Controversial Strategy

[Homer]

The Older princess:

Crown Princess Victoria is a two face: she is pretty in some pics and scary in others.

[sabot_ready]

And here is one of the greatest strengths of the Hopebusters: the mere fact that they exist and they're coming for you. If you knew a raiding party was lurking somewhere in the area where vehicles from the unofficial staging area are moving up to reinforce the attack, would you:

A: Ignore them. After all, a few rogue units are nothing to worry about, right?

B: Reroute reinforcements by another, longer route to avoid them, thus costing time.

C: Take some units and try to hunt them down, while those units are occupied and of no use to you now.

Most likely, you'll do B and C, and thus you've been disrupted.

Uh...we would do A,B and C....in SB the tactical maps are small enough that no unit can go unrespected.

Some of the problems some may have with you is...is unless you have some experience with SB and understand its limits....you are just blowing air...and coming off as a Prima Donna.

Wait until you have played with the community before you rewrite what can be done..after all they have played this game for at least a few years before you.

It is hard to write a "Lord Of The Rings " if your canvas is the size of a coffee cup.

[ChuikovChambered]

Posted by Kingtiger

Nownow, dont you all try to immigrate to sweden, we cant handle more refuges!

Heheh, especially the lonely ones. You won't have to worry about me, I'm too shy.:roll:

Posted by Homer

Crown Princess Victoria is a two face: she is pretty in some pics and scary in others.

Hey, that's something like the way I look sometimes! Only it's probably less severe with me.

Now back to business:

Posted by sabot-ready

is unless you have some experience with SB and understand its limits....you are just blowing air...and coming off as a Prima Donna.

Wait until you have played with the community before you rewrite what can be done..after all they have played this game for at least a few years before you.

What is it I'm smelling? At the moment, I care too much about politeness to say it. I was just trying to give a through rebuttal (something I love to do, but don't always go looking for). I'm not trying to rewrite what already exists, I'm just trying to write something entirely new.

[DemolitionMan]

Breaking through into the enemy´s rear and wreaking havoc there is every tank advocates wet dream since WW1. And ever since "Musical Box" proved that this is doable it´s the basic principle. Soviet doctrin even called for a breakthrough achieved with mech infantry and then to let the tank divisions exploit the gap. So I don´t see anything controversial in this proposal, except for the fact that SB scenarios are focussed on force-on-force engagements and mostly end after one side has gained local victory.

[Ssnake]

Another point to consider is that many scenarios are designed with implicit limitations in mind, e.g. that the boundaries assigned on the map graphics really are the limit of your maneuver space even if they're not enforced by penalty zones.

So you may want to check in advance whether moving beyond boundaries or the map edges is considered acceptable.

[AllenInWV]

Whoa......I need to take a couple of weeks vacation to Sweden!

[Hedgehog]

I second that :biggrin:

[Tacbat]

Ahhh, the real reason why the SB meeting is being held in Stockholm.

[Captain_Colossus]

Now for a seemingly unrelated question: What were the Germans dong in May 1940? Besides going on the mother of all power trips, they were unleashing blitzkrieg. And no one understood blitzkrieg better than the XIX Panzer Corps commander, Heinz Guderian, the father of modern warfare. Let's pause for a moment in respect, shall we?

Back to the history lesson. After Guderian broke through the French at Sedan, he just kept going. There was no looking around for the HQs of Allies who were about to be shoved off the Continent. Guderian simply sped westward, cutting communications, shooting up whatever scattered resistance he found, and generally bringing the fear of God to the French Army. In Blitzkrieg, Len Deighton talks about something that kept him safe all that time: "All this time, Guderian, on the south side of the offensive, had depended on the Aisne, Serre, and Somme rivers to protect his left flank. He had rightly believed that the French would not mount a full-scale counterattack until they were sure of his exact position. he kept moving."

Blitzkreig and "Deep Battle" are operational level concepts- Steel Beasts scenarios are resolved at the tactical level and diminish the medium term goals of shock and bypassing main lines of resistance and cutting off supply and communications lines; nor are the defense in depth strongpoint tactics worked out over the progression of WW2 in response to blitzkreig warfare represented in the same sense. There is no contiguous campaign where the effects of deep pursuit overrunning and smashing 2nd or 3rd rank echelon and operational reserves are carried over continuously until the penetrations are stunted and sealed off; you can work in and contrive the rationale for a behind the enemy lines scenario in the back story of the mission briefing and into the player's imagination, and perhaps design the scenario so that in single player games computer units appear to be falling back or are out of position or are low on ammo or are cut off from support, but I can't imagine in a MP game why human players would affect a playing style as if they were hobbled like this- as if they were shocked by blitzkrieg. Similarly, recce units at the tactical level are dead meat- they are really just expendable scouts and hopefully may do something useful before they run into mines or are picked off. Scenarios which presume to give you the general disposition and location of the enemy because the higher level reconnaisance has already been accomplished for you is probably most 'fair' for MP games; in SP games, it gives the player the feel of a more structured military approach and authentic experience rather than haphazard commando style action.

[Skybird03]

Controversial strategy? :confused: To go for the enemy's head or throat is the logical thing to do, and if you don't do that for considering it controversial, you're an idiot and should be banned from commanding men. I even would recommend to wait until the enemy is sleeping, and then stab him from behind. Remember, war is about killing the enemy - not yourself, so: keep the risk to yourself low.

[Captain_Colossus]

Well, it may be controversal where it's more likely an impediment-

Blitzkrieg is a medium term concept which aims to defeat an opponent primarily by maneuver; a tactical level battle is likely resolved by attrition or some combination of attrition + manuever- if there is no option to surrender, then the losing losing side will likely fight an Alamo style last stand in the case of the defender, or impale itself on the defenses as the attacker.

I never do well in Steel Beasts emulating small scale blitzkriegs but prefer to go slow and steady, unless there is some artificial premise worked in by the scenario such as a time limit deliberatley designed to do nothing more than place a constraint upon your planning for purposes of creating a challenge; likewise, encirclement of local units and large pockets of resistance just seems out of place in a tactical level game.

[ChuikovChambered]

Posted by Captain Colossus

Blitzkrieg is a medium term concept which aims to defeat an opponent primarily by maneuver

Unless you're speaking of the rather conventional "kesselschlacht" subset of blitzkrieg (which didn't help the Germans much in Barbarossa), you're mistaken. Blitzkrieg is not about how you move armor, it's about how you employ them on a much broader scale. Evidently, you're not a fan of it, and neither are you a fan of what I'm trying to propose. If you'd go to my 2nd post in the middle of the previous page, you'd see what I'm trying to emulate.

[Captain_Colossus]

Unless you're speaking of the rather conventional "kesselschlacht" subset of blitzkrieg (which didn't help the Germans much in Barbarossa), you're mistaken.

No, I am speaking of the common definition of what blitzkrieg is. I'm not sure what you're denying here unless you would propose blitzkrieg is really a tactical level maneuver after all- but that doesn't coincide of the use of the word 'Strategy' as in the scope that is beyond indivdual trigger pulling or individual grunts. It doesn't take place in tactical shooters save for the occasions where what goes down sort of affects appearance like a blitzkrieg- i.e., a mad team rush at a spawn point or base flag, for example. But how it accomplishes its objectives in those terms aren't really the same things. In a loose sense, one can call that a blitzkrieg, but that has problems with the way we conceive of it here.

Whether or not blitzkrieg in Barbarossa helped the Germans isn't the argument I'm making- it probably would have better served them to have postponed Barbrossa indefinitely. But one could observe different results in both the near and long term for the Germans, and both for the Soviet counterpart doctrine of deep pursuit. Stubborn concentric defensive zones may hold off the blitz in the short term, but be bypassed or defeated over the long term- either way, that's not what I care about.

I'm talking about the core assumptions of blitzkrieg and where that diverges from Steel Beasts, a tactical level wargame, whereas blitzkrieg is understood to take place on a larger scale- above the individual squad, section, platoon, or company; it would be difficult to deny this. Battalions in Steel Beasts are abstracted by radio commands and messages over the net. There is no battalion HQ unit on map however.

Blitzkrieg is not about how you move armor, it's about how you employ them on a much broader scale.

Well, explain what you think the distinction here is or what you think I think it is- I can neither agree nor agree here, this statement is too general or obscure.

Evidently, you're not a fan of it, and neither are you a fan of what I'm trying to propose. If you'd go to my 2nd post in the middle of the previous page, you'd see what I'm trying to emulate.

It's not the end-all-be-all; I'm not neither opposed nor against- but defense strategies have been worked out to counter blitzkreig-like offensives. There are risks that Steel Beasts may or may not replicate with certain fidelity. My point is that it implies or denotes operations at the scale above Steel Beasts' tactical scope. Since you mentioned blitzkrieg, I assume you think it's somewhat relevant, especially given some of your previous language.

[ChuikovChambered]

Posted by Captain Colossus

Well, explain what you think the distinction here is or what you think I think it is- I can neither agree nor agree here, this statement is too general or obscure.

Then I'll try to clarify. Blitzkrieg, in my opinion, is a method of avoiding resistance, concentration of forces (remember Guderian: "Klockern, nicht kleckern."), air power in working in conjunction with the ground units, and not trying to follow the conventional rules of warfare (for May 1940, that is). And remember, you're not just talking to anyone. You're talking to someone who owns Len Deighton's Blitzkrieg and Blood, Tears, and Folly: An Objective Look at World War Two, as well as General Guderian's memoirs Panzer Leader, Patton's memoirs War as I Knew It, and completed a WWII online college course from a former Army drill sergeant.

A while back in this thread, someone called me a prima donna. At the time I was too polite to call him the same thing, despite his being just that. But not this time. I have to come out and say it: You are a prima donna whose response to anyone who annoys him or stands up to him is to spew technical nonsense, and lots of it.

What I'm trying to do is explain my idea for a new strategy (in my view, and in this example, strategy is the end, the end of raiding the enemy, and tactics, which you seem obsessed with, are the means to that end), and I guess when a new idea like mine is brought forth, there are some people who put it down. My response is Clarke's second law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

[Mogwa]

Your question was: "Is it prohibited on Steel Beasts servers to pull off base raids like this? And whether or not it's allowed, what vehicles would be best?" and Kingtiger probably answered it best. There are no bases in SB so its really irrelevant. Theres not really anything to raid or destroy. I supose if you could crash the oth sides teamspeak server you might achieve something along those line. That blitzkrieg (or a variant) is an effective strategy goes without saying.

I recommend you get to know some of the folks on the forums and on teamspeak. The wealth of available knowledge is staggring. Everyone is usually quite friendly and welcome newcomers. We work hard to help one and all with al facets of SB. That being said I would caution you against blowing your own horn by listing books you own and may have read, or the knowledge gained from some online college course. Many people here are active military members in armed forcs throughout the world. Many have 20 years or more experience and when thats your business, you study it seriously. I am one of them and forgive me if I am underwhelmed by your library. Many of these samepeople help work on the sim for esim games, and are also quite knowledgable about the si and how it works. These people can be an asset to you in gaining knowledge of strategy, tactics and SB itelf.

Im not trying to pick a fight here. I welcome you to the community and the forums and invite you to join us in teamspeak and in multiplyer games. Make and post your own scenarios. Engage in spirited discussions. Just dont think that people aregoing to be awed or swayed by your arguments by adding that you own books. (You should see my collection of books.)

Regards,

Mog

[Sean]

I'm still interested in knowing how your idea applies to steel beasts, and the types of scenarios we run here. Is your overall point to avoid resistance? If so, thats nothing new. I assume you started this thread looking for some good arguments, so dont be surprised when people start to query you for specifics.

[Captain_Colossus]

And remember, you're not just talking to anyone. You're talking to someone who owns Len Deighton's Blitzkrieg and Blood, Tears, and Folly: An Objective Look at World War Two, as well as General Guderian's memoirs Panzer Leader, Patton's memoirs War as I Knew It, and completed a WWII online college course from a former Army drill sergeant.

This is too corny to be believed; If you want to elaborate or elucidate points with your references, by all means. I can't say you've won me over just yet though.

Blitzkrieg, as I have said before places emphasis on maneuver to defeat an opponent rather than attrition- we can agree here, yes? Surprise is a key element to blitzkrieg. But manuever elements typically aren't 'raiding parties' of platoon-company strength. It's difficult for me to conceive how human opponents in a MP battle are supposed to be surprised and shocked about the threat of sudden and unexpected contact when they know going into a match that battle is inevitable already- operational surprise does not exist in a tactical level game. What you want is better facilitated in single player mode where the player can go shoot up the map anyway he wants. No human player simply is going to be a foil for you to base rape though, as if he were suddenly attacked without warning and helpless to stop you. They're not simply going to swoon before your dashing raids as I think you might mean.

A while back in this thread, someone called me a prima donna. At the time I was too polite to call him the same thing, despite his being just that. But not this time. I have to come out and say it: You are a prima donna whose response to anyone who annoys him or stands up to him is to spew technical nonsense, and lots of it.

That's all very fascinating, but it doesn't add much to your point here, I'm afraid. You're a little too quick on the draw though- simmer down a notch.

What I'm trying to do is explain my idea for a new strategy (in my view, and in this example, strategy is the end, the end of raiding the enemy, and tactics, which you seem obsessed with, are the means to that end), and I guess when a new idea like mine is brought forth, there are some people who put it down. My response is Clarke's second law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

'Esplain away el heffe; I hope you consider though even the most remote chance that you're not necessarily going to reinvent the wheel, nor that no one has never heard or seen or tried anything like what you're doing- I think Greevil likes to ride around and be a nuisance, but consider that the discussions go back a long ways. Stick around and have fun, but don't get so defensive. Yecch.

[sabot_ready]

Yes ....we are still waiting for you to make your point...but so far you have been all over the map...at one point you started off bringing L33T speak philosophy as inspiration for something new.... (We tried to explain that there may be gaps in your knowledge of this game..and you seemed to acknowledged that in the second post of the second page) .

And next you are trying to scale the importance of a platoon of CV-90s and maybe some scrabble of American AFVs to some sort of strategic report....

When you repeat the history of a genius ...you only repeat the history ..not the genius.

What are you trying to prove?...

My response is Louis's First law: Don't let Clark steal your girlie mags...he makes the pages stick together!

"I give us a 0% chance of making it, 50% chance of immediate failure upon SCREWING UP THIS THREAD, and 100% chance slow decent into the depths of IDIOCY ."

[Ssnake]

Steel Beasts Professional is a tactical game for the level up to task force/battle group/reinforced battalion, provided you have an exercise team/network size that is large enough since a single player cannot efficiently handle more than a reinforced company at best (and you need to be really skilled then, and develop a thorough plan with many alternatives to help you adapt to possible developments of the situation).

In this context I agree with Cpt. Colossus that the terminology of "Blitzkrieg" is misleading at best because Blitzkrieg is a strategy which will be implemented in a string of operations, which at the tactical level will always break down into a more or less rapid change between a relatively small number of fundamental mission tasks - advance/movement to contact, assault, defend (be it deliberate, time-limited, or hasty).

Even in the context of Steel Beasts as a game it seems that while rapid, concealed movement is possible it doesn't really pay off if you're using weak forces simply because there are no "bases", "spawn points" or other resource elements which will win you a scenario with ease without having to deal with the opposing party's main body, unless the scenario was designed to end immediately if one party captures some region. There are no command centers to capture which would impose some communications/reaction speed penalty on your opponent. You could try and destroy supply vehicles, but even then that will pay off only if the initial amount of ammo for at least your opponen is so small that he can't afford more than ten minutes of fighting before running out of ammo and/or fuel. In which case I'd say that the mission design was very, very lopsided unless both parties need to start their missions with a supply phase. At that point we're degenerating the sim into a more or less surreal game mechanic. It may be fun, but is hardly of relevance to real life.

[ChuikovChambered]

Okay, my idea is regarded as trash now by some people, and I'm sorry for the firestorm I've generated. Is there anything I can say on this forum that won't stir up just about everyone else against me?:confused:

Over time, as the realities became apparent to me, I now think the Hopebusters would function instead as recon with an edge, something that most people on this thread tend to ignore, instead focusing on the original idea, and L33T-speak, without noticing the idea I have had has evolved along with myself.

Posted by sabot_ready

we are still waiting for you to make your point

I've been trying to do that, but I seem to have not reached anyone so far. I'll try to make it now: I believe the Hopebusters could now be a sort of "recon with an edge" that could not only report, but also engage in limited action. By the way, it's now 2 platoons, if you hadn't noticed.

Posted by Sean

I assume you started this thread looking for some good arguments, so dont be surprised when people start to query you for specifics.

I haven't been surprised, I've been overwhelmed.

Posted by Captain Colossus

If you want to elaborate or elucidate points with your references, by all means. I can't say you've won me over just yet though.

Stick around and have fun, but don't get so defensive. Yecch.

The first quote is (relatively) good to hear, given I was trying to show that I wasn't just any dude. My response to the second quote: I wish I weren't so, but it's hard not to get defensive when it seems the entire forum is turning against you. But still, this is the last post I'm making in this thread (maybe even this forum), and the last thread I'm ever starting. From now on, I'll keep my opinions and ideas to myself, and only comment when it's absolutely necessary. Because it seems that whenever I do, I'll just end up with stuff with this:

Posted by sabot-ready

My response is Louis's First law: Don't let Clark steal your girlie mags...he makes the pages stick together!

"I give us a 0% chance of making it, 50% chance of immediate failure upon SCREWING UP THIS THREAD, and 100% chance slow decent into the depths of IDIOCY ."

My final comment in this thread: You'd think he'd know how to use boldface.

[dejawolf]

one things for sure, you're not getting anywhere with fancy armchair general buzzwords like "recon with an edge"

[sabot_ready]

My final comment in this thread: You'd think he'd know how to use boldface.

OUCH ..THAT REALLY HURTS

[Tacbat]

Lol!

[daskal]

After reading all of this I'd say "The Generals" are the place for him as well. LOL:biggrin:

Hey - yet another obsessed fan of ours

[TankHunter]

Chuikov

Blitzkrieg is the use of a concentration of force at the decisive point (as Clausewitz made the point before the term was even around) with the exploitation of mechanization. The intent is the dislocation and demoralization of the enemy.

The concentration of force tends to be at a “gap” in the “surface.” In other words you find a weak point in the opposition’s line and then exploit it and widen it. As a result good information as regards your opponent’s positions is needed to find the “gap” and then exploit it. It is also desirable to have what the Germans call Auftragstaktik (which translates directly to “mission tactics” though it is not so much a tactic as it is a mode of thinking that allows for independent action that would be related to the commander’s intent and as a result a faster Boyd cycle and thus one can gain the initiative). If you can properly practice this then you can overwhelm a more centralized opponent just because his acts become increasingly obsolete. As a result you are able to dislocate him in the mental and physical realms.

You appear to get part of the objective, but not fully. You may want to read up on the works of Bill Lind and others. What you propose appears to be to create friction in the enemy’s mind (which is important in the grand scheme of things). Though the main problem with your idea from what I read is that it is a small pin prick. As such it will cause little in harming the opponent’s will to fight. If on the other hand the enemy finds a company of AFVs near his logistics base, that may create significantly more friction than a highly mobile formation that has little in the way of combat power.

Also the only way to obtain the results of maneuver warfare fully would be if the simulation simulated the operational level of war, which it seems to not do particularly well (if only for it focuses on the tactical realm). Though the concepts involved are useful in the simulation.

One more thing, you point to Guderian and later on say that “Blitzkrieg is not about how you move armor, it's about how you employ them on a much broader scale.” If that is the case, why did he want to stay mobile as much as he did? I seem to recall that he knew that his opposition’s strategy was to bog down, and then crush German spearheads (the French wanted to know exactly where the enemy was before they struck so that the French would avoid unnecessary losses). Guderian as a result decided to keep his force moving so that the French would be unable to pinpoint it IIRC (it has been some time since I read Guderian’s book so the details may be fuzzy but that is as I remember it).

Because Blitzkrieg focuses on mobility rather than firepower, I would say that it is how one maneuvers the force. Though how one maneuvers your force is still how one employs it, is it not? Mobility is the key when it comes to the issue for if one can outmaneuver your opponent, you can get inside of his OODA loop (and vise versa). If you fail to maneuver properly though, you risk losing the initiative, as such you may find your head in the jaws of a vise, a situation that is both uncomfortable and one, which is difficult to extract yourself from.

Good maneuver of a formation can cause a battle to be won without firing a shot.