|
loki100 -> RE: Airborne Units (10/21/2017 6:56:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: XXXCorps
...
Interesting. The Germans exceed the Allied average by 23% and yet still lost the war.
Thats where Clauswitz becomes very useful [;)] compared to the QJM style of modelling.
The starting point to Clauswitz's approach was Napoleon's defeat in Russia. By every objective measure (apart from artillery) his army was far better than the Russians and - much larger. Add on a substantial part of the better Russian units were embroiled in a war in the Caucasus and with the Ottomans.
Another good eg of the side with clearly the best army losing the war was Charles VIII's invasion of Italy in the 1490s.
Both, as with the German units in Italy in this game, could win almost any battle that happened.
So clearly something other than raw numbers and troop quality was at play in the final outcome.
Clauswitz ends up going on about terrain - but to him this is the combination of physical and human geography, weather and also the way that human actors act on that terrain - as what really matters. Charles VIII lost because while he beat every Italian army in the field, he never gained allies, so had to hold down every captured city and his core, elite, army simply exhausted itself. Here, I'd suggest the Allies altered the 'terrain' by airpower and their naval options.
Realise you know all this, but its an interesting instance where the more quantitative studies are informative but potentially very misleading.
|
|
|
|
