10 replies to this topic

[990Dreams]

Not sure where this should go, so I put it here. Seems fitting.

So, similar to the thread linked here, this thread is designed for a debate on differing opinions (I will most likely be involved in this one). I will not start the debate unless I have to though (I'm sure some other qualified individual will though).

To restate the question:

Can sheer quantity (number of men) outnumber a higher quality force?

Edited by DavidHurricane, 24 April 2014 - 06:50 AM.

[990Dreams]

Perhaps I should start it.

I think that quality is superior (to a point).

[Bilbo]

There will always be a tipping point at which no amount skill/ability/equipment can overcome sheer numbers. That point depends entirely on how determined those with the numbers are to get the job done despite losses. If you are driving off continuous waves, one of two things happen. You run out of ammo/people/equipment before they do or they just give up.

[Hex Pallett]

Lemme end the debate immediately, for I tend to look at questions in both ways

Yes and no, because neither number nor quality is the determining factor to win a game/war. A quality force could fend of waves of swarms providing that they have solid logistic, and a swarm could overwhelm any quality force with centralized command (aka Tyranid/Alien/Zerg), or just sheer number.

[990Dreams]

If you're command is good enough to match the quality, you can withstand wave after wave of attacks. But if your like the idiots of WWII (who out of respect for some of my friends I will not use the name of) you'll end up freezing and starving in Stalingrad, with 2 tonnes of Vodak and summer clothes to help you (no joke).

The quality of a gun (or Mech) is only as good as the man (or woman) wielding (or piloting) it.

In other words, stupid people do stupid things and pay for it.

In other other words, you can have the best technology ever, but if your soldiers suck then it isn't worth crap.

Edited by DavidHurricane, 24 April 2014 - 11:30 AM.

[Atomic Funk]

Its called tactics, and why they call this "the thinking man's shooter". Good tactics, careful thought and a good buildout will always give you a chance in the most uneven of challenges.

[990Dreams]

Fri Hjert, on 24 April 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Its called tactics, and why they call this "the thinking man's shooter". Good tactics, careful thought and a good buildout will always give you a chance in the most uneven of challenges.

This is meant to be more general than just MW:O but I agree.

[Klappspaten]

DavidHurricane, on 24 April 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

If you're command is good enough to match the quality, you can withstand wave after wave of attacks. But if your like the idiots of WWII (who out of respect for some of my friends I will not use the name of) you'll end up freezing and starving in Stalingrad, with 2 tonnes of Vodak and summer clothes to help you (no joke).

The quality of a gun (or Mech) is only as good as the man (or woman) wielding (or piloting) it.

In other words, stupid people do stupid things and pay for it.

In other other words, you can have the best technology ever, but if your soldiers suck then it isn't worth crap.

Thats a common misconceptions. Most of those troops wherent better than their soviet counterparts. Only a few elite regiments of this army of which we all know is meant where actually well trained and well equipped. Even at the beginning of the war the overwhelming majority of them went to war just as they did in WW1.
I know from sword training that no man, regardless how well he is trained can defend against more than 3 attackers at the same time, regardless how bad they are trained.
In modern combat this difference shifted. Even a dumbass with very few training can kill someone else with a rifle.
So in my opinion it basically comes down to the quality of the command on both sides. And even that can only shift the results to a certain extent.
For example: 4 high ELO players in a premade are left on tourmaline against 11 spread out PUGs. They will whipe them away because they can take them on one after another since the ones further away cant get there fast enough to help the ones who are attacked. On River City that might look totaly different though.
So it basically comes down to one question. Can the few high quality pilots prevent the large amount of weak players to attack them in force.

Overwhelming Quantity will always win in a short battle in a close situation. Quality will most likely win in a long battle over a large area.

[Rebas Kradd]

The more the players, the higher the likelihood of stomps.

[990Dreams]

Klappspaten, on 25 April 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

Thats a common misconceptions. Most of those troops wherent better than their soviet counterparts. Only a few elite regiments of this army of which we all know is meant where actually well trained and well equipped. Even at the beginning of the war the overwhelming majority of them went to war just as they did in WW1.
I know from sword training that no man, regardless how well he is trained can defend against more than 3 attackers at the same time, regardless how bad they are trained.
In modern combat this difference shifted. Even a dumbass with very few training can kill someone else with a rifle.
So in my opinion it basically comes down to the quality of the command on both sides. And even that can only shift the results to a certain extent.
For example: 4 high ELO players in a premade are left on tourmaline against 11 spread out PUGs. They will whipe them away because they can take them on one after another since the ones further away cant get there fast enough to help the ones who are attacked. On River City that might look totaly different though.
So it basically comes down to one question. Can the few high quality pilots prevent the large amount of weak players to attack them in force.

Overwhelming Quantity will always win in a short battle in a close situation. Quality will most likely win in a long battle over a large area.

You heard that the Panzers were matched 1-1 with young women volunteers using AA guns? I think that's hilarious.

I was using it as an example of logistical failing.

[Klappspaten]

DavidHurricane, on 25 April 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

You heard that the Panzers were matched 1-1 with young women volunteers using AA guns? I think that's hilarious.

I was using it as an example of logistical failing.

Yes, but it wasn´t only logistically failing.
At the beginning of the war the soviets actually where behind in terms of quality, but it really turned when the quality of the invading forces went down whilst the quality of the soviet forces, especially in terms of equipment went up. At the end of the war the soviets had the better tanks and even the better fighter planes.
There was actually never a chance for germany to win that war. Luckily.