Stratadies of War?

[Ratzki]

I am going to try to get a discussion going here, as I feel that all is just too quiet. I picked up a book; cheap, on using military strategies in your personal and business life. Sounded pretty bloody boring but as I browsed through it I found myself able to apply some of the concepts to our own beloved Combat Mission. So as I read through this book, I will try to make the leap in applying the strategies of the book to CM. Maybe have a little laugh and banter as a bonus. I will give positive examples of players here that I have faced as they use the strategies. My intent is not to make fun of anyone, nor to hurt anyone's feelings, if I do so please accept my apologies. So not to waste any more space, I present strategy number one:

Do not Fight the Last War

“Theory cannot equip the mind with formulas for solving problems, nor can it mark the narrow path on which the sole solution is supposed to lie by planting a hedge of principles on either side. But it can give the mind insight into the great mass of phenomena and of their relationships, then leave it free to rise into the higher realms of action. There the mind can use it's innate talents to capacity, combining them all so as to seize on what is right and true as though this were a single idea formed by their concentrated pressure – as though it were a response to the immediate challenge rather then a product of thought.” - Carl von Clausewitz 1780-1831
The concept of this strategy is to not get caught using the same forces, with the same tactics and strategies over and over again, no matter how successful they once were. We often become “book smart” but “application weak”. Our mind tends to want to lean towards what we know, it does not want to wander off this path, and in this way we become predictable, varying our game-play little. We always advance through the best cover towards the flags, we only engage targets when we are totally ready to do so, and the list can go on. Now I am not talking about selecting a balanced force in a Quick Battle, or using over-watch during movement. It is not about abandoning concentration of fire or hitting the enemy in the flank. What it is about is our strategy and tactics the we employ in order to win the battle. All of the above are tools to help accomplish victory, but they are not the overall plan. The problem is that if we remain predictable our enemy can plan for our predictability, as they know what we will do before we do it. What often saves us is that they are of the same mindset, using familiar strategies and tactics that they have used over and over again. More often the not the battle is won or lost less on our tactical prowess and more on our forces abilities to hit hard and shrug off potentially deadly damage.

Having been around the Combat Mission block several times, I tried to come up with a player that best exemplifies the do not fight the last war strategy. A player that always seems able to surprise me, and keep me guessing from the start of the battle to the last turn. Someone that comes to mind is our own Der K.. His strength is being able to 'do more with less' better then maybe anyone else that I have played against. He is not predictable with his armor, he uses “hit and run” along side “run and gun”, fakes and parries, counter attacks and stands fast. The point being that you are never quite sure what is going on inside his mind and where you need to be in order to win the game. Often I have found myself reacting over and over again to his moves, which negates my ability to carry out my own plans. This is what is is meant by not fighting the last war. Make each battle different in your tactical approach. Shouldn't this happen all the time?... Isn't every map different, and every player a unique individual? Why would we then choose to fight using tactics that worked the time before, just because they worked the last time we used them. Each battle is a whole new game, often against a different opponent. What sense does it make to have one play in the playbook and use it over and over again against everyone that you face?

I think that we all try to avoid a game that turns into a face to face slug-fest that allows the outcome to be determined by the thickness of a tank's armor or how many SMG squads one has. We all have the ability to become not just good players, but great players, we just need to identify what is missing from our game play and correct it. Look at the practice that we get, compared to some of the great generals in history, Napoleon or Patton or Alexander. I bet that they did not get the chance to fight 10, 20, 50+ battles a year. Yet, I find myself going back over and over again to routines that make winning possible, why would I not want to make my chances of winning probable.
Here is a quote from Friedrich vVon Bernhardi, 1849-1930 “He (Baron Antoine-Henri de Jomini) often quite arbitrarily presses the deeds of Napoleon into a system which he foists on Napoleon, and, in doing so, completely fails to see what, above all, really constitutes the greatness of this captain – namely, the reckless boldness, where, scoffing at all theory, he always tried to do what suited each occasion best.” Der K. too, seems to view the battle as rather flexible, and is able to bend and modify his tactics as needed. I can never say “If I do this then I will win”, or that “I know exactly what he is going to do next”. Usually, I find myself fretting from turn one right through to the end of the game. This is not to say that I feel that I have no chance, I have won some as well as lost some to Der K., but I know that I have to always be at the very top of my game in order to stand any sort of chance for victory. When we meet over a game, it is always bloody, my determination to take a flag at any cost coupled with his “over my dead body” attitude, make for some of the best games I have played.
How many times have you talked to yourself after the battle has been lost and said “if only I had done this instead of that, if only I could play that turn over again.... then I would have won victory”.Just one manoeuvre, one tactic, which one would have changed it all? The problem is that we think that knowledge is what we lack. Could this be the wrong approach?...Maybe what makes us go wrong is that we listen to our own thoughts, react to things that happened in the past, we apply tactics that we learned long ago but have little to do with our present situation. The greatest generals, the most creative CM players stand out not because they have more knowledge but because they are able, when necessary, to put away preconceived notions and focus entirely on the present moment. With this they are able to spark their creativity and seize opportunities. Knowledge, experience, and theory have their place, but they are also limited and cannot prepare for every possibility in the game's battles. The great philosopher Carl von Clausewitz called this “friction”: the difference between our plans and what actually happens. The goal is to eliminate this “friction” and bring the results closer to the plan.
Now how are we going to do this?... lets see what some of the best in history have done and see if it has a place in CM. We are going to wage a Guerrilla War of our mind.
First, let all of us re-examine all our beliefs and principles about CM. ”My policy is to have no policy.”-Abraham Lincoln. Napoleon stated that he followed no principles of war. From a more familiar setting, in North Africa the British forces were well trained in tank warfare, they were indoctrinated with theories about it. Later in the campaign, the American troops joined the fight. They were much less educated in these tactics but soon adapted to this new kind of war. Erwin Rommel was to comment “the Americans... profited far more then the British from their experience in Africa, thus confirming the axiom that education is easier then re-education.” To think that strategy has a set of rules will make you rigid and static, there are hundreds of thousands of WW2 Russian soldiers that can tell you how well rigid and static tactics work. They work about as well in Combat Mission. I know that I am going to try harder to think outside the box and act on each turn as it presents itself.
Second, erase the memory of the last battle. If you won the battle, you will tend to repeat the tactics and strategies that you used, success always makes us lazy and complacent. If you lost, you will face indecisiveness, and nervousness. Both can equally be your undoing in the next game. Professional athletes are always talking about taking things one game at a time, for us it should be one turn at a time. Every turn is a new opportunity, a new situation, nothing in the past is relevant. North Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap had a simple rule: after a successful battle, he would convince himself that all had actually been a failure. As a result he would never get drunk in his success, and he would never repeat the same strategy in the next battle. He forced himself to think through each situation anew.

Third, keep the mind moving. Aristotle thought that life was defined by movement. What does not move is dead. CM combat highlights this in bold colour. We should be very fluid in our plans and tactics, great players seem to be highly sensitive to dangers and opportunities. Great strategists do not act according to preconceived ideas, they respond to the moment.

Fourth, reverse course. Google the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a very interesting fellow. In order to regain his creative energy he would gamble away all his money, this would overwhelm him, comfort and routine would be gone, stale patterns would be broken. He was then forced to take a step back and rethink everything anew from a new perspective. This is maybe a little extreme for CM, but lets look at what he is doing as it can apply to the game. Apply no tactic rigidly, and do not settle into mentally static positions. Always be prepared to stop, and attack situations from new angles. Don't get caught doing nothing. Sometimes you have to mentally start the whole battle new after several turns, forget about the troubles you are having and call a personal mulligan, then just say “This is a new game from this point, and I am going to win it from here on.”

So now I will close and review what some great leaders have taught us:
Do not fight the last war, change things up, be cautious one time, aggressive the next. In Quick Battles choose armor heavy forces this time, infantry heavy the next game. Have your forces come through the trees in good cover in one section of the map and across open ground somewhere else.
Do not be rigid in your tactics, always be prepared to change things up on short notice.
Forget your last game. Win each battle one turn at a time, using tactics that fit the unique situations that arise from one turn to the next.
Keep moving, react in the moment to new challenges and opportunities.
Lastly, if things are not working out for your forces do not be afraid to change things up and try something new. If machine gun fire wont dislodge the enemy, maybe a light howitzer or some pioneers are what is needed. Whatever you do, don't get caught doing nothing.

I hope that this has been entertaining to read. I know that I will try to follow these bits of advice from those that fought war in the first person. For myself, being autistic makes being creative a whole lot harder then it should be, and I have carved a life out of memorizing and imitating. But as I write these, I will make a note of how they are working in my games. What should happen is my win percentage should go up. For everyone else out there, let us know what you think. As a war gaming community, there should be no lack of opinions and I look forward to any and all comments that might arise from this note. If you guys find this interesting, I have no problem with presenting more from those that wrote the books on war.

[Der Kuenstler]

Good read, Dallas, and thanks for the favorable words. This article got me thinking about just how unpredictable I really am. I do see myself repeating some of the same strategies. For example, I generally try to get to the flags first. I've read posts by guys who say "let him have the flags and I'll blow him out of there" - but it never seems to work that way. They usually can bruise me badly, and perhaps neutralize a flag, but not get me totally out of there. I think it's just more easy to be at the flags early than to be late.
I don't reuse the same kit over and over - mainly because that is boring for me. I just try to have a tool in the toolbag for whatever situation might arise, and try to be able to access that tool quickly when needed. (EX - an ATG just revealed itself - where's my mortar?)
This will get me thinking about how I can be more unpredictable.

[herroberst]

Thanks Ratzki.

1. I don't need some 5,000 year old Chinese General [Sun Tzu] to tell me to "hit them where they're weak." Attributed to a Marine Corps General. :). "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." "Go left, right or up the middle, but attritional warfare is inevitable."
2. For meeting engagements (which I find rather boring in general but I will play them if that is what the opponent wants) I seek to build a combined-arms team to handle come what may (armor, infantry, artillery, antitank guns, mortars, snipers, transport). I favor getting to the flags first but I also find that many of my MEs result in draws. Probably because I am too cautious in the first phase trying to determine what kind of opponent I face: is he rash and exposes his armor right away, is he cautious, does he expose a flank (if he does I will try to go right after that - maybe my trademark?). A quick look at the terrain will decide what flank or middle to weight and what to do in general. But I need to accept more risk in ME's to make it more interesting and accept more losses - it's only a game after all.
3. For ops and scenarios (which I prefer because it introduces uncertainty and interest where MEs do not in my opinion) I'll read the briefing, think about forces I have, what the mission is and then look at the terrain to decide what to do based on what edge I think I have been given (of course sometimes the scenario or op is so imbalanced as to make defeat kind of a foregone conclusion but therein lies a challenge as well). Always, always watching for opponent mistakes. As Guderian pointed out "boot them, don't slap them" so I will weight the main effort accordingly. As the French General said (before he surrendered :)) L'audace, l'audace, tous jour l'audace.
4. I have been playing since 2003 and am still an avid player although returning files everyday is sometimes a hassle. I like CM and will continue with it for the foreseeable future. Need to push myself to accept more risk and make it more interesting.

[cargol]

As CM is a game u have to understand well the game mechanics and after it is more than probable that u ll have a decent win/lose ratio.
As for using the same(winning) tactics is not IMHO,a problem of the winning side but of the side that is losing.
I for example will always try to go head to head with a Panther agianst 1 or more T34s as 8 out of 10 times i ll prevail.It is my opponents problem to find this flanking shot that will brew my Panther.
I agree with Ratzki that u have to be flexible but being flexible is one thing and experimenting is another.
If someone's objective by playing CM is,except than having fun and spend some quality time,to win more games than lose he ll most probably make the obvius (go for the flags first,use the SMG infantry in woods,go head to head a Heavy tank against a medium and so on)

[JasonC]

I don't want to become a great commander. I think far too many do, and they suck as a result. When solid professional competence is actually within their capacities, but they spurn it trying to be the next Napoleon. And become the next George McClellan...

[Ratzki]

I think that human nature begs for us to improve at every opportunity. Our brains are designed to learn at an incredible pace. Are we all destined to become or try to become great at everything/something? I don't think so, but most often participation alone is enough to improve our skills in whatever it is that we tried. The great people on this earth have generally not been great because they put their mind to it, but because they were/are.

[Der Kuenstler]

Moved this thread to tactical area to preserve it...

[captainkije]

I could not understand why Napoleon used sledge hammer blows at Borodino instead of some other more imaginative approach. After all, he was Napoleon. Then, a few years ago I went over the battle again. Davout had advocated a flank maneuver at that battle. Napoleon replied that if did this, the Russians would refuse battle and retreat again. He needed a decisive victory and he needed it soon. Frontal asault with its bloody drawbacks appeared to him as the only chance for this.

Similarly, at Waterloo frontal assault dead center was again his choice. Had time robbed him of his gifts? Wellington himself admitted how close the French came to breaking his center. It was not inevitable that Ney pin everything on massed cavalry assaults unsupported by infantry. Even at that, Ney came within inches.

Formula instructs us to avoid frontal assaults. The first battle ended in a tactical draw, the second in French disaster. My point is that Napleon had solid arguments for the seemingly unimaginative plans he chose to use in these instances.

[PoorOldSpike]

Gen.Patton- "Inflict the maximum amount of wound,death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
"Lead me, follow me,or get out of my way"
"May God have mercy on my enemies,because I won't"
"The quicker they're whipped,the sooner we can go home"
"Just drive down that road until you get blown up"
"There are only three principles of war - Audacity, Audacity and Audacity "
"Battle is the most magnificent competition in which human beings can indulge"
"War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts"
"I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did"

Gen. Guderian- "Punch with your fist and not with your fingers spread " -
"Boot 'em, don´t spatter 'em" -
"Once armoured formations are out on the loose they must be given the green light to the very end of the road"
"The engine of a tank is as much a weapon as its gun"
"If the tank succeeds, the victory follows"

Gen. Rommel- "Concentrate strength at one point,force a breakthrough, roll up the flanks, penetrating like lightning deep into the rear before the enemy has time to react"
"The day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire."
"I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front [Africa 1941] with my own hands as soon as possible"

Hitler - "That's what I need! [tanks] That's what I want to have!"

Gen MacArthur - "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it"

US Grant -"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving"

Duke of Wellington - "The whole art of war consists of guessing at what is on the other side of the hill"

Montgomery - "When I assumed command of 8th Army I said the mandate was to destroy Rommel and his army as soon as we were ready. We are ready now"

Lt Col Cyril Joly -"The more you use [tanks], the fewer you lose"

Adm Nimitz - "When you're in command, COMMAND"

Ho Chi Minh-"You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours,
but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win"

Ralph Waldo Emerson- "Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect"

Gen Norman Schwarzkopf -"Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy"

Napoleon Bonaparte- "The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies"

Archilocus (Greek mercenary) 650 BC- "I have a high art, I hurt with cruelty those who would damage me"

Gen Norman Schwarzkopf- "We need to DESTROY, not attack, not damage, not surround. I want to DESTROY the Republican Guard"

Miyamoto Musashi (samurai 1584-1645)- "True warriors are fierce, because their training is fierce"

Sun Tzu, 600 BC- "Victory is reserved for those who are willing to pay it's price"

Ho Chi Minh- "Whoever should wish to seize Vietnam must kill us to the last man"

Hitler- "I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature."

Daniel Boone- "I was happy in the midst of dangers and inconveniences"

General Nathan F. Twining, USAF- "Fighter pilots fall into two broad categories: those who go out to kill and those who, secretly, desperately, know they are going to get killed-the hunters and the hunted"

Duke of Wellington- "I attribute my success on the battlefield to always being on the spot to see and do everything for myself"

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)- "War should be the only study of a prince. He should consider peace only as a breathing-time, which gives him leisure to contrive, and furnishes an ability to execute, military plans"

Gen Colin Powell- “Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand"

Marcus Tullius Cicero 50 BC- "True nobility is exempt from fear"

Chinese proverb- "Under a good general there are no bad soldiers"

Sun Tzu 600 BC-"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys.
Look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death!"

Gen William Sherman- "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over"

Hermann Goering- "Guns will make us powerful, butter will only make us fat"

Gen. William Sherman- "A battery of field artillery is worth a thousand muskets"

Josef Stalin- "Artillery is the god of war"

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)- "The first method of estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him."

Gen. Michael Moseley USAF- "The preponderance of the Republican Guard divisions outside of Baghdad are now dead. I find it interesting when folks say we're softening them up. We're not softening them up, we're killing them"

Hitler- "The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence"

[JasonC]

To kije - it is a journalist and schoolboy level of thought - fit for a BHL Hart lol - that pretends imaginative and successful equals "going around". Frontal assault and attrition tactics are not unimaginative - they imagine the enemy center broken and his army decisively destroyed, for starters - and going around is not smarter or more clever or always successful.

And oh, it takes a special kind of arrogance to pretend you have something to teach Napoleon Bonaparte in the matter. He conquered Europe. He commanded a dozens of major battles, nearly all of which he won. Not to put too fine a point on it, you haven't. And no, he didn't lose whenever he didn't go around and win whenever he did.

His greatest single victory was Austerlitz, in which the imaginative Russians tried to go around his right and he let them think they were succeeding at it just long enough to put half their army in his intended bag. Then he broke their center by advancing his rapidly, cut off that turning movement wing of their army, which had marched itself out of support distance from the rest, and spent the rest of the day annihilating it utterly.

When Napoleon rejected Davout's plan for Borodino he did not cite any need for rapidity or even for decisive victory rather than turning the enemy out of position. He said and I quote "it is too dangerous a maneuver". He was fully cognizant of the ability of the Russian army to do to his army, what he had done to the Russian army at Austerlitz.

Napoleon was the master of central positioning. An army that seeks to completely envelope its opponent grants that opponent central positioning for nothing. There are times and circumstances and overall odds situations, terrain, etc in which that may be worth the risks and may succeed, certainly. And there are others in which it is a decisive blunder. At Austerlitz, the Russian plan was so predictable and predicted that Napoleon could have been issuing orders to both armies and the movements would have been the same.

As for Waterloo, it was the outlier success of the British heavy cavalry against D'Erlons I corps that allowed the British to survive. People saying it was dumb of Ney to attack with cavalry and suggesting that infantry be sent instead kind of overlook the facts that one it was tried first, two that it failed pretty spectacularly, and three that the thing that came nearest to destroying the allied army anyway was the highly effective combined arms cooperation of the French artillery with the cavalry attacks. The allied infantry was forced to stand in square for hours under very heavy artillery fire and many battalions lost a third to half their strength doing so. Practically every other army on every other occasion would have come apart under those losses and the allied army nearly did so; only the Prussians saved them.

Those citing supposedly dumb frontal attacks as supposedly dumb also typically leave out Wagram, which was a frontal assault if ever there was one, and entirely successful and decisive.

The reality is, in the Napoleonic era battles were typically decided by the last reserve, not by getting anywhere first with the most. When turning movements did succeed it was usually due to the pressure they put on the "join" where the enemy refused that flank, which became a kind of center and at which Napoleon typically directed the decisive blows late in the day. Battles of the era were attritionist affairs, and armies fled the field when they had taken 25 to 33% casualties. Only outlier incompetents lost before that.

Anyone who thinks like modern maneuverist ideology that such battles could be won practically without fighting by going around, would be epically wrong.