3.0 -> 3.5 changes

[Juton]

Sorry; Forums are acting up.

[Crissa]

Roman Legionnaires would be in just as good shape. Olympic athletes are focused on a small subset of moves. Yes, they'd be bigger, but they'd be focused entirely upon one exercise; surely none of the Romans could swim or run or jump as far as our top 100 runners or jumpers, but only barely. Look at the world records for the last hundred years - many of the records have barely moved.

Besides, Romans already beat the Olympians in some hundreds of so BC, why do it again?

-Crissa

[crizh]

So crizh;

If you took a hundred modern Olympic athletes and a hundred Roman legionaries and gave them whatever ancient weapons they want do you think the Olympians would win? If not how much training do you think they'd need?

I haven't the faintest idea, what does that have to do with what I said above?

[edit]

I removed the pointless counter example. My point was that he was arguing K's point for him not that I necessarily agreed with K.

[Juton]

As I understand it K's point is that physical conditioning is more important in combat than skill. He has illustrated this point by claiming he could train a child to put ten arrows a minute down range in a controlled fashion in under two hours.

What does it have to do with my example? Olympic athletes are on average the best conditioned people who have ever lived. Roman legionaries, lets say from between Caesar and Hannibal are some of the best trained soldiers of the ancient world. If conditioning is more important that training, then the Olympians should win, or vice versa.

The average Roman man wasn't 5'2, he would have been closer to 5'8 [1] if it makes a difference. We can't actually go out and test this scenario, we could use modern soldiers, but they don't have any training to fight in D&D style combat.

[1] http://eh.net/XIIICongress/Papers/Koepke.pdf

[crizh]

You have missed my point, again.

I'm not one to come on the internet and spout off opinions about something I know nothing about.

My point was that he was contesting K's example by agreeing with K's premise.

I honestly don't care whether skill is more important than physical conditioning.

[Crissa]

Wouldn't it also follow that Roman Legionnaires are also the best fed and conditioned troops in history?

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

English archers won the day at Agincourt because they were in substantially better physical condition than the French archers.

Nope. We actually have historical evidence that this is completely wrong.

The English Army at Agincourt was tired, starving, and suffering badly from disease. The French army was well-fed and fresh.

This isn't something I'm making up. This is historical fact.

So you have a bunch of starving, tired, and often sickly archers creaming the French. Even if the English guys were "stronger" (doubtful, because K claims that Nobles were well-fed and peasants were not, and the bulk of the English army was a peasant army), they're already at a physical disadvantage.

Therefore, "stronger/faster guy wins" is a silly argument. The English won because they had more practical skills that were effective in that battle - not because they're more macho than the French.

[Zinegata]

Of course the Olympians would win. Roman Legionaries are like 5'2" and generally 14. It would be incredibly ugly.

The Olympians would only need a few hours to get accustomed to their armor and weaponry - and of course a long talking to about tactics and bravery. They already have the discipline or they wouldn't be Olympians in the first place. Discipline and health are the two largest factors in ancient warfare.

-Username17

A few hours of talking is no substitute for hours of actual drill practice.

The Roman Legions often faced situations where they were horridly outnumbered by Barbarians - often guys who were bigger than them too. But they still won because while the Barbarians sought one on one combat, the Legionnaires would fight as a team. Legionnaires were so fucking disciplined they even fought in shifts so they can keep hacking away for hours.

Moreover, while your Olympic athletes are off practicing their weapons and getting their pep talks, the Roman dudes have probably already built themselves a small fort (Yes, they can build one in a few hours. It's policy to build one every night).

And even if you outnumber them 6:1, it's a very, very bad idea to attack Romans in their forts. See Alesia (most awesome battle ever).

You cannot form espit de corps with a two hour pep talk. It takes many weeks of practice.

[Juton]

A few hours of talking is no substitute for hours of actual drill practice.

The Roman Legions often faced situations where they were horridly outnumbered by Barbarians - often guys who were bigger than them too. But they still won because while the Barbarians sought one on one combat, the Legionnaires would fight as a team. Legionnaires were so fucking disciplined they even fought in shifts so they can keep hacking away for hours.

Moreover, while your Olympic athletes are off practicing their weapons and getting their pep talks, the Roman dudes have probably already built themselves a small fort (Yes, they can build one in a few hours. It's policy to build one every night).

And even if you outnumber them 6:1, it's a very, very bad idea to attack Romans in their forts. See Alesia (most awesome battle ever).

You cannot form espit de corps with a two hour pep talk. It takes many weeks of practice.

People generally don't like to kill other people, Politicians like wars a lot more than the people fighting, generally. A lot of rookies tend to lock up in their first fight, you have to learn to kill, that's something you've got to learn by doing.

[Kaelik]

Moreover, while your Olympic athletes are off practicing their weapons and getting their pep talks, the Roman dudes have probably already built themselves a small fort (Yes, they can build one in a few hours. It's policy to build one every night).

And even if you outnumber them 6:1, it's a very, very bad idea to attack Romans in their forts. See Alesia (most awesome battle ever).

Hey Zinefucker, stop being an idiot.

You know what Olympic Athletes can do? Fly from Germany to England in a couple hours.

So instead of "building a fort" while the Olympic Athletes are spending two hours training (because after all, Roman Soldiers had way less than 2 hours training time, because wtf, your argument is that training matters you dumbfuck. How about the Olympic Athletes with two hours training get to start killing Romans while they are going through week 2 or training?) how about instead, the Romans fucking march for two hours to get somewhere instead.

If you want to fucking argue that training is more important than strength, or that skill is more important than endurance, or whatever the fuck you want to argue, how about you argue that instead of arbitrarily bringing up total non sequiturs to prove that you are an asshole.

As far as I am concerned what you just said was "But D&D Fighters are age 16+2d4 and Wizards are 16+4d4, so Fighters are more powerful because they can murder the Wizard before he reaches level 1!"

I mean fuck, arbitrarily declaring that there are fucking forts and the Romans are defending them to prove a point that has nothing to do with defending forts. Don't be an asshat.

[crizh]

[
The English Army at Agincourt was tired, starving, and suffering badly from disease.

And yet still somehow able to fire bows with up to a 180lb draw.

Until they ran out of arrows.

I wonder if that had something to do with years/decades of training improving their physical condition?

[Zinegata]

Kaelik->

You are a moron.

If you're saying it's unfair for the Romans to build a fort while the Olympic athletes practice with a gladius and get a two hour pep talk, then it's unfair for the Olympic athletes to practice with a gladius at all or get any pep talk.

Romans trained for years in warfare - including siegecraft. That's why they can build forts very easily, and they prefer to fight from forts because it lets them take on huge gaggles of men far more easily. It's one major skill they have over most of their enemies.

Olympic athletes likewise trained for years to become stronger, faster, and to jump higher. They wouldn't be much stronger physically than the Romans if it weren't for years of strict dieting or daily strength practices.

I'm demonstrating that for all the strength and power of an Olympic athlete, they won't be good at killing because they trained for years to do stuff other than killing. Sure, you may be stronger because you spent six years weight-training. But that strength won't be worth any shit against a Roman fort - which the Roman dudes spent an equivalent number of years training in.

Ultimately, it's boils down to this:

Romans -> Trained for years in warfare

Olympic Athletes -> Trained for years to lift heavy things

End result -> Romans stab Olympic athletes while they're still figuring out how to use a fucking gladius.

Frank already made the game unfair by giving the Olympic athletes "prep time" to familiarize themselves with their weapons. If the athletes have "prep" time, why can't the Romans use their own prep time to build a fort - which they can fucking do?

Whining when your side utterly loses despite cheating is just fucking sad.

[Zinegata]

And yet still somehow able to fire bows with up to a 180lb draw.

Until they ran out of arrows.

I wonder if that had something to do with years/decades of training improving their physical condition?

Obviously, training can also improve your physical condition. However, the fact remains: The English had been force-marching for days. They were starving and have been on half-rations for weeks. Many were sick. And again, these were fucking peasants - the guys who K claimed as being weak and malnourished and thus easy to dispatch by the stronger, well-fed nobles.

So your argument - and K's - is already in tatters. A bunch of starving and tired Englishmen massacred nobles who were supposed to be stronger than them.

However, you see, training improves more than just your physical condition. It also improves your efficiency of motion at a certain task.

The 180 lb draw you mention is very deceptive. Because it's not really the equivalent of somebody carrying 180 lbs ala a modern body lifter. Rather, it is a person gradually concentrating his upper body strength to pull the line. If you don't know how to do it properly, most of your strength won't actually go into pulling the string. Or worse, you'll fumble, drop the arrow, and have to do everything all over again - making you more tired because you have to exert the same force all over agin.

By contrast, the French Knights advanced on the English wearing full plate. That's about 100 lbs of equipment that they were carrying 100% of the time for the duration of the battle. And they could do it because they weren't tired, they were fresh, and they were well-fed. In fact, the French vanguard nonetheless managed to reach the English positions even though the field was muddy and tiring, and they were being shot at every step of the way.

So no, the French were not physically inferior in any way or form. They in fact had a very real physical advantage. Which they squandered by spending that physical energy moving mud around while the English shot at them.

[RandomCasualty2]

What does it have to do with my example? Olympic athletes are on average the best conditioned people who have ever lived. Roman legionaries, lets say from between Caesar and Hannibal are some of the best trained soldiers of the ancient world. If conditioning is more important that training, then the Olympians should win, or vice versa.

Well no.

The legionnaires are going to be in good physical shape and be well trained, while the Olympians are going to be in peak physical shape with minimal training.

The training gap is just going to make all the difference here, because it's a much wider gap than the physical conditioning one. Olympians just aren't trained for combat. Even an Olympic fencer isn't going to be nearly as good in the real world because he's used to fighting with rules that restrict what his opponent can do.

And lets not forget... if you're talking about unit versus unit combat, the professional soldiers will function much better as a team because they have actual military tactics, where the Olympians won't really know what to do.

[Zinegata]

Uh, didn't you just confirm that training does actually trump conditioning?

Or are you saying that conditioning matters if the levels of training are rougly equivalent?

[ubernoob]

Zinegata, can you please stop being a moron? Training makes you stronger. Experience makes you a better killer. Being willing to kill always trumps being able to kill because the person willing to kill always wins. This is why shit that distances a soldier emotionally from the killing wins wars.

So yes, a modern Olympic athlete will win against a fucking historical soldier because the modern olympic athlete just picks up a gun and shoots the soldier from a thousand feet away.

Your emotional investment into this argument is childish, and I feel embarrassed for you. Please, good sir, step away from the computer, go outside, and get laid.

[Crissa]

Wait... The elite English force was starving and the well-fed elite force of fully-metal clad professional men at arms which outnumbered them at least two to one couldn't best them?

Is it skill or conditioning at that point? I'm starting to lose Zinegata's argument.

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

Ubernoob->

You're not only a moron, you're Kaelik's tool.

You know fully well that the reason why Juton brought up the Olympic athletes was to compare and contrast training vs conditioning.

If you want to deny that Romans weren't trained in Siegecraft, you're not only a tool and a moron, you're a retard.

Guns aren't a skill BTW. They're a tool. And you're an idiot and an asshole to bring it up.

Stop trying to cover up your fellow asshole's ass. Because it's blatantly obvious that you're a lying shit who's only saying "stop being emotionally invested into this argument" to mask the fact that it's actually you who's being a shithead.

[Zinegata]

Wait... The elite English force was starving and the well-fed elite force of fully-metal clad professional men at arms which outnumbered them at least two to one couldn't best them?

Yep. That's historical fact, and that's why it was such a memorable win.

Is it skill or conditioning at that point? I'm starting to lose Zinegata's argument.

-Crissa

Are you seriously arguing - all other things (skill included) being equal - inferior conditioning improves your chances in battle?

[ubernoob]

Ubernoob->

You're not only a moron, you're Kaelik's tool.

You know fully well that the reason why Juton brought up the Olympic athletes was to compare and contrast training vs conditioning.

If you want to deny that Romans weren't trained in Siegecraft, you're not only a tool and a moron, you're a retard.

Guns aren't a skill BTW. They're a tool. And you're an idiot and an asshole to bring it up.

Stop trying to cover up your fellow asshole's ass. Because it's blatantly obvious that you're a lying shit who's only saying "stop being emotionally invested into this argument" to mask the fact that it's actually you who's being a shithead.

I'm just going to restate the important part because your thread shitting has ruined a thread that could have been interesting.

Your emotional investment into this argument is childish, and I feel embarrassed for you. Please, good sir, step away from the computer, go outside, and get laid.

[Zinegata]

Ubernoob->

Since you still don't get it, let me explain it to you in simpler terms:

Fuck off, hypocrite.

If you want to discuss something, then start doing so instead of thread-crapping.

I've already put this thread back into its original purpose once until a certain K fan decided to thread crap all over again by claiming the English weren't starving . If you want a 3.0->3.5 discussion, say something related to that because I'm out of ideas outside of "No Codzilla" .

[duo31]

I'd like to posit my own champion. Range.
Range beats skill, strength, conditioning, and training.
If you kill the other fucker before he has a chance to kill you, you win.

English longbows had longer range than their French counterparts.
US tanks in Desert Shield had longer range than Iraqi tanks.
When pikemen fought, the ones with the 15' poles beat the guys with 10' ones.
Woman with a gun, beats a giant man with a knife, if she can get outside of his reach.

Can i win the internets now?

[ubernoob]

I've already put this thread back into its original purpose once until a certain K fan decided to thread crap all over again by claiming the English weren't starving . If you want a 3.0->3.5 discussion, say something related to that because I'm out of ideas outside of "No Codzilla" .

I never played 3.0. That's kind of why I wanted to read this thread. That was before the fucking off topic ruined any hope of real discussion though.

[Zinegata]

I'd like to posit my own champion. Range.
Range beats skill, strength, conditioning, and training.
If you kill the other fucker before he has a chance to kill you, you win.

English longbows had longer range than their French counterparts.
US tanks in Desert Shield had longer range than Iraqi tanks.
When pikemen fought, the ones with the 15' poles beat the guys with 10' ones.
Woman with a gun, beats a giant man with a knife, if she can get outside of his reach.

Can i win the internets now?

Sure. Except that in ancient times you needed skill and training before you could use a ranged weapon .

Plus, not having a negative Str score so you can lift the bow also helps .

And, your ranged weapon should actually kill the bad guy and not tickle him.

But yeah, having ranged weapons is a good policy to have in the real world.

[Zinegata]

I never played 3.0. That's kind of why I wanted to read this thread. That was before the fucking off topic ruined any hope of real discussion though.

*facepalm*

You could have said that before everything else you said.

Fine. In 3.0 haste was so much better for casters than Fighters.

I know it's already been covered, but only fleetingly. I mean, seriously, WTF WoTC?!