Is Fion crazy, nuts or just damn good?

[Durbish]

Here I am being the first to reply to my own post...

Whatever happened to LOS??? I got to assume he would be rather capable at this. I miss his posts too *sniff*

[Treeburst155]

CombatGeneral,

Your best bet if you really want to beat Fionn is to play a brand new, never before seen, human designed scenario. With any luck, the inevitable imbalance will favor you (true chesslike balance is impossible to achieve IMO). You must get him to agree to play the scenario double-blind. This will prevent him from formulating a brilliant plan of action based on perfect knowledge of your forces.

Even though you would have the same perfect knowledge, to be safe, you should assume he can use the knowledge better than you can. Double-blind removes this dangerous possibility. The less control Fionn has over his situation the better for you.

Once you make it to the setup phase in a double-blind scenario of human design you have maximized your chances. Then it just depends on the ever present luck element and on how good of a Combat General you are.

Avoid QBs and custom maps with forces picked in the editor. Avoid the necessity to negotiate anything. You could very well lose before you even do your setup. You'll still lose, but the above plan will at least get you to the setup phase in good shape.

P.S. I have never beaten Fionn. I'm 0-1.

Treeburst155 out.

[Fionn]

Skelley,

I'm currently playing two defences in which I've limited myself to British rifle troops ( the ones with 160 FP) vs Germans who are allowed as many SMG squads as they like.

So far it looks like I'm facing a mix of SMG squads and Motorised Panzergrenadieren. So far they've gotten about 10 of my men in infantry on infantry fighting and I've gotten about 30 to 40 of the German SMGers.

Positioning and mental attitude matters far more than what you bring to the table (IMO). OTOH when you want to be really fair to everyone involved a ruthlessly balanced game is the way to go (IMO).

As to Moon:

ARGH!!! JABOS!!!!

As to how to beat me...

Be more aggressive.

Co-ordinate well.

Read Soviet doctrine.

Ask Bil .

The last one of those is probably the most important.

[Shandorf]

Fionn... eh? Ya want to know how to beat him? Just get under that thin skin of his.. THAT always unbalances him. Oh.. and somehow figure out how to stop those half squads he rushes forward like sheep in a damn mine field.

Jeff

[Hunter]

Durbish,

I was hoping to entice Lt_Stahler across to CM as well :_(

I think he never made it. Pity.

Hunter

[Arsenal]

Fionn,

Do you have any recommendations for websites or books regarding Soviet doctrine?

A book called Deep Battle is the only one I've read that probably relates to it.

[Fionn]

Jazza,

That'd be Simpkins' "Deep Battle". Good book. I like it.

There are some Articles at CMHQ about the development of Soviet tank doctrine 1917 to 1945 which are useful ( I wrote them). Not incredibly applicable but they do give a basis for further understanding.

A full book list is something I haven't thought about doing previously but something I'll look into.

Will reply with some provisional ideas within 24 to 48 hours...

Shandorf,

. I don't remember your "needling" doing you too much good in our games . It just motivated me ...

Treeburst,

That sounds kinda like the setup of the Rumble of War tournament you've got going. People unable to see maps, choose forces or even be sure of a balanced game. Good luck to anyone who signs up for that but I think the end result of an unbalanced game wouldn't be all that applicable to CG's purposes.

OTOH I do like the idea of the tourney, especially your use of NABLA's scoring system ( or some variant thereof).

[PiggDogg]

With infantry, a good defender (and, for that matter, a good attacker) must micro maneuver.

That is, troops must be shifted out and into of enemy LOSs so that they do not receive much enemy firepower, but they can deliver a massive firepower superiority against one or two enemy squads.

This might be moving to a different side of a building or small woods to get out of enemy fire and into a place to deliver fire.

Indeed, in some cases, one must actually pull a few units out of enemy LOSs and not be able to deliver fire. This is to avoid taking casualties while fellow soldiers deliver massive firepower superiority.

Blah, blah, blah. Just some thoughts.

Cheers, Richard

[Redwolf]

I have these books about Soviet Tactics to tune myself for TacOps4 battles:

"Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army, 2nd ed" by David C. Isby

"Soviet Airland Battle Tactics" by William Baxter

"Red Thrust" by Steven Zaloga

They are for modern combat, but especially the first two are very useful for WW2 if you replace ATGMs with AT guns and scratch helicopters. The Isby book has a much more compact presentation of tactics than Baxters, I like it better overall, but of course Baxter has much more material.

"Red Thrust" is more of an analysis than guidelines and most of it not directly applicable to WW2, CM or wargames in general. However, it is a very interesting analysis and it will sharpen your view for the strength and weakness of whatever force you command and will make you more ruthless in exploiting whatever you are strong in.

Needless to say, as these are useful books not fluffed up with nonsense, written for thinking hard-working men/women and come as compact-size hardcovers that are a joy to read in the subway, they are out of print. I had no problems finding them on half.com and amazon.com, though.

[Austrian Strategist]

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.

Your best bet if you want to beat Fionn is challenge him to a game of GO.

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 ]

[CombatGeneral]

Austrian Strategist, you are perhaps the most odd ball guy I have ever met. Very funny post, I might just give GO a go. Haha, a pun, Im not so good at puns so Im damn proud of myself for that one.

[Durbish]

Originally posted by Hunter:

I was hoping to entice Lt_Stahler across to CM as well :_(

I think he never made it. Pity.

Hunter

It's nice to see old faces, thanks for chiming in. Unless you're all booked, try to save a CMBB op to play me blind ok?

As to Stahler, I was hoping he was here under a different name but doubt it as he would most likely stand out

[Fionn]

Believe it or not I actually have played GO and don't particularly like it. I'm OK but chess is much more my bag.

I'd also subscribe to Lasker's quote obviously

[ May 31, 2002, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Fionn is just plain damn good.

That's it.

[jjelinek]

I just found a good book.

The Red Army, by Liddell Hart

[hitlers underpants]

i think combat general needs a lot more practise before he can even think of challenging fionn,u havent even played a ladder game yet over at cm@th,play ghost358th or a medium player like kaiman or londoner and then we will see also this guy reminds me of our old friend kiwi joe,ring any bells,lol

[ June 01, 2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: hitlers underpants ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn

Believe it or not I actually have played GO and don't particularly like it.

I would have bet on that.

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.

[Fionn]

Chinese doctrinists are focussed on America ( planning how to "win" a war against America... not necessarily through actually defeating American forces in battle ( except CVBGs... they're putting quite a bit of time into defeating those) but rather just inflicting enough losses to force the American leadership to accept a negotiated settlement... which will, of course, give the Chinese most of what they want ).

It has been quite interesting to see this development over the past 12 years ( since the First Gulf War) actually. It's a good case study in the evolution of doctrine and also a bit of a revival of the old "war by proxy" deal of the Cold War where proxies fight and help you finetune your doctrine.

[CombatGeneral]

Hey Fionn this is CombatGeneral,

I believe that the Chinese government has war plans for America. However, a war with America would be disaterous for China. They know that their technology lags far behind America technology. Any war with America would be a war of attrition which the US would be hard pressed to win. Atomic bombs would be the only way, as China has an unlimited number of soldiers at her beck and call. China would be a formidable opponent, but I see no reason to go to war.

[Austrian Strategist]

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.

[Fionn]

CG,

You assume a very attritionist viewpoint there. Very much a "to win a war we must fight and kill the enemy" stance. No, America's vulnerability is its very technological advantage. China plans to fight an assymetric offensive war whilst, at the same time, pushing money into defensive measures vs American stealth aeroplanes, cruise missile packages and CVBGs.

They'll defend themselves against the three above whilst seeking to conduct an information offensive.

In any case most of the war prep is simply the usual old "IF we fight we'll hurt you a lot so let's just redraw the boundaries of what you're willing to let us get away with ok?".

I also think you over-estimate the cohesiveness of China. There are rural/urban divides, religious divides ( in the West they have a full scale islamist uprising... which has been going on quite actively for the last decade and went on much less actively for some time prior to that...), class divides etc. Add into that a burgeoning middle class, a populace which has better access to comms etc and I think that Chinese leaders would remember what happened in the Soviet Union's European satellites from 1945 onwards ( periodic uprisings etc). If China got too threatening a little internal trouble could be formented.

Attack weakness, not strength.

Austrian,

Yes, yes they do. At the tactical level their approach is NOT more indirect than either the Soviet or Western model. Generally speaking I see their approach becoming markedly indirect the more you go up the levels. At the geo-political level their approach is quite indirect indeed but at the lower levels it really isn't.

In any case the info is out there for those interested. There are several interesting translated articles from Chinese officers re: taking out CVBGs, defeating stealth with multiple microwave arrays scattered across the countryside (some fascinating science is involved in that and it should work... although it'd be a bitch to write the programmes to analyse the various inputs and create the composite return) and how to carry an information war to the Americans.

Several American officers have also publicly commented on this trend in Chinese publications and those articles should be able to be found also.

[Fionn]

Books listed are in no particular "purchase order". They are simply added in the order I managed to find them when searching Amazon in response to the request made earlier... Read what I say about each book to find out which one is for you... (since you all probably want slightly different end-results from your reading)...

1. I always felt that the following book was a good introduction:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0313277133/qid=1023034855/sr=1- 25/ref=sr_1_25/103-5961839-6568661

Soviet military doctrine uses an entirely different language than Western doctrine ( an artillery bombardment is a firestrike. A killzone is a firesack etc etc) and anyone who REALLY wants to understand it needs to learn the vocabulary. Also when reading any Soviet doctrinal work you need to be able to INTERPRET everything in it correctly. What is written is not, necessarily, what is meant. Knowing the broad context ( as this book will, I believe, help you to do) helps you to make the correct interpretations.

It IS focussed largely on the higher levels but, IMO, it sets the context within which further, more focussed reading, will take place. It provides the background you may find you need before you can really read tactical and operational-level doctrine and understand WHY they did things certain ways.

2. For nuts and bolts read the following ( but BEAR IN MIND that it represents the end-point at which the Soviets arrived when they got a largely mechanised army in the 60s and 70s. It does NOT represent what they were doing in 1944.)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-7/

Bear in mind that it is a Western interpretation of what the Soviets say they would have done. Best thing about this is that it is free AND has been put together by military professionals so you know it isn't total BS.

3. Good book ( especially for beginners) insofar as I feel it is a book that you could read as a sort of "good war fiction" book BUT still learn some important things from can be found here:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0891414754/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-5961839-6568661

It is colloquially known as "Duffer's Drift 2" so if asking someone knowledgeable about it (for 2nd opinion purposes) refer to it as "Duffer's Drift 2" and they'll make the connection.

4. You want to know about the development of Soviet armoured doctrine. Well, here you go. Pay special attention to Tukhachevskii. If Stalin hadn't been dumb enough to have him killed in the purges we'd be talking about Tukhachevskii in, at least, the same tone as we talk about Patton, Rommel, Model etc... FWIW though I think he'd have done better than any of those three.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0080283411/qid=1023036162/sr=1-3/ ref=sr_1_3/103-5961839-6568661

If you only buy one of the books then THIS is the one to buy re: Soviet armoured doctrine.

5. Deep Battle: An Ode to Tukhachevskii... Ok, that isn't the real title but it sums up the book well . 2nd MUST BUY from this list if you want to understand the Soviets ( and actually gain an understanding of what was going on on the Eastern Front in 1942 to 1944 when the Soviets were learning how to conduct deep battle). Most people on this forum who talk about offense, defence on the Eastern Frontetc ( the guys who sound like experten... ) don't have even a basic grasp of the CONTEXT within which you need to see what happened during those 2 years and therefore often draw some very spurious conclusions.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0080311938/qid=1023039159/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-5961839-6568661

After reading this book and then rereading any basic history of the Eastern Front 1941 to 1945 you'll gain an entirely new understanding of that front and time.

6. And just because I can ( not that it has anything to do with the question asked) a book I think every American should read if they want to comment on future American military policy/where their tax dollars are being spent on defence...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0963869558/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-596 1839-6568661

As always I am forcing no-one, just giving recommendations etc asked for. If you don't like it just ignore it. There's no need to post vitriol about it.

[ June 02, 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Arsenal]

Cheers Fionn,much appreciated.

[PakFront]

Originally posted by Durbish:

Sorry to ramble but talking about good players, did Lt Stahler become a CM player??? I remember he posted a few times on the old old old forum (pre game release)... I would most graciously accept a beating if so.[/QB]

Durbish,I've seen him posting at the GI combat forums.

[Kilgore]

Thanks for taking the time to put the list together Fionn.

I've managed to find a couple of them already. There's some very interesting stuff there. It's gonna take a while for it all to sink in properly, but some of the pieces are starting to fit together already.

I also got the librarian's telephone number so I guess I owe you a pint as well

[ June 04, 2002, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Kilgore ]