I have found a very good way of winning battles or campaigns. Though misdeirection is most commonly used by magicians (don't wory yoku don't have to be one), you can use it in a strategy+). it is fairly easy to do as well. what you do is you create many smaller armies and a few strong armies. the trick is to have the weak armies come behind an enemy while the strong army comes head on. while the enemy is chasing the strong army you have several weak armies do suicide attcks to wear down your enemies. eventually yokur enemy will catch on, however. there is also a very simple solultion to use. after your opponent catches on you stop making small armies and begin making big ones. then you use you're smal armies the same way you used your big one, and vice versa. so eventually you can use at random a small or a big army aas the distraction and the other for attack. keep in mind however this may limit your troops to only a few while an opponent may have many. so it is in your best interest to stock up on troops in the beggining and wait for your opponent. you can also move less and get closer in to them with easy by having them come to you.

Wouldn't their ranged just eliminate the smaller armies early on? It sounds like a waste of resources, smaller armies don't do near as much damage, and they'll likely be killed by larger armies in retal; or blocked off from the more vulnerable troops.. I don't believe baiting them with your large force would work. If I saw your main force moving off, it would be the perfect opportunity to destroy the smaller armies.. This sounds over-complicated and too dependant on circumstances.. Have you ever tried this in a campaign?

you could have that problem, but by smaller armies i mean at least 70 troops. the large armies shoould be 100+ at the min. you would have trouble with the range however. but no strategy is perfect. the ranged you would want to make the same style of troops but have them ranged as well thus you can eliminate their troops. and i have tried this strategy.

Uh...no offense Zach, but you have one campaign and no battles on your record...have you thoroughly tested this strategy, or is this just a theory. Sounds like it is dividing your army into more easily manageable groups for your enemy to pick apart. Also time consuming to move around the enemy while your main troop is getting battered.

Yeah it's just a flanking strat...

IF your opponent is competent and is scouting for the possibility, then it's a wash at best.

If you don't time it right however, you end up on the losing end, as your enemy will be able to attack one front then focus on the next etc. If you're gonna do this, you need to have all of your troops getting there at the same time. And if you're talking about reinforcements, sending them on the shortest route is the winner there (not running around going for a flank).

Now, if you do have an opponent that you can sneak up on, then something like this could be useful for the initial attack. If you have the patience to set it up. And your opp is very inactive/careless.

Card

Captain Sir B.H. Liddell Hart of Great Britain used the terms "indirection" and "indirect advance". His concept (and he was very influential with the British commanders of WW2) as expressed in his books on strategy and tactics was that the most successful campaigns in history were ones where a general never let the enemy know what the next target would be, to force the enemy to defend multiple targets while what might have seemed the least likely candidate actually is the target.

My take on this idea is that having multiple possible objectives keeps the enemy in the most confusion and suffering from lack of solid intelligence. Then , when the time is right, one can be where one was not expected to be, like the German advance into the Ardennes in the battle of the bulge. No one thought heavy armor could make it through the thick forests, especially in the dead of winter.

If any of you have seen the movie Lawrence of Arabia, you will remember the Arabs taking Aqaba from the land where the big guns were not pointing. They pointed out to sea and could not be swiveled to fire on an army approaching from the rear.

Pulling an enmy in the direction you want him to go is an old, useful and nasty tactic. Why fight him head on 1 to 1 when you can de-brain him late at night in his sleep?

Last Edited : Thursday, 8 September 2005 - 03:59

Basically it's just a lightning tactic. I use it all the time. I come at the enemy with many 50 pop units followed by heavy pop units. The small units are to surround and pin down enemy units while the big stuff goes on through to the next target. Not a big waste of resources if applied right. I'm using it on two opponents right now. I was able to take them down even though they had very large pop stacks. Sometimes 4 units of 50 against one unit of 200 is way more effective and efficiant.

It is very hard to hit a good opponent from behind. A good opponent will scout out all areas around them. The best strategy is to hit the other guy first with the most.

in case you havint noticed, but your armies take damage too when you attack, so why go head on and waste yokur good armies when you can just take them out with yours at a quicker pace, as they have to defend against multiple targets, leading them into an inescappable doom.

I don't look at it with strength in #'s per unit, more like strength in unit #'s. 10 units of 300 can't cover the ground that 30 units of 50 can, and you can always merge them!

Attacker takes a retal on the first attack. What you want to do is hit the opponent rps weakness. So you size him up. Use your range, move in and hit him first with your melee. Try to kill off or weaken his units before he can attack back. Always try to keep retal away from your opponent so its good to have a few small units just to stagger attack.