Zorachus99
Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM
1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of allis to take the enemy's
country whole and intact; to shatter anddestroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to
recapture anarmy entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a
company entire than to destroy them.
2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supremeexcellence; supreme
excellence consists in breaking the enemy'sresistance without fighting.
3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy'splans; the next best is to
prevent the junction of the enemy'sforces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army
in thefield; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walledcities.
4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly beavoided. The preparation
of mantlets, movable shelters, and variousimplements of war, will take up three whole
months; and the pilingup of mounds over against the walls will take three monthsmore.
Applicable in every sense.
quote:
The side with the numeric advantage wants to extend the line (# of hexes in the front line) to reduce the weaker side's strength per hex. The stronger side can then concentrate his extra strength against a point (preferably a weak point) in the enemy's line's and break through. This is true of Germany in France in 1940 - Germany invades Belgium to extend the French line - and Germany in Russia in 1941/2. When the balance of power shifts and Germany becomes the weaker side, then the Allies want to extend the front line. I consider this a basic principle of tactical combat and already have it as such for the AIO.
On both counts Steve is spot on with his operational understanding.
However I look at this from a different light regardless of the front.
#1 If I have only operational advantage, I attack to kill units, shorten the line, and/or take fortress cities.
#2 If I have a operational and strategic advantage I take another tack entirely.
A) Attack to lenghten the line, usually to divide the enemy army. Stretching the opponent is supremely useful, as well as a success brings angles to either widen the gap or force the enemy to retreat.
B) Organize a strategic reserve behind the front in the area of the push. I dislike having the entire line reorganize itself simply to push units into the gap. If you can ooze units into a hole, do it, and use the strategic reserve to do so, while continuing to attack.
C) If a breakthrough is acheived I will advance into a city behind the lines even if OOS if air cover is nearly assured. You may lose an armor unit, but the enemy army can be completely disrupted counterattacking as an army as a result of this enemy position destroying sacrifice. 6-10 flipped enemy units is a large meal that will increase your superiority from perhaps 1.5/1 to 3/1 operationally in the area.. Of course try to support any breakthrough, but sometimes the counterattack will hurt (but in a good way). 
Regardless, the basic upshot is that unless you have a reserve of about 6 units in France and 10 units in Russia you won't be able to acheive strategic objectives, only tactical ones. Tactical objectives will win France in time, however it will only serve to make the Russian bear stonger long term.
No all people agree with these ideas, but for me they work pretty well.
_____________________________
Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln
|
Printable Version
AI (general): location v. destruction of enemy - 
And if so does the AI in MWIF tend to use it in any way? 
. Didn´t think about the reorganisation by air, and as you mentioned, one wouldn´t want to have enemy units going wild behind the front lines. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread