Also Vikings weren't the only ones who fought like that, and nothing in that article says that it made them too stupid to carry out a battle plan correctly. Where are you actually tryign to go with your arguments?
Better yet. When you come back, how about you define the boundaries of this argument?
1. How realistic do you want to be? Are we to pretend this is the real world now?
2. Which games, and if all, what parts are discounted? Surely you don't intend for orcs to have three berserks, and Dunmer to get three different racials? Maybe you do. Also if all three games, are they male or female (it actually changes stats).
3. How large are the armies? How many people.
Please define this better, because you honestly are all over the place with your arguments throughout the entire thread.
If you read that article it never claimed anywhere they were an effective militaristic fighting force on of themselves. They were useful in small numbers in specific situations. I say the orcs are incapable of strategy so long as you cling to the idea that the berserk ability is the primary means of their ability to win a battle. Study military tactics a bit and see just how effective berserkers really are. You claim there effectiveness when there is nothing to substantiate it. I asked you to justify and show how any 'berserker' armies, which have never existed, are effective in a pitched battle between two armies? They were used in small units for specific tasks but never as a cohesive force. There usefulness is and always was limited.
'This fury, which was called berserkergang, occurred not only in the heat of battle, but also during laborious work. Men who were thus seized performed things which otherwise seemed impossible for human power. This condition is said to have begun with shivering, pvssyring of the teeth, and chill in the body, and then the face swelled and changed its colour. With this was connected a great hot-headedness, which at last gave over into a great rage, under which they howled as wild animals, bit the edge of their shields, and cut down everything they met without discriminating between friend or foe. When this condition ceased, a great dulling of the mind and feebleness followed, which could last for one or several days.
I guess this is necessary. I made assumptions that people would understand where I was coming from with the racial powers. That was not a great idea. In my defense I was studying for Finals and have only gotten 20 hours or so of sleep this week.
1. How realistic do you want to be? Are we to pretend this is the real world now?
You did engage in a discussion of who is better between two fictional races with me...Of course it is not the real world but real world tactics can still apply so long as you use them correctly. I am asking you to be realistic in your reasoning. Within the context of a fantasy world. Yes that is possible. Recognize the validity of someones argument unless you can refute it. If you would refute the usefulness of being able to double your man power with arguably powerful ghosts, that seems as if it could give immense tactical advantage when used appropriately in a battle, then I would easily say that the Orcs would in all likelihood defeat the Dunmer in an open conflict on an open plain. But if you add the flexibility and numbers off the ancestral ghosts I see no way that any race could beat the Dunmer in such a conflict.
2. Which games, and if all, what parts are discounted? Surely you don't intend for orcs to have three berserks, and Dunmer to get three different racials? Maybe you do. Also if all three games, are they male or female (it actually changes stats).
Gender does not matter, it only changed attributes in any case, not skills. We are focusing on the race as a whole. Use what is shown in the lore to be true for their abilities and powers. Then infer how this could be a trait that does not have measurable statistics like double damage and 75% or 50% fire resistance. Instead we will call them by more realistic notions of those powers as I outlined earlier. Dunmer are not 75% resistant to fire they are just heavily resistant to it. We will take that as a well placed fireball with direct impact would likely kill or severely damage them. AoE fire spells though quickly become useless unless they directly hit a target. Dunmer can summon beings that are about of equal strength as themselves known as ancestor ghosts. Orcs have some small resistance to magicka that makes them shake off the occasional spell and survive the occasional fireball or lightning bolt. Orcs can also enter a berserk state in which they are much more fearsome than normal. However they become clumsier and more rash once in that state.(sound good?)
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Dunmer are shown to be a disciplined, highly effective and flexible fighting force composed of a mix of lightly and heavily armored soldiers. They have respected archers, swordsmen, mages, and mixes of the three. They are resistant to fire and can call on their ancestors for aid. This is described in the lore. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Orc are shown to be feared and incredibly effective heavily armored shock troops that can go berserk in battle and are great with blunt and two handed weapons. Yes they are fearsome. But they are mostly limited to close quarters combat and somewhat decent archery at best. There is no tradition of them being great with bows or anything of the sort. Their magic is limited and they are not very powerful mages though there are exceptions. Is it mentioned anywhere other than in the gameplay that they can resist magic to a small degree? If so they can have that but let us say it is not akin to the Bretons magicka resistance, it is much less effective and is a smaller factor. If it is not in the lore. Eff it they can have it anyways. I like Orsimer.
3. How large are the armies? How many people.
Somewhat irrelevant though having numbers do help. Depends, Ill let people pick if they like. Though I warn them the higher the number the bigger the advantage to the Dunmer with their ability to summon semi-permanent ghosts. But both need a fairly substantial number for it to be a race vs race battle on any scale. 1000-2000 soldiers to each side seems adequate. Neutral terrain such as a wide flat plain. We assume no reinforcements from anywhere other than the groups involved and their various powers and such. Morale can be broken and not everyone has to die.
Care to add to this?
