He DID make the best plans he could before a battle based on the information he knew about his forces and also on what he THOUGHT he knew about the enemy.
Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy, they told us that only amateurs talk tactics, real officers talk supply. And would a skilled general disobey orders twice ? Arras was ugly, because the Brits could have cut him off, and he was saved only by luck. North Africa is where he failed. He got orders to protect western Libya, and supply enough to that job, not for a personal ego drive trough the Middle East and into India. Lucky to him, AH was an amateur. Now if I had done something like that, they would hang me for sure. A soldiers first job is to follow orders
While there are some good similarities between the planning a general like Rommel did and what we do, it’s still analogous to apples and oranges. :-D
Unlike Rommel, we know everything the enemy does. We know how much money he has in the bank, how many units he has in each terr, and also his ability to reinforce or sustain a fight. Even a modern day general with all the intel tools available to him is still not going to have as complete of knowledge as we do every time we play A&A.Intel is one of the biggest and sometimes underrated aspect of war and we have it handed it to us on a silver platter every time we gather around the board.
He DID make the best plans he could before a battle based on the information he knew about his forces and also on what he THOUGHT he knew about the enemy. But I doubt he ever calced out how many men he could expect to be left with after a major battle. Besides I believe another famous general said that no plan survived contact with the enemy. :wink:
Hehheh, I like this!
It is true of course. Well, let’s just say the similarities between the apples and the oranges are that they are both trying to be good fruits ;-).
Like in a real war, the similarity is that we should use any and all information available to us. A good, open minded general should not refuse information available to him/her that can be used to his/her benefit.
Compared to the real war, us guys would ofc be attacking Moscow largely unaware of what’s opposing us. Then again, such RL battles aren’t as unforgiving as in an A&A game. In the real war, battles are much more dynamic and a general would notice a drastically increasing resistance, possibly altering his plans to avoid total defeat.
I agree that Rommel probably would not have calced out exactly with how much men he should win a battle but he should at least have made an educated guess. Considering the plans he had for the regio, he must either have been delusional, badly misinformed (importance of good intel!) or simply hopelessly outnumbered because certain promised reinforcements couldn’t arrive.
About that plans that don’t survive first contact… I thought even Rommel himself  quoted this, but correct me if I am wrong!
He DID make the best plans he could before a battle based on the information he knew about his forces and also on what he THOUGHT he knew about the enemy.
Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy, they told us that only amateurs talk tactics, real officers talk supply. And would a skilled general disobey orders twice ? Arras was ugly, because the Brits could have cut him off, and he was saved only by luck. North Africa is where he failed. He got orders to protect western Libya, and supply enough to that job, not for a personal ego drive trough the Middle East and into India. Lucky to him, AH was an amateur. Now if I had done something like that, they would hang me for sure. A soldiers first job is to follow orders
Hmmm, tactics for amateurs? I find it very short-sighted of them ;-). Be open minded! Everyone should understand the importance of BOTH tactics and supplies. Neither of them means much without the other. Example: the opening year of WW2. France had a much stronger army and supply than Germany and yet they failed miserably against the German Blitzkrieg. The Allies had to improve their tactical doctrines in order to defeat the Axis, not their supplies, of which they had more than enough.
Well, if we are to believe what Rommel’s direct opponents and the people around him said about him, he was an inspiring and brilliant commander. His men loved him and so did AH because of his successes. As I understand it, he suffered from changeable moods, ranging from enthousiastic to depression. Furthermore, he had his limits. He was a genius on corps-level but not so good at commanding above that level (Army/Army Group etc.).
So I think it is safe to say that Generals can disobey orders as long as they are successfull and defeating enemy armies above all expectations. If your superiors would hang you for the exact same things Rommel did in Africa during WW2, they would be very ignorant to opportunities and, I suspect, would only hang you because of fear you would surpass them in fame and rank…
And as far as his supply problems go, the brits did sink a LOT of supply convoys in the med and as said, Rommel was a Brilliant corps commander but he probably failed at judging the allied naval strength. After all he was no admiral so it’s kinda understandable as well.
Then again, such RL battles aren’t as unforgiving as in an A&A game.
Tell that to the poor souls who were in these battles!
About that plans that don’t survive first contact… I thought even Rommel himself � quoted this, but correct me if I am wrong!
I’m not sure if you’re saying he said this or are attributing the quote to him. Helmuth von Moltke was the one who is attributed for this quote. However many famous generals and not so famous armchair generals have used this quote since.
Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy
I love the little inclusion about how you went to a military academy. Anyway, I wasn’t meaning to get into an argument about Rommel’s generalship or lack or of it as the case may be. LeClerc brought up Rommel and I was just using him as an example. No general or admiral ever really knew exactly what he was facing. They didn’t have the ability to whip out a battle calc to check the IPC swing before deciding whether to commit their forces.
Then again, such RL battles aren’t as unforgiving as in an A&A game.
Tell that to the poor souls who were in these battles!
>>Luckily, I don’t have to!
Have you seen “The Messenger” with Woody Harrelson? Good movie about telling the bad news to the poor souls that are left behind, if you can appreciate a tragicomical drama.About that plans that don’t survive first contact… I thought even Rommel himself quoted this, but correct me if I am wrong!
I’m not sure if you’re saying he said this or are attributing the quote to him. Helmuth von Moltke was the one who is attributed for this quote. However many famous generals and not so famous armchair generals have used this quote since.
>> I meant he just said it by quoting the person who said it first  :lol:.Now if that is true, how come he ran out of supply ? When I went to military academy
I love the little inclusion about how you went to a military academy. Anyway, I wasn’t meaning to get into an argument about Rommel’s generalship or lack or of it as the case may be. LeClerc brought up Rommel and I was just using him as an example. No general or admiral ever really knew exactly what he was facing. They didn’t have the ability to whip out a battle calc to check the IPC swing before deciding whether to commit their forces.
>> I didn’t bring the good man up ;-). I reacted to the remark that “Rommel & Patton wouldn’t run the numbers before a battle” since I do remember this picture of Rommel, sitting in his tent in the desert with all his mathematical equipment, making calculations and drawing battleplans up into the minuscule details.
Even during the ancient time, a good general knew the size and strengths of what he was facing. Not exactly of course but accurate enough. From the ancient time all the way into the modern age, commanders who knew more about the enemy than they knew about him, won the most (not necessarily all!) battles. Why else would Sun Tzu say things such as “he who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious” and “The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.”? And the list goes on. He is referring to fighting of armies and no general can make ‘calculations’ or ‘know when to fight and when not’ if he doesn’t know what he is facing. Scouting is a very important aspect of warfare (and has Always been), particularly aimed at enabling the commander(s) to make calculations, and, knowing when to fight and when not to.
I am saying that using a BC in A&A will dramatically strengthen your ability to make the right decision(s). The parallel with a real war commander using ‘his version of a BC’ is merely a metaphor and should not be taken too seriously as far as I am concerned.
Looking at this picture of Rommel in his tent, I find the metaphor not too far fetched but it is of course only about the vicissitudes of local army commander, apart from drawing an image of what a man can do with the right tools.
Lets just agree that the world have seen a lot of poor generals, and that real life calculations of weather forecast, terrain, supply chains, morale, fighting spirit, surprise, Medevac, taking prisoners etc cant be compared to the luck of rolling dice. In real life you calculate you need 3 to 1 in firepower for a successful attack, with modifiers for terrain and flank protection, and if your initial attack run bad with too high casualty rate, you just abort. In a huge inf stack A&A battle you are pretty much stuck to the dice rolls. The defender cant even retreat.
To wrap this up, I guess its ok to use a BC when playing online tournaments and you really want to win, and time is not an issue. But I say, when you sit in your basement with 4 beer drinking friends, and you got less than 10 hours to spend, its pretty bad taste to spend half the time doing computer calculations. And with bad dice luck on the first round, you will have to do a new half hour calculations just to decide to retreat or stay in battle. Now that is what I call a nice buddy
Lets just agree that the world have seen a lot of poor generals, and that real life calculations of weather forecast, terrain, supply chains, morale, fighting spirit, surprise, Medevac, taking prisoners etc cant be compared to the luck of rolling dice. In real life you calculate you need 3 to 1 in firepower for a successful attack, with modifiers for terrain and flank protection, and if your initial attack run bad with too high casualty rate, you just abort. In a huge inf stack A&A battle you are pretty much stuck to the dice rolls. The defender cant even retreat.
I like this! And it is so true. Although I didn’t know the, how shall I call it, ‘breakpoint’ lies at 3:1. I’ve played quite some WW2 combat simulators (just because I like the intellectual challenge, not for studies, or work) and in most of them, 3:1 still sucks IMHO. High chance of failure, loosing 1/3 of your troops achieving nothing and often still loosing 1/6 of your men and women when successfull. So, if you attack with 6 corps, you’d loose at least 1. Entire. Corps. Â :-o.
I often wondered how this translates to real life (WW2) combat but if they teach 3:1 at the academy I guess (hope!) this is more favorable IRL than I’ve seen it be in the ‘cosims’!
On a side note, in the ‘cosims’ I have played, the aim is always to get at least to 5:1 but the more desperate you get, the lower the odds you’ll have to accept.
Is this true, or does the ‘real deal’ also include a financial factor in the ruthless calculus? “5:1 will ensure much more of our men and women to survive but is much more expensive in terms of dollars so stick with 3:1. General, you have your orders…”
To wrap this up, I guess its ok to use a BC when playing online tournaments and you really want to win, and time is not an issue. But I say, when you sit in your basement with 4 beer drinking friends, and you got less than 10 hours to spend, its pretty bad taste to spend half the time doing computer calculations. And with bad dice luck on the first round, you will have to do a new half hour calculations just to decide to retreat or stay in battle. Now that is what I call a nice buddy
That is not a very nice thing to say to your buddies ;-).
Just some ‘personal facts’ of the BC-usage in our group (some people do, some don’t):
-We only use it for game loosing/winning decisions. Like 2 HUGE armies opposing each other at and in Moscow.
-There are (in my book) only 4 other situations that a BC can make/break your cause if you do/don’t use it.
-The BC takes about 20% of my thinking time in a turn, which varies a lot. So 10 minutes becomes 12 minutes.
-NOT using the BC will extend my thinking time MUCH more than using it.
-The BC never causes half an hour of thinking in our group. Reasons for such thinking times are otherwise.
-The BC is used in our group as a ‘final consultation’, topping off the preceding thinking process.
-It is then only used to decide which 1 of the many predecided actions to take.
-I never use it after a (couple of) combat round(s). If the dice fail me I loose the game. Alea iacta est.
Last but not least, if I want a ‘beer-party game’, A&A is definately not my game of choice for that evening. In such a case I’d go for Risk/Monopoly/Railroad Tycoon/Arkham Horror/Catan kind of games.
A&A evenings are (and tend to be) much different to me than all the other, more casual games. But that’s of course, a matter of personal preference and you know what they say about accounting for taste ;-).
Yeah, in my experience using the battle calc actually makes things go faster. You can spend your time adding up all the troops, doing a poor estimation in your head, etc, or you can just calculate it and it makes the decision a lot easier. Generally shortens the game in my experience.
Granted, there are some people that insist on not using it and just going by their gut feeling, but I’ve found that those people often end up losing.
Catan rocks! Beer drinking is at a minimum at our tables, we might have 1-2 over the course of a game. So hardly enough to cause issues in our thinking.
Might I suggest a game called “Bang!” for a casual game? It’s a type of mystery western spaghetti shootout game with cards. Really fun, really quick, and easy to learn. Plus it’s funny to casually ask if people want to Bang, watch the facial reactions of the unsuspecting, and then pulling the game out. Oh and the game ‘box’ is in the shape of a bullet, how cool is that? :-D
I can’t speak to what the desired ratio in WW2 was, but that 3:1 is something they’re teaching for the modern Soldier. We trained to setup a defensive position before calling for an arty fire mission, air support, or a QRF/Reinforcements (quick reaction force) if we didn’t have that 3:1 advantage. Granted that fog of war we talked about earlier exists and in the heat of the moment you don’t always know if you actually have the 3:1 advantage. You’re also not going to be well it looks like there are 13 of them and we only have 38 so let’s not attack them. And sometimes you don’t have a choice but to go despite lower odds.
Just to briefly stay on topic. After 8 turns you can pretty much tell if the Axis will win or lose, but it takes like 10 more turns to wrap it up. We are talking two days play time.
BC is cheating. Do you have a military power fantasy and want to be a conqueror, or are you a office clerk that prefer to analyze stuff ?
axisandaliesplayer, I never said 3 to 1 in men, I said in firepower. And this is just a rule of thumb. Surprise, morale, skill, terrain, weather, bad luck miracles and hundred other not calculated issues will make an influence. But when I was a platoon leader in a rifle coy back at the 80,s, they told us that to make a successful attack against another platoon, we must attack with 3 platoons. And if we want to attack a coy, we need to use 3 coys. But this is against an equal opponent, with equal morale, training and weapons. Indirect art support or ground support from aircrafts don’t count, and remember a well placed single cluster mine has the same firepower as a rifle coy. This goes for WWII too.
For home study , look up http://www.dupuyinstitute.org and read the TDI reports about Combat effectiveness during WWII.
During WWII the Germans could attack 1 to 1 and win with few losses, because their training, skill and tactics were better than the opponent. Russians used human waves 10 to 1 and still lost with huge casualties. USA could attack 1 to 1 and win because of strong air support and twice the heavy artillery than any other force. Then we have the odd battles. One single man with a machine gun made a last stand battle and killed hundreds or thousands of enemies. This happened on a bridge in WWI and a hill in Korea. And then we have a modern unit against local or native milits. Roarks Drift come to mind, 37 Brits with rifles defend against 5000 Zulu warriors, and win.
But in 99 % of the cases, 3 platoons will win against 1 platoon.
Oh, and don’t compare a consim with a real war. And as far as modern wars is concerned, that is button pushing.
Now consider a more unclear situation, where Russia has 100units in Moscow and Germany has 95units to attack with. This can be a huge victory for Germany (winning with ~25 units) but only if it has enough combat factors. And… what is enough ;-). I have yet to meet the person who can tell me that, so untill then I’keep using a BC for those situations.
I agree this situation can look unclear first time, but after a few games you must have noticed that this situation do happen in every game from turn 6 and onwards. So you only need a BC the first 10 times, after that you can tell by experience.
@Shin:
I would think using a BC along with a timed turn or whatever would seem to be the best of both worlds. So you’d still have the option, but it couldn’t completely drain the game’s momentum.
I totally agree. Use a timer like in chess. Real life commanders do have a lot of time pressure, and if they wait too long, the window of opportunity will pass. Why should a wannabe A&A general Rommel have the luxury of spending the time it takes to sit back in his armchair and let the BC do the math ? The real Rommel slept in a tent, got bit by mosquitos and starved like his men, and he had to attack in a hurry before the Brits attacked him.
Now consider a more unclear situation, where Russia has 100units in Moscow and Germany has 95units to attack with. This can be a huge victory for Germany (winning with ~25 units) but only if it has enough combat factors. And… what is enough ;-). I have yet to meet the person who can tell me that, so untill then I’keep using a BC for those situations.
I agree this situation can look unclear first time, but after a few games you must have noticed that this situation do happen in every game from turn 6 and onwards. So you only need a BC the first 10 times, after that you can tell by experience.
Hey man, I can agree with that!
On the other hand, the game is dynamic. Each game is often different from the previous ones. Also, different people have different playstyles. As Russia for example, if my defenses are adequate against a very ARM-heavy german production, are they also adequate versus a German MECH-heavy build with the occasional STR? As Russia, I never check the BC anymore for my defense because indeed, I know they are adequate. If the UK (preferably RAF) helps me out. If they leave me alone with my problems, this is a different story. I DO still use a BC to check when my Red Army is ready for a counter-offensive because this is a rather vague balance I can’t wrap my logic around. I have a memory-aid to Judge if this is possible (which I also use if I play Germany ;-)) but there are so many exceptions to the rule that I still check the BC for confirmation of my surmise.
(…) Real life commanders do have a lot of time pressure, and if they wait too long, the window of opportunity will pass. Why should a wannabe A&A general Rommel have the luxury of spending the time it takes to sit back in his armchair and let the BC do the math ? The real Rommel slept in a tent, got bit by mosquitos and starved like his men, and he had to attack in a hurry before the Brits attacked him.
You are right ofc about lower level commanders (division/brigade and lower?). Rommel, as an example of a corps commander, did a lot of fighting and was under a lot of time pressure. At the same time he had his moments in between and he most certainly did use ‘his version of’ a BC. His version meaning drawing out a battleplan, making calculations of firepower, number and type of troops, you name it. For as far and as good as he could with the available information from recon. Surely he could not pop out a BC but he did pop out his mathematical equipment (drawing compass, ruler, etc.).
But most importantly, the analogy breaks at Rommel because we A&A players, IF the comparison with a RL commander has to be made, come closer to Eisenhower who was definately doing the fighting from his office. And even that comparison is not correct because we command all allied troops and Eisenhower did only the Western European theatre.
I’d rather compare playing A&A with a war room/command center, from where all military actions of each nation are directed. And even then, this has to be the combined war room of all Major Powers on your side. So merge the Russian, American and British war rooms together and you get an A&A game on the allied side.
You never quit, now do you ?
Well, to be honest, I feel obliged to react on the lack of nuances in some of your reasonings so I point them out. If you don’t want a reaction to your opinion, then don’t give one. I am always open to hear a different opinion and if people with strong opposite opinions cannot agree, they shouldn’t resort to this kind of personal labeling. Just agree to disagree, shall we?
You never quit, now do you ?
But I see your point, Ge add 5 more Mechs for a possible one more hit, and UK fly in 5 more Fighters for a possible 4 more hits, and this will unbalance the 200 + units battle so much we will have to run the numbers again, from scratch. Got that.
Actually, yes, I have seen that many units make a big difference in the battle calculation for a large battle.
Using a battle calc is not cheating, and it’s ridiculous to say that it is. ‘Accidentally’ producing 11 units from a major factory or moving a plane an extra space or things like that are cheating. Calculating your odds of winning is just smart.
I like how it is used in our group. It improves the quality of play because it helps people make less bad moves. And it helps bridge some of the gap between experienced players and newer players.
If you want to forbid its use in your face to face games, that’s fine, but in our group I would only get upset if someone was using it for every single fight and was taking forever.
Using a battle calc is not cheating, and it’s ridiculous to say that it is. ‘Accidentally’ producing 11 units from a major factory or moving a plane an extra space or things like that are cheating. Calculating your odds of winning is just smart.
How about this: You have a mechanized infantry with 10 chips under it and a tank with 10 chips under it. You move in for the attack and transfer the units over to the battle board. Then on the battle board, the mech now has 1 chip under it and the tank now has 19 chips under it. WOW! Magic!
Or, you launch into a big fleet battle and when your fleet is moved over to the battle board, suddenly there is a red chip under your battleship. Now you have 6 battleships. Where did they come from?
These weird things happen to me “all the time”. Do you think this is “cheating”?
Well, yes, obviously those things are cheating. No quotation marks needed.
That’s just the point I was trying to make. Those sorts of things are obviously cheating, but using a battle calculator is not.
I think the word “cheating” is used for too much different situations, particularly by non-english speaking people…
You tell a dutch guy (like me) that he is cheating, chances are that he will get angry and you 'll need to explain to him you meant no offense and that cheating is something different from committing foul play…
… Am I right?
The way I understand it, cheating, as opposed to foul play, can also be something beyond a person’s control.
And as far as a BC in A&A goes, I get that cheating means: “It is legal, but an unfair advantage for the user”. With which of course, I do not agree ;-).
Yeah, I think we both are saying the same thing :)
ItIsILeClerc,
“Cheating” and “Foul Play” are basically the same thing. It is quite basically doing something in a game that will change the odds to your favor and is against the stated rules.
Now, it’s true some people may not fully understand the rules of this game and may do something against the rules by mistake. A couple of examples would be:
Moving a plane from an island and forgetting to count the sea zone that the island is in.
Moving a plane it’s full movement to an attack (without allowing movement spaces to land in a friendly territory).
Those could be done by simple mistake and it doesn’t mean that person is deliberately cheating. It just means a misunderstanding of the rules or perhaps just a slip of the mind. The thing is, if you see someone do something simple like this, you simply tell them they can’t do that and refer them to the rules. You DON’T accuse them of cheating. That is rude and the person being accused has every right to be offended. It doesn’t matter whether the person speaks English as a first or second language. It’s a courtesy and that applies to everyone.
That being said, if some person keeps making the same kind of “mistakes” over and over again, then they are either really absent minded or maybe they are trying to see what they could get away with. In that case, I would probably either finish that game and not invite that person over again or maybe even quit the game immediately. Depends on how much it aggravated me.
"How many rounds to finish a game ? "
Including the new topic of cheating ?
I figure you must add half an hour for every time someone cheat.
