Poll: Would you join the army if there weren't guns?

[uzo]

Hmm .. anyone who has played a mass battle in Mount & Blade multiplayer knows how horrific medieval combat can be.

In fact, I think it'd be great in M&B:Warband if the players knocked out of combat aren't actually still corpses --- if there was clear dismemberments, disembowelments, horribly broken limbs --- and they continued to scream after the player has been eliminated to reflect the slow lingering death of a sword in the intestines. *shudder*

 

[The Virgo]

No way. Why would anyone want to join a weaponless army? A weaponless army is the prime target of a highly weaponized one. Never forget that. It's called "Natural Selection: Army Edition".

Nobody has advanced weaponry is what I meant I'll edit it and make that more clear. sorry.

Hey, not a problem. It happens.

But I still have the same mindset. Trying to fight an army that has miniguns with swords will most likely result in catastrophic failure to the guys toting the swords ... unless they know the terrain well and use well coordinated guerrilla tactics. But even then, it would be hard to win.

 

[staika]

I'd join either way, but knowing my luck I get to my first battle and am charging head first into the heart of the battle slaying guys left and right only for someone to release a elephant or a tiger or some 7ft monster guy and they completely wreck my shit and then I'm dead in my first battle.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No. The modern battlefield is lethal beyond imagining for those who have not experienced it but those of antiquity were just brutal. And the lack of advanced technology actually increases my odds of dying if I were just a rank and file grunt since even a minor wound could easily become infected and kill me.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

A thousand years back, sure. It's hip and trendy and it works.

Now? What for? Melee weapons are so limited when defending against arrows, guns and airstrikes. Was it more honest and more direct? I'd say so. But we've evolved a bit since then. But, as TacticalAssassin1 just said - modern guns make killing easy, the art of strategical dismemberment has taken great time-outs between, say, medieval times, Soldier of Fortune and the rise of the proletariate in Dead Space. Even if you oppose firearms because they allow the weakest wimp to wield deadly power, know that every decent army provides training to go with the handing out of firearms. I know there are other philosophies on this, but I don't consider those to be really kosher.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

But I still have the same mindset. Trying to fight an army that has miniguns with swords will most likely result in catastrophic failure to the guys toting the swords ... unless they know the terrain well and use well coordinated guerrilla tactics. But even then, it would be hard to win.

I'd be willing to argue that a properly prepared and supplied modern light infantry force (i.e. all weapons are man portable) could take on an unarmed army hundreds of times larger and win a decisive victory. Mass waves of troops without the cover of artillery and machine guns are easily slowed by mines, stopped by claymores, torn apart by machine gun and rifle fire and easily slowed by various obstacles that are easy to construct. Couple that with the fact that such a force would be able to gain enormous benefit from basic fortifications and you find that they have a huge edge defensively.

Sure, such a force is vulnerable if they are unprepared and have insufficient supplies, but the same is try of any army that has ever marched off to war.

 

[teisjm]

No.

It's not the choice of weapons that keeps the idea of ever joining out of my head, but the fact that i wouldn't want to take part in wageing questionable wars on behalf of people i didn't vote for.

If i had to go to war, i'd definitely prefer to die by gunfire and have the people i killed die that way, over the messy bloodshed of bygone days... Even though the thought of katanas are intriguing.

 

[Souplex]

That's the only way I'd join.
Bang-bangs will never be as fun as stabbers.

 

[otakon17]

Hell no, but I marked "Other". Warfare was far bloodier and insane when it was for all intents and purposes "man vs. man to the 100th power". Not a chance. It would be brutal, visceral unforgiving combat where the slightest hesitation would get you a sword in the back. I'm not saying those who fight now are going through any less, however.

 

[Rpground]

yes i would,guns suck. my personal arsenal would be 2 swords (duel wield) and a shortbow with arrows. bow for ranged combat and swords for close combat P:

my whole deal would be based around agility.

Let me venture a guess: Your two swords would be katanas, and your fighting style would be jumping and dancing gracefully in the midst of the enemy army as they charge at you, one at a time, not caring about their own defence with their arms raised in an overhead swing. The enemies would either be virtually unarmored or your swords sharp enough to penetrate the armor and kill a man with one stab or a gentle swing across the torso, throat or head.

...no,i hate katanas. it would be just longswords,it at least be able to stab with em...also i would like to mention i would be basicly be attacking anyone that is distracted picking my targets really :/ maybe i would have gone in more depth but i didnt think it was necessary. think of it as you will

EDIT: oh an agility doesnt mean always mean "jumping and dancing" around the battle field it could just mean that i can hit them where their armor is weakest or take advantage of an exposed area in direct combat.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Wasn't allowed to fight when I was in the army, so it wouldn't be much different. Just more stupid.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

So, war by slap-fights? I'll be happy to be a spectator strategist.

 

[Aprilgold]

I'm in a theatrical combat troop, this would be WAY to easy for me to kill everyone else.
Yeah, I would join, simply because I could be the biggest douche and do a sword and bow combo.

I'd rather be shot in the face with an AK-47 than stabbed repeatedly with a blunt stick.
Just sayin'.

You'd be stabbed with a shard, pointy stick, and only once. Commonly, one stab and your OUT forevah. Hope you got nothing to live for.
FOR THE GLORY OF VALHALA!

Edit: If this happens, lightsabers people, lightsabers.

 

[Broady Brio]

I'd be even WORSE! If I had a gun then maybe I'd kill a few people. But melee? I'd die in a matter of seconds.

 

[pumuckl]

So. Instead of dying quick from a bullet to the head; you die slowly from a missing leg and arm - bleeding out among a sea of other mangled corpses. While I like the skill aspect of swords compared to modern weapons - Guns are cleaner. Also, without modern weapons MORE wars would happen making the military an even more dangerous profession.

For anyone who hasn't taken strategic weapons courses: Nuclear weapons actually only serve to PREVENT war. Not a single country has used a nuclear weapon since the inception of nuclear weapons at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and no full scale wars have been fought since that time. The cost of doing so is too great.

... full scale war? full scale wars don't exist anymore. there are still hundreds of wars that take place every year since the inception of the nuke. and nuclear warheads have been dropped just not nearly at the scale they're capable of.

This is incorrect. Nukes have been tested, sure. The only documented cases of a nuclear weapon being used on a combatant are the two initial test runs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Full scale wars don't exist anymore BECAUSE of Nuclear Weapons. "Wars" exist such as the war on terror that the United States has been fighting since 2001. But compared to wars of the past, these are insignificant when comparing loss of life.

ok cuz african and south american countries don't have full scale civil wars yearly, i believe ur saying nukes have stopped world wars which u'd be right on that

 

[Slash Dementia]

I wouldn't, and I think with even more reason not to. I'm not going to go get myself killed (and that's what would happened) by going with the army and literally walking/riding up to the other army and fighting...

I'd rather be shot in the face with an AK-47 than stabbed repeatedly with a blunt stick.
Just sayin'.

This. This, many times over.

 

[Iron Mal]

Well...no.

I'm fairly certain that being shot is probably a faster, less painful and more humane way to be killed than being beaten, clubbed, stabbed or slashed to death by any assortment of hand-to-hand weapons.

I dislike firearms but I will admit it probably is a kinder way to be killed than most of the other stuff we've used throughout history.

 

[SaberXIII]

No, but I'd be far more inclined to fight if the combat was based mostly om fighting skill rather than luck, like it is with guns.

Learn how to properly operate an assault rifle or light machine gun in a military scenario. Learn how to hit a target at 500m with a 1.5x scope or open sight and learn how to clear any stoppage in a LMG in ten seconds or less. Learn fire control orders and how to operate effectively in a section. Finally, learn how to assault in a section or platoon including how to reload on the run, find cover, maintain your weapon, keep up communication and keep up effective fire. Then come back to me and see if you can say that fighting with firearms is based on luck.

And that's just the bare outlines of basic weapon training.

Anyone can wave a bit of pointy metal around. Show up on a battlefield with a gun an no clue - well count how many times you've died in any first person shooter game. That's you. Except you don't get to respawn.

I seem to have slightly misworded what I meant. I'm sure it take alot of work to learn how to use a firearm, but I'd never consider a scatter weapon like an assault rifle to be based on aiming skill. Concerning your last paragraph, it's pretty evident that you know as much about swordplay as you seem to think I do about gunplay, (especially considering that rocking up with no idea in a battle of blades leaves you just as screwed as your example, albeit taking a bit more time), so we seem to have reached an impasse. I don't play FPSs either, I play good games, but I get what you mean.

 

[meowchef]

Err... No. You'd be inanely more likely to die. As it is, the American and British armies are extremely sophisticated. Five of our soldiers could take down dozens or even hundreds of lesser equipped and trained soldiers. If you reduced it to the ancient days, our soldiers would die by the droves. Numbers would matter a lot more. China would swiftly become the scariest army PERIOD. And half of them would be using farm tools.

I do not agree with what you are saying. I'm pretty sure they had the same situations when there were only swords and such. I'm actually thinking a group of well trained well equipped soldiers with sword type weaponry could hold off an untrained or lightly trained much larger group of soldiers much better than with modern technology.

Are you perhaps referring to the 300 Scenario? Yeah, that didn't bloody happen. Sure, three hundred spartans showed up to fight off something around ten thousand or more Persians... But they also had several THOUSAND prisoners they forced to fight with them.

Run a few Total War scenarios. You will never see a situation where five can defeat a hundred. You'll never see a situation where a hundred can defeat a thousand, or even five hundred (unless you have a castle and siege weaponry).

Ontop of that, you are talking about leveling the playing field. Almost everyone on the planet will have access to the same technology. Nearly everyone will be just as well armed as you unless they are a poorer nation.

Apparently you don't play Total War games enough. There have been lots of times where I've beaten 20-card armies with 1-3 cards of my own. It just depends on how they've been developed, what they're facing and how you use them.