Your strategy on soldiers...

[Mythos_Ruler]

It depends on exactly how "strong" and how "weak" we are making the respective armies. If by "weak" we're talking about little more than armed peasants, then even a relatively experienced smaller force can scatter them with ease.

I'd actually divide my troops into smaller units of perhaps 100 men each (I'll call them a "century"), some heavy infantry and some are heavy cavalry, and drive them, each in wedge formation, into the massed enemy formation from different angles of attack for mass confusion. The primary goal would be complete and utter forward motion - no stopping. Just keep driving deeper and deeper into the massed enemy formation, killing being secondary. As the enemy formation gets disrupted and casualties mount, confusion and panic will take hold and it will be nothing but a rout.

Moving back a bit - Immediately prior to the initial charge I would instruct my elite force to ignore the petty cheering and taunting and hollering coming from the inexperienced and rather weak enemy and instead focus on silent parade drills, moving each century of men across the battlefield like chess pieces. Once in attack formation, I order a trumpet blare, the men yell a brief chant as instructed and charge forward. Then with the second trumpet blast, halt their charge with a brief chant. Third trumpet blast they silently throw their pila into the massed enemy formation and charge. By this time the enemy army is pissing itself, confused as to what my tactics are exactly. When contact is finally made from multiple angles and with centuries of my troops driving straight through their ranks with wild abandon their morale fades quickly and the battle from then on out is a slaughter.

With my smaller force I have more maneuverability and am unencumbered. My smaller force is easier to drill for the battlefield maneuvers I will require of them. My more experienced force has discipline, something inexperienced forces simply do not have. My tactics would be intricate, but my strategy simple: Drive forward, slice through the enemy formation, disrupt their lines, cause confusion, cut off the head of the chicken.

[vonbrune]

Wow it's almost a tie.

Obviously some people are not understanding the setting which is a plain with no grass no hills nothing JUST DIRT. The DIRT is too strong to bury in otherwise the weak army would win if of course they would commit to that idea. If there are any more questions on the rules I will answer them. About the strategies which each general have are everything there could possibly exist in control of the setting.

The reason why I chose 1000 is because it is so much easier to control them. With 10,000 you have soldiers everywhere and when you are focusing on one battalion you have no idea what is happening to the others. 1,000 soldiers usually have a stronger formation which is as good as having a fort. 10,000 soldiers are NOT PEASENTS. They have a basic understanding of how to fight and defend and that is pretty much all. They hand crafted their spears and have a basic strength. No shields. Archers can be contained on both sides also. The archers in the 10,000 group of units will be slightly less accurate and (less) powerful. (I forgot to include the other types of units elephants, cavalry, and artillery so think of all these as a little less powerful than the 1,000.)

[Silver]

I take the 10 000 by a mile if those are the rules.

[arifbuda]

1000 of my best warriors and ambush the big army at night and slaughter all or face them in thermoplyae and sent the half to protect the hidden passage

[MrChocolateBear]

1000 for me. In order to defeat the enemy, my men would need to kill 10 men a piece. Sounds like a high number, but the highly skilled archers would be doing the brunt of the work.

[buggy123]

When using the 1000 soldiers, the key is to not let the enemy think they have no chance to escape. You have to make them think "I can still run away" Because if they know they are going to die anyway, they would probably die fighting along side their comrades and actually fight A LOT harder than your experienced troops since they have nothing to lose.

Mentality is a key factor in warfare. Fear,desperation, experience. Those are only a few of the factors. Too bad games always generalize it into "morale" I suppose it is easier that way. Troops today even get "shell-shocked" when the fighting is done using most impersonal methods as possible. So think about the days when thousands of men crash against each other with shouting and blood and arms and heads flying around.

War is never pretty.

kinda of topic but whatever xD

Edited July 5, 2009 by buggy123

[MrEmjeR]

it realy depends on what kind of infantry! (I'm only talking about infantry)

for, lets say, celt soldiers with axes or two handed swords... i'll realy choose for 10.000 weak soldiers. since even one hero could not hold 10 axes on his head!

for the greek hoplites i'll choose for 1.000 strong! since the phalanx formation is a very close and strong formation, but once the line is broken there is a change of 80% for the broken phalanx to be defeated!

so 1.000 well trained soldiers could easily break the line of the noobs and then the noobs will be slaughterd or they'll run away!

in short: if there are no formations, it's realy 1 against 10. but when there is order and formation and a good leader, it IS 1.000 to 10.000.

and if the bad guys don't use formations or don't follow their orders it's 1.000 against 1

i also realy agree with buggy's idea about mentality!

[MrChocolateBear]

It seems a number of us prefer "brains" over "brawn!"

[buggy123]

well yeh...that why we play rts and not fps lol...rather be the general then the soldier xD (but I play fps too, and I'm really good at both )

Edited July 22, 2009 by buggy123

[RadioFoot]

1000? Psh, I'd take 300...

Nah, just kidding, but the answer is of course 'it all depends' - waayyy too many other factors to consider to make a logical decision.

But I'd rather have 1,000 co-ordinated soldiers as opposed to an un co-ordinated rabble of 10,000.

[buggy123]

lol...I'll take the 10k on by myself xD

Back on topic, this kind of reminds of

Russia or India? (aoe3)

Zerg or Protoss? (starcraft)

Allies or Axis? (company of heroes)

Quantity vs Quality are like in every balanced rts.

[Mythos_Ruler]

lol...I'll take the 10k on by myself xD

Back on topic, this kind of reminds of

Russia or India? (aoe3)

Zerg or Protoss? (starcraft)

Allies or Axis? (company of heroes)

Quantity vs Quality are like in every balanced rts.

Persians or Greeks? hehe

Quantity vs. Quality will also be a factor in our game. For instance, we are going to allow the Persians a 10%-20% population cap bonus, but consequently their units will be pretty weak and they'll have far fewer military upgrades than other factions (in this example, the Greeks). That's not to say they won't have a few really good units (chariots and elephants come to mind), but overall their focus will be economic, whereas a faction like the Greeks will have a standard population cap, but much stronger (and more expensive) units and a lot of military upgrades, and a not so great economy. So, it will depend on the player's playing style which faction he or she will prefer and which faction he or she will be able to utilize to its fullest potential. The hope is we can balance this. With the community's help, come Beta testing and beyond, I think we can do it.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Mythos_Ruler

[buggy123]

hmm interesting...usually rts games give the "quantity faction" bad economy but cheap military to swarm enemy while "quality factions" can become economic powerhouses but can't produce much troops because they take up so much pop.

[Hiram]

Zerg or Protoss? (starcraft)

Zerg of course!, protoss are so boring, and when playing the zerg I like to pretend they eat their victims

Regarding the original question, I would take the 100,000 in the following conditions:

• That I had a period of at least 6 months to train them.
  
• That the equipment of both armies is similar.
  
• That is a battle in a open field, with no fortifications.
  

My strategy would be to send a bunch of ligth infantry to face the enemy on the middle of the battle field, then fake a retreat, when the enemy starts chasing, shower them with arrows. If the enemy doesn't fall on the trap, I would then send reinforcement troups, to the center, surround the enemy with heavy cavalry, suported by ligth infantry.

I would hold my archers from shooting, to avoid hurting my own troops, and instead keep them as skimishers to support the infantry on the middle, sending them on waves to make the enemy tire. It would tale a while, but at the end I think I will prevail.

[Shield Bearer]

I agree with Philip, they would looks so cool, *sniff sniff*

Edited July 22, 2009 by Shield Bearer

[idanwin]

lol...I'll take the 10k on by myself xD

Me too, it would be a million-to-one chance, which succeeds nine times out of ten.

[AuroN2]

I would go with the elites, especialy if i got a troop choice, if i did, horse archers, i'd get like, 0 casualties!