[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 111 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: on-war-9781510734661_hr.jpg (278 KB, 1400x2240)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
Games where IRL knowledge of military strategy will make you objectively better at the game?
>>
>>739474
None.
Also, I suggest you actually read On War, instead of meming it. You are for a (quite unpleasant) surprise.
>>
>>739474
No, wait, sorry.
There is the Radio Commander. You must understand the way how modern(ish) infantry company operates, or else you gonna be terrible at handling orders. But that's a small-scale skirmish, not big-ass war.
>>
>>739479
I have read On War, which is why most of strategy games I've played don't interest me. It's all too shallow.
>>
>>739474
Combat Mission Multiplayer
>>
>>739485
>t. actually never even opened the book
Ask me how I know
>>
>>739489
Okay. How do you know.
>>
Graviteam/combat mission/CMANO
>>
Where do you guys go to learn about history for strategy games based on real world events? Just a bunch of different books or what
>>
Gamers rise up
>>
>>739502
Just read about that period, bro.
>>
File: just drive to leningrad.png (3.33 MB, 1668x1343)
3.33 MB
3.33 MB PNG
>>739474
there are a number of great games that require real knowledge. graviteam tactics and combat mission are my favorites, and sims like silent hunter are pretty /vst/

graviteam tactics / tank warfare tunisia really are the greatest for applied (WW2) battlefield doctrine autism. seriously, the detail and passion is fucking nuts. studying the puzzle piece documents around the events in game has sent me down a rabbit hole of learning, finding how and why each unit is in the order of battle has made the game even more intellectually rewarding.

>>739502
https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/
schools are a great resource for knowledge
>>
>>739502
if it's something outlandish like troy or three chinkdoms i'd watch a movie or the tv series just to familiarize myself with the characters and sides involved.
if it's something more grounded i'd read some wikipedia articles.
i know it's a low iq answer but it's an honest one
>>
>>739521
how much apm did General Zhukov need to micro all those tanks
>>
>>739493
Because On War is baby's second (after Art of War) "strategic manual" that's continuously memed, but the actual value of it is non-existing. It's one of those "black coffee" things:
People will tell you that they absolutely love black coffee, because they think this will make them sound refined and with acquired taste. In reality, if you serve them a quality black coffee, they will have hard time to swallow it, due to the combination of bitterness and acidity and would very much preferred to just add a spoon of sugar and some cream to make it more bearable for their taste. But admitting so is "shallow" and "low life", so they insist it's great.
As for On War: it's incredibly dated and incredibly specific military THEORY book. You are unironically more likely to learn more about strategy (yes, strategy, not tactics) from reading your own army's field manual, given to each grunt, on top of the tactical content of said manual.
You would know, if you read it and if you had any sort of comparison with an actual military manuals of even questionable quality.
>>
>>739502
It's called public library. Even the most backwater countries have those
>>
File: Rotate.png (2.07 MB, 1716x958)
2.07 MB
2.07 MB PNG
graviteam is the most brutally punishing for those with no understanding of the doctrines of the time, or who possess no knowledge of the hardware on the feild or how best to use it, and of course those who can't into formulation of cogent battle plans that into account all pertinent factors including the conditions and the terrain.
>>
>>739757
>All this
>While actual gameplay is "tank goes brrr"
Next level cope.
>>
>>739639
Do you post on /tg/? I've seen someone make the exact same black coffee comparison with very similar diction there as well.
>>
>>739639
>those "black coffee" things:
>People will tell you that they absolutely love black coffee, because they think this will make them sound refined and with acquired taste. In reality, if you serve them a quality black coffee, they will have hard time to swallow it, due to the combination of bitterness and acidity and would very much preferred to just add a spoon of sugar and some cream to make it more bearable for their taste.
what is this absurd projection lmao, you utter soiboi
>>
>>739870
you must be 21+ to order black coffee
>>
File: 312980_20210727012756_1.png (1.29 MB, 1920x1080)
1.29 MB
1.29 MB PNG
>>739757
>graviteam is the most brutally punishing for those with no understanding of the doctrines of the time
hahaha
>>
>>739639
>but the actual value of it is non-existing
Then why is it required reading for military academies around the world? You should tell those officers they're all wasting their time reading a useless book
>>
>>739474
Silent Hunter 3 or any other good submarine simulation.
>>
>>739856
Never been to /tg/. But it's a pretty popular comparison to make. In my native, it's actually about the dark chocolate, which is very bitter and quite unpleasant to eat (so most people would rather have the milk one), but I've seen couple of times the coffee version in English. Works the same

>>739870
Nice way of missing the point.

>>739966
It isn't. It's part of the meme - people (read: civilians) insisting it's in some sort of obligatory read for officers, while in reality, it's at best considered a footnote in history. You are more likely to read it in history department than in anything even remotely related with officer training.
>>
>>739966
Do yourself a favor and read it. It's free access, given the year of publication. Then ask yourself what kind of military academy would actually have it as required read past the year 1900.
It's always fun when people perpetuate factoids. Especially regarding door stopper books they never read.
>>
>>739966
>Then why is it required reading for military academies around the world? You should tell those officers they're all wasting their time reading a useless book

How much of school was useless busy work to test your resolve and commitment to following orders?
>>
>>739966
No actual officer is reading it for well over century. WW1 was the moment everyone realized that Clausewitz is really, really fucking outdated.
>>
>>739481
That game is shit and the campaign is cringe
>>
>>740035
Correct, because Radio Commander is a shitty, hastily done ripoff of Radio General, which is actually decent.
>>
>>739546
Just hotkeyd the whole blob and spam attack move until Berlin
>>
File: starter_x64_16-07.png (792 KB, 1323x842)
792 KB
792 KB PNG
>a game about using IRL knowledge of military strategy
>uses gamey and lazy tactics
wtf this game sucks
>>
>>739474
Warrior Kings battles. Raiding is completely viable even against the AI, sieges are viable, and maneuver + logistics is king.
>>
Strategy? 'ammer an anvil, simple as.
>>
>>740035
OP asked about games where requires real-life military strategies or where real-life strategies can be applied.
He didn't specify good games
>>
Combat mission. Any of em really. But those are all tactical, fire and movement type shit.
>>
File: (you).png (37 KB, 740x724)
37 KB
37 KB PNG
>>739639
>food analogy
>>
>>740856
>bump faggotry
>>
File: confusion.png (225 KB, 372x340)
225 KB
225 KB PNG
>>739639
>mfw when I drink only black coffee because I like it bitter and strong not even mentioning smell, same for tea but with lemon
didn't know that i am refined and all
>>
>>739639
Jesus Christ bro. You are correct about Clausewitz, but that coffee rant is worryingly specific and out of place. A better analogy that isn’t related to a deep seated insecurity over personal tastes would be reading Republic and thinking it makes you an expert on philosophy.
>>
>>739639
>he drinks his coffee with sugar
You must be 18 years old to visit this site.
>>
>>741030
>>740953
>>739856
>>739870
>>740926
t.
>>
File: 1574854444415.jpg (100 KB, 1080x1246)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
>>739639
>tfw reading Clausewitz while drinking black coffee
>>
>>741054
based
>>
>>740926
>>740953
>>741030
Way to prove him right
> A better analogy that isn’t related to a deep seated insecurity over personal tastes
That's the entire point of this analogy: being all about deeply seated insecurities and perception issues.
>>
>>741156
his analogy only proven his own insecurities and perception issues
>>
>>741159
... because he laughed at the pretense of "enjoying adult tastes"?
I'm afraid that's not how it works.
>>
>>741162
but it works that way
>>
>>739639
i will never understand how some people feel superiority over their food/drink choice
>>
>>741164
>Anon makes an argument against pretentious behaviour rooted in insecurity
>No, he is insecure
>How?
>HE IS!
Excuse me, but are you a toddler?
>>
>>741167
That's his entire point of the comparison, you know
>Oh, I drink black coffee, I'm so badass!
>Oh, I've read Clausewitz, I'm such a military witz!
and as someone else pointed out
>Oh, I've read The Republic, I now know everything about statecraft!
>>
>>741205
i know what he meant, i just dont understand how can people base their pide on that
>>
>>741197
because he is weirdly specific
that mean he have some baggage
>>
>>741167

Do you ever feel superiority over a game/genre choice?
>>
>>741167
i will never understand how some people make fun of others for watching MLP or capeshit
>>
>>741236
I not just feel superior, I simply am. Yes you guessed right: I'm indeed a Total War Warhammer 2 Player. See, the complexity and deeper strategies and thought processes required to understand this game simpy is too much for the average "strategy gamer" simpleton. This game is the peak of 3 decades of developments within the strategy genre, and if you pay close attention to its mechanics, gameplay, artwork and ui choices you can be naught but in utter awe of what CA created with its ultimate masterpiece. The devs showed absolute devotion to its cause, implementing many good gameplay choices and eastereggs, and you can see the influences from other great works. Lobotomites such as "Volound" of course curse the direction new total war takes, as their feeble minds are unable to comprehend the sheer inginuety of CA's new works. His criticisms of "dumbing down of tw" and such are projections of insecurity, and pure envy. So please dont talk to me unless you are sophisticated enough to enjoy the deeper mechanics and taste of games like WH2 and Total War: Troy.
I am a Total War Warhammer 2 and Troy Player, and I AM superior.
>>
>>741261
Your trying way too hard
>>
File: want to brag.jpg (115 KB, 798x469)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>741261
based
>>
>>741229
Don't look at me, don't get it either. But I know that it's a thing. I think the weirdest I ever experienced was the smug sense of superiority from a guy that never learned how to ride a bike - that was his special power.

>>741235
Ever heard about such thing as "analogy"? If not, look it up.
There is nothing specific about that story
>>
>>740953
>A better analogy that isn’t related to a deep seated insecurity over personal tastes would be reading Republic and thinking it makes you an expert on philosophy.
The Republic is required reading for every philosophy undergraduate and is one of the most cited texts in the liberal arts.
>>
>>739639
Include me in the screencap
>>
>>741757
And what exactly do these liberal arts majors contribute to philosophy that makes their curriculum so worthy?
>>
>>741757
>I just made that all up
forgot that part ;^)
>>
>>740953
>Coffee fag elitism
>Specific
Either you are genuinely underage, never been into a cafe your entire life or in deep self-denial. So which one is it?
>>
>>739501
What's CMANO?
>>
>>742150
literally type your question into google instead of 4chan
>>
>>741892
So that's not even true? Well, regardless, what is up with this thread and people getting so butthurt over criticism of books they think make them smarter, where they fall back on ridiculous copes like that? What a way to overcompensate.
>>
>>740926

It's okay if you're genuinely like it. But if you don't like the bitterness but still forcing yourself to like black coffee because you want to look adult like that guy said, you are actually being childish.
>>
>>741561
>>741893
It’s a piss poor analogy because in fact a great deal of people like the taste of black coffee and thinking that everyone is just pretending because YOU prefer cream is borderline solipsistic. Clausewitz on the other hand is objectively an outdated text that has little relevance to modern military doctrine.
>>
>>742934
It's common enough that it's been parodied in TV shows for decades.
>>
>>742932
anon I am 40 and started drinking no sugar tea and coffee like 15-20 years ago
i really don't get why people drink modern creamy 'coffee' instead of hot chocolate but that is not my business
i don't really get that black coffee is adult drink but maybe because i am Eastern Euro and here people drink what they want or like and only young one chase dumb trends
>>
No mention of De Re Militari? lol
>>
>>742934
>t. coffee-fag
>>
>>743062
You mean it like this? Genuinely asking
>>
>>742934
Jesus, calm down with your melt-down buddy. We get it, you're a badass that drinks "coffee black as tar and strong enough to melt horseshoes in", no need to further assert your dominance.
But here, a dating tip for you. Even a strong alpha-alpha male like you might need it.
>>
>>741893
>never been into a cafe your entire life
why would you go to one, just get a coffee grinder
>>
Hell Let Loose

Thank me later
>>
>>743672
That game requires basic social skills and being a functional adult. Nothing to do with OP's question.
Also
>Another fag who doesn't knows the difference between strategic and tactical level
ngmi
>>
>>743672
cat herding commanders
>>743699
>Another fag who doesn't knows the difference between strategic and tactical level
oh please enlighten me, sir
>>
>>739474
Pretty much all strategy games. For example a tactic I saw recommended for Battle Brothers recently is straight out of Xenophon's playbook. You get to use more shit in multiplayer games though desu
>>
>>743120
This. Bet the "strategy" fags in this thread don't even read von Clausewitz in German (who is NOT "outdated" by the way, an incredibly ignorant take indicative of the current lack of competency in Western armies).
>>
>>739639
>food analogy
>>
File: 1444312370741.png (362 KB, 523x592)
362 KB
362 KB PNG
>>744550
>Defeated by a simple food analogy
>No counter-arguments whatsoever
>All he can do is point it out
lmao
>>
>>744644
where did I argue with you I just pointed out food analogy, retard
>>
File: 1497986101702.gif (668 KB, 500x470)
668 KB
668 KB GIF
>>744675
Which is my point - you are so blown away, that all you can do is "f-food an-analogy!"
>>
>>744644
>>744682
hang yourself tranny
>>
File: go fuck yourself.jpg (133 KB, 968x1200)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
>>744779
No, u
>>
>>74006
'Ate slingers
'Ate archers
'Ate javelineers (not racist just dont like em)
Luv me 'ammer
Luv me 'anvil
Simple as
>>
>>741159
Yeah, replace black coffee with beer and it's the same thing that reveals his age.
>>
File: trted.jpg (68 KB, 576x324)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>748479
>Being a bumpfag
>>
File: 11.png (15 KB, 907x314)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
>>739474
Rule the Waves... I guess
All other games are Tactical and at best Operational affairs.
Rule the Waves is the only game I know off where you have fog of war, territory control, manufacturing capability, technological development, economical limitations and most importantly can set your own doctrine.
Aurora 4x and Distant Worlds would qualify to some extent but those are economic focused affairs.
>>
>>739502
Either primary sources (literary works from, or nearly from people of that era, for example Xenophon), or secondary academical works, so more or less the learned guesses of historians who write it all down and their interpretations of the primary stuff. I guess almost everything Ive read was secondary as I cant read the source languages and had to rely on translations.
You have an era you interested in ? Maybe you can get some good recommendations.
>>
>>739502
Read a decent historical overlook book then if you want to go deeper first hand accounts.
For anything post 1600s you can easily find commoner level accounts and they will be translated in modern English.
For anything before that gets really limited and really biased since you can't counteract the Roman's opinion with that of the Celts cause they didn't write shit down.
>>
>>739639
I actually unironically do drink black coffee and you just convinced me to read On War, thanks
>>
>>748999
>Check how contrarian I am
Manchildren like you are always hilarious
>>
>>749030
Drinking black coffee isn't a contrarian thing, meds and BBC therapy now.
>>
>>739502
/his/ and Wikipedia :^)
>>
>>749042
>I-I'm not contrarian
>M-meds!
And yet you've declared reading a book solely out of spite - an act befitting a 10 yo. One particularly boring book that doesn't bring anything new to the table since what? 1870s? That's how much its content became common, basic knowledge.
>>
>>749128
You know this entire thread you have spent talking about how the book is outdated, yet never wrote a single sentence explaining how?
Does it talk about planning your attacks around the location of niter fields and building fortifications in swamps to hinder enemy siege capabilities or something?
>>
>>749134
You wouldn't be asking this question if you had actually read On War.
>>
>>749144
Thats not a response faggot.
Explain why it's outdated and I will assume you are just another brainlet trying to sound smart.
>>
File: (you).png (197 KB, 558x491)
197 KB
197 KB PNG
>>749145
>spoonfeed me right now i'm too dumb to read books
Alright, nigger.
Clausewitz' leading principle of war was annihilation of the enemy's forces. This strategy has become desperately obsolete after WW2, and Vietnam was the prime example of this. Even fucking Sun Tzu was critical of the annihilation approach. As the technology progressed, the annihilation strategy has become both unaffordably wasteful and readily avoidable.
Clausewitz pretty much disregarded maneuver warfare because his understanding of doctrine was based on highly centralized command and control. However, maneuver warfare has been extremely successful for many centuries and has almost always benefited from technological advances.
Clausewitz goes at length at how the enemy has a center of gravity, and you need to aim to destroy this center of gravity to achieve victory. In modern warfare, this center of gravity is either completely unidentifiable, exists outside the military's reach, or is very much replaceable.
>>
What would be a good selection of historical military theory books?
Not for use today, but just as an insight into the varieties and adaptations of strategy and tactics down the ages.
>>
>>749145
>Explain me how a book describing Napoleonic-era approach to war and warfare is outdated, for I have never read it and don't even know what it's famous for.
Nta, but here is the list of things the book "covers":
- "fog of war" as a strategic concept
- well-trained troops fight better than poorly-trained troops
- politics and war are closely tied together
Oh wow, so fucking amazing and how enlightening! How about some dated shit, hm?
- war is just series of direct, pitched battles, nothing else matters (reality says "hi")
- logistics don't exist and you shouldn't care (reality says "hi!")
- you must destroy 100% of enemy force, either in direct combat or by attrition (WW1 says "hi!")
- just throw resources into the war, you will eventually cause attrition victory of your enemy (WW1 says "hi!")
- keep your troops fighting, for they don't need rest (performance matrixes and PTSD say "hi!")
- each and every war is a total war, you either commit 100% resources and manpower, or you get defeated (reality says "hi")
- commander must have a sense of battlefield, intuition and be a hardass to his troops (WW2 says "hi")
You'd know this shit, if you ever bothered to check what the book is even about, not to even reading it. Because even for a strategic manual, it's dreadfully wooden and just plain boring, instead of being informative and to the point. And grand majority of it wasn't true even when Clausewitz wrote it.

>>749172
As someone already said, start with a field manual of your army. If your army doesn't have one, just use the American one, since they are all written the same anyway, just written in different language.
>>
File: confused stare.png (203 KB, 400x800)
203 KB
203 KB PNG
>>749177
... come to think about it, Clausewitz actually does make a compelling argument for your average RTS, as they play just like his concept of war.
>>
>>749159
That doesn't really sound outdated, just bad. As for antihalation the two Gulf Wars show you can still do that just fine.
>>
>>749177
I don't base my opinion on stuff from Wikipedia articles and I don't read strategy manual, or any manuals for that matters. It's just strange how people can go on how X is bad without ever saying why.
>>
>>749188
>that doesn't sound outdated
Only that it was the standard fare of late 18th and early 19th century warfare. The concept of annihilating the force became particularly tempting during Napoleonic period, since it was seen as a way to completely disable nation's capacity to war. Clausewitz, as a Prussian, had an extra chip on his shoulder about this, as both during Seven Years War and Napoleonic era, Prussia faced the exact same outcome: its army was completely worn down into nothingness, leaving it at the mercy of other countries.
Same applies to the ultra-high centralisation he advocates: it was just the way how Prussian army of that time period operated, plus the "centralisation" back then meant something else than modern(ish) "there is one guy giving direct order in direct contact with all the troops non-stop" - orders back then were simply issues for the duration of a campaign, updated sometimes as rarely as once per week. With shit like radio, it became particularly tempting to have a high command calling all the shots, with detrimental results.
>>
>>749191
Because just like the book's content, it's common fucking knowledge what the book contains.
Are you brain-damaged or something? Because you seem to be the type of guy who asks people why they insist shit is bad, without providing you a taste sample. Everyone knows shit is bad, you dingus.
>>
>>739639
Lmao what? I drink black coffee and I do not think I have ever once told anybody I do retard. Some people actually like the taste of coffee you insecure little man. You can say On War is a shit book but your cringey food analogy about how nobody drinks coffee black has just ruined it.
>>
>>749134
Bro, you're replying to some (You) hungry troll who posts retarded shit like how black coffee is somehow bad because it's acidic (as if people who drink coffee don't know that) just to get reactions. Just chill out, preferable with a nice strong coffee, black of course
>>
>>739981
>people dont actually like dark chocolate its all just made up
What in the actual fuck? What shithole country of babies do you live in where people disliking bitter things is so common that if you pretend to like it people think you are smart.
>>
File: pop-corn.gif (655 KB, 460x426)
655 KB
655 KB GIF
>>749195
>another one
Visiting this thread just to see people throwing a fit over a guy mentioning coffee (and completely missing his point) is the only reason why it's worth reading this shitpile of armchair generalship.
>>
>>749194
>it's common fucking knowledge what the book contains.
In a short two page wikipedia article that simply lists the subjects in it, not how they are broached or anything.
Why are you acting so fucking buthurt over it?
Do you also screech when the doctor asks you how much it hurts?
>>
>>741197
>Anon says some inane thing lots of people actually do like is pretentious because he does not like it
>goes on autistic rant on basketweaving website about it in a video games board
>called insecure
>now cannot understand why
Back to school kiddo, summer is over
>>
>>749204
Why are you projecting so hard?
You've asked a retarded question, got not only replies, but also informed why said question was stupid in the first place. Yet somehow it's anyone's fault, but yours that you ask dumb questions and gets called out on this
>>
>>741893
>cafes are elitist
Frenchman detected. Here in other countries people go to cafes to chill out and hang out, not for social status
>>
>>749205
Nigga, you're aware you're replying to a week-old post... right?
>>
File: 1591083513536.gif (11 KB, 600x450)
11 KB
11 KB GIF
>>749206
>projection
>Nah m8 your question is dumb cause uh... retrad stupid... uhm dumb...
>>
>>742966
Which TV shows, I need some proof. Are you talking about cafe elitism? That is not coffee elitism you ESL.
>>
File: 1487649631648.gif (859 KB, 280x206)
859 KB
859 KB GIF
>>749213
>I just ignored the explanation I was given, pretending there was none
>I'm totally not projecting, see!
>>
>>749215
Please keep going, this is the most fun I had today.
>>
>>749216
Your life must be then very, very fucking sad
>>
>>749217
Nah I just take great pleasure in tryhards going full moron.
>>
File: 121.png (160 KB, 568x1023)
160 KB
160 KB PNG
>>749219
>>
>>749219
Like I've said - a very, very sad life

>>749222
Trips confirmed
>>
>>749222
Case and point.
>>
File: animU.png (3.53 MB, 1280x720)
3.53 MB
3.53 MB PNG
>>749226
Here, you seem really starved for attention. I'd suggest taking vacations from internet for few days, but it's clear as day it's not an option in your case and you have absolutely nothing else to do.
>>
>>749228
I just asked why something is bad, admitting I never even knew anything about the thing and apparently I asked the most moronic question on earth while pretending to be retarded.
So what I secretly know everything about On War?
The fact that you reacted with so much spergery for no reason to me is funny. I don't know why that is such a strange concept for you. Do you know what fun is even?
>>
File: file.png (153 KB, 974x998)
153 KB
153 KB PNG
>>749203
t.
>>
the most active and fastest threads on this board are whenever autists get into a seething shitflinging match over the pettiest thing and respond to each other at the speed of light
>>
>>749233
You used the good old "if you won't answer me then you only pretend to know" bait and it succeeded - with an obligatory attachment of insults. Why the fuck are you upset? Being called names on an anonymous forum hurts you so much?
>>
>>749293
Except people answered before I even said that.
>upset
>>
Not to perpetuate a pointless debate, but I just started reading my country's field manual at the suggestion of an earlier anon, and it had a quote from Clausewitz in the third paragraph, so he might still be relevant.
>>
File: wojak posters.jpg (58 KB, 640x418)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>749266
>>
>>749392
Out of curiosity - which one? The most quoted "extension" or the one about "quality"? Mine had one from Napoleon, the "baton" one, so go figure.
>>
>>749404
“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.”
UK manual by the way.
>>
>>749409
I am genuinely (and positively) surprised. Not by the quote, but by the choice of it. And it's also incredibly ironic, given US track record in mistaking what sort of wars they are fighting.
Usually field manuals have either something uplifting or to make you feel like a badass, given they are predominately aimed at rank and file.
>>
>>749413
The first section is all about the nature of conflict, why it happens and what it's for etc, so I guess it makes sense.
I'm not sure if it's geared towards rank and file though, because it said it was mandatory reading for officers and ncos.
>>
>>749418
... you sure you've got the right field manual?
What is the EXACT tile of it. I know US Army did some weird ass revision of their field manuals in early Obama administration (something he was shit on, despite it was the Army doing it internally)
>>
>>749421
Not all nations do it the same way. I searched under a million terms like Soliders guide and found nothing.
>>
>>739474
>outflank the enemy and kill them
Works IRL aswell as in pretty much every single strategy game, but I'm guessing you didn't have this extremely basic go-to strategy in mind.
>>
>>749421
UK mate not US, British manual.
I just typed in British army field manual and it was a pdf on the government website.
>>
>>749423
>go through library history to find the proper title
>2018
>nothing
>2016
>nothing yet
>2014
>still nothing
>2013
>system update, no prior records
... and here I was, cock sure that I've read it somewhere in 2018, at worst '17
>>
>>749429
So not only I'm old, but also blind.
Time to die
>>
>>749430
It might be something that isn't in the library system as it's never meant for civilian/commercial purposes.
>>
>>749432
You know, it might be prior to 2013, but I'm sure as hell I've read field manual of US, German and Swedish field manuals and instructions. From the university library. There is no other way anyway I would get them in my country than that route.
>>
>>749177
Reading field manual of my army, third paragraph in mentions friction in the Clausewitzean sense.
>>
File: BritishArmy.png (134 KB, 1333x620)
134 KB
134 KB PNG
>>749461
>>
File: 15 best.jpg (67 KB, 540x509)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>749409
>>749461
>>749465
>Bongs as always going full retard
>>
>>749504
Where you from anon?
Because if you're a yank I'm not sure you can question anyones military competence.
If you're from somewhere else however, I'd be interested to hear what your manuals focus on.
>>
>>749509
Finland
You can read it in English here:
https://puolustusvoimat.fi/documents/1948673/2267766/SK2017_ENG_lr/07c5b6d8-041b-4370-aa60-3e7bbad19399/SK2017_ENG_lr.pdf
Remember, we've beaten Koreans, while your army is famous mostly for being inept, poorly equipped and always ready to die for the most idiotic cause.
And as far as I remember this thread, you were told to read field manuals, not commanding ones. You are reading a book about how to plan company- and battalion-sized operation. Meanwhile field manual = soldier's instructions. I know that, despite being ETL, and you don't, while EOL
>>
>>749531
Thanks for the link, I'll read that later.
I was told to read field manuals, and that's what came up when I searched for them. And it was interesting, so I read it.
But you do have to remember that Your country and mine have different military aims, yours is mainly defending yourself while mine is projecting power.
>>
>>749534
The only thing UK is projecting is delusion of self-importance
>>
>>749543
Currently, but hopefully we will get back to actual importance.
By the way whats wrong will reading command manuals? We are on a strategy games board, you command your troops.
Field manuals would be for shooters.
>>
>>749534
The empire ended before your parents were even born.
>>
>>749546
So?
You don't have to have an empire to want to project power, you still need countries to act in your interests.
>>
>>749545
... and this is what you get when you don't have conscription or even a tradition to have conscription at fucking all. I bet you actually think this whole thing works just like in the games, regardless of their genre.
As for your reading choices: you're reading Military: 301, without reading Military: 101 and 201 first.
>>
>>749531
Why would anyone read the manual from a nation that hasn't won a single war?
>>
>>749557
Fuck off, we owned Koreans and anyone who claims otherwise is contrarian
>>
>>749553
I know games aren't the same as real war,it was a joke about relevance to the board.
What would be Military 101 and 201 then? I'd like to get into proper strategy.
>>
>>739639
Yeah, this is exactly what I thought when I tried reading it, just like Art of War, if you need to learn this stuff by reading it in a book, you'll never know it.

Anything of value in both of these two books is just plain old common sense, the rest is twaddle, especially in On War. Never before have I seen anybody spend 30-60 pages trying to articulate something that a competent writer could hardly stretch out beyond a paragraph.
>>
>t. genuine black coffee and dark chocolate enjoyer
never wasted time on Clausewitz either and The Republic is gay and retarded, like its author.
>>
>>749602
>Never before have I seen anybody spend 30-60 pages trying to articulate something that a competent writer could hardly stretch out beyond a paragraph.
I sincerely suggest reading any attempt of a Western, elderly scholar to write a book about Buddhism. The important elements for it to count: not a Buddhist, not from a Buddhist country and graduated before 1965.
You're for some horrible time. And the contrast with other writers in this field is just startling.

t. had to slog through this shit on uni.
>>
>maybe 20 actually informative posts
>~140 posts of shit flinging about a black coffee analogy
You are like the posters on /gif/, except for the racial skirmishes
>>
>>739639
But I do like black coffee..
>>
>>749731
Fuck off milk-drinker faggot, I will defend black coffee to the death.
>>
Coffee isnt food, its a drink
>>
>>749731
It's always the same shitposts whenever certain things get posted.
>>
>>749731
You're in the most autistic section of /v/. What other outcome did you expect?
>>
File: real emperor.png (343 KB, 971x1000)
343 KB
343 KB PNG
>>749609
>>t. genuine black coffee and dark chocolate enjoyer
>>
>>749620
Don't western practitioners in general have a bad understanding of it? I'm not at all into Buddhism so I wouldn't know.
>>
>coffee analogy.

So it coffee good for you bros?
>>
>>744471
>t.comic book guy
>>
>>740054
What game?
>>
>>749897
Looks like graviteam tactics.
>>
What's a good source on learning about military tactics in the early modern and/or medieval ages?
>>
>>749849
Donno and don't care, since from study perspective, you analyse pretty much anything, but folk faith. It's simply beyond the point of "bunch of old farts writing for 50 pages something that could be put into a single paragraph without any loss of information".
>>
>>749903
Ask /tg/
>>
File: 20201029231411_1.jpg (577 KB, 1920x1080)
577 KB
577 KB JPG
>>739474
AGEOD games fall under this category. I played a PBEM game of Civil War 2 as the Confederates while reading Shelby Foote's The Civil War books and it was one of my most enjoyable gaming experiences.
>>
>>749903
There are lots of people making very good and in-depth videos of on those subjects that are well researched. Check out this 6 video part on Napoleon then start looking at all the others that do similar videos. You will be sure to find some you like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91OmO2YMiDM&t=2s
>>
>>750068
what are the sides in russian civil war?
are they separate or its just white vs reds split?
>>
>>750096
Dunno if you mean a game, if so no idea.
But if you mean the real Russian civil war, the Whites were broadly united in opposition to the Reds, but were divided into three main factions.
Kolchak in the East, Denikin in the South, and Yudenich in the Baltic.
Kolchak's faction also split when he purged the Social Revolutionaries, who the set up their own faction in Samara.
There were also many regions which formed their own independent Green armies who were each technically their own side, but they allied intermittently with the Reds and Whites.
>>
>>750228
yes i mean the game
>>
>>750096

Two factions of Whites vs 1 Red, and then a Green faction that is more of a rebel faction hostile to all
>>
>>750248
then its shit
>>
>>739639
Jesus fucking christ try having sex sometime. By the way youre wrong, and that average schlub you see walking down the street is about 30 times harder than your poindexter ass.
>>
>>739474
Mount & Blade. Hammer and anvil Strategy is the strongest force in the universe in there.
>>
File: Make it stop.jpg (31 KB, 250x323)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>753653
>Being a bumpfag
>Trying to call out anyone
>>
>>739639
>actual value of it is non-existing
If it's anything like Art of War, it's full of incredibly basic information that seems extremely obvious after reading it, but someone has to write the foundation of military strategy somewhere. That doesn't make it bad, it just means a lot of the information is going to be of marginal value to someone already familiar with some of those basic concepts.

It's like reading an algebra book after having used math in a practical sense for decades, you're likely not going to learn too much new, but you might pick up a thing here or there and you'll have a solid foundation for future education.
>>
>>755172
>that seems extremely obvious after reading it, but someone has to write the foundation of military strategy somewhere
... you realise those things WERE obvious BEFORE Clausewitz wrote them... right?
He didn't invent anything new, he didn't systematise anything that was common knowledge or did anything revolutionary. If anything, his book only gained following in the 1850s (where it was already outdated), and solely because a whole lot of nations was establishing new, modern armies for themselves, needing some basis. So why not pick that one, simple, "compact" book and build from it.
So yeah, it makes it bad, because it's literally no different than 50 other treaties from its period, but got memed so hard since mid-19th century, it's now considered some sort of unique masterpiece or "new base".
It just isn't.
Sticking with your math comparison: it's like picking a textbook you didn't use during your school years, eye-ball the content and realise the main difference is in different organisation of chapters and very poorly done explanations.
>>
>ctrl+f homeworld
Come on. The game is probably too fast to really implement some things, but it's great strategy.
>>
File: 1513050583287.jpg (157 KB, 1428x803)
157 KB
157 KB JPG
>>749602
>if you need to learn this stuff by reading it in a book, you'll never know it.
But that's why books exist, anon. You know, to learn stuff I couldn't otherwise have access to?
>>
>>757868
>Common sense-tier "knowledge"
>Needs to learn it from a book anyway
Got it now, or still too complex for your level of brain damage?
>>
File: Hakkapeliitta.jpg (46 KB, 512x600)
46 KB
46 KB JPG
>>749557
?
>>
>>741294
Game?
>>
>>758620
Wouldn't that make you read a Swedish manual?
>>
>>758623
Stellar Monarch.

It's really good. The dev is working on a sequel which is the same thing but enhanced.
>>
>>758651
Thanks.
>>
File: Terra.jpg (333 KB, 1920x1080)
333 KB
333 KB JPG
>>758651
>It's really good
its not
>>
>>758654
Not that anon. I also liked it, but I can understand why someone might not like it.
>>
File: wictory.jpg (306 KB, 1920x1080)
306 KB
306 KB JPG
>>758667
you misunderstand me
I like it but its not good game
>>
CMANO is p much this
>>
>>739474
Would Emperor Maurice's Strategikon help in Total War games?
>>
>>749177
>-you must destroy 100% of the enemy force, either through direct combat or by attrition (WW1 says "hi!")
>-just throw resources into the war, you will eventually cause attrition victory of your enemy (WW1 says "hi!")
But WW1 proved both of these. The Krauts sued for peace because they were literally out of everything thanks in large part to the fact that, even having gotten the Russians off their back even the frontline troops were starving and the Entente had just gotten a massive infusion of ready and willing men and material in the form of the US. They fought the war of attrition and lost, simple as.
>>
>>759214
Both the Germans and the Russians were knocked out of WW1 not because their armies were destroyed, but because food shortages directly caused by the war unraveled the civilian societies behind the front lines. Both of them would have lasted longer if they had committed less resources to the war, not more.
>>
>>759220
You see, to me they gave it everything they had and it wasn't enough. The inability to break the stalemate in the west by either side drove both to collapse, but at the end of the day a mixture of German desperation and English diplomacy drug the US in on the Entente's side, thus sparing them destruction via attrition.

It should be noted that at least some of Germany's woes were the result of the Royal Navy's blockade.
>>
>>759224
Just how is a war where every major combatant that got knocked out going out by internal disintegration with armies still in the field compatible with the idea that wars are won by destroying armies?
>>
>>759227
Aight, I see your point. However, pouring your resources in to pray for an attrition victory if nothing else is still a viable strategy, given of course that you actually have the resources to outlast your opponents. Compare Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for details.
>>
File: cute.jpg (518 KB, 1365x2048)
518 KB
518 KB JPG
>>749863
Yes.
>>
>>758645
If they would follow Swedish manuals, they would never be even half as good.
Why do you think Swedes deployed Finns on horseback?
>>
>>761956
Because it was a very dangerous job, so the Swedes decided their subject people should do it instead?
>>
>>761989
The worst job in every army ever is being a new meat thrown into basic infantry. Most dangerous, most unforgiving and least glamorous.
Now take a wild guess where Swedes served
>>
>>761996
Look, I don't actually know much about that period. All I have are bitter nationalist myths about the evil of the Swedes.
>>
File: 1631355422363.jpg (83 KB, 1080x1080)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>749602
>>758003
Why are you assuming anything to do with warfare is easily understood? The majority of military commanders throughout history have been mediocre, and won or loss depending on numbers and how well-equipped their army was.

Stuff like the Art of War or On War wasn't written for guys like Hannibal or Moltke who were prodigies of warfare. It was for your average warlord or noble who wasn't particularly talented at warfare, but still needed to learn the ropes without experiencing firsthand defeat. Remember that, unlike other professions, a general can't simply "practice" their craft. They can only theorize and create simulations via war games.
>>
>>739474
Disclaimer: I play this on very hard setting and with a shitload of house rules to compensate for the retarded AI. Furthermore I ignore the espionage and diplomacy aspects of the game.

I would say HOI3.

Not that winning in most circumstances is that difficult, but rather winning efficiently is satisfying. With that in mind, having read about logistics and the economics of war, general strategy, and some military maxims ( such as "the bigger battalions win", "the fastest with the mostest" "boot them, dont spatter them" ) I found HOI3 reflects these reasonably well in game. In particular planning your production and maximizing the best use of your resources counts as playing efficiently. For example if I win a game with Aircraft carriers still in the production queue then I know I have not been efficient. If I have units run into supply problems then that reflects poor planning on my part. If I miss carrying out an encirclement then obviously I did not apply the right amount of force in the right places. Running out of critical resources while fighting a defensive war ( usually as an Axis power ) indicates my grand strategy was poor. One of the best things is making the conditions so hard that you lose. Then you try again with a different strategy and see if you improve on the result.

Right now I m playing through the Barbarossa scenario as Russia. For the third time. The first time I screwed up my production queue, although I would have still eventually won, I didn't like the fact that I had dragged out the war through poor planning. The second time I went on the attack too early, ran out of supplies deep into an offensive, and the AI counterattacked, giving me major losses and a very sore ass as a result. Again, I felt I had needlessly prolonged the war. This time will be different as I have completely rethought the way I am going to fight this brutal struggle.

That said, its not for the casual gamer as there is a shitload of micro you need to do.
>>
>>762977
>It was for your average warlord or noble who wasn't particularly talented at warfare
That's what I figured. Art of war is really memed but when you actually read it it's not much. It has some obvious top level stuff like don't get surrounded and is pretty thin on any actual advice.
What is there is really for some pampered noble second son who thought he'd win glory in war that needs to be told that boulders roll downhill. My favourite though is fire spreads downwind so check the wind when setting enemy camp on fire. Truly it takes a legendary strategic genius.
>>
>>763483
My take from the book is dont start a fight unless you are certain of success.
Funny how the Art of War has been around for so long and yet this basic advice was frequently ignored time and time again.
I would argue that the sole practitioners of this strategy is unsurprisingly the Chinese. But I'm sure some idiot would like to argue Korea and Vietnam. So many see success in terms of ground gained and casualty counts without considering the wider strategic objectives.
>>
>>763508
That's the best one form there and actually good advice. It even explicitly says to disobey orders if it means winning or avoiding a losing fight. Other lines are also about not letting glory or political considerations get in the way of the objectives.
>>
>>749570
Was it that war if giza mass autism relay?
>>
>>739474
For me it's Maurice's Strategikon
>>
Ground Control, except for air units
>>
>>763483
The most valuable part of the book (in my opinion) is right in the beginning, where it teaches you to predict who will win and who will lose. For example in the case of the war in Afghanistan the Art of War predicted the Taliban victory, since they three of the five factors (moral influence, commander and terrain) favored them while only one favored the Afghan government (doctrine). Even that is debatable, since the government troops did not engage the Taliban forces and so it is difficult to know their real fighting power (if any). A more traditional western approach would have just counted the heads of the troops and their available equipment and from this predicted an easy victory for the Afghan government.
>>
>>763568
I want to know more about finno korean war
>>
>>739474
>>739479

"War is the continuation of policy by other means" is horseshit. Apolitical cultures are some of the most warlike to exist.
>>
File: academic.jpg (47 KB, 480x455)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>749177
Did we read the same book? Clausewitz didn't claim any of these things, in fact he contradicts most of them vehemently.
His only core theorem that really aged poorly is that defense is more powerful than offense. The technological advances of the 20th century have made it so that destruction is easier than protection which is easier than conquest. While this is incredibly important and turned both strategy and tactics on their heads, the procedural method through which Clausewitz built his theories is still extremely valid, and an intelligent reader can easily apply them to arrive at very different conclusions when accounting for the altered circumstances. His mindset and scientific approach are valuable and timeless. Most other books on warfare, in particular the field manuals, teach just a summary of conclusions but not the methods by which they were reached. On War teaches you how to create a comprehensive theory of war.
>>
>>765693
>>His only core theorem that really aged poorly is that defense is more powerful than offense.
Is that why attacking forces typically need to outnumber the defenders 2-to-1 or preferably 3-to-1 to ensure success?
>>
>>765707
Yes, but that's the "conquest" part. For mere destruction, you don't need such an advantage. An artillery barrage, airstrike, car bomb or even simple machinegun fire destroys whatever is its area of effect, no matter whether there are 5, 50 or 500 guys. Concentrating more forces than necessary invites horrible additional losses for little gain. Ambushes and surprise attacks have been similiarly strenghtened, and detection has become the most important element of destruction. Strategy is, like Clausewitz said, built mainly upon the possibilities of and in battles, and the effect of these technological advances on strategy is immense.
>>
>>765779
When Clausewitz claims defense is stronger than offense I do not believe he means to suggest a defending soldier is any less vulnerable to gunfire than an attacking soldier. He probably means that in large engagements in the past, during his day, during our day and probably in the future, the attacker typically needs to outnumber the defender to have a good chance of success.
>>
>>765791
Why does the attacker need to outnumber the defender to have a good chance of success? Because he typically takes greater losses. This is no longer necessarily the case, because the increased offensive power means that the defender's inherent advantages can commonly be overcome through speed, surprise and violence of action.
In Clausewitz' time, a defending artillery battery would have entrenched itself in the optimal position and been able to put up one hell of a fight. Nowadays they "shoot and scoot" instead, because the disadvantage of having its location known (and consequently being shelled to kingdom come) far outweighs any benefits of cover, prepared defenses, beneficial terrain and so on.
The same principle extends up to the highest strategical levels. We have mutually assured destruction instead of missile defenses, because a ballistic missile is much easier to send than to shoot down. Would either side in the Cold War have been able to successfully invade and conquer the other mostly intact? Definitely not. But they could have utterly destroyed each other, and the only viable defense was to threaten retaliation in kind.
>>
>>766010
Good effortposting.
>>
Does anyone have some basic reading about air and naval warfare to get into Cmano?
>>
>>766010
>>increased offensive power means that the defender's inherent advantages can commonly be overcome through speed, surprise and violence of action.
Let me press X to doubt this. Why would the increase in firepower favor the attacker? He is now more vulnerable than ever, which forces him to advance slowly and cautiously or take large losses from ambushes. Just a handful of infantrymen in good defensive position can reap a terrible toll from a careless attacker.

When you see a well trained, well equipped force sweep aside a poorly trained and equipped force you should draw from this the conclusion that the strong defeat the weak, not that offense is stronger than defense.

The only part where this analysis might hold true is with regards to nuclear strategy. But even there it is questionable how things would actually play out, since no global thermonuclear war has ever been waged.
>>
>>766541
Ambushes are a highly aggressive defensive tactic relying on stealth, speed, surprise and firepower. That they have pretty much become the default is both proof and consequence of the relative strengthening of offense. Their offensive counterpart is the surprise attack, which has been similiarly empowered and grown in popularity, and has even become stronger than static defenses. This is extremely important, since static defenses are necessary to protect fixed high value targets, and also to enforce control of a region. In consequence, high value targets have become extremely difficult to protect other than by hiding and obscuring them, and it is very costly, even outright detrimental, to try and maintain effective control and occupation of a warzone, including classical frontlines. Any attempt to guard or draw gains from whatever you are fighting over requires a presence which the enemy can see or at least predict, and that is a huge disadvantage compared to the enemies ability to launch attacks at a now-known target.

(Cont.)
>>
>>766738
Once you have occupied a region and just try to maintain that status quo, you are in the role of the defender, which is supposed to be the stronger position. Yet the most powerful and well-trained militaries have consistently failed to defend occupied territories against smaller numbers of poorly trained and equipped guerrillas, terrorists and cartels. They would have been able to raze the entire country to the ground if they wanted to, but not to maintain contol over it.
Modern occupation and counter-insurgency strategies reflect this. In earlier times, you would have created a lot of small, local garrisions. But since those are easy targets suffering constant attrition for little gain, the armies refrain from doing so and instead try to present as small a profile as possible, ideally only moving out to swiftly strike against identified targets before retreating to a safe base. If their opponents had the means to strike at said bases, which may be as simple as a few 50 year old rocket artillery trucks, they could easily inflict terrible losses upon a numerically and technologically far superior foe.

(Cont.)
>>
>>766739
Even large, proper militaries have adopted guerrilla strategies to benefit from the power of stealth and offense: The West German Cold War doctrine in case of a Soviet invasion fully expected being completely overrun within days, so they prepared the army to function at low levels long after being cut off from command and resupply. All officers and NCOs were trained to lead small independent forces in enemy territory, and there were prepared supply caches and an entire covert support network. A full military with aircraft and vehicles could neither defend the country nor prevent an occupation, but split into thousands of independently operating infantry platoons it could at least make the latter untenable.
In the old days, two nations would deter each other by being strong enough that the other cannot expect to successfully invade. One side may be stronger, but not strong enough to overcome the other's defense. Today we do not deter attacks through the ability to defend against them, which we no longer have, but through the ability to aggressively deny the enemy any outcome that he could consider desirable. The old maxim that to attack, you have to be stronger than to defend, no longer holds.
>>
>>766738
>>Ambushes are a highly aggressive defensive tactic relying on stealth, speed, surprise and firepower.
>>That they have pretty much become the default is both proof and consequence of the relative strengthening of offense.
You just said an ambush was a defensive tactic. Just how is the popularity of ambush proof of the power of offense, if it itself is defense?

>>static defenses are necessary to protect fixed high value targets, and also to enforce control of a region
Static defense, during those historical periods when it has been viable, has provided combatants with force multipliers, safe bases and a means to convert one type of power (construction ability) to another type of power (military strength). A static defense has no inherent value for the control of a region compared to an ordinary military force other than long term cost effectiveness (a building, once constructed, does not consume food or demand pay) and symbolism.

>>766739
If your control over a region is so tenuous the best you can do is to occasionally dart out of your fortified hidey hole to kill some guy before rushing back to avoid the enemy reaction, then calling you the controller of that region is inaccurate. Your description of the situation betrays a surprising confusion about who is the attacker and who is the defender in a scenario like this. Nonetheless, even you actually realize that the troops are in relative danger during offensive action (swift strike outside base) and in relative safety during defensive action (hiding inside base).

>>766740
>>Even large, proper militaries have adopted guerrilla strategies to benefit from the power of stealth and offense
Stay behind forces are not offensive units. Guerilla warfare is a method that can be used for both offense and defense. The fact that a military expecting to face a much stronger opponent adopts strategies and doctrines suitable for fighting from a position of inferior strength is not surprising.
>>
>>766766
>>766740
>>In the old days, two nations would deter each other by being strong enough that the other cannot expect to successfully invade. One side may be stronger, but not strong enough to overcome the other's defense.

This is very much still true today. I suspect you think the fact that some powers today are very strong is proof of the supremacy of offense, but note that a similar misguided argument could have been made in ancient greece by comparing their great powers to weak island powers.

>>Today we do not deter attacks through the ability to defend against them, which we no longer have, but through the ability to aggressively deny the enemy any outcome that he could consider desirable.

This is nothing new. Rome did not have the power to stop Hannibal from attacking Italy. Athens did not have the power to stop Sparta from looting and desolating their countryside. In both cases they denied their enemies the desired outcome, even though they could not prevent the attack from being launched.

>>The old maxim that to attack, you have to be stronger than to defend, no longer holds.

In one sense this maxim has never been true. Skirmishing, raiding, guerilla attacks and other "unconventional" attacks have been part of warfare since the beginning. In the sense that most of the time it will go very poorly for you if you attack a superior enemy with an inferior force this maxim still holds very much true today.
>>
>>766766
>Just how is the popularity of ambush proof of the power of offense, if it itself is defense?
It is one of the most tactically offensive options for defense. That it has surged while the least offensive ones have completely fallen out of favor is a clear sign that the current circumstances benefit the offense.

>Static defense
I am not exclusively talking about defensive construction. Any force can mount a static defense when it is deployed in a fixed location and expected to give battle there rather than maneuver freely. Infrastructure, industry, military bases and political centers are all in fixed locations, and if you don't want to allow your enemy to strike them, you'll have to be there to defend them. If the defense is meant to be tight, it has to be quite prominent, meaning that at the very least these defenders can be very effectively harassed and worn down, see below.

(Cont.)
>>
>>766766
>>767052
>Control over a region
Consider an example like Afghanistan or Iraq. An invading army stomps the existing government, occupies the entire country, installs a new state and government, and declares complete victory. That is the new status quo. The invading army tries to defend it, the insurgents attack it. If the insurgents did nothing, the situation would remain unchanged. They are obviously the strategic attacker.
Since the occupying force is quite visible and exposed, it suffers heavily under all kinds of attacks, and is unable to effectively protect its own forces. Checkpoints get sniped or bombed, patrols IED'd, bases mortared, and there is not much those guys themselves can do except hunker down and call for reinforcements. They're effectively defenseless meatshields, and it is obvious that that state is not tenable with regards to both casualties and morale. Hence, the army gives up its control of the countryside, the garrisons, patrols and checkpoints, and falls back to a position it can effectively defend against that vastly inferior opponent. Of course, the insurgents won't install their own garrisons and patrols, because they would be just as easy pickings, and the countryside turns into a no man's land where neither side operates with confidence.
The control over the region is so tenuous because it is far too costly to defend, even for the superior army that easily occupied it.

>Stay behind forces are not offensive units
Their tactics are purely offensive. Even their strategic role is mostly offensive, since they generally challenge the hold that the opponent already has established. A counteroffensive inside your own territory is still an offensive - it aims to change rather than maintain.

(Cont.)
>>
>>766768
>>767057
>Classical examples
Both of these examples reached a temporary equilibrium where both sides could defend their current position, and neither could afford to attack. Situations where both sides could effectively attack each other, and neither could hope to defend against the other's attacks, have been exceedingly rare and typically limited to conflicts between a land and a sea power.

Skirmishing, raiding and guerrilla attacks may not be new, but that they reliably achieve a K/D > 1 against similiarly well-trained and equipped regular troops defending some location definitely is.
>>
Hearts of Iron 4 or Europa Universalis 4. Don't like it. Than die like the rest old man.
>>
>>767052
>>It is one of the most tactically offensive options for defense.
Just fucking how is taking up a good position and waiting for the enemy to come to you offensive? The ambusher is not seizing an objective. The ambusher is not advancing into an enemy position. Sometimes the ambusher might not even have to move at all.

>>Infrastructure, industry, military bases and political centers are all in fixed locations, and if you don't want to allow your enemy to strike them, you'll have to be there to defend them.
Or you could just stop the enemy at your defensive line before he reaches these objectives.

>>767057
If you are forced to hide inside a base you are not in control of a region. Having previously toppled something the locals called a government does not put you in charge. In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan the invading forces were vulnerable and unable to control the regions because they lacked the cultural competence to penetrate into the host societies and the manpower to conduct wide ranging security operations. You can see it in the progress they made during various surges, followed by decline once the troop levels fell. The strategic error was refusing to choose between leaving or committing enough forces to seize control of more than a few bases. These cases show the limitations of small but high-tech forces.

Another error in this analysis is considering the casualties suffered by the western powers in Irag and Afghanistan heavy. They were politically devastating because there was no clear strategy for victory and in the case of Iraq no intelligible casus belli. In military terms significantly heavier losses could have been sustained indefinitely if a core national interest had been in play.

>>[T]actics [of stay behind forces] are purely offensive.
Just fucking how? Where are you invading with a stay behind force? The only way your definitions work is if "offensive" is grown so large it encompasses literally any action taken against an enemy.
>>
File: war deaths.png (77 KB, 798x381)
77 KB
77 KB PNG
>>767169
>Just fucking how is taking up a good position and waiting for the enemy to come to you offensive?
That alone would be a static defense. An ambush is much more than that. First, it relies heavily on concealment, which often prohibits using positions that are suspiciously good. Second, it turns into a violent surprise attack once an ideal opportunity presents itself. Third, that initial momentum is maintained to overwhelm the enemy and prevent both effective resistance and retreat. Just because some ambushes are done with the vigor of a dead fish doesn't mean it's not meant to be a highly aggressive move.

>Or you could just stop the enemy at your defensive line before he reaches these objectives.
Unless that defensive line is made of concealed positions, they themselves will become the target of skirmishing. Even then, it's harder to prevent a breakthrough than to stage one.

The casualties in the wars were indeed rather low, but that also includes the OPFOR. This table shows that the local government forces, being trained and equipped by the west, suffered higher losses than the insurgents which were inferior in numbers, equipment and training. They did have manpower and knowledge of the local culture. Boots on the ground have become a glaring vulnerability instead of a projection of power.

While the western losses in the war on terror were low on deaths, the financial cost is beyond ridiculous. The US alone could have bought off every dead insurgent with 25 million dollar and made a good deal. I highly doubt the insurgents' war budget had one percent of that for each dead local and coalition trooper.
>>
>>767169
>>767296
>Definition of "offensive"
Any application of military force to maintain the strategic status quo is defensive, and to try to change it is offensive. Strategically speaking, the side that would be fine with keeping everything as it is is the defender. When an attacker invades and occupies a country, he'd be happy to keep it that way. The stay behind forces are not, hence they become the attacker by trying to change the overall situation.
On the tactical side, it should be obvious why stay behind forces are purely offensive. They will never defend a location. They will always try to evade enemy forces that are not far inferior. They will avoid anything that could allow the enemy to find and attack them. They will search for any weaknesses and exploit them. If a stay behind force (or any asymmetric force really) is ever on the defensive, they fucked up hard and are probably about to die.
>>
>>767296
>First, it relies heavily on concealment
Not every ambush is some action movie BS 200 guys hiding behind bushes.
Most ambushes are less about the whole force being concealed but part of the force being concealed. You expect there to be enemies anywhere past your view, you just don't know the amount or type.
A good example is placing hardpoints inside or behind a flexible defense.
The enemy is expecting a light defense, their push overwhelms that defense until they reach the hard points at which point they take heavy casualties.
>Third, that initial momentum is maintained to overwhelm the enemy and prevent both effective resistance and retreat.
Nigger most ambushes do not end with driving over the enemy and teabaging their corpses.
But by either retreating or by the remnants of the enemy force retreating.

>doesn't mean it's not meant to be a highly aggressive move.
Ambushes are not aggressive moves by default. Envelopments are and ambushes are not always envelopments.
>>
>>765194
>apolitical cultures
what could this possibly mean
>>
>>739639
Who gives a flying fuck what coffee, who drinks, how?
> coffee
Neck yourself. Drink water.
>>
>>767296
>>Description of ambush.
This is wildly optimistic. Most of the time the ambusher retreats after the ambush. Ambush is primarily a means for a weaker unit to inflict casualties on a stronger unit without being destroyed in the process.

>>Unless that defensive line is made of concealed positions
Why would anyone neglect concealment, except as a result of lack of training or time?

>>Even then, it's harder to prevent a breakthrough than to stage one.
I am pretty sure it is the other way around. Otherwise there would be no need to concentrate forces before breakthrough. In any case these real war type actions have been rare in the modern day.

>>They did have manpower and knowledge of the local culture.
Their governments were weak or non-existent. They lacked the power to penetrate into the host society and so they were unable to end the support for the insurgents.

>>Boots on the ground have become a glaring vulnerability instead of a projection of power.
They have always been both vulnerable and a projection of power.

>>While the western losses in the war on terror were low on deaths, the financial cost is beyond ridiculous.
This we can agree on.

>>767298
If we use this definition then there has never been a defensive action in the history of warfare. No combatant undertakes action he intends to have no impact on the strategic situation.
>>
>>765791
>>766541
>t. no clue about warfare beyond WW2
Ever heard about such things like airforce, smart munition, rockets, radars and satellite targetting?
No?
That would explain why you're postulating static defense in improvised positions or holling up in some sort of a bunker. Pro-tip: we are for quite some while in position where offensive capabilities GREATLY outweight defensive ones. The times where a concrete bunker could be a feasible defense are long gone.

>Why would the increase in firepower favor the attacker
Because they can put a suppressive fire on defenders, you daft cunt.
The rest of your post follows the same retarded logic of fucking infantry charges against machine gun nests using nothing but bolt-action rifles (if not outright muskets). That's gone. That's done. That's no longer viable ever since a random infantryman can carry enough munition to blow your defensive positions sky high, while also easily calling in precise artillery strike and/or air support at his fucking leisure.

And all that without mentioning the fact you write like a fag and are the textbook example of an armchair general.
>>
>>766541
>When you see a well trained, well equipped force sweep aside a poorly trained and equipped force you should draw from this the conclusion that the strong defeat the weak, not that offense is stronger than defense.
You are a double retard.
Let's use the most prominent example possible to counter your wanton idiocy:
The Rhodesian War.
You have memetically-high trained and well equipped force that's routinely beating the living shit out of everyone around them, and their enemies rarely being anything more than a militia with 2-week training.
By your logic, the Rhodesians should have easily win the conflict. Especially since they lost just a handful of skirmishes and won overwhelming majority of them (we are talking about 97-98% "win" ratio), so on paper, they were winning the war: minimal own loses, absurd enemy loses, tactical and strategic superiority throughout the whole war, not to mention quality of troops and hardware. The best defenders any country could ask for, right?
Now let me ask you this: where is the country known as Rhodesia now? And if not, then maybe this one: where is its army?
>>
>>766541
>>767690
Now let's compare it with another conflict "close by", fought under principles of Clausewitz. The 2nd Boer War.
Where the British side ended up being "defenders", doing the old-school occupation: an expensive, fortified Blockhaus in every single settlement and often just farm (or middle of nothing) to spread just insane number of troops over the region. The result? Fucking NOTHING, because turns out half a million troops can't subdue a country with a total population of 850k. The garrisons were routinely badly attacked and easily defeated.
It wasn't until the Brits started to put Boer into concentration camps and outright starving them to force the fighters to surrender, rather than denying them territory by the string of (ill-concieved) garrisions throughout the country.
And that was when majority of rules from Clausewitz times were still present: slow-rate small arms, favour of defending side and combat still operating more or less on mid-19th century tactics, because British Army was reeeeaallly fucking slow with adopting new shit, while Boers were essentially militia force... with professional, state-operated artillery. Somehow neither they could held their own country in the initial invasion, nor the British realistically take control of said country once they've "won".
Do I need to describe how Philiphines went for Yanks when they've got the bright idea to start occupying it with small garrisons? And how bunch of tribals with literal sticks were giving them hard time?
>>
>>767680
>>Ever heard about such things like airforce, smart munition, rockets, radars and satellite targetting?
I can't advance on foot while a bomb is dropping on me from an airplane.
My tank can't advance either, because a smart bomb just blew it up.
Defenders with portable anti-tank rockets don't make rolling over the enemy any easier.
The radar and the satellites makes it harder to surprise the defender.

All of these things increase the fighting power of those who can access them. They do not fundamentally favor the attacker or the defender.

>>Because they can put a suppressive fire on defenders, you daft cunt.
The fact that attackers are not suppressed when they come under fire is news to me. Is their élan so strong?

>>767690
You yourself point out this was a conflict where strong units defeated weak units 97-98% of the time. How is this in contradiction with strong units defeating weak units?

This obviously did not win them the war. Why would you expect to win a war just by winning individual fire fights? The position of the colonial rearguard in Zimbabwe was politically, economically and socially untenable, so they lost. Not a huge mystery there.
>>
>>767696
>They do not fundamentally favor the attacker or the defender.
But they make static defense impossible, you dumb cunt.
>The fact that attackers are not suppressed when they come under fire is news to me
Could be from the fact you are barely sapient enough to breathe in the first place, you moron. Or that you don't know how fucking modern infantry tactics look like since the tail end of WW1.

>>767696
>The entire second post
(You)

Unlike the other anon, I see no point engaging a blatantly baiting cunt with effort-posting, because that's just a wasted effort. And God forbid if you are genuinely this fucking stupid and inept as you make yourself.
>>
>>767296
do these numbers include the casualties in the initial invasion or just the occupation? also, who are the insurgents currently fighting the us in iraq?
looking at the scoreboard they seem to be doing better than the taliban but when you look at the real scoreboard, number of ngo workers killed, the taliban have been seven times more successful.
>>
>>767680
Then why do we see trench warfare in the War in Donbass, Syrian Civil War and Libyan Civil Wars if static defenses are dead?
Even when the defender has all the gadgets known to man the US and other coalition forces in Afghanistan used fortified strongpoints.
>you can just suppress the defenders my dude
And the defenders can't do that to the attackers because?
The reasons defenders always have an advantages is because they have prepared positions, know the full layout of the map and the enemy has to get to them first meaning unless they move at full width all the time they will need a jump off point that can be easily spotted and countered. None of this has changed since the days of Cain.
>>
>>767707
Calm the fuck down. Nobody is suggesting a WW1 bunker line could hold up against a modern army with all the toys in the world. I am just pointing out that attackers do not have a monopoly on advanced weaponry or modern tactics. Your emotional over reaction is just preventing you from comprehending what you read.
>>
>>767696
>2021
>This guy still didn't figure out how to take over MG nest
Fuck man, they literally teach this in elementry schools by now, whenever the 1st world war is being covered, since that development was crucial to break the stalemate. And no, it wasn't just tank support.
I mean this is /vst/, you should know how to overcome any given fixed defense position where you can't simply outrange it. CoH has that. MoW has that. RUSE has that. And pretty much every single tactical shooter has that. That without mentioning stuff like Foxhole, Hell Let Loose or Beyond the Wire.
... do you even play games? Because it's clear as hell whatever country you're from, it not only doesn't have conscription, but even civil defense education.
>>
>>767719
Care to share what discussion you think you are having? I don't think it is the same discussion we are having.
>>
>>767713
>And the defenders can't do that to the attackers because?
Nta, but the point is to out-manouver the static defense position. Part of attackers is suppressing the defenders, while part of attackers is advancing to next cover.
This is like infantry tactics 101 ever since repeating guns became a thing
Defenders can be far easier to suppress than attackers, simply because they have a (semi)stationary position.
>The reasons defenders always have an advantages
>always
Um... that's not how it works and I guess the absolutes in which you operate is the reason the other anon called you out.
>know the full layout of the map
assumption
>and the enemy has to get to them first
and they can't engage him either until the enemy position is revealed
>can be easily spotted and countered
another assumption
>None of this has changed since the days of Cain.
all of this have changed somewhere around the time breech-loading guns became cheap enough to equip massed infantry with them.

Why it's so hard to accept that 19th century defending manual is not going to work in 21st century? And the absolute terms you use only further cement it as something just incomprehensible to you that yes, defenders are fucked. Pretty much the moment LGM and platoon-level mortars became a thing (later to be supplemented/replaced with either RPGs or rockets), defenders are screwed, because they are simply out-manouvered and out-gunned. And to prevent that, they would have to have a fixed fortification, with reinforced concrete and similar. Something that an infantry squad isn't going to attempt to assault, but instead call in for artillery/air/armored element for support.
>>
File: 1488531152661.png (26 KB, 668x729)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
>>767719
>>2021
>>This guy still didn't figure out how to take over MG nest
>Fuck man, they literally teach this in elementry schools by now

>be me, entering second grade
>ahead of my class and know how to read and count, eager to show off my skills to the new teacher
>first day
>teacher forcefully bursts into room
>alright maggots, this question makes up 100% of your grade so brace yourselves
>how in the nigger loving fuck do you disable a machine gun nest that's tearing your friends into shreds
>he stares right at me as he's saying it
>i freeze up and pee my pants and get kicked out of school
>call of duty playing kid says "um... you throw a grenade in it"
>gets 100% on this class and all future classes
>gets sent to harvard
>becomes valedictorian
>becomes president of the united states
>meanwhile i'm flipping burgers in macdonalds
>mfw
>>
>>767723
This discussion keeps going in a circle:

>>When two equally strong units fight, the defender has the advantage.
>>But the attacker could overcome the defender by using [large list of offensive weapons] or by superior numbers!
>>If they have superior weaponry or numbers then they are no longer equally strong units.
>>
>>767720
It's the discussion in which you insist that it's impossible to suppress defenders, because they have some sort of magical advantage that renders them impossible to suppress.
Ever been under fire? Even a training one. Suppression is literally ALL what modern combat is about, because every single soldier is equipped with a gun that's perfectly capable of doing just that thanks to its rate of fire. You can take over a defense position guarded by entire platoon with just a single section, as long as the sergeant in charge of it wasn't just enlisted and actually finished his training. So we are talking about 8-10 blokes taking over position defended by 25-30 dudes. The only situation where that's not possible is when said section would have to charge through absolutely open land without zero cover. That's the only situation where the defenders have "advantage". And it still can be nulled with such magic things like night combat.
>>
>>767723
>Nta, but the point is to out-manouver the static defense position
How can you outmanuver the static defense when static defenses have the largest area of effect since they have been devised?
A hull down BMP3/M3 Bradley can destroy anything on the ground in a 5km radius while only showing 10% of it's self to return fire and 1% to enemy recon.
And it's gonna be backed up by the 8/4 ground pounders it carries that have laser range finders, optics on their guns, half a km MANPATs or equal range ATGM or MANPADs.
>Defenders can be far easier to suppress than attackers, simply because they have a (semi)stationary position.
No you moron it's not that defenders are easier to suppress. Is that defenders don't pick the time of battle. Meaning that you as an attacker can take your time and bring in one point more firepower than the defenders.
Yes you will have a rough idea where the enemy front line is. But just firing blind artillery won't suppress the defenders. WW1 and WW2 showed that doesn't work.
>Um... that's not how it works and I guess the absolutes in which yo
Yes that's how it works you fucking moron. It's always harder to act then react.
>assumption
So what nigger I am gonna take the time to dig in my men which can take anywhere from a few hours to days but I am not gonna send some tards out with binoculars to see what the fuck is out there and pre range the area?
Especially in current year where the lazy fucks can just pilot a drone or use some satellite imagery?
>and they can't engage him either until the enemy position is revealed
Do you think that current vehicles are magic and make no noise, kick up no dust, there won't be a spike in radio transmissions?
The better the sensors have gotten the further away the jump of point has gotten making it easier to react as a defender.
>defenders are screwed, because they are simply out-manouvered and out-gunned
What defenders don't have mortars?
Defenders don't have GPMGs?
>>
>>767727
Why is it that in this scenario the section is permitted to act, moving and firing on the enemy, but the platoon is only permitted to suck its thumb and cry? Do they not also have brains, legs and guns they could be using? You just assume without reason the attacker will have initiative and the defenders are incapable of fighting back.
>>
>>767723
I highly suggest your moron ass watches this video
https://youtu.be/ZvjkLvCW1V8
Yes it's from half a century ago but please tell me what current year would make different.
>>
>>767726
Only that it isn't. What's happening is the Defense Anon refusing to accept that the old-school defensive positions are no longer feasible, unless the attacking side can only muster foot infantry and nothing else (and even then they can still manage).
It's not about equal units. It's about the situation where the old ratio of 4:1 is still in force, but for defenders. You need four times as many people to discourage an assault (by having ability to defend against it), rather than four times as many people to even try attacking nowdays. How's that even equal forces?
>[large list of offensive weapons]
Since when basic equipment of an infantry section, like a machine gun, is "large list of offensive weapons"? By this logic, anything that isn't service rifle is "excessive", rather than basic.

Wars aren't fought by random squads of infantry since... dunno, at least 7 years war. And from about ACW, the sheer concept of just throwing masses of infantry against each other is not just outdated, but slowly phased out. Too slowly, as WW1 proved.
>>
>>767728
One, simple question:
When did this went from "storming an MG nest" to "storming Kandahar Airport Military Base"?
>>
>>767730
Funny, because you are the only person that implies that.
It's almost like you don't want to have any sort of discussion, but just shitlifting competition by completely ignoring (rather than missing) the point and projecting things that never been even suggested.

>>767734
>Go watch this video!
>It totally proves my point!
Yeah, that when we multiply DECADES of constructing hidden, reinforced defense positions with fucking ALPINE MOUNTAINS, then we can defend indefinitely. Fucking brilliant! This totally makes star forts viable again!
>>
>>767737
Unless you live in some poor fag nation that can't afford IFVs you will find that every infantry unit is carried in an IFV. And that the IFVs job is to support the infantry.
The IFV just like the infantry man will take defensive positions.
Also that the smallest effective combat unit the Company has at least a mortar platoon in it that it will use to defend it's self with.
>>
>>767738
Nigger we no longer live in the 19th century.
Defense positions are no longer multi year projects of brick and mortar but single day holes in the ground and at best a bunker the engineer corp makes in a couple of days.
>>
File: unnamed.gif (335 KB, 275x210)
335 KB
335 KB GIF
>First the coffee guy derails the thread entirely
>Now defense guy derails it even harder
Keep it going, boys
>>
>>767740
Oh, so first we are discussing hypothetical MG charging scenario, but the moment you are proven it's perfectly doable, the entire situation changes and now it's just completely different thing?
Grab 'em goalposts and run! Run, boy! Run!

>>767743
>Posts movie about Swiss army
>The one that's been building bunkers since 1910s and never stopped
>D-defenses are no longer brick and mortar
They never build brick and mortar, but way to defeat your own non-argument anyway
>>
>>767748
There is a mother fucking trench line being dug and attacked, backed up by ATGMs with wooden pillboxes and all the fucking works
Nigger did you even watch the video?
>>
>>767735
I am the Defense Anon, I am not advocating that star forts or the Hindenburg line or machine gun nests are invincible. Each of these can be overcome when attacked by a superior force. They can not be overcome by an attacking equal force. In war playing defense gives you an advantage over the attacker. When two equal forces clash you should put your money on the defender winning.

The idea that 1 attacker can take on 4 defenders with comparable equipment and training is ridiculous. If you give me four angry militia men with sticks they will club to death your one attacking angry militia man with a stick. If you give me four infantry companies I will easily hold out against your one attacking infantry company. If you give me four armored battalions I will easily fend off your one attacking armored battalion. If you give me four million men we will have little difficulty in holding back your one million attackers. The only way these outcomes change is if the attackers have significantly superior equipment, superior training or superior doctrine. In which case we once again return to these not being equal units.
>>
>>767748
Nigger nobody in the post chain talked about a MG position.
That was probably your smelly dumb fingollian ass. In a different post and are mad nobody replied to that stupid b8.
>>
>>767735
As for the [large list of offensive weapons], my complaint there is not that you assume the attacker has such weapons. What rustles my jimmies is that you then proceed to assume the defender has no comparable equipment or would draw no benefit from such equipment. The argument that a well equipped force can defeat a poorly equipped force is immediately obvious and nobody argues against that.
>>
I love how the little shit doesn't even bother to reply anymore so much has been thoroughly BTFOed.
>>
>>767726
>>767752
Attackers don't need superior weapons, the ability to pick the battle and get a few shots in before the defender can react is a big enough advantage when combined with the enormous power of modern weapons. I won't claim that the attacker can beat 4 times his number in defenders. Rather, a bold attacker will be able to get a favorable or at least even result against a stronger defender.
One milita man with an assault rifle could attack several and expect to take out at least one of them.
One company can attack several and fall back having suffered no more losses than they inflicted.
A few rocket artillery trucks could fire a salvo at a main operating base and cause more damage than they are worth.
The less the attacker cares about his survival, the more recklessly he can strike, and the bigger the blow he inflicts. Actual suicide attacks kill 10 people on average. That effect also scales poorly with larger numbers, meaning that dispersed forces are often more efficient.

The defender doesn't have to worry about his force being soundly defeated by an equal or weaker force. Rather, he'll have to worry about being worn down by constantly suffering a disfavorable number of losses in skirmishes. Capturing a defended position is still hard, but inflicting disproportionate losses on its defenders is not. The passage of time now benefits the attacker rather than defender, since that strategy is more effective the less intense it is, and the defender is hence pressed to counterattack on the strategic level. This is why I argue that offense has become more powerful than defense, which has become a necessary evil limited to the protection of vital interests rather than the generally more sustainable stance it once was.
>>
>>767853
> the ability to pick the battle
The attackers don't pick the battle, the fact that they have to attack a specific point which the defenders should be enough to even your pea sized brain.
For you to first attack the defenders you need to spot them. Which you will have a harder time as you will have to move to see them while they will stay concealed.
How is that such a hard concept for you to fucking grasp?
>One milita man with an assault rifle could attack several and expect to take out at least one of them.
Says who?
>Actual suicide attacks kill 10 people on average
People not soliders.
There are plenty of VBIED videos in which the thing goes pop without killing anyone or even killing friendlies.

>One company can attack several and fall back having suffered no more losses than they inflicted.
How you subhuman?
You keep saying they can never bothered to explain how. Do you get your info from fucking Call of Duty?
>>
>>739474
For historical stuff, Total War isn't actually that far off from various periods tactically, though that's not true for some of the games, it is true for others, Empire and Napoleon are not terrible representations of their period, and Rome is not horrible either in principle, though far more barbarian units should be fighting in a mob.

Still, the use of formations, field artillery, and terrain in them largely conform with traditional understandings of warfare, and knowledge of how historical battles were won, or reading treatises on battlefield strategies, could very well make you better at the games.

I think this is true of Empire espescially, which is why a lot of arcade total war players just didn't get it. Empire Battles are long and drawn out and actually give you the time to make more than a couple of manuevers.
>>
>>767853
>>One milita man with an assault rifle could attack several and expect to take out at least one of them.
Optimistic, but possible if the militia man can blend in with the local environment and open up on the soldiers unexpectedly. Such tactics typically produce more dead militiamen (and civilians) than soldiers, but this may be acceptable if the militia is willing to suffer more casualties than the real military is.

>>One company can attack several and fall back having suffered no more losses than they inflicted.
This sounds pretty fucking heroic.

>>A few rocket artillery trucks could fire a salvo at a main operating base and cause more damage than they are worth.
Possibly true, depending on what they hit. Letting your enemy fire rockets into your base without acting to prevent them is usually not considered a good move.

>>The less the attacker cares about his survival, the more recklessly he can strike, and the bigger the blow he inflicts.
True. But to unlock the suicide attack option you have to spec pretty deep into ideology, which comes with its own set of handicaps. These types of attacks are a means to convert one type of power (ideological power) to another type of power (military power), usually when the strategic situation is grim.

>>Rather, he'll have to worry about being worn down by constantly suffering a disfavorable number of losses in skirmishes.
You are attempting to turn the specific examples of Afghanistan and Iraq into a misguided general theory. in both cases the insurgents suffered disproportionately higher casualties than the western forces they fought against. They nonetheless won due to the asymmetry of the level of national interest (although the word national is a bit misplaced here) in play. For USA winning in Iraq and Afghanistan was a peripheral interest. For the insurgents it was a core interest.
>>
>>739474
Total War. I can't imagine not instinctively encircling or doing other basic tactics that the average person starting out wouldn't know
>>
>>767859
>So mad he types like a stroke victim
Kek

>The attackers don't pick the battle
Of course the attacker picks the battle, and the defender implicitly offers it. The latter can try to deceive the former about all kinds of parameters, but it is ultimately the attacker alone who decides whether he'll go in or not.
Keeping any obvious target a safe distance behind a tight yet permanently well-concealed frontline is illusory. Keeping the entire support and logistics network hidden or shielding them with concealed forces is also a big nope. You can't keep the bulk of your forces in well-concealed positions, neither against an insurgency, nor against a professional army with proper recon.

>People not soliders
It's fair to assume that one of those 10 is an enemy soldier, or at least could be if the attack deliberately targeted them instead of going for the softest targets. Also, you know what an average is, right?
>>
>>767859
>>767878
>This sounds pretty fucking heroic.
>You keep saying they can never bothered to explain how
Through initiative, higher battle readiness and striking the first blow.
>a defending company sits in a moderately entrenched position, several others are near enough to reinforce it within minutes
>has been sitting in that position for weeks, nothing ever happens
>they are bored and getting somewhat sloppy
>the guards are still alert, but the rest are playing cards, telling bawdy jokes, or generally waiting for time to go by
>recon of the attacker found that company, got an idea of the terrain, and knows that strong enemy reinforcements are nearby
>attacking company waits for good circumstances and stealthily moves into attack positions
>it's night and rains a bit. Visibility is poor and the guards curse their luck
>the attackers are pumped up and fully battle-ready, they pick their targets, line up the shots, and open fire at a signal
>many of the defender's guards are picked off in a few seconds, and machinegun and mortar fire is raining down on them
>the defenders duck into cover, trying to get ready for combat and to get a read on the situation
>immediate attempts to return fire while keeping their heads down are not very effective
>they radio that they suppressed by heavy fire from several roughly known positions, and call for assistance and fire support
>ETA on first artillery barrage is 4 minutes, mechanized forces from the neighboring companies will scramble to arrive in 7-10 minutes
>try to survive in the meantime
>the raid has been going on for 2 minutes by now, and it's losing momentum since the attackers don't want to press too hard and get tied up
>this means it's about time to go, they start falling back as planned while keeping suppressive fire on the defenders
>>
>>768052
>3 minutes later, they are completely disengaged and in full retreat
>the initial artillery barrage is too late and even then too inaccurate to be effective. Fire is shifted to the expected retreat route, but it's more symbolic than anything
>the lead IFV of the reinforcements strikes an AT mine the attackers placed prior to the raid, slowing the rest of them to a crawl and dashing any hopes of pursuit
>they also placed some mines in front of their positions and next to their retreat path to punish pursuers, but those are detected and only have a psychological effect
That's how an attacker grinds down a stronger defender. My guess for the outcome of that raid would be that the defending company suffered 15 to 30 casualties, half of them in the initial seconds, and their reinforcements lost an IFV and its crew. The attackers escaped almost unscathed and most likely had less than 5 casualties.
What are the core elements enabling such a success?
>the attackers pick their target and the time and circumstances of the attack
>the attackers can bring their full force to bear immediately, whereas only a fraction of the defenders are fully battle-ready at any given point
>the initial blow was 150 well-coordinated attackers against maybe 30 surprised defenders, which are obviously going to be completely overwhelmed
>heavy fire support inflicts some casualties, but most importantly extends that overwhelming effect from 20 seconds to several minutes
>the attacker swiftly retreats once his initial advantage begins to wane, and well before any effective response can be mounted

In short, the attacker can limit the engagement to the part that is most beneficial to him. He obviously can't do something like this every day, and the more intensely the war is being fought, the less ideal are the opportunities he'll have to content himself with.
>>
War Thunder, very detailed, specifically for using specific bullet rounds to penetrate specific parts of tanks, boats, planes and knowing where to hit.
>>
i love how there are almost no actual game recommendations and instead it devolved into a cirlcejerk
>>
>>768052
>The defenders don't have Thermal Optics or NVGs, Perimeter Mines, 0 fucking discipline
>The attackers are either magical or only infantry forces so if there is even an APC they need to get lucky with their AT weapons.

Real realistic scenario you got there hombre.
And I assume that they will repeat this trick over and over with it and the defending side will never implement things like false frontlines, some discipline, forward recon and so on.

>>768056
>A presumably infantry company is so well timed that they can 'suprise' attack, disengage cleanly plant fucking mines (you do know it takes you like a minute to dig a mine in unless you just leave it there and hope the enemy vehicle commander is fucking blind) and retreat in 3 fucking minutes.
>>
>>768051
>Of course the attacker picks the battle
The only thing the attacker can do is deny the attack. Which if he does than the defense has already won.
How do you struggle with such basic concepts yet still go on like you know anything about the subject?
>You can't keep the bulk of your forces in well-concealed positions, neither against an insurgency, nor against a professional army with proper recon.
The Soviets did that just fine at Kursk.
>>
>>768064
OP never wanted to talk about games to begin with.
>>
>>739479
Tried to read it, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_War/Book_I
I read a lot of primary sources from The Prince to Art of War to Secret Histories, but On War is particularly boring. I'd rather read Saint Helena journal where he details his plans and idealogy, and how insane he was.
>>
>>768277
>ignorant fuckwit confuses Napoleon with Clausewitz
Stay retarded shithead.
>>
>>739501
>CMANO
Meme game that gets cheesed by stupid nonsense that would never work in real life. Another one out of thousands.
>>
>>739474
In single player? No.
Games are too simplistic and the AI too retarded to represent the intricacies of military strategy other than the most basic maxims. Concentration of force, Advantageous consideration of terrain. And where games represent logistics, then simply taking into account supply.
But that shit isnt exactly rocket science when a player knows attacking across a river or into mountains is going to give him a "-x%" modifier. One run through teaches a player that if you want to attack an enemy force of equal quality then you need at least twice as many guys to win, preferably more.
I would argue that knowledge of military strategy actually makes you worse at games because you might take into consideration factors that are either poorly represented or even totally absent from the game. Or that the AI is incapable of taking into account anything other than the most basic strategy and even then not very well.
> 50 AD. Its totally implausible to build an army made up entirely of British charioteers and take over the whole of the ancient world, including Rome, supplying and maintaining communications across Europe, North Africa and the near middle East before the age of radio and modern roads.
No it isn't. It works quite fine.
>1500AD. I cant leave the Spanish border unguarded while I wage war on England because they might invade.
Actually, yes you can, because the AI is so retarded that you can wipe out the English and be back in time in southern France to repel any unlikely Spanish attack.
>1940 AD. I cant Sealion the UK because of the Royal Navy.
Yes you can, the AI's RN never intervenes effectively. Just build transports and dump a couple of corps in Dover. Doesn't matter if you even lose the few guys in transit because beating the UK = I win!
>>
File: 1619778287135.png (510 KB, 747x480)
510 KB
510 KB PNG
>>768540
>I would argue that knowledge of military strategy actually makes you worse at games
I feel with you.

Also
>1520AD. My Aztec Empire can certainly resist the Spanish invasion. They don't have any local allies, and it's not like they can transport and supply a significant force across the Atlantic.
Actually yes, they can. In fact, they're bringing their whole army.
>>
>>768052
>>768056
There are a lot of ways a raid like that could go wrong. Sneaking in under the cover of rain, getting out in three minutes, knocking out pursuing enemy vehicles with mines and avoiding enemy fire are all elements that could go drastically wrong. If the defenders carried out their own recon and detected the raiders they might have annihilated them. Getting to wait for four weeks to pick your time of battle is also a luxury frequently not available to commanders. In any case there is a lot the defender could have done during those four weeks to strengthen his position and foil the raid.

The key weakness here is that a raid like this relies on the enemy being complacent, passive and without discipline. You might pull it off once. Repeating it requires your enemy to be truly retarded. After a raid like this, having bought this costly lesson in blood, the defender will know he must recon the enemy, he can not let his guard down and he can not remain passive.

Even if you succeed in a one off super-hero raid like you described, what difference does it make in the scenario? The defender is still there. He still holds the objective. The balance of forces still favors him severely. The only way this could bring you victory is if the politicians backing the defender sold the operation he is on to their public back home as "low risk" and now recall him from the battlefield.

A scenario like this is quite artificial though, since any real opponent with such a large advantage in the balance of forces would have begun offensive action during those four weeks.
>>
>>768504
I didn't that was a typo. I initially wrote Napoleon's Saint Helena Journal.
>>
>>768598
>t. Paracuck
>>
I'm a soldier and all I do is run 6km in the morning, sitting in front of the PC until lunch and then go home.
>>
>>739474
So you know military strategy? Name every military strategy.
>>
>>770800
Hammer
Anvil
>>
File: file.png (192 KB, 800x542)
192 KB
192 KB PNG
> Play Cossacks: Back To War
> construct a wall and some guard towers around the enemy town to not let them out
> meme around the concept of siege walls for a while
> turns out it was a legitimate strategy employed by Caesar to crush the Gauls
>>
>>772622
Pretty much every siege involved barriers of some kind to pen in the defenders.
>>
>>763508
>Chinese
They are notorious for losing every single war they get involved in.
>>
>>772630
just wait 'till that guy finds out about the 17th century
>>
>>739474
Sid Meier's Gettysburg for sure.
>>
>>739639
Based, fake coffee drinkers and shallow strategists triggered.
>>
>>772647
China has won every civil war against itself
>>
>>773216
*lost

you can't name one chinese civil war that they won
>>
china can only grow when it is at peace, and can only decline when at war.

this is not universal, it is not true for many other nations. but it is for china.
>>
>>773218
>>773216
Isn't that just because Chinese civil wars tend to result in dynasty changes?
>>
>>739474
All games
There's virtually no case where the reverse is true
>>
>>772622
IRL even small, simple fortifications were massive force multipliers, since they reduce the effects of enemy fire while increasing the capacity of the defender own.
>>
File: Chinese history.png (9 KB, 859x96)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>>772647
Apply thyself
>>
>>763483
>My favourite though is fire spreads downwind so check the wind when setting enemy camp on fire. Truly it takes a legendary strategic genius.
You would be surprised.
And not just with ancient warfare. Ignoring trivial shit like this is the very top in "reasons why things go FUBAR". Every day, in every army, during every conflict.
So the give-away from the book isn't some big brain stuff, but "Remember about the bare basics, or it will fuck you up harder than enemy"
>>
>>773710
>chinks beat up some pacifist monks
I guess you can count that if it makes you happy.
>>
>>774794
i hope you don't mean the tibetans because those cunts were anything but peaceful. shutting them down was the most moral thing the commies ever did.
>>
>>774974
How much social credit comes nowdays from shitting on Tibet?
Asking, because this was one of the first loopholes people found to milk the system and they had to nerf the results, or you could balance having a prison sentence with just repeating like a mantra "fuck Tibet"
>>
Didn't expect the kind of discussion had in this thread to happen in a board of games. Was a good read.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.