What about the ultimate weapon......A person can wheild it with ease, but it has no weight, it can be used against one or thousands, it can disable a city yet damage no buildings, but can be defeated with ease.....FEAR!
Finalday
Until that final day. /Keith Green\
Important MessageYou are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login. |
Weaponry
This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.
Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:57 pm
Emotional warfare? Mmm, no-one make any jokes about women! 
Maybe so Taw, but I do not believe that the Romans could have defated the Gauls without huge losses.
As I may have already asked (I forget) what do you think is the most effective tactic when beseging a castle? Sapping? Seige Towers?
Maybe so Taw, but I do not believe that the Romans could have defated the Gauls without huge losses.
As I may have already asked (I forget) what do you think is the most effective tactic when beseging a castle? Sapping? Seige Towers?
Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:34 pm
1/ the Romans did suffer heavy losses esp in the early contacts with the gauls, this was long before the re-organisation of the Roman Army. Before this Romans served largely as levies (latin legere from which the word "legion"
and landed yeomen cavalry (knights "equites" and they fought in open loose order with greek style armour and weaponry.
as the Roman Army developed it surpassed the Gauls and despite often being heavily outnumbered, the Romans could generally despatch a Gallic force speedily. During the Gallic Wars themselves when the Roman Army is considered to have begun to reach its professional zenith by some, the forces arrayed against the Romans were often enormous and fiercely determined, yet tactics discipline and organisation won the day everytime, Alesia, Gergovia, Bibracte for example. And the losses were on the Gallic side in the main.
2/ as to siege warfare, generally I'd avoid it if posssible and meet the enemy on the field. then siege warfare largely becomes a matter of mopping up. However if you HAVE to invest a fortified structure, the key is to make your encirclemnent complete and prevent the enemy from obtaining further relief or supplies. Siege works should be thrown up around the entire enemy position and watch kept out for sallies and attempts to pierce the line from with and without. Miners and sappers should if at all possible attempt to exploit weaknesses i the enemy's fortifications. At the same time artillery should be used to damage the enemies fighting platforms and drive them away from the wall and if possible to effect breaches of the wall and neutralise any fixed defences. Then attack with siege towers, scaling ladders and this offensive should be pressed home, the enemies positions should be overrun and organised resistance negated by splitting the enemy defenders up into pockets. Speed and ferocity are vital to the success of this phase of the operation. Fortified points such as towers, buildings should be attacked with fire if posssible to drive their defenders out. Larger bastions and redoubts such as a keep should be assaulted with towers if possible or by shock troops and scaling/ramming devices, along with fire and artillery where practical.
Accept a loss ratio of 4:1 that's quite fair for a foot attack on fortified positions.
and landed yeomen cavalry (knights "equites" and they fought in open loose order with greek style armour and weaponry.
as the Roman Army developed it surpassed the Gauls and despite often being heavily outnumbered, the Romans could generally despatch a Gallic force speedily. During the Gallic Wars themselves when the Roman Army is considered to have begun to reach its professional zenith by some, the forces arrayed against the Romans were often enormous and fiercely determined, yet tactics discipline and organisation won the day everytime, Alesia, Gergovia, Bibracte for example. And the losses were on the Gallic side in the main.
2/ as to siege warfare, generally I'd avoid it if posssible and meet the enemy on the field. then siege warfare largely becomes a matter of mopping up. However if you HAVE to invest a fortified structure, the key is to make your encirclemnent complete and prevent the enemy from obtaining further relief or supplies. Siege works should be thrown up around the entire enemy position and watch kept out for sallies and attempts to pierce the line from with and without. Miners and sappers should if at all possible attempt to exploit weaknesses i the enemy's fortifications. At the same time artillery should be used to damage the enemies fighting platforms and drive them away from the wall and if possible to effect breaches of the wall and neutralise any fixed defences. Then attack with siege towers, scaling ladders and this offensive should be pressed home, the enemies positions should be overrun and organised resistance negated by splitting the enemy defenders up into pockets. Speed and ferocity are vital to the success of this phase of the operation. Fortified points such as towers, buildings should be attacked with fire if posssible to drive their defenders out. Larger bastions and redoubts such as a keep should be assaulted with towers if possible or by shock troops and scaling/ramming devices, along with fire and artillery where practical.
Accept a loss ratio of 4:1 that's quite fair for a foot attack on fortified positions.
Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:29 pm
Taw about Number two, That is the earliest version of the blitzkrieg tactic I heard of, and it probably that the blitzkrieg has been diverted of that tactic
mind you it works perfectly, but it has some drawbacks
1>: It relies heavily on the Element of surprise(see 2>, and most on the mobility of the army, the romans nulled the last by forming Cohorts with seperate leaders instead of a mass of cohorts under one general.
2>: as with all attacks, the element of surprise is crucial when working with sheer
overpowerment from the opposing force and most:
3>: organisation, is the most crucial point, as the romans were masters in Organisation they had no problem whatsoever to keep their armie organised, even in the heat of battle.
My favorite tactic is ambush, hit and run or more commonly called guerilla warfare, it is most effective because it has all of the elements that you can wish for, for one you do not have to have all too mobile troops to carry it out, the best is your element of surprise. And The most crucial point next to surprise is your organisation, a proper ambush can hit a proper equipped army very hard and leave them stunned and open to attack by greater numbers, as to with a hit-and-run where you mainly concentrate on crippling the force.
properly executed you can even do a successfull Ambush with medieval armory and succeed against a modern day army.
Final day: There is one famous warlord that used that tactic quite effective:
The romanian prince Vladislav Dracul Tsepes
__________________________________________________________
Oh, dear, How sad, Never mind!!-Battery Sergeant Major Williams
Plus the newest addition!!-
mind you it works perfectly, but it has some drawbacks
1>: It relies heavily on the Element of surprise(see 2>
, and most on the mobility of the army, the romans nulled the last by forming Cohorts with seperate leaders instead of a mass of cohorts under one general.
2>: as with all attacks, the element of surprise is crucial when working with sheer
overpowerment from the opposing force and most:
3>: organisation, is the most crucial point, as the romans were masters in Organisation they had no problem whatsoever to keep their armie organised, even in the heat of battle.
My favorite tactic is ambush, hit and run or more commonly called guerilla warfare, it is most effective because it has all of the elements that you can wish for, for one you do not have to have all too mobile troops to carry it out, the best is your element of surprise. And The most crucial point next to surprise is your organisation, a proper ambush can hit a proper equipped army very hard and leave them stunned and open to attack by greater numbers, as to with a hit-and-run where you mainly concentrate on crippling the force.
properly executed you can even do a successfull Ambush with medieval armory and succeed against a modern day army.
Final day: There is one famous warlord that used that tactic quite effective:
The romanian prince Vladislav Dracul Tsepes
__________________________________________________________
Oh, dear, How sad, Never mind!!-Battery Sergeant Major Williams
Plus the newest addition!!-
Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:43 pm
Prince Vladislav Dracul Tsepes was the model for Stokers Dracula
He bears the name Dracul because of his father who was a member of the order of the Dracul, he simply gave that name to his oldest son and successor.
Dracul means dragon, or more coincidentally Devil/Demon, the name Dracula means nothing more then Son of Dracul.
__________________________________________________________
Oh, dear, How sad, Never mind!!-Battery Sergeant Major Williams
Plus the newest addition!!-
He bears the name Dracul because of his father who was a member of the order of the Dracul, he simply gave that name to his oldest son and successor.
Dracul means dragon, or more coincidentally Devil/Demon, the name Dracula means nothing more then Son of Dracul.
__________________________________________________________
Oh, dear, How sad, Never mind!!-Battery Sergeant Major Williams
Plus the newest addition!!-
Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:33 am
Loc's right. "Dracula" is a national hero in Romania because he kept kicking the Turks out, the Turks were no pushovers but they used to run away screaming from Drakul because he was so ruthless and bloodthirsty. I think he impaled 20,000 Turks at the side of the main road back to Turkey as a warning.
Mind you, Byzantine Emperor Basil II blinded 10,000 Bulgarian soldiers, but left one in every hundred with one eye, but crippled them, so that the blind wotuld have to carry the cripple home and the cripple could see the way. The Bulgarian Tsar, Simeon, apparently died on the spot when he saw these pitiful survivors coming back.
Mind you, Byzantine Emperor Basil II blinded 10,000 Bulgarian soldiers, but left one in every hundred with one eye, but crippled them, so that the blind wotuld have to carry the cripple home and the cripple could see the way. The Bulgarian Tsar, Simeon, apparently died on the spot when he saw these pitiful survivors coming back.
Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:53 pm
Ah yes, Vlad "The Impaler" I believe he was called. Nice fellow; good at parties .
I have always been a fan of assaulting the walls with seige engines; seige towers and catapults/mangonels mainly. This is because I feel that they have the best chance of either a) providing a foothold on the enemy's walls, or b) breaching the walls with a well-placed boulder. Using these two methods helps to reduce losses. I've always felt that running up a seige ladder is a great way to be killed. There must be a better way; hence my belief that a good catapult is probably the best option.
.
I have always been a fan of assaulting the walls with seige engines; seige towers and catapults/mangonels mainly. This is because I feel that they have the best chance of either a) providing a foothold on the enemy's walls, or b) breaching the walls with a well-placed boulder. Using these two methods helps to reduce losses. I've always felt that running up a seige ladder is a great way to be killed. There must be a better way; hence my belief that a good catapult is probably the best option.
Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:59 pm
@Fd: Hsun Tsu lists fear as one of the primary weapons of battle. The objective being to defeat the enemy, not necessarily obliterate him, if fear may be deployed to cause the enemy to flee, all the better.
@Taw
Gaius the traitor. I see you are a true son of Cincinnatus.
@Esq.
One of the things Caesar did do quite well, or at least his engineers, was lay on some very thorough going siege works surrounding Vercingetorix at Alesia and which then had to be protected by fortifications against a siege laid on by Vx's allies. That one really impressed me.
@Taw
Gaius the traitor. I see you are a true son of Cincinnatus.
@Esq.
One of the things Caesar did do quite well, or at least his engineers, was lay on some very thorough going siege works surrounding Vercingetorix at Alesia and which then had to be protected by fortifications against a siege laid on by Vx's allies. That one really impressed me.