korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[yin26]

it represents all the factors out of our control.

Then it's no longer a strategy game but a mystery novel.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by yin26
Then it's no longer a strategy game but a mystery novel.

The future is a mystery. When you commit troops to battle, you can't be sure of the outcome. You don't know which men will stand, which will run. You don't know which commander will fight and which will not. Planning reduces the chance of mistakes, but does not eliminate the possibility of an adverse result.

Of course, prudent commanders know that overwhelming force is the best option when available. But overwhelming force does not require a larger army. Overwhelming force in the combat area is what counts. Consider Napoleon at Austerlitz. Even though his army was half the size of his enemy, he applied pressure of 3-1 on just certain portions of the enemy force, resulting in the catastrophic collapse of the opposing army.

If you want certainty, play chess.

[Akka]

Re: Re: Re: info

Originally posted by Grumbold
On the contrary, it allows almost every major campaign the Mongols ever fought to count as low-tech victories.

?
WHAT allows Mongols victories to count as low-tech victories ?
Mongols were using the same weapons of roughly the same tech level as their enemies. I don't see a big difference in tech level here.

2)Sparticus's ragtag and outnumbered group of slaves(warriors) defeating a fully equipped professional roman legion(legions)

Spartacus was leading a revolt of GLADIATORS. This is not a mere group a slave, it's a group of people whose had to fight everyday of their life just to stay alive. They had not stone axes and clubs, but iron swords and some light armors.
Furthermore, the slaves were LARGELY SUPERIOR in numbers, not outnumbered. And it was not a full legion (6000 men) that was sent to them, but only a part of it (cohort or manipule I don't remember, but it was about 600 or 1200 men).

Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Most of the victories through 19th and 20th centuries, with a very few exceptions.
Castillon (1453).
All the colonial victories.
All the conquistadores victories.

Ruinous defeats in spite of Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Sorry to insist, but Dien Bien Phu saw somewhat equal logistic situation, both sides having heavy weaponry and supplies.
And China entering Korean War was NOT a ruinous defeat for UNO, it was only a temporary retreat caused by a human wall, and Chinese suffered obscene losses doing it, before being slowly pushed back to the original frontier. After suffering 30 to 1 deathes. Hardly a defeat for UNO I say.
Port Arthur was too between equal, even with a slight advantage for the Japanese as they had new weaponry.

but still can anyone find even a single example where an industrialized military force lost to a military force of about equal size that didn't use firearms?

No. For battles involving more than a few hundred of people, tech advantage is just too high. Some people constantly overationalized here reducing the impact of tech in battle, and constantly used same old example to try to justify wacky results in the game, but that's more out of insincerity or fanboy defence than having really think about it.



Zachriel : as you said me before, your arguments will stand or fall of its own. I think that comparind a terrorist attack to a battle between two armies give already a good idea about the validity of your example .
I will add that comparing stinger and AK-47 to stone-age weapons give another good indication of your sincerity in this debate.
I will add too that I never saw anybody going mad because it's frigate lose against a privateer or a galleon, which is basically the example of this rebuilt merchant vessel you cite ad nauseam.
And I will end this saying that considering the Spartans, it's in game terms a hoplite unit fortified on mountain. I don't think I heard anyone shouting about loosing swordmen, archer, spearmen against an hoplite fortified on a mountain.
Enjoy seeing your arguments falling .

[Fidel]

dunno if feats like the following count:
- volokolamskoye shosse...road leading to moscow in 1941 and just a squad of 28 soldiers led by Commisar Klotchkov, destroyed 18 out of 30 German tanks that tried to break through and blitz down the road.
- serbian AA units shooting down F-117. It was almost pure luck....
- Mogadishu ****e
-Prusso-Austrian war of 1866 ( Germans were regarded as a bag o ****e till then)
- Termopylae
- WW2 Italian submarine surrendering to a British hydroplane
etc etc.
now korn, i am too lazy to get you the stats

[TinCow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: info

Originally posted by Akka le Vil Spartacus was leading a revolt of GLADIATORS. This is not a mere group a slave, it's a group of people whose had to fight everyday of their life just to stay alive. They had not stone axes and clubs, but iron swords and some light armors.
Furthermore, the slaves were LARGELY SUPERIOR in numbers, not outnumbered. And it was not a full legion (6000 men) that was sent to them, but only a part of it (cohort or manipule I don't remember, but it was about 600 or 1200 men).

Yes, it was initially a gladiator revolt, but very few of those in his 'army' were gladiators. The gladiators formed the core of the army, but the vast majority were normal slaves who had been freed and then armed and trained by the original gladiators. They were certainly far inferior in quality to the average Roman legionary. You're right about the numbers though, I checked and it seems Spartacus had almost 100,000 men following him at one point against Roman legions of relatively small size.

_______

I did a little research last night to try to find a military force with firearms that has been defeated by an opposing force not more than twice its size without firearms. I could find none where this occurred, but I did find a few where firearms were present in only small numbers and the majority of the attacks were made with with melee weapons.

1) British retreat from Kabul in 1842. This is the best example I could find. The Afghans had a very small number of expert marksmen, but the vast majority of their attacks were with swords from horseback and the majority of the damage was done in this manner. In this running battle, 16,000 on the British side were killed (about 4,500 soldiers and the rest women, children, and poorly armed local followers). They were decimated almost to the last man (Literally, 1 European left, and a handful of Indian soldiers) by Afghan riders. I have been unable to find numbers on the Afghans, but from what I have read they were probably about twice the number of soldiers (10,000).

2) Attack on Fort Kalanga in 1814. This was a one-off situation where a British commander was astoundingly stupid and made a direct attack on the only strong point of a Nepalese fort without any kind of support. The Nepalese had a few rifles and an old cannon, but they succeeded in repelling the British largely with stones and logs thrown down on the attackers. Most remarkably, the attacking British force was 4,400 and the defending Nepalese force was only 250. The fort was taken the next day after the Nepalese abandoned it.

3) The only other significant war with technological disparty that I found was the Herero wars in Africa. However, this doesn't meet the requirements as the Germans were far outnumbered, the Herero did have a moderate number of firearms (though little ammo) and the Germans didn't really lose large numbers of men.

I guess if there's an example to pick it would have to be Kabul or Kalanga.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
Akka le Vilif that is the case, then i would like to examine the historical reasons and conditions behind how an under dog force has defeated a superior force

Cortez lost his first battle with the Aztecs. The fact that Indians occassionally overran frontier forts is well-known also.

Hubris is often the reason a "superior" forces will lose. Benjamin Franklin relates this story of how the British marched into the wilderness, against his advice (He also refers to a previous French loss in a similar situation.)

"This general was, I think, a brave man, and might probably have made a figure as a good officer in some European war. But he had too much self-confidence, too high an opinion of the validity of regular troops, and too mean a one of both Americans and Indians. . . . "

"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." I was conscious of an impropriety in my disputing with a military man in matters of his profession, and said no more. "

The British troops were subsequently slaughtered by the Indians.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/chapt12/index.html

[Arrian]

Yeah, excessive pride tends to get people in trouble. That's one of the things that worries me everytime my country runs around waving a fiery sword. But I digress.

I think the greatest number of examples we will find of technologically superior troops being beaten by "primatives" will be from British, French, Spanish and possibly Dutch history - the colonial era.

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: info

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
. . . another good indication of your sincerity in this debate.

hmmm. usually best to ignore ad hominem attacks. i am sure that akka le vil is sincere in his opinions regardless of his view of others.

I will add too that I never saw anybody going mad because it's frigate lose against a privateer or a galleon, which is basically the example of this rebuilt merchant vessel you cite ad nauseam.

Glad you brought up John Paul Jones. I use him as an example because, yes people have used the loss of a frigate to a lesser vessal as a situation not seen in real life and therefore ruining the game, and because it is a battle whereby the pride of one commander and the determination and courage of the other commander led to an unexpected result.

[Zachriel]

How about the loss of the U.S.S. Cole? The U.S. is in a war with terrorists who do not even have a navy, yet they took out one of our most advanced ships.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by yin26
Superior technology alone does not guarantee victory. Training, leadership and technology suited to the terrain all play huge factors. Of course, none of those factor are in Civ3, which leaves another conclusion:

Advanced tech in Civ3 should almost alway win because the elements that could contribute to their being rendered almost useless do no exit in the game. Even with elite status (which hints at training), the occasional --rare-- leader (which hints at leadership) and terrain bonuses (which hint at tech being suited to terrian), Civ3 barely scratches the surface of the factors that have historically sent the better man packing.

I would argue these items *are* present in the game, just not explicitly. The randomizer provides for a variety of outcomes to take into account those factors (and others) that 'your' article [by the way, just for interest's sake, I was in the 366th Air Expiditionary Wing, 391st Bold Tigers F-15Es, from 1997-2000 ] states as being important in warfare --factors that Civ3 cannot directly model because of the game's scope.

This has always been the case with games (at least war/strategy games). I've played board wargames for years before I started playing computer games. Dice (randomizer) are almost always present to allow for an immense variety of outcomes in order to take into account such factors as cannot be explicitly modeled. Some of the more intense/detailed wargames will explicityly provide for in the rules most of these 'factors' in order to avoid widely disperse combat results, but these games are no where near the scale of Civ3 in scope.

As opposed to your comment "Then it's no longer a strategy game but a mystery novel." is completely flippint and off the mark. You would seem to suggest that ALL factors can be within the control of the "commander"; or, perhaps if not quite to that extreme, if these factors are not directly modeled in the game, then there should be no means to attempt to incorporate these things indirectly --that if they are not directly modeled, combat results should always be the perfect example of combat between units: perfect day, perfect supply, perfect leadership, etc. and the only factors that would then matter would be who got there "the mostest with the bestest."

I would suggest that so many things factor into how warfare will resolve that they cannot possibly all be modeled in the game in a direct fashion, but, instead, need to be included as "chance". In fact, so many factors (including battle tactics) must be handled by the randomizer, that it becomes much less surprising how diverse the results can be. Civ3 allows us to control 'grand strategy' but certainly not battlefield tactics. These are left to the commanders, which, in turn, is left to chance.

There is no doubt that the circumstances of battle can have extreme consequences on the results. This is no secret, from Sun Tsu's "Art of War" to Von Clausewitz' "On War". All the brilliant men of strategy have recognized the effects of the "fog of war". The secret is an attempt to minimize these to the utmost.

Civ3's combat results may not be perfect. I'll grant you that. (Believe me, no one would enjoy more than I to see a *ton* more war "factors" modeled in the game, but given what we have to work with . . .). I would suggest to those who do not like the combat results to change unit stats in the editor. I've done it. It's SIMPLE! And FUN! It works great! Use it!

Happy editing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
I would argue these items *are* present in the game, just not explicitly. The randomizer provides . . . Its 'SIMPLE! And FUN! It works great!

A very good, well explained post. Thank you.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Colonel Kraken

This has always been the case with games (at least war/strategy games). I've played board wargames for years before I started playing computer games. Dice (randomizer) are almost always present to allow for an immense variety of outcomes in order to take into account such factors as cannot be explicitly modeled.

I have played board games since about 1970, including a game called Strategy I. They were a lot of fun, but I do not miss the arithmetic.

[Grumbold]

Re: Re: Re: Re: info

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
?
WHAT allows Mongols victories to count as low-tech victories ?
Mongols were using the same weapons of roughly the same tech level as their enemies. I don't see a big difference in tech level here.

According to the sources I read the mongols were tactically far superior to the Eastern European forces they encountered but were technologically inferior in many ways to heavily armored crusading factions like the Poles and Teutonic Knights that they defeated in 1241 at Leignitz.

[Argos65987]

Back onto the original topic -

I was thinking of maybe battles fought during the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans during WWI. Bedouin horsemen with swords fighting Turk infantry. I can't seem to find any specifics or statistics (if anyone can, please help me out). The closest I came to anything concrete was a battle fought at Aqaba (in modern day Jordan) where the Arabs captured the city (a supply port) from the Turkish garrison. It was in July of 1916 or 1917 and the Arabs were led by a man who later was named King Faisel I. Although TE Lawrence was there I don't think there were any British troops. If anyone can find concrete stats, this may be the closest example of a tech backwards group beating a more advanced force.

[Arrian]

Aqaba - yeah, I thought of this one, too. I think the garrison was small, and the main factor preventing the British capture of the town was the large artillery pieces mounted by the harbor. The British navy was wary of them, but they were fixed emplacements, and could not be turned around to face the desert. This was largely because no one thought you could march an army across that desert (they didn't count on the Bedouins, essentially). Faisel, Lawrence & Co. showed up and charged, and the big guns could do nothing.

-Arrian