korn's Civ3 vs. History Challenge!

[Arrian]

The British had some trouble in Malaysia in the 1950's or 60's- the "War of the Running Dogs." I am not familiar with any specific battles, and for all I know there was no case of an "inferior" unit(s) beating up on a "superior" one. But it's something to check out, as it was similar to Vietnam a couple of ways - lots of jungle, and guerrila tactics.

I assume Napolean's invasion of Russia doesn't count, right? Russia was a bit backward, but the weapons used by each side were not very different.

As for Stirling Bridge - a good example of bad leadership getting a "better" army slaughtered. Not entirely dissimilar to the battle of Agincourt - France, 1415 A.D. The English beat the hell out of an army of French knights which badly outnumbered them, because the French made poor decisions and the English made good ones - and, as everyone who knows the time period knows, longbowmen were pretty impressive (still, the English were outnumbered something like 7 to 1).

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not entirely dissimilar to the battle of Agincourt - France, 1415 A.D. The English beat the hell out of an army of French knights which badly outnumbered them, because the French made poor decisions and the English made good ones - and, as everyone who knows the time period knows, longbowmen were pretty impressive (still, the English were outnumbered something like 7 to 1). -Arrian

Generally, longbow are not that effective without strong foot soldier support or within foritifications. They are very vulnerable to attack by knights. Among the factors at Agincourt was the rain the night before which left the French knights stuck in the mud. The piety of their leader Henry V is also credited.

The odds were overwhelming. The French knights should have easily destroyed Henry's forces. The French belief in their own inevitable victory led to their downfall.

[Arrian]

Zachriel,

Yep, I totally agree. I didn't get into the specifics in my post, but the French knights did some silly things (primarily attempting to charge across a soggy field to get at a line of pikemen defending longbowmen) and the English fought well. Henry V's choice of battlefield was also pretty good - there were thick groves of trees on either side of that soggy field and forced the French into very tight formation...all the better to rain arrows down upon. The casualties were horrendous for the time period, even if you allow for some exaggeration.

-Arrian

[Trifna]

Let's stop put info everywhere mixed up and make some sort of data file or something. That's what I tried to.

Other than that, looking at what's about it, it seems to me that the only chance in reality to win in such battles is to find a way to trap enemy's troops in minority. Of course, your enemy will do same... If you are technologically inferior, you need even more troops since a 1:1 ratio will most likely result as a defeat to you. The more you have troops, the more you are likely to lose less men.

[TinCow]

Originally posted by korn469
so actually this could probably count as a primative force (the Spanish) conquering an advanced force (the Aztecs), because although they had a slight technological advantage it was more because of coincidence and small pox rather than anything else that ensured victory

Interesting take on the situation, though I disagree. The Aztecs (and later the Incas) were both defeated mainly through the use of technology, albeit in roundabout ways. The 'technology' was most effective in scarling the living shiznat out of the natives (horses, armor, etc) and convincing them that the Spaniards were 'Gods.' Also, the Aztec decimation due to disease could be considered a 'technological' victory by the Spaniards. Had the Aztecs had a greater tech level, they would have either been exposed to the diseases before and thus developed immunity (i.e. from exploration) or they could have developed medicines. They didn't and they died. Just because the Aztecs weren't conquered through sheer force of arms doesn't mean they weren't conquered by technology.

it's not rigged, i am just wondering about what happens when industrialized civilization encounters a non industrialized civilization, or under what historical circumstances does an obsolete force defeat a state of the art force

if Iraq had of won the Gulf war in 1991 i would consider that a victory by the an obsolete force, although they [Iraq] had better weapons than any WW2 army

plus this is just for my own historical curiosity

I don't mind historical curiosity at all. I was a History major in college actually. The funniest thing is I have a kickass histomap of world history that looks exactly like the power maps in all of the Civ games. I can look at my in-game power graph and compare it to the one on my wall to see who I compare to at various stages of development.

Back to the issue though, the problem with a situation like this is the nature of human development. Throughout the history of the world, whenever two civilizations come into contact, there is an exchange of technology and ideas. This results in the areas sharing technologies on an involuntary and unintentional basis. In fact, there are very few technologies that have ever been subjected to intentional secrecy by a nation. Almost all of these are modern military technologies (some older ones that I can think of are Greek Fire, Gunpowder, Silk, and Longitudinal Navigation). If one culture w/o horseback riding comes into contact w/ another culture w/ horseback riding... it's not going to take a whole lot of brainpower to figure it out. ("Ooohhh... we should RIDE those things, not eat them...") The general result is that the more advanced cultures pull up the lesser advanced cultures by their bootstraps. Areas adjacent to Roman settlements began to quickly use Roman techniques. The primitive Mongol conquerers of China were assimilated because they soon began adopting the Chinese way of doing things. The Japanese were forcibly exposed to Western culture in the mid 1800s. At that time they were still a feudal society with very primitive weaponry. Only 50 years later though, they had developed a modern military force with an outstanding navy that defeated Russia.

I'm not sure whether it's just human nature or the nature of this history of the world which results in such a situation. Regardless, the world in which we live simply does not work in a manner which provides the possibility for large conflicts between technologically mismatched opponents. Perhaps when we start exploring the stars, such examples will occur.

I can't remember what I was arguing in my previous posts now, so I apologize if I have just contradicted myself. If I have, consider this post as a seperate entity.

[korn469]

Interesting take on the situation, though I disagree. The Aztecs (and later the Incas) were both defeated mainly through the use of technology, albeit in roundabout ways. The 'technology' was most effective in scarling the living shiznat out of the natives (horses, armor, etc) and convincing them that the Spaniards were 'Gods.' Also, the Aztec decimation due to disease could be considered a 'technological' victory by the Spaniards. Had the Aztecs had a greater tech level, they would have either been exposed to the diseases before and thus developed immunity (i.e. from exploration) or they could have developed medicines. They didn't and they died. Just because the Aztecs weren't conquered through sheer force of arms doesn't mean they weren't conquered by technology.

i disagree with you on the Aztecs being the primatives, yes they were behind the europeans in certain areas

*europeans had iron armor and swords (technological)
*europeans had horses (not technological)
*europeans had vastly superior navigation techniques (technological)
*europeans had gunpowder (technological)

however the Aztecs certainly had some technological advantages over the Europeans in non-military technology

here is a little info about navigation

click here
and here
and here too

so european navigation was a culmination of various technologies that had all came together not long before Cortez, and afaik Europe never aquired immunity to some dread disease from exploration

additionally Europe had no knowledge of Germs or ways to fight them at the time of Cortez

here is a little about germ theory

http://www.stlcc.cc.mo.us/fp/users/k...story.page.htm

1677
Observed "little animals" (Antony Leeuwenhoek)
1796
First scientific Small pox vaccination (Edward Jenner)
1850
Advocated washing hands to stop the spread of disease (Ignaz Semmelweis)
1861
Disproved spontaneous generation (Louis Pasteur)
1862
Supported Germ Theory of Disease (Louis Pasteur)
1867
Practiced antiseptic surgery (Joseph Lister)
1876
First proof of Germ Theory of Disease with B. anthracis discovery (Robert Koch)

so it would be 156 years after the conquest of the aztecs before anyone even began to have a clube about germs, 275 years before someone developed a vaccine against germs, and 355 years before Germ Theory was actually proved

so the highlighted part of your quote is seems to say that since Aztec medical science wasn't 350 years more advanced than European medical science that made the aztecs completely inferior to the Europeans

http://lsa.colorado.edu/~lsa/texts/Aztecs.html

When the Spanisch conquerors saw Tenochtitlan they called it "The Venice of the New World". At the height of Aztec civilization, around 1300-1500 AD, more than 200,000 people lived in Tenochtitlan. It was bigger than any city in Europe at the time...

For many years, the fierce Aztecs had been warring. They forced conquered nations to pay high taxes. They made slaves of many. Worst of all, they sacrificed thousands to the gods. Conquered tribes were vengeful indeed. Willingly, they joined the Spanish to destroy their captors. With 500 Spanish soldiers and 10,000 Indian allies behind him, Cortés charged the Aztec capital.

i think the Aztec defeat steams primarily from indecisive leadership on the part of Montezuma waiting too late to fight against the Spanish because of his religious beliefs, the arrival of the Spanish in the One Reed Year is so coincidental that we can see why he hesitated, then the devistation that small pox caused the Aztecs (something like 50% of their population died because of it), and finally then would come Spanish military technology and good leadership on the part of Cortez by supplementing his armies with native allies

even without guns if all other factors were the same i think Cortez could have achieved the same results

[korn469]

ok i removed the 1700 requirement and instead divided it up into four categories

current list

Agincourt
1839 Khyber Pass
Sterling Bridge
Battle of Teutoborg Forest
Isandhdlwana
Battle of Adwa
Dien Bein Phu
Little Bighorn
St. Claire's Defeat
Port Arthur
Cuito Cuanavale
Chinese entrance to the Korean War
Napolean's invasion of Russia

also here is a little more about the Spanish versus native forces (Inca in this case)

http://www.antiquityofman.com/Inca_conquest.html

The most cogent argument is that the conquest of the Incas was made possible by the technical superiority of the European weaponry employed by the Spanish: "Metal against stone, steel swords against flint-tipped spears, metal armour against cotton-quilted tunics, arquebuses and cannons against bows and arrows and, above all, calavry against infantry." (Watchel 1977: 24) The Spanish advantage in technological terms was responsible for some of their stunning victories over their Andean foes. In this view, Pizarro realized their superiority was overwhelming and him and his men took measures to utilise this to a degree that has not been fully appreciated; the vulnerability of the Incas to the capture and execution of their emperor being a prime case in point. Thus the shock of military contact across such a vast technological and cultural gap proved to be so great that, before the Andeans could fully adjust, their ultimate sealed (Adorno & Andrien 1991: 50).

However, this is a view which has been challenged by scholars such as Watchel. They raise the objection that the Spanish technological superiority was possibily of limited importance and point out firearms were few in this part of the New World, and couple this with the fact that the weapons were slow both in action and in reloading. The major effect of the arms and horses was psychological. They served, at least in the beginning, to sow panic and discord in the Inca ranks. This phase though was over quickly and the Inca soldiers began to adapt their battle tactics in an effort to counter the Spanish weaponry. However, this argument falls short upon a close examination of the 1536-7 Andean revolt. During the long siege of the Spanish in Cuzco, the Indians showed that although they had learnt something of the methods employed by their adversaries, they had not absorbed the lessons adequately. The Indians still chose to launch their attacks by the full moon and they still underestimated the Spanish horses, arms and deviousness.

[Akka]

Originally posted by korn469
ok i removed the 1700 requirement and instead divided it up into four categories

current list

Agincourt
1839 Khyber Pass
Sterling Bridge
Battle of Teutoborg Forest
Isandhdlwana
Battle of Adwa
Dien Bein Phu
Little Bighorn
St. Claire's Defeat
Port Arthur
Cuito Cuanavale
Chinese entrance to the Korean War
Napolean's invasion of Russia

Mmh, I'm actually feeling a little confused, Korn... At first you asked about battle between armies with technological differences, supposedly to compare it with the results in Civ3 (you said "Ok there has been alot of debate on how often does a forced armed with primative weapons defeat a forced armed with modern weapons").
But by now, you're using as example battle where there just is an underdog, not related to technology at all : Port Arthur, invasion of Russia, Dien Bien Phu, Korea war all saw both side using the same weapons, just a difference in the training, supply and numbers.
If we start to put all the battle in History where there were uneven training or where one side had a supply or number advantage, then we are not talking anymore about the technology impact on fights, and we should include all the battle that happened since the very firt war, except the rare cases where both armies were completely even.
Guess this thread need to refocus a little

[korn469]

Akka le Vil

the reason for the slight refocus is because it is appearing to look like that a well armed force from an industrialized society has NEVER lost to a similar sized force [ie less than twice as large] armed with less advanced weapons in a conventional battle

am i wrong or are we missing an obvious example of this?

if 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

throughout history it looks like there are far more cases of one side with better weapons "running up the score" so to speak, instead of paper tigers losing

[Nakar Gabab]

How about Thermopylae[sic, forgot the correct spelling]?

The Persians and Greeks were on rough par, however, the Persian army had a HUGE numbers advantage and were not at all disorganized.

The small (about 200, wasn't it?) force of Spartan defenders used terrain advantages to channel the Persian forces into a kill zone. Eventually they were wiped out, but they bought the other Greeks a tremendous amount of time and severely hampered Persia's hopes of a land invasion. When the Persian navy was destroyed at sea sometime thereafter, the entire invasion was routed.

Given that the Greeks at the time were not a cohesive nation (city-states and whatnot), whereas Persia most certainly WAS, and considering the military importance of it, I'd call that battle a sort of "10 spearmen beating 50 immortals," pretty good for the ancient world.

[Green Giant]

1)Custers last stand

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

These are just off the top of my head

[TinCow]

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

Ah yes, that's an excellent example. While the tech disparity isn't as great as some of the other examples, at the time it was a pretty big thing. In addition, the Slave Rebellion actually had the 'underdogs' winning multiple battles in the conflict. Practically all of the other examples that have been cited are single battles where the 'underdogs' use surprise and/or luck to beat a more advanced enemy on a single occassion.

[korn469]

ok here is the following list

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

Ancient
*Thermopylae and Salamis (480 BC)
Middle Ages
Industrial
Modern
*Desert Storm (1991)

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

Ancient
*Sparticus Slave Revolt (71bc)
*Battle of Teutoburg Forest (9ad)
Middle Ages
*Stirling Bridge (1297)
*Agincourt (1415)
Industrial
*St. Claire's Defeat (1791)
*Khyber Pass First Afgan War (1839)
*Little Bighorn (1876)
*Isandhlwana (1879)
*Port Arthur (1905)???
Modern
*Chinese entrance to the Korean War (1950)
*Dien Bein Phu (1954)
*Cuito Cuanavale (1987-1989)???

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?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Many battle lasted many weeks, even monthes (Leningrad, Stalingrad, Dien Bien Phu, Verdun, Okinawa...). What is, in fact, amusing, is that nearly all the low-tech vs high-tech victory were one-day victory. When it comes to long battles, the already microscopic number of underdog victories reduce even more. I'm sorry for your foot, you just shot in it

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

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
ok here is the following list
Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base

Don't forget John Paul Jones capturing a frigate with a refitted merchant vessal. (That's always been a bugaboo of the "it's not fair" crowd when they lose their frigate.)

If anyone has a complaint about the combat system, don't forget the 300 Spartans. Though there was no significant difference in technology, 100-1 odds should be sufficient for any battle. Xerses had a right to expect an easy win with those odds, and has a legitimate complaint against Firaxis for a "poor combat system." Think 50 Immortals, 50 Sword, 50 Spear, 50 Bow versus 2 fortified Phalanx's. Of course, Xerses won, but only after a long delay, through the help of the Greek traitor, and with substantial losses. Xerses, "We will blacken the sky with arrows." Greek commander, "Then we will fight in the shade."

19 men with boxcutters send fear into the heart of the world's most powerful and technologically advanced society. Some have said that wasn't a battle, but the enemy surely believed otherwise. The American president has said it is war.

Recent loss of B1b bomber in Afghanistan (It crashed due to mechnical failure in the Indian Ocean. The flyers who ejected and were rescued will certainly receive combat ribbons.)

Whether the loss is due to incompetence of the commanders, friendly fire, saboutage, sudden death of a leader, or even simple mechnical failure doesn't matter. If the unit is lost, then that is what the game randomizer is all about; it represents all the factors out of our control.

So if you send your advanced B1b bomber to attack primitive third world warriors, and it crashes, well it happens.

[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]

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 .

[LaRusso]

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 shite
-Prusso-Austrian war of 1866 ( Germans were regarded as a bag o shite 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]

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/fr...t12/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]

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]

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