ISO Advice on 1x Speed Game Management

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • blue44elephant wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      blue44elephant wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Not if they die instantly, as already mentioned.
      try to understand that damage is dealt every 60 mins on 1 times map and i have five units so i will get 5 hours of time to reinforce my capital
      Try to understand, that most units get a attack reset when they managed to kill a stack off. ;)
      ok try doing it yourself tell me the result
      First I would be have to get into such a situation :D
    • I think @blue44elephant is positing the situation of an enemy that must delayed in order to ensure the arrival of a defending force capable of victory prior to the loss of the objective. In such a situation, it is generally ideal to concentrate your available regional forces against the enemy defensively to hold and delay the enemy while the primary combat mass is en route to destroy the enemy force.

      Since practical examples are in vogue here, I was recently playing as Syria in a Flashpoint against Italy. I had conquered Greece and Bulgaria, while he had conquered the Balkans West of Romania. This was a unique situation, as I will explain. Edessa is a production province of rares, with the terrain type “open ground” while Thessaloniki, the electronics city Southeast of it, is of course of the urban terrain type. I had two or three battalions of motorized infantry and one tank battalion, all level 3. He had one advanced tank battalion, two or three advanced infantry battalions, and three Towed artillery battalions. Wanted to preserve Thessaloniki, as it had a level 2 army base I was consider annexing, and he wanted to destroy my division holding Edessa.

      My artillery battalion with my tank division had been destroyed in the bombardment phase, so I had no artillery when the Italians attacked. I was also at a technological disadvantage, but I had two full five squadron wings of ASF and strikes each. I immediately ordered those to attack. Then, I pulled off the province center and built a combat outpost since my division was better at attacking than defending. As he came close to the province center, I charged my division at his. Mine got the better of the fighting due to the combat outpost, and my aircraft then assisted them in obliterating the Italian tank division. It all simply depends of maximizing the damage output of your forces while reducing the casualties they take, and however that can be done, it should be done.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      I think @blue44elephant is positing the situation of an enemy that must delayed in order to ensure the arrival of a defending force capable of victory prior to the loss of the objective. In such a situation, it is generally ideal to concentrate your available regional forces against the enemy defensively to hold and delay the enemy while the primary combat mass is en route to destroy the enemy force.

      Since practical examples are in vogue here, I was recently playing as Syria in a Flashpoint against Italy. I had conquered Greece and Bulgaria, while he had conquered the Balkans West of Romania. This was a unique situation, as I will explain. Edessa is a production province of rares, with the terrain type “open ground” while Thessaloniki, the electronics city Southeast of it, is of course of the urban terrain type. I had two or three battalions of motorized infantry and one tank battalion, all level 3. He had one advanced tank battalion, two or three advanced infantry battalions, and three Towed artillery battalions. Wanted to preserve Thessaloniki, as it had a level 2 army base I was consider annexing, and he wanted to destroy my division holding Edessa.

      My artillery battalion with my tank division had been destroyed in the bombardment phase, so I had no artillery when the Italians attacked. I was also at a technological disadvantage, but I had two full five squadron wings of ASF and strikes each. I immediately ordered those to attack. Then, I pulled off the province center and built a combat outpost since my division was better at attacking than defending. As he came close to the province center, I charged my division at his. Mine got the better of the fighting due to the combat outpost, and my aircraft then assisted them in obliterating the Italian tank division. It all simply depends of maximizing the damage output of your forces while reducing the casualties they take, and however that can be done, it should be done.
      Your 5 strikers would have annihilated is forces at ease by themselves. Neither tank nor artillery have anything against airplanes and infantry are hardly an issue themselves.

      I know, what blue wants to say, though I do not believe it would work, he must be lucky that his singles units not get one shot.

      However I prefer loss of terrain over loss of units. I lost core cities many times and recovered without an issue.

      P. S.: Annexing because of Army Base 2 sounds quite uneconomical.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      I think @blue44elephant is positing the situation of an enemy that must delayed in order to ensure the arrival of a defending force capable of victory prior to the loss of the objective. In such a situation, it is generally ideal to concentrate your available regional forces against the enemy defensively to hold and delay the enemy while the primary combat mass is en route to destroy the enemy force.

      Since practical examples are in vogue here, I was recently playing as Syria in a Flashpoint against Italy. I had conquered Greece and Bulgaria, while he had conquered the Balkans West of Romania. This was a unique situation, as I will explain. Edessa is a production province of rares, with the terrain type “open ground” while Thessaloniki, the electronics city Southeast of it, is of course of the urban terrain type. I had two or three battalions of motorized infantry and one tank battalion, all level 3. He had one advanced tank battalion, two or three advanced infantry battalions, and three Towed artillery battalions. Wanted to preserve Thessaloniki, as it had a level 2 army base I was consider annexing, and he wanted to destroy my division holding Edessa.

      My artillery battalion with my tank division had been destroyed in the bombardment phase, so I had no artillery when the Italians attacked. I was also at a technological disadvantage, but I had two full five squadron wings of ASF and strikes each. I immediately ordered those to attack. Then, I pulled off the province center and built a combat outpost since my division was better at attacking than defending. As he came close to the province center, I charged my division at his. Mine got the better of the fighting due to the combat outpost, and my aircraft then assisted them in obliterating the Italian tank division. It all simply depends of maximizing the damage output of your forces while reducing the casualties they take, and however that can be done, it should be done.
      will you still want to fight and risk losing a city which you annexed for level 3 arms industry and level 4 army base? and take heavy collateral damage so why not fight in a province?
      Declaring war isn't enough, one must also know how to wage war.
      Lost battles can be summed up in two words: TOO LATE
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      I think @blue44elephant is positing the situation of an enemy that must delayed in order to ensure the arrival of a defending force capable of victory prior to the loss of the objective. In such a situation, it is generally ideal to concentrate your available regional forces against the enemy defensively to hold and delay the enemy while the primary combat mass is en route to destroy the enemy force.

      Since practical examples are in vogue here, I was recently playing as Syria in a Flashpoint against Italy. I had conquered Greece and Bulgaria, while he had conquered the Balkans West of Romania. This was a unique situation, as I will explain. Edessa is a production province of rares, with the terrain type “open ground” while Thessaloniki, the electronics city Southeast of it, is of course of the urban terrain type. I had two or three battalions of motorized infantry and one tank battalion, all level 3. He had one advanced tank battalion, two or three advanced infantry battalions, and three Towed artillery battalions. Wanted to preserve Thessaloniki, as it had a level 2 army base I was consider annexing, and he wanted to destroy my division holding Edessa.

      My artillery battalion with my tank division had been destroyed in the bombardment phase, so I had no artillery when the Italians attacked. I was also at a technological disadvantage, but I had two full five squadron wings of ASF and strikes each. I immediately ordered those to attack. Then, I pulled off the province center and built a combat outpost since my division was better at attacking than defending. As he came close to the province center, I charged my division at his. Mine got the better of the fighting due to the combat outpost, and my aircraft then assisted them in obliterating the Italian tank division. It all simply depends of maximizing the damage output of your forces while reducing the casualties they take, and however that can be done, it should be done.
      Your 5 strikers would have annihilated is forces at ease by themselves. Neither tank nor artillery have anything against airplanes and infantry are hardly an issue themselves.
      I know, what blue wants to say, though I do not believe it would work, he must be lucky that his singles units not get one shot.

      However I prefer loss of terrain over loss of units. I lost core cities many times and recovered without an issue.

      P. S.: Annexing because of Army Base 2 sounds quite uneconomical.
      Its not that my units did not get one shot. Yes, they did but because of the 1 times speed the damage was calculated after ONE ( 1 ) hour so my 5 units delayed him for five hours. And by the way i don't prefer to lose my capital for something as worthless as motorized infantry. I mean like just look at it.
      Declaring war isn't enough, one must also know how to wage war.
      Lost battles can be summed up in two words: TOO LATE

      The post was edited 1 time, last by blue44elephant ().

    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      I think @blue44elephant is positing the situation of an enemy that must delayed in order to ensure the arrival of a defending force capable of victory prior to the loss of the objective. In such a situation, it is generally ideal to concentrate your available regional forces against the enemy defensively to hold and delay the enemy while the primary combat mass is en route to destroy the enemy force.

      Since practical examples are in vogue here, I was recently playing as Syria in a Flashpoint against Italy. I had conquered Greece and Bulgaria, while he had conquered the Balkans West of Romania. This was a unique situation, as I will explain. Edessa is a production province of rares, with the terrain type “open ground” while Thessaloniki, the electronics city Southeast of it, is of course of the urban terrain type. I had two or three battalions of motorized infantry and one tank battalion, all level 3. He had one advanced tank battalion, two or three advanced infantry battalions, and three Towed artillery battalions. Wanted to preserve Thessaloniki, as it had a level 2 army base I was consider annexing, and he wanted to destroy my division holding Edessa.

      My artillery battalion with my tank division had been destroyed in the bombardment phase, so I had no artillery when the Italians attacked. I was also at a technological disadvantage, but I had two full five squadron wings of ASF and strikes each. I immediately ordered those to attack. Then, I pulled off the province center and built a combat outpost since my division was better at attacking than defending. As he came close to the province center, I charged my division at his. Mine got the better of the fighting due to the combat outpost, and my aircraft then assisted them in obliterating the Italian tank division. It all simply depends of maximizing the damage output of your forces while reducing the casualties they take, and however that can be done, it should be done.
      Your 5 strikers would have annihilated is forces at ease by themselves. Neither tank nor artillery have anything against airplanes and infantry are hardly an issue themselves.
      I know, what blue wants to say, though I do not believe it would work, he must be lucky that his singles units not get one shot.

      However I prefer loss of terrain over loss of units. I lost core cities many times and recovered without an issue.

      P. S.: Annexing because of Army Base 2 sounds quite uneconomical.
      True, and they did, with the assistance of my 5 ASFs, do it twice in a row. The essential element in this evaluation, however, is damage mitigation and dispersal, which element I will respond to momentarily. I believe there is a disjunct between the issue in discussion and the approaches considered by the participants therein. There are two items you mentioned that are necessary to address, as well as the critical clarifications to be noted. I will then return to the issue itself and its application to the example I explained.

      The first item is “what blue wants to say.” There are two ways in which the solutions discussed could be interpreted. Let’s utilize the example I provided, considering it prior to the engagement when I was deciding my method of defense. Identifying the strategically ideal course of action and the principles applicable to determining it will enable distillation of the concepts to allow their extrapolation to other situations.

      Before I engaged in the Battle of Edessa, I had two strategic decisions to make. These were where I defended and how. It appears that @blue44elephant has now stated three basic options available for where to defend. I will add one and state the compound option. The options are as follows:

      1. Not defending
      2. Defending in the city
      3. Defending in a province
      4. Defending many provinces


      When we consider the question, it becomes clear that many variables must be taken into account. These are:

      1. Value of Objective
      2. Disposition of Forces
      3. Tenability of Defense
      4. Capability of Success
      Ultimately, we must identify a value for the objective and determine the disposition of forces both friendly and enemy to calculate the tenability of the defense and then evaluate a capability of success, the latter concept being defined in terms matching the scope of the strategic perspective. Let’s apply this analysis to my situation at the Battle of Edessa.
    • Context - The attackers were coming from the province of Kavadartsi, just south of Skopje on the border with Edessa. They were moving towards Thessaloniki through Edessa and then Kilkis, which was the fastest route both by distance and because it was through a group open ground provinces surrounded by forests in the west and mountains in the east and south, which also constituted an attack corridor excellent for armored vehicles. This corridor, Kavadartsi-Kilkis, goes from Skopje to Tirana, respectively owned by Italy and Syria. Kavadartsi was the closest province to Skopje, Kilkis to Thessaloniki. Edessa was the middle ground where conflict would occur. I held Edessa. This demonstrates the advantage conferred by the possession of position; he who possesses the perfect position possesses the preeminent potential.
      • Value of Objectives - The economic benefits of geographic objectives are their manpower, money, and resource production, while the military benefits of possession, position, and defense have been stated. Of the economic benefits, manpower and money were at this point negligible in my consideration. This indicates the importance of supply and demand in economic analysis and renders the critical element resource production. Edessa produces rare materials - base value 97 daily. Thessaloniki southeast of it produced 241 electronics daily. This makes Thessaloniki and Edessa the geographical objectives to be assessed in value. Although I had a strong economy at that time (it was around Day 18), I had a significant surplus of electronics beyond maximum utilization capacity while my rare material supply was only sufficient to enable moderate expenditure. Of course, Edessa, being a province, would not have to be placated if lost and recaptured, while Thessaloniki would and thereby require significant additional manpower, resource, and time investment to both recapture and pacify. The other key component of consideration is that Edessa is an open ground province, while Thessaloniki is a city and therefore urban terrain. This together renders Edessa high in relative intrinsic value, while Thessaloniki is simply high in opportunity cost and penalty.
      • Disposition of Forces - In Edessa itself, I had one tank division, composed of 2 Level 1 Tank Battalions and 2 or 3 Level 3 Motorized Infantry Battalions, against 1 or 2 advanced tank battalions, 2 or 3 advanced infantry battalions, and 3 basic Towed artillery battalions. Both of our divisions were superior in attack over defense, and he had come off his ground of Kavadartsi into my territory of Edessa. My UAV was patrolling over the enemy, providing the essential RSTA and BDA services. I also had my five air sup and five sf, which I immediately ordered to attack the enemy tank division, instead of the other two tank divisions moving through Bulgaria in the North. Additional small forces of motorized infantry were in the West, South, and East, but they were too far to defend Edessa.
      • Tenability of Defense - In this case, terrain is the crucial element. My primary objective was to take as few and inflict as many casualties as possible, quickly destroying the enemy division without losing any of my own units while holding Edessa. I also needed to preserve my aircraft, as they would be required to strike down two additional tank divisions following this battle. Edessa was simply the ideal battleground. Urban territory, although enabling more infantry defensive power, would significantly inhibit the capabilities of my two tank battalions, while open terrain was the ideal operating environment, as attacking was their ideal mode of combat. Edessa also had the advantage of intercepting the enemy wherever they intended to go, whether West, South, or East, and was a key resource production province as well, making it the natural location to fight. This indicates the importance of maximizing the combat capabilities of your troops by leveraging the advantages conferred by the terrain. In this type of engagement, Tenability of Defense was already excellent, although heavy casualties would be inevitable. To prevent this, I constructed a combat outpost in the province, decreasing enemy lethality by half.
      • Capability of Success - At this point, success was virtually inevitable. I pulled my division off the province center, ordered the construction of the combat outpost, and initiated the airstrikes, counterattacking the enemy on the ground at the province center. This ensured that in the first engagement, the enemy would take crippling casualties at a 2:1 ratio while my forces remained relatively unscathed. The following airstrikes would then decimate the enemy forces.


      Let’s now consider the effects executing each option would have.

      • Not defending - this was a possible and relatively reasonable option. I could use a defense in depth insurgency-type strategy, allowing the enemy to advance and simply harrying their forces along the way until they broke or were destroyed. However, this would result in the loss of Edessa and Thessaloniki, two key production centers, which would then have to be recaptured and pacified.
      • Defending in the city - this was also possible and reasonable. I could have fallen back to the city and consolidated my forces there with 3-5 additional infantry battalions in the defense. This is a superior option to the previous one, as Thessaloniki would not be lost. However, the critical infrastructure would risk damage, and Edessa outdoor be lost for a time while also allowing the enemy to exploit the time to place his artillery in the excellent bombardment position of the Olympus mountains and shell my troops and infrastructure down, forcing a considerably more costly operation to assault Olympus and destroy the enemy artillery defended by his direct action forces in blocking position, either seriously risking additional losses or allowing the enemy to attack while the artillery shelled for additional time before being destroyed in an air strike. The attacking capacity of the armor, an essential element, would also be lost, and it would take much more time to construct a bunker than a combat outpost.
      • Defending in a province - this is the most excellent option, allowing me maximize the effectiveness of my troops and reduce enemy lethality significantly while preventing additional enemy exploitation of their artillery advantage.
      • Defending many provinces - this is an inferior option, but one that may be necessary if the enemy route is unknown. Splitting the units reduces their effectiveness and would enable the enemy to concentrate against each weaker element to execute a defeat in detail. This should be used only with a critical objective that cannot be defended inside itself.
      Summarily, engaging the enemy on your own terms retaining the maximum number of advantages and mass of effects is optimal. Generally, this will be defending in a province or city on the route to the critical objective. Defending many provinces should be done only in exceptional cases, such as if the enemy’s route is unknown or if they are attacking in multiple forces. If a delaying action is necessary, maximum available defensive force should be concentrated in a blocking position, while massing additional effects to destroy the enemy.

      P.S. The only reason I was considering annexation of Thessaloniki was to provide a forward base for mobilization of my army’s essential units in the event of a prolonged war with Italy and if I needed additional electronics, neither of which occurred.
    • Rule Number One:

      Never leave your home territory undefended. The less mobile your main forces, the more sizeable the home defence should be.

      For example:
      1) If you focus on air crafts, you need hardly any meaning home defense. The are quick to relocate, and if you play like me, they are most of the time close to home anyway while they are doing repairs.

      2) If you play artillery, it is quite time consuming to get your main forces back. So you should keep a reasonable force at home in cases of emergencies. Of course the best option is to have your home territory surrounded by a thick layer of occupied territory.

      3) If you play tank -> Just don't, you are pretty dead anyway. :D
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Rule Number One:

      Never leave your home territory undefended. The less mobile your main forces, the more sizeable the home defence should be.

      For example:
      1) If you focus on air crafts, you need hardly any meaning home defense. The are quick to relocate, and if you play like me, they are most of the time close to home anyway while they are doing repairs.

      2) If you play artillery, it is quite time consuming to get your main forces back. So you should keep a reasonable force at home in cases of emergencies. Of course the best option is to have your home territory surrounded by a thick layer of occupied territory.

      3) If you play tank -> Just don't, you are pretty dead anyway. :D
      Indeed. On artillery however, the one exception is Towed, although it is prohibitively imprudent to construct the primary combat mass of your nation from Towed artillery if you plan to conduct a successful campaign. A thick layer of occupied territories is definitely beneficial, of course only if a force substantial enough is available to the defend them effectively. Tanks are occasionally a positive investment, less than 1/3rd of the time. In Eastern doctrine and when the circumstances are conducive to armored warfare in open terrain, they are the superlative armored unit for ground conflict, essentially acting as the land version of capital ships - they are strong in their element against their preferred prey (infantry and armor on open terrain in direct engagement). In order to ensure survivability in a contested and denied multidomain environment, they require escorts capable of proficiently and advantageously engaging enemies outside of the tank’s domain.
    • Air Assault builds with towed artillery were quite fun, though they are extremely supply demanding. Also lost a lot of grip with the range nerf and the fact, that they can't shoot anymore while disembarking from air assault. Also that they are still not low signature, gives them even more drawback.

      The only armor I build are AFV as meatshields for my heavy artillery and to gain tank commander, perhaps Elite tanks if I play european.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Air Assault builds with towed artillery were quite fun, though they are extremely supply demanding. Also lost a lot of grip with the range nerf and the fact, that they can't shoot anymore while disembarking from air assault. Also that they are still not low signature, gives them even more drawback.

      The only armor I build are AFV as meatshields for my heavy artillery and to gain tank commander, perhaps Elite tanks if I play european.
      Towed was solid before the nerfs. Now they lack every strength except air transportability and those intrinsic to artillery. AFVs are the most versatile armor overall in my estimation. MBTs are decent in Eastern, but AFVs excel in Western and do well in European as well. Ngs would be solid meatshields, although they cost supplies as well.
    • Pafufu wrote:

      I dislike the use of NGs as meat shields, since they really are ineffective fighting anything but insurgents as city defenders. Plus, if you have to use meatshields then you are probably in early game and therefore the supply constraint brought up by Statieon would be a major factor.
      a meatshield doesnt have to fight
      they're probably the most costeffective HP you'll get
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • My meatshield strategy is more the ground implementation of aerial damage mitigation techniques. I research a ton of ground units and put them all in a stack. That means that if the enemy makes a ballistic missile strike on a troop concentration, I don’t loose a unit and am then at liberty to establish cover, target the enemy, and execute a successful withdrawal. It has the added benefit of equipping me with the direct counter of any enemy unit.