User blog comment:El Alamein/Cfp3157's Army vs. RSV 123's Army/@comment-4661256-20120814232617

El Alamein's "I Get Pissed Off When You Spell My Name Wrong" Edges:

NOTE: I am voting on my own battle this one, because it's a user battle, so I feel that no bias is being displayed in voting on a battle like this.

 Norman Infantry vs. Roman Legionnaries:  Sure, the Norman soldiers have around a thousand years' advantage as far as the time period goes but technology-wise they're fairly even. I'm tempted to go with the Romans because they're better formation-fighters, but the Norman soldiers have a very successful combat record and both warriors are used to fighting in massive armies. They both carry huge shields and fight with sword and spear. The Romans have better armor, if you ask me, but it's not that much of a difference to swing it in their favor.

Edge: Even

 Wallachian Infantry vs. Spartan Hoplites:  The same thing I said about Norman vs. Roman holds true here - the Wallachians are more advanced but not to the point that it's a game changer. In an army, shields locked and spears held out, the Greeks have a huge advantage and even steel halberds won't penetrate that wall of bronze. Yeah, the spear-tips are vulnerable to being slashed off, but that's not really a problem when there's several hundred or several thousand of those spear-points headed your way - you can't break all the spears, after all. The Spartans are more armored and better suited to large-scale warfare.

Edge: RSV 123

 Germanic Infantry vs. Rajput Warriors:  This is an interesting comparison of soldiers - the Rajputs are well-trained, excellent one-on-one fighters, but this is an army battle. The Germanic soldiers are wild, barbaric and in my opinion poorly armed to fight heavily armored foes like the Spartan or knight. They did defeat the Romans several times though, and I think that their ferocious nature and guerrilla tactics may be an X-Factor that could surprise RSV's men. That said, this is a very slight edge, as the Rajputs take every edge and only suffer in this large-scale fight.

Edge: Cfp3157

Landsknechts vs. Crusaders: Don't kid yourself, Cfp. The Crusaders can fight mounted or dismounted, their armor and weapons just stack up to those of the Landsknecht and then some. The broadsword and halberd are more manageable in the tight-quarters situation this fight is going to delve in to, and big weapons like the Zweihander will be less effective the closer the fighting gets.

Edge: RSV 123

Mongols vs. Huns: I always liked the Mongols better than the Huns because they were a professional army of conquest, while the Huns were simply raiders and barbarians. The Mongols have true armor and hard-hitting weapons up-close to back up their long-range game, and their mobility just goes to reinforce that point.

Edge: Cfp3157

 Celtic Chariot vs. Persian Chariot:  Again, Cfp, you're full of crap on this edge you gave. The Persian chariot has scythes that can destroy the Celtic chariots as they drive past, and the Persians are most certainly not chariot-only fighters. The more professional, disciplined Persian beat the Celt on Deadliest Warrior and I see no reason as to why it won't happen again in this scaled-up fight.

Edge: RSV 123

 Carthaginian War Elephant vs. Indian War Elephant:  The Indian Elephant has better armor and it has a cannon - psychological warfare for those warriors unexposed to gunpowder. The Carthaginian elephants are okay but history blows them out of proportion - Hannibal lost the majority of his elephants crossing the Alps.

Edge: RSV 123

 Cfp's Weapons vs. RSV's Weapons:  I don't want to give edges for their loadouts, so I'll just examine them as a whole arsenal. Cfp suffers with the sling and sarissa (the sling is ineffective and the sarissa's very long and unwieldy if not in formation) while RSV is packing in a loadout that complements itself - the Spatha and Katars are good for close range and the Halberd is a decent mid-range weapon while the recurve bow is phenomenal for long range. Armor-wise, they're fairly even, because RSV's armor allows for more mobility while Cfp went for the cheap shot "Plate armor and Spartan shield" but... I digress. RSV's got the better weapons and decent armor, and he gets the edge.

Edge: RSV 123

WINNER: RSV 123

Looking at the teams the two users picked out, it's clear that Cfp just thought "who's cool?" while RSV though "who works well together?" It's not so much the two men's loadouts themselves, as it is their armies. Putting the Legionnaries and Spartans together in an army fight is genius - a massive shield wall that can advance and cut down anything in its path. RSV has the superior chariots and elephants - heavy hitters that will move quickly through the enemy lines casuing havoc, and this may serve to nullify Cfp's advantage with the Mongols, as his chariots are quite mobile themselves. The Crusaders are heavy-armored and mounted, allowing for swift, crushing attacks, and in the scenario he holds the water for his animals - Cfp has to march down a hill and suffer from heat and enemy fire along the way. Yeah, the high ground is good, but I'd rather have the water to keep my men going. RSV wins this because his men are a true army that would work togther while Cfp just picked guys that he liked from history.