That must have taken Locutus a LONG time to come up with that attack strategy.
Remind me never to ask Locutus what he does in his spare time, okay ?

Me, I'd assasinate the key industrial/economic leaders, to put the country of it's backfoot, then launch an all-out assault. Of course, Taw or Locutus would be my stratigist/s, so we could destroy their military forces one by one ....

ok your choices are: island archipeligos, a mountainous country, a swampy country and a country the aproximate size of france with a mixture of all 3.

The country has an crumbling economy, but has been able to afford the best equipment and training for its troops.

*ugh* islands. swamps. make it easy dont you. shall we assume that the enemy has prepared his defences sensibly and has fortified his islands etc? does he have naval forces of any note?

Locutov, where's your air support? I appreciate your wedge formation for breakthrough, but it's inherently flankable. Will you be keeping your corps in step so as to prevent gaps between army boundaries, or will each army/corps purse it's own axis irrespective of the progress of the other axes? plus this had now turned into an amphibious campaign with little room for tactical maneouver.


Edited by - Radio Free Tawakalnistan on 9/5/2004 3:56:14 AM

---

*5. erect airfields some distance from the border and make sure they have sufficient amounts of fighters and bombers, and the supplies to keep em flying.*

*once far enough inland move the airbases further up front, and commence bombing key military positions, and step up the pace of the bombardments,*

---

Hmmmm although you did raise a point there, My air cover is comprised of Fighters and Bombers, I don't think I mentioned it in the original strategy, so I will do it here.

as said already, My airforce is comprised of fighters and bombers, when the invasion starts, they will launch in the order of fighters first to wipe airdefenses (at the locations provided by intelligence photgraphing (note Edit in the original post)), and gain general airsuperiority, followed by Bombers, whose tasks have been greatly covered, there are also Helicopters, these are the actual equipment that will use the forward Airbases to generally cover the advancing groundforces, that, and escort the aerial supply lines.

as you can see, my strategy is generally a tad incomplete, but if you have any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you.

@Neo_Kuja, ehhhmmmm, general, I have spent my youth (from 10-12 to now) thinking and strategizing, trying to provide myself with perfect strategies and I have been working them out in my head.

there are no "perfect" strategies. as i said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, and you must be flexible. However your organisation of an armoured breakthrough force is excellent, and if you can maintain the impetus of the offensive you shouldn't worry too much about flank attacks unless they threaten to disrupt your supply lines. With a totally offensive doctrine like that the whole thing collapses if you stop to consolidate.

1. I would assassinate their leader(s), preferably blowing up their central government building in the process, about a day prior to the inavasion. This will give enough time for word to spread, but not enough time for a new heirachy to be put in place. This must not be done by military vehicles, or it would almost certainly cause all-out war. If the government cannot be removed, go to (3).

2. Ask them for surrender, given (1) has been accomplished, they will almost certainly comply. Failing that, go to (3).

3. Proceed to (4) of Taw's plan.

Cutting enemy communications and surveilance equipment would be my first port of call. This can be done via tomahawks to knock out the major hubs.
Gaining complete dominence of the air would be next on my list, knocking out airfields and flight line-ups on the ground. Once you have that under control you can harass the enemy whenever and wherever you want. Air power would then knock out any remaining comms and radar installations, then get to work on knocking out supply lines to cut off their forward units. Ground troops would perform hit and run attacks to drain forward troops of remaining supplies, followed by a large scale armoured assault supported by infantry. Towns and static installations would be barracaded but not directly attacked, the main invasion force would go around and move onto the main objective (eg capital city)


EDIT: Forgot to add capture and hold a deep water port as a precurser to the main invasion. Gotta keep the lads well supplied.


Edited by - Mustang on 9/5/2004 6:37:30 PM

why does a capital city have to be a main objective? it's the forces in the field that matter, capitals are symbolic or political objectives only. what's the point of gettign emboiled in n urban fight for a capital when the enemy still has formations that can engage you?

ok, often esp in highlyy centralised societies, the capital has a significance q out of step with its military importance. Berlin, Moscow, Baghdad; they were important to capture to demonstrate that that the enemy was beaten and no longer in control. Baghdad was also important because it straddles the lines of communication north/south. But strictly speasking, in military terms it's a no-no to go for big cities directly when you can bypass them and take them later at your leisure.

Capturing capital cities allows you to take over the whole country, Taw. Haven't you played "Rise of Nations?

I would target the capitals, as they would damage the country's morale. Besides, the main political/corporate offices aren't usually located in the outback .

well I'm talking about the offensive breakthrough phase of the campaign. if you cut deep into the enemy's hinterland, you can in effect cut the capital or other big cities off without investing them and take them at your leisure. If you're lucky they'll get declared as open cities in which case you can just walk in, a la Paris 1940. if you remember in 1914 the Schlieffen was to bypass Paris entirely, the operational modification to the plan left Paris on the flankl of the German Army and thus allowed the Paris garrison to mount a counter-offensive, which if the original plan had been kept to, wouldn't have happened (but the Schlieffen plan was never 100% practical anyway)

Would capturing ther capital not destroy the enemy power structure? The plan I'd have thought would be to bypass non-capital cities, as Taw had mentioned, then capture the capital, then the other cities should surrender.

Depends on your target country. If the country is organized so that pretty much, it is the Capital City first and foremost among many lesser unequals, then you have a strategic target from a political and pyschological standpoint. If it is one of many great cities, it is not so important as the opposition government likely will be less statically deployed. Then it would be more important to pluck the low hanging fruit first and to occupy as much territory as possible before having to consider the Capital.

---

Would capturing ther capital not destroy the enemy power structure? The plan I'd have thought would be to bypass non-capital cities, as Taw had mentioned, then capture the capital, then the other cities should surrender.

---

Good point, but please understand, by the time an invasion starts, the "enemy power structure" as you call it, assuming you mean the governing agency, has been long gone, as weve seen with countless other invasions, to name one, the Blitzkrieg of 1940, where Holland was invaded, the royal family split, the queen went with her husband to London, her daughter and granddaughter (which now is seated on the throne) went off to Canada. as in, they were gone, almost before the invasion started.

Mostly, Capitals have more of a status of civil control, then an actual status of strategical importance, as opposed to the old days, when all the generals, and the copuntry's leader and his strategical staff was seated in the capital city of said country, when fallen, the whole country would be disoriented, along the strategical principal of: "Strong as a wilderbeast might be, with the head severed, its as useless as a pair of wasted socks".

I mean, todays example (sorry to bring the US into this) would be the US, when the nation is under attack (Like 9/11, sorry again) a plan that has been practised to the points of utter boredom steps into place, the president is immediately flown off to a safehouse, his wife and (possible) kids, are also flown off, but usually in the opposite direction of that of the nations leader, the vice president and the chiefs of staff will be scattered around the country, under their respective departments, in a connection with the leader of said country, from where they will coordinate the defenses of the country, should one fall, another can always step in, and in case the president, or the presidents wife be captured, and held ransom, communications with either are terminated, and may it be the president, shame, but the next one (read: Vice president) can always take over, should his wifes location be uncovered, "sorry mr. president, find a new wife, and raise a family with her". cruelly said, I know, but it comes down to it.

Why not launch a mass of biological warheads at the target? This would clear the land of its population, and your beforehand immunized colonists would only have to deal with burying the dead? Would be cheaper, IMO

Life is sexually transmitted