Sun Tzu said...

I was reading The Art of War today (I know, everyone here has read it a billion times already) and ran into this passage, in the "Maneuvering the Army" section:

"On level plains deploy on easy terrain with the right flank positions with high ground to the rear, fatal terrain to the fore, and tenable terrain to the rear."

I'm wondering if anyone else has run into this and tried it in many different situations? i.e. have a hill on the back of your right flank, pitted or wet land in front of you, and flatland behind...? Is there even this possibility on any of the STW/MTW maps? It's been years since I played STW, but I don't remember such a possibility in MTW.

no wetlands etc. that would slow down enemy forces.

a slope might though.

I have had fights with back to the river etc. for kicks but not really hills to the back as I'm usually on the crest.

Fighting from a mountain over a hill is completely insane when you're defending. The enemy charges at a crawl while your missle units pepper them with arrows/bolts and there is no friendly fire casualties from shooting your spear wall in the back. Ballistas and catapaults become insanely effective due to the slope. Usually I defend where I can get replacements quickly, but If I can defend from a mountain I go there because I love having a slow moving opponent waste all their stamina climbing the mountain and then getting some nice speed when I send in the cav after they start to waver. It also seems to dampen the bonuses some of their units get for charge.

your units can also charge starting from less distance and maintain the charge for longer as well as elevation bonuses.

combat bonus in melee for height advantage means that peasants can even hold off RKs for quite a while.

missiles get crazy range bonuses. archers can outrange longbows

bouncing catapult shots are unreal and even units like naptha and jav can give huge range boost if you target nearby unit and it shoots overhead to hit units all the way at the foot of the mountain!

one lucky shot from a naptha once went all the way down a mountain and blew up half a dozen RKs including the opposition general!

I always occupy the high ground when on the defensive. If there is a hill or mountain, I am on top waiting for my enemy. Kind of like Medieval King-of -the -Hill. I ALWAYS win... ~D

Yes, high ground wins (almost) every time... so why would Sun Tzu, the king of military theorists, advocate having high ground behind your right flank? Curious, yes? Guess that will be my experiment for today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamur

Yes, high ground wins (almost) every time... so why would Sun Tzu, the king of military theorists, advocate having high ground behind your right flank? Curious, yes? Guess that will be my experiment for today

---

Well, for one, MTW is a video game and Sun Tzu was refering to real world combat.

In MTW the physics allow for some craptacular advantages that don't happen in the real world. Things like a burning pot of napalm will burn out after the fuel is spent, but in MTW a burning pot of napalm keeps burning as long as the pot is in motion. You can apparently convert momentum into greek fire.

I'm sure there is another tangible tactial advantage to what sun tzu has said, but I don't see it other than having a mountain on a flank does keep that flank secure.

it could be used to anchor the flank so that it's harder to turn your flank.

also, having the flank in front of the height could lead to your men not being able to escape quickly if beaten, making them fight harder to win and not route just like sometimes the commander may intentionally have his army back against the river to create a must win situation but that's not in the game either.

Well sun tzu had understanding of physcology and if you put a man on a hill he may not willingly come down but if you put him in front they will be more willing to go forward for a charge. And when all is failing you can withdraw them to the high ground.

An example from MTW I can give is look at how hard it is to bring cavalry around on the rear when you have to run them up a hill first and the charge. Usually by the time they swing around the battle is already won in the front thus allowing them to turn and fight there new threat.

1 big problem I see though is it could keep them blind to a major ambush where an army would hold off engagement and the sign for the mainline to charge would be seeing this unit pop on top of the hill and cause them to be charged from both sides. And the only way to counter this would be to have good scouts and getting a report from them early enough and charge before they can complete there maneuver(attack while there forces are split and have less flexibilty) this way you defeat there army and any smart general would stop his maneuver and go back home. Of course scouts can be killed and it would be easy to forget that they have not reported back yet.

Hi to all,

I'm struck by the near-contradiction of "on level plains" and the reference to "high ground", though it's fair to assume that there aren't that many places in the world (or China at least) which are uniformally flat for miles in any direction. Perhaps the suggestion is that, where the land is flat for miles in every direction, you should begin by finding a location with a small amount of raised terrain available.

Why position the right flank there, in particular? I can't tell. Was there some preference for attacking forces to attack preferentially using their left flank (your right)? All I can figure is that he's making a point about not placing it in your centre. Too obvious perhaps?

I agree with the point about placing the hill in a position to discourage any potential rout of your forces being in the direct rearward direction. The path of least resistance towards the 'tenable ground', if in full retreat, would be to come around the contour of the slope, into the centre and thus providing it some support, if under pressure.

No elaboration about the 'fatal ground to the fore'. What's so fatal about it, I have to ask?

It's also unclear about whether this deployment is in preparation for attack or defence.

I'm going to assume defence for the time being since the clear intention is to deploy in such a way that the enemy will be obliged to attack on ground of your choice. Deploy, if only partially, on the only high ground available and the enemy may decide not to engage and, as has been pointed out, your own troops up there may decide to stay put when you need them to move down and join in. With everybody on flat ground, the enemy may be lulled into thinking it's going to be a fair fight.

well, China is extremely mountainous in most regions.

the difficulty of communication over broken terrain was likely what caused the development of so many different dialects.

EYG, I agree that the psychology maybe big.

the fatal terrain part is to refer to preferably broken ground or places like marshes to impede progress of enemy troops where upon they woudl be subject to barrages from missiles and be fatigued when they do start meleeing.

at his time, there was already conscript soldiery so many troops may be very green and break almost before getting into melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ROCKHAMMER

I always occupy the high ground when on the defensive. If there is a hill or mountain, I am on top waiting for my enemy. Kind of like Medieval King-of -the -Hill. I ALWAYS win... ~D

---

"It's... not... a magic hill!!!!!!"

Ok guys, I'm just thinking out loud here...

What do we know about Chinese warfare? I'm not an expert, but I understand that:

a: Like most Eastern forces, the emphasis was on manoever and archery. There was a reluctance to rely on heavy infantry engaged in hand to hand combat.

b: Deception and false representations of strength are a big deal.

c: In the ideal campaign you achieve victory by outsmarting your oppenent, and it never comes down to a battle.

Carry these thoughts through...

We have a battle. Well, considering point c. it is safe to assume that something already went wrong. Likewise, it's likely that your men and the enemies men were never expecting a pitched battle, and are going to be rather skittish, so it becomes a battle of morale.

Look at the setup from the attackers point of view:

The enemy flank is stationed in front of a rise in elevation, which means that any fight there is going to become progressively more difficult as you begin to push up that rise. Your men grow tired, and then have to fight uphill, whereas as the enemy tires, he retreats uphill, and then has a height advantage, offsetting his tiredness.

The broken ground in front is a non sequitor, because presumably it covers the whole line, so it does not impact the attackers decision of where to press home his main attack. It does mean that he will want to close to hand to hand combat though, as light missile troops trying to advance to range in broken terrain are vulnerable to enemy archers rushing forward, firing a few volleys and then retreating before the unit can form to return fire.

So... we have terrain that will force the attacker to close to hand to hand combat, which he probably was hoping to avoid and which is going to make his men less than happy to begin with.

He won't want to advance against that hill, because the terrain prevents a quick resolution or a successful rapid exploitation should the enemy flank fold.

However, if he engages elsewhere, where the terrain ensures that his victory would be decisive by allowing an easy pursuit/exploitation, he leaves the enemy flank free to envelop his own line, unless he spares troops to find a holding action against it.

He knows his men are nervous, he knows he will take heavy losses crossing the broken terrain from enemy missile fire that his own archers will not be able to return, he also realizes that he must attack all three sections of the enemy line even though only two sections (the left flank and center) provide an opportunity for decisive victory should they break.

Typically an engagement along a line would be weighted either at a flank, both flanks or in the center... but the fact that the broken terrain in front renders archers, and probably cavalry too, come to think about, negligable, the attacker has only his infantry to do the job with. And the enemy, knowing that you aren't going to really attack the hill, is able to leave it thinnly guarded, and reposition those men along the rest of the line. So, you are forced to concentrate on the two strongest sections of the enemy line, with only one part of your army, taking heavy losses while you advance toward that line. You'd be marching to a slaughter.

If I was the attacking general, I'd withdraw, and wait for more favourable conditions, which would be in line with the aims of the Chinese method of warfare. The defending army would essentially be free to slip away in the night and prolong the campaign secure in the knowledge that advancing against them under these conditions would incur too many casualties to be worthwhile, maybe even too many to be possible.

Of course, I'm no expert, just thinking. Feel free to point out all the flaws that are surely there :tomato:

An idea, because he said Right flank could be the shield.
Usually men fights with the right hand, while the left carryes the shield.
Troops located on the right flank then are more vulnerable to flanking charge, and missile fire.
If the unit is located as last one on that flank, it's always in danger of such actions, and probably the main opponent target.
To be able to defend itself, the army has only to rotate(bending the first line), placing the right flank a bit uphill and blocking the enemy movement occupying the higher ground.

I don't know if they are that heavy on maneuvering though.

archery was definitely a big part of combat.

also, massed conscripts often created huge spear and halb formations that were difficult for cavalry to break.

they were very progressive with using smoke and fire to attack the enemy and also hide one's own deployment though.

reading the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the exploits of some master tacticians can also be very educational.

Looks like I missed some great comments on the weekend. Nice analysis! I had only thought of this from a defencive point-of-view, and it just wasn't making sense.

I ended up making a MTW map as described --- no marsh, really bumpy ground leading to flatland with a hill on the right flank of the defender --- and deployed as described. The AI did its usual "let's flank him with the entire army" maneuver to my left. So my right flank infantry were left completely unthreatened, and I ended up moving them out into the broken area and around the AI's left flank.

This full-scale attack on my left flank didn't make sense when I played the battle, but taking into account this discussion of psychology/morale, it makes perfect sense. Foolish AI though, seems he completely forgot about my infantry with their backs against the hill.