Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Space Ghost!!!

What about:

GW vs Their Customers

No that one's too easy.

Albatross wrote:Grammar vs. Excitement! Who will win?!!?

YOU DECIDE!!1!

Hey it was 3 in the morning and dark.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This has gotten WAY of topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This has gotten WAY of topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This has gotten WAY of topic.

sebster wrote:The Deadliest Warrior is complete nonsense. The science is awful, but even if it was somewhat consistant and well thought out the show would still be complete nonsense. Thing is, there's no such thing as a 'deadliest warrior', there's just dudes adapting to the technology of the time, and to the type of warfare their society prefers.

I knew there was a reason that I liked you.

sebster wrote:
The actual thing that makes troops excellent is discipline, something the show doesn't both to measure at all*. You then get great armies when those disciplined troops are combined with a powerful civilisation that can provide great logistics.

People who watch The Deadliest Warrior don't seem too worried about that, though. They eat the whole thing up happily, and only realise the whole thing is nonsense when a warrior they think is 'cool' loses to someone they think isn't. Whatever.

The Persian Immortals beat the Celts, O Noes! But seriously, that's what would have happened.

sebster wrote:
*There are a handful of exceptions, such as the mongol's horse archers. But even then you're looking at a whole new type of trooper, which was one of several reasons for the mongol's successes.

I'd argue that the Mongols exhibited a startling level of discipline, but that's another more esoteric thread.

Actually the concept of the Mongol "Horde" was purely invented by the people they conquered who were unable to understand their hit and run way of fighting. When the same group of mounted archers kept hitting them from 3 different sides they just assumed they were surrounded. The psychological effect must have been pretty devastating to a bunch of superstitious peasants with no discipline who have heard rumors of this so-called 'horde'. Ghenghis knew this and exploited it. Run that through a computer program if you can...

Sorry if it was mentioned already but the Deadliest Warrior guys also hold a half hour online show called "The Aftermath" where they answer questions from their viewers and talk about the episode:

http://www.spike.com/show/31082?tabId=31456&fxn=getTabMembers

dogma wrote:I'd argue that the Mongols exhibited a startling level of discipline, but that's another more esoteric thread.

Absolutely, that's what I was saying (albeit poorly). Even when a new weapon is deployed, such as the horse archers, then they're only one factor in the success of that force - the discipline of the mongols was at least as important.

Cane wrote:Sorry if it was mentioned already but the Deadliest Warrior guys also hold a half hour online show called "The Aftermath" where they answer questions from their viewers and talk about the episode:

http://www.spike.com/show/31082?tabId=31456&fxn=getTabMembers

Yep i watched that for the ROMAN VS RAJPUT episode and it made it even more obvious it was riged in the rajputs favor just like Gladiator vs. camanchee gladiator's don't give a dang if there cheast is covered they want to get out alive.

It's the Deadliest Warrior. It's not biased, they're just idiots.

There is something funny about watching a bunch of nerdy guys who have most likely never been in a fight in their life talking like they know a hilt from a blade and so on, analyzing the strength of a katana over a broadsword and so on. I just want to pat them on the head. Weapons enthusiasts and armchair warriors amuse me. I don't think anyone who has actually been shot or stabbed would be quite so interested in the details of the weapons, just the lack of them being anywhere near them.

Its like listening to those guys who had bad haircuts in the 70's who watched Enter The Dragon and all started learning 'kung fu' and having a Bruce Lee poster in their basement where they practice their chucks skills (often pronounced num-chucks by the uneducated who are big fans) while their mom does her best to ignore it... and still talk gak about how badass they were to get their brown belt, but who have never actually had to fight anyone except in a stupid restrained local tournament at the local gym. Yeah sure dude... I'm really scared of an 8 yr old with a red belt too... They are dorks. But at least they are funny dorks.

The bluster from the participants of either side of the completely unrealistic matchup is easily the worst part about the show. Bunch of tesosterone and no real thought to anything. I thought the Spartan and the Ninja matchup was comically bad. Why would a Ninja EVER give the Spartan a chance to fight back? Give me a break

Deadliest warrior is comically bias.

Not to mention how little they take into account, such as tactics, doctrine, mindset etc.

The show just seems like a place for a bunch of wanabee gladiators and such to get a pat on the back and a boost to their egos.

And how about those match ups? Jeez. What next, Plumbers vs. Rambo?

Plumbers versus Roofers...
in this corner... the lead pipe... in this corner... the hammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as ranged weapons go... the hose versus the nail gun

special weapons: hmmm.... the snake versus the ladder!

Brother Gideon wrote:Deadliest warrior is comically bias.

Not to mention how little they take into account, such as tactics, doctrine, mindset etc.

The show just seems like a place for a bunch of wanabee gladiators and such to get a pat on the back and a boost to their egos.

And how about those match ups? Jeez. What next, Plumbers vs. Rambo?

Depends on your Plumbers, could be Mario brothers v Rambo. At least that would be moderately entertaining.

Yeah Mario was a pretty badass plumber. I think the better matchup would be Mario and Luigi with their fireballs and giant jumps versus the Ikari Warrior brothers with their machineguns and grenades...

slowed versus midget! slowed people have slow-strength and enraged aggression when they get worked upon their side, while midgets have cunning and groin shots on theirs.

This thread vs. poking my eyes out

I believe this thread should now be about what deadliest warrior matchup's we would want to see:

Sauron V Abbadon
Thor V Khorne
The Internet V Justin Beiber
Shadowbrand V a pack of Wolves (Don't ask).

Brother Gideon wrote:Not to mention how little they take into account, such as tactics, doctrine, mindset etc.

Here's where I've got to stick up for them sadly. They can't test any of that. Tactics and doctrine are based off your likely opponents. Mideval jnights didn't train to fight pirates any more than spartans trained to fight ninja. All their tactics and doctrine are focused on defeating likely foes. The vast majority of DW fights are between people who never encountered each other in combat or even anyone like each other. In a way it's one of the more intelligent steps they took because it takes tactics and doctrine and tosses them out the window for both warriors. If such a match up did occur they'd both be equally off balance and making it up as they go. Mindset... first off the warrior's mindsets are variable, you can't pin them down and you certainly can't scientifically* test someones mindset who's been dead for centuries.

When it comes to things like tactics, training, doctrine, mindset, etc. you're dealing with things that either don't apply (tactics and doctrine) or can't be measured (training and mindset). Really the only thing you could impartially and scientifically examine are the weapons. Of course the DW completely screws that testing up but that's beside the point.

Rip them for what they do wrong not what they actually get right.

*Not that the DW does anything even remotely scientific.

Tyyr wrote:

Brother Gideon wrote:Not to mention how little they take into account, such as tactics, doctrine, mindset etc.

Here's where I've got to stick up for them sadly. They can't test any of that. Tactics and doctrine are based off your likely opponents. Mideval jnights didn't train to fight pirates any more than spartans trained to fight ninja. All their tactics and doctrine are focused on defeating likely foes. The vast majority of DW fights are between people who never encountered each other in combat or even anyone like each other. In a way it's one of the more intelligent steps they took because it takes tactics and doctrine and tosses them out the window for both warriors. If such a match up did occur they'd both be equally off balance and making it up as they go. Mindset... first off the warrior's mindsets are variable, you can't pin them down and you certainly can't scientifically* test someones mindset who's been dead for centuries.

When it comes to things like tactics, training, doctrine, mindset, etc. you're dealing with things that either don't apply (tactics and doctrine) or can't be measured (training and mindset). Really the only thing you could impartially and scientifically examine are the weapons. Of course the DW completely screws that testing up but that's beside the point.

Rip them for what they do wrong not what they actually get right.

*Not that the DW does anything even remotely scientific.

I agree with almost everything that you wrote, however what I was meaning to say is that it bothers me that they can't take those things into acount. The show is more of an examination of what warrior culture had the deadliest weapons of the time, not the actual warrior himself. For the show to be called deadliest warrior, they should be factoring in the fanatacism, tactics etc, of the warrior and not just the weapons used. I understand that such things cannot be done with a computer program, and that is exactly why i think the show's concept is a bit silly.

Also the tests done to determine a weapons lethality are rather lame. For example, one guy has to put his grenade in a washingmachine, and the other guy puts his in a plywood room. In order to get the best test results, they should put the weapons through the same series of tests, and make a decision based on actual scientificaly proven lethality, not just what looks cooler.

Yeah liek in ming warrior vs. musketeer. the musketeers grenade had to eb thrown into a cart while the mine had no cover for the dumbies.

Well... that... plus pig carcasses don't really dodge much, and aren't really trying to hit you back either. Yessir a Katana can take apart 4 guys in a swipe! Whoopie... if you have 4 guys lined up and not moving just hanging there to take a swipe at. When are they gonna test nuke versus firebomb? Evidently the mass bombing of Dresden was an even worse catastrophy of civilian casualties than Hiroshima. Maybe they could run the tests on the moon or something. Again though, in defense of the show though, it is entertaining, even though it's pretty ludicrous.

Comintern wrote:I Stopped watching this fight after they say that Vlad would beat Sun Tzu. It was pretty ovbious where they were leaning the entire time. Not to mention the people on the show explaing their side are extremely annoying in their trash talking. It gets rather lame.

So, cant vote. But on a whole, the show is garbage.

Wait wait wait. You actually thought Sun Tzu would win? Remember the show is suppose to be about a 1 on 1. Army to army, Sun Tzu would easily crush Vlad, I wouldnt argue that one. But in a one on one slug fest, Vlad would crush the man. Vlad was in the thick of battle many times, where as Sun Tzu, well he was telling everyone what to do. Yes he was an incredible leader and strategist, but I agreed on Vlad winning the fight.

But the "experts" on his side REALLY got on my nerves. Goths anyone? I bet they were rocking out to Type O negative in the parking lot after that show. BRUTAL!

Shadowbrand wrote:They are pretty bias. They also tend to have in one corner a feral barbarian in the other a highly trained professional soldier. Like Viking vs Samurai or Celt vs Immortal.

Pot calling the kettle black, hm? But they're always biased. The scholarship is roughly equivalent to an elementary school "research" paper (i.e. an outdated, vaguely historical picture book), so they do what they want with a weak grasp on reality, assuming the audience will either assume the "experts" are exactly that, or simply won't care.

For fans of the series, I recommend a film that's been alluded to earlier in this thread called "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus." I'm sure you'll pee your pants in delight. It has one of the greatest scenes in cinematic history -->

Guitardian wrote:Well... that... plus pig carcasses don't really dodge much, and aren't really trying to hit you back either. Yessir a Katana can take apart 4 guys in a swipe! Whoopie... if you have 4 guys lined up and not moving just hanging there to take a swipe at. When are they gonna test nuke versus firebomb? Evidently the mass bombing of Dresden was an even worse catastrophy of civilian casualties than Hiroshima. Maybe they could run the tests on the moon or something. Again though, in defense of the show though, it is entertaining, even though it's pretty ludicrous.

Thats why I watch it. I just tear apart how they do things like mad. But I also enjoy the carcasses and gel dummies eating some lol

I hate it when people say things like 'That show is so bias'.

It's 'biasED', you fething idiots. Learn to speech proper england.

Albatross wrote:I hate it when people say things like 'That show is so bias'.

It's 'biasED', you fething idiots. Learn to speech proper england.

The Irony is soooo tasty

So is spellinges with only one "o"

Brother Gideon wrote:I agree with almost everything that you wrote, however what I was meaning to say is that it bothers me that they can't take those things into account. The show is more of an examination of what warrior culture had the deadliest weapons of the time, not the actual warrior himself. For the show to be called deadliest warrior, they should be factoring in the fanaticism, tactics etc, of the warrior and not just the weapons used. I understand that such things cannot be done with a computer program, and that is exactly why i think the show's concept is a bit silly.

If you're looking for a fanboy vs. fanboy discussion you can find one in about fifteen minutes on the internet. That's really what that would come down to. Without any way to actually test scientifically those things all it comes down to is one nerd's opinion versus another's. You can't quantify fighting spirit so the only way to "test" it would be to pull 1,000 spartans out of antiquity and 1,000 ninjas and let them hack one another to death to see how they do. Even then you could only infer the intangibles, not test them.

I agree, tactics, doctrine, creativity, willpower, etc. are all vital to a combatant but you can't test them. So the only thing you can really do in my opinion is throw them out and just assume a level playing field, that all the combatants are equally skilled, motivated, and well trained. It's not perfect but it's something you've just gotta live with.

Also the tests done to determine a weapons lethality are rather lame. For example, one guy has to put his grenade in a washingmachine, and the other guy puts his in a plywood room. In order to get the best test results, they should put the weapons through the same series of tests, and make a decision based on actual scientificaly proven lethality, not just what looks cooler.

Believe me, I know. The washing machine incident in Spetznaz vs. Green Beret's was pretty bad. It's not the worst incident in testing though. One of my favorites was in Knight vs. Pirate when the pirate's pistols proved to be essentially useless against a knight's armor and the blunderbuss was only effective 50% of the time at absurdly close range. They actually had the pistol as a long range weapon and it was still getting kills and the blunderbuss was the most devastating weapon in the fight with 352 kills, more than half the pirates total. The katana bounced off Viking's mail armor only nicking a few rings yet racked up over 100 kills. So not only do their testing methods suck but they completely ignore them when they are inconvenient. Honestly, you could write a doctoral dissertation on all the ways their testing methodologies suck.

Did anyone watch the recent BBC 'Blitz Street' it was also packed full of pseudo science.