User blog comment:MilenHD/Cossacks vs Sioux Warriors/@comment-17814994-20151008040201

Elgb's "Sand vs Snow" EDGES!!!

Close: We've all seen what the Indian club can do, and from what we've seen ya'll agree that it's not that impressive. It may have the longer range than the kindjal, but it has to hit the head in order to deal actual damage. And it's very fragile too, and too much pressure will break it. The kindjal is amde up of stronger steel and doesn't need that much energy to kill. EDGE: Cossacks

Mid: The cossack lance is way too long to be used in hand-to-hand combat. Though it is devastating on horseback. Still a megalong stick like that has very limited maneuverability even cavalry. I doubt that the cossack border shift between hands with that weapon while riding a horse. The buffalo lance may not have that length, but it's easier to maneuver both on land and on horseback. Also, don't underestimate that lance. It's built to penetrate and kill tough buffalo hides. EDGE: Sioux

Long: I'd have to agree with the anon Milen, the Winchester M1895 only has 5-rounds.The Henry rifle has over twice the ammo and lower recoil, but that's about it. The M1895 fires the bigger, slender and more superior cartridge that was designed for hunting and sniping. 250 yards isn't actually its range,I've heard that the 1895 can kill an elephant on the same range as a bolt-action rifle (making it 900 yards at least). Another advantage that it has is its internal magazine, which is faster and easier to reload than the Henry's primitive tubular magazine. EDGE: Cossacks

Special: Initially I was all going for the gunstock warclub. It's like a bayonet, but instead used only for swinging and blunt force. Although like the bayonet the user doesn't have to switch weapons to use it (giving it the edge in practicality), but it still lacks the range and efficiency of an actual blade. The shashka may be slower to switch but it has the range and penetration that the warstock doesn't have. EDGE: Cossacks

X-Factors: I'm gonna have to disagree with you on some points Milen. The Sioux has the better training since they actually trained when they were children in warfare, while the cossacks were trained by their early teens. In terms of stealth, the Sioux weren't really that stealthy. In terms of traditional stealth tactics such as covert ops, only Apaches did it. Yeah they did hit and run guerilla warfare but the Cossacks did it too, albeit slightly more successful. And like the Cossacks, the Sioux also used too much charging tactics, probably more so than these Eastern Europeans. (Battle of Little Big Horn anyone?) EDGE: Even

Deadliest Warrior?

The Sioux were great really, but like all Western Indians, they're traditional style of warfare and unpolished weapons fall flat from what the Cossacks can do. The Cossacks takes the victory for having the better weapons and experience. Their long range Winchester would kill the charging Apaches before they can get close. And if both warriors did go on bersek on each other, the Cossack's superior bladed melee weapons would rip the Sioux to shreds.