Someone who sugests that you should fight like a bunch of guys that couldn't hold a passage thet were trying to hold indefinitely should have obviously a "broader grasp of history" .... that or some other ( lack of ) qualities I prefer not to talk about openly for not being acused of flaming ....
the idea of the greek coalition was to hold the passage indefinitely. not doing that was a failure.
oh and the fact that the spartans asked to be the last ones leaving the ground in thermopolae, a thing that was obviously suicidal , does not bode well for your theory that spartans normally left the fight to others
i must remember to simplify for most- it is the kind thing to do - maybe I should draw a venn diagram
Spartans aside - The technique does work - if you do it right. I just played a game where I pulled an ally into war and paralleled my superiour stack (Use either geater numbers or have better defenders) movements with theirs. The enemy attacks the weaker stack of your ally, weaking themselves. Your ally often suicide into a city (as opposed to in the field). Then you can capture the city more easilly. Note the city's defense level, and watch how fast your ally reduces defences, and strike at the right moment.
If your stack is inferior to you ally, travel within their stack and if you can't take the city, pillage no-man's-land tiles.
Use fast troops (horse units, et al) to catch up to ally siege and defenders.
This is the superior (when circumstances allow it).
The Spartans, like the Romans and plenty of other civilizations, used political alliances to levy troops and make up for the fact that they themselves were limited in numbers. They obviously didn't think that the 3,000 Greeks they had at Thermopylae (those are the numbers i was taught) were gonna stop the entire Persian army indefinitely. The point Troy was making is that leveraging your allies is a proven way to increase your forces exponentially. When Hannibal marched on Rome, he went about the Italian peninsula looking to break up the Roman network of allies that gave this CITY the ability to field over 100,000 men in a single battle. He chose to spend his time spreading propaganda instead of laying siege to Rome (although he probably wouldn't have succeeded anyhow).
How does it apply to civ? Well even if it didn't, who really give a f***. But with the vassal system, this is actually something people can make work. If you can waste an AI's stack, you don't need to slow yourself to digest an extra 10 cities. 10% of the work for 20% of the profit. Even if you're dealing with an ally that you haven't vassaled, maybe you can make use of the Attack City option, though I've only tried it once myself.
If the Art of War can be broken down into strategy, tactics, and logistics, what Troy was bringing up is strategy. It's up to you to figure out the exact gambit, timing, and button presses to make it work. Although, it seems like intellectuals these days care more about quantifying the shuffling of their feet in the same damn hamster wheel more so than about the Grand Chessboard they should be playing on. Hence, the stagnation of the times.
the evidence is clear: A sophist is a sophist, no matter how deft his tongue.
Fact- Thermopolae did not "buy time" many greeks were bought off - like the greeks needed more time then the months it took for the persian army to bridge the waters and march from asia to the greek penisula
Fact- Thermoplae is the perfect example of Spartan tactics- "We will sacrifice 300 soldiers"
impress everyone with our bravery- but not actually not lose our army- and keep the myth of how tough we are alive....the cost- very little (greeks were known for being clever no?)
Athens is burned- sure Sparta really hated that- and the persians that were eventually defeated at platea (sp) were more like a rear guard.
the evidence is clear- have an ally- let the enemy burn their capitol - then have open borders with your ally and attack the enemy stack in the field
Yes, Thermopylae is a perfect example of the Spartan tactics: " We don't know what to do if we are attacked barring being a frontal attack and even then it has to be a nice and even frontal attack without putting more speed and weight in one side of the battle "
And again you are milling your own theory. Sure, their intent wasn't to delay the Persians in Thermopylae, but I never said that also. Their intent was to hold them there indefinitely and avoid the persians of joining forces with the Thebans And I find hard to swallow the theory that sacrificing 300 spartiates ( Sparta never had much of spartiates and I definitely doubt there was more than 1500 spartiates in the times of the persian wars ) and a king could be considered a small cost ... that is pretty much saying that sacrificing the whole US army stationed today in Afghan lands + Obama could be considered a small cost ( it should be roughy the same proportion than the loss Sparta had in Thermopylae ) for gaining a though name and 3 days .
And OFC the fact that, when in allied battles, the Spartans were always positioned in the right side of the army ( the more dangerous in a phalanx, because the last men to the right doesn't have shield cover ). That is a sure sign that they always wanted to let the others do the dangerous and dirty job, right? ( maybe I should do a Venn diagram of this ).
There is much to praise about the Saprtan way of fighting ( inside their prefered style of war they were definitely the best and they were pretty able of dealing with much bigger forces , like it happened in Platea ) ,but they definitely don't fit as example of the idea you want to transmit ,especially in that particular battle. Rome or the UK would had been far better examples .p
"that is pretty much saying that sacrificing the whole US army stationed today in Afghan lands + Obama could be considered a small cost ( it should be roughy the same proportion than the loss Sparta had in Thermopylae ) for gaining a though name and 3 days"
lol
one of the "outcomes" (which sounds a bit doubtful to me considering- but for the sake of arguement....) was that the battle united the Greek resolve and cities- (city states stop fighting each other for awhile-)
I suggest if the US was Defending (as oppossed to attacking) and if the outcome of a loss was other western nations joing "the cause" - they would do it. Remember the Maine! or the towers or whatever stupid people like to rally about
the evidence is clear- in multiplayer- have an ally- send about 4 troops to his or her aid- defend a spot afor their borders- and they will trust you and later you can kill them- like Sparta did to Athens
Yeah, Thermopylae united so much the greeks that the Thebans and the Tessalians fought at the side of the Persians
Sorry, but your logic about my example is skewed ( as usual ) . I talked of numbers and percentages, not of objectives. Anyway the objective of the US in Afghanistan now is to defend
As usual there is not much of substance in your later replies... just for the sake of having the last word , right?
and on that note - To guests rolo- this is for guests! -
Fight like the Spartans! (multiplayer) Have your biggest rival an Ally (Sparta- Athens)
Convince them to build a giant fleet and you will build a land army
Use about 5 troops in a stack in a doomed symbolic battle
Let the Ally attack with their superior fleet and perhaps even make an amphibeuos assault to destroy the enemy
Use your land army to attack the former ally- thier fleet will be useless- the only thing they can do is try for a one isle kill (Syracuse)
Capture the city but don't raze it - because while the spartans spared the athenians because they "remembered Marathon"- you should spare your allie's city because you need the land.
The biggest rival of Sparta was not Athens at that time... it was the Persians If Sparta thinked the Athenians were worse than the Persians, they would definitely be on the other side of the Thermopylae ( like they did later, when they joined forces with the Persians against Athens )
I am not discussing the point you want to prove ... I'm just saying that you could had brought a better example to the table. Spartans are pretty bad for the point you want to prove ( especially because they couldn't beat the Athenians in the Thirty years war until they built a fleet themselfes, because they couldn't breach the Long Walls ... a thing that made null the point of having a bigger and better land army than the Athenians , atleast as long as the Athenian fleet could bring resources from elsewhere )
Perhaps the most famous user of this method was Hammurabi. He's well known for joining wars with minimal effort while building a big army to conquer his 'allies' later on. Too bad his Civ4 representative is not very good at this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.... that or some other ( lack of ) qualities I prefer not to talk about openly for not being acused of flaming ....
).
