I remember @sgt-grunt giving me a kicking in that scenario.
Here is a contrary view- there is no passivity or recklessness, only lack of planning. You must be able to envision the course of battle before you hit the big red button, otherwise woe is you. Therefore, you must be able to calculate the amount of force you need to seize any objective. That includes numbers of men and their weapons (as well as weapon types), what indirect assets you need, what direct fire assets you need (and their routes of advance and firing positions), and so forth. If you know the algorithm for the attack/assault, you will know by inverse the algorithm for defence. Warfare is science- calculation mentioned beforehand, as well as an art- application of that calculation.
No argument that planning matters, but it rarely survives first contact intact. That’s where experience and judgment come in.
"Si vis pacem, para bellum." — Vegetius
"Do not hurry to the sound of the guns without knowing why they are firing." — British maxim
"In war, the simplest things are difficult." — Clausewitz
"No plan survives first contact with the enemy." — Moltke
"The side that can most quickly exploit success is the side that will win." — Guderian
Some days you’re the hammer, some days you’re the nail. 🪖🎲
Looking for a game? Challenge me here:
I think I've played enough pbem matches to share some observations but Panzer Lehr will have more to say on this than I with his stats...
Something I've noticed when the end screen comes at the end of a battle that I have lost which is often is the following..
My opponent for QB's chooses a realistic force without unicorn add ons or over cranking the modifiers for units. For the most part my opponents pick quantity over quality. I've played huge attack defend matches where I have 3000 points more than my opponent and loose often. I notice on the end screen they even have more infantry than I brought. My opponents have the numbers to soak up losses and inflict losses on my end making me question my plan(s) and tactics. In doing so grinding me down into irrelevance even with numerical superiority. I've not played many included battles and campaigns included with the original purchases as well of which is a fault of mine. Many included or user submitted battles are the opportunity to attempt to play with what you have and have some chance of success. Something I need to look into for myself to play better. These games reward good tactics and with some luck can overpower an opponent with a firm understanding of what can do what and when to make it count and take chunks of the enemies force and will to fight... There are limitations, advantages and what if's for every unit on a given map for both sides not just your own. Risk taking that gives you an advantage is very different than one that does not and gives it to your opponent. I'm at the stage in my game play where I'm trying to not feel badly or disappointed with casualties if they are not reckless because it was a loss or losses that were needed to gain an understanding of the battle raging in 60 second intervals. Every turn counts with or without losses and the only advantage you can get over your enemy is being able to see the big picture and work towards breaking their force and will to fight.... Losses are inevitable but well calculated losses are game changers in the hands of a capable commander...
Best...
