*=* Strategy Lesson *=*

  • The Eight Maxims of Military Strategy - BH Liddell Hart
    –-------------------------------------------------------------_Not all of these Maxims can be fully applied to Axis and Allies, but for the most part they fit very nicely.

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with Hart, he was a British military strategist from the early-to-mid 20th century and is regarded as the father of modern military strategy._
    1.) Adjust your end to your means.

    Clear sight and cool calculation should prevail. Do not bite off more than you can chew. Keep a clear sense of what is possible. Face facts while preserving faith. Confidence will be of no avail if the troops are run down.

    2.) Keep your object always in mind, while adapting your plan to circumstances.

    Recognize that alternatives exist but make sure they all bear on the object. Weigh the feasibility of attaining an objective against its contribution to the attainment of the end in mind.

    3.) Choose the line (or course) of least expectation.

    Put yourself in your opposition’s shoes and try to see what course of action he will see as least probable and thus not try to forestall.

    4.) Exploit the line of least resistance – so long as it can lead you to any objective that would contribute to your underlying object.

    Seize on opportunity – but not any opportunity. Tactically, this refers to following up on success; strategically, it refers to the management and deployment of your reserves.

    5.) Take a line of operation which offers alternative objectives.

    Choose a single course of action that could have several objectives; do not let your actions reveal your objectives. This puts your opponent on the horns of a dilemma. It introduces uncertainty regarding that which is to be guarded against.

    6.) Ensure that both plans and dispositions are flexible – adaptable to circumstances.

    Include contingencies or next steps – for success as well as failure. Organize and deploy your resources in ways that facilitate adaptation to either.

    7.) Do not throw your weight into a stroke whilst your opponent is on guard – whilst he is well placed to parry or evade it.

    Unless your opponent is much inferior, do not attack until he has been disorganized and demoralized. Psychological warfare precedes physical warfare. Similarly, physical warfare can be psychological in nature.

    8.) Do not renew an attack along the same line (or in the same form) after it has once failed.

    If at first you don’t succeed, give up. Your reinforcements will likely be matched by the enemy. Moreover, successfully repulsing you the first time will morally strengthen him for the second.

    **“Everybody’s got a plan - until they get hit.”

    • “Iron” Mike Tyson**

    [ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-06-06 13:52 ]

  • My favorite applied towards A&A is #5 - Take a line of operation which offers alternative objectives.

    Choose a single course of action that could have several objectives;

    In the limited confines of a board game, this can be interpreted almost literally into “Keep your troops stacked in one territory that simultaneously threatens many enemy territories.”

    I see Japan fail to do this all the time, by having their forces spread out throughout Asia instead of concentrated into a single formidable force in one country, and it lets Russia hold them at bay for much longer than they should be able to…

  • Read Sung Zu (sp)'s the Art of War. Best War book I’ve ever read. It will improve your play in ALL wargames.

  • amby, How’d you do dat? Da BIG letters.
    Everybody’s gettin’ creative roun’ chair!" - Xi

  • The Art of War is by far the best book ever written on warfare. It was written many centuries ago and is taught today in “corporate warfare.” Patton’s “Lessons on Corporate Leadership” (think that was the title) is a great book too in terms of economics, though the Sun Tzu’s work can be applied to almost any situation.

  • Yeah, The Art of War is a no-brainer and if you like the generic scope of Sun Tzu’s work then you will like Hart as well. His best book is called “Strategy” and is probably second only to The Art of War in my opinion. In it he examines top generals and battles from Alexander to WW2 and then extracts the common core principles that made them great, which he calls the “indirect approach”. The thing I like about Hart applied to A&A is that his theories are from the same era so they fit exceptionally well, as if you were studying Sun Tzu for tactics in an Ancient Japanese warefare game. Hart’s theories on mobility were the foundation of the success of German Tank Generals like Rommel and Guderian, who credit Hart as the source of their tactics.

    Xi: using HTML…

    < font size=n > This is the text I want bigger or smaller. < /font >

    the < and the > should be next to the font statement, not a space away. I had to put them a space away so that they would show up for you to see… n can be a number between -2 and 6 I think?

    TEST: -2

    TEST: +6

    [ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-06-07 08:48 ]

  • "Not all of these Maxims can be fully applied to Axis and Allies, but for the most part they fit very nicely.

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with Hart, he was a British military strategist from the early-to-mid 20th century and is regarded as the father of modern military strategy."

    Well next time you change your font type, don’t make it that unreadable. (Not this post, but in the one you wrote). Small font + italics = not very easy on the eyes

  • sorry 'bout that :lol:

    [ This Message was edited by: Ansbach on 2002-06-09 22:52 ]

  • Har-har. Good one. 😄

    “Choose the line (or course) of least expectation.”

    Maybe that’s why I keep losing to the strangest strategies. “You’re landing troops in Spain!? How stupid is that!?” –— or ----- “You’re building and IC HERE!??” 'Nuff said. 😄

  • actually, having the US land in Spain is not such a bad move: Either germany takes Spain, and therefor stretches his western defenses thin, or leaves it, and allows the allies to build up a massive force for further attack there. Not an easy call….

  • I think I might just have to test that one!

  • Well I’m not trying to take anything away from a Spain landing. I nfact, it’s probably the ONLY worthwhile neutral country worth taking! But you have to admit you don’t see it every game, and therefore, I haven’t come up with the effective measures to counter it. The upside is that you can stretch German supply lines or have an alternative invasion route if the Germans stacked too many inf in WE.

  • Sounds good to me!

  • Ab,
    Oh, HTML! I’m gonna start learnin’ dat next week or else I B A dinosaur(stinkt) soon.
    “Did you know that vasistdas means transom in French? I bet if you think hard enough you can figure out why that is so.” - Xi

  • Actually, there are quite a few nice Neutral Countries worth taking. Mongolia can be very useful to Japan. Turkey can be useful for Germany. An IC in Swiz. can be very beneficial to the Axis. All the South American ICs are excellent to use as Japan to Outflank the US.

  • Sorry, I still don’t see how an IC in Switzerland can benefit the axis. I’ve read that same idea in other threads as well, particularly a Japanese IC in Switz. Please explain how it helps the axis…

  • How do you invade neutral countries in the computer game? Whenever I try to invade one, I get the illegal move message.

  • Xero, Make sure you have 3 IPCs remaining in your treasury before invading.

    Yanny, Also I don’t really see the advantages in landing it Switz, Turkey, or Mongol. It just seems like a waste of 3 IPCs since the surrounding terriotries can net me INCOME. Please enlighten me.

  • I agree, T6.
    Well, Yannamoto?
    “Switzerland?” - Xi

  • Over in the Axis and Allies games I play, there’s a house rule that if you do invade a
    Neutral country, you collect 1 IPC at the end of every turn. That way there is an advantage (and a disadvantage obviously if your opponent takes it from you) to taking a neutral country and holding it to gain extra income. It’s great since the investment is long-term benefit, and neutral countries should have some industrial production capability. Also, Axis can only invade neutral countries (though Allies can save 3 IPCs by retaking them and gain the bonus), which helps even out the sides a bit.

  • Methinks it should take 3 INF to invade Switzerland and 5 to invade Mongolia(or sumthin). I see value in them, BUT greater cost due to mountainous resistance 😛
    “What! No YanEsponse?”- Xi

  • No way! Mongolia has nothing in it but deserts and camels with the odd town here and there. Switzerland is mostly mountains and plateau but at least it has some resources such as metals. Spain was quite resourceful with minerals and if any place should be worth more, it should be it.

  • True. How 'bout this, for every neutral country worth a damn, it generates 2 IPC but cost 6 IPC (so you still to wait three turns to equal out the income) and with at least 2 inf (or a combination of ARM) to invade. And for every “worthless” country (ex. Afgan, ect.) it cost 3 IPC to invade with at least 1 inf and generates 1 IPC. Of course you still have “heavies” like Saudi Arabia, but I’ll include them into the 2 IPC bracket for now. 🙂

Log in to reply

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 2
  • 53
  • 6
  • 20
  • 5
  • 20
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys