By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bugrimmar on 02 July 2011
Edit Thread
zarx said:
bugrimmar said:


if we're going to include a war chariot and scutum, then we have to take into account stealth and fatigue as well. apaches were known for their ability to attack from ambush and hit and run tactics. we also have to take into account if the gladiator were to bring all that gear against a guy with very light gear, naturally the apache could just run and hide indefinitely, shooting arrows here and there, until the gladiator is forced into a position where his chariot wouldn't be helpful anymore. it's a wheeled vehicle so it can't really go to rocky areas or deep forests. all that running, of course, will make the gladiator tired in the end because he's carrying so much stuff with him. that scutum is heavy.

i stand by the point that since gladiators didn't have any reliable range weapons, they can be picked apart by someone who can shoot from afar. yes, the ammunition will eventually run out, but if an apache can attack from ambush where a gladiator isn't prepared, there won't even be a fight to begin with.


the chariot was a joke btw. 

As for stealth and ambush I guess we would have to agree on a battlefeild, giving the Apache the "home town" advantage of rocky or forested area seems unfair as would holding the fight in a coliseum. I would however accept a navel colliseum, because they are awsome.

and yes that is a coliseum filled with water in which they would hold navel battles, including ships with greek fire.

Edit: of corse a mounted battle would be viable, chariot vs horse.

about the homefield advantage:

in a coliseum, there is no ambush, but the apache can still unleash arrows and do hit and run. therefore, there's still a good chance the gladiator will die from an arrow even with a scutum, because arrows are unpredictable. given that the arrows don't hit, eventually the gladiator will have to move in, where he will meet knives. if he gets past that, only then does he have a chance of winning. so even in a coliseum, the apache has good chances of hitting the gladiator before the fight even starts. when the fight does start, apaches have a good chance too because tomahawks are pretty good in close range. i do give a slight edge to the gladiator in a coliseum because of the straightforward combat, but not by much.

in a forest or mountainous area, it's no contest. the gladiator will be picked apart by the apache from ambush and hit and run. there's nothing that the gladiator can do in the situation. all that gear will just be a burden to his fatigue level.

so if we combine both situations, the apache is the better warrior because he can be effective in more than one kind of area or battlefield. the gladiator has a slight edge in a coliseum, but that's it. in a real battlefield where there is unpredictability, strategy, tactics, and ambush, the apache would always win.