rush), for example.
Supplies
Superior supplies are of little value if the army doesn't have somewhere to hunker down with them. Taking a purely defensive stance on an open plain would be inadvisable, as it would allow the enemy to flank and surround us. Supplies were a key concern for Napoleonic generals due to the difficulty of long distance supply lines at the time, which was why Napoleon implemented the technique of 'living of the land'. Although trying to eat scavenged local food didn't work out too well in Russia...
What I'm saying is is that supplies are ultimately irrelevant in a small battle which will probably be over in an afternoon (assuming we can find the enemy in this fog).
Number
Outnumbering the enemy two-to-one would be a collossal advantage in the Napoleonic era. Number mattered then more than ever; you would have more troops firing shots, a greater possibility of outflanking the nemy or surrounding them, and the sheer psychological effect of an onrushing horde of soldiers can not be ignored. Assuming the troops had bayonets, we could scatter the enemy with a single charge.
Support
Artillery would only be useful against massed enemies; trying to hit the enemy on an open field (which you say is covered in fog) would be almost impossible, even if the cannons had a hill to shoot from (which I assume they don't.
Conclusion
I'd probably go with numbers. Some of the most successful tactics of the period were based around superior numbers, so the extra soldiers would make the army more flexible as well as more powerful.
Intel
Ultimately, intel in the middle of a battle of this scale is of little use. While scouts, spies and intel did play an important role in the Napoleonic wars, this was mainly on a large scale where armies would try to out maneouver their opponents for long periods of time, constantly weighing up their opponent for a sign of weakness. In a battle of 200 people, a leader would be able to stay close enough to his troops to react to problems as they arose.
However, knowing the plan of attack of the enemy would be useful, as a suitable counter would be devastating against certain attacks in the Napoleonic era.
Training
Now really, it depends on what kind of training this is. For the common musket-armed soldier, accuracy took a back seat to fire rate. The best soldiers were those who could reload and fire the fastest. Soldiers with superior marksman skills were assigned rifled muskets, but since those presumably come under the heading of 'Equipment', we won't have those. In a straight up fire fight (two firing lines opposed to each other), the superior fire rate gained from better training could help.
Equipment
As noted above, the key 'weapon upgrade' of the Napoleonic was the rifled musket, which took longer to reload but was far more accurate. It's hard to say whether this would be a worthwhile choice, as it really depends on what the army has as basic and what the superior equipment would be. Bayonets would be a necessity to implement a 'cold steel' attack (aka a bum rush), for example.
Supplies
Superior supplies are of little value if the army doesn't have somewhere to hunker down with them. Taking a purely defensive stance on an open plain would be inadvisable, as it would allow the enemy to flank and surround us. Supplies were a key concern for Napoleonic generals due to the difficulty of long distance supply lines at the time, which was why Napoleon implemented the technique of 'living of the land'. Although trying to eat scavenged local food didn't work out too well in Russia...
What I'm saying is is that supplies are ultimately irrelevant in a small battle which will probably be over in an afternoon (assuming we can find the enemy in this fog).
Number
Outnumbering the enemy two-to-one would be a collossal advantage in the Napoleonic era. Number mattered then more than ever; you would have more troops firing shots, a greater possibility of outflanking the nemy or surrounding them, and the sheer psychological effect of an onrushing horde of soldiers can not be ignored. Assuming the troops had bayonets, we could scatter the enemy with a single charge.
Support
Artillery would only be useful against massed enemies; trying to hit the enemy on an open field (which you say is covered in fog) would be almost impossible, even if the cannons had a hill to shoot from (which I assume they don't.
Conclusion
I'd probably go with numbers. Some of the most successful tactics of the period were based around superior numbers, so the extra soldiers would make the army more flexible as well as more powerful.
they do say thatJedoro said:
repeatedly
even when we get the picture
except it does
napolean couldnt see people through walls with infra red vision
idiots
wow, i expected most people to sayGeo Da Sponge said:
"numbers cos then you can meat rush"
you actually mentioned flexibility!
you can have a supply cache of cookies, sent with the new equipment you ordered, delivered by a well trained soldier shot from a cannon.
sorryLeviathan_ said:
ill put deception up, as what you decide is your strategy, really
Without supplies what good is intel if you cant do anything to attack your enemy. Your forces will starve. "An army marches on its stomach".