Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[userpay]

Here's the problem - they did it 1 on 1. If you had true numbers it'd be like 500 vikings and 4 samurai.

Ya the only time they ever did more than 1 on 1 was when they did the soviet union spectial troops verse the green berets or something like that and that was like, a 5 on 5 thing I believe. On that one the only reason the soviet won was because of some stupid knife that shot its blade if only for the surprise factor, the berets had a fucking awsome shovel that stored well, slice well, and still had many other uses. To be honest I kinda wished they ran the numbers on an individual basis and on a group basis for all the sims.

[Phantom]

Real Odds
Navy seals send a team into random soviet controlled area (Winter forest type)
Spetsnaz are on patrol, they encounter enemies/
50% Chance of winning if sides are equal

[Vester]

The Populace is never on their side, which means they have more to kill.

You do realize that the vikings were a trading and merchant culture, right?

[Neonivek]

I don't know if you can blanket them like that. The Norse have a rich history where they played many roles. (and they weren't always one side either)

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Two words: Vinland Saga.

Awesome vikings.

Also: The Viking Invasion of the Great Britain.

[CJ1145]

As a Norse myself, seeing a Viking die puts a boiling in my blood that cannot be described with words. On the subject of numbers, you're right. A heavily armored and armed raider like that would never be alone in a situation where he'd be fighting a samurai, he'd have a platoon with him at least. Maybe a scout or something, but then he'd have a whole different equipment layout, making it entirely pointless.

Also, they gave way too much credit to the Samurai's weapons. The katana was a great weapon, and I'm sure the crazy club... thing has its occasional use. However, the Viking was simply more heavily armored, had better weapons for that sort of fight, and would be been backed up by allies. It's the same as the Spartan versus the Ninja, it'd never happen (even if they were in the same place and same time) because they would not be traveling alone. While it just would have made the Spartan's victory even more complete, it would have really changed the outcome of this particular match, which frustrates me.

[Jreengus]

Wait they did Spartan v ninja and the Spartan won? Correct me if I'm wrong but the mainstay of Greek tactics at that time was the Phalanx, while the ninja is effectively an assassin so logically the ninja should win, easily.

[CJ1145]

Their main theory was that the Ninja was meant to kill unarmored and unprepared targets, so the heavily armored Spartan was its worst possible matchup.

[Jreengus]

But it would be bronze versus steel, I'm not sure what the Spartans wore on their feet but if they're wearing sandals caltrops would be painful and poisoned ones deadly. Plus they could use shurikens on his face, hell once they've sprinkled down caltrops everywhere they could just dodge him and use their ranged arsenal (Bombs bows and of course shurikens) I'd like to see how bronze armour stands up to steel tipped arrows.

[Sensei]

Yeah, spartans are group attrition fighters... the ninja can easily beat any polearm, unless said polearm is on a horse. Ninja'd be better in 1v1 at any rate. I still say that it all comes down to popularity among the production team. Plus:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Muz]

Ninjas should win against all of them. Hell, a ninja could kill a Navy SEAL. A Spartan or a Samurai can't.

[userpay]

As a Norse myself, seeing a Viking die puts a boiling in my blood that cannot be described with words. On the subject of numbers, you're right. A heavily armored and armed raider like that would never be alone in a situation where he'd be fighting a samurai, he'd have a platoon with him at least. Maybe a scout or something, but then he'd have a whole different equipment layout, making it entirely pointless.

Also, they gave way too much credit to the Samurai's weapons. The katana was a great weapon, and I'm sure the crazy club... thing has its occasional use. However, the Viking was simply more heavily armored, had better weapons for that sort of fight, and would be been backed up by allies. It's the same as the Spartan versus the Ninja, it'd never happen (even if they were in the same place and same time) because they would not be traveling alone. While it just would have made the Spartan's victory even more complete, it would have really changed the outcome of this particular match, which frustrates me.

Well in a scounting situation it might end up with a samurai verse more than one viking but if their going in a straight up battle between two sides then it would be a more based on numbers, and don't the samurai have an honor code or something that might make then tend to fight enemies on the field one at a time whereas the vikings would probably switch targets when the opportunity arises (ie cheap blow).

Also on the ninja sparatan thing I do still think on an individual basis the ninja should have won. If I recall correctly they had some egg thing that had crushed glass and stuff in it and it would be thrown in the eyes. By hten the sparatans spear would probably be gone and with a blinded sparatan I would think the ninja would pick him appart easily. The ninja would have been screwed on an group battle. This is why I think they should run both the single battles and the group battles.

[Sordid]

Gentlemen, gentlemen... the point of the show is not to decide who would win. That's just an excuse for the 40 minutes of demonstrations of what weapons do to ballistic gel human torso stand-ins. It's pure gorn, to the extent that mainstream television allows.

[Hawkfrost]

But it would be bronze versus steel, I'm not sure what the Spartans wore on their feet but if they're wearing sandals caltrops would be painful and poisoned ones deadly. Plus they could use shurikens on his face, hell once they've sprinkled down caltrops everywhere they could just dodge him and use their ranged arsenal (Bombs bows and of course shurikens) I'd like to see how bronze armour stands up to steel tipped arrows.

Shurikens are overrated, you can really only deliver light cuts and scratches with them.

Ninjas should win against all of them. Hell, a ninja could kill a Navy SEAL. A Spartan or a Samurai can't.

You give ninjas too much credit.
They spread mysteries and myths about themselves to make people fear them more.

I'm not saying they are not skilled and deadly, but in general people treat them like they are the deadliest men/women to ever live, which I'm sure they are not.


And they did not have that well made equipment, most of it was crudely made compared to samurai or Spartan standards.
Chances are their steel tipped arrows couldn't pierce Spartan armor.


Ninja = Kills people easily and swiftly, but only as long as they are not seen.
Spartan = Incredibly well trained and disciplined warriors.

Gentlemen, gentlemen... the point of the show is not to decide who would win. That's just an excuse for the 40 minutes of demonstrations of what weapons do to ballistic gel human torso stand-ins. It's pure gorn, to the extent that mainstream television allows.

The show is more "What is the deadliest weapon" than anything.

[Muz]

Shurikens and caltrops are overrated. But I think there was that guy who studied ninjitsu who showed its effectiveness in modern day assassination. It worked pretty damn well, though the ninja would get killed in the end. It doesn't matter that they don't have the best armor or weapons in the world. They are trained to go in and out of a place quietly and attack someone unarmored. They don't need steel tipped arrows when they could kill a sleeping Spartan commander with a simple blade.

They should sort of be compared to the Arabian Hashashins and the Talibans. Though Musashi (the samurai) sounds like he was a better assassin than any of them, especially since he could kill several men and didn't even die in combat.