|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Sept 25, 2015 14:07:55 GMT
Kian, Si, Cald, Kazadan, Djo, Jorus and PewDiePie VS Bodybuilder Gnawthrul on Steroids
|
|
|
Post by gamemastergrimwarden on Sept 25, 2015 20:22:19 GMT
Isn't Gnawthrul already body-builder Gnawthrul on steroids? XD
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Sept 25, 2015 21:36:06 GMT
Who's PewDiePie?
The Jedi would win. Jorus already beat Gnawthrul on his own once.
|
|
|
Post by WookieeElf on Sept 25, 2015 21:37:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Sept 25, 2015 21:40:09 GMT
Really? Um… Warrior of Aror, why is there a YouTube gamer guy fighting Gnawthrul?
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Sept 25, 2015 23:18:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Sept 25, 2015 23:19:21 GMT
Gnawthrul in Hulk mode… XD :S
|
|
|
Post by gamemastergrimwarden on Oct 1, 2015 23:15:51 GMT
Lol, I'd love to see Gnawy in hulk mode, "Gnawthrul kill Si Dan! Gnawthrul smash! Gnawthrul god now!" But srsly, the jedi would stomp him, and Pewds would make witty commentary on the side
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Oct 2, 2015 2:28:24 GMT
Gnawthrul smash. XD
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 2, 2015 2:32:22 GMT
One day Gnawthrul and Hulk got into a fight. Deadpool won. Then Deadpool was Nightblade
|
|
|
Post by gamemastergrimwarden on Oct 2, 2015 8:04:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 2, 2015 13:11:23 GMT
Dightplade
|
|
|
Post by gamemastergrimwarden on Oct 8, 2015 19:39:25 GMT
The Roman army vs twenty tanks.
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 8, 2015 19:48:13 GMT
Tanks. No matter how hard they try they wont be able to pop em open. And each tank could take out like a thousand
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Oct 9, 2015 23:28:35 GMT
The Roman army versus one tank full of Jedi.
|
|
|
Post by WookieeElf on Oct 10, 2015 0:01:08 GMT
Dmitri Pendragon: It would be a draw. The Jedi would negotiate a peaceful ending, nobody dies, the end.
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 10, 2015 4:00:05 GMT
An average tank will hold about 4 crew. If the Romans could open the tank, the Jedi are dead in minutes. But one does not simply open a tank. Deadpool, Javez, K&K and Alice versus Kazadan, Kyra Solari, Anna and Lydia? Dmitri Pendragon WookieeElf Leilani Sunblade Lylyss
|
|
|
Post by WookieeElf on Oct 10, 2015 4:10:53 GMT
NightBlade: Ugh. Can't. Make. Decision. *headdesk*
|
|
|
Post by Leilani Sunblade on Oct 10, 2015 11:47:55 GMT
NightBlade: Hate to say it, but Team Mercenary-and-Alice would probably win.
|
|
|
Post by Lylyss on Oct 11, 2015 7:21:38 GMT
Hmm. I dunno much about Deadpool, Alice, Anna or Lydia. :P But I can say that Kazadan would be too conflicted and philosophical to be much use. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Leilani Sunblade on Oct 11, 2015 11:03:25 GMT
Deadpool: creepy Marvel-universe anti-hero/mercenary. Looked him up on Wikipedia yesterday; the dude apparently can't be killed. Alice: Nightblade's latest character on the Supers thread. Uncertain age, but has teleporting abilities and something else, and killed two much older agents by using them. Anna: WookieeElf's first character on the Supers thread. Healing and telekinesis abilities; not very experienced in combat. Lydia: One of my Supers characters. Light and energy manipulation; about five years of training to be a superhero, but only about half a year's practical experience (maybe a little longer).
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Oct 11, 2015 16:26:44 GMT
Romans vs Tanks: I highly disagree with NightBlade's conclusion. 1. Each tank (if it they were M1 Abrams') would have 42 rounds - that's only 840 rounds for all 20 tanks. 2. A larger than average (but not the largest ever fielded) Roman army would be 80,000 men. That means about 95 men to each tank round; 4,000 to a tank. 3. This is the most crucial point. Because there would be very little for the Romans to battle the tanks with (except perhaps an incendiary catapult that gets a lucky shot at the tank's gas compartment, whether this is possible or not I do not know) - and secondly, if the Romans had an intelligent commander, they would use the terrain to their advantage (rivers, forests, and SWAMPS, which will absolutely stop a tank). This ties in with the most important aspect - an Abrams will consume 300 gallons of gas every eight hours. This is the Romans' main advantage. They will take a lot of casualties, but once a tank can't move, the machine guns and rockets will only help so much. Now, if the Romans charged the tanks I would assume they would all be blown/ripped/squished to smithereens.
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 11, 2015 16:41:16 GMT
Warrior of ArorAn M1A2 can hold about 60 round of ammunition, each of which can kill multiple soldiers in a Roman formation. In addition, each tank would have 3 auxiliary machine guns, .50 calibers with the occasional .30 caliber, and (I'm making a very rough estimate) at least 3000 rounds of ammunition. Both of which can kill a fully armored soldier. And the Lycoming gas turbines in A2s can last a long time. No, there's no way for the Romans to penetrate the armor or the gas tank, not even with their onagers and ballistae. The tank crews, once their consumables are expended, could still fight their way out with armor-piercing personal defense weapons. German Leopards, Russian T-90s and Israeli Merkava tanks may even be superior in ammunition capacity.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Oct 11, 2015 16:52:01 GMT
How could twenty tank crews fight their way through the thousands of Romans still alive? If they cannot break through they will starve.
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 11, 2015 17:33:39 GMT
Who says the tanks have to break through? They could vastly outpace the Romans, secure an area of sustenance, and last indefinitely on the defensive.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Oct 11, 2015 18:22:19 GMT
"The tank crews, once their consumables are expended, could still fight their way out with armor-piercing personal defense weapons."
I was assuming you meant once their gas ran out. Eventually their gas WILL run out, no matter what. They'll be forced to run and eventually they'll be caught - the Romans do have horses. If they try to hide, they've basically forfeit the battle. Either way, the Romans win.
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 11, 2015 18:46:34 GMT
Consumables includes food. But #1 the track crewmen could dispatch any Roman soldiers, cavalry included. #2 my previous post point still stands: Who says the tanks have to break through? They could vastly outpace the Romans, secure an area of sustenance, and last indefinitely on the defensive.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Oct 11, 2015 21:39:00 GMT
I was assuming you meant that the crewmen could outpace the Romans on foot once their gas ran out. But I see you were not suggesting that.
If the tanks did secure an area of sustenance, then the Romans would have a chance to surround them. I don't think you mean that they would continually run from the Romans, as they would run out of gas in a week or two.
Even in this scenario, the Romans would win.
#1. Starvation. Even with a large area to forage, food supplies will run out. Are they going to grow their own wheat? I think not. Where are they going to get their water? The Romans were experts at diverting rivers off course. Their only option is to dig a well.
#2. Disease. The Romans would easily catapult infected animals into the tank camp. It was a classic tactic in siege warfare.
#3. The tank soldiers can't live their whole lives inside the tanks. Eventually they will have to come out, even if it's just for a pee in the woods. Then they're vulnerable to Roman artillery.
#4. Burn everything. By burning everything around the tank camp and forcing the flames inward the tanks are in danger of being incinerated and having all their food burned up.
#5. When the tanks do decide to try to force their way out (and they will because of the aforementioned reasons), the Romans will have either A. had enough time to entrench themselves so that it's impossible for the tanks to get across; or B. use the classic Fabian strategy of scorched earth. For miles and miles and miles and miles around they burn everything as they retreat.
#6. If the tanks do outpace the scorched earth strategy, then . . . yay? They can find a new area of sustenance and get a bite to eat. But, the Romans will catch up to them again and they can repeat any one of these strategies to force the tanks to run - if the tanks don't voluntarily do so for fear of being trapped by Roman trenchwork, etc.
7#. When winter rolls around, as it eventually will, if the tanks are still being besieged, they will again either die of starvation, sickness, or maybe even freezing, depending upon the location and temperature of the area.
See, in any case whatsoever the tanks will be forced into open battle with the Romans. And I think the Romans would win simply due to their numbers and the tanks' lack of infinite ammunition/Roman wit using terrain, starvation etc.
My theories don't include the shock factor of being attacked by tanks - they might not even know that the tanks have a limited amount of ammo, so they might give up just because of that. I don't know. However, I'm also not including the fact that the Romans would have a seemingly infinite supply of soldiers once they could march to the call of battle.
I think the tanks' only hope is to meet the Romans in battle upfront while they are still confused and scared, and to try to crush them with everything they have. They may or may not be able to do so.
|
|
|
Post by NightBlade on Oct 11, 2015 22:19:00 GMT
I was assuming you meant that the crewmen could outpace the Romans on foot once their gas ran out. But I see you were not suggesting that. If the tanks did secure an area of sustenance, then the Romans would have a chance to surround them. I don't think you mean that they would continually run from the Romans, as they would run out of gas in a week or two. Even in this scenario, the Romans would win. #1. Starvation. Even with a large area to forage, food supplies will run out. Are they going to grow their own wheat? I think not. Where are they going to get their water? The Romans were experts at diverting rivers off course. Their only option is to dig a well. #2. Disease. The Romans would easily catapult infected animals into the tank camp. It was a classic tactic in siege warfare. #3. The tank soldiers can't live their whole lives inside the tanks. Eventually they will have to come out, even if it's just for a pee in the woods. Then they're vulnerable to Roman artillery. #4. Burn everything. By burning everything around the tank camp and forcing the flames inward the tanks are in danger of being incinerated and having all their food burned up. #5. When the tanks do decide to try to force their way out (and they will because of the aforementioned reasons), the Romans will have either A. had enough time to entrench themselves so that it's impossible for the tanks to get across; or B. use the classic Fabian strategy of scorched earth. For miles and miles and miles and miles around they burn everything as they retreat. #6. If the tanks do outpace the scorched earth strategy, then . . . yay? They can find a new area of sustenance and get a bite to eat. But, the Romans will catch up to them again and they can repeat any one of these strategies to force the tanks to run - if the tanks don't voluntarily do so for fear of being trapped by Roman trenchwork, etc. 7#. When winter rolls around, as it eventually will, if the tanks are still being besieged, they will again either die of starvation, sickness, or maybe even freezing, depending upon the location and temperature of the area. See, in any case whatsoever the tanks will be forced into open battle with the Romans. And I think the Romans would win simply due to their numbers and the tanks' lack of infinite ammunition/Roman wit using terrain, starvation etc. My theories don't include the shock factor of being attacked by tanks - they might not even know that the tanks have a limited amount of ammo, so they might give up just because of that. I don't know. However, I'm also not including the fact that the Romans would have a seemingly infinite supply of soldiers once they could march to the call of battle. I think the tanks' only hope is to meet the Romans in battle upfront while they are still confused and scared, and to try to crush them with everything they have. They may or may not be able to do so. #1, 5, 6 and 7: I think you're looking at this in a very different way than I am. If the Romans run off, then they lose. I don't think running off is an option here. Do we need to make rules about how big the battlefield is, and how long the engagement is? That would get messy and it could tip the battle in either direction, but in a straight up battle where retreat is unacceptable, the tanks would win (I'll argue this more later). If retreating , regrouping, and giving days or weeks of time like you suggest, then what's to say that the tanks can't go and refuel/resupply while the Romans are building and doing whatever the heck else? #2 and 3: The effective range of an Abrams tank is in excess of 2 miles. The Romans can't even approach on approaching effective range. They will have 2 options: swarm and be absolutely slaughtered by 120mm rounds (totalling about 1200), .50 and .30 caliber rounds (totalling roughly 60000), smoke grenades (tactical smokescreens that is), and finally infantry firepower (tens of thousands of rifle/PDW/pistol rounds, as well as grenades). Worst comes, the tank crews can hide in their tanks, forcing the Romans to try and enter one by one so that they can be dispatched easily. As a side note, as you're assuming that the Romans have their full complement of artillery, cavalry etc., then can't we assume that this is a proper tank convoy with a number of logistics vehicles? (Extra fuel and other consumables such as food and ammunition) #3: sometimes the crew never leaves their tank for days. Not even to pee. Line your helmet with a bag and...well, yeah. Anyhow, in the instance of a battle where retreat is defeat, then the tank crews are good to go. #4: Tanks are fireproof. Flamethrowers, molotov cocktails, even driving over burning wreckage does absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Oct 12, 2015 1:03:34 GMT
Where the heck are they going to refuel? Everything I've been suggesting about what the Romans could do - entrenchments, scorched earth - would be done while the tank guys are foraging themselves. Plus, there are so many thousands of the Romans, they can do a hundred things at a time.
The hypothetical scenario was what if a Roman army fought twenty tanks. I took this to mean a literal Roman army, and they would never go anywhere without their artillery! If we want to readjust the pretexts to assume
Rebuttal of #3: Lol. XD Yeah . . .
Rebuttal of #4: So you think that if a tank is engulfed in flame, the crew inside will not die of the heat? I mean, you're basically putting a couple of guys in an oven and then heating it up.
Well, I think I've proven the point that the Romans could likely win in a drawn-out battle. If we're saying that a tactical retreat is qualifications for losing the battle, I'm fine with adjusting my statements.
In that case, the Romans are definitely at a disadvantage. However, if there is a swamp nearby then the Romans have a chance. They can make a tactical withdrawal (not a retreat) and lure the tanks into the swamp and get them stuck. It's a scenario similar to one in Iraq, in which the tanks for caught and the Arabs nearly caught them.
|
|