Strategy

[hundurinn]

I want to know what books I should read so when the time comes I can crush the Romans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif I'm reading now "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu and but I need some book with more details. Tell me all you masters of strategy, what books are good. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif

[The Wizard]

You might try Xenophon's Anabasis...

Don't know any other good contemporary military books, and for RTW, Anabasis is a bit outdated...



~Wiz

[Barkhorn1x]

Studying SUN TZU is fine – if you want to pass a history exam. The old boy is much too theoretical for practical application.

Contrary to what others may tell you – there are no hard and fast rules to warfare (except perhaps Voltaire’s observation that “god is on the side of the heaviest battalions”). The reason is that so much hinges on the composition of your forces, the enemies forces, the terrain, the weather, etc., etc. – ad nauseum.

There is one principle however that one can employ often – as it takes advantage of the psychology of your enemy even when it is not actually aimed at his vitals. And, with the advent of the new Strategic map in R:TW, we will finally get the chance to make use of it.

I am referring to what I call Strategic Offense/Tactical Defense. Caesar employed this principle often. It was later put forth by Confederate General James Longstreet, during the Gettysburg campaign (the ACW), as a way to force the Union Army of the Potomac to attack the Confederates on a line of their own choosing by interposing themselves between the Union army and Washington.

To put it simply;
1. March in to enemy territory
2. Find terrain that threatens your enemy’s capital, supply line, access to raw materials, whatever.
3. Make sure this terrain is favorable to the defense
4. Allow your enemy to waste his forces against your stout defenses
5. Go over to the offensive when the situation is ripe for exploitation

This principle should work well against Barbarian adversaries – they just won’t be able to resist taking a swing at you for invading their turf. It should work well against the Hellenistic systems as well – if you threaten their cities. I can see the Parthians as being a bit of a problem tho’.

There is nothing more satisfying in wargaming than creating conditions that make the fighting of the actual battle an almost forgone conclusion.

Barkhorn.

[SwordsMaster]

Quote[/b] ]“god is on the side of the heaviest battalions

I like that observation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Barkhorn1x @ May 25 2004,18:47)]I can see the Parthians as being a bit of a problem tho’.
Well, the Parthians had their winter capital at Ctesiphon on the Euphrates. This city was gigantic - 30 km² compared to Imperial Rome's 13,7. That is, of course, if you add the city on the opposing bank, Seleucia, which was usually under Parthian control. This city eventually became the only Parthian capital after approx. 40 BCE.

One of the main reasons for the fall of the empire were the sackings of Ctesiphon by the Romans under most notably Trajanus, Lucius Verus and Septimius Severus. Especially the last, one of the 'soldier-emperors', so weakened the empire (the Romans took away so much gold that they were able to stave off an economical crisis in their Empire for three or four decades) that the Parthian state could no longer function correctly, and in 224 CE Ardašir revolted, and we all know the results of that.

It is true that, due to its loose feudal structure, the Parthian state can take sackings of its capital, but for the Romans it is not adviseable to walk into Parthian territory and choose a nice defendable position. It would only get them surrounded.

Ahhh... the wonders of the new stragetical system (first time in the TW series that strategy is possible, unlike the previous installments which were Risk) combined with the new diplomatical system...

Think of it: you threaten the capital of your enemy, defeating some of their armies on their way, and they offer you an advantageous treaty for you to bugger off. Maybe even some annual tribute



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Sjakihata]

You say Sun Tsu cannot be applied, I say he can.

He says something similar to (long time since i read the art of war): "first achieve victory, second do battle" he means you should never fight unless you are certain of victory. he has several offers of how you determine whether you'll win or not. use the terrain, weather, have a good leader, better troops etc etc, if you have all this then you can fight the battle.

[Knight_Yellow]

I threw myself into the deep end in MTW with only a hollywood grasp of ancient tactics...

Ie..

two armies rush eachother and die horribly....


Its best to learn yourself like i did, thats the sign of a true leader, some1 who can learn from their mistakes and not repeat them in the future.

[hundurinn]

There are so few tactics that work in MTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif With the superior number you would walk over the enemy with no trouble http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif In RTW on the other hand tactics are going to win the battles.

[Colovion]

One strategy that I find being a better and better thing to do is to raid into a province that has few soldiers with just a raiding party of a few units. There will probably be a Province bordering it that will send reinforcements. If you do it right oyu can split up the enemy's armies and then invade with a main force. I have found that the tactical defense situation where you invade a province and hold it but harrass the armies of the enemy and weaken them with harrassing bouts where you kill a few hundred of their units and then run out of the Province. I've almost whiped the whole of the Egyptian faction using this hit and run tactic as they had the obvious numerical superiority until they lost a major portion of their forces because of my horse archers. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[hundurinn]

I think i'll have to destroy some other factions in the game for practise before I destroy the Romans. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (hundurinn @ May 25 2004,14:49)]There are so few tactics that work in MTW
That is not true. There are several that work. For defense: Ambush, top-hill defense with some reserves hidden, horse archer skirmishing, etc... For attack: Assimetrical engagement, break of coesion with lure and flank attack, skirmishers bombardment to lure the best units out, sacrificial unit to precipitate discoordenated attack, local superiority, etc...

As for Sun Tsu's philosophy, contrary to what some have said, and in agreement with most respected Sjakihata-san, because of it's general principles, it can be applied with very good results:

"All warfare is based on deception."

"Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."

"Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder and crush him."

"If he is secured at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strenght, evade him."

"If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate him."

"Attack him where he is unprepared, appear were you are not expected."

See the numerous possibilities? Ambush, local superiority, sacrificial unit, etc...

And these are only a few of them...

[hoom]

When you say Local Superiority, do you mean like an elite unit mashing peasants? Or something else?

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 25 2004,16:51)]
As for Sun Tsu's philosophy...

See the numerous possibilities? Ambush, local superiority, sacrificial unit, etc...

And these are only a few of them...
Yea, so numerous as to be meaningless in their vagueness. Whe you read Sun Tzu you want to scream, How?, Why?, When?http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

He is like a modern day psychic - he has all the answers because his advice will always seem to fit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Anyway - I did like the way your Shogun advisor would sagely quote the master while telling you squat about what you should be doing. I wonder what "Victoria" will come up with?

Barkhorn.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (arrrse @ May 25 2004,17:29)]When you say Local Superiority, do you mean like an elite unit mashing peasants? Or something else?
No. Numerical local superiority. Even a superior unit can be broken by carefull use of crappy units.

You can use this when trying deception or controlled engagement:

In both situations, two things must be achieved:

Deception:

1-Lure single units you want to eliminate, to a particular perillous situation (by the use of fast skirmishers, for example), where they can be weakened and then surrounded and destroyed by chosen units.
2-Keep the rest of the enemy distracted, by the use of units that fake engagement with the enemy (light horse or horse archers, for example).


Controlled engagement:

-Concentrated attack, with several units, on several sides, on one of the enemy's flanks. This will cause progressive routs.
-Keep the central and remaining enemy flank trying to engage your remaining troops, by the use of skirmishing units and progressive retreats. While the attacked enemy side crumbles, the remaining army is unable to engage your fast skirmishers. After the former side is defeated, the local numerical superiority becames field numerical superiority.


Of course that such tactics have to take in to consideration various factors, such as your army, the enemy army and terrain conditions. They also need good execution to work, and they have to be adopted or rejected, according to each situation.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Barkhorn1x @ May 25 2004,17:48)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 25 2004,16:51)]
As for Sun Tsu's philosophy...

See the numerous possibilities? Ambush, local superiority, sacrificial unit, etc...

And these are only a few of them...
Yea, so numerous as to be meaningless in their vagueness. Whe you read Sun Tzu you want to scream, How?, Why?, When?http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
No. He cannot give examples, for the reader not to feel bounded by specific terrain conditions or army deployment.

If he did, the practicionner, on a real battle, would be looking for spots to apply the described tactic, even if the terrain and engagement conditions were completelly different, thus requiring a different tactic. Cristalization of thoughts...



Quote[/b] ]He is like a modern day psychic - he has all the answers because his advice will always seem to fit. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
No, he isn't. He is not vague, just not specific. He has to allow the reader to think for himself, not to trust a certain predetermined book of pre-sketched battles. If he did so, a new type of battle would lead to disaster. The reader must adapt to the new situation. Therefore, he must not have mental barriers nor engage in tactical dogmas.

[hoom]

Right, local superiority ~= concentration of force :) (which done correctly = defeat in detail)

Regarding learning strategy, the Total War series is a pretty damn good way to learn strategy.
A person who learns purely from playing Total War will generally learn a fair bit of conventional strategy.

Ambushes, flanking, concentration of force, skirmishing, hold the high ground, hold the line, discretion against superior forces, don't just do frontal attacks, assymetrical warfare, use of terrain for defence/hiding units/avoiding slaughter/trapping enemy, ballanced army building, combined arms tactics?, all or nothing charge, defeat in detail, spying, judgement of strength, when to attack/when to defend/when to retreat, cavalry charge, spear wall, when to divide forces/when to concentrate, splitting the enemy, forcing the enemy off good ground, forcing/luring the enemy to attack... the list goes on.

Sun Tzu is kinda handy but kinda common sense.
Same goes for most forms of strategy guide.

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (arrrse @ May 25 2004,18:53)]Sun Tzu is kinda handy but kinda common sense.
Same goes for most forms of strategy guide.
Alright - I'll buy that.

Barkhorn. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[CBR]

Hmm books on strategy.. Strategy by B.H Liddell Hart perhaps.


CBR

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (arrrse @ May 25 2004,18:53)]Right, local superiority ~= concentration of force :) (which done correctly = defeat in detail)

Regarding learning strategy, the Total War series is a pretty damn good way to learn strategy.
A person who learns purely from playing Total War will generally learn a fair bit of conventional strategy.

Ambushes, flanking, concentration of force, skirmishing, hold the high ground, hold the line, discretion against superior forces, don't just do frontal attacks, assymetrical warfare, use of terrain for defence/hiding units/avoiding slaughter/trapping enemy, ballanced army building, combined arms tactics?, all or nothing charge, defeat in detail, spying, judgement of strength, when to attack/when to defend/when to retreat, cavalry charge, spear wall, when to divide forces/when to concentrate, splitting the enemy, forcing the enemy off good ground, forcing/luring the enemy to attack... the list goes on.
Yeap. Stategy and Tactics. But more Tactics than Strategy...



Quote[/b] ]Sun Tzu is kinda handy but kinda common sense.
Same goes for most forms of strategy guide.
Correct. But the reading of his book is most pleasent. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Somebody Else]

Has anyone come across some kind of theory proposed by a chap called Lanchester - which states that the power of an force is proportional to the number of units within that force squared?

Apparently Nelson (though Lanchester came later) used this against the larger French/Spanish fleet at Trafalgar, splitting it into two battles, one of which he would have won, the other lost - but the combined remnants at the end would have triumphed over the remnants of the Franco-Spanish fleet (assuming that the French/Spanish were equals of the British in fighting their ships)

We had a talk on this in the maths society at my old school (I know it sounds a bit off, but I didn't volunteer to join, plus there was free wine)

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Somebody Else @ May 25 2004,22:34)]Has anyone come across some kind of theory proposed by a chap called Lanchester - which states that the power of an force is proportional to the number of units within that force squared?
I seem to remember an Open University programme on maths discussing some beureaucrat who did some analysis and came to this conclusion. It was interesting because it was the first time someone had put this perception on a sound scientific basis. OTOH, I suspect that calculation only really works in an age of gunpowder.


My reccomendation for strategy would be Maichavelli's Discourses. While mostly an analysis of politics, the Discourses does contain a sizable portion on military strategy of the day at the geopolitical scale. This is not precisely war-fighting tactics, but does help deciding when to fight and why.

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (arrrse @ May 25 2004,18:53)]Sun Tzu is kinda handy but kinda common sense.
Same goes for most forms of strategy guide.
Common sense... Yes. But when we have seen TC we have seen plenty that have not taken this 'common' sense up. They have not used it. So how common can it be? Common to us yes, but apparently not so common to more... well, common people. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif


Quote[/b] ]Apparently Nelson (though Lanchester came later) used this against the larger French/Spanish fleet at Trafalgar, splitting it into two battles, one of which he would have won, the other lost - but the combined remnants at the end would have triumphed over the remnants of the Franco-Spanish fleet (assuming that the French/Spanish were equals of the British in fighting their ships)

If the French and Spanish had been as good gunners and sailors as the British, then Nelson would quite possibly not have been able to use this tactic. Remember that the British were said to fire up to 3-4 tiems as fast and much much more accurately than the French, I don't know about the Spanish but it was most likely pretty similar.

The first of his ships would have gotten blown out of the water, creating an obstacle for the rest ruining the formation and thus the tactic. The battle would resolve into a sluggingmatch but with the British ships not gaining any benefit from a formation. Outnumbered, outgunned and outshipped (French ships were better) it would have been a disaster.

[The_Emperor]

Sun Tzu explains many things that can be useful in Total War, and not Just on the battlefield.

I think he also mentions that to defeat your enemy without having to engage them in battle is the pinnacle of excellence... He also said something along the lines that Spies are the most valuable people to have in your employ and that no other job should be as highly rewarded.

As we have heard about the extensive options of diplomacy assassination, spying and sabotage, I think Sun Tzu could be very applicable.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 26 2004,08:00)]Sun Tzu explains many things that can be useful in Total War, and not Just on the battlefield.

I think he also mentions that to defeat your enemy without having to engage them in battle is the pinnacle of excellence... He also said something along the lines that Spies are the most valuable people to have in your employ and that no other job should be as highly rewarded.

As we have heard about the extensive options of diplomacy assassination, spying and sabotage, I think Sun Tzu could be very applicable.
Agreed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 26 2004,08:00)]Sun Tzu explains many things that can be useful in Total War, and not Just on the battlefield.
Yea, useful stuff - for the noob.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Barkhorn.

[hundurinn]

Then I guess i'll finish reading The Art of War. But have any of you read the books "Alexander the Great - The Art of Strategy"? I heard it was good. Any useful stuff in it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[The Wizard]

If you want a lot of information on Alexander's history, battles, personality, and last but certainly not least, his army, read Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox. Old, but still largely correct.



~Wiz

[Colovion]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 26 2004,04:00)]I think he also mentions that to defeat your enemy without having to engage them in battle is the pinnacle of excellence...
Yes - something about positioning your troops in such a way that the enemy General realizes that he is beaten through tactics alone and retreats off the battlefield. I've done that a couple times in M;TW so far. Such a good feeling. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Herodotus]

"The art of fighting without fighting" - Bruce Lee.

[Jango Fett]

lol excellent enter the dragon quote . bruce lee owns http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Agravain of Orkney]

"Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, Eugene and Frederic. ... This is the only way to become a great general and master the secrets of the art of war. ..."
~Napoleon Bonaparte

To Napoleon's quote I will add: practice, practice, practice. Play Shogun or MTW/VI multi-player. Although on a small scale, you will see many of these techniques employed on the virtual battlefield.

Some of my favorite reads:

Most people are familiar with this one.
Sun Tzu's The Art of War (http://www.chinavista.com/experience/warart/warframe.html)

The most influential military text in the western world from Roman times to the 19th century was "De Re Militari" by: Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Charlemagne, Richard "Coeur de Lion", Montecuculli all had personal copies. The real meat for our purposes in Total War is in Book III.

DE RE MILITARI (http://www.bellum.nu/wp/fvr/fvrdrm.html)

The Strategemata by SEXTUS JULIUS FRONTINUS is another detailed account of the roman army organization, strategy and tactics.

The Strategemata (http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Frontinus/Strategemata/home.html)

One more....The Military Maxims of Napoleon, Compiled by General Burnod

The Military Maxims of Napoleon (http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/napoleon/)

Additional sources here:

http://www.bellum.nu/wp/warphi.html

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militarytheory/index.htm

[hoom]

Quote[/b] ]Common sense... Yes. But when we have seen TC we have seen plenty that have not taken this 'common' sense up."The most common thing about common sense is that it's not all that common" -Einstein (though I'm fairly sure it predates him & probably by millenia, Confucious?)


Quote[/b] ]to defeat your enemy without having to engage them in battle is the pinnacle of excellence...
Indeed.
Its one of my favourite things about the Total War series that you can turn up with a small but tough army that has a reputation as a scary bunch of badass mofos & a much larger army will come to battle expecting an easy fight due to their larger numbers, but on sight of your elite troops, they decide that they'd rather not get slaughtered & instead drift away, handing you the territory without a drop of blood spilt.

There is no other game which does it anywhere near as well.
Heck, the AI will even often feint a counter attack or make a holding action to protect/divert attention from the bulk of the forces as they retreat.

Truly magnificent http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

Though it gets a bit silly when a several thousand strong army withdraws from 10 kensai without the kensai even needing to take a step forward...

[SwordsMaster]

hmmm..... Do you realize that classic "leaders" (Odissey, Xenophon) applied to a good extent the tactics Sun Tzu suggests, but Julius Caesar employed the absolute opposite ones with good results as well.

A coin has 2 sides as always.

[hundurinn]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm starting to read the The Strategemata and DE RE MILITARI.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 28 2004,04:37)]hmmm..... Do you realize that classic "leaders" (Odissey, Xenophon) applied to a good extent the tactics Sun Tzu suggests, but Julius Caesar employed the absolute opposite ones with good results as well.

A coin has 2 sides as always.
I'm not sure if I agree. He had the best troops, the best logistics and the inniciative. Those are principles applied by Sun Tzu.

[SwordsMaster]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 28 2004,16:09)]
Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 28 2004,04:37)]hmmm..... Do you realize that classic "leaders" (Odissey, Xenophon) applied to a good extent the tactics Sun Tzu suggests, but Julius Caesar employed the absolute opposite ones with good results as well.

A coin has 2 sides as always.
I'm not sure if I agree. He had the best troops, the best logistics and the inniciative. Those are principles applied by Sun Tzu.
One of the first principles in Sun Tzu´s book is to "only go to war if all the diplomatic sollutions have failed".

Caesar invented conflicts. He had absolutely nothing to do in Galia, he even wrote a book trying to justify that war.
The same in the civil war against Pompey. I dont really think that Pompeys soldiers were worse than Caesar´s, but again he pulled a conflict because HE wanted to be a dictator.(Sun Tzu states that a war is a service to a nation, but Caesar put himself first).

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 28 2004,13:59)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ May 28 2004,16:09)]
Quote[/b] (SwordsMaster @ May 28 2004,04:37)]hmmm..... Do you realize that classic "leaders" (Odissey, Xenophon) applied to a good extent the tactics Sun Tzu suggests, but Julius Caesar employed the absolute opposite ones with good results as well.

A coin has 2 sides as always.
I'm not sure if I agree. He had the best troops, the best logistics and the inniciative. Those are principles applied by Sun Tzu.
One of the first principles in Sun Tzu´s book is to "only go to war if all the diplomatic sollutions have failed".

Caesar invented conflicts. He had absolutely nothing to do in Galia, he even wrote a book trying to justify that war.
The same in the civil war against Pompey. I dont really think that Pompeys soldiers were worse than Caesar´s, but again he pulled a conflict because HE wanted to be a dictator.(Sun Tzu states that a war is a service to a nation, but Caesar put himself first).
In that regard, you're right.