Pisces Axxxxx Posted June 16, 2014 Report Share Posted June 16, 2014 Yesterday I was playing Shogun:Total War. In one battle I should have theoritically won because I had a combine force of one unit of archers and several units of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru.The number of troops my enemy had were pretty much the same as me.However his army was compsed entirely of Samurai Archers.When the battle began, I sent my spearman right away to assault the enemy army. Going by the game's units system, my force of Yari Samurai and Yari Ashigaru should have lead me to victory as Samurai Archers are weak to melee units.........The whole battle turned out differently. My Yari Samurai and Ashigaru units fled collapsed early in the battle and retreated from what should have been an easy victory theoritically.GUESS WHAT? My Yari Samurai WAS actually VERY close to getting into contact with the Samurai Archers. As in, just a few feet away! Yet as the Samurai Archers continued to fire barrages, the whole Yari Samurai units collapsed apart and started fleeing the battlefield.THEY WERE JUST a FEW FEET AWAY and had they proceeded with the charge they would have DESTROYED the Samurai Archers and it would have been a complete victory for me.I should have won according to theory of gameplay mechanics........So I am curios how terrifying would a barrage of Arrows be?STUPID question I know but the battle in Shogun:Total War got me curious about IRL battles.I remember seeing battles in Rome:Total War in which Roman Legions were in the Testudo formtion and completely protected by the Shield Wall. They were incredibly closee to reaching some horse archers yet they collapsed as they were marching midway from the enemy and the unit ran away.According to Gameplay Theory, the unit would have won this battle if they didn't collapse and abandon shield wall and they wouldn't have suffered casualties until they finally started swinging their swords at the horse archers.So I am very curious about this. I am esp. curious about how terrifying arrow barrages would be even if you were in a tight shielf wall formation and was not in risk at all of getting hit by arrows because of the Shield Wall. <iframe id="dmRosAd-1-north" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://dmros.ysm.yahoo.com/ros/?c=cbdde9a2&w=678&h=315&ty=noscript&tt=How+Terrifying+was+a+barrage+of+arrows%3F+Even+with+Shield+Walls%3F&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bing.com%2fsearch%3fq%3dterrifying%2barchery%2bbarrage%2byahoo%2banswers%26amp%3bqs%3dn%26amp%3bform%3dQBRE%26amp%3bpq%3dterrifying%2barchery%2bbarrage%2byahoo%2banswers%26amp%3bsc%3d0-0%26amp%3bsp%3d-1%26amp%3bsk%3d%26amp%3bcvid%3d2ba6698bc7684fb29f96b5df80520cb9"> </iframe> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onasander Posted June 16, 2014 Report Share Posted June 16, 2014 Having sharp projectiles shot at you with the intent to kill, and evidence all around you of its success creeping in over you best laid defense, is really going to get on your nerves.... especially when it punctures your shield or fs up your leg, or you painfully step on one. Basic ying-yang theory governs the projection of force in how you array your units. Weak and strong, long and short need to be mutually combined to respond in terms of mutual support against a flexible and determined opponent. The tactical syntheses classically was, in general, archers good at infantry killing from afar, infantry good at archers.... but had to reach them first. I recommend a oblique attack of a calvary unit prior to closing in. Because its not genius, but generically successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidius Naso Posted June 16, 2014 Report Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Sometimes, these games just aren't fair. I've had similar things happen. In Rise of Nations I had my opponent outnumbered 10 to 1, but he bribed them to run away and I was slaughtered. Also, spies and bad morale have sent my armies into gridlock or worse. The way battles actually shake out can be really weird and have nothing to do with troop strength. I remember when I read Caesar's Commentaries, it seemed like his whole plan was to never fight, and never lose any of his men. He'd just position himself in superior positions, forcing his opponents to make mistakes and move to worse and worse ground, until they surrendered without a fight. Dude loved beseiging people, fighting not so much. If I recall correctly, Hannibal had troop morale problems too, so he'd set the local armies who allied with him in the center of his formation and set his Numidian cavalry on the wings and maybe some of his other troops behind the locals. Thus if he was flanked he could trust his own troops and the less trustworthy troops would be hemmed in by his loyal troops and couldn't flee. Edited June 16, 2014 by Ovidius Naso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onasander Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 Umm... that's not cheating, thats strategy. History is full of more lopsided victories than you claim. Infact, I strongly suspect the recent ISIS advances in Iraq was via bribing, then using a heavy battalion to knock out select government targets and move on. Only thing that explains how a 15-1 ratio defensive advantage could backfire. The game is fair, your just not paying attention to the obvious insistence of using bad tactics. War isnt won by the numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.