Blitzing: In Game vs. Historical Terms

I've decided to formulate this discussion in a way that in can NOT be deemed off topic - as before it was, there were half a dozen members engaging in the discussion yesterday. Out of respect to them, as well as the subject, we're going to go ahead and bring it back up again - and it's not off topic.

Yesterday, Kadagar argued that in warfare the attacker ALWAYS has the advantage and strategically, a defensive approach to a war or battle is NEVER called for.

I argued against this vehemently. I cited several wars/battles.

1) Vietnam War.

2) Battle of Hastings.

3) Battle of Agincourt.

4) Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

5) Battle of Stalingrad

6) American Revolutionary War

Those are just six. As the conversation continues, I'll list more as necessary. I'm trying to include entire wars as well as individual battles as I feel this gives the most well rounded view of this and allows the most in depth analysis possible.

For those of you who were discussing the topic, please - rejoin the discussion.

Let's first debate whether in real war, the attacker always has the advantage. After this, let's draw a comparison to our findings and how (if at all) this translates into the in game experience. If we find that the defender has often had a stark advantage in real history, do we find that the defender will often have the advantage in Total War? If the attacker has the advantage more times than not in real life, is this also the case in Total War?

Let's just start it there. The purpose of the thread is to a) discuss Kadagar's claim that there is NEVER a sound military strategy that calls for a defensive approach- ONLY an attack is a sound approach to a war or battle. Agree or disagree, including discussion of real life examples of wars/battles. b) To see how this relates to the in game topic of blitzing vs. turtling. Perhaps we'll uncover some new tactics to use in game as a turtler who approaches major wars with a defensive strategy - culminating in a large scale counter attack such as the one the Soviets pulled off after Stalingrad to push the Nazi's back into Berlin.

There are a number of ways to expand upon this discussion and I have a LOT to say on the topic as it has always been of great interest to me. For now, I'll allow the community to determine what direction this goes from here.

I hesitate to suggest this, but shouldn't this be in the Monastery? It certainly sounds like an interesting topic and I'd be interested to hear what people have to say on the matter (providing all sides can refrain from flaming each other long enough to actually discuss it) but the aim does seem to be to discuss primarily real world warfare, rather than M2TW itself.

Requesting move to Monastery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

I hesitate to suggest this, but shouldn't this be in the Monastery? It certainly sounds like an interesting topic and I'd be interested to hear what people have to say on the matter (providing all sides can refrain from flaming each other long enough to actually discuss it) but the aim does seem to be to discuss primarily real world warfare, rather than M2TW itself.

---

This thread is to establish good examples and points for both real life and in game warfare and then see what if any comparisons can be drawn between the two venues.

PBI, we both agree that it should be interesting to hear what people have to say on the matter, provided they don't go off topic and flame, so ...why look to move the thread? I'd genuinely like to see as many opinions as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AoW

PBI, we both agree that it should be interesting to hear what people have to say on the matter, provided they don't go off topic and flame, so ...why look to move the thread? I'd genuinely like to see as many opinions as possible.

---

I don't think we are disagreeing with that, its the fact that this topic of conversation is more suited to another area of The Guild. This is a sub-forum that is about M2TW the game, historical discussion is in the Monastery.

^ What he said.

Additionally, a move to the Monastery would probably aid the discussion since many members who are well read on military history tend to contribute to that forum, many of whom do not frequent the Citadel. Not to mention that since the topic has proven contentious here before, the input of other members who have no stake in the recent disputes may well help to cool the debate and prevent it getting out of hand again.

After some staff discussion we decided to move it to the Monastery. Please keep it clean ~:)

Well I think a distiction needs to be made between battle and war here.
You will struggle to win a war fought totally definsively (I am sure some have though) however a battle fought definsively can and will often favour the defender.

For example (in a M2TW type of way).

You will NEVER win a campaign in M2TW defensively. This is sole due to the game mechanics that require to to "take" x amounts of provinces and destroy such and such faction.

Whilst you may get lucky with another faction destroying the one you needed to eliminate you still can not get to the 50 factions without marching troops over the border and taking the province. Once you move into another factions provice you are technically fighting an "offensive war" - not nessicarily blitzing but definatly offensive.

If the garrison was to sally and on the battle map you moved all your troops back onto the top of a hill for advantage and let the salling troops attack you will have fought a defensive battle, but the fact that you attacked the town hints at an offensive war.

Make sence?

This is purely due to the game mechanics. You are unable to fight a guerilla war (like Afganistan) nor leave a scorched earth (like Russia v Napoelon or Nazi's) as the game can not handle those tactics with the engine it has. Thus two of the most sucessful definsive tactics are unavailable. You can still get a huge defensive advantage in bridge battles but these can be hard to arrange.

The all out attack that has sometimes been called a blitz here is due to a full knowledge of the game engine and knowing what it can and can't do. This includes things like knowing that you can fund the entire operation by sacking settlements and how long until you can next call a jihad/crusade. Neither of these facts would be known to a genral in real life. By playing to limit you are giving the enemy (the AI) a very good chance to beat you. No good general would ever let that happen to their armies (well probably not for long) so the blitzes that occur in this game are not realistic and are a function of the game engine.

This is not to say that blitzers are the only one to exploit knowledge of the game engine. Most players will build up armed forces around the holy land for no apparent reason until all of a sudden the mongols arrive (just as the did at the same time last game). Thus what caught you unaware first time does not the second.

In RL you seldom get a second chance.

So, in my humble opinion (in M2TW) you will often have an advantage fighting a defensive battle but not a defensive war.

Thoughts?

A defensive stand by itself is suitable depending on the situation and whether you can exploit it to your advantage.

Wellington in Portugal is a prime example of a defensive stand followed by excellent exploitation. Wellington's troops couldn't have faced Massena and defeated them in open battle, so Wellington sensibly withdrew into the Torres Vedras lines to have the French either fall back to get supplies (and lose the land they conquered) or stay put and die. When fresh British troops arrived, they drove back Massena and the French troops.

Defensive battles work if you have a plan that exploits the attackers, making them commit or fall back and lose face.

In M2TW, I fight defensive battles, but in the engine, with a human's superior abilities, can draw, feint, etc. and play the game so effectively as attacker, it doesn't pay to be defender. While England or Spain can build ships, forts, and then horde cash for a rainy day, it doesn't pay to do so in the game.

An attack always needs the same advantages to be succesfull,

A. Surprise
B. Numbers
C. Leadership
D. Will

The defender's job is to negate these advantages to overcome.

A. An answer to surprise is a planned defense.
B. Numbers can be counted with superior technology (ie Machine Guns), support (ie Flank attacks, artillery) or simply more numbers to slug it out (ie WW1)
C. This is a hard one to counter, it depends on how the defensive leadership handles the situation (ie El Alamein)
D. To counter attacking will, you need to strike morale, this is normally done by beating off attacks, and striking them where it hurts (ie Guerrila Warfare)

Quote:

---

1) Vietnam War.

2) Battle of Hastings.

3) Battle of Agincourt.

4) Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

5) Battle of Stalingrad

6) American Revolutionary War

---

1. Vietnam showed that if you can take away the 4 advantages, even lower tech soldiers can defeat a powerful nation. North Vietnam knew by invading the South they would be facing the US as well, so surprise was negated. They could not match US troops face to face, and often mass charges were used to break lines, which required superior numbers. The leadership was very central, many of the Veitcong leaders were on the ground with their troops. Finally, we see that through zealous support of an ideology and the will to die for it, they ultimately broke America's will to continue. A great example of an offensive defense.

2. Hastings showed the attackers in fact could win. Through the efforts of leadership, numbers, and the destruction of Saxon leadership, the Normans broke the Saxon army.

3. Agincourt was a prime example of the consequences of poor leadership. It also shows the effectiveness of a well organized and prepared defense.

4. See Vietnam.

5. See Vietnam, though I would like to add that this is an example of defense to delay until the supporting offense, which encircled the 6th Army.

6. See Vietnam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare

in warfare the attacker ALWAYS has the advantage and strategically, a defensive approach to a war or battle is NEVER called for.

---

Well, that depends. (Oh - the always correct answer :beam:)

For example, in WWI defensive measures succeded over the attacking capabilities of the day. In WWII the introduction of aviatics and armor proved that you needed to attack to succeed.

/KotR

Another advantage of defensive warfare is that you can choose the terrain where you face the enemy, for example on top of a hill or in a narrow mountain pass. Though it is possible to do this in M2TW it's very difficult to ensure a terrain advantage.

Defensive war will have 2 advantages:

1) Shorter supply lines
2) Knowledge of terrain/culture/religion.

Sadly, above 2 are not included in M2TW as a feature.

It could also be pointed out that the most successful wars of the Medieval (and, to an extent, ancient) period were 'blitzes' of a sort.
The Mongols being probably the most successful example of a 'blitz' ever. Sure it was a blitz that lasted about two hundred years, but to be fair, it isn't like Hitler had to do it all on horseback, without roads, airplanes, preserved food and repeating firearms.
Considering they managed to (rather briefly, true) control the largest empire in the history of the world, one can hardly fault them for taking a while to get it all done.

Of course, the point of 'overextension' comes in as well. Empires established by blitz tend to be unstable. Ask the Mongols. Or Alexander. That's why I tend to adopt a 'tortise and the hare' approach in MTW. Blitz like hell the first few turns, carve myself out a nice chunk of land, then build myself an infrastructure. Gives me a nice place to push from for my next blitz.

Anyway, it could also be pointed out that the majority of the wars you listed, while defensive, were fought in an offensive manner by the defenders. The Vietnamese, Americans and Afghans didn't sit in forts or cities, waiting to be besieged, they went out and kicked American/British/Russian ass until the other side got so pissed off that they threw up their hands and said, "Screw this, the media is raping us/India is nicer in the winter/there's no vodka here."
And, in the case of the Hundred Years War, the French didn't start winning UNTIL they started fighting offensively. And had help from God, if you believe Joan of Arc, although they managed to win the war even after they sold her out.

El Diablo, yes, the distinction between the scales of warfare is important. Do we talk about battles or campaigns? In single battles a defensive approach can of course be favourable. But you are also of course right when you say offensive campaigns are the winning strategy.

Swedishfish, was the war in Vietnam really "won" by Vietnam? They managed to avoid defeat, yes, but I don't see a vietnameese flag hanging from the white house... Get my point? :book:

Also, in reference to the game I must say the modern exampels are worthless, as very much has changed. In medieval times, the MAIN factor why offensive warfare was to prefer was that the armies then lived of the enemys land, not your own... having a standing army at home was extremly costly, having them on enemies terriatory was in comparison cheaper. And of course, if you fought a defensive war, not only did you have your own army on your lands, but also the enemies...

So yeah, that list is for me bleh... only medieval examples are battles, and you can pretty much prove ANY military theory if a single battle is all you need to verify it.

To draw it to an extreme... I once saw a guy hit another guy. The guy who was hit got his elbow up by reflex, splitting the knuckles of the attacker...

CONCLUSION: The way to win a fight is to let the other guy beat on you till he hurts himself. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Swedishfish, was the war in Vietnam really "won" by Vietnam? They managed to avoid defeat, yes, but I don't see a vietnameese flag hanging from the white house... Get my point?

---

North Vietnam was pushing for unification through war, with America standing in the way. Not only did they manage to create one Vietnam under Communist rule, they also managed to make the US withdraw, a victory in itself. You don't really think, had the Tet Offensive never occur, or had the US manage to push and take Hanoi, that the public opinion would stay anti-war do you? Through an offensive defense, the N. Vietnamese managed to break America's will to fight. They won.

I don't remember who said it, but I once read the theory that a) most wars are lost by making the wrong choices rather than won by making the right ones b) the side taking the initiative has more options and therefore more risk of picking the wrong one so c) unless first strike guarentees an overwhelming advantage (e.g. nuclear attack) defensive strategy is better.

Feel free to pick this reasoning apart.

Quote:

---

I don't remember who said it, but I once read the theory that a) most wars are lost by making the wrong choices rather than won by making the right ones b) the side taking the initiative has more options and therefore more risk of picking the wrong one so c) unless first strike guarentees an overwhelming advantage (e.g. nuclear attack) defensive strategy is better.

Feel free to pick this reasoning apart.

---

Gladly.

For your reasoning to work, there must be more bad choices than good ones...

Also, why should the offensive side have more options?

First strike is ALL ABOUT overwhelming advantage btw...

Guerilla warfare as used today and in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Russia etc. will (in my opinion) not ever result in a real gain of land, but can "win" a war, by making the enemy never fully have control and ultimately leave.

In some cases, such as Vietnam, the argument can be made the Vietnamese were offensive, but I prefer to look at their style of fight as a more defensive role.

Those countries using "Blitz" tactics are more likely to be prepared for such a tactic, or at least moreso then the defensive counterparts. Proper blitz attacks call for attacks EVERYWHERE, including political, economical, military etc. Even with this though, a defensive position is almost always able to take less military casualties, so it's risky business.

Overall I'd say it's a pretty even match. If you want a war won and you're the attacker, I wouldn't really recomend anything but a blitz attack. That being said, I think it's safe to say you're not guaranteed any sort of victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

North Vietnam was pushing for unification through war, with America standing in the way. Not only did they manage to create one Vietnam under Communist rule, they also managed to make the US withdraw, a victory in itself. You don't really think, had the Tet Offensive never occur, or had the US manage to push and take Hanoi, that the public opinion would stay anti-war do you? Through an offensive defense, the N. Vietnamese managed to break America's will to fight. They won.

---

Exactly.

Winning a war is not defined in one linear way - occupying the enemy capital.

Victory conditions vary by conflict...as well as by battle. See: Pyrrhic Victory.

Correct on Vietnam- Militarily, the United States was not nor could be defeated. If you took politics and public opinion out of the equation, the NVA would have been destroyed within 90-120 days. It was on it's last legs. Further, outside of the Tet Offensive, you really cannot find a single engagement (large or small scale) where American forces were defeated. They won over 98 percent of the engagements.

The communist forces won that fight by achieving everything the United States intervened to prevent in the first place. Let's also remember that the United States was not the first military power to invade them either: The French met a similar fate prior.

If you come in my home with the intention of stealing my jewelry and money - and I wake up and get into a physical confrontation with you, resulting in myself being seriously wounded and yourself being totally unharmed - yet you run out of the house and I keep my jewelry: I won that fight. I achieved my objective (protect what is mine) and you did not achieve yours (get my jewelry and money). It doesn't matter who won the physical encounter. That was not the objective.

Objectives and goals determine the winner and loser. The attacker establishes the initial objectives and the defender's objectives will typically be orchestrated around this. Denying the attacker their goals is the definition of winning. The North Vietnamese won. To begin an in depth explanation about public opinion in the United States being the reason for withdrawal and not military losses, would simply be explaining WHY we lost. We still lost.

By the way: Good post Swedish.

p.s.- To draw a direct comparison between Kadagar's statement "well they weren't occupying Washington": The Russians don't currently occupy Tblisi nor have they. You're telling me that means the Georgians won that conflict last month? No...just...no. The Russians wanted to technically annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia. For all intents and purposes, this was accomplished. Russia achieved a military victory in a small scale conflict.

Another thought:

Research the "Hearts and Minds" campaign. Converting a populace to supporting your side of the table is a challenge the attacker almost always has to contend with. Often, it's impossible. Even more often, it's absolutely necessary to achieving military and political victory.

This is something only the attacker has to worry about. Unless the defender is an occupier themselves, they're the ones that have the hearts and minds of the populace - the attacker needs to steal this away from them.

It's another additional, challenging objective that the attacker has to contend with: Not the defender.

The Battle of Okehazama: The Imagawa army initiated its march to the capital and set its sights on the land of Owari, Oda Nobunaga's homeland. When news of this reached Nobunaga, he prepared an army at dawn and launched a surprise attack during a rainstorm towards their main camp, overwhelming the vast imagawa army that greatly outnumbered them.
Had Nobunaga decided to listen to some of his retainers and remain in the castle to defend it, it would've been impossible to face Yoshimoto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare[/quote

Research the "Hearts and Minds" campaign. Converting a populace to supporting your side of the table is a challenge the attacker almost always has to contend with. Often, it's impossible. Even more often, it's absolutely necessary to achieving military and political victory.

---

This reminds me of the siege of Alamut, where the Hashashin converted the castle's population to Ismailism without having to risk casualties, the governor realized that he practically lost the castle, so he was peacefully offered to escape.

“They won over 98 percent of the engagements”: Nope they didn’t. They claimed they did… But was the Vietcong defeated? No.
The Vietcong/NVA was not engage in a win battles/win the war operation.
They choose when to attack and when to withdraw. The US and Allies got the illusion of having the upper hands because the enemies left the battle field. Wow… Then 2 weeks later (if not the day after), the same area was again in National/Communist hands.
And yes the French got the same problem.
At the end, to break the will to fight is the purpose of war… If the French would have engaged all the power at disposal (as Mendes France frightened the Vietminh negotiators) the Vietminh would have lost the war. If the US would have been able to deploy all their power, same possibilities. But in order to achieve what?:inquisitive:

“They managed to avoid defeat, yes, but I don't see a Vietnamese flag hanging from the white house... Get my point?” When your enemy’s flag hang on your allies’ governmental buildings (the same you trained and equipped during years), yes I call it a defeat. When you are obliged to withdraw in panic your embassy, yes I call it a defeat. When you are obliged to throw in the sea helicopters and other very expensive material, yes I call it a defeat.:beam:
Or will deny the Russian defeat in Afghanistan as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare

Yesterday, Kadagar argued that in warfare the attacker ALWAYS has the advantage and strategically, a defensive approach to a war or battle is NEVER called for.

I argued against this vehemently. I cited several wars/battles.

1) Vietnam War.

2) Battle of Hastings.

3) Battle of Agincourt.

4) Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

5) Battle of Stalingrad

6) American Revolutionary War

---

OK, I think it is not a good idea to lump wars and battles together. In a battle obviously there are some advantages belonging to the defender. In war???

Russia/USSR: Barbarossa was a clear offensive... Russian defeated it.
Offensive is good at the start but you have to keep the momemtum.
Same WW1. German attacked, get tired, French-English regrouped, their logistic lines become shorter in the same time the German's became over stretched, counter offensive by the French on the Germans flank, then trenches...

Yom Kippur war. Egyption did attack, first succeeded, them obliged to attack (because Syrain Failure in the Golan), were open to a counter attack and lost...

Quote:

---

Or will deny the Russian defeat in Afghanistan as well?

---

Didn't the Russians attacked then left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

Didn't the Russians attacked then left?

---

Afghanistan is known as the Soviet Vietnam for a reason.....

I think we should modify this theory.
Attacker has advantage only if defender do not expect attack into place choosen to attack by attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrooK

I think we should modify this theory.
Attacker has advantage only if defender do not expect attack into place choosen to attack by attack.

---

Already explained, attacks work better when they gain the advantage of surprise.

"Already explained, attacks work better when they gain the advantage of surprise." Attacks work almost ONLY if advantage of surprise:
Ardenne 1940 (for the Germans).
If not: Waterloo for Napoleon.
And if for what ever reason, the attacker lost the momemtum, attackers failled (battle of the Bulges for thr Germans) then are opened to counter offensive (1st battle of the Marne -Germans-, Moskow 1941 -Germans-).
Another aspect is when things go out of control, like the Egyptians in the Sinai. Plan was perfect however for political reasons Sadate was obliged to send his tanks out of the AA missile umbrella so played in Israelis hands...

Attacks don't only work with surprise, but it does help. You already listed failed offensives that utilized surprise. For example, World War 1 is an example of succesfull offensives without surprise. Sure, they were crude, basically throwing men into a meat grinder, but offensives have worked without surprise.