Battle of Wan

[Mr Wu Sheng]

It's logical though, you was in the middle of a battle, troops die i was already being soft, since my catapults didn't do anything and i didn't really bother with many losses except for the ones that needed to be done. For this 1 time i'll agree, and you can take the city for free, you then gain nothing..but you don't lose anything either.

As for the whole - we lost troops we might not have lost. If you keep up your scattered formations, you'll lose more then any calculated loses, your fighting using OLD tactics, which is a bad idea for this time period

anyways.

Wan is yours.

[Xiahou Dun]

..... you know the.... acutally i'm just not gonna say it....
Can I just get an admin to come officalize an outcome here, and i swear if it's a call like the denver san deigo 'Fumble' today there will be a shanking >.>

[Mortiss V3]

I appreciate you were being liberal in your whole approach to this battle but once started you cant just randomly take troops off. If it is the fault of the mod that a battle can not take place then the players should not have to take any damage.

Is that really so unreasonable?

and what exactly do you mean by Old tactics? You do realise that 186-200 odd AD is still the ancient world don't you? This isn't Medieval.

[Mr Wu Sheng]

Heh, no need Dun, the decisions made..wan's yours. I'm not able to post on a regular basis so you win by default.

Me and Mortiss are just randomly talking about other things whilst were at it, and yes, although need i remind the difference between normad warfare and chinese warfare mortiss, VERY different your formations are old in a sense where, there wasn't that thing called intelligence just scatter and ATTTTTACK

hahaha anyways, whatever. Wan's yours...this thread is closed for all i'm concerned

[Xiahou Dun]

I mean do I caculate any losses at all? Just the losses occred up till the point where you just dropped it? or do i have to take them all?

[Mr Wu Sheng]

Just till the point where i dropped it, those last automatic loses i made are void (and i'll remove the post just so you are 100% sure)

[Mortiss V3]

I think you give Chinese tactics too much credit.

During the three kingdoms era many of the generals who rose to power after Dong Zhou was overthrown relied heavily on non Chinese auxiliaries. Wei emphasised the use of shock cavalry though the numbers available were in steady decline after the Chinese lost the extreme north west. Weapons were mainly lances and bows. The nomads of the norths tactics were actually copied by both Wei and Shu. Most foot soldiers were archers or crossbowmen, these would be used in support of a small number of infantry.

If you actually look at the archaeological evidence rather than the literary evidence (If you can call it that) then you see that the Three Kingdoms period was merely a continuation of Han tactics that stretched back 202 BC. Armour was very simple and usually just encompassed a chest protector. In fact initially Cao Caos troops were very light in armour.

My point is that Three Kingdoms tactics were not as advanced as the romance suggests. I mean look at Zhuge Liang for example, he is considered the greatest mind of that age and he is famous for substituting wheelbarrows for the usual Ox wagons and being efficient at organisation. Was that really so great when you compare it to what the likes of Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Caesar and Vespasian?

anyway I'm waffling....

chars..

[Dark Narrator]

So this is settled now? Cool.