War Academy: Scenario of war w/ French after America: Plan Jackal - Page 2

Papa Chubby · July 12, 2002, 11:47

First of all, Robber Baron I´d like to offer my sincere apologies for the foul mouthings i directed at you. They were uttered in a moment that insanity had gripped my very soul and bound it in darkness so bleak that the brightests torch could not, nor even would try to penetrate it.

Second thing I would like to mention: why are we gunning for the Americans if they do not have luxury nor is it certain that they have Iron. While the french have both, tagged and waiting to be bagged. Is it the thought that the Americans are more aggressive, more expansionistic. These factors will contribute little to the equation if it is our intention to start an oscillating war. While the fact that we take French first will mean that we can entrench our position sooner and get connection to the strategic and luxury resourcess sooner.

If you´r getting tired of me always rambling on about attacking French first, then you gotta do something about it.

Support going to war against French first and I´ll stop.

UnOrthOdOx · July 12, 2002, 12:18

America has dyes. As for not Iron...

They are closer, easier to consolidate, and an easier target.

Robber Baron · July 12, 2002, 12:22

I guess the original thinking was that American territory looked like fertile ground for expansion. So does French territory, to be sure. But subsequent map knowledge suggests (to me, at any rate) that
1) The French present a more dangerous foe (because they look like they will soon get access to iron and swordsmen); and
2) expanding by heading north AND swinging west (to get to the French) would leave our capital and heartland exposed to a thrust from the Americans and/or Germans -- whereas if we move directly north against the Yanks, we should be able to intercept a third party move by detaching a portion of our attack force and sending it south for homeland defense.

Micaelus · July 12, 2002, 12:33

I aggree with many of the above statements calling for constraint and caution when dealing with the French. It would appear that we may be dumped over our heads if we decide to act hastily. Let us be level-headed, see where the assult and hopeful destruction of America (for living space--I nearly feel like Hitler saying that) takes us, and then decide if and when France should be our target.

Papa Chubby · July 12, 2002, 12:49

First of all, then I do believe that case Pink, or the invasion of the French homeland is still the battleplan that is on the table. That at least is what was voted on, I have seen no polls on attacking America first. Furthermore the battleplan for an invasion of the American plains, as somebody called it, would require additional resourcess. It calls for two stacks breaching the American border heading for Washington and New York. I do believe that Uberkraux has demanded at least five archers and two spearmen pr. stack, meaning we would have to build up our strike force.

Another thing I would like to mention is the fact that we have been discussing is the so-called oscillating war. If that is the case then the fact that we can´t pick the french as our initial can´t be valid, as the very tactic calls for us targeting another foe, namelly the French.

Of course I would have to concede that Robber Barons suggestions are very valid. That it would give us added defensive potential and fertile lands to take the Americans. Then I would like to ask how does this fact compare to the fact that the French have far more resourcess, the wines and Iron.

GoodFella · July 12, 2002, 15:35

Greece is not a viable target until the middle ages. At this stage and for awhile, we'll be slaughtered by their hoplites, even if we get swordsman and chariots.

I think mabee sending the main army south through Orleans and sending the spearmen army to camp outside Lyons to the North would now be good after looking at the maps. A lightning strike would be good, but I don't think it would be affordable, so a small decoy army (the spearmen) I think would be the best option.

Guardian · July 17, 2002, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
My concern on this tactic is that some DIA members have stated in their campaigns that they want to destroy America, and then make a defensive army...

Well, first of all, destroying America is not a prudent plan at this time. What we need is a quick and decisive victory, not a prolonged war of attrition. In other words: go in there and hit them hard, grab a couple of cities and some land to grow on, then make peace and consolidate our gains.

Second, I don't believe in "defensive armies".
Certainly, we should always have a few defensive "backbone" units who can hold the fort for a couple of turns on their own, but apart from that, I believe what we need is mobile forces with strong offensive capabilities - which we may or may not choose to use.

These are my personal views - at least for the time being.

Kuciwalker · July 17, 2002, 12:36

We have a new building phase coming up, as 1st Army will be done soon. We should build 2nd and 3rd Armies now. 2nd Army will meet with 1st to take New York after Washington falls, while 3rd Army will take on Philadelphia and then station itself halfway between America and France. When 1st and 2nd Armies are done cleaning our the Dragon's Teeth, they meet with 3rd Army and all march towards France. We send a group of 2-3 Spearmen and an Archer or two (we'll have replenishments flowing up from Apolyton, Termina and Tassagrad) to take out their Iron, while the rest take on (simultaneously, if we have enough forces; in sequence if not) Orleans and Paris.

Guardian · July 18, 2002, 07:37

Sounds like a risky adventure... We'd better be pretty damn sure we can pull it off before we start picking on the French. We may need to consolidate our position a bit and set up a few more productive cities first.

Also, we should not lose sight of the fact that there's little use in grabbing land if we can't take advantage of it to further our own growth and development.

DAVOUT · July 18, 2002, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Guardian

Second, I don't believe in "defensive armies".
Certainly, we should always have a few defensive "backbone" units who can hold the fort for a couple of turns on their own, but apart from that, I believe what we need is mobile forces with strong offensive capabilities - which we may or may not choose to use.

A defensive army is obviously made of both defensive and offensive units, hopefully with more of the later. In other worlds, it is just an army which has been ordered to protect the Mother Land.