i feel like im taking CRAZY pills

[Dis]

ahh yes. Sweet alcohol.

[Randolph]

ElConejo,
You dismiss the impact of tanks in ww1, but think that the use of Gatling Guns in the American Civil War was significant enough to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of cavalry vs. "machine gunners"? I agree that the tanks were not a deciding factor in ww1, but at least the military though of them as a weapon and not a novelty item like the GG in the "War Between the States" (I take it your from the south?).
If machine guns were used in a strategically significant way in either the Franco-Prussian war or the Italian Unification I'm unaware of it.

I generally do agree that machine gunners should have some chance against cavalry out in the open. If nothing else, from a gameplay perspective you should be significantly punished for using your assets ineffectively. Those MGs are for defending strong points, not for marching into fields.

I'm also skeptical about the whole "early gunpowder units" vs. the myth of the super archer. Despite the myth of the superhuman English Longbowman, you can learn to shoot a bow effectively in an afternoon (almost) as easily as a gun, the only aspect of the longbow that was difficult was the strength required to draw. An arrow shot from a longbow will bounce off plate armor if shot from beyond point blank, but a 55 caliber musket ball will go right through. If my gunners have plate armor covering their torsos and helmets, then your "well trained archers" are going to have to hit their necks or face to score a moral it, while my musket balls will tare through anything they hit.

[ElConejo]

Originally posted by Randolph
ElConejo,
You dismiss the impact of tanks in ww1,

When did I dismiss tanks?

but think that the use of Gatling Guns in the American Civil War was significant enough to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of cavalry vs. "machine gunners"?

I was not drawing ANY conclusions at all, the only thing I said was (lets quote myself here: ) "Gatling guns had a bit of use, but not much." I made no conclusions, I was just replying to a previous post by H Tower stating: "What machine gun did they have in the US Civil War?"

I was showing that they did indeed have machine guns back then (but made no remarks on their effectiveness) I went to google typing in Civil War Machine Gun and copy and pasted that website for all to see its glory.

I agree that the tanks were not a deciding factor in ww1, but at least the military though of them as a weapon and not a novelty item like the GG in the "War Between the States" (I take it your from the south?).

When the hell did my location come into this? And for your information NO I am not from the south, I was born on the upper east coast, and now am in the upper midwest. Although I do not see the point in raising a location as any manner of conclusion to my responses...

[Randolph]

ElConejo,
Sorry I meant address the post to Solth_DC, I saw your post on this page an incorrectly assumed you were the person who brought it up on the previous page.

My apologies for any offence.

[ElConejo]

Originally posted by Randolph
ElConejo,
Sorry I meant address the post to Solth_DC, I saw your post on this page an incorrectly assumed you were the person who brought it up on the previous page.

My apologies for any offence.

Nontaken, thank you for your apology. I was more confused than anything else...

[Enigma_Nova]

But if the commanders knew how to use their assets effectively, would your positions on the usefulness of them have changed?