As Sun Tzu said, the best strategy is to stretch out your supply lines while shortening the enemies and then put yourself in a position to be easily surrounded
True genius level operational thinking
Sun Tzu in the minds of chuds: "Always be fighting, cause fighting is cool warrior stuff and fun and shit."
Actual Sun Tzu: "Fighting is shit, don't do it unless you have to. Also pack a lunch dumbass."
:michael-laugh: that's pretty much how i remember it. Its funny that its so popular with chuds/reddit brains
The thing with these videogame brained people is that absolutely none of those games simulate supply and logistics in any meaningful way because they boring for a game, but in reality the efficiency of these things is like 50% of the contribution to a war.
No bullets, no fuel, no food, no offensive.
Marxists are all masochists though we don't count. Our judgement of "fun" is not normal.
From what I remember, HoI4 originally didn't even simulate fuel until a DLC added it in, fucking FUEL in a game about WW2, a conflict where access to oil was a major determining factor in strategy, like the Germans reorienting towards the Caucasus, and literally the reason for Japan declaring war on the Allies. And like, earlier HoI games did have fuel, so Paradox had just decided to not have this feature for some reason.
Although even with all of its simplifications, HoI4 still has a supply system, with infrastructure playing a role in how well a given region can be supplied, preventing you from just sticking all of your troops in one province, plus the new equipment system (previous games just had a general "supply" resource, plus industrial capacity that was spent on producing troops), where you have to actually make rifles and cannons and all the other stuff and equip your divisions with them, so it does simulate a decent amount of logistical stuff. The problem's probably more so that the AI is too bad to really resist the player, so fucking up your logistics doesn't screw you over as bad as it should.
old hoi4 had oil as a resource u needed to build shit with but the second u deployed it it just ran magically without any regard for fuel.
Nobody wants to play logistics simulator they want that stuff worked out for them in the macro while they focus on the shooty shooty.
I was actually just reading the rules of how it works , based on the previous comment, & it's kind of fascinating. So like, your units have to remain in direct "communication" with basically your HQ in order to move, attack, or defend themselves. Lines of Communication from HQ radiate out in straight lines horizontally, vertically, & at 45-degree angles, but can't travel "obliquely", or through units/solid terrain basically.
If a combat unit is out of communication, it can't do anything, but you have a couple special "signal" units that can basically serve as repeaters for lines of communication from HQ.
It's not really doing logistics, but you are forced to consider how you move your troops in ways that relate to more than just "what gives me the most damage", basically.
Tfw one of my favourite things to do in ARMA is to run supplies between base and the frontline.
🤓
Um actually you can't walk around forts in eu 4 due to zone of control
They would run out of gas like 1/4 of the way there if they're driving anything heavier than a HMV, not even mentioning how they're literally in 100% Russian controlled airspace and can only pray to God the russians dont send anything their shitty shoulder mounted SAMs can't handle
why spend a lot of time coming up with a smart plan when a dumb plan will work just as well
Why come up with any plan, just be like water and run through anywhere with zero resistance. Just keep running and running and running until you stop baby
You need a plan to get more trucks and missiles to resell on the black market
Don't make me tap the sign
This map is not exhaustive and should not be seen as a complete map of Russia's fortifications
Wouldn't the long March still have been longer I mean the Ukraine Russia border is big but China is.. pretty big
It's longer when you are shimmying against enemy fortifications literally the entire time
objection: this is basically how HOI4 tried to autoroute my forces when I played the tutorial the first time
With what? A squadron of batmobiles? Did they invent star wars speeders?
Are they going to use t shirt launchers to resupply their troops behind enemy lines?
Are the russian reserves cardboard cutouts of shirtless putin riding a bear?
Nazis and ignoring the advice of their own logisticians - name a more iconic duo.
We're going on a bear hunt (we're going on a bear hunt)
I'm not scared (I'm not scared)I watched the Rammstein meeting , which was quite interesting. My notes, with my commentary typically in the brackets:
0:30 Denmark and Netherlands to lead task force to train Ukrainian F16 pilots (Norway Belgium Portugal Poland confirmed contributing)
1:10 Methods for long term sustainment of continued support discussed. (industrial initiatives and production of equipment - the west has run out or getting close?)
1:50 Leopard Tanks Consortium working to maintain their support "for years to come" (implying this will go on for several years)
8:15 Ukraine is a "lethal airspace" (reason for not sending US planes - they'll be shot down)
10:40 Russia has 1000+ fighter aircraft which is too many for us to fight in the air, this is why the US supplied lower cost ground anti-air (cost effectiveness)
10:50 It's going to take a considerable length of time to build a Ukrainian air force that is the size and scope and scale that will be necessary (implying that they plan to)
15:10 Sometimes it sounds like Ukraine is losing in these meetings but that's not the case (casualties caused to Russia used as excuse)
17:00 The rules we have agreed are "do not use US supplied equipment to attack into the geographic space of Russia" - avoids answering whether the Belgorod attack was US supplied equipment
21:45 The US defaulting on its debt would have very significant national security consequences
22:35 interesting questions) What is the strategy? To help Ukraine win a decisive victory or to just get them a better hand at the negotiating table?
Boring answer we're just providing them what they need, "we'll let the ukrainians decide what their goals are".
Henry Kissinger recently said both Russia and Ukraine will have to give up territory in any deal. Both will be dissatisfied. And war could erupt again because Ukraine is being so heavily armed and they have "the least experienced strategically experienced team in europe" (General Milley is forced to stifle a smirk at this comment 23:12)
Milley Thanks for asking a very easy question for me, from Henry Kissinger. (massive sarcasm)
Russia will not get their strategic objectives: Conquering Ukraine, capturing Kiev, the end of the Zelensky government. (these weren't the goals that Russia laid out, he is repeating the made up goals the US substituted)
Ukraine will not get their strategic objectives in the near term: To liberate all of occupied Ukraine
Fighting will continue until a negotiated settlement or fighting coming to a indeterminate conclusion in the future. (implication here being that the fighting will only stop with a negotiated settlement)
Most interesting takeaways are the west recognising they have a long term production problem with equipment. The debt default being potentially catastrophic. And Milley's smirking and inability to hide his inner thoughts regarding the Kissinger question implying that Kissinger is probably completely correct about it.
EDIT: Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck this is the wrong thread how can you fuckers upvote me like this without telling me it's supposed to be in the news mega.
on the one hand that is an absolutely terrible idea on the other hand whatever try it
Lmao how can you be barricaded literally just go around god why don't they just make me a general
