Ninjas v Pirates v Knights v Vikings

[RoyalBlueStuey]

Then I realised I was taking all this far too seriously.

[/b]

Not at all, valuable input.

 

[Brodizzle]

In a battle between Knights and Ninjas I would expect Knights to do what they often did, charge at the ninjas foolhardedly as was often the case, despite all thier armour etc the thing that, for me at least, set the ninjas above the knights is the fact that ninjas would be far more tactically sound, I mean, thier whole training would be about making snap decisions to save thier hides and to kill thier target, however most knights are trained to be chivalrous and die gloriously in battle. I am not familiar about how devestating the ninja weapons are but even in unable to pierce knights armour the ninjas I would imagine would have the presence of mind to look for the weak points eg. the joints in the armour, as this is the basic thing they would always do when assasinating a samurai or something, planning the perfect strike before going in.....

But this begs the question, why are ninjas in the battle in the first place? Shouldn't it be samurais, who are basically the counterpart of Knights while ninjas are pretty much assassins....they would never allow themself to be in a battle and even if they were I doubt they would stay long in a open battle....

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

But this begs the question, why are ninjas in the battle in the first place? Shouldn't it be samurais, who are basically the counterpart of Knights while ninjas are pretty much assassins....they would never allow themself to be in a battle and even if they were I doubt they would stay long in a open battle.... [/b]

I queried that earlier. Samurai are a totally different kettle of fish to ninjas, far more organised and able to fight in large groups.

I'd still stubbornly stick to knights for the win though.

 

[Brodizzle]

<div class='quotemain'>
But this begs the question, why are ninjas in the battle in the first place? Shouldn't it be samurais, who are basically the counterpart of Knights while ninjas are pretty much assassins....they would never allow themself to be in a battle and even if they were I doubt they would stay long in a open battle.... [/b]

I queried that earlier. Samurai are a totally different kettle of fish to ninjas, far more organised and able to fight in large groups.

I'd still stubbornly stick to knights for the win though.
[/b][/quote]
Samurais could go two ways.

Either the knights could engage the enemy until they defeated, which SHOULD be a bit of a walk in the park, or alternatively the knights could decide they wanted to be hero and charge at the biggest knight they could see, this could mean two things, either the other samurais would do them through when thier attention was taken or they can cause some samurai to flee, which then depends whether the knights let them flee or chase them, effectively taking much of the knights out of the battle temporarily which could serve the samurais who didn't flee to turn on those knights who didn't be douche bags and stood thier ground instead of going on the chase....I would expect when some knights who weren't involved in the original breakthrough would probably chase the fleeing troops as well, to mow down as much as possible, despite the fact that on the other side of the battlefield a large skirmish is going on with the samurais getting the upper hand....

I mean, the greatest downfall of the knights was they got too carried away sometimes, they are pretty much like the barbarians in Roman times, great fighters, no doubt but if you were able to exploit thier overactive nature while remaining well ordered there is no reason why you couldn't craft a victory...