• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

The looming excitement that might be TW warhammer II

Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl said:
I wouldn't take the one I loved to a club in the first place - she's far too pretty, delicate and civilised for such a thing. Even if I did, if Kroq-Gar came along I would give him a sacred tablet of the old ones to keep him quiet...
Click to expand...
you're implying you have mutiple tablets, he won't stay quiet if he figures that out...
 
Canas said:
you're implying you have mutiple tablets, he won't stay quiet if he figures that out...
Click to expand...

You mean 'IF' he figures that out...

194513-CCgH9I4XIAMZPZ0.png
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
But would they accept a warrior who surrenders so easily? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, given that I'm offering openly to aid them on their ancient duty, in any way I can.

Or not. Who are we, mere mortals, to know the desing of the Great Plan?
 
Captaniser said:
You're in the club and this guy slaps your girlfriend's ass, what you gonna do?
Click to expand...

Cristhian MLR said:
but I would immediately surrender and beg for a chance to join his army to accomplish the Great Plan
Click to expand...

NIGHTBRINGER said:
But would they accept a warrior who surrenders so easily? ;)
Click to expand...

Cristhian MLR said:
Yes, given that I'm offering openly to aid them on their ancient duty, in any way I can.
Click to expand...
But what value is a warrior who won't hold the line and will instead break immediately when coming up against resistance?

 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
But what value is a warrior who won't hold the line and will instead break immediately when coming up against resistance?

Click to expand...

THe enemy will be enticed into riding them down when they show their back so they'l be pre-occupied while you counter-attack. Kind of like how people kept goats who fainted when they saw a wolf so the other goats wouldn't be eaten.
 
Canas said:
THe enemy will be enticed into riding them down when they show their back so they'l be pre-occupied while you counter-attack. Kind of like how people kept goats who fainted when they saw a wolf so the other goats wouldn't be eaten.
Click to expand...

Skinks. You are describing skinks. ;)
 
In actual war, having troops break (unless it is planned and part of a specific strategy, i.e. feigned retreat) is a bad thing. That's how armies get routed.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
In actual war, having troops break (unless it is planned and part of a specific strategy, i.e. feigned retreat) is a bad thing. That's how armies get routed.
Click to expand...

I know, but I remember some situations were weaker less veteran troops were specificly fielded against the opponents more elite troops so that the opponent would inevitably push forward as the weaker troops were being defeated (and almost routed) leaving them overextended and vulnerable for your own stronger troops. You could use him for something like that :p The expectation was that a certain part would rout and that others would take advantage of the enemy overextending.

Think it was the thebians in some battle but not sure which. Usually phalanx formations had the more experience warriors on one side, they explicitly swapped this for te afforementioned purpose so that the enemy would overextend with their stronger troops (while their own elite troops purposely held back)
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
So cannon fodder? LOL
Click to expand...

Nah, cannonfodder is there to eat damage, what I mean is more the the lure in a trap. They don't actually need to suffer any significant losses, just offer a "valuable" and easy target for the opponent to chase.

Basicly, cannonfodder still has to achieve things, be it taking bullets to the face so the enemy runs out of ammo or just doing some suicide mission on which you don't want to waste actually capable troops, the ones I mean don't actually need to do anything other than lose and entice the enemy into focussing and chasing them and thus overextending.
 
Canas said:
Nah, cannonfodder is there to eat damage, what I mean is more the the lure in a trap. They don't actually need to suffer any significant losses, just offer a "valuable" and easy target for the opponent to chase.

Basicly, cannonfodder still has to achieve things, be it taking bullets to the face so the enemy runs out of ammo or just doing some suicide mission on which you don't want to waste actually capable troops, the ones I mean don't actually need to do anything other than lose and entice the enemy into focussing and chasing them and thus overextending.
Click to expand...
That whole system fails though if the enemy holds their ground. Now you have your lines breaking, while they maintain formation.

At the end of the day, you need reliable warriors. Ones that flee too easily are of limited use. If you have two equally led armies (general, arms, training), the one with greater psychological fortitude will claim victory more often than not.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
That whole system fails though if the enemy holds their ground. Now you have your lines breaking, while they maintain formation.

At the end of the day, you need reliable warriors. Ones that flee too easily are of limited use. If you have two equally led armies (general, arms, training), the one with greater psychological fortitude will claim victory more often than not.
Click to expand...

Well the basic idea is simply to offer up a weak point to draw in the enemy so you know where they go and set up traps accordingly. It is a possible use for troops that are more liable to break. You can't count on them standing their ground for long, so might as well incorperate their inevitable defeat & retreat into your strategy. It's simply a possible use for our coward seeing as you only really have 3 options.

  1. Put him in a vastly superiour force so he won't rout
  2. Incorperate his rout/defeat into your strategy
  3. Put him in a place where fleeing is impossible.
Ultimatly you'd still prefer more reliable troops, but at least this way our coward has some use :p

Also, more reliable troops could pull of the same strategy but with an organized retreat instead of a full on route.

Also, if it's not a trick opponents will fall for multiple times in quick succesion. So you better have another tactic for the next battle :p.
 
Canas said:
Ultimatly you'd still prefer more reliable troops, but at least this way our coward has some use :p
Click to expand...
The problem is that cowardice can breed more cowardice. If you are to pull an enemy line out of formation, you're still better off with controlled troops.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
The problem is that cowardice can breed more cowardice. If you are to pull an enemy line out of formation, you're still better off with controlled troops.
Click to expand...

Yup controlled & reliable troops will Always be better, but sometimes you'l have to make due.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top