Well, when I first joined AG first thing I wanted to do really was join Hypermnestra's Tactics club...
But now its gone, for long
BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT!
Point is, I am making this club, all in all I love projects, well not school projects. Projects I want to do. That is (first) why I created eco-system club, cause its a nice project I love doing!
And this is the second project I love doing: strategy, tactics, everything military involving (and yes, you might just close the page when you hear this word if you are one of those that don't like it, yes) thinking
And thats when we get to the point:
Strategy club!
This club will go like this:
Every now and then I'll post a situation, not a mission, missions will come later, I will say what generation of military technology it is, some scenarios might be in the middle ages, some might be in the future. I'm gonna say the scenario, then tell you what you have, this includes your army, and at most cases: Your tools of settlement.
When I give the scenario and your first objective (which maybe settling, building a fortress, building an army, etc.) You (hopefully) Will reply saying (IMPORTANT! When replying I expect the replies to be detailed, well thought of before posted, this is not a forum game, this is sparta, Jk, but yeah. This is Strategy club) what you do, how you use the resources and abilities I give you to reach the objective. In my response I will tell you if you are successful, if you are you reach the next step:
Tactics. This will (obviously) Involve you deploying troops and commanding an army, in this step you need to be VERY detailed, I expect that you work out what can and will happen, and counter it. If you don't, you well... Fail.
When this is done we go to the final step: The strategic council.
In this step, which I learned is important in gifted school, you will discuss your strategies with other me and hopefully other people. Note: This is by far the most important step, while the others are fun, this one lets you share knowledge, and obtain some... If this club goes on successfully, it wouldn't only be fun, it would make you far better in strategy...
To join just tell me you want to join...
Also, if you have any questions: ask me
And I believe that is all, if I haven't forgotten anything...
I would much rather have a land with not many people and most are poor with no enemy. I think this because, if worse comes to worse we can leave a land without resources and find a better one but if you have an enemy trying to fight for your resources your people are in more danger. no enemy is better then one.
If your people are poor to the extent at which they suffer, discontent takes root and they may rebel. There may not be always land with resources for you to resettle to because other more powerful countries may have claimed them before you.
On the other hand, if your country is capable of dealing with the enemy without taking too much of a toll, then why willingly give up the chance to expand and prosper? By defeating your enemy, you take over everything it had.
There is no definite answer as to whether peace or wealth is the better of the two. It depends on how powerful your country is comparing to your enemy, whether your people can live a happy life in poverty, whether peace can be made and on what conditions and everything else. So yeah, it is a tough call if I have to sacrifice one for the other.
Indeed, which maybe a problem. For example if you teach your country guerilla force stuff and they don't have moral they will use it against you. Which gives me a grand idea:
Mission #2:
Scenario: You are the leader of a country called "Land" (Epic name, ya, I know), you have a country near you, called "Other" (Epic name, too, ain't it?). Both are countries in a very large desert, no sea. Other has the better part of the desert. As your country runs out of resources and water you need to capture some good land, which is owned by Other. Yet your people really like Other. They have friends there and sometimes go there for tourism. Yet it is a split-rule kingdom and your partner (now executed for his deeds) has taught the people guerilla tactics and fighting so they would help capture Other. As the war begun you're people militia rebel. Now you have both Other and the rebels against you.
Objective:
1. (pick) a) calm the rebels
b) Get rid of the rebels
2. a) Find a way to get Other's resources b) Defeat Other
1/2 c) some kind of alternative
Tech: Modern day- 1980s Military tech.
Army:
-6000 loyal soldiers
-200 tanks
-50 fighter jets
-100 Apaches
-3 WMD bio-missiles
Known Rebel army:
-10000 soldiers or more
-200 tanks or more
Other may exist
Known Other army:
-4000 soldiers or more
-100 tanks or more
- 30 or more fighter jets
-80 or more Apaches
Strategy type: Diplomacy/ Military crisis strategy
Tips: Check out some Israeli/ Egyptian/ Syrian Military history... Should help...
Oh and because of suggestion, I got a highscore list
1. Wavecrest: 8.5 points, grand tactics and long strategy yet flawed by simple mistakes on the first scenario 2. Kellinger: 5 points, good tactics, no strategy 3. Pablo4270: 4 points, okay strategy and no tactics
Things don't look bright for me. My plate is already full with a rebel army outnumbering my army at about 2 to 1 and there is still Other's army looking for a chance to get behind my back. I do have an edge for being superior in arms, but I would rather not use it rashly because that may be the short path to follow my newly deceased partner.
Objective 1 (1a chosen)
1b is definitely not the way to go. My soldiers' moral is already low for having most of their countrymen against them. If I order them to fire it is most likely me who is getting the bullets. The rebels can offer much better terms than I can: "Hand out your leader and everyone walks away from this with no consequences" sounds a lot more practical than "Shoot at your people (probably with your friends and families in it) I will give you a million dollars each afterward (if you make it out alive)". The fighter jets and Apaches already failed as deterrents and there is no way I am going to chuck those bio-missiles on my own land. Even if I manage to put 1b into action and win with my air force, I would suffer heavy casualties leaving Land vulnerable to attacks from Other.
To carry out 1a I am going to use the media to my advantage. Basically I am going to depict myself as the pacifist willing to listen and negotiate, promise hefty amounts of pension to families of the dead, blame whatever role I might have taken in starting the war on my partner and mark the day of his execution as national day on which generations to come shall rejoice the victory of the people's gallantry over the dictatorship of the blood thirsty murderer, stuff like that. Hopefully that will ease the tension and make some of the loosely organized rebels support me.
Objective 2 (2a chosen)
In the attempt to save my own *** I already gave up 2b. I have considered working up some bluff about Land's achievements in building bio-missiles and sign a treaty with Other giving Land resources annually. That simply won't work.
I am going to emphasize the long term friendship between the two countries' people and get some resources by trading.
1a) Why waste lives when no bloodshed is needed. I would Calm the rebels and tell them we had no thought in our mind to attack other. Besides my own troops might rebel to the thought of fighting their friends, and family even.
2a)I try diplomacy. like i said before. why waste the lives of my people and tell other that we have been allies for a long time and that we are begainning to run out of resources. we can defend you from any enemy that comes to conquer us. At some point i will send men to explore for more resources so we don't have to mooch off of you for the rest of our lives.
Diplomacy is best, in real life or this! War destroys lives and ends friendships.
(you can see how much i prefer diplomacy, don't you) XD
You have looked deeply into what can cause problems with anti-rebel operations.
You have found great ways to boost land's moral and make the rebels forget about killing you. Media it is.
Flaws
Money... It is a problem. Doing so much media, celebration and pension money will cost you A LOT of money, maybe some you can't afford.
The only way you can really afford the money and resources to do so is to get resources from conquering Other... Which you didn't exactly do
@Objective 2:
Good:
You have realized that threatening some one while telling your country you are the perfect pacifist is NOT a right solution...
neutral
You have went all the way with a single plan, not letting bonus troubles keep you off track from your major plan.
Which may be bad, because depending too much on a simple yet well-thought plan is never good, you must try different routes in order to find the highway. You can't only stay riding on your favorite country-road.
Flaws:
You have one distinctive problem... Your partner started something you can't simply finish... And you chose to look at it in a simple way...
Over-all ranking: 7 points.
@ ITNP: The recent mission...
@ Kellinger:
Objective 1:
Neutral:
Diplomacy for you is good, why?
Flaws:
You were very, very unspecific... Just calming the rebels is like saying "I fight the rebels"
Objective 2:
Neutral:
Okay, I get why... What will you hope it will achieve? In what ways do you use dimplomacy?
Flaws:
You are too dependent on the fact that there are other enemies/ other places with resources
