Poll: The most important aspect in a battle
- Thread starter The Cheezy One
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, it can be, if the command aren't TOTAL morons.ZephrC said:
However, again, the example I've just brought up - Rzhev was arguably one of the least effective battles in Russian history.
Numbers then Training
allowing your troops to chose their own equipment is a bad bad thing to do thats why the organised procurement policy is such a integral part of modern armies the 1700's had the problem where the heads of battalions chose their own equipment and there were problems with getting the right ammo and even replacement wheels to name but a few
allowing your troops to chose their own equipment is a bad bad thing to do thats why the organised procurement policy is such a integral part of modern armies the 1700's had the problem where the heads of battalions chose their own equipment and there were problems with getting the right ammo and even replacement wheels to name but a few
Generals don't command 100 men. 100 vs 100 unless one side digs in and both sides are well supplied they won't be there long enough to get hungry. Generals win wars, not battles, and 200 people is not a war.carpathic said:
Similarly, Intel is completely useless. Not only is there not much intel to gain from 100 generic dudes on a generic battlefield, but we only get to make one pick, so if we pick intel we're also stuck with 100 generic dudes on a generic battlefield. There's not much left to decide at that point.
Well, total morons can fuck anything up. Even then they managed to not lose. Honestly though, I basically agree with you. I just was surprised how nobody seems to understand how effective numbers can be if you're even moderately intelligent and willing to cause lots of death.JourneyThroughHell said:
I would have to say support, have your troops just hole up at home while you send a nuke or three in the general direction of the enemy (for those who say you'd need intelligence for this I'm sure I could make do with a single guy with a pair of binoculars going to have a peek at where the enemy are).
Who ever said I even needed to use my troops?
Who ever said I even needed to use my troops?
I went intel. This ofcourse assumes that we're not talking about a straight up, battle already in progress conventional fight that many people seem to be talking about. I'm not gonna a good tactician or strategist, but It's a shedload easier if I know about the force I'm up against in games, which are of course the only real source for this. Hell, not just strategy games but anything where I know about the hostile deployment makes things so much easier for me.
I would consider a hundred versus a hundred as a battle, so for this scenario, training is the number one priority; soldiers must know basic survival, laws of combat, and proper weapon handling like watching out for the backwash of a missile launcher). In a much larger scale, intel and supplies are the most important, since it will help you find out where to put your forces for maximum effect. It is also important to set up a clear comm. link or something, so that you can manage your forces to the finest degree, and shorten the time it takes intel to reach command.
People keep saying that, but aside from the German invasion of Russia, which was a special case and had as much to do with supply, geography and the weather as much as sheer numbers, I'm struggling to think of more than three battle where a larger force overcame a numerically inferior but better trained one, and the few I have thought of are very much exceptions to the rule. Have you got any examples?holographicman said:
Training is first. The best soldiers eg. british parachute regiment and SAS can cope with most situations, even if intel is off.
Intel and Equipment come joint second, because good weapons are useless if they are not suited to the specific task at hand, and intelligence isnt that useful without the equipment to be able to act on it.
The last three are ordered based on the situation. Supplies are useful on a drawn out mission away from base, numbers are only useful in certain types of operation, as is support. A covert stealth team should be less than ten members, not 100 or 200.
Intel and Equipment come joint second, because good weapons are useless if they are not suited to the specific task at hand, and intelligence isnt that useful without the equipment to be able to act on it.
The last three are ordered based on the situation. Supplies are useful on a drawn out mission away from base, numbers are only useful in certain types of operation, as is support. A covert stealth team should be less than ten members, not 100 or 200.
I think this pole is missing one of the most important parts of war: motivation. Don't believe me? Then look at Vietnam. The Americans had the tech, the training, the supplies, the men, everything. What did the locals have? Bamboo tools. Who won that one?
How about Japan in WW2? It took two nukes to stop them.
Or more recently? Afganistan and Iraq. Those rebels, for the most part will be badly supplied and ill-trained, are still hitting way above their weight.
Trying to defeat an enemy that wants you dead, and will go to any lengths to achieve it requires more than just a few boots on the ground.
How about Japan in WW2? It took two nukes to stop them.
Or more recently? Afganistan and Iraq. Those rebels, for the most part will be badly supplied and ill-trained, are still hitting way above their weight.
Trying to defeat an enemy that wants you dead, and will go to any lengths to achieve it requires more than just a few boots on the ground.
I went with training. In a one-on-one fight, the better trainer soldier would win. Unless his opponent hides in a shed with dual shotguns. In which case, training and tactics mean nothing.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant, as victory will go to the side with the better War Face!
Of course, all of this is irrelevant, as victory will go to the side with the better War Face!