MichaelU Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Seems like everybody on the board is obsessed with age, so let's find out whether people think the experience of age or vigour of youth are more important for a general. Me, I tend to lean toward the vigour of youth school. Generalship is a demanding task, requiring nerves of steel, physical stamina and the ability to gather and process large amounts of data. All these are attributes possessed in greater amounts by the young. Hell, I'm just 28 (more grist for your data mill Mark IV) and already feeling the debilitating effects of age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 The age antagonism on here seems mostly in jest (I hope )... but I thought I might chime in... I think for many younger people, patience is lacking... (I know that's a big problem of mine... rushing a platoon in too early and loosing them, not waiting back until I have enough fire support... may they rest in peace)... Some of us youngsters also seem to lack some of the nuances of military strategy. If I may comment on a specific battle, The Fionn vs. Rick pbem game, it seems that Rick (who it is my understanding is Capt. Manieri) seemed to use the default setup, and didn't understand the concept of a covered retreat or holding forces back until the best possible moment. On the flipside, however, I notice that younger generals seem to be willing to take more risks and try more complicated/un-predictable attacks which the more traditional wargamers can't always adapt too... Things like rushing tanks into Riesburg without infantry support to occupy the troops while you post a full infantry attack... (a costly but extremly-effective tactic if used properly). I've seen these tactics, while clearly not militarily sound, do wonders against traditional defences if anything else because they are so not-traditional and therefore not expected. So basically what I'm saying, younger people tend to be more impatient, inexperienced but more creative, while older generals tend to play more by the book because they have more experience to go on, but are not always ready for the unconvential attacks of the youngsters.. I'm making a lot of general statements here... I know there plenty are exceptions to my broad statements... (Myself included)... I'm just saying that if you were to map general trends, I think that this is the pattern that you would find... at least its what I've noticed... on a slightly less related note... I honestly hope that you older guys don't mind us around... I truely do love this game, and I've learned more on this board in the last few months than I have this entire in class(arrgh, I hate my school, but that's another story). I have enormous respect for all of you, and I enjoy throwing unconvential attacks at you guys and seeing how they turn out (so far to very mixed success)... I know the experience with teenagers on this forum hasn't entirely been positive, but I'd like to think that not all of us are a pain in the ass thanks, that's enough of my little schpiel8) -EridanMan ------------------ Your Source for Combat Mission Scenarios and Operations information- http://patriot.net/~carey/cmso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zigster Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 My (old man's) perspective: Start with a drumfire, then a pepperpot. Alternate back and forth for three days, with breaks for NAAFI tea. Switch to a rolling barrage. Suddenly shift the rolling barrage back 100 metres and scare the piss outa the infantry. Resume the original plan. Found a new town where Reisberg used to be. Tanks? What are tanks? ------------------ Der Zig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 I suspect most of us "older guys" are surprised to find so many others of us around. Computer games are traditionally the realm of the young. I don't think anyone sincerely cares about age issues here. Every order for Combat Mission is a vote for quality wargames (and additional incentive to complete and release). Every customer is an incentive to develop new versions including my cherished Okinawa and Korean scenarios. The more, the merrier. Personal details are a vital component of quality taunting so expect to see more tongue-in-cheek age tweaking (poor Berlichtigen, slaughtered by a child). Just like Army/Marines, US/Canada, etc. Compared to many newsgroups on Usenet this board is a New Age festival of love. I've seen very few negative incidents on this forum (speaking only for myself, only been around since October). I think you are all quite welcome here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Fionn vs. Rick pbem game, it seems that Rick (who it is my understanding is Capt. Manieri) seemed to use the default setup, and didn't understand the concept of a covered retreat or holding forces back until the best possible moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> NO NO NO oh GOD NO!!!! I can say 100% that Rick A. Bown is NOT our (in)famous Capt. M!!!! Poor Rick! What an insult! You should get on your knees and beg forgiveness to the poor man to whom you have dealt such a dis-service. Rick is a very nice guy and sure he is getting his butt stomped all over by Fionn, but at least let the guy go with a little bit of dignity! I am sure it was just an honest mistake, but then so was the Black Death!!! Madmatt out...And No I am not Capt. M either!!! It's just humor people... ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 01-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 *Gets on his knees and begs for Rick's Forgiveness* I deeply apologize for that slander... Hey Capt M, wanna play pbem? I want to see your style... email me, any side, any scenario.... scott.cragg@erols.com ------------------ Your Source for Combat Mission Scenarios and Operations information- http://patriot.net/~carey/cmso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 This subject really answer it self if you ask me. Generally the BEST general wins If it's a tie the older one would win because of his life experience. The words of a 25 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Zigster said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Start with a drumfire, then a pepperpot. Alternate back and forth for three days... Found a new town where Reisberg used to be... Tanks? What are tanks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is my perspective also, but then I'm an old cannoncocker. So-called ground-gaining forces exist either to be cannonfodder or to occupy the blasted area and get a body count for the arty -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 MichaelU started this thread with: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seems like everybody on the board is obsessed with age, so let's find out whether people think the experience of age or vigour of youth are more important for a general.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, before we can do this, we need to define what an "old" general is. Keeping in mind that folks following the standard career ladder don't become brigadiers until early middle age, and don't reach corps command until even older, the vast majority of generals are and always have been "old" in absolute human longevity terms. So, when you talk about a "young" general, do you mean somebody just a few years younger than his contemporary generals but who came up that way, or somebody who, through special circumstances, vaulted over many intermediate grades and reached high command while still the age of most of his company or battalion commanders? In the former case, I don't see there being much difference in performance, because all of them have about the same amount and types of military experience. In the latter case, however, I really think the older guys have the edge, due to superior experience. It's like how you should never play poker with graybeards--they know everything instinctively from long exposure and stomp you with things that are obvious to them but you never thought of . True, there have been some successful "young" (as in special circumstances/political stroke) generals. Alexander the Great and Napolean spring to mind. But the former was essentially in staff college from the day he was born, so had 30 years of military experience when he took Persia--he was an "old" general in everything but absolute age. And Napolean was an outlyer, a genius who saw new ways to do things. This worked until he'd taught his enemies these tricks, and then his methods couldn't overcome sheer numbers, besides his other problems. So I think context is more important than mere age. If the rules of the game don't change, then the guys who know the rules better win, and that comes from experience. If, however, the rules can be changed, then experience under the old rules can be a handicap inhibiting understanding of the new rules, and thus lead to defeat. Napolean's early enemies had this problem, but after 10-15 years, they'd been replaced by guys brought up under the new rules, and Napolean didn't have any more insights. Sic transit gloria. OTOH, Alexander was doing the same old things, he'd learned from good teachers, and he'd been doing it all his life. Thus, he is "the Great." -Bullethead [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Talk about youth lacking patience. I was playing Rick (not the Capt) Brown in CE (I as US, he as Germans) and I was able to eliminate all StuGs for only 1 dead M4 and damage to 2 others. Then, like a total dunderhead, I threw away almost an entire company in assaults without the support of the very same tanks about whose performance I had cheered so heartily. We wound up in a dead draw; if I had kept my cool and moved in a coordinated manner I would have stomped him. Well, we've started up a game of RB (only one he and I have not yet played) so I'll have my revenge. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 The old bull and a young bull stand atop a hill observing a herd of cows. The young bull says "let's run down there and get one of them cows" The old bull says, "Son, let's walk down and get'um all!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 On the other hand, there is something to be said for the impetuousity of youth when tempered with uncanny judgement. I would submit (asbestos suit on) the CIVIL WAR exploits of George Armstrong Custer. In his first and very young action outside Gettysburg, he made a spontaneous frontal cavalry assault that got a lot of guys killed. He survived and learned. From then on, he was held in awe by his staff and men for his ability to ride out ahead, pick a point in the enemy lines, and lead (not just order) the crucial charge at the crucial moment. He ended the war a breveted Brigadier, one of the youngest, if not THE youngest, in the army. Now I am not going to discuss the Indian thing (here), other than to note that it was a long time later under vastly different circumstances (it may be all some of you know about Custer and that would be a shame). My point is that in the ACW Custer did not behave the way the enemy expected him to, and on that account was incredibly successful. He was unconventional, youthful, brash, and unbelievably aggressive. He had a feel for the psychology of a battle and an instinct for not only the Schwerpunkt, but timing (coordination in both time and space). This was due in no small measure to his youth; the cavalry "experts" in the Union Army were grayhairs who saw the negative possibilities in every contact with the enemy and mostly behaved as beaten men even with local superiority. Of course, he was unbelievably lucky as well. You don't need or get luck around the fringes of the battlefield, though, eh ('less your an 88)? Point for youth (damn their eyes) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Matt, Thanks for coming to my defense. Even after I caused you those HTML coding problems. Eridani, Apology accepted. I am curious though, how did you get the idea that I was the Captain? Doug, Are you younger than me? I didn't have that feeling before. BTW, I'll be 30 in two weeks, to give you the info necessary to answer that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is my perspective also, but then I'm an old cannoncocker. So-called ground-gaining forces exist either to be cannonfodder or to occupy the blasted area and get a body count for the arty<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey! I resemble that remark! -------- Dan Brown, Former Grunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Young General or Old General... It doesn't matter. L'audace, l'audace. Toujours l'audace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>poor Berlichtigen, slaughtered by a child<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Salt in the wound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 I think that all any General needs is a ruthless need to win and an ability to crush his enemies without mercy. If you can combine these drives with an analytical mind, great intelligence and the ability to "feel" the ebb and flow of battle and thus strike at the crucial point and time then so much the better. Analysis of battles and the ability to maintain focus in the midst of carnage come more easily with time I'd imagine as does the ability to read the battle instantly. For these reasons I think that older generals would more closely approach this ideal although I'm sure some young generals are, by their nature, beginning closer to this ideal and thus would be better generals at any given age than the older guys but mightn't be AS good as someone with 20 years more experience. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyRoss Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 MarkIV, Custer might have a creditable record, but he was nothing in comparison to Nathan Bedford Forrest. On the age of commanders: I'm not really sure on this one. Vasilevskii was a fantastic commander and only in his early forties during WWII (youngest Marshal in the Soviet Union). I'd say that age is a less important factor than many others. A commander being young does not bear any relevance to his skill: there is no skill magically gained as soon as you hit 50 (that nose hair thing doesn't count ). I can name lots of fantastic and young commanders while at the same time naming lots of worthless and old generals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Sorry I'll take experience over youth any day at least in the General realm and at least nowadays. Sure in the Alexander the great times when they had to actually lead from the front with sword in hand, but since then it's not so important. Those famous younger generals (I'm a huge Scipio fan) are notable for their exception and there's a reason for that... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scurlock Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Originally posted by Bullethead: True, there have been some successful "young" (as in special circumstances/political stroke) generals. Alexander the Great and Napolean spring to mind. But the former was essentially in staff college from the day he was born, so had 30 years of military experience when he took Persia--he was an "old" general in everything but absolute age. And Napolean was an outlyer, a genius who saw new ways to do things. This parrellels the line of thought I was going to go on this one. Leaders are not born, they are trained. Age is not as important as a person's maturity as a leader, coupled with the tallent, knowledge, and experience to deal with the level of responsibility given. Alexander the Great is a great example of a person properly nurtured from birth to acheive great things, with the ambition and tallent to acheive more than his mentors wildest dreams. For those with let us say with less than an optimum learning environment it take time to shed the baggage, unlearn unproductive behaviors and attitudes, develop the skills required to succesfully lead men, and reach their potential as a leader. We call this the "maturing process". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Rick, I just celebrated (if you can call it that) my 24th last October. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Fionn said: "I think that all any General needs is...an ability to crush his enemies without mercy." Conan, what is good in life? DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyRoss Posted January 15, 2000 Share Posted January 15, 2000 Scurlock, what about Nathan Bedford Forrest? The guy had three months of education (not military) in total: assembled a corp and became, perhaps, the most successful commander of the civil war and certainly the best commander of cavalry operations. Did you know that the generals educated at West Point lost 50% of the battles in the civil war? (congrats to the first person to point out why is this a stupid and irrelevant point?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Boot Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 I'd have to go with howardb on this one. All other tings being equal, the older guy will probably have an advantage due to experience. For instance, I'm playing tennis with my dad, who's close to sixty, and he beats me every time. My shots are better, I'm in better condition, but I still lose. He's just standing there, waiting for me, and his patience is driving me nuts, so I force my game and puts it wide or in the net. Not to say it's the same, but sort of. Anticipation and experience can do wonders for you - especilly if you know who you're up against. (And I really am better than him. Stop giggling, please ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARCHANGEL Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyRoss: Scurlock, what about Nathan Bedford Forrest? The guy had three months of education (not military) in total: assembled a corp and became, perhaps, the most successful commander of the civil war and certainly the best commander of cavalry operations. Did you know that the generals educated at West Point lost 50% of the battles in the civil war? (congrats to the first person to point out why is this a stupid and irrelevant point?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since so very many West Pointers were in command on both sides, I would think that the simple law of averages would apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts