Stratadies of War?

[Ratzki]

I am going to try to get a discussion going here, as I feel that all is just too quiet. I picked up a book; cheap, on using military strategies in your personal and business life. Sounded pretty bloody boring but as I browsed through it I found myself able to apply some of the concepts to our own beloved Combat Mission. So as I read through this book, I will try to make the leap in applying the strategies of the book to CM. Maybe have a little laugh and banter as a bonus. I will give positive examples of players here that I have faced as they use the strategies. My intent is not to make fun of anyone, nor to hurt anyone's feelings, if I do so please accept my apologies. So not to waste any more space, I present strategy number one:

Do not Fight the Last War

“Theory cannot equip the mind with formulas for solving problems, nor can it mark the narrow path on which the sole solution is supposed to lie by planting a hedge of principles on either side. But it can give the mind insight into the great mass of phenomena and of their relationships, then leave it free to rise into the higher realms of action. There the mind can use it's innate talents to capacity, combining them all so as to seize on what is right and true as though this were a single idea formed by their concentrated pressure – as though it were a response to the immediate challenge rather then a product of thought.” - Carl von Clausewitz 1780-1831
The concept of this strategy is to not get caught using the same forces, with the same tactics and strategies over and over again, no matter how successful they once were. We often become “book smart” but “application weak”. Our mind tends to want to lean towards what we know, it does not want to wander off this path, and in this way we become predictable, varying our game-play little. We always advance through the best cover towards the flags, we only engage targets when we are totally ready to do so, and the list can go on. Now I am not talking about selecting a balanced force in a Quick Battle, or using over-watch during movement. It is not about abandoning concentration of fire or hitting the enemy in the flank. What it is about is our strategy and tactics the we employ in order to win the battle. All of the above are tools to help accomplish victory, but they are not the overall plan. The problem is that if we remain predictable our enemy can plan for our predictability, as they know what we will do before we do it. What often saves us is that they are of the same mindset, using familiar strategies and tactics that they have used over and over again. More often the not the battle is won or lost less on our tactical prowess and more on our forces abilities to hit hard and shrug off potentially deadly damage.

Having been around the Combat Mission block several times, I tried to come up with a player that best exemplifies the do not fight the last war strategy. A player that always seems able to surprise me, and keep me guessing from the start of the battle to the last turn. Someone that comes to mind is our own Der K.. His strength is being able to 'do more with less' better then maybe anyone else that I have played against. He is not predictable with his armor, he uses “hit and run” along side “run and gun”, fakes and parries, counter attacks and stands fast. The point being that you are never quite sure what is going on inside his mind and where you need to be in order to win the game. Often I have found myself reacting over and over again to his moves, which negates my ability to carry out my own plans. This is what is is meant by not fighting the last war. Make each battle different in your tactical approach. Shouldn't this happen all the time?... Isn't every map different, and every player a unique individual? Why would we then choose to fight using tactics that worked the time before, just because they worked the last time we used them. Each battle is a whole new game, often against a different opponent. What sense does it make to have one play in the playbook and use it over and over again against everyone that you face?

I think that we all try to avoid a game that turns into a face to face slug-fest that allows the outcome to be determined by the thickness of a tank's armor or how many SMG squads one has. We all have the ability to become not just good players, but great players, we just need to identify what is missing from our game play and correct it. Look at the practice that we get, compared to some of the great generals in history, Napoleon or Patton or Alexander. I bet that they did not get the chance to fight 10, 20, 50+ battles a year. Yet, I find myself going back over and over again to routines that make winning possible, why would I not want to make my chances of winning probable.
Here is a quote from Friedrich vVon Bernhardi, 1849-1930 “He (Baron Antoine-Henri de Jomini) often quite arbitrarily presses the deeds of Napoleon into a system which he foists on Napoleon, and, in doing so, completely fails to see what, above all, really constitutes the greatness of this captain – namely, the reckless boldness, where, scoffing at all theory, he always tried to do what suited each occasion best.” Der K. too, seems to view the battle as rather flexible, and is able to bend and modify his tactics as needed. I can never say “If I do this then I will win”, or that “I know exactly what he is going to do next”. Usually, I find myself fretting from turn one right through to the end of the game. This is not to say that I feel that I have no chance, I have won some as well as lost some to Der K., but I know that I have to always be at the very top of my game in order to stand any sort of chance for victory. When we meet over a game, it is always bloody, my determination to take a flag at any cost coupled with his “over my dead body” attitude, make for some of the best games I have played.
How many times have you talked to yourself after the battle has been lost and said “if only I had done this instead of that, if only I could play that turn over again.... then I would have won victory”.Just one manoeuvre, one tactic, which one would have changed it all? The problem is that we think that knowledge is what we lack. Could this be the wrong approach?...Maybe what makes us go wrong is that we listen to our own thoughts, react to things that happened in the past, we apply tactics that we learned long ago but have little to do with our present situation. The greatest generals, the most creative CM players stand out not because they have more knowledge but because they are able, when necessary, to put away preconceived notions and focus entirely on the present moment. With this they are able to spark their creativity and seize opportunities. Knowledge, experience, and theory have their place, but they are also limited and cannot prepare for every possibility in the game's battles. The great philosopher Carl von Clausewitz called this “friction”: the difference between our plans and what actually happens. The goal is to eliminate this “friction” and bring the results closer to the plan.
Now how are we going to do this?... lets see what some of the best in history have done and see if it has a place in CM. We are going to wage a Guerrilla War of our mind.
First, let all of us re-examine all our beliefs and principles about CM. ”My policy is to have no policy.”-Abraham Lincoln. Napoleon stated that he followed no principles of war. From a more familiar setting, in North Africa the British forces were well trained in tank warfare, they were indoctrinated with theories about it. Later in the campaign, the American troops joined the fight. They were much less educated in these tactics but soon adapted to this new kind of war. Erwin Rommel was to comment “the Americans... profited far more then the British from their experience in Africa, thus confirming the axiom that education is easier then re-education.” To think that strategy has a set of rules will make you rigid and static, there are hundreds of thousands of WW2 Russian soldiers that can tell you how well rigid and static tactics work. They work about as well in Combat Mission. I know that I am going to try harder to think outside the box and act on each turn as it presents itself.
Second, erase the memory of the last battle. If you won the battle, you will tend to repeat the tactics and strategies that you used, success always makes us lazy and complacent. If you lost, you will face indecisiveness, and nervousness. Both can equally be your undoing in the next game. Professional athletes are always talking about taking things one game at a time, for us it should be one turn at a time. Every turn is a new opportunity, a new situation, nothing in the past is relevant. North Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap had a simple rule: after a successful battle, he would convince himself that all had actually been a failure. As a result he would never get drunk in his success, and he would never repeat the same strategy in the next battle. He forced himself to think through each situation anew.

Third, keep the mind moving. Aristotle thought that life was defined by movement. What does not move is dead. CM combat highlights this in bold colour. We should be very fluid in our plans and tactics, great players seem to be highly sensitive to dangers and opportunities. Great strategists do not act according to preconceived ideas, they respond to the moment.

Fourth, reverse course. Google the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a very interesting fellow. In order to regain his creative energy he would gamble away all his money, this would overwhelm him, comfort and routine would be gone, stale patterns would be broken. He was then forced to take a step back and rethink everything anew from a new perspective. This is maybe a little extreme for CM, but lets look at what he is doing as it can apply to the game. Apply no tactic rigidly, and do not settle into mentally static positions. Always be prepared to stop, and attack situations from new angles. Don't get caught doing nothing. Sometimes you have to mentally start the whole battle new after several turns, forget about the troubles you are having and call a personal mulligan, then just say “This is a new game from this point, and I am going to win it from here on.”

So now I will close and review what some great leaders have taught us:
Do not fight the last war, change things up, be cautious one time, aggressive the next. In Quick Battles choose armor heavy forces this time, infantry heavy the next game. Have your forces come through the trees in good cover in one section of the map and across open ground somewhere else.
Do not be rigid in your tactics, always be prepared to change things up on short notice.
Forget your last game. Win each battle one turn at a time, using tactics that fit the unique situations that arise from one turn to the next.
Keep moving, react in the moment to new challenges and opportunities.
Lastly, if things are not working out for your forces do not be afraid to change things up and try something new. If machine gun fire wont dislodge the enemy, maybe a light howitzer or some pioneers are what is needed. Whatever you do, don't get caught doing nothing.

I hope that this has been entertaining to read. I know that I will try to follow these bits of advice from those that fought war in the first person. For myself, being autistic makes being creative a whole lot harder then it should be, and I have carved a life out of memorizing and imitating. But as I write these, I will make a note of how they are working in my games. What should happen is my win percentage should go up. For everyone else out there, let us know what you think. As a war gaming community, there should be no lack of opinions and I look forward to any and all comments that might arise from this note. If you guys find this interesting, I have no problem with presenting more from those that wrote the books on war.