09-10-2004 17:16									#1
	"Very old thread" search Put an end to popups!

Hi,

I need to find a very old thread, but it seems like I can't go that far back in time by a search. There was a complete research done in this thread about different historical battles between units with a big technological difference, so I cannot just make this research again.

How can I find back this thread that took lots, lots, LOTS of posts to get its final results?

	09-10-2004 18:52									#2
	Remove this text

Archive?

Also, you may want to wait until the archive search is fully implemented. See one of the many active threads on this subject available to you now, only in the Community forum.

	09-10-2004 23:19									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

which forum was it in? - some of the smaller forums, if youre patient and know roughly when something was, its not to hard to browse the archives, if search isnt working.

	09-10-2004 23:35									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

If you remember a poster from that 'very old thread', you may be able to scan his posts from his profile page...assuming those do not also get truncated by the archieving process.

Monk

	10-10-2004 15:23									#5
	Put an end to popups!

A better way if you remember anything is to go into the archive and sort the posts by poster or title.

	10-10-2004 22:58									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

When you guys say archive, do you mean simply going by the search hyperlink up there? Because I did that: by the keyword "trifna" since I was a poster.

It was in the Civ3 thread, whattever name it morphed to, where new ideas were discussed at the time.

Thanks

	10-10-2004 23:42									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Look in the dropdown forum bar. There are lots of archived posts from various forums. If you go into search you can choose to search a certain archive, but it wont work. Hence if the post you want is indeed in the Civ3 archive rather than being an active (albeit buried) thread in the Civ3 forum you need to use more cunning search techniques, like the ones I posted.

	11-10-2004 00:25									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

If it was that massive one then ordering the archive by views or replies should bring it up near the top. Or do as Bloody Monk suggested, search for all your posts and try and locate it if you have an approximate date.
Even if it isn't archived, keywording your name won't work unless you were named (or quoted). Just posting won't show you up.

	20-10-2004 15:26									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Definitely, I wont find it by search, should it be by my own threads or general search or search by title... It was cut somehow.

Does anyone know if a moderator is able to give me access to something? This thread was basically making a list of historical battles with each side having a very different technology and the low-tech side winning; it was looking at the outcome, at the common factors, to which extent the losses were higher for the low-tech army that won...

It can't be done twice... while interesting, it's too long. We got to the conclusion that battles where low-tech units won were in fact in a situation where the low-tech units were largely overwhelming the high-tech, so the high-tech wasn't able to fight all at once. The low-tech side had seriously higher losses (all the time if I remember).

	20-10-2004 20:35									#10
	Remove this text

Are you sure it's not archived?

	20-10-2004 21:59									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Is this by any chance the thread you're looking for?

	21-10-2004 00:12									#12
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Locutus Is this by any chance the thread you're looking for?

It's not it... The other thread had me and korn69 as principal participants and maybe the thread was started by korn also. It doesn't help any search request anyway.

I'm now manually looking in the archives. I searched until page 185 of the archives yet... For some reason, it does not go right when I ask to put the threads in order of "number of replies". there's no other option: I'll continue my manual search.

Thx.

	21-10-2004 00:23									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I FOUND IT!! I FOUND IT!!!



It was on the 208th page, with "korn" right in the title. If you were wondering what I was searching for and why I didn't want to make the research all over, this is what I was looking for:

quote: Upgrade of what I found in Britannica encyclopedia. What is not in what I said but would have been interesting simply are things I didn't found in Britannica (such as weapons used). Infos that have an asterisk (*) next to it are from people on the forum. -Glorious victories through Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base Thermopylae August, 480 BC Greek (300 Spartans, their helots and 1100 Beotians) vs Persians Greek lost: all Persians: considerable losses Notice: Persians won but it was a good resistance for the Greeks. The troops I named here (Greeks) are what was used to let all the others escape. Salamis 480 BC Persians (800 galleys) vs Greeks (370 triremes) Persians lost: 300 galleys Greek lost: 40 triremes Notice: Greek lured Persians in the narrow waters of the strait of Salamis where the massed Persians ships had difficulty maneuvering. Operation Desert Storm (Iraq)* 1990-1991 USA (1848 tanks + air power) vs Iraq (4230 tanks) USA troops: Abrams M1, M1A1 and M1A1(HA) Iraq troops: 50 T-72, 1600 T-62, 700 T-54 (Soviet tanks) USA lost: 9 permanent lost, 9 had to be repaired, no casualty within crewmen Iraqi lost: 4000 tanks Notice: USA losts are mostly due to mines. On average, an Abram outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1000 meters. My comment: Informations are not complete. Anti-air, others? What's about air power? Sources: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm http://www.desert-storm.com/War/ -Ruinous defeats in spite of Superior Technology, Training, Organization, or Industrial Base Isandhdlwana January 22nd-23rd, 1879 Zulu (20 000 men) vs British (1700 men) Zulu lost: 3000 to 4000 British lost: 1580 Notice: Zulu advanced unnoticed My comment: This is partly because they attacked all at the same time (stack unit someone? ) Battle of Adwa March 1st, 1896 Italy (14 500 men) vs Ethiopia (100 000 men) Italian lost (killed, wounded or captured): 70% Ethiopian lost: not said Notice: Italian columns were disorganized and Italians lack adequates maps of the area. Part of the Italian losts are due to a retreat in difficult terrain, harrassed by hostile population. My comment: Seems partly due to terrain and number of men all there at same time (almost 1:7 ratio) Dien Bein Phu November 20th* to May 7th, 1954 France (15 709 men*) vs VietMinh (socialists Viets) (40 000 men) France troops*: tanks, artillery and air support VietMinh troops*: guns (light to heavy), anti-air, mortars France lost*: 1800 killed, 5000 wounded VietMinh*: 8 000 to 12 000 killed, 15 000 to 30 000 wounded Notice: French (fortified) taken by surprise. Roads were cut so troops and supplies could only come by air. VietMinh were popularly supported (dunno if it changes anything). Heavy artillery broke French lines. My comment: I guess 40 000 men is alot, espescially if they had the jungle advantage where French and American were seriously not trained to. Little Bighorn June 25th, 1876 USA vs Amerindians (cleary overwhelming Americans) American troops: cavalry American lost: more than 200 (they only talk of Custer's 7th cavalry who was completely vanquished) Notice: Part of the cavalry was surprised to see some encampment where they weren't thought to be and it caused some problems to the tactic. Unaware about it, the other part of cavalry arrived alone with the group they were supposed to attack. Lost of strtegic edge that they thought they would have (river). Amerindians were alerted of Custer's attack because of other attacks they already had (Custer is the one that was surprised to see some troops where he didn't thaught). Other than Custer's 7th cavalry, the other retreated (they had attacked before him). My comment: Here again we see a common factor: more troops at the same place. Also terrain advantage/disadvantage that got a place. Spartacus 71 BC Rome (8 legions=54 000 men*) vs Spartacus (ultimately, Spartacus had at least 90 000 men) Spartacus lost: erm... alot including the 6000 crucified Notice: They lost this battle (and died), but they also beated 2 consuls in 72 BC it is said. But I'd say they were the ones with more troops, and not the romans. 90 000... Not every consul has 50 000 men, no? Notice that not all slaves are combatants.* Agincourt October 25th, 1415 French (20 000 to 30 000 men) vs English (5900 men) French troops: many of the troops were mounted knights in heavy armor English troops: 900 men-at-arms and 5000 archers French lost: 1500 knights and 4500 men-at-arms English lost: less than 450 men Notice: French unwisely chose a battlefield with a a narrow frontage of only about 1000 yards of open ground between the two woods, making large maneuvers almost impossible. Similarity: more troops on the winner's side at the same battle at the same time. (stack unit someone? ) Not surprising, since one strategy is trying to catch the opponent's troops by little parts. That's what I found. You guys should all look at getting this encyclopedia. Encarta is peanut compared to it. It's marvelous About Napoleon in Russia, I read about this war and I know that troops were frozen (winter). Many died because they hadn't enough supplies or from frost. All this not helping morale to make things worst. I guess going from France to Russia in winter is a great change of temperature...

This, plus a bit more in the discussions around.

Quoted from http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...30&pagenumber=6