Attrition vs. Maneuver

[NameUsedBefore]

I would play JasonC using maneuverist tactics, but the thing is I don't always use them. Like I've said before, there's nothing wrong with attritionist-ways, but if I see another possibility I will usually take it. Instead of going for the general trade-off I will instead make a bid for something that favors what I paid for. Of course there is a certain amount of a failure-expectancy, but that's why they call it a risk. In one chance I could end up getting a 3:1 kill ratio, in another 0:1. I think as I become more experienced this ratio will become a little more consistent.

As far as I can tell, though, JasonC, as well as others, are far more experienced in the game. I'm still learning the ropes (even after having owned it for awhile) and am just now starting to do PBEMs.

[Wisbech_lad]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The instant Germany decide to attack Russia, Germany *was* in mortal danger.

Not seeing that, is the whole point. It was reckless overconfidence.

Oh absolutely. Some rationales given to attack USSR while still in war with CW were to remove hope from the CW (Germany felt CW has refusing to negotiate, waiting for USSR & USA to join) and that since the forces were already mobilised, it was a golden (or only) opportunity to attack USSR. (i.e. if the armed forces stood down after a negotiated settlement with CW, it would be very difficult to pursuade Germans to go to war again) Amusing with hindsight

As you know well, German High Command saw Russia as a 3 month campaign.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The instant Germany decide to attack Russia, Germany *was* in mortal danger.

My grandfather, in occupied Netherlands, was excited when he heard the Germans had attacked Russia.

"Now they will lose" he told his family.

Fortunatly he was right.

[Paul AU]

Interesting.

I’m not particularly experienced or CM-knowledgeable, but that isn’t going to stop me commenting on this occasion.

I’ve never been entirely convinced by Jason’s attrition-is-all view, well exposited though it invariably is.

I think ones basic personality determines how one sees this issue. Perhaps it can be distilled at least in part, down to player’s natural preference for security vs. adventure.

Some people, like myself, naturally prefer a high-risk, high-reward strategy – I think merely because it’s more interesting (dare I say, more creative and more exciting). Others could see it was a form of gambling; where the skill is - I would say - in creating or seeing favourable odds on a consistent basis.

Some times the “adventure” is going to result in …piecemeal engagement… division of efforts (multi pronged razzle dazzle), or concentration of risk... Other times, it’s going to pay off with a large “attritional” or positional advantage.

Others are simply naturally more cautious. Either they value winning more, or, I prefer to think - they fear losing more.

“Why lose when you can win?”

I think some don’t fear losing so much, as long as their victories compensatorily feel as though they've involved more than merely out-data-basing your opponent.

He thinks he must be clever and bound to achieve more because be is trying to be clever and wants to achieve more.

Nicely put. (That comment prompted my reply).

If “trying to be clever” is a characterization of the Maneuverist, isn’t “trying to be dull” a definition of the Attritionist? For some people, “the dullest - wins” just isn’t much of a gaming experience.

I think that “trying to be clever” is probably part of the “excitement” I mentioned.

Jason automatically sees/says that “concentration of risk” is a bad thing in itself. But it’s not. And I think this is the crux of it. It’s not a bad thing if there’s an equal concentration of reward.

Having the last pawn (eventually) standing is simply not as rewarding as checkmating in the mid-game.

Conversely, I think that naturally cautious people would rather lose by a attritied last pawn than be checkmated in the mid-game. Because to them it feels less of a loss.

All of that is not say that I prefer to charge into the Valley of Death every time just to see what will happen. But even when I am being cautious, and force myself to sit still and play the attrition game, I always have elements on some adventure or other… just to keep the game a creative adventure.

Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit.

- Somerset Maugham

[JasonC]

Gambling is for people who can only win through variance. If you can win without it, shut it down, to take away all the other guy's chances.

As for falling for maneuverist rhetoric because it flatters your ego and makes you think you are smart when you win that way, smart people don't need such reassurance. They get brilliant with their breakfast cereal. All they need are sound principles.

Also, pride is a weakness. A desire to dazzle oneself is self evidently insane.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Firepower kills.

Dead men hold no ground.

If you aren't willing to stand on the defensive when occasion calls for it, don't fight at all. Occasion will call for it.

If standing on the defensive inflicts a better loss ratio on the enemy than attacking, defend. If the reverse, attack. No doctrine, only opportunities.

"The initiative" has killed at least as many cats as curiosity.

Destroy the enemy main body and the rest will sort itself out.

To use your weapons, you must stay alive.

Use weapons when and where they do the most good, not where some ulterior plan says some extraneous end must be accomplished.

Shoot artillery at the densest enemy.

The decision is achieved by fire.

Firepower dominance, not movement, takes ground.

Firepower threat, not presence, holds ground.

Few enemies can long withstand the efficient application of all your available firepower.

Maneuver is a means of getting shots, or denying them to the enemy. Shots win wars, movements do not.

It is not a race. Battlefields are dangerous places. Slow down.

Infantry should never go anywhere it isn't prepared to stay indefinitely. But it must also be willing to leave.

Infantry prepared to stay somewhere indefinitely has great tactical and operational power. Infantry unwilling to leave a location has none.

Make them dig you out of every hole. Dig more holes in the meantime. But only to inconvenience them, and only as long as it does.

An attritionist is always willing to give up ground, any ground. Making everything the enemy does expensive is the point.

A defender willing to retreat fights where he chooses, an attacker striving for breakthrough by following weak paths fights where the defender chooses.

Be there *last*, not first. Nobody calls brawls "first man standing".

A lot of this makes good sense to me, so I guess that makes me an attritionist. At least at the tactical level.

Generally speaking, I think maneuver is most important on the operational level, in order to set up good tactical situations where attrition may be applied.

[Xavier_1986]

I'm playing the battle of Caen in PBEM right now and it seems to be a demonstration of attrition vs maneuver thought.

Thus far the maneuverist school of thought seems to be winning. The Axis, my side, has darted all around the map occupying towns and road junctures, and inflicting far more casualties than it has sustained.

But I don't expect it to last since there's still 3 - 4 battles to go, and Canuck reinforcements keep streaming in. Thus far though things are going quite well for the maneuverists.