Austrian Strategist
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Austrian Strategist
-
-
Your explanation makes a lot of sense; I´m sold.Originally posted by YankeeDog:I hope that clarifies things for you. Some grog will probably come by soon and explain where I've gotten things wrong.
-
Given that radios did exist, aren´t the limits of what on-map mortars can fire at a bit unrealistic?
-
If the Umpire AI could do something similar for QBs, this would also be great.Originally posted by Andreas:Well, there are landmarks in some of my scenarios, but in some (very few) of these, they are not correct
They also only give you a general idea, no precise location. -
I don´t think this is unrealistic. It would be analogous to the sharpshooter. Some are good at shooting, some are good at scouting.Originally posted by Caesar:I still prefer the idea of a scout command as it means you don't have unrealistic elements in your forces and you can use your normal troops in a realistic manner.
-
Well, some commanders feel some sort of responsibility for their men and would hesitate sending half a dozen into their probable death to confirm their suspicion of an ambush.Originally posted by skelley:Why is a split squad scouting party gamey while a bicycle scouting party not?
A specialized scouting party would be only two men, and their chance of survival would/should be higher.
-
Nightgaunt,
Absolutely. I didn´t know these were expert methods. Glad to hear that, since I am using them, which means my play must be improving.
-
2 men with bicycles, lightly armed, but stealthy (sort of FOs without artillery).
Realistic way to get rid of gamey 'sacrifice half-squads'.
-
AS:Originally posted by Tarqulene:SB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable?
Which sort of defense do you think would "hold out" longer, given those unfavorable conditions?[/QB]</font>You joking? What I am saying is, on a large map, no turn limit, attacker wins by default.
With a broad front, no time constraints, the 50%pts advantage of the attacker will always win, period.
-
Hmmm, yes, though what I mean is, do they have something that is useful in a CM context, similar to the Soviet Battlefield Doctrine you have studied?
I would bet the Chinese approach to Modern Warfare is much more indirect than either the Soviet or Western approach.
It would probably sound a bit like: "Sente allows a player to maintain the initiative, but it gives his opponent an opportunity to counter-attack; gote on the other hand, forsakes the initiative, but it builds a solid foundation for future attacks. Light moves are flexible, yet they sometimes form loose shapes; heavy moves are inflexible, but they are solid. Thickness leads to profit, but there is a danger of forming overdeveloped shapes; thinness is weak, but more flexible. Making life is safe, yet one loses sente; leaving a precarious group unattended is dangerous, but one gets sente. Thus, the key issues of initiative, profit, safety, and the life and death of groups must all be harmonized within one global, strategic framework. When separated from this global framework, these issues lose their meaning, and the game loses direction."
This is, you guess it, from a GO book. But the thoughts can be applied to Wargames, I believe, including CM.
-
***HEALTH WARNING: My experience with CM is extremely limited; use of my advice may lead to losing your games.***
Stuh42
Keyword: Infantry Support
Description: Infantry Support AFV
Advantages: Great to kill Infantry Guns, Mortars and such from a distance; good against Infantry; relatively inexpensive
Disadvantage: Useless against Tanks
How to use: Keep hidden until all enemy AFVs are goners, then use it to help your Infantry clean up the board
OR
Use as a bait to draw enemy Tanks into the LOS of your Paks/Flaks/Nashorns/Jagdpanthers/Whatever
StugIII
Keyword: Flexibility
Description: All Purpose AFV
Advantages: Not very bad at anything; inexpensive
Disadvantage: Not very good at anything
How to use: If you have no clue what your opponent is up to, buy a few StugIIIs and use them to back up either your Infantry or AT assets as needed
-
I would have bet on that.Originally posted by FionnBelieve it or not I actually have played GO and don't particularly like it.
Btw, do you know anything about Chinese Doctrine? I don´t, but I have a gut feeling it would be the perfect counter to Soviet Doctrine.
-
The Forum looks very good now; all it needed was the lightening up.
-
Am on neither side of the fence here. I believe the best mindset in a strategy game is the imperturbability of the Borg. If Star Trek TNG were real, I wouldn´t bet a cent on the Federation.Originally posted by Kallimakhos:It is a mind game, and don't fool youself or anyone else believing otherwise. No one is praising foolishness, but pride and trust in ones capabilities do indeed bring victories.
-
Very sound analysis. I usually tend to agree with most of your points. Though I also notice that you have some of a liking to bash in the heads of people who disagree with you even by 10%.Originally posted by JasonC:..."most CM players err on the side of caution". That is somewhat plausible, as it is noticable e.g. that all double-blind wargames induce relatively more cautious play than full intel ones. So somewhat more aggressive players are acting more like their full-info counterparts.
But this is hardly a matter of extremes or maximizing anything. Overconfidence is just as deadly as despondency, if your opponent expects and exploits it. Rashness can lose battles as easily as caution. For every wavering position not rushed when it might have been, there is a kill sack blundered into. The balance between them may not be even *empirically*, meaning the average player might improve by more aggressive or by more cautious play. But they are perfectly symmetrical relations theoretically, in the sense that too much of either can hang you.
If you could work at this a little, your posts would be even better, and still more enjoyable than they already are.
-
While this was not my intent, you have generated an additional point. We're not interested in defending a map; we're interested in defending an objective. Several of the inherent advantages of the defense-- such as surprise and terrain-- still go to the defender in this situation. I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable? </font>Originally posted by Scott B:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Of course, a static defense doesn´t work on a large map with no time limit -because this is not a balanced scenario. Such a map can, quite simply, not be defended.
-
Yes, and yes. Seesaw battles in WWII were always a symptom of fronts too broad to be efficiently defendable.Originally posted by Scott B:You're suggesting, then, that effective defenses were impossible in North Africa? It's sort of down and to the left of my area of interest, so I'm certainly interested in hearing about that. Elaborate.
Was, say, the whole of the Western Soviet Union too large an area to effectively defend?
Manstein tried to combat this problem with his famous backhand blows -a measure as ingenious as it was desperate. In the final analysis, the backhand blows came at a cost, increasing attrition, which the Germans simply couldn´t afford. But it was still the best try -nothing else would have worked either.
-
:eek:Originally posted by Scott B:Additionally, since the defender has the advantages of terrain and surprise, at the point of contact it certainly does not necessarily follow that he will be the "morally and/or physically" inferior of the combatants at all.
That he has physically and/or morally inferior forces is what makes him the defender, by definition. Otherwise he would/should be the attacker, according to Clausewitz.
You may understand some of Clausewitz`practical concepts, but I have a really grave suspicion you don´t quite get the underlying philosophy (Book I !!, the most important of them all).
-
Your best bet if you want to beat Fionn is challenge him to a game of GO.Originally posted by Treeburst155:Your best bet if you really want to beat Fionn is to play a brand new, never before seen, human designed scenario.
The most important things about GO:
-The pieces never move.
-Very rarely, if ever, is a piece taken.
-Attacking gets you nowhere.
-Actually, attacking is not really possible, because your pieces cannot move.
-Even if your pieces could move, it probably would be pointless to move them. (They could only move to worse positions, because, at any given time, any positions better than those you occupy are already occupied.)
-Even if you could attack, there is no reason to do so. The whole purpose of the game is keeping your territory, and you can do that better, if you stay put.
"Don´t play the game; play your opponent." -former Chess Worldmaster Lasker, attributed
"Even better: Play a game that is ill-fitted to the mentality of your opponent." -me
British Go Association web page
So I think I have solved the problem of beating Fionn, once and for all.
[ May 31, 2002, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]
-
I like your philosophy.Originally posted by CombatGeneral:In my defenses, which I am damn good at, I lay a lot of mines and barbed wire, with trigger happy ambush squads just waiting to gun down anyone unlucky enough to get caught in wire and mines. Works every time, except when an entire battalion roles up your flank.
As to Fionn, he must be quite a tactician. Otherwise he would always lose, given the fact that his doctrine is totally faulty.
-
Another (slightly) different use for Move: Infantry Support Tank slowly following retreating enemy Infantry while shooting it up.
-
Fionn,Originally posted by Fionn:I am materially weaker ( at the start) but I am definitely always (in my own eyes) morally superior since I never have any doubt going into a game. I firmly believe that but for a fluke ( and/or playing Bil Hardenberger) I'll win 100% of games I play.
Morally superior meaning: Cracks vs. Greens. I am talking not about believes and self-images, but about the kind of moral superiority that can be expressed point-wise.
-
I know. What you are, in effect, arguing is that there is only the meeting engagement. If the defender is to maneuver and attack as if he were the attacker, there is obviously no reason to give the attacker a pts advantage.Originally posted by Fionn:I wasn't limiting myself to discussing only tactical or operational or even strategic counter-offensives or offensives.
You are implicitly denying there is any real advantage in, specifically, being the defender. (Because he should act like the attacker, anyway.) I say that cannot be correct.
-
This is quite clearly not the case, as I have previously noted. Your interpretation of Clausewitz is tremendously flawed if you do not appreciate how what he actually wrote is far more akin to what Fionn proposes than what you have written;(2)(3) indeed, I'd say Clausewitz outright disagrees with you. Which is why, in my previous post, I offered that you were likely miscommunicating your points; now, I think you are just wrong.Originally posted by Scott B:It's not my reading of Clausewitz that I'm concerned about--(1) it is yours. You correctly note that Clausewitz argues that the defense is the stronger form of warfare, but then you go on to misinterpret some of the reasons why. Then, you have him saying that the only time one should counterattack was:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />a) the Attacker has already spent his forces -Napoleon at Waterloo!-, or
the Attacker is inept in the first place.To be fair, I'd say it is not entirely wrong, though-- I should add that your argument does mesh well with On War in that the point is made that time passing benefits the defender, all other things being equal, and at the least your point regarding game lengths in Combat Mission being adjusted downward to benefit the defender appreciates this fact. However, if it does come down to a matter of turns, or map size, as to whether your defense succeeds or fails, (4) I imagine that it would be rather difficult to characterize as "nearly invincible."
Scott</font>
-
Lighter colours, please! The darkness of the background has an effect on me that is depressing.
Thanks!
[ May 30, 2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]
They also only give you a general idea, no precise location.
the Attacker is inept in the first place.
A modest Proposal for CMBB: Recon Infantry Units
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
*Bump*!
Scout Teams would be really nice-to-have. (I´d sacrifice the bicycles, if people don´t like them. Or make them an option.)