/his/ - History

>>32979

they all counter each other depending on the circumstance

>>32979

>not just choosing the Teutons for that sweetass Teutonic knight unit with 80% piercing defense

>>32979

real war isnt a videogame. the best strategies fail if executed poorly. the best armor and weapons in the world are useless in the hands of an idiot. inversely, a staff in the hand of an expert is better than a bow/sword/lance in the hands of an amateur.

it varies from case to case.

>>32979

>So in real life, who counters who?

In what case? Time? Circumstance? Factions involved? Equipment?

>>32987

>Saladin BTFO'd the crusaders

With the shittiest civ no less.

>>32987

>teutons

>third crusade

That was Britain wasn't it?

It'd just be british crusaders and not an order then.

>>32992

Cossaks 2 used to be my shit, man

Moral counters everything else.

A scared off man with shiny armour and nice weapons is less effective than a brave peasant with a stick.

>>33002

_whom_ counters _whom_

>>33007

*whose* counter's *who*

Archers for the most part couldn't do much damage until the Longbow came along, the Infantry if they were in a tight formation can fuck up Archers and Cavalry, Cavalry is good for harassing or attacking broken formations but can't straight up charge straight into the fighting.

Archers are only useful when supported by both infantry and cavalry to protect them

>>33010

>longbow

not this meme again

>>33005

Shiny armor and weapons and a thundering warhorse give lots of moral though. The feeling of invulnerability is one of the advantages of full plate.

>>32979

Depends on the time period, combatants and the battlefield.

Archers likely come last though since their power wasn't really in killing people.

Long as this is the vidya reelism thread, how accurate is Fire Emblem's weapon triangle? It's swords have an advantage over axes, lances over swords, and axes over lances. In a 1v1 duel between two fighters equal in most if not all respects, is this accurate?

>>33019

>how accurate is "insert video game here"''s battle system

It isn't.

Also, the question rather should be what kind of weapon is effective against which armor. Axes and maces can be devastating against heavily armored opponents because they focus more kinetic power onto a smaller point, but the same kinetic power also means that missing your enemy can easily send your out of balance, so they are less effective against agile, more lightly armored foes.

Swords by comparison enjoy a more evenly distributed weight and thus do not send you out of balance that easily (which they still can do, mind you), but in turn may have problems piercing heavy armor.

Lances were used in cavalry charges, and not much else. They allow you to pierce heavy armor by virtue of the kinetic force you build up during the charge, but they're not much good in direct close quarters fighting.

>>33023

> against agile, more lightly armored foes

that is a meme. the difference in speed/agility between fighting unarmored and fighting in full platemail so little as to be inconsequential.

go to 2:50

Ranged weapons counter people who are far away

Melee weapons counter people who are close

>>33053

I would agree with this if we speak about a scenario where both the lightly and the heavily armored fighters are well-rested (as is usually the case in historic reenactments).

But consider that heavy armor (i.e. full plate armor) weighs more than light (i.e. leather or chainmail) armor, and you will find that, unsurprisingly, it will tire you down and hence make you slower quicker than light armor would do. Of course, most heavily armored warriors rode into battle on a horse, which negated a considerable part of the weight problem.

>>33163

Ranged weapons also played a vital role in providing suppressive fire to break up formations and demoralize the enemy, making charges by melee infantry and cavalry more effective.

>>33231

I don't remember Heavy cavalry being used by Turks?

I think you mean fall of the *Western Roman Empire, please for the sake of my autistic jimmies don't mix the two up.

>>33258

Wouldn't Sipahi count as Heavy Cavalry?

>>33302

Weren't Spakhs just Turkish Knights?

Or was that Mamelukes who were Arabic Knights… Lol I don't remember.

I played too much Cossacks.

Why peole don't use these anglicised forms anymore btw? Mamluk and Sipahi sounds fucking awful, it's like calling Cologne Köln.

>>33306

Because Köln is Köln, and not Cologne. Anglofags can fuck right off when it comes to proper names.

>>32981

>>not just choosing the Teutons for that sweetass Teutonic knight unit with 80% piercing defense

For some reason, didn't help against mounted archers. To the point of that they didn't even try when met some later.

>>33002

I always wanted to know who assburgers man was.

>>32979

Each one is capable not only of countering the other two, but their same troop type. The question is a matter of training, numbers, and equipment.

Maurician Byzantine doctrine for example had armored infantry fight other infantry, and cavalry fight cavalry, while later Nikephoran doctrine had super heavy cavalry take on enemy infantry while heavy spears took on cavalry.

>>33334

>Köln

>Cologne

Actually, it should be either Kölle (as the city is called by locals) or Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium as is the name of the city in original language.

>>34860

Thanks a bundle, anon.

>>32987

>how do you think Saladin BTFO'd the crusaders

Because he outnumbered them massively.

>>33308

>Maybe early 16th century men-at-arms

Not maybe, that's the heaviest cavalry that ever was.

>>34933

And because they were fractious and divided like all the christian kingdoms in the Balkans and the Byzantium empire.

>>34862

keulen ftw

>>32979

Real life is rather a lot more complicated than a video game RPS system. But to a very basic approximation, your picture is correct to most eras of warfare. You have some kind of long-ranged artillery, slings or longbows or muskets, which can be pretty devastating to morale given enough time to launch volleys at an enemy formation. Getting killed while unable to counterattack makes lots of people want to run away even if the absolute number of casualties is relatively low. Then you have cavalry, who are very fast and can rip archer formations right to shreds. Archers don't have polearms or shields or anything else other than their actual bodies to slow a cavalry charge down, so there is fuck-all they can do when charged whether it's in their flank or not. They aren't going to win a melee fight with heavy infantry either, but heavy infantry will spend a lot more time getting arrowed on the way to meet them. And you have heavy infantry, who have some kind of polearm, phalanxes or pike formations or whatever, and can stop a cavalry charge dead in its tracks if they meet it head on. So the heavy infantry are mobile fortresses used to guard the archers, who chew up enemy formations, and you use your cavalry to rout enemy archer formations by outmaneuvering the infantry. You can also rout the infantry if you hit them in the flank, but as a general rule you would rather be routing archers.

There were lots of specific militaries that bucked the trend, though. Off the top of my head, I know the Roman of the later Republic and the Empire preferred to win battles by having their more awesome infantry beat the shit out of enemy infantry, and they had infantry formations that were mostly arrow-proof which allowed them to tell the RPS system to fuck right off, and they were far from the only ones.

>>35030

>RPS

Real Person Shooter?

>>35030

Archers aren't a killing force, archers are used to skirmish and disrupt formations. They never really "chewed up" heavy infantry formations.

>>35031

Rock-Paper-Scissors

>>35035

So, when I first introduced the battlefield role of archers what I said was this:

>Getting killed while unable to counterattack makes lots of people want to run away even if the absolute number of casualties is relatively low.

So all you're doing here is bitching about the semantics of what exactly the slang term "chewed up" means.

>>35041

Sorry if I sounded autistic (of course I did) but the term "chewed-up" made me think of troops getting thrown into a metaphorical meat-grinder, personally I would have used the word "peppered" but I'm not all too happy with that verb either.

Sigh.