scoutsout
Minstrel Boy
Foreword: I've seen several articles and threads on this site that offer "advice based on principle"; they generally seem to offer pointers on this or that type of war or warfighting technique, or use of a specific unit. While it's all good stuff, I offer this as a framework for discussing or studying Civ warfighting that is independent of unit types or eras. These are "real-world" military principles, as I see them applied to Civ War.
My study of military history and readings of Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Rommel, etc. lead me to two conclusions: First, discussion of "styles" or specific techniques should be secondary to fundamentals. For example, there are many variations on the use of combined arms, but the subject is revisited often in the forums so that a new player can get an explanation of the basics of combined arms (usually followed by lots of valid techniques). The second, more compelling conclusion: Only about half of anybody's real-world "Principles of War" apply in Civ War.
When I say "Principles of War", I'm not talking about specific "tactics" or "strategy", or the styles of fighting battles and campaigns. I'm talking about the timeless principles that were inked in the day of spear and sword, and hold true in the day of smart weapons and grunts who are better educated than yesteryear's generals. Here they are, more or less as they were taught to me:
1) Objective
2) Offensive (or "Initiative" or "Attack")
3) Concentration of effort (or "Mass")
4) Economy of Force
5) Maneuver
6) Unity of command
7) Security (or "Security and Reserve")
8) Surprise (or "Surprise and Deception")
9) Simplicity
To these I have seen other "principles" added; I generally regard these as important, but not central, considerations. For example: Flexibility (fits w/ maneuver) Cooperation, Logistics, Morale. Though important, they are not the necessarily stuff of war-plans. (Though logistics is extremely important.)
(Sidenote: A recurring problem with military doctrine is that there's always some colonel who is trying to re-write it to make general. Rarely does one come along who is as bright as a Patton or Rommel, let alone von Clauswitz or Sun Tzu. End digression.)
"Unity of Command" is a non-issue in Civ war, and "Simplicity" almost goes without saying in Civ war to anyone who has studied Civ units as the relate to the real thing. "Surprise" generally only lasts for one round in a Civ war, and "Maneuver" in gameplay is necessarily over-simplified. As much as I like maneuver, flanking and enveloping schemes are usually less effective than a straightforward attack in Civ war. (Has anybody here managed to replicate Hannibal's double-envelopment maneuver from Cannae in a Civ battle?)
So, for Civ Warfare, I offer these "Principles of War" for your consideration:
1) Objective
2) Initiative
3) Mass
4) Economy of Force
5) Security
6) Logistics
Far and away the most important principle above is Objective. If you don't know what your warfighting goals are, the other principles won't help much.
I would give Mass a close second in importance. Simply put, mass involves concentrating sufficient forces at a critical place and time to achieve objective. Alternatively, in involves concentrating your forces sufficiently to act decisively... A stack of 15 will like attack (or defend) more decisively than 3 stacks of 5... (Lee dividing his force at Chancellorsville is a rare and brilliant exception that entailed a logistics advantage enjoyed by Lee...)
I view Initiative as equally important in the defense and offense. The key is fighting on your terms. There are some well developed postings and War Academy articles on defensive tactics that maintain initiative; drawing the enemy into "killing fields", etc. Good stuff.
In some of my "combined arms" posts, I touch on two key principles - security, and economy of force.
Economy of Force should be looked at from two standpoints: Force Preservation, as well as the more classic "Don't take an objective with a Corps when a Division will do". Fast units that live to fight another day are huge force preservers... balancing this principle with Mass seems tricky sometimes.
When I take additional (not extra) infantry along with my Combined Arms Task Forces, I'm bringing them for Security. What I don't need to protect the stack and secure conquered cities, I can use to form picket lines to block railroads and keep the enemy out of my rear area. Likewise, I don't fortify my central cities with more than one unit, I secure them by not letting my enemy anywhere near them.
Another important security consideration - I always try to maintain a reserve, in case the enemy's counterpunch is heavier than I expected, and I've suddenly got a stack of his horsemen/knights/cav outside one of my cities. It's also a royal pain if he manages to slip a transport near my shore and drop off a stack of something just as those core cities (finishing a troop's worth of tanks) slip into disorder from war weariness...
For Civ war, I added Logistics because it is so crucial (since maneuver and other strokes of human genius are unavailable). It does little good to take his cities if I cannot reinforce them... and a continuous supply of fresh units is essential to maintaining an offensive. It is important to note that this should be a continuous process in peacetime; infrastructure, ship positioning... in the industrial and modern era, it's why my AI rivals see individual, empty transports out in the middle of the ocean, for no apparent reason...I may only have a transport load of tanks, but if I can put them on any shore I choose on my very next move...
So there they are, my "Civ III Principles of War for Real Life Concientious Objectors" ...or something like that. I hope some of you find this useful.
My study of military history and readings of Sun Tzu, Von Clausewitz, Rommel, etc. lead me to two conclusions: First, discussion of "styles" or specific techniques should be secondary to fundamentals. For example, there are many variations on the use of combined arms, but the subject is revisited often in the forums so that a new player can get an explanation of the basics of combined arms (usually followed by lots of valid techniques). The second, more compelling conclusion: Only about half of anybody's real-world "Principles of War" apply in Civ War.
When I say "Principles of War", I'm not talking about specific "tactics" or "strategy", or the styles of fighting battles and campaigns. I'm talking about the timeless principles that were inked in the day of spear and sword, and hold true in the day of smart weapons and grunts who are better educated than yesteryear's generals. Here they are, more or less as they were taught to me:
1) Objective
2) Offensive (or "Initiative" or "Attack")
3) Concentration of effort (or "Mass")
4) Economy of Force
5) Maneuver
6) Unity of command
7) Security (or "Security and Reserve")
8) Surprise (or "Surprise and Deception")
9) Simplicity
To these I have seen other "principles" added; I generally regard these as important, but not central, considerations. For example: Flexibility (fits w/ maneuver) Cooperation, Logistics, Morale. Though important, they are not the necessarily stuff of war-plans. (Though logistics is extremely important.)
(Sidenote: A recurring problem with military doctrine is that there's always some colonel who is trying to re-write it to make general. Rarely does one come along who is as bright as a Patton or Rommel, let alone von Clauswitz or Sun Tzu. End digression.)
"Unity of Command" is a non-issue in Civ war, and "Simplicity" almost goes without saying in Civ war to anyone who has studied Civ units as the relate to the real thing. "Surprise" generally only lasts for one round in a Civ war, and "Maneuver" in gameplay is necessarily over-simplified. As much as I like maneuver, flanking and enveloping schemes are usually less effective than a straightforward attack in Civ war. (Has anybody here managed to replicate Hannibal's double-envelopment maneuver from Cannae in a Civ battle?)
So, for Civ Warfare, I offer these "Principles of War" for your consideration:
1) Objective
2) Initiative
3) Mass
4) Economy of Force
5) Security
6) Logistics
Far and away the most important principle above is Objective. If you don't know what your warfighting goals are, the other principles won't help much.
I would give Mass a close second in importance. Simply put, mass involves concentrating sufficient forces at a critical place and time to achieve objective. Alternatively, in involves concentrating your forces sufficiently to act decisively... A stack of 15 will like attack (or defend) more decisively than 3 stacks of 5... (Lee dividing his force at Chancellorsville is a rare and brilliant exception that entailed a logistics advantage enjoyed by Lee...)
I view Initiative as equally important in the defense and offense. The key is fighting on your terms. There are some well developed postings and War Academy articles on defensive tactics that maintain initiative; drawing the enemy into "killing fields", etc. Good stuff.
In some of my "combined arms" posts, I touch on two key principles - security, and economy of force.
Economy of Force should be looked at from two standpoints: Force Preservation, as well as the more classic "Don't take an objective with a Corps when a Division will do". Fast units that live to fight another day are huge force preservers... balancing this principle with Mass seems tricky sometimes.
When I take additional (not extra) infantry along with my Combined Arms Task Forces, I'm bringing them for Security. What I don't need to protect the stack and secure conquered cities, I can use to form picket lines to block railroads and keep the enemy out of my rear area. Likewise, I don't fortify my central cities with more than one unit, I secure them by not letting my enemy anywhere near them.
Another important security consideration - I always try to maintain a reserve, in case the enemy's counterpunch is heavier than I expected, and I've suddenly got a stack of his horsemen/knights/cav outside one of my cities. It's also a royal pain if he manages to slip a transport near my shore and drop off a stack of something just as those core cities (finishing a troop's worth of tanks) slip into disorder from war weariness...
For Civ war, I added Logistics because it is so crucial (since maneuver and other strokes of human genius are unavailable). It does little good to take his cities if I cannot reinforce them... and a continuous supply of fresh units is essential to maintaining an offensive. It is important to note that this should be a continuous process in peacetime; infrastructure, ship positioning... in the industrial and modern era, it's why my AI rivals see individual, empty transports out in the middle of the ocean, for no apparent reason...I may only have a transport load of tanks, but if I can put them on any shore I choose on my very next move...
So there they are, my "Civ III Principles of War for Real Life Concientious Objectors" ...or something like that. I hope some of you find this useful.
