b!tching and moaning about grand strategy

[greeny]

Isn't grand strategy the Politburo's job? i.e. we decide WHAT needs to be done at the Grand Strategic level, and then STAVKA decide HOW they're going to do it (at the Operational and Tactical level).

Foe example we, the Politburo might decide that it is in our strategic interest to take Sweden, or make a concentrated narrow blitz to Berlin, or to advance on a broad front all at once. And then STAVKA decides what operations need to be made to achieve it.

Think of it as George W. Bush deciding to invade Afghanistan/Iraq and WHAT the Armed Forces are meant to achieve, and then it’s up to the Generals to work out plans on HOW to actually do it.

[Henrik]

If you order us to "make a concentrated narrow blitz into Berlin" wouldn't that be a "How to" thing though, something which you say should be up to the stavka?

[Bossy20000]

I don't agree comrade Henrikov, because it is a strategic choice. All tactical matters should be dealt with in STAVKA, the strategic matters are for the Politburo. This doesn't mean the politburo won't consult the Marshal or his front commanders, it just means that the Politburo takes the final decision in strategic matters. Afterwards, it's up to STAVKA to find a way to do what has been decided.

I thought this is what we decided when the Politburo-idea was being considered?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Henrik
If you order us to "make a concentrated narrow blitz into Berlin" wouldn't that be a "How to" thing though, something which you say should be up to the stavka?

Here is an example:

The "What" would be: A push to Berlin and the Ploesti Oil Feilds."

The "How" would be:

Southern Fronts: During Winter 1943 Shaka will take Kiev, etc, etc until he can move on Ploesti from the north, and Figu will take Odessa, Bucharest, etc etc etc etc, until he can attack the Ploesti area from the south.

Politburo discusses the what in general terms. The Stavka discusses the who, where when and how in Stavka.

All Im talking about is the Strategic Objectives and essentially we will all decide that because we will open a discussion and decide upon it, All comments will be welcome. But we are responsible for making sure the discussion happens and then we will issue our "Grand Strategy".

[Dr. Nick]

STAVKA does the tactical level. Politburo does grand strategy. We set 'quotas' for the army to liberate terrain.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Bossy20000
I don't agree comrade Henrikov, because it is a strategic choice. All tactical matters should be dealt with in STAVKA, the strategic matters are for the Politburo. This doesn't mean the politburo won't consult the Marshal or his front commanders, it just means that the Politburo takes the final decision in strategic matters. Afterwards, it's up to STAVKA to find a way to do what has been decided.

I thought this is what we decided when the Politburo-idea was being considered?

Apperently you've changed your mind recently.

Origianlly posted by Bossy20000
I'm not on Stavka, but I suggest we start discusing our strategy for next winter. If we know what we want to do, we can put all assets in position in time, and hit the Germans on every front and push them back. I ask comrade Marshal to correct me, or add things, but I think we best do this by placing objectives for every front, and discussing how we will do things.

For example: Attacking Galati, from Sevastopel. What will this need, when could we do it, what needs to be done first, what does it give to us, what to do when we take the city, etc We should discuss these things well in advance, so we won't encounter surprises when we actually do it !!

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...00#post2034800


Not to mention the definition of STAVKA as written in it's thread:

STAVKA Is the Council of Front Commanders chaired by the Marshal and discusses matters of Grand Strategy involving matters concerning more than one front, reinforcement priorities and offensives.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...59#post2029359


The Marshal suggests that the arm chair quarterbacks in the Politburo stick to their "what if?" questions and let the Military decide upon Military matters.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by conmcb25


Here is an example:

The "What" would be: A push to Berlin and the Ploesti Oil Feilds."

Funny, I just did a poll about Grand Strategy a few days ago, I don't remember a hue and cry about me usurping from the Politburo

Politburo discusses the what in general terms. The Stavka discusses the who, where when and how in Stavka.

No.

All Im talking about is the Strategic Objectives and essentially we will all decide that because we will open a discussion and decide upon it, All comments will be welcome. But we are responsible for making sure the discussion happens and then we will issue our "Grand Strategy".

You're grasping for power, and I won't stand for it.


Oleg Sorokin, Marshal of the Soviet Union

[conmcb25]

H, I dont think we are grasping for power. Unfortunately Im kind of busy today and cant do an aim conversation.

All Im saying is we discuss grand strategy which was part of the original Politburo proposal.

With that being said if we want to change that, I dont have a problem with it but I think you already know I won't let this discussion get too down into the weeds. And that was part of the reason for my latest post because saying:"make a concentrated narrow blitz into Berlin" is too much in the weeds for the Politburo. This is bordering at least upon Operational guidance which again is clearly a STAVKA responsibility.

Again, Im just talking about the what in General terms. The who how where and when is clearly a STAVKA responsibility.

And I will not limit dicussing "Grand Strategy" to just Politburo members. The thread will be for all to discuss.

Maybe we just have a misunderstanding here, but quite honestly I dont really have time right now to "grasping for power" in real life.

However I do have time to channel discussion that will benefit the game and direct our youthfull exuberence in hopefully the right direction.

[Bossy20000]

Well, as a reply to your post about me changing my mind.
The first quote is one of today, the other is one of May the 26th. On may the 26th, the Politburo wasn't founded yet. We only saw birth on May the 30th, and received our commisions on June the 7th.
So, the second quote you use was made BEFORE we had a politburo. STAVKA was all we had, so it was clear we had to discuss general strategy there. Now we do have a Politburo, so we can discuss strategy there instead of doing it at STAVKA.
The third quote you use is one of yourself, in STAVKA thread, made on May 25th, also before there was a Politburo.

Before you start insultive posts, you better should do some research!

EDIT: I still have to do the polls about comrades Anzyakovs proposals for the Politburo. Should I wait until this is cleared out?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Bossy20000
EDIT: I still have to do the polls about comrades Anzyakovs proposals for the Politburo. Should I wait until this is cleared out?

I have not seen an objection to this so I think we should go ahead. Finally deciding on Anzakov's proposals is on my list of open issues to close out!

So go ahead and start. If you have specific questions about how to word Polls or exactly what the proposals are please get with Anzyakov , he is the brain trust on those issues. Thanks!

[Shaka Naldur]

well, I thought everything that cover the military strategy was Stavka business...
and concerning politics it was Stavka's

[yop73]

I don't understand what the trouble is. If those bureaucrats want to spend afternoons discussing about any military actions, fine.

But in the end it are still the front-commanders and especially the marchall who descide.

If they want to discuss military, just let them.

Btw. This is the first and last time that I'm going to interfere in politics. I'm a general and all the bureaucracy in Moskou really doesn't interrest me. All I want is to see some German and Finnish blood.

(PS Nothing personnal off course, just the role ...)

[conmcb25]

All

Please read the 5th sentence in this paragraph:

This is the only reason I posted that the Politburo should begin discussing "Grand Strategy".

This was the proposal that we voted on when WE (Thats all of us!) voted to have a politburo.

"POLITBURO is the Civilian Committe in Charge. They Hire and Fire the Marshall. If Stavka memebers are tired of or want to get rid of the Marshall they need to covince the POLITBURO. POLITBURO handles the civilian issues:Propoganda, Industrial production, finances, Party Purity and Policing those not loyal to the Party. They also determine the Strategic direction of the war. The POLITBURO is composed of 7 members. Those seven chose the General Secretary/Party Chairman and he appoints members to different roles."

(This is also posted in the first post of this thread and was copied directly from the vote we had on whether to have a politburo or not.)

I am still perplexed as to why this is such an issue. And Im REALLY perplexed on why Front Commanders are commenting on whether we should do it or not because I already said the discussion of this would be open to all.

[FiGu]

I think you should leave the grand strategics to stavka.. where it belongs..

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by FiGu
I think you should leave the grand strategics to stavka.. where it belongs..

"War is merely Politics by other means."

Thats Clauswitz.

I dont agree and I still dont understand why all you guys are acting like Im taking away your birthday or something.

We voted on this proposal. I was following up on a Politburo action. I just dont understand why we are flailing testosterone all over the place!

[Xenozod]

If you didn't agree with this, you shouldn't have voted yes.

[yop73]

I just don't see the purpose of discussing "grand strategy" here. I already know our grand strategy: take as many German cities as possible.

You guys don't need to discuss the "grand strategy", cuz there isn't any. Every front commander just tries to capture as many German cities and kill as many units, that's the strategy.

When and how this happens, should be descided by the marchall and the Stavka.

But if you guys want to post threads such as:

Will we capture Berlin or not?

Or:

Will we head for the Ploesti oilfields or not?

That's just fine, but those are things we already know. Those things don't NEED to be discussed.

[The ANZAC]

It seems redundant to have the Politburo discuss military matters at the same time as STAVKA. Just seems like there will be too many cooks over the brew and it will all get spoiled. Just my 2 cents.

Also, I withdraw my support for my own amendments. I fyou still want to bring them up, sure, but I've had a change of heart

[conmcb25]

This is getting absurd!

H Tower are you going to answer my PM's?

I'd like to hear what you have to say, then I guess its time to regroup and figure out what we are going to do.

[yop73]

Steve, don't get me wrong:

I'm not saying that I don't want the "grand strategy" being discussed in the politburo, just because it's the politburo. I want it neither in the politburo, nor in the STAVKA thread.

I'm just saying that it's kinda rediculous to talk about "grand strategy" in the first place. Everybody knows what he needs to do.

It's just that some practical arrangements need to be made when coördinating an attack over several fronts, and that's the duty of the STAVKA.

But if this case is so symbolic to you that you really want to have it, you can discuss "grand strategy" in the politburo, for what I'm concerned.

[The ANZAC]

I think it is possible for both camps to plan strategy:

STAVKA will focus on military strategy- how to defeat the Hun on the field, where/when to strike, plan major offensives.

Politburo on the other hand works on logistics- getting newly produced units to the fronts, how to get them there more quickly, where to send them, how to increase productivity, plans for the citizens and reclamation of cities from front commanders once we really start pushing into Germany.

Sound workable? Ofcourse one needs the other and if we don't work together we cannot win.

[PinkyGen]

Good post Comrade Anzyakov, this is a team effort, and it reminds the Politburo members that we can affect the military strategy by choosing which fronts to spend money and build weapons for.

[Bossy20000]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Good post Comrade Anzyakov, this is a team effort, and it reminds the Politburo members that we can affect the military strategy by choosing which fronts to spend money and build weapons for.

Well, this is exactly the reason why the Politburo has to discuss on matters of Grand Strategy. If we don't give the front commanders the units or the money to attack, many of them won't be able to do an attack. Therefor, Politburo should discuss where, what etc to attack, and then leave the tactical situation to STAVKA.

An example: if we say to take Ploesti in two turns and we give the units, we have decided on grand strategy. How the city is taken, is up to the Front commander. He decides which units will be used in the task force etc

I thought this was what we agreed on?

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Bossy20000
If we don't give the front commanders the units or the money to attack, many of them won't be able to do an attack.

Sounds like a threat there to me. Are the armaments and economic minister going to refuse to build units or rushbuy needed structures? You're getting it all wrong! The Politburo is there to provide the tools to defeat Germany, you should be out there asking what the commanders need, not telling them.

Therefor, Politburo should discuss where, what etc to attack, and then leave the tactical situation to STAVKA.

If you mean like, we should attack Finland in force, or we need to attack the Germans in the South or make a strike deep into Germany, we can do that. I'll accept that.

An example: if we say to take Ploesti in two turns and we give the units, we have decided on grand strategy. How the city is taken, is up to the Front commander. He decides which units will be used in the task force etc

Not only no, HELL NO. That's an operation you've planned there, straight with a timetable, and an unrealistic one to boot. Now if the politburo suggests a strategy like, "deny the use of the Romanian oilfields by the Germans, that's something else entirely, something I'll grudgingly accept. No freaking timetable though, and no direct orders to attack a city.

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Good post Comrade Anzyakov, this is a team effort, and it reminds the Politburo members that we can affect the military strategy by choosing which fronts to spend money and build weapons for.

The Marshal eagerly awaits to perform his one remaining job of pushing end of turn.

[conmcb25]

Sure would be nice if we could just start another Thread on this so I can make sure the discussion doesn't get down in the weeds like it has now. And for the record Michealovitch's plan was too down in the weeds.

But then that would be productive wouldn't it?

I say lets just keep pissing and moaning back and forth about it.

[Bossy20000]

Originally posted by H Tower

Sounds like a threat there to me. Are the armaments and economic minister going to refuse to build units or rushbuy needed structures? You're getting it all wrong! The Politburo is there to provide the tools to defeat Germany, you should be out there asking what the commanders need, not telling them.


If you mean like, we should attack Finland in force, or we need to attack the Germans in the South or make a strike deep into Germany, we can do that. I'll accept that.


Not only no, HELL NO. That's an operation you've planned there, straight with a timetable, and an unrealistic one to boot. Now if the politburo suggests a strategy like, "deny the use of the Romanian oilfields by the Germans, that's something else entirely, something I'll grudgingly accept. No freaking timetable though, and no direct orders to attack a city.


The Marshal eagerly awaits to perform his one remaining job of pushing end of turn.

1. I wasn't threatening, just saying you need the Politburo, and can't ignore it

2. The second thing you say is exactly what I meant

3. I was just giving an example, it wasn't meant to be done in the next two turns. Taking Ploesti is the same as denying the Germans the use of the Romanian oilfields, so I don't see what your problem is. Is it only because it was not vague? As for the timetable, I think we (the Politburo) can set timetables. This was an example (and not meant to be done the next two turns), but we (the Politburo) should be able to say to STAVKA to liberate the Baltic States in the next X months or other things alike. We (again the Politburo) should be able to decide how fast the military should free our people, take strategic cities, etc. This should be doen in concordance with STAVKA, but I think timetables aren't as bad as you make them look. You are doing the same when you are planning the liberation of Kiev.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Bossy20000
3. This should be doen in concordance with STAVKA, but I think timetables aren't as bad as you make them look. You are doing the same when you are planning the liberation of Kiev.

There is a difference, I presented the whole thing as my point of view, what we might do, never once did I present it as an order. THAT, is the difference.

[Ben Kenobi]

I say lets just keep pissing and moaning back and forth about it.

Appropriately titled thread.

HTower puts lots of effort into being the Marshall.

The Politburo is simply an organ for increasing postcounts.

I stay let these folks do their job and report back their successes. After all, lots more successes to report and celebrate.

[H Tower]

your quote isn't exactly fair, the rolling eyes contribute to his sentence and should have been left in.

Appropriately titled thread.

HTower puts lots of effort into being the Marshall.

The check's in the mail