Of Difficulties Levels and Tactical Combat

[miral]

Tactical combat in Spartan is indeed fun. I have just started playing the game again after a couple of years and would like the opinion of more experienced players. There seems to be a consensus that the AI will lag behind in war technologies and unit upgrades. Thus it is most always possible to win tactical combat, except at great odds.

Does this lag dimenish with higher difficulty levels? If not then surely at higher levels the AI makes greater numbers of units and does this not, in effect, help balance out the lag? I am assuming (deadly word) that in Spartan, as in most civ type games, the AI gets handicaps at higher levels i.e. quicker tech developement ect.

Thanks

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: miral

Tactical combat in Spartan is indeed fun. I have just started playing the game again after a couple of years and would like the opinion of more experienced players. There seems to be a consensus that the AI will lag behind in war technologies and unit upgrades. Thus it is most always possible to win tactical combat, except at great odds.

Does this lag dimenish with higher difficulty levels? If not then surely at higher levels the AI makes greater numbers of units and does this not, in effect, help balance out the lag? I am assuming (deadly word) that in Spartan, as in most civ type games, the AI gets handicaps at higher levels i.e. quicker tech developement ect.

Thanks

Higher difficulty allows the ai to purchase units more cheaply, it doesn't advance the tech of ai nations. There's a mod (berserker?) from the Slitherine site. I used to have it loaded but don't anymore. IIRC it changes the build order for ai nations, allowing them to build more advanced troops.

[miral]

Thanks, this should still help make more ai troops and so better battles. Technological advantage in war is a peculiar thing. Sometimes it trumps, sometimes not. It is a delicate problem when playing a wargame, or fighting a war, to know at what point sheer mass tips the scales over quality. And the mass can help cancel out the technological advantage with other factors, such as sheer courage.

For example, when I was in school in 1970 it was thought that the Zulus won the battle of Iswalanda because of supply screw-ups by the British, specifically that the proper instrument to open the ammunition boxes had been misplaced or that the quartermasters would'nt dispense bullets without proper authorization ect. This is now thought to be a justification made up by the British to explain away the defeat of their 1,000 soldiers equiped with powerful rifles by 4,000 Zulus armed with stabbing spears. See Hanson's Carnage and Culture for a wonderful account of the fight. It seems that the Zulus won through sheer guts, pressing the attack through a murderous fire that would surely have broken any European army of the time armed with rifles also.

This brings up another question - will consider on another thread.

thanks

[anarchyintheuk]

Not really on topic but re Isandalwana:

Oddly, it may have come full circle again. The use of metal detectors has changed general consensus on several battles. I forget the series, but they examined Isandalwana. From the piles of rifle cartridges the show determined that the British had advanced too far from their camp (which they neglected to form a laager or fortify) and, in order to cover their perimeter, had to use an extended skirmisher line w/ as much as 10 ft. between soldiers. Not the brightest of ideas. Given the extended front ammo shortage may have been an issue due to the distance from camp to the front and distance between riflemen. I don't recall what the show said the cartridge evidence showed as to how much shooting occured during the retreat back to camp.

Thought there were 15-18k Zulus at Isandalwana and about 4k of them (mostly unengaged) later went to attack Rourke's Drift.

Considering how effective concentrated firepower and field fortifications were at Rourke's Drift, I think the blame rightly falls on the officer commanding for failing to ensure the use of either and for inadequate reconnaisance.

[miral]

Good stuff, I had not heard this. But I do doubt the 15-18,000 number, that seems far too high. Yet still, considerating the technology difference and the awful mess those rifles, which were very large caliber, made of an unprotected human body (the Zulus essentially fought naked) I believe one still has admire the Zulus persistence. If each soldier got off only 10 shots, and many of these must have been from close range, then I still find the Zulus victory memorable.

[lordhoff]

Another explanation is that the British commander spread his troops out too far thus allowing gaps that could be exploited by numbers and allowed defeat "in detail" by completely surrounding individual units. Spartan models this well - spread your army out against an inferior but numerically superior foe and watch what happens.

EDIT: Hmm, guess I should read all the responses before writing - this has already been covered and better.

[anarchyintheuk]

Your right, iin Spartan once an enemy unit is on one of your unit's flanks, it's usually the end of it . . . . unless it has a large quality or armor advantage.