Re: [GZG] ground combat campaigns

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:16:01AM -0500, Tom B wrote:

>The momentum problem RBW mentioned is also likely. I know Robert M
>says he likes battles at the board to determine outcomes, but
>realistically, this isn't the truth. Sun Tzu will tell you that you
>are supposed to arrive at the field of battle having already one. In
>the real world, production advantages, technological breakthroughs,
>etc. will inevitably give strategic advantage which will show up at
>any battle. "Hmmm... that blasted American showed up with USAF.... I
>guess we don't get to do much with our armour...".

Here's a thought. I'm not a great military theoretician but it makes
sense to me: in the real world, nobody deliberately goes into battle
without a force superiority (i.e. enough to be reasonably sure that he's
going to win). So battles are basically never going to be "fleet A and
fleet B, of equal point value, show up and shoot it out".

Battles that _do_ happen:

- ambushes of various sorts - one side is relying on surprise as a force
multiplier.

- one side thinks it has superior forces, but the other side has more
concealed.

- one side has inferior mobility and simply can't get away.

- last stand, hold off the attackers until something else has been done.

- attacking a point target, basically the reverse of last stand -
attackers are out to destroy a single high-value asset and don't really
care about their own losses.

Probably more that I haven't thought of. Seems to me that a campaign
system ought to concentrate on generating (and scoring) lopsided
engagements of this sort.

R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l