Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14th, 2017, 12:21 PM   #31

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 3,980

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
Tactics: I would probably describe myself as a combination of Murat and Napoleon. First of all I am quite the aggresive type and will nearly in all cases take on the offensive. Not only because I like to take the initiative, but because I find myself having a lot more fun being creative. This usually leads to decisive victories, because in multiplayer battles I usually face, timid Schwarzenberg's, or sometimes decisive defeats because I am simply willing to take too many casualties at any given flank to turn the enemy's position. I resemble Murat to some extent because I am extremely wasteful of cavalry, but at the same time I can use them quite succesfully in mass charges that either distabalize the enemy or take out their artillery. I usually hold back elite units for a final coup de grace which can sweep the enemy of his ground.

Strategy: I am a typical Frederick II. I usually find myself numerically outnumbered in given areas, but I thrive on that. I find it so much more pleasing to see me beat a 2:1 odds battle. Though in such scenario's I usually prefer to take out the armies piecemeal.

Logistics: I dont care really. When I got my eyes on the target the goal justifies the means. I am willing to take massive casualties in order to take important geo-political goals.

Grand Strategy: In this I am usually more careful. Knowing the nature of total war games I often just be responsive and wait for them to attack me. Then I usually swipe in with two and three armies and take them out, though usually by sentimental reasons spare a little bit.

Organisation: This is quite important for me, I quite value the set up of my army and usually apply the same set up. I am very conservative in this and hardly ever change.

My tactics also hardly ever change, but they are risky and can be quite succesful.
What mode of difficulty do you play on when you face 2-1 odds, and which nations/armies are you facing? I've only found 2-1 being practical if I'm playing as someone like France and playing on just normal difficulty. One time, while I was using Napoleon, of course, I clobbered a Saxon army that outnumbered me 3-1. I also defeated a few Austrian armies that out-numbered me 2-1, though with dreadful losses almost every time, and of course, with my defensive-offensive tactics. Other than facing minor or weak army nations, or weak infantry nations like Austria (and even here just on normal difficulty), or being in an incredibly strong defensive position, I've found 2-1 odds victories incredibly hard to pull off, and unless one is using Napoleon and facing a weak quality army, I don't see how someone can possibly prevail under such odds while attacking.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 14th, 2017, 03:19 PM   #32

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,879
Blog Entries: 22

Observation: much like in the times prior to the staff college you guys are basing your plans almost entirely on experience. Generals from the ancient period to the Napoleonic Wars were very hands on and focused on their experiences in battle. The addition of a good organizer in the form of a Chief of Staff usually provided a good balance for many of these Corps commanders and Army commanders. Without a unified doctrine and scholarly approach many of these commanders tended to deviate in their ideas, save for their commanding officer or leader which would coordinate their efforts and bring everyone on the same page. Even in the cases where there was a clear doctrine and study some of these generals were still not on the same page and looked down on staff work and in depth planning. This we saw in the cases of Steinmetz, Charles Frederick and Crown Prince Frederick in their relationships with each other and at times with the Chief of the General Staff Helmuth von Moltke.

Which leads me to my next part: if you would be so kind choose someone here whom you would serve under and someone you would want as a subordinate and your reasons for why. This will be an interesting exercise indeed.

If Campmaster and Ace_General ever respond here I think we will all be in for a treat.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is online now  
Old January 14th, 2017, 03:40 PM   #33

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,879
Blog Entries: 22

Personally and this is not meant to be demeaning, I would choose nuclearguy, TotalAaron, Bhrigu, Campmaster, Prince of Orange, and Ace_General as my army commanders as I agree with their approach the most. Though I have yet to hear from Mangekyou, samshit or Pyrrhos the Eagle who I have been informed are huge military history buffs. I also very much like Mouselord's strategy though perhaps I find him a little too conservative.

Campmaster in particular I envision as a sort of Gunpowder era commander with a preference for siege, maneuver and fighting battles on his own terms. I suppose I would compare his methods to Wallenstein or the Duke of Parma from my conversations with him.

I think I would want to keep all of these close to my person to bolster myself and I figure they could also fulfill the role of Corps commander quite well. However I would give Ace_General an independent command for his organization and detail and his obsessively aggressive nature and high amounts of maneuverability. In that regard he is comparable to Turenne or Gustavus for his maneuvers and risky moves but in battle he is like Tilly or Conde. If he had a Chief of Staff it would be Spartan999 for the fact that they get along and can see eye to eye. Spartan999 is also very organizational and well rounded, certainly an asset to whoever has him and I reckon he could fulfill an army command or corps command.

Based on their preferences I can see pugsville and nuclearguy working well together.
I would also imagine that nuclearguy and Mangekyou have a sort of mutual understanding in a Eugene of Savoy and Marlborough sort of way.

Because AlpinLuke and A Vietnamese are so very tempestuous and aggressive, A Vietnamese noted a preference for raiding, they might be best suited to a cavalry role. I see AlpinLuke leading Cuirassiers into battle and A Vietnamese leading light cavalry troops. Though he is also quite balanced in the sense that he also stated a preference for the defense.

Junius and Foundry would be very gifted Corps commanders but I also seem them in an army command.
kazeuma would most likely end up in a jail cell, post war that is. He seems like a Vandamme or an SS Commander like Sepp Dietrich maybe. Not sure what Yossarian's approach is.
Constantine demonstrates a clear preference for irregular warfare, I wouldn't be sure what to do with someone like that. Since my understanding of certain types of warfare around the time of WW2 after are limited, that is a clear flaw of mine.

Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; January 14th, 2017 at 03:57 PM.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is online now  
Old January 14th, 2017, 07:59 PM   #34

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,638
Blog Entries: 21

Basing my answers chiefly off my experience with the Total War games and the Ultimate General games.

Strategy: Basing this largely off the Total War games, I act aggressively early on, as I find seizing the initiative and eliminating early rivals to be of great value. I act more conservatively once that is done, building off my advantages and concentrating on developing my faction and building up my armies before taking on other wars. When launching invasions of significant powers in Total War, I generally mass several field armies and an array of garrison troops to deal with captured territory, and keep the field armies together as long as I can, to concentrate them and overwhelm enemy armies in detail.

Operations: Like nuclear guy, I do tend to try and mass superior forces against the enemy. In Total War, I was not at all above tempting the enemy into attacking me on bridges, mountain passes, or luring armies out of cities by besieging them with a small force while I had reinforcements lurk nearby. If I end up fighting multiple enemy armies with one army, I usually attack immediately to defeat the lone enemy army before reinforcements can arrive. In one Rome Total Realism Campaign, confronted with vastly superior enemy forces in Illyria, I used numerous forts to slow down and contain enemy armies while freeing up most of my troops to attack isolated enemy armies. I usually try to have some sort of advantage like that in battle, never engaging on equal terms if I can help it. I dislike storming cities or strong positions, and instead prefer maneuver or starving the enemy out. While historically I'm well aware that Liddell Hart the man was a self-aggrandizer who greatly exaggerated his own influence, I do see the value of the indirect approach.

Tactics: Tactically, I am meticulous, even somewhat conservative. I'll often make quick opening moves to exploit terrain, because I do have a pretty good eye for terrain in Total War and Ultimate General. Otherwise, I prefer defending good positions to attacking. Micro-managing isn't my preference, so I find this easier. While a bit reactive, I am quick to react to enemy movements by rearranging my lines or redeploying troops, and I rarely hesitate to weaken sections of lines to strengthen more threatened ones. I'll also redeploy on the fly and make somewhat irregularly shaped formations to better exploit the terrain. Offensively, the term meticulous again somewhat applies, as I like to take my time preparing attacks, carefully scouting the enemy position and maneuvering all of my forces into position first. Once I do launch an attack however, I commit fully and make a crushing blow out of it. I usually aim to pin the enemy's main body while enveloping a flank, though in Ultimate General, I've often used flank attacks to weaken the enemy's center enough to break through it with a division-strength bayonet charge. If flanking isn't possible, I'll identify a weak point and direct crushing force at it. When flanking isn't possible, I usually prefer to attack en echelon, as that method somewhat bypasses any difficulties with micromanagement. I try to either overwhelm an enemy with a sudden crushing blow that envelops and breaks them, or create a gap that I can exploit to splinter and surround their forces, in other words. I do my best to make sure my forces can support each other, and in the Total War games for example, I'd sometimes reinforce my cavalry wings with infantry to ensure their ability to overwhelm enemy flanks.


Logistics: I'll use this to talk briefly about army composition. I prefer a strong infantry force as the core of my forces, whether in Ultimate General or Total War. In Medieval Total War and various mods of it, I emphasized archers somewhat, which worked well with my defensive tactics. The versatility and ability to take a beating of infantry appeals to me. I don't totally neglect cavalry, but prefer to use it as a shock arm in conjunction with infantry rather than for rapid independent maneuvers, as I tend to prefer more meticulous but overwhelming attacks, and to cut down fleeing enemies. In Ultimate General, as the Union, I prefer to use my cavalry as dismounted skirmishers and flank guards.

To use some Civil War analogies here, I'm actually less Grant, and more George H. Thomas or William Rosecrans, or even George Meade.

Last edited by Viperlord; January 14th, 2017 at 08:02 PM.
Viperlord is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 09:40 PM   #35
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: us
Posts: 7

This is a fun thread! Usually when I'm playing any war game, mostly Total War, I'm always extremely aggressive in battle. One of my favourite things is a good charge. I always like to have really good cavalry that I usually try to flank and take out the enemy's valuable units like artillery, archers, general's staff etc. I haven't played too much of Napoleon but I like to have my infantry attack in several different places like a three or four pronged attack. I'm not sure if this is good, sometimes it works but other times it kind of fails. Any tips would be appreciated.
If I'm planning a strategic war, I always like to use indirect approach, destroying the enemy's farms and other stuff that would undermine their ability to wage war, though this usually doesn't work out as I intend to in Total War. ;~; This is partly inspired the Book of Qi which I've read parts of, notably the Thirty six stratagems which I like. Any tips on how to improve would always be helpful. Thank you. ^^
Rextreff is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 09:59 PM   #36

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,879
Blog Entries: 22

So I'm wondering if most people take both experience with reading and doctrine into account. Or is it that many people usually choose one or the other?

Rextreff is like the only person who has mentioned Chinese military manuals.
Aside from perhaps Spartan999 who has based much of his understanding of warfare from classical history but also ancient Chinese and Korean history.

Aside from the Thirty Six stratagems I would recommend the military manuals of Six Secret Teachings, The Methods of the Sima, Sun Tzu's The Art of War (obviously), the Wuzi, Questions and Replies between Taizong and Li Weigong, the Wei Liaozi and finally Three Strategies of Huang Shigong. I suppose some Qi Jiguang is also good but I have never seen anything of his in English. Readings of the histories Sanguo Zhi and the Book of Wei might also be useful.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is online now  
Old January 14th, 2017, 10:18 PM   #37

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 3,980

With the exception of keeping armies and unit detachments within fairly quick supporting distance of each other, I don't really follow any set 'rules' for the conduct of operations or tactics in Empire or Napoleon Total War. I find what best works for my own abilities and style of play, as well as what best fits any given battlefield situation, or else to counter the dispositions of the enemy. I'm not very good at micro-managing, but I would consider my eye for and use of terrain and other elements on the battlefield to be pretty imaginative.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 10:22 PM   #38

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,879
Blog Entries: 22

But would you if you could in any given situation?
I think you are like a Wellington, but I think partly this is intended on your part. Where as in pike and shot I would assume you be very similar, like a Wallenstein.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is online now  
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:29 PM   #39

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 263
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
So I'm wondering if most people take both experience with reading and doctrine into account. Or is it that many people usually choose one or the other?

Rextreff is like the only person who has mentioned Chinese military manuals.
Aside from perhaps Spartan999 who has based much of his understanding of warfare from classical history but also ancient Chinese and Korean history.

Aside from the Thirty Six stratagems I would recommend the military manuals of Six Secret Teachings, The Methods of the Sima, Sun Tzu's The Art of War (obviously), the Wuzi, Questions and Replies between Taizong and Li Weigong, the Wei Liaozi and finally Three Strategies of Huang Shigong. I suppose some Qi Jiguang is also good but I have never seen anything of his in English. Readings of the histories Sanguo Zhi and the Book of Wei might also be useful.
Well I have read On War, but for war gaming purposes the strategies that I've described work best for me.
Junius is offline  
Old January 14th, 2017, 11:31 PM   #40
Citizen
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: USA
Posts: 4

I find this thread interesting, I mean I would describe myself but I think Oda is better suited to explain my tactical style

If anything, my tatical, operational, and strategic style is very much shaped by first classical Prussian doctrine like Clausewitz, and later soviet doctrine like deep battle and late soviet field manuals

Instead of writing about specific maneuvers, I operate according to some doctrine and axioms and otherwise I try to stay flexible to the situation.

Another point, as I like to engage in wargames and stuff that include everything from grand strategy to tactical combat is that the geopolitical and strategic goals should drive the operational goals and those operational goals should drive the tatical goals.

In defense lies invincibility, in attack lies the possibility of victory
-Sun Tzu

• "Time . . . is less likely to bring favor to the victor than to the vanquished. . . An offensive war requires above all a quick, irresistible decision. . . . Any kind of interruption, pause, or suspension of activity is inconsistent with the nature of offensive war."

-Carl von Clauswitz

Defense is a temporary expedient during weakness when the correlation of forces is against us. We should look for faults created by terrain or an enemy weakness or through maneuver and seek to move to the attack and keep the initiative

-Soviet Field Manuals

"Two basic principles . . . underlie all strategic planning. . . .
– The first principle is: act with the utmost concentration [trace the ultimate substance of enemy strength to the fewest possible sources; compress the attack on these sources to the fewest possible actions; and subordinate minor actions as much as possible].
– The second principle is: act with the utmost speed [every unnecessary expenditure of time and every unnecessary detour is a waste of strength; take the shortest possible road to the goal]."
– The first task, then, in planning for a war is to identify the enemy’s center of gravity, and if possible trace it back to single one.
– The second task is to ensure that the forces to be used against that point are concentrated for a main offensive.

-Carl von Clauswitz

War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.

-Carl von Clauswitz

I have more soviet quotes and Axioms, lifted from some translated soviet operational manuals I have read and Col. David Baxter's excellent "Soviet Airland Battle Tatics" but I do not have the books on hand

Or to TLR it:

DO YOU EVEN CLAUSWITZ BRAH? Ends Ways Means, Center of Gravity, Economy of force and mass, SCHWERPUNKT SCHWERPUNKT SCHWERPUNKT, take and keep the initiative at all costs

And if forced to pick a commander to define me, I think in pre-modern times and in pratical terms the good Count Alexander Suvorov is closest to how I conduct my operations. Prince Bagration is also another commander that I think was similar in style but he was a Protege and in many ways a continuation of Suvorov

Last edited by AceGeneral; January 14th, 2017 at 11:50 PM.
AceGeneral is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
commander, military



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is your favorite military commander? Delenda est Roma War and Military History 65 August 25th, 2014 07:25 PM
Constantine-an underrated military commander? Mrbsct Ancient History 30 September 21st, 2013 08:23 PM
How would you rate Philip II as a military commander? christos200 War and Military History 14 June 6th, 2013 06:15 PM
More succesfull military commander in history Nikd War and Military History 26 May 18th, 2010 05:20 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.