korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Of course. Isn't that the idea? To gang up; to take advantage of the mistakes of your opponents?

I reread your original post and you are adding criteria as you go along.

Now you insist the forces are to consist of the same number of men. If they attempt to destroy their enemy in detail, that's not really fair because they're ganging up. If they sneak in and blow up your sub, that terrorist act doesn't count -- even though in this situation they are outnumbered.

Custer didn't really lose, he was overrun. The British didn't lose to a bunch of spearmen. Mistakes were made. The U.S. didn't "lose" the war in Vietnam. It was a "police action." The British didn't lose the American Colonies. They made a strategic withdrawal. The U.S. didn't lose a B1b bomber fighting in Afghanistan. The plane was on a pleasure cruise over the Indian Ocean. John Paul Jones didn't take out a frigate with a merchant ship, the British captain was taking a nap and Jones should have sent an invitation to battle first. Peasants in Paris didn't really storm the Bastille.

And so on and so forth.

I didn't sai it wasn't valuable... I just said that cases of winning with lower techs are with more men. In the post, I'm just including what Korn asks. Don't bother myself more than to compilate, get info and give my comments. (no time for more)

[korn469]

come on people!
the inflation joke was funny

civ3 is so abstract that an infantry unit could be several different units all in seperate chains of command fighting at different times, since each turn is a year or greater...in Civ3 iirc it would have taken Ghengis Khan three turns to conquer all that he did, while the various conflicts in Viet Nam would have been like 27 turns i think (46-75) while Alexander the Great would have rose to power, conquered the known world and died in one turn

how is that for scale?

but in all of history i was just wondering if there was one really quirky battle where like 20 headhunters armed with poison darts ambushed 500 Rangers and won or something as unusual as that
even if there isn't there are still so many interesting battles, MANY of them i hadn't even heard of before

so i'm having fun and even learning a little, how about the rest of you?

[Ironikinit]

It is interesting to think that the Viet Nam war would last more turns than the 100 years war or whatever, and excellent observation about the length of Alexander the Great's rise and fall.

As a recreation/simulation of history, Civ really isn't much. It's a good game, though.

[notyoueither]

korn469

Good on ya. I'm glad you are having fun pursuing a productive path (learning).

But you are not going to find the examples you want of Spearmen beating Tanks. Human history does not work that way.

The problem (for your project) is that people are like rats (in some ways). They do not confine themselves to your (or anyone else's) strict limits demarcating where they should live, what they should do, and what they should use as tools.

Human beings squirt around the edges of the confines of any arbitrary set of rules and regulations. Like rats.

*Your majesty, we have just discovered a continent of ignorant savages that do not know anything of value.*

Plus 5 years

*Your majesty, the ignorant savages appear to have acquired fire arms from some ill-begotten son of an ethnic trader*

Plus 10 years

*Your majesty, horses that escaped during that storm 5 years ago seem to be perfectly adapted to the Northern Plains of our new territories.*

Plus 10 years

*Your majesty, our mission at Sid ***** has just been wiped out by the natives. This is intolerable! Action must be taken immediately to put them in their place! Of course we have no clue as to how the savages may have done it. They must be in league with the devil.*

Of course my scale is wrong, but it illustrates that knowledge and technology (and some resources) will spread unbidden by states and rulers. It will spread due to the very natures of chance and of human beings. Humans are more curious, more industrious, and prolly more intelligent than rats.

The point is that in the age of the Tank you are not going to find more than a few thousand primitive (?) peoples still wielding spears and living in tribes. None of them are going to be in any kind of close contact with advanced (?) civs. Isolation is the only reason why they do not have guns, if not RPGs and shaped charged weapons.

Yes, you will find some instances of technologically backward peoples defeating *modern* units in a single afternoon or over some days on some field somewhere. However, these instances will number very few. As I have said, prolly less than two hands full (20). The reason is that technology spreads among common, ordinary people. Technolgy spreads, faster than you can, or would want to sell it to every other civ.

If you repeal your law of technology and look for the disadvantaged, by number, or politics, or, or, or, then you will find many instances of human beings overcoming difficult (or impossible) odds in the face of a superior foe. That is what human beings do after all. They seek, they strive, they refuse to yield. And sometimes, they win.

Salve

[Akka]

As everyone seems to have his way to explain what he's doing in this thread, I'll put my 2 cents too.

I personnally takes this thread as a way to find any example of the boggus Civ3 fight system. People argued over months that the results, while suprising, were not that much unrealistic, saying like Zachriel that tanks broke, men fled and so on.

What I'm looking for here is examples of historical events that would be the same as in Civ3. This means : a unit of low-tech level (particularly pre-firearms) beat another unit with modern weapons. I'm ready to accept battle like the Zulu vs British, but in this case it's not 1 riflemen unit vs 1 impis, it's 1 riflemen vs 10 impis. What irks people is not to lose 1 modern unit against 10 old, it's to lose 1 modern unit against 1 or 2 old. Hence the "same numbers" requirement that Korn asked.

Of course, I am pretty sure that we will find at best one or two example of this, if any. That is because, even if people rationalize until nausea, we are not in fantasyland, tanks does not broke every mile, submarines commanders think to close their hatch before diving, and from time to tome, some generals happen to not being completely dumb.

[Akka]

Yes, you will find some instances of technologically backward peoples defeating *modern* units in a single afternoon or over some days on some field somewhere. However, these instances will number very few. As I have said, prolly less than two hands full (20). The reason is that technology spreads among common, ordinary people. Technology spreads, faster than you can, or would want to sell it to every other civ.

This is why, in Civ3, the price of a tech diminish with each civ that know it. It then already represent the spreading of tech in world.
Though, native Americans were in contact with Europeans for four centuries, and still never learned to build firearms.
African empires were trading with Europeans for three or four centuries, and never learned to build firearms either.
Basically, in fact, NOBODY learned the Europeans technology unless conquered by them (all the colonial empires), which make them part of the civilization in game term, or being beaten so bad that they chosed to learn this technology to be strong enough to never be humiliated again like that (Japan and China).
Just a reminder : with the exception of these both countries, Korea, Afghanistan, Turquia, and perhaps Iran (don't remember), ALL the countries of the world were conquered and annexed at one time or another by a European country. Hence the diffusion of technology and occidental mentality.

[Willem]

Re: korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

Originally posted by korn469
Ok there has been alot of debate on how often does a forced armed with primative weapons defeat a forced armed with modern weapons

So i am challenging all of you history buff to find examples in history of where a force is either considered to be primative/irregular/obsolete defeats a force considered to be modern/technologically superior within the following criteria

*four different categories
4000bc-499ad
500-1799
1800-1949
1950-2002+
*the smaller force must have at least 100 soldiers
*the inferior force must have either won or virtually anihilated the superior force on the battlefield if it lost for it to count
*i am only concerned with military and not political victories

a force is considered inferior if it meets the following criteria

*when a nation cannot produce its own advanced weapon systems, and the quanity of advanced weapons it can provide is spread unevenly throughout a small percentages of its forces
*when a nation can produce advanced weapons which are spread throughout its forces but they are a generation or more behind the nation its at war with
*when a force is armed with comparable or better weapons systems buts its forces are not organized as a conventional force and they operate using guerrillas methods usually because they have a significant size disadvantage (in this case if a group of green berets, SAS commandos, etc defeated a conventional force it would count)
*when a force although it might have comparable weapons, organization, logistics, and size is generally perceived [at the time] by the great majority of its opponents to be inferior until it humiliates them on the battlefield (this is what i was thinking with Port Arthur)

please list the battle, and the give details about it such as the size of each force, causulties, tactics used to win etc.
please site a source, and link to it if possible

so lets see how history stacks up against civ3 shall we?

Anyone remember Vietnam? Or how about the Soviets vs Afghanistan, that should be somewhat fresh in people's minds.

[Akka]

Re: Re: korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

Originally posted by Willem


Anyone remember Vietnam? Or how about the Soviets vs Afghanistan, that should be somewhat fresh in people's minds.

Read the thread rather than throw in subjects that were already treated ten times in a row in it (and are counter-examples moreover).

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Read the thread rather than throw in subjects that were already treated ten times in a row in it (and are counter-examples moreover).

Well then how about the Indian independence movement. They defeated the British with no weapons whatsoever. Some British regulars would disobey orders rather than fire on unarmed people. Winning a battle isn't always about superior weaponry. If the ones wielding the firepower don't have it in their heart to kill, they're going to lose everytime. That's one of the reasons why the Americans lost in Vietnam, and the Russians in Afghanistan. No matter what the differences in firepower, a demoralized force will almost always lose to a determined enemy.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I'm ready to accept battle like the Zulu vs British, but in this case it's not 1 riflemen unit vs 1 impis, it's 1 riflemen vs 10 impis.

Glad you agree. History is full of examples whereby a force which clearly believes it is superior loses because of that belief.

Quoting again from Ben Franklin's conversation with the British officer, "He smil'd at my ignorance, and reply'd, 'These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression.'"

The officer and his men were soon to be slaughtered in the American wilderness.

[Immortal Wombat]

When did Italy vs Abyssinia fall off the list? There's the old legend of Italian tanks were fitted with 5 reverse gears going into that war

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
When did Italy vs Abyssinia fall off the list? There's the old legend of Italian tanks were fitted with 5 reverse gears going into that war

It didn't. There are many examples, for instance, of Indians successfully attacking frontier forts. But they ganged up on the poor settlers. Not fair, not fair, they cry, even though the population density of the colonialists was much higher than that of the Native-Americans. The colonialists were ambitious and took chances by (over)extending the frontier, so they lost sometimes. And of course, the economic advantages of the Euro-Americans dominated in the long run, despite those setbacks.

There is rarely, if ever, going to be a consensus on a forum of this sort.

[Argos65987]

How about the Ewoks defeating the Imperial garrison at the Battle of Endor's Moons?

Just kidding

Although, after all the thought I've put into this topic, that's the only thing I think completely fits the example of spearman vs tank

[korn469]

Zachriel

Quoting again from Ben Franklin's conversation with the British officer, "He smil'd at my ignorance, and reply'd, 'These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression.'"

The officer and his men were soon to be slaughtered in the American wilderness.

do you know which battle Ben Franklin's conversation pertained to? it was probably in reference to General Braddock's defeat in the French and Indian war (Seven Years War) of which the North American Theater was only part of entire thing but in which the British still managed to come out on top, winning all of the French Colonial possession east of the mississippi

anyways here is a link to that particular battle

http://www.digitalhistory.org/braddock.html

but in that particular battle French forces and their Indian allies managed to route the british army and its colonial troops after they ambushed them even though the british had a 2:1 advanatge...this would make a perfect example except the Indians in this case were supplied with modern weapons by their french allies

Argos65987

How about the Ewoks defeating the Imperial garrison at the Battle of Endor's Moons?

Just kidding

Although, after all the thought I've put into this topic, that's the only thing I think completely fits the example of spearman vs tank

what i'm wondering is this

WHAT IN THE HELL IS STORMTROOPER ARMOR MADE OF?!?!

it doesn't stop blasters, and it doesn't stop rocks, every stormtrooper hit in the head with a rock was either knocked out or killed, and princess leia could take a blaster shot to the arm, while if a storm trooper with armor was hit in the arm he would die

plus as the emperor said, it was a legion of his best storm troopers and they were even waiting in ambush, knowing that a rebel special forces team would try and blow the shield generator

even worse is that the ewoks were worshipping C-3PO as a god one day, then the next day they were ready for war, plus the had seige weapons when it appeared that they were the only "intelligent" species on the planet and it looked like for the most part they were one group, so why would they develop siege weaponry?

this is when i realized that although i think the idea of starwars is great, George Lucas is an idiot, he made the odds too great and then still let the rebels win with barely a loss

[Argos65987]

I believe their armor is manufactured in France by one-armed circus midgets. (no actual offense intended to one-armed circus midgets by associating them with France)

Not to mention that stormtrooper strategy consists of firing as many shots as possible at the ground directly in front of the enemy and then, no matter their numerical superiority, charging one by one at the enemy. The three stooges were a better organized fighting force than the Imperial Guards!