Military Strategies

[General_Sun]

Going by what you just said, you could simply march at an enemy with a group of well supplied, well trained men with high morale and expect to win. This is nonsense. Grand strategy, such as the movement of armies, conducting a battlefront properly, and the logistics of supplies and properly trained men are only half the battle.
You must have a grasp of general field combat tactics or you are doomed to be crushed by a superior general who will use troops of inferior quality in a vastly superior manner. Generalship isn't like a game, it's not a case of screaming at men to go here and there and kill this or that. It's about choosing the right men for the right jobs, making sure your people know what is expected of them and devising a plan they can all follow.

Good example? Hannibal. With inferior numbers and in general, lower quality men, crushed the Romans utterly many times on their own lands. He was a superior tactical general. He was actually rather crap at grand strategy, he just kept on winning the battles he ended up in, even if he was laughably unable to actually conduct the campaigns grand strategy with any success.

Guys, first of all I want to make clear that I do not think that any of you are stupid or whatnot, and I have no intent to flame. I merely wish to spark an intellectual debate...

With that said...

You seem to be my stiffest resistance so I'll reply directly to you...

You said: Going by what you just said, you could simply march at an enemy with a group of well supplied, well trained men with high morale and expect to win. This is nonsense.

I say: You're wrong. Name 1 instance where it did not occur.

You say: Hannibal at Cannae

I say: That breaks the premises of the disscussion, ie, knowing military doctrine, which includes flanking.

You said: You must have a grasp of general field combat tactics or you are doomed to be crushed by a superior general who will use troops of inferior quality in a vastly superior manner.

I say: That's excatly what I said dude... You must know military doctrine

You said: Generalship isn't like a game, it's not a case of screaming at men to go here and there and kill this or that. It's about choosing the right men for the right jobs, making sure your people know what is expected of them and devising a plan they can all follow.

I say: That breaks the premises of the disscussion, disciplned troops will not be screaming and killing. They will do things according to plan in a orderly faction following standard military doctrine... And btw, you cast generals in an even lower light. You make them sound like nannys....
Also, choosing the right men for the right job is part of logitics, not battlefield tatics...

You said: Good example? Hannibal. With inferior numbers and in general, lower quality men, crushed the Romans utterly many times on their own lands. He was a superior tactical general. He was actually rather crap at grand strategy, he just kept on winning the battles he ended up in, even if he was laughably unable to actually conduct the campaigns grand strategy with any success.

I say: Do you think that if the Romans had a book on military doctrine they would've still lost? Imagine if the Romans had spread out instead of bunched up. The tital wave would've totally knocked Hannibal aside and obliverated him. Again, you're not fulling the basis of the disscussion, MILITARY DOCTRINE!

And of course no plans survives contact with the enemy. Making generals and plans even more useless... You just have to follow military doctrine and hope for the best...

AKA, there's no such thing as a grand uber tatic...
And we're all dimbos who just follows known military doctrine...

PS: and I've played online. There's nobody I met that proved to be a challenge to me yet... And appearantly I'm still the only one who thinks that we're just a mediocre tatician...