SE4 Strategy - An Art or a Science? - Page 5

Wardad · #41 April 25th, 2002, 07:56 PM

I had heard some where that the French tanks were mechanically unreliable. Most likely there also were not enough field repair supplies or trained mechanics. The logistics would definitely be against quiclky bringing a group of these monsters together. Also the French tanks were more vulnerable to German Air power than the German tanks.

The Germans success was based on the Combined Arms doctrine. This advantage in the Art/Science of war would be short lived, due to imitation.

TerranC · #42 April 25th, 2002, 08:33 PM

The reason that America lost in Vietnam was it's pride; still stocked up on their reputation to be a force to be reckoned with, the Americans, in a Vendetta, just shot down into the bushes of Vietnam, while the natives knew what was going on.

The reason that America lost in Mogadishu was it was not a setting they trained in; In an urban setting, the Militia used civilians as human shields, and laid traps in a confusing unplanned Urban landscape. People just lived there, so there wasn't a Main avenue or a specific Landmark. A few houses there, a few temples here and many, many traps and fortifications for the militia. (Now the pentagon is developing Sound weapons and advanced stink bombs to fight urban settings with minimal loss of life and training in an urban landscape.)

The reason America won World War was that the nation became focused on a single goal to drive back the Japanese and the Germans.

Three reasons to still say that it is all Art

thorfrog · #43 April 25th, 2002, 09:20 PM

I totally disagree with you about the Vietnam War. Pride isn't what beat the US. THe US beat the US. This was a Limited war. The US entered the fight half-hearted. We were picking up the pieces from yet another French mistake. The Last thing the US wanted to do was bring Russia and China into the conflict. Something called the "cold war". So the officers in the field had their hands tied when it came to choosing targets because of politics. Not to mention the American people were not in favor of this war. The US was having a civil upheval. We also had politicians directing and changing the strategic focus of this war constantly. Bottom line, if the US wanted to defeat the Viet Cong we could. Just ask the people of Afganistan, Iraq, & Panama. Ok, 5 men with a pellet gun could beat Panama. When we are fully commited we are a juggernaught. Not to mention a little help from our Allies. Even though I question their loyalty at times. Of course there are exceptions: England, Canada, Germany, Austrialia, several former Russian states, ect.

Mephisto · #44 April 25th, 2002, 09:49 PM

The US "conquered" (I know it didn't) Vietnam, but it didn't conquered the heart of enough people to stay there. You cannot stay in a country an unlimited time if you do not have the people of that country follow you on their own will.

Wardad · #45 April 25th, 2002, 09:50 PM

Our biggest mistake was giving Vietnam back to the French, to restore French pride, after WWII.
We should have gave back to the Vietnamese in the first place.

thorfrog · #46 April 25th, 2002, 10:04 PM

Good point.

Lisif Deoral · #47 April 25th, 2002, 11:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Lupusman:
Having a ally that can't fight worth crap is also a downer. One has to choose friends wisely.

(cough, cough, Italians)

Well, we did choose wisely! Or at least, the government thought so - I suppose Franco was even wiser.

Anyway, to return to SEIV I think the game penalizes too much a technologycally backward empire.
Returning to an historical example, the Italian navy in WWII managed to get some surprising results without radars, carriers, decent air support and some other significant stuff - extremely bad research strategies, let's say...

(it's a trademark of the italian armies/navies throughout the centuries... we still employ F-104s, for example.)

Anyway, there have been many historical cases in which "art" proved to be much more important than "science" (or at least, "tech & production").
The battle of Agincourt is a good example, although a bit extreme.

My greatest complaint about SEIV are the points which can be safely obtained from such fields as repair and environmental resistance.

[Edit: I should not attempt to write meaningful phrases in a foreign language after 11 PM...

]

[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: Lisif Deoral ]

Mudshark · #48 April 26th, 2002, 01:03 AM

Here is the article Oleg;
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/german_myth_main.asp

dumbluck · #49 April 26th, 2002, 01:05 AM

quote:
Originally posted by PDF:

If you want an example of losing "hi tech" country in a war, rather take Vietnam...

Or the Russian Version: Afganistan. Not that I can spell it this late at night....

Cyrien · #50 April 26th, 2002, 01:49 AM

Here's my idea for how you would mimic Vietnam in SE4. Now work with me here.

Have your Empire (the US) have 12 or so systems well developed with good economy, military, etc. Stronger than all the other nations with stellar manip tech and cloaks on ships to safely blow up any planet (Nukes on ICBM and Nuke Subs) you want because no one has mines or scanners. Your race has the peaceful trait. They don't like war.

Now you have another Empire (the USSR) that is just as big maybe not as good economically and militarily but they also have stellar manip tech and cloaks blah blah. Their race has the neutral or warlike trait. Not really important for this demonstration.

These two Empires don't like each other (murderous) and engage in intel ops against each other all the time with lots of cloak capable star destroyer ships all over the place enough to blow up every enemy planet, but if you do that then next turn the other guy uses their cloaked planet buster ships on you just before maintenance takes em all out.

Now there are lots of other 2 or 3 or 1 star Empires. One of the 2 or 3 (France) star ones occupies a 1 star one
(Vietnam) in a subjugation treaty. The subjugated ones don't like that and break the treaty. The 2 or 3 star guy goes in and tries to beat em. The ships of Mr. 1 star are simpler and not as good. But their people don't mind the fight and their system is in a nebulae. They have temporal scanners (which can see in nebulae systems). The 2 or 3 star empire gets kicked out cause they do some incredibly stupid stuff tactically, strategically, etc.

Now this 1 Star Empire is split into two parts. Half the planets for these half them. They get into a fight and all that and one of the fighters believes in Mr. EVIL 12 system (USSR) doctrine and is all close and budy budy with them. So Mr. Other 12 system comes in and takes on the other half as their budy budy cause they don't want Mr 1 star to start following around Mr EVIL 12 star and maybe be on their side if war does start. Also they can't trade and stuff (in theory) with Mr. 1 star if he goes over to Mr. EVIL 12 star.

So now Mr. Big 12 star peaceful gets into this war. Now this race has the peaceful trait. They don't like the war. They start getting angry and rioting and stuff. Now Mr. Big is taking out 10 enemy ships for every 1 of his lost. The people don't care. They don't like ANY losses. Mr Big COULD win at any time if he used the planet busters or sent in enough ships to completly wipe out the other guy. But to keep all the other empires from getting mad and the other Mr. EVIL from using his planet busters they don't. So in the end they have to pull back and out to keep their people from rioting and having all this other bad stuff that goes along with it happening.

Mr half system for EVIL goes and conquers Mr other half system.

The end.

Now it wasn't technology that won here, and it wasn't strategy or tactics in the battle field. It was the art of using the other guy against himself. And the art of using two big MEEs against each other.