|
Post by killer reaverbots on Oct 19, 2009 16:53:55 GMT -5
well My question is if you were going to command an army what would you want. In my opinion i would go with overwelming numbers because even if your enemy has advanced technology you can still destroy them with lot's of units because you outnumber them.
|
|
|
Post by ravenf6 on Oct 19, 2009 18:00:44 GMT -5
Offhand, I would say other- to be specific, strategy. With the right plans and tactics, you can overcome advanced weaponry, make your enemy's superior numbers worthless. Which leads to one more- subterfuge: If you have a spy in the enemy's army, you create a lot of confusion from within so that by the time the battle begins (dissension or even a bomb in barracks), you can take advantage of the enemy's disorganization and hammer crush them while they're figuring out what's going on. Sometimes the best weapon isn't a weapon at all..
Or at least, those were my takes during my Age of Empires days, but it's always good to have superior numbers and advanced weaponry.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Amadeus (Legendary Em) on Oct 19, 2009 19:17:42 GMT -5
Toxin.
Because I'm a bad mother f&%$#er. It'd hard to defend yourself against poison that can be leaked in through your airvents, or spread through the air. Even strategy wouldn't be able to plan for that completely (and might I say it was a huge oversight leaving that off of the list the first place)?
Anyways, I guess I'm just a Kefka sorta guy; I'd poison the Kingdom's water supply before I'd actually send an attack force. Because who cares about morals when you are trying to kill people?
|
|
|
Post by ravenf6 on Oct 19, 2009 20:51:17 GMT -5
Toxin. Because I'm a bad mother f&%$#er. It'd hard to defend yourself against poison that can be leaked in through your airvents, or spread through the air. Even strategy wouldn't be able to plan for that completely (and might I say it was a huge oversight leaving that off of the list the first place)? Anyways, I guess I'm just a Kefka sorta guy; I'd poison the Kingdom's water supply before I'd actually send an attack force. Because who cares about morals when you are trying to kill people? "One of us is not serious enough." Yep, Kefka is one twisted little monkey. His philosophy in any matter- "Destruction without death? BORING!!!! " But then, he's one of the few who's become a god and harnessed that kind of power in a maliciously sadistic way. One more then: man-made cataclysm. This can range from either nuclear arms, or using geothermal technology to harness the core of the planet and use it to create an instant volcano in their territory and burn them in most horrific way imaginable-not to mention rendering that land useless to anyone. This could be filed under weaponry since Science is argued as power: weapons of that sort are part of the equation- protecting people from conquest and ruin... or expediting it, depending on which side your on... But that's an ultimate truth:, who needs ethics if you want to conquer the world?
|
|
snowman
Arukoitan
Still Hasn't Melted
Posts: 182
|
Post by snowman on Oct 21, 2009 14:58:37 GMT -5
My army would probably not really enjoy battling, and I wouldn't, either. I faint at the sight of blood, and wouldn't really like conquering other countries, as their special and interesting cultures would disappear and the people become part of ours. War is also really stinky in general, as I've read in Horrible Histories: Frightful First World War (Humourous nonfiction is my favorite!) Countries can run out of supplies, they can starve, civilizations can be destroyed... Therefore, my army would be, to quote Bimblesnaff, " skilled in deadly art of running away quickly."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2009 11:30:00 GMT -5
Although I'm a pacifist, I think it's better to use advanced technology. With advanced technology, I could make sure my army could finds means to disable our enemy's ability to fight back without hurting anyone.
|
|
Traingham
Cannam
Oooh. What's this?
Posts: 320
|
Post by Traingham on Dec 9, 2009 20:31:33 GMT -5
Offhand, I would say other- to be specific, strategy. With the right plans and tactics, you can overcome advanced weaponry, make your enemy's superior numbers worthless. Which leads to one more- subterfuge: If you have a spy in the enemy's army, you create a lot of confusion from within so that by the time the battle begins (dissension or even a bomb in barracks), you can take advantage of the enemy's disorganization and hammer crush them while they're figuring out what's going on. Sometimes the best weapon isn't a weapon at all.. Or at least, those were my takes during my Age of Empires days, but it's always good to have superior numbers and advanced weaponry. I'm with Raven on this one. A smart strategy is what makes all of the difference when you have 300 Spartans against a legion of Persians and then some. It's what gets and Old Snake through an area that is heavily populated by geckos. Its what gets Squall Leonhart and Balamb Garden through an assault by Galbadia Garden and its horde of heavily armed soldiers. True, ruthlessness and bastardy may get you far, but the mind is a weapon that instills fear in even the strongest men.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Ninja on Dec 21, 2009 15:20:28 GMT -5
You kidding? Strategy means nothing if you're being poisoned, Kefka proved that in Final Fantasy VI. ...Although...if your strategy involves poisoning, you'd win.
|
|