Your strategy on soldiers...

[vonbrune]

Well so say you had 10,000 barely trained soldiers that can fight versus 1,000 soldiers that are well trained and well superior. I picked strong soldiers...

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well... why?

[Random_Freak]

hmm well for me that would depend if there all the same type of soldiers or if there where archers infantry and cav and how smart the barely trained soldiers where and if there was anything morale issues but in general if the large body of troops has a smart commander and the soldiers don't run away at first sign of fighting than i would say the large party would win. or at least who ever is smarter would win probally unless it was fairly close.

Ps. even if the 10,000's men commander did'n't know to much about war if he's smart enough he should win. Unorthodox does'n't neccesarily mean bad

Who ever was smarter would win!

[Belisarivs]

Battles aren't decided by soldiers, but by generals.

Good commander can harden even green troops and if he uses them wisely, numbers and skills of his own soldiers don't matter that much.

[ardica]

that may be true but he is still asking YOU as a general which do you prefer

id rather strong troops its funner and i think more efficient

[vonbrune]

I see your point but again the generals had the same skill level...

Let me give an example- If I am correct which I'm probably not, lets say Persians vs Romans. Does this make it more clearer? (My understanding that Persian soldiers are a bit weaker than Romans.)

[Lord Feloric's Ambassador]

1000 vs. 10000? The 10000 soldiers will win for sure. With that many soldiers my Lord (or any commander for that matter) can easily surround his enemies and strike fear into the hearts of those "strong" 1000 soldiers.

But if it's a matter of picking 1000 strong soldiers or 10000 weak soldiers my Lord would still pick the 10,000 weak soldiers. In a battle against some other force the 1000 strong soldiers will be overrun too quickly. Unless by "strong" the original poster means "unstoppable super soldiers" but my Lord doubts he did.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Lord Feloric's Ambassador

[NOXAS1]

You may tell your Lord that we have had many times when we were outnumbered but still held the Line. THIS IS EARTH!

Battle of Alamo

189 Texans versus 6000 at least Mexicans

Texans- 189 dead

Mexicans- 1200-1500 dead

Edited December 9, 2008 by NOXAS1

[Mythos_Ruler]

LOL about the Alamo. The 1200 figure most likely includes KIA, WIA, Missing, and those that died after the battle due to poor medicine and nutrition. It is likely that a few hundred at most died in the actual final assault. I used to be a huge Alamo buff as a kid.

Anywho... I think I'd take the 1000 finest soldiers, and not with any kind of fantasy notion about the 300 or the Alamo or Rourke's Drift or some kind of scenario like that. I choose the 1000 because of the innumerable amount of times that a much smaller, but determined and highly skilled force defeated a much larger, but poorly trained force. A couple of instances were the Battle of Gaugamela and the battle in the middle ages where the Franks fended off a gigantic Muslim army in the south of France.

[Belisarivs]

You may tell your Lord that we have had many times when we were outnumbered but still held the Line. THIS IS EARTH!

Battle of Alamo

189 Texans versus 6000 at least Mexicans

Texans- 189 dead

Mexicans- 1200-1500 dead

So you chose stronger but smaller number and were beaten. Also Mythos rectifies this a lot.

Sorry, but only excellent commander or super units x Peasants can win 1:10. There are only rare exceptions.

Also, Alamo was fortress, wasn't it. That is really difference than battle in open field

[NOXAS1]

I know they died but they caused more damage so that Texans could still have a chance. Ex. Sam Houston and his poorly trained army

[Lord Feloric's Ambassador]

You may tell your Lord that we have had many times when we were outnumbered but still held the Line. THIS IS EARTH!

Battle of Alamo

189 Texans versus 6000 at least Mexicans

Texans- 189 dead

Mexicans- 1200-1500 dead

Yes, but the Texans were still defeated in that battle. Also, the ratio of that battle was 1:6, which is significantly better than 1:10.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Yes, but the Texans were still defeated in that battle. Also, the ratio of that battle was 1:6, which is significantly better than 1:10.

Hmm, no. The Alamo defenders were outnumbered 1:30. Fortunately for the defenders they had a stone chapel and rather large fortified church compound as cover. Unfortunately for them the perimeter was so large they would have needed at least a thousand men or more to defend her. If Sam Houston and James Fanin had aided the defenders as was beseeched they all would have died there.

[Cassador_Chris]

I would take the 10,000 fresh troops.

Why? Greater flexibility.

Presuming my enemy is the 1000 crack unit of soldiers, with either Vonbrune or Mythos as the enemy commander, this is how I would play out my strategy:

1) If enemy takes up a defensive position, I won't attack them. I will ignore them, attack where they aren't, cut off their supplies/communications, use the time to train my troops, or perhaps harrass their lines with skirmishers if feasible. In fact, I could probably do several of these things at once.

2) If Vonbrune or Mythos go on the offensive, I would simply withdraw, harass, and bring them into a battlefield of my choosing where my numbers will win me the day. Most likely a open field with a hilltop that I can take up a defensive position. Then I have both height advantage and I can fully take advantage of my numbers.

So yeah, definitely the larger force. I can do a lot more things with it.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, you made one fatal error.

[Cassador_Chris]

and what fatal error is that?

[Mythos_Ruler]

Allowing your plans to fall into enemy hands.

[Belisarivs]

That is not fault.

Anyone else would do the same. His plans aren't surprising.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, he presumes that I would have no counter plans and would not offer temptation to fight on a battlefield of my choosing instead of his. I don't think any commander ever WANTS to fight on a battlefield of his enemy's choosing.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I would take the 10,000 fresh troops.

Why? Greater flexibility.

Presuming my enemy is the 1000 crack unit of soldiers, with either Vonbrune or Mythos as the enemy commander, this is how I would play out my strategy:

1) If enemy takes up a defensive position, I won't attack them. I will ignore them, attack where they aren't, cut off their supplies/communications, use the time to train my troops, or perhaps harrass their lines with skirmishers if feasible. In fact, I could probably do several of these things at once.

You are assuming your troops and field commanders are competent to carry out your orders as planned, when clearly this exercise indicated they might not be.

You are also assuming that my force does not have the ability to counter skirmishers and light infantry. Are you assuming my entire force is heavy infantry or? We have to decide on the make-up of our forces before we could get into actual tactics.

2) If Vonbrune or Mythos go on the offensive, I would simply withdraw, harass, and bring them into a battlefield of my choosing where my numbers will win me the day. Most likely a open field with a hilltop that I can take up a defensive position. Then I have both height advantage and I can fully take advantage of my numbers.

So yeah, definitely the larger force. I can do a lot more things with it.

You are assuming that with you now in a "perfect" defensive position your troops would want to abandon it in the face of my crack troops. A battle is never purely defensive. At some point you would have to sally from your position, either to commit to a withdrawal, commit to a counterattack, or commit to a chase of a routed foe.

Perhaps we can begin this exercise by choosing the make-up of our forces. Here are the troopstypes I propose:

Heavy Spearmen (Good for massed defense and counterattack)

Heavy Swordsmen (Good for massed attack)

Light Skirmishers (Quick and nimble. Good for softening up an enemy)

Light Infantry/Heavy Skirmishers (Not so quick and nimble. Could double as spearmen in a pinch)

Archers (Adds a punch prior to melee combat, but pretty much useless once the battle commences)

Heavy Cavalry (Good for offense and chasing Skirmishers. Charge decreases enemy morale)

Light Cavalry (Good for guarding flanks and lightning attacks. Can have a javelin or archery component)

Specialty Soldiers (Let's leave scythe chariots, flaming pigs, elephants, etc. out of it, shall we?)

[Ykkrosh]

I'd much rather have the 10,000. RTW taught me to savour the glorious sight of a huge peasant army sweeping down to engulf the enemy, who then burst out in a riot of colours and rout my peasants into a beautifully dispersing cloud, like a raindrop striking steel.

(Nobody said I was meant to win the battle.)

[Mythos_Ruler]

Ahh, the beauty of defeat!

[Justinian]

I'd Rather fight with 2500 regulars. Not Crack Troops just regulars. 2-1 on the Elites, vastly better than the 10,000 Peasants... fun fun fun.

If I didn't get that, but did get to decide the make-up of my troops I'd go with the 1000 elites.

600 Infantry (mixed assortment of Spears and Swords), 100 Heavy Cav, 100 Light Cav, 100 Skirmisher Cav, 100 Archers. Epic Win.

Enough Cav to harass (untrained peasants don't like javelins), Enough Archers to do more damage (Both mental and physical), Enough infantry to hold a small line, enough Heavy Cav to flank and Decimate, enough Light Cav to finish them off. WIN.

I'd fight in an easily defendable position with this force ie. a hill, a with a river around, etc.

If I went offensive with the 1000 I'd use a mostly cavalry force (650 Light, 350 Heavy) and ambush in a forest.

Light Cav would use hit and run tactics, Heavy cav would be outside waiting for the Rout-ants. Job Done.

[Cassador_Chris]

Alright, this is how I would choose the makeup of my forces:

1000 Skirmishers

2000 Light Infantry

1500 Archers

5000 Light Cavalry

500 Heavy Cavalry (If there are soldiers in my army that can afford the equipment, if not, then another 500 Light Infantry)

Here, I'm making best use of my poor troops. Aim is to not bring you to combat until you are already defeated. Could easily be split up into many groups and assigned different tasks, as long as each group is within a day's march of every other group should there be a need to come together. Army should live off the land, and at least the light cavalry should be mobile enough to stay ahead of crop burning. Forces are armed with an array of weapons, basically anything they can find (farming tools, hunting tools) to anything they can loot (swords, crossbows, lances, etc.) No wagon train also discourages looting, which would be a strong temptation for such a force.

[Silver]

10 000 and I don't really care how competent the commanders/generals are if we are in an open area facing off.

If we're:

a ) allowing for retreats, regrouping and raids then I'd take the 1 000

b ) in a forest, or any area that is not out in the open (this has to be a really thick forest or whatever, not a few trees with space for 5-6 guys to march side by side)

c ) allowing the 1 000 troops to have MUCH MUCH more and MUCH better equipment

I'll take the 1 000 if any of those 3 conditions are met.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Silver