Comes Rei Militaris
Re: What sort of general are you?
It's too broad, and seems to diverge into Sun Tzu territory.
If you're presented with a battlefield, like Warhammer or Total War, it's a combination of knowing your opponent, his choice of army, his preferences within that, and his temperament, plus a grasp of what he thinks of you, your choices and your preferences.
Chances are you can't manoeuvre and both sides have near perfect knowledge and control of what's going on.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
大信皇帝
Re: What sort of general are you?
We are fantasizing, that is the whole point. It doesn't even have to be "I am a general" it could just be "I prefer the Dutch school of thought due to its reliance on economic factors".Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius
Also regardless of the scenario I find that many people have their own style. Some are inherently more aggressive than others, more positional than others, more interested in political and other strategic objectives as opposed to fighting a war of annihilation to defeat the opponent. We see this with players of war games and video games. We have seen this in history as well. Though I welcome anyone to talk of a specific scenario from history or in theory.
I would like to point out that I spent about 4 posts discussing the different types of military commanders as well as different schools of thought in strategy and warfare. This is not only a direct discussion of military history and theory throughout various times but it is also relevant in reinforcing my claim that regardless of scenario people have preferences.
"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō
vice president
Re: What sort of general are you?
It's fun to compare and contrast historical figures, but I agree with others, if you want to give the thread a more serious academic focus you would be better served asking us to identify traits of a great general or military strategist and discussing those rather than just picking categorizes from a made up list of random generals and tactics.
Clausewitz for instance identifies military genius with two traits: coup d'oriel (intuition) and a heroic temperament.
https://medium.com/the-bridge/clause...140#.f3u4rc8sj
And West Point's working analytical concept for the future military leader is listed below: http://mwi.usma.edu/201559speaking-t...ond-look-like/
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Dick Cheney.; January 13, 2017 at 07:43 AM.
Allied to the House of Hader
Member of the Cheney/Berlusconi Pact
Comes Rei Militaris
Re: What sort of general are you?
Apparently there is a charm school for generals, which is a one week course for when you get to brigadier, and refreshers.
Someone accused it of encouraging groupthink.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
Citizen
Re: What sort of general are you?
If the regularity of "Pyrrhic victories" in my TW career is anything to go by, I might find something in common with Pyrrhus of Epirus. Impetuous, "all in" style without too much planning for the consequences. My motto is basically that "Pyrrhic victory is still a victory".
Under the patronage of Finlander, of the Imperial House of Hader
δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
Re: What sort of general are you?
There's a variety of traits in that box which define the exceptional generals and military strategists/tacticians which they don't outline in orange.It's fun to compare and contrast historical figures, but I agree with others, if you want to give the thread a more serious academic focus you would be better served asking us to identify traits of a great general or military strategist and discussing those rather than just picking categorizes from a made up list of random generals and tactics.
Clausewitz for instance identifies military genius with two traits: coup d'oriel (intuition) and a heroic temperament.
https://medium.com/the-bridge/clause...140#.f3u4rc8sj
And West Point's working analytical concept for the future military leader is listed below: http://mwi.usma.edu/201559speaking-t...ond-look-like/
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
GIVE THEM BLIZZARDS!
Re: What sort of general are you?
I got Wellington in the quiz, which is pretty sickening as I don't like the guy
http://www.military.com/LeaderShipTe...d.htm,,00.html
In terms of how I would play TW games I find myself generally doing the following;
Infantry in a defensive formation on favorable terrain and then being extremely aggressive with my cavalry and/or skirmishers to single out and destroy isolated enemy units and force the enemy to attack me. Once the enemy engage my infantry line I use my remaining cav/light infantry to carry out hammer and anvil strikes were possible.
It works pretty well in regards to most TW factions, but it can fail pretty hard if you're fighting a cav heavy enemy like the Huns/Mongols/Persians/etc. When fighting such factions I generally try to have the following composition: 50% missile units, 30-40% infantry and 10-20% cav. I creep forward with my army until my missile unit's are in range and attempt to out shoot the enemy. I never chase them. Eventually they inevitably do an all out charge which my infantry and cav can usually repulse. Usually works!
When playing more grand strategy type games, particularly hearts of Iron I usually find myself being much more defensive. I go for defense in depth, draw my enemies in, encircle them, eliminate the pocket and retake the land I lost and then repeat as required. I often find myself turtleing up and then attacking an enemy weak point with overwhelming force when such an opportunity rises. I suppose my cautious/defensive nature matches up pretty well with Wellington!
In terms of actual military experience I served for 4 years or so in the army reserve so I've had a small taste of the mind boggling amount of logistics and bureaucracy that goes into any kind of military leadership role. There's a very good reason most generals are in their 50's or 60's, younger men tend to lack the patience! I was fairly good friends with a Lieutenant and the impression he gave me was that the vast majority of his time and effort was consumed by logistics, bureaucracy and internal politics than actual tactical command training/combat. I can only imagine that said work load would only increase the farther up the ranks you climb!
In a purely hypothetical scenario in some alternate world where I have been given the unfortunate task of leading an army, I imagine I would fight defensively in depth, but make extensive use of guerrilla/Asymmetric warfare. I would then launch debilitating raids to weaken the advancing enemy to the point were a significant counter attack could be launched.
Last edited by IrishBlood; January 13, 2017 at 11:29 AM.
Comes Rei Militaris
Re: What sort of general are you?
It pretty much depends on game mechanics.
In a game, I would have no problem packing the frontline and rear areas with cheap expendable cannon fodder.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
大信皇帝
Re: What sort of general are you?
@Dick Cheney, this isn't so much about military genius or what traits the "great captains" possessed. This is supposed to be about you and what you think. I'm not even asking the question of whether you are a military genius because I think your level of skill is largely irrelevant. Rather this is a question of how you fight battles, conduct operations and generally would wage a campaign or war. It's not even supposed to be particularly academic since I am looking for personal opinions. However any sort of response would be acceptable either way since a response based on experience or a more scholarly approach reveals much about ones character or mind set. Your latest post for example touches on this. Cognitive, Physical and Social; certain positions are better suited with these temperaments. Some might be more organizational and hence be better suited to staff work. Perhaps others are more physical and energetic which may put them in a Division or Corps command. Others are very thoughtful and are able to put this into practice making them a good Chief of Staff or Army Commander. Ultimately I think experience is the greatest factor in determining what level of command one should have but many other factors also play a role in deciding this. However I don't expect anyone here to have any experience which is why this is largely theoretical.
Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; January 13, 2017 at 05:32 PM.
"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō
大信皇帝
Re: What sort of general are you?
I thought you were going to say plug the Carpathians with a few divisions, hold the Danube and keep Silistria from falling at all costs.
"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō
大信皇帝
Re: What sort of general are you?
But what would you do specifically? Any preferences?
I'm wondering if you are big on the pike and shot era which has lots of variety when it comes to doctrine. By any chance are you big on the Napoleonic Wars and the wars of the 1800's or WW1 and WW2, maybe even modern military operations?
"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō
大信皇帝
Re: What sort of general are you?
Pretty good read.
"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō
Comes Domesticorum
Re: What sort of general are you?
Clearly a demi-god that posses all those traits is rare, so that is why a division of works a necessary.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I got Wellington in the quiz, which is pretty sickening as I don't like the guy
http://www.military.com/LeaderShipTe...d.htm,,00.htmlStrange I thought that was what Wellington did.
General speaking I prefer to strategically manoeuvre to push enemy attack tactically, so I guess I am more close to the school line of Sherman and Liddel Hart.
Last edited by hellheaven1987; January 14, 2017 at 09:46 PM.
大信皇帝
Re: What sort of general are you?
I personally have a very low opinion of the ancient commanders. It is about as simplistic as you can get.
Alexander commanded more like a Corps or Division commander than he did an Army commander.
hellheaven1987 seems to have no opinion either way or is that just me?
Tell me what you know, tell me your secrets.
"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō
Comes Rei Militaris
Re: What sort of general are you?
Coordinating different parts of the military would be essential, and since you can't exercise control over them, you need trusted subcommanders.
The Roman officer corps isn't really noted for brilliance, but a shared doctrinal training insured they performed as was expected of them.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
Comes Domesticorum
Re: What sort of general are you?
That is largely because of lack of information and short communication range; we did know he sent several detachments for smaller strategical operation without his guide.
Me? Unfortunately despite how I despise it, British way of warfare actually suits me better; perhaps because I was raised up in a culture that dates back for thousands years, so caution and careful preparation are deeply root in my way of thinking (which is bad, I admit).hellheaven1987 seems to have no opinion either way or is that just me?
Tell me what you know, tell me your secrets.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
