Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Honorable duels

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CharmyLOVE View Post
    this isn't the reason why i started this thread. i started it cuz i saw alot of those sneak attacks on forums. Then for some weird reason, i thought of all those old wars...from Battle of Gettysburg in US to those napoleon stuff. Most major battles meet in some area instead of hiding or sieging castles right?
    During the Napoleonic wars and the American Civil War, even prior during the French and Indian War (7 Years War) or the American Revolution, very little fighting was done purely in the open with the defenders not hiding behind some sort of fortification or the attackers trying to attack in secret.

    With Montreal, British forces scaled a difficult to scale side of a mountain? to counter the French forces. In the U.S. Revolution, British forces raised siege equipment (cannons) atop a hill higher than a U.S. fort forcing the U.S. forces to flee. In the Battle of Bunker Hill?, U.S. forces were behind dug holes in the ground able to open fire on British forces in Boston and were able to repel the British twice before being forced to flee due to a lack of ammunition. In the U.S. Civil War, Fort Sumter was taken by siege equipment (cannons) alone. In the Napoleonic Wars, France left hundreds of cannons behind on their poor retreat from Russia's greatest generals of all time (General Winter and General Size).

    Vary rare would be the occasion where both sides of the war would meet upon a flat field with no defense. Prior to firearms becoming common, the English built a catapult to take down a Scottish castle. The Scottish army surrendered to the English with nary an arrow, sword, or attack order issued due to the siege equipment being built (the English army destroyed the castle just to show they could with the catapult).

    Please, find a record of two armies meeting on a flat field with neither side having a tactical advantage aside from how strong the archer were, the design of the sword and armor, or having troops hidden in reserve.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweet View Post
    During the Napoleonic wars and the American Civil War, even prior during the French and Indian War (7 Years War) or the American Revolution, very little fighting was done purely in the open with the defenders not hiding behind some sort of fortification or the attackers trying to attack in secret.

    With Montreal, British forces scaled a difficult to scale side of a mountain? to counter the French forces. In the U.S. Revolution, British forces raised siege equipment (cannons) atop a hill higher than a U.S. fort forcing the U.S. forces to flee. In the Battle of Bunker Hill?, U.S. forces were behind dug holes in the ground able to open fire on British forces in Boston and were able to repel the British twice before being forced to flee due to a lack of ammunition. In the U.S. Civil War, Fort Sumter was taken by siege equipment (cannons) alone. In the Napoleonic Wars, France left hundreds of cannons behind on their poor retreat from Russia's greatest generals of all time (General Winter and General Size).

    Vary rare would be the occasion where both sides of the war would meet upon a flat field with no defense. Prior to firearms becoming common, the English built a catapult to take down a Scottish castle. The Scottish army surrendered to the English with nary an arrow, sword, or attack order issued due to the siege equipment being built (the English army destroyed the castle just to show they could with the catapult).

    Please, find a record of two armies meeting on a flat field with neither side having a tactical advantage aside from how strong the archer were, the design of the sword and armor, or having troops hidden in reserve.
    i didn't mean like just flat ground. of course good strategists take the high ground and all those basics. As for reserves and stuff, that's also part of the strategy and can be done by reinforcing in this game.

    Besides, correct me if i'm wrong, but i never said the historical battles were fought in a "flat field". I said they met in some area that's far from major cities and therefore won't have the luxury of heavy fortifications.

    Now, what i suggested in the beginning was a formal system where we can select a location to battle outside of our castle. For example, if one army is moving toward you, you SHOULD be able to march toward and intercept it at some valley across the way. This is also a great way for two players to match their military prowess w/o hiding behind a city and stuff.

    Finally, fortifications, high ground advantages, and other art of war tactics obviously could not be incorporated in a flash game like this so I believe it is unnecessary to talk about that. You might need to buy one of those war games in store if you must have them. For the time being, I would be more than happy to have a formal system of dueling in a flat field or anything.

    edit: btw, you do have alot of great points! but this is just a suggestion so let's not be too nitpicky ^^
    Last edited by CharmyLOVE; 05-16-2009 at 02:19 AM.

  3. #3

    Default

    its a damn fine idea!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    470

    Default

    charmy can you insert a poll into this thread, if you could then that way the devs could see just how many people want this implemented

  5. #5

    Default

    i donno how to D: could u make a thread for me?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Heathrow Area, London U.K.
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Battles were more usually fought on the field if each side believed they had the upper had, ie better terrain, better troops, more troops etc. If one side knew that it would have to defend, it would usually chose a Castle, Fort, even defended town, to try and sway the ballance. A good solid wall that deflects a lot of the incoming missiles was always handy. As the terrain for the purposes of this game would not give either side a bonus, there would be little point ..... unless of course they introduce a graphic battle in which each player could dictate the moves of his troops, in which case it could work.
    Last edited by Kaleban; 05-16-2009 at 08:05 PM.
    Kaleban
    Midgard Alliance Presbyter
    Upper Lorraine

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CharmyLOVE View Post
    Now, I suppose we could arrange a duel in a designated valley, but an official one might be nice
    I don't think you can even do that
    the first player would have to occupy a valley and is at a disadvantage second player sends his force but then sends scouts to find out if the force should continue or be withdrawn.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •