Any games like Civilization but with combat but not like Total War? I mean either real time combat or rpg combat...

Any games like Civilization but with combat but not like Total War? I mean either real time combat or rpg combat, not that rts crap I HAVE MORE UNITS I WIN LEL

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ia_Drang
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Endless legend is kind of like that, but it also has all the problems of civ 5.

Wat
Have you ever player Total War?

Yep, Rome and Shogun, , and its exactly like that just like most RTS games.

Sengoku Rance looked good but my dick will fall off if i look into more porn

You're one dumb nigger, of all the games you could claim this about, you go for Total War, the only one where flanking, charges, formation, skills, morale, etc. actually matter.

Spare me the bullshit kid. I finished those fucking games on the hardest difficulty. That shit doesnt matter, it all boils down to numbers, like 99,9% of rts games. You can cry and moan all you want, this is fact.

Well, that is strategy games in general.

You have better logistics, thus better numbers and you win.

You will not find anything different in TBS games.

...

Seconding

Pffff, i breath in dante must die mode , as i consciously control the whole procress, from all the mechanic air intake to the cell transportaion and the krebs cycle and everything.
You goddamn casuals dont even have to think about this stuff.

I'll check it out

Sound like bullshit.

Nuh uh 100% true, my dad works at Nintendo

just because your dad works for nintendo doesnt mean total war isnt just a game of number to go in on and success. dont you think thats alittle irrelevant in the act?

Men of War.
This game has physics based damage calculations, fully destructible environments and you can take control of individual units and play them like it was a 3rd person shooter.
Units are actually limited to what they can see in front of their eyes, pieces can be shot off a building and land on a soldier and kill them, tanks will explode into several parts when blown up and each bit of shrapnel and debris is a physics entity that can cause damage, soldiers set on fire can spread the fire to plant life he walks over, which can then spread to buildings and burn them down.
It accounts for bullet drop, wind resistance, soldier inventory weight, weapon jamming, fuel, ammo count in each magazine for each troop, ect.
This game came out in 2004
There's also a really fucking good 40k mod for Assault Squad 2 with gore and working drop pods

There's also Mount&Blade where you control a single character and live out his life as a warlord. You can visit towns, participate in gladiator combat, own land, get married, buy and sell goods, hunt bounties, play dress up, fuck prostitutes, gamble in taverns, ect. It's really good if you're looking for a map painter with real time combat and unit control.

You must be shit tier at those game, I've played them all, I've held cities with 1 unit of militia and a unit of light cavalry against armies of 2k+, I've never even thought of numbers as a factor and always take battles where I'm heavily outnumbered because you should always have at least 1 or 2 units of cav for flanking and you can win just about any fight
If you wanted to generalize total war you would have said it all comes down to hammer + anvil, but you seem like a larper who likely never played them above medium.

All strategy games are about numbers, my boy.

It's called logistics.

None of these games are close to Civilization doe.

Mount and Blade is kinda like baby Total War with a hack and slash mode.

- Euripides


You don't know shit about strategy or total war.

Seriously, those niggers don't understand wars like the romans do.

Commanders care about tactics, winners care about logistics.

Actually, Soldiers: Heroes of WW2 came out in 2004, followed by Faces of War, and then Men of War, which was released in 2009.

Still, Soldiers of WW2 is pretty fucking impressive for 2004, with fully destructible buildings, a huge selection of drivable vehicles, dozens of soldiers on the battlefield, each one with their individual inventory, the ability to play it as a tactical strategy game or a "twin stick shooter", etc.

As for some similar games, how about Knights of Honor, which is basically Crusader Kings lite with tactical combat. Alternatively go play Darkest Hour with any number of mods and forge a better future for all humanity by letting Germany win the war.

Like the amazing roman logistics of walking your massive legion into an area that turns their numbers from a small potential advantage into a massive disadvantage? Also I'm pretty sure the greeks understand war against superior numbers given the persian invasions.

That's a tactical mistake, but the romans could replace those legions in mere months, thus proving that logistics win out in the long game.

Sure they do, heck, the greeks/helenist fought against the romans too, look at the Pyrrhic war where Pyrrhus won some great battles but still lost in the end because he cannot replaced his loss as fast as the romans did.

Sure, there's a sense of romance regarding tactics, but logistics is the sure-win button.

You used the right word, romance. These dumbs kids think that if you are a l33t enough general you can win anything with flanking and other bullshit tactics

Hey, I'm a logistic guy but hammer and anvil are a tried and true tactics.

Having logistics is important but there's nothing wrong with fighting smart as well.

Honestly if I'm going to play a grand strat I'd just play Vicky II, none of the others have a proper economic system and it just defeats the purpose of all the other paradox games for me.


You realize with a proper choke point and cornering an army 1/4 the size can destroy the opposition.

Think in terms of a single person picking people off from a doorway with a shotgun.

Getting off topic, in real life with how supply works and everything, numbers do become more significant in the long run, my original point was more in single battlefield scenarios which total war is more focused on, and that in total war it true you can win by swamping your enemies by having endless armies that out-attrition them in a more historically accurate, but that you can win using small decisive armies and guerrilla tactics if you wish, the game isn't restricted to one style of play.


maybe not in real war, you can in total war though, if you think otherwise I'll happily add you on steam and trash you with and army 1/4 your size

Sure, but the point is: without logistics, even if you maintain a 1 to 4 kill ratio, you are still gonna lose.

It's not a question of how many kills, but how fast you can replace your loss.

there are so many cases where this isnt the case. do you need me to dig through my pol folder to find you some examples where there have been an army with a massive number advantage routed by a significantly smaller group without a huge technological advantage?

Sure, we see battles like that all the times, but I'm talking about the overall WAR.

War needs supplies lines, war needs logistics.

Hammer and anvil were used in real war, and it's still used right now in small squad tactics i.e. suppression and move.

OP is probably a trolling nigger either ways.

yes, war needs logistics. but logistics still dont "win" wars as you implied.

Sure, you gotta win some battles as well.

My point is logistics play an immensely important role and act as a huge safety net.

Germany fought the world almost by themselves twice and they could have won if they had the numbers.

yes, but irrelevant to the argument. "feeding your troops is important" yes, more important than training and strategies?… i mean… kinda? but kind of a stupid point to make.


do you think russia with its improved numbers could have crushed germany? pretty sure germany made fools out of them and their numbers.
germany had their supply lines and such fucked up by the US which lead to their loss.

Nazi Germany was a case where good tactics still cannot make up for bad logistics.

Training and supplying your troops are logistics.

How you use them is strategies and tactics.

With good logistics, strategies can be simplified down. With bad logistics, strategies must be amended in accordance.

That's not always the case, look at how based vlad the kebab remover fought the ottomans
He had a vastly smaller force than the ottomans, so he stayed on the move, ahead of their advance that was slow because of their size, he dug pitfalls and similar other traps to slowly attrition and demoralize them, employed full scorched earth, burning and salting the land and poisoning the water as he went. He attacked them in the night with hit and run tactics, and when he found out anyone of his subjects had betrayed him to the ottomans he impaled them as a message that intimidated the turks
All this mental and physical stress(hunger and thirst) meant that despite beating the wallachians in multiple battles the invasion was overall a failure and resulted in the retreat of the ottomans back to turkey simply from fatigue despite having an army 15-20 times the size they had no ability to supply it properly do to the brutal scorched earth campaign

i dont think having your supply lines bombed counts as "bad logistics". the last thing you can accuse the germany army for is not being well equipped, well trained. they were much better off than their adversaries, which is why the US targeted their supplies in massive airborn operations.


training is not part of logistics.

One of the big drawbacks in Europa Universalis 4 is shit like that simply not simulated in any way (attrition exists but AI gets even less of it than Human player does, simply not enough to stop Kebab from steamrolling any small country that doesn't have Austria as its ally.) Wallachia gets meager "Hostile Core-Creation" tradition that makes their provinces more expensive to integrate.

In the bad games or if you put easy mode on, sure.
Total War's Weapon Triangle is Cavalry>Infantry>Spears>Cavalry. Archers and bombarding units have only two effective ranges and are pushovers if you let them too close and extremely vulnerable to Cavalry. Launching a thousand Peasants will never work because of the low morale, so they'll break almost immediately unless you fight near generals or micromanage to swarm on single units and then let them go in and out on rest.
You might want to try Rhye's and Fall for Civ4, though.

Ever tried online battles? I bet you crack after the third loss in a row.


The Greeks fucking invented the Phalanx formation and had huge spears that the Macedonian perfected solely because inbred Eastern people would throw themselves by the thousands and swarm them in. Literally their thought process is "you can't be flanked if you don't have a flank" and it fucking worked but it was expensive and tiring as hell.

Well, having your supplies bombed and your troops not getting their equipment is bad logistics. And no, the german army was not well-equipped, they had some revolutionary shit, but the americans and soviet were far better equipped and more numerous.

It is though.

Having well-trained and well-supplied troops are having good logistics.

Age of wonders 3.

Straight retard and liar confirmed.
Ive held fortresses in shogun with 4 units against a FULL STACK. I distinctly rember fending off an entire army by bowing the shit out of them on 3 levels with 2 units and constantly moving them back up and making a last stand on the final top. It came down to the fucking retainers and a weak ass general i just got screeching battle cries and had to dismount to hold the backside to keep them steady, and who wound up routing the army after they couldnt take it anymore. I crushed a nation because they suicided mediocre troops with awful tactics and they never recovered from the loss. You never played Shogun if you think numbers mean shit, you just auto resolve conflicts and think your some type of grand fucking wizard strategist and that the game is shallow when truth be told you'd be better suited for CID Billy Gay Meyers and Cucknation 9, dawn of the super giant robot of skill edition. You probably would throw Clavary into the advancing spear front if you thought you had more units and scream about how unbalanced it is.

Except phalanx can get flanked, and it's the reason why phalanx isn't perfect.

I mean, at some points, phalanx were broken by head charges by gallic troops, or they were outmaneuvered by Roman maniples.

Big part of Macedonian success was that they came up with phalanx that had their most elite heavy infantry troops (that would normally be in reserve) deployed at the flanks of the phalanx.

And supported by heavy cavalry.

Still, even the best phalanx get bested, as seen in the Pyrrhic war.

The Phalanx CAN'T be flanked, but its soldiers CAN get tired and give. The maneuver itself is very draining because it takes forever to move around, turning is a nightmare and you can get a lot of volleys from archers, but as far as open field combat was, it was fucking unbeatable because the Macedonians learnt to make Looney Tunes spears that could pierce at a huge distance and weren't very heavy or easy to break.
The move itself was abandoned by the Romans after a very short while because fighting in Italy is nightmarish so they went with the checkers formation.

Don't think the romans ever tried employing pikes, but more like hoplite spear phalanx. Then they got their shit kicked by the gauls so they adopted to sword/shield with javelin solders.
From history, that wasn't true.

The greeks thought of unbeatable tactics where they cannot lose.

The romans thought of logistics where their loss can be easily replaced.

Romans won.

training is not a part of logistics. look it up. that ties into strategy, not logistics.

up until the US entering the war and bombing their supplies they were the best off. their equipment was top notch, their soldiers were well fed and well trained and extremely effective against the opposition even when heavily outnumbered allowing them to hold positions with minimal staff.

the germans were able to gain massive amounts of land, control it, protect it, and carry supplies through it in an organized fashion. they were able to keep written records of everything. late into the war things went south bc of the americans bombing supply lines, and the british slaughtering civilians so they could no longer produce food.

what youre arguing is like saying someone that was shot in the throat died because they had a bad respiratory system

oh, youre arguing about something you dont have basic knowledge on.. nevermind.

I do acknowledge that training is not a part of logistics.

But the point remains that the US does enter the war, and German's logistics is reduced to shit, thus they have bad logistics.
That's exactly right though, he dies because their respiratory system is shot.
Basic knowledge shows that the russians have far more men, tanks and materiel than germany ever had.

its like saying a country has a weak economy moments after it was nuked. its a silly argument.
"man, you have bad skin" after dumping a vat of boiling oil on someone.

yea, a poor country that was struggling to feed itself and built tanks out of paper and were spread so thin even early in the war not every soldier was armed let alone fed. and most of them had "white of their eyes" type rules to reduce ammo consumption that they still burned through. because their numbers and lack of training worked against them.

The only surviving record of Hitler talking in supposed privacy has him mention that he and his generals had no idea how many tanks soviets had and wouldn't have believed if somebody told them the truth.

Soviets had massive problems mostly related to Communist Dogma (Stalin's purge, Political Officers) but got their act together rather quickly.

It's not a silly one. A strong economy would mean it would still survive under harsh circumstances, such as getting nuked. You realize Cold warriors even accounted their logistics even nukes are invovled.
And in the end, they had far more men, guns and tanks than Nazi Germany ever did, wonder how that works. It doesn't matter if you kill 10 tanks, as long as they can build 100 more to replace that 10 lost.
Sure, but all the training didn't help the German army when they were running out of bullets and tanks, while the Soviet and american were getting more experiences as they replace their loss.

You want a card based combat system? go play Thea the awakening, the more guys you have with various skills, the more shit you can do and kill

I tried this but I fucking hard card combat, oh well.

Not really a fan of that type either, because they're almost always shit, and I didn't like it at first, but once you start to get how it works, it's pretty fun

yea, because after the americans bombed their supply lines, they quickly fell apart. its not like they put up an insanely strong fight slaughtering americans, brits, and russians even with a huge lapse in supplies.
they went into russia and started making shorter trips and kept their army fed. germany at the time easily had the best logistics in the world that stood up to the harshest punishment.

but the us tactics turned their logistics to shit. germanys loss is an argument against the importance of logistics.

nigger, do you think the germans were an easy foe? look at what a couple russians did to the americans and the french on the beaches of normandy. look at what a few germans did to the russians in stalingrad. you dont think these victories helped?
do you think the russians were able to replace what they lost?

there were germans using russian weapons and russian tanks after they used their few resources efficiently to pilfer them and their factories from the russians.

the german army had the best logistics in the world at the time. but yea… keep saying they had "bad logistics" for the sake of your argument.

By the way, is there any Total War mod that lets you hire units from all possible faiths/factions? I know that there's one mod that lets you play as Rebels and that technically you can do that there, but I'd really like it if it could be done with real factions as well.

Thus they got shit logistics, how is this hard to get? Easily destroyed logistics means they got bad logistics.
It's an argument FOR it actually, all the training in the world cannot make up for the loss of supplies lines.
They weren't, but the moment their logistics got hit, their win become unwinnable, so it's a matter of time before they lose.
They absolutely were able to replace what they lost, heck, their military strength multiplied after the war compared to before it.
America exists, so no, pre-war and post-war, Germany didn't have the best logistics at any times.

You can probably hack it but what's the point?

Restrictions are what makes the games fun.

I've went against armies twice-thrice my size on Rome and won, hardest difficulty. Nice try.


Like paywall locked factions and units? You're right! Take my shekels mr. Goldberg!

Like a faction got its strong and weak points instead of everything so they got no weakness.

It's why Radious mod is actually shit.

Checkmate.

Uh what?

Well, everyone employs this strategy, the germans included.

The fact the german logistics are the easiest destroyed means they got the shittiest one.

I don't think we were speaking of Rome 1 in specifically?

wrong.


but using it to aquire new resources to keep you guys fighting strong and still winning and advancing for years after?


lol, no. it still took a ton of deaths and resources to even match them after the initial MANY hits.


irrelevent. by the end of the war they had 1 rifle for every 5-10 soldiers which were mostly illiterate and starving.


irrelevent.
america wasnt fighting on american soil and germany didnt want american soil. they just wanted the coal field that was taken from them in the post ww1 treaty.

germany had the best logistics. no other army in the world could have stood up to that much punishment.

Strategy games are for fags

All it takes is bombers.

The nazis stopped advancing after their logistics got bombed to shit, they switched to playing defensively and lost.

As opposed to Nazi Germany where they just surrendered. Come on.

Well, there's no army in the world that can give that much punishment to the american or the soviet, so yeah.

The germans tried to destroy American and Soviet logistics, but they couldn't.

Wow you are bad at video games.

I was talking about how i pulled that off in Rome 1 though.


Here's a (You), spend it wisely.

good choice user
this game is amazing, rpg-like and very challenging
the story, setting and music are pretty top tier comfy too

it doesn't scratch my civ itch though

Just because the american logistics won them a war doesn't mean it was a good strategy, they admitted themselves their strategy worked so well because the germans spent so much time trying to intercept information and find out what the americans plans were and americans plans were basically just don't have a super rigid line of command and orders because if we don't know what's going on with our guys 30 miles away or what our plans are for next weeks attack until the day before it happens then the enemy can't know. If they actually went up against an enemy of equal power and knowledge today, with that information in mind how well do you think they would fair? Not well by how much their doctrinaire seems to struggle in the face of people who don't give a fuck about logistics because they are so hopelessly unequipped and at a technological disadvantage they just focus on killing you at every possible turn, whether it be with a bamboo stake pit or a road side IED

...

Well, America's position is so well that even if the whole world is against it, the world isn't going to be sure-win.

To this date, unless aliens suddenly invade, there's no power that can beat America in a direct fight, so terrorism and disturbing the special snowlfakes (liberals) in America are all that they can ever do.

Is it though? How about in 10 years from now when the army is majority full of "minorities"? They sure have the technological and weapons superiority, but when it's the hands of pablo, enrique and jessica in the diversity squad, how effective is it really?

wrong. why dont you look up operation market garden to see the kind of shit the US had to do.


the nazis reached stalingrad (AKA GOAL) in 1942. the americans entered the war and started bombing their supply lines in 1941.
after stalingrad where did you expect them to attack next? japan?

are you imply that those same russians wouldnt have surrendered if the russians didnt shoot those retreating? which still retreated?
also, the german army was still fighting and killing long after their supplies were cut.


the germans didnt attack america. so no, they didnt try to "destroy their logistics"
the germans annihilated the russians logistics (since they couldnt feed or arm themselves), army, and took their land. . again, this just shows your complete ignorance of the war.


well china could just light up america with nukes. done deal.

For the heck of it and to see if I can make weird strategies work.

Yes, subversions destroy everyone, Roman empire included.

Operation market was headed by the brits and it was a move to end the war early, it failed, but it didn't mean the end of the american/brits.
So…the whole plan of the nazis are to reach Stalingrad and just fought there until they are beaten off?
The russians would surrender if they lose, but they didn't lose, the germans did.
Until they are dead and cannot replace their death, it's the point.
The germans attacked american ship and planes, which are parts of american supply lines.
Yet somehow tanks and guns were still made in factories and shipped out to the frontline, weird huh? While the germans gains were lost gradually.
It's even arguable that America would be destroyed even in a MAD situation, all those bunkers, mang.

so not having the industrial capacity, manpower and raw materials to maintain a several times bigger airfleet than your enemy is "bad logistics"?

you're retarded beyond down syndrome, kid

I thought their goal would be to reach Moscow, and dismantle communism?


No they wouldn't, they'll shoot you as soon as you turn back to retreat/surrender, order 227 nig.

So your idea of a battle superiority is to throw your men to death until you either win or you ran out of men? Nice.

Wasn't that nigger Stalin exporting all the grains, therefore starving everyone?

Russians merely moved the factories deeper into Siberia and Caucasus where the Germans can't easily reach them.

Yeah, actually right.

Good logistics is about having more shit than the enemies.

if you don't, well, you got worse logistics than your enemy and thus are in a disadvantaged position.

it failed because german logstiics werent weak.
their goal was to get back the land taken from them and destroy the soviets. both accomplished. the allied armies goal was to destroy germany. so yes, the germans just wanted to defend themselves, which eventually fell apart after years of having the worlds 3 largest armies attack them.

laughably wrong. they lost many battles and stopped fighting and just held their ground until the us and brits saved them.

not an argument
soldiers are technically "part of logistics" so again, not an argument. attacking an invading force is not an attack on their logistics.
no, that didnt happen. youre full of shit. the soviets were literally saying "when he dies, pick up his gun"

So the usa being in a pretty much unassailable position in ww2 and having more industry and raw material than pretty much everyone else combined is "good logistics"?

You're getting more retarded with every post, kid.

No, I mean complete annihilation, the soviet never got completely annihilated, just big losses.
My idea of battle superiority is to have enough shit to replace even if you are lost. So even if you lose, it means nothing and I can continue on.

so if it took your local police napalm canisters, 20 police officers lives, grenades, riot shields, squad cars, and APCs to subdue a single homeless guy… youd say the homeless guy was weak?
got it.

German logistics were bombed to shit before Market Garden was planned.
Oh come now, they didn't even destroy the Soviet. The Soviet weren't done by 42.
They lost battles, they didn't lose the war.
How is it not? Couldn't the germans replace their dead like the americans and soviet did?
What about ships? American ships? And american trucks? Jesus fuck, man.
As said, the ruskies have far more men and guns than Germany…

Well, does the homeless guy lose?

That's all that matters.

and they still crushed the largest airborn operation in recorded history. what does this tell you?

Actually, yeah, that's true.

That's the USA having the best logistics of the damn world.

That quick hasty made plan is a bad idea?

The germans tried the same shit in Crete, got beaten off too.

Thea the awakening

Good going.

I'd love to see you lead an army and see your face when you get utterly destroyed because all you cared was the numbers so you just throw everyone at the enemy a la human wave (((tactic))).


Okay you're not even trying anymore.

ok.


against an army that was "done" and "weak" according to you?


lol, so attacking a ship that comes to attack your country is "attacking their logistics"? exactly. so defending yourself to any capacity is "attacking logistics" including soldiers.
is everything logistics to you?
do you see how silly the argument youre making is?


irrelevant to any argument in this thread.


ok, so youre still saying that a "weak" "easily destroyed" "already defeated" army could repel the largest airborn operation in history.

So you are saying even if the Soviet army is completely annihilated, Stalin and the likes wouldn't surrender?
>so you just throw everyone at the enemy a la human wave (((tactic))).
If I care about logistics, it's impossible for me to throw everyone at the enemy. That betrays the point of logistics, that is caring about numbers.

Trying at?

I'm saying that everyone would be already dead, including Stalin and the likes.

What argument?
Are logistics not the number of personnel, equipment you have, and the supply lines to keep shit running? Doesn't America actually have the best of that?
I don't think Germany by 41 and 42 were done and weak.
I'm talking about supply ships, which were torpedo by german u-boats, all these supply ships contribute to America and brits' logistics.
the argument is that good logistics actually triumph over any kind of genius tactics, and the Soviet actually proves this by beating the germans.
The same way the damn cretans could somehow repel the german army which you dubbed "having the best logistics in the world".

But that's not the point, no? "Stalin and the likes" include people that weren't even in the Soviet army.

So even if the Soviet army got annihilated, some soviet would remain to surrender.

Look, you've just contradicted yourself when your idea is to throw your men into battle and then replacing them once they're dead which is pretty much throwing your army at the enemy without any thoughts.

Do you even understand what you said when you said 'complete annihilation'? That'd mean the whole army, government, and hell, probably even the citizens are all dead

No, I don't think having the ability to replace my loss means I just throw shit at enemy without thoughts.

That's like two different kind of thoughts man.

…but I said the Soviet army, not the USSR itself?

Even the USSR weren't dumb to bring Stalin to the frontline.

then you shouldnt have said that


and soldiers dont?


i think we're done here….


soviets didnt beat the germans, the americans did. using strategy.
youre proving my point.


you said a defeated army can win against an incredibly powerful attack.
then claim that an attack cant fail if the army has good logistics.

what stretch does a defeated army equate a failed attack? those 2 arguments arent even related?


you said their logistics were "bad". do you not understand what that word means? you argue like a retard.

All the time you're only arguing about muh logistics and you even agreed that even if it takes the whole police department to take down a homeless man, it means the homeless man is weak, so yes, you're throwing everything at the enemy.


Did you even know what you posted?
Try harder.

I said they were done and weak after their logistics got bombed to shit.
Soldiers do too, but what's that to go with supply ships being torpedo'd? That's the german navy attacking US's logistics right here.
Soviet did beat the germans, and soviet used deep battle so they employed strategy as well. The point is without american and soviet logistics, victory would have been much harder.
Yes, they win BATTLES. Logistics win war.
When did I say that again? My point is that with good logistics, you can keep on fighting even if you lose.
The germans got bad logistics, their supply lines were badly defended and it's why their troops don't get the equipment they need.

But a police department is not "everything"? It's not even a small army.
And they would? Too bad they didn't lose.

The Soviet army wasn't even nearly annihilated for Stalin and the likes to even consider surrendering.

that was in 41 my friend.

not reading the rest of your posts until you can start making coherent arguments.

Let's just go man, he's just memeing us at this point by avoiding the arguement or being a retard.

lol, so if your local police force needed to call in military support for help, and it took the military to enter to stop the hobo, youd argue the police and military have better logistics?

lmao. you still have no idea what logistics is. but that doesnt stop you from arguing.

Uh, the american got serious after Pearl Harbor, which is late 41.

Logistics is about having more men and equipment than the enemy, so yeah.

Can the hobo replace his loss? Can the police dept and the army?

Define logistics.

What argument am I avoiding again?

exactly. i guess you already forgot what you said?


guess again.
try rereading the definition you posted here
maybe use some comprehension?

Please point out to what did I say that were contradicting.
These points out to having more men and equipment than the enemy.

gg

...

But…I know what logistics are?

See

inb4 this is not logistics

oh, you dont know basic english either.


one of these is not like the other.

I'm sorry but one directly leads to the other.

With good logistics, you have more well-supplied men circled out to the battlefields.

That's the entire point of logistics.

"Design, development, acquisition, storage, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel"
which one of these aspects means having more than the enemy?

its almost as if logistics is how you use your resources rather than how many you have to begin with. think of it in terms of an RTS like starcraft.

if i start out with a base, a stockpile of supplies, already 200/200 troops filled. and another guy starts with 1 drone and 1 base and he manages to bring me down to 20 troops and destroy most of my buildings… who was the stronger fighter? who had better logistics? go back and reread that definition again
the guy who used what he had to destory something much larger and hold his own against a goliath of an enemy? or the guy that couldnt step on a cockroach by comparison with a near unlimited supply of resources.

You must have a remarkably weird view of what constitutes a "problem."

These. If the enemies cannot acquire, store, distribute their supplies, that means they got bad logistics.
The guy who got near unlimited supply of resources have better logistics.

The other guy has better tactics, but not better logistics because resources and economy-wise, you already win.

Postan in a bait thread.

...

...

It sure the fuck isn't videogames.

>What is the battle of thermopalye Fuck the spelling of it
>What is every battle where the Victor has been the man who uses superior tactics, fighting skills and other elements to their advantage against superior numbers see ottoman empire conflicts and Serbs vs turks
If you want games where you don't have to think and you can just throw numbers at the screen you should have just said so. Don't start reassuring yourself you have any strategical acumen when basic procedures and historical figures mean nothing to you.

It has to do with strategy games.

It's basically macro-manage vs micro-manage.

Battle of Stalingrad and Vietnam were examples of logistics winning out though.

you can acquire more efficiently and still have less. you can store more efficiently and still have less. you can distribute more efficiently and still have less.

so are you going to concede that you were willing to post 40+ times without knowing what logistics are?

doing alot with alittle is good logistics.
doing alittle with alot is bad logistics.

understand now?

I disagree, if you acquire more efficiently, you should have more than the enemies, the same for storage and distribution.
I know what logistics are, I just tell you the definition.
No, good logistics is about keeping your supply lines supplied, and your factories running, NOT making up with what you have.
No, that's good tactics.
I think it's you who gotta understand.


doing alittle with alot is bad logistics.


No, because that's wrong.

nope.
gonna stop you right there.

for example if i have a 1 car garage for building vehicles, and i pump out 50 cars a day, i am much more efficient than if you had a 10,000 square foot production line, and turned out 70 cars a day,

maybe you should look up what efficient means.

you also literally dont know what tactics are. maybe you need to look that up too?

But you do acquire more per meter in that example, so it holds true.

a :the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
b :the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end
The second definition applies.

no. because they still have less. 70 vs 50

Nein.

It's 50/100 foot square garage vs 70/10000 foot square.

You still make more.

70 is more than 50 shlomo

In logistical terms, the Russians burnt the soil behind them as they were retreating, ensuring the Germans had a harder time advancing because they had to rely on things from further afield, Weakening their position. For the battle itself, the Russian winter, which also helped defeat napoleon, encroached the Germans, and the Russian natives were not nearly as affected because they were fighting on home soil and used to the harsh weather conditions. The German army was surrounded and whittled down, and subsequently the tide of war and the Russian front were turned.

In Vietnam, the American army was better equipped, more organised, had access to better vehicles and had the assistance of the south Vietnamese, so problems with supplies were unlikely to be an issue. The Vietnamese had a vast underground network however, and made sure the superior numbers of the Americans and the south Vietnamese were made redundant because a lot of the casualties were not even in combat but from various traps and devices. They also knew that killing a soldier meant one soldier was down, but wounding one meant that his comrades had to carry and care for him, effectively making him and those helping him a liability. Point is, if it were just a matter of logistics that was the only thing that affected the outcome of wars, then none of that would have really mattered so much now would it?

50/100 > 70/10000.

the Soviet and the NVA got better logistics than the Germans/americans.

That's the point.

The germans/americans can kill 10 soviet/vietcong, but these losses are easily replaced, thus their tactical superiority didn't actually matter.

who has more cars?

50/100 got more cars.

So wait, Endless Legend has combat like Total War? Or is it more the civ type of "combat"?
How's King Arthur? Looking at it, it seems to be fantasy total war but all I care about is better AI.

so 50 cars is more than 70 cars. sure thing retard.

Endless Legend got shitty combat.

King Arthur 1 is indeed fantasy TW but kinda lacking at the same time.

See

Per square meter, 50/100 wins.

You idiot. The NVA was fucking outgunned and outmanned in every possible respect. If they were really indispensable, they would have surely assaulted the south more vigorously wouldn't they? No. The Americans had tanks, helicopters and napalm at their disposal. They would have been absolutely fucked up in open combat, and no, they were outnumbered, so replacing them just would have meant more of them would be dead. Various US operations were based around the fact that the less NVA there were, the closer the US was to victory, so they explicitly went out of their way to kill them, or 'search and destroy,' because the object of the war was no longer about territory gained and taken, but the amount of soldiers each side had, because the NVA knew they had to CONSERVE each of their numbers and fight only when they had a clear advantage because they were OUTNUMBERED and could not replace their men as easily as the FUCKING US.

i didnt say "per square meter" i asked who has more.

The NVA got more personnel than the whole US forces stationed than Vietnam, and they were harder fighting than the South vietnamese.

The americans had more trucks, heli and technology, but manpower-wise, NVA got every faction beat.

In any open combat the NVA had with the americans/australians, the NVA outnumbered them.

Then the 10000 square meter garage has more, but ratio-wise, the 100 square meter garage is superior.

Age of wonders series

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Where you getting these invisible numbers from fam?

so acquiring more efficiently doesn't mean having more. which means logistics doesnt mean having more. which means you didnt know what logistics meant. which means you just typed over 40 posts arguing about something you didnt understand.

which means youre a retard.

good luck with that.

No, logistics is planning and management of resources, whatever they may be. Germany had the best logistics by far. Russia probably had the worst. France doesn't count because France didn't really fight in either war, they were the princess waiting to be rescued.

so have any actual good games came out of this shit fest of a thread?

That's pretty much every game ever you fucking faggot
FPS
RPG
And so on.

Teleports behind you, headshot

Nothing personel kid

I disagree, I played shogun 2 at one point and defeated a takeda army four times my size, killing most of them, by sitting on a hill with trees or even just trees on flat ground in a defense field battle. I had peasant spears in front with firebombers directly behind them. They never stood a chance because I could always harass them with ALL OF THESE ARCHERS or a unit of cavalry, which I used to kill more as they routed.
It was funny because barely any of my peasants got fried but the firebombs kept knocking enemies down and my peasants just put the pointy end into them while they were grounded.

I used the same strategy many times to great effect but that was the biggest army I had killed.

Asshurt Empire player detected. You should have picked Dwarves, they're the beginner faction.

From these battles where the NVA outnumber the american troops.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ia_Drang

But it does mean having more, 50/100 is still superior to 70/10000. You are just trying to avoid this point.

No, logistics mean getting supplies and men to the battlefields.

Nazi Germany cannot have the best logistics when they don't even have enough fuel and ammo for their tank.

Meanwhile the americans and Soviet have their shit running seamlessly with constant reinforcement in personnel and material.

France didn't fight much in WW2, sure, but France fought bravely in WW1.

We are getting too many memes in our history.

Are you fucking retarded?
Were you dropped?

Did you read where I said that the vietnam wanted engagements where they had a clear advantage? American troops isolated, and in difficult positions, such as waiting for the huey helicopters to take their battalion over to the LZ, taking a matter of hours; meanwhile the enemy is already fortified. A lot of the time, the US probably had to expose themselves often in order to carry out their orders, and are constantly wondering whether they're heading into enemy territory. In single engagements, yes, it's entirely possible that they could be outnumbered. But in the capacity of the entire war? No. The VC and NVA picked their fights well, and they knew they had to. Even in the ambitious Tet Offensive they relied upon surprise and shock in order to succeed, and were eventually pushed back as their forces were not suited to open warfare, unlike the american forces and their allies.