The problem comes down to era. Those have all been the most important in war at some point. Probably started off with numbers pre-stone age. Then equipment became the most important because I can bash this guys head open faster with a rock, even better if it is tied to a stick! Training probably followed. In the middle ages supplies probably became most important what with people camping outside of castles. Then came the age of gunpowder where artillery became the most important(if you didn't have a cannon and the other guys did, you were screwed). Then intel probably became most important around the World War eras.The Cheezy One said:
Poll: The most important aspect in a battle
- Thread starter The Cheezy One
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://www.cracked.com/article_18550_5-true-war-stories-that-put-every-action-movie-to-shame.html
read number 5
id say traning is what counts! lol
read number 5
id say traning is what counts! lol
If the soldiers are 100% generic and equally matched on both sides, just pick numbers! Basic game logic. The enemy will get flattened.
I originally picked intel, because that determines where and when you choose to fight (if at all). But then it occured to me that you didn't need the intel. You already know there are 100 enemy generic soldiers. The terms of the conflict haven't been really explained, so the two groups could be just human waving into each other, or hiding in trenches across the battle field. Intelligence would be helpful, but I think guessing would do the job.
Then I would pick supplies, on the logic that an army marches on its stomach.
I originally picked intel, because that determines where and when you choose to fight (if at all). But then it occured to me that you didn't need the intel. You already know there are 100 enemy generic soldiers. The terms of the conflict haven't been really explained, so the two groups could be just human waving into each other, or hiding in trenches across the battle field. Intelligence would be helpful, but I think guessing would do the job.
Then I would pick supplies, on the logic that an army marches on its stomach.
That's completely true, and I meant mention that. Guerrilla warfare is a hideous thing, one I doubt we will find a way to stop easily. "Traditional" warfare has been dead for quite some time now, so all these "100v100" arguments are largely theoretical.Caliostro said:
You'll never get rid of it entirely, but there is an easy, but controversial, way of dealing with it: stop going to war with false pretenses.Deathlyphil said:
Most wars since WWII have been strictly about financial interests, covered in pretenses of liberation. "We" (Over developed Western forces... although this We is generally the US) go in pretending to be the good guys saving people, when the sole reason we're there is to conquer and pillage. As "good guys" we can't really afford to take any action against anyone not clearly wearing a "bad guy mask", so to speak. We end up in countries that don't want us there to begin with, fighting a "politically correct war" as a cover up.
Wanna get rid of guerrila wars? Only go to war when you absolutely have to and accept it for what it is: A war. Start seriously considering if it's absolutely necessary to go to war with a country before attacking, cause that way, when you do, the "by all means necessary" rule applies, and guerrila warfare is far less effective.
"Why are we going into this country?"
"Cause they got oil."
"Are we ready to accept that we're taking over a country?"
"No."
"Then fuck off."
"What about this one?"
"They're hiding terrorists".
"We're sure? We got undeniable evidence that they're hiding terrorists?"
"Yes. Right here."
"Ok. And their government refuses to work with us in any fashion?"
"Yes."
"Their people won't cooperate either?"
"Nop."
"There's no other option?"
"Nop."
"Then fuck'em. They're helping our enemy, they're an enemy. Level the fucking place."
i did try and stage it so it could e any era, i think you are the first person who didnt think ww2 or modern day.crudus said:
to everyone else:
[HEADING=1]this is hypothetical[/HEADING]
if finding holes in my experiment makes you feel good, then woop-de-do.
i am interested in the results of an engagement of 100 people of STANDARD MILITARY STRENGTH against 100 of their peers
i want to know what YOU think makes the biggest difference.
it has to be supplies. doesnt matter how big the army is, how well trained they are or how good their weapons are, if they aint got food or water, they are dead man.
I wrote a reply, but I think it got eaten by a failbat, so this is my second go.
It's between training and numbers really. Without knowing the default level of training the two forces have compared to one which took a training specialisation I'd have to go with numbers.
Numbers guarantees a 2 to 1 advantage, the others are all more subjective and completely unspecified in how much the normal force has compared to the specialised force.
It's between training and numbers really. Without knowing the default level of training the two forces have compared to one which took a training specialisation I'd have to go with numbers.
Numbers guarantees a 2 to 1 advantage, the others are all more subjective and completely unspecified in how much the normal force has compared to the specialised force.
