Similar to how Legend of the Galactic Heroes has a broad scope and shows the details with tactics of large battles and the strategy involved in the overall war. You meet the commanders and their lieutenants, they maneuver their forces in the battle, key locations are fought over, the generals deal with domestic politics etc.
I don't really mind what the setting is (ancient/modern/future) and fantasy or sci-fi elements are fine too.
Completed series or series with a big backlog of chapters/episodes are preferred.
- For example, who comes up with the plans for invading another country? Who decides how to mobilize and utilize the various branches of the military?
- Obviously, the President is the "Commander In Chief", but they aren't the ones to come up with the strategy and tactics to win a war.
- All it takes to make the planet extinct with nuclear weapons is for the wrong group of people to gain a nuclear arsenal.
- Many of these "wrong groups" exist.
- As long as nuclear arsenals exist, they continue changing hands.
- The more desperate of a situation a country is in, the more likely this change of hands is to go to one of these "wrong groups."
- This increase in likelihood culminates when a country realizes it has no chance of retaining any habitable land within its borders, at which point the likelihood is very high that their nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of one of the "wrong groups," especially as different groups in that country convert from groups that would have been fine into more of the "wrong groups," as people who did not realize their country was fucked find out their country is fucked and all they can do to fuck those that fucked them is trigger MAD.
- An increasing number of countries with nuclear arsenals are on track to lose more and more of their populations in the foreseeable future, with climate change meaning some may face complete loss of habitable territory.
- A high likelihood is not even needed for something to happen eventually when it only has to happen once and it has endless chances to happen every month forever.
After Op COBRA, Eisenhower favoured a 'Broad Front' strategy with all armies advancing along the entire front and no particular center of gravity or schwerpunkt
This seems to go against basic military logic, as if you're strong everywhere, you're strong nowhere.
In addition, it seems that along a lot of that front, the Allied armies would be advancing into ground that was either difficult (eg. Hurtgenwald) or of little strategic value.
On the other hand, Montgomery's favoured option of a weighted punch into the Ruhr through the Low Countries seems to have a number of strategic advantages, including liberating Belgium and the Netherlands, clearing V-Weapon launch sites, and not least occupying the industrial heart of Germany.
It's tempting to see the broad front as a political cop-out to keep the various nationalities and obstreperous subordinates happy, but what, if anything, am I missing?
Hey all, basically the title. Iβve played a fair amount of the game and know what Iβm doing, but I wouldnβt classify myself a βgreatβ player. Iβm looking for help developing a build order/strategy to have a big enough and advanced enough fleet to crunch my immediate neighbors at around year 30. Ideally Iβd want to use a βgenericβ empire build as Iβm not a huge fan of the meta builds with necrophage and rogue servitor. But seeing as Iβm only playing high difficulty SP and not MP, I donβt imagine Iβll need a strong meta build to accomplish this. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!
Chinaβs economy overtook the U.S. for the first time in November. Itβs testing hypersonic ICBMβs while the U.S. plays nuke catch-up, another first. China is rapidly developing its own next-gen internet. Their space tech is top notchβ¦β¦ maybe certain U.S. decision makers have determined itβs time show the world it can still lead on something cutting edge?
- For any examples that you can think of, what were the disagreements about and how were they resolved?
- On a similar note, how much control do you think politicians and the leaders of countries should have over the military's strategic decisions during a war?
This is an extremely important point especially today. Localized peace talks is an extremely targetive, surgical method and also much more effective plan than any put forward by Duterte.
Let me explain, the NPA/NDF leadership and its organization subsrcribes to localised version of Maoism propagated by Jose Marie Sison. This version's important parts to be noted states that "Revolution can only achieved via a People's war". In other words there are willing to send teenagers to die forever until them or every other member of the central comittee has died.
This part of JMS's ideology led the Communist Party of the Philippines to hunt and kill the members of the Partido Kommunista ng Pilipinas led by the Lavas and Luis taruc's Hukbalahap kase they wanted a peace negotiation to end their side of the war.
Cut back to modern times, you can see from impossible demands by the NDF peace process the sincerity towards their ideology and unwillingness for peace.
So how is leni's strategy going in effect?
The NPA is organised as Independent cells all across the Philippines that have minimal contact with their superiors. This is for security purposes so information is compartmentalised. This have led towards some level of command independence in their action.
By focusing on localised peace process and trying to woo individual cells rather the entirety of the NDF/NPA which cannot be wooed in the first place. Leni can with open arms lead the cells exhausted with war to peace while those more militaristic cells would be dealt with militarily.
This undermines the Central Committee's reliability on its military structure. And Undermining is really needed for peace in this. Cells have to independent, other than limited support and have a first hand view on how the wars is. The central committee will not give up and simply opt to replace loss cells with new recruits.
Does anyone know some good military strategy books from XVIII, XIX and XX century, and especially those which Prussian/German officers wrote/used in their military academies at the time?
PS BEFORE READING: The views are exclusively the author's own and are purely based on all available information and sources compiled from the Internet.
Stage I: P.M.S Blackett's Scientific Strategy, India's Dangerous Geopolitical Game of Chicken Against the PRC (1947-1962)
Part A: Post Independence Scenario (1947-1961)
The original Indian military-strategic theory of tactical and strategic restraint and Pakistani-focused defense strategy can be credited to Nobel Prize-Winning British scientist PMS Blackett- a pivotal member of the British wartime community in World War 2 who was pivotal in developing the ULTRA signals intel network and organizing a coherent bombing strategy of going against maritime targets in the Atlantic - was hired by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru in 1946 to present a scientific strategy for the defense of the newly formed Republic of India. The Armed Forces had retained Field Marshall Sir Claude Auchinleck's, Armed Force Organisation Plan calling for 200,000 Active Duty Ground troops, a 20 squadron Air Force and a Navy centered around 2 Aircraft Carriers with a primary threat coming from the Great Indian Desert Region (i.e. the post-independence state of Pakistan). P.M.S Blackett had submitted the following recommendations to the Indian Government,:-
- Maintain a small territorial defense force focusing exclusively on a Defensive Minded Strategy
- Maintaining a Non Aligned posture against the Soviet Union and the United States
- Military Expenditure MUST NOT exceed 2% of India's GDP
- No need to pursue any Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Weapons)
- Focus Extensively on Generating economic growth by modernizing core industries, infrastructure, and poverty alleviation.
- To ensure the Indian Armed Force do not get entangled in a war against a major power, extensive civilian control of the Armed Forces must be maintained in all affairs related to defense.
This extremely pacifist recommendation was taken to an extreme level that pushed India's Defense Budget below the recommended 2% target- the Army went through a massive demobilization period in which 7 World War II era Divisions were disbanded while the Frontier Guards were divided between India and Pakistan- with Pakistan gaining 7 of the 11 Frontier Divisions, [with defense becoming an afterthought.](https://eparlib.nic.in/bit
... keep reading on reddit β‘Can anyone comment on the battle strategies employed in 86 (especially in the LN since the anime hasnβt gotten that far)? Iβm particularly curious to know how accurately things are portrayed and whether the author is mirroring real battle strategies and military procedures.
It was the penultimate strategy in 1800. But by 1900 it was old news and obsolete. When did this change truly occur?
You could play it on Chrome browser and it was always in those website ads on FOG.com
You had a base and had to produce things and make tanks and such.
Platform: PC - MS-DOS
Genre: Strategy
Estimated Year of Release: Late 80's / Early 90's
Graphic Art Styles: Remember a lot of yellows and off-whites. Very basic
Notable Characters: None remembered
Notable Gameplay Characterists
Remembering my younger days I recalled spending some time playing a fantasy style strategy game. I donβt recall the exact timeframe but it would likely have been early to mid 90s, but potentially could be late 80s. Itβs turned into a minor obsession and I cannot remember the actual game.
General synopsis is a top down overland view to navigate with cities scattered around that you can capture. Cities allow you to recruit a larger military of multiple troop types.
Battles were fixed with you on one side of the screen, your opponent (either a city or opposing army) on the other. The different troop types would move across the screen in a group until they met and it would drop down troop numbers until one side was done. I donβt recall any actual combat animations or anything like that.
Lastly, I remember the point was to collect some collection of artifacts.
Other Details:
Please help me, this has been living rent free in my head for several days.
I find the few documentaries that Iβve seen about the war over the years to be a bit underwhelming. While I donβt have a background in military strategy or military history, I am a political scientist with a general knowledge of history so most of these TV documentaries seem too surface level for me. Although I appreciate real footage and a focus on the human costs of the war, I am actively trying to learn more about military strategy so these elements that tend to define a lot of war documentaries arenβt exactly what Iβm looking for at this stage. At the risk of sounding too cold, I am fully aware of the horrors of concentration camps and the huge casualties suffered by all sides. I want to learn something new about WWII and that will also further my growing interest in military strategy.
For example, Iβd like to know more about the decision making of Nazi officials in regards to strategy. Why did they attack (insert city or country) in the manner and timing that they did? What were some of the mistakes made in campaigns that benefited the Allies and vice versa?
I know this example is very European focused but I am also equally if not more interested in similar questions regarding the Pacific theater.
I should stress that I donβt know much about WWII military strategy apart from the basic βthe opening of the western front was bad for Germanyβ type comments. That said, I know a lot about the politics of the time so I donβt need the obligatory βHitler rose to power in a Germany ravaged by economic depression and ethnic tensionsβ commentary. I guess Iβm a picky documentary viewer but Iβve literally taught a course on the failure of interwar democracies and the rise of nationalism so it does take something a bit more specific to entertain/inform me. Military strategy is something that is starting to interest me so I hope I can find a good documentary along these lines.
First: Why don't PDC rounds use proximity fuses? They're currently used in existing Point Defence weapons, and it seems an obvious choice if you want to maximize the chance of intercepting torpedos?
Proximity fuze - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze
Second: Why didn't Marco Inaros send a rock into Luna as well as Earth? According to this Kurzgesagt video (https://youtu.be/qEfPBt9dU60), a 100MT nuclear bomb on the surface of the moon would create a Richter 7 moonquake across the entire moon, irregardless of location. Seems like a single asteroid impact would bring massive destruction to Luna's 2 Billion inhabitants?
I've read a bit of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms so novels in that vein. Preferably any time period before WW2 so anything before that is golden. Also any country is good too.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-321.pdf Congressional report link
https://www.reddit.com/r/Inovio/comments/nueo8u/inovio_dna_vaccines_june_2021_report_first_choice/ original post with additional insights.
INOVIO 4800 and 4802 are AMERICAS VACCINE and first choice of US MILITARY.........Lets bring it home JK -INOVIO DOD FDA CDC NIH OWS CONGRESS
