310 réponses à ce sujet

[SerCambria358]

You're forgetting that a great deal of the Continental Army were former Red Coats and had the same training. Like the Chevaliers the Red Coats were trained for open field warfare, take away the open field they lose their advantage.

A great deal of them were miltia and volunteers with minor training in comparison to the entirety of the British Empire, which again supports my point that its a reflection of strategy rather than individual skill.

 

Let me give you an analogy. If Mike Tyson were walking down an alley way then all of a sudden he was caught off guard by 4 guys and lost, does that somehow mean he isnt the most skilled fighter out of those 4 average thugs?

[leaguer of one]

Because the variables in fighting a battle dont dictate the better warriors! If you have an army of elites vs a regular army, and the elites win but in the next battle, the regular army has an amazing general and wins the battle against the elites, that means it was the general that won the day and had nothing to do with the warriors combat skill but the tactical genius of the general.

 

Thats why winning and lossing battles in the sense that you're thinking, isnt a legitimate basis to judge who the best is. Again for the third time if this was the case, then the spartans werent superior to anyone because they lost battles 

Yes it does. The highest quality gain highest amount of victory in the face a variables. I'm not say because a group does not win all the time is lesser quality.  i'm saying the group with the best fighters wins the most.

[leaguer of one]

A great deal of them were miltia and volunteers with minor training in comparison to the entirety of the British Empire, which again supports my point that its a reflection of strategy rather than individual skill.

 

Let me give you an analogy. If Mike Tyson were walking down an alley way then all of a sudden he was caught off guard by 4 guys and lost, does that somehow mean he isnt the most skilled fighter out of those 4 average thugs?

It means he as a flaw in his fighting style.

[SerCambria358]

Yes it does. The highest quality gain highest amount of victory in the face a variables. I'm not say because a group does not win all the time is lesser quality.  i'm saying the group with the best fighters wins the most.

Well they did have an empire and do have the largest amount of land, its also agreed by many to be the most powerful of Thedas's nations so i dont see why you'd bring that up as an argument against the Chevaliers being among the best if not the best

[leaguer of one]

Well they did have an empire and do have the largest amount of land, its also agreed by many to be the most powerful of Thedas's nations so i dont see why you'd bring that up as an argument against the Chevaliers being among the best if not the best

Because they been a heavy losing streak. It would be like saying right now the dolphin are the best team ever in football because of what they did in the 70's.

[SerCambria358]

It means he as a flaw in his fighting style.

1.)But that still makes him the best

 

2.)Its a fighting flaw that he isnt psychic and doesnt know he's about to be ambushed? Theres being skilled enough to take an opponent and then theres being ambushed, some situations arent determined by skill alone. Thats like saying someone who got sucker punched and knocked out, lacked the fighting skill necessary to avoid that. It has nothing to do with skill but situational awarness.

[Mabari-Master]

The Mike Tyson analogy is kind of counter productive to you argument. Chevalier have almost aways had the superior numbers and training. My point is their adherence to a single method of combat is their strength but it can also be turned into their weakness. Almost no one can defeat them in open ground, if they try to than their fools. Instead another force should use their own training and tactics to manuever around and outdo the Chevaliers number and make their training count for nothing.

 

By the way I'm a big Mike Tyson fan and I doubt just four thugs could take him on barehanded.

[SerCambria358]

Because they been a heavy losing streak. It would be like saying right now the dolphin are the best team ever in football because of what they did in the 70's.

I feel like you're ignoring me for the sake of not being wrong. I've already established that losing a war doesnt conclude that a special forces group on the losing side is the reason they lost. One organization cannot carry a country that large.

 

Plus they're still THE supreme superpower of Thedas besides the qunari. They lost a nation due to guerrilla tactics and inferior strategy, yet they're still the most powerful nation in Thedas

[MisterJB]

I doubt most Seekers are on the same level as Lambert and Cassandra.

True, Cass knocks out three while unarmed and handcuffed to a dead weight in "Dawn of the Seeker".

[SerCambria358]

The Mike Tyson analogy is kind of counter productive to you argument. Chevalier have almost aways had the superior numbers and training. My point is their adherence to a single method of combat is their strength but it can also be turned into their weakness. Almost no one can defeat them in open ground, if they try to than their fools. Instead another force should use their own training and tactics to manuever around and outdo the Chevaliers number and make their training count for nothing.

 

By the way I'm a big Mike Tyson fan and I doubt just four thugs could take him on barehanded.

Exactly, thats a strategic weakness rather than a product of inferior fighting skill, ive said this so many times. If Loghain was commanding the Chevaliers, Fereldan wouldve lost, thats what i mean by strategy being the main factor.

 

As for Mike Tyson, agreed, i made the analogy to prove my point. Him losing that fight (lets just say so for the sake of the analogy) doesnt conclude that he wasnt the most skilled fighter in that scenario it just means he wasnt for those circumstances.

[Mabari-Master]

Who do you guys think would win in a fight, a cult of Reavers or a Band of Ash Warriors?

[leaguer of one]

I feel like you're ignoring me for the sake of not being wrong. I've already established that losing a war doesnt conclude that a special forces group on the losing side is the reason they lost. One organization cannot carry a country that large.

 

Plus they're still THE supreme superpower of Thedas besides the qunari. They lost a nation due to guerrilla tactics and inferior strategy, yet they're still the most powerful nation in Thedas

Yet they lost a straight on war with Navarra.

[leaguer of one]

Who do you guys think would win in a fight, a cult of Reavers or a Band of Ash Warriors?

Reavers. They are the embodiment of pain.

[BloodKaiden]

Ash Warriors, nuff said.

[sunnydxmen]

the seekers

[Mabari-Master]

I think it'd be a close tie with the reavers and ash warriors. The Reavers feed off pain and the Ash Warriors feed off anger. But the Ash Warriors aren't looking to hurt the Reavers, they're out to kill them. But then again the Reavers also feed of the death of their enemies, so anyone they kill could make the Reaver stronger.

[SerCambria358]

Yet they lost a straight on war with Navarra.

And how many times have i already said just because a nation loses doesnt mean you can put the fault on one special forces organization. Im not going to say the Qunari arent skilled only because they lost the ground that they captured, im not going to say Rome wasnt powerful only because they were beaten by Germanic tribes.

 

Im just repeating myself over and over because you cant understand the separation between war/strategy and the skill of a specific group of warriors. Ive supplied plenty of evidence throughout history yet you dont acknowledge it and continue to repeat yourself and ignore what ive said, this has just become pointless 

[Master Warder Z_]

I feel like you're ignoring me for the sake of not being wrong. I've already established that losing a war doesnt conclude that a special forces group on the losing side is the reason they lost. One organization cannot carry a country that large.

 

*Coughs*

 

World War Two

 

*Coughs*

[SerCambria358]

*Coughs*

 

World War Two

 

*Coughs*

What do you mean?

[Mabari-Master]

Here's another warrior class match-up: The Chevalier Order vs The Order of The Templars.

[leaguer of one]

What do you mean?

What party was in charge of Germany in ww2?

[leaguer of one]

Here's another warrior class match-up: The Chevalier Order vs The Order of The Templars.

Chevaliers.

[SerCambria358]

What party was in charge of Germany in ww2?

I speaking about a special forces organization, i thought that was a given detail given what we've been talking about this entire time

[Master Warder Z_]

What do you mean?

 

You had the Wehrmacht being handicapped by political elements and a core of what i believe truly incompetent leaders despite them having a fairly strong and centralized superiority over their opponents when it came to equipment and experience.

 

Not to send the wrong idea; not all of the national socialist appointed military leaders were bad military officers, many were exceptionally good at adapting very rapidly to the shifting face of war from the crucible of the great war to world war two, but just as many if not more were appointed sheerly for political convenience.

 

Beyond you have the specialized state security units being boggled down by bureaucracy despite their effectiveness; seriously did you know the Waffen had a 15 to 1 casutality rating for the entirirty of Case Blue?

 

Scary, very scary, like one of the best causality to kill ratios in the history of recorded warfare scary.

[SerCambria358]

You had the Wehrmacht being handicapped by political elements and a core of what i believe truly incompetent leaders despite them having a fairly strong and centralized superiority over their opponents when it came to equipment and experience.

 

Not to send the wrong idea; not all of the national socialist appointed military leaders were bad military officers, many were exceptionally good at adapting very rapidly to the shifting face of war from the crucible of the great war to world war two, but just as many if not more were appointed sheerly for political convenience.

 

Beyond you have the specialized state security units being boggled down by bureaucracy despite their effectiveness; seriously did you know the Waffen had a 15 to 1 casutality rating for the entirirty of Case Blue?

 

Scary, very scary, like one of the best causality to kill ratios in the history of recorded warfare scary.

Exactly, thank you for supporting my point. You always see the same incompetence during times of expansion