Remove ads

Paths of Civilization II: Paths of Industrialization

Reader mode
My understanding of it is that every victory that the Wyrmyn have is Pyrrhic.

I suppose the criterion for victory is having won the field.

I feel it was implied in the update that while we are generally forced off of the field of battle in each engagement due to being outmaneuvered, but we take relatively few casualties in the process thanks to an orderly withdrawal.

Meanwhile, while the Wyrmyn have the field, they are generally forced to withdraw soon after to a more defensible position regardless of their victory due to swiftly encroaching reinforcements that weren't able to join the battle proper.
 
Sturmi said:
My understanding of it is that every victory that the Wyrmyn have is Pyrrhic.

I suppose the criterion for victory is having won the field.

I feel it was implied in the update that while we are generally forced off of the field of battle in each engagement due to being outmaneuvered, but we take relatively few casualties in the process thanks to an orderly withdrawal.

Meanwhile, while the Wyrmyn have the field, they are generally forced to withdraw soon after to a more defensible position regardless of their victory due to swiftly encroaching reinforcements that weren't able to join the battle proper.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can understand if proportional loses were less (aka we lost 3-5% of troops but they lost like 10%) but total dead if were force to withdraw in every engagement.
 
We are losing battles but we are basically winning on controlling territory. They can make battles happen, but they simply don't have enough manpower to control more territory than us.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
I understand that. Its that were taking less casualties then the people who are winning that I don't get.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wars at this time have more to do with morale than with sheer firepower, so the Wyrmyn are basically going extremely aggressive to destroy our morale pushing our soldiers to retreat, but they're spending a lot of manpower for each victory.

Except that at this time our officers are probably retreating on purpose and letting the Wyrmyn think they're winning every battle due to élan.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
How would that work when were the ones on the offensive?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Basically with improved training and doctrine, when encountering ferocious Wyrmyn resistance instead of making it a fight to the knife, the field commanders are willing to break off the engagement early because they know that reinforcements will arrive in a few days. Thus the Wyrmyn generals are faced with attempting a pursuit of an enemy in good order with reinforcements incoming (AKA annihilation), standing their ground and facing the full brunt of a numerically superior force equal to them in training and technology (AKA slower annihilation) or falling back to another position and hoping the political situation changes (AKA the slowest possible loss with the hope for victory).

Basically the Wyrmyn are fighting harder than you, but they don't have the numbers for it to matter, and your generals are letting them spend their fury ultimately in their blood rather than yours.
 
Academia Nut said:
Basically with improved training and doctrine, when encountering ferocious Wyrmyn resistance instead of making it a fight to the knife, the field commanders are willing to break off the engagement early because they know that reinforcements will arrive in a few days. Thus the Wyrmyn generals are faced with attempting a pursuit of an enemy in good order with reinforcements incoming (AKA annihilation), standing their ground and facing the full brunt of a numerically superior force equal to them in training and technology (AKA slower annihilation) or falling back to another position and hoping the political situation changes (AKA the slowest possible loss with the hope for victory).

Basically the Wyrmyn are fighting harder than you, but they don't have the numbers for it to matter, and your generals are letting them spend their fury ultimately in their blood rather than yours.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
:facepalm:
If were causing more harm to the enemy then they are to us letting them go instead of pursuing them is going to end up dragging this fight on with them ending up having learned every mistake before they have to make their last stand, were we are going to get shredded because we voted for not stopping until their all dead.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
:facepalm:
If were causing more harm to the enemy then they are to us letting them go instead of pursuing them is going to end up dragging this fight on with them ending up having learned every mistake before they have to make their last stand, were we are going to get shredded because we voted for not stopping until their all dead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not so much that the Wyrmyn are making mistakes it's that they have no hope of beating our numbers. Our armies are basically a massive avalanche that the Wyrmyn are managing to just stay ahead of. Once they run out of space to give they'll either do a last stand fight or scatter into the West like what the Poles did in 1830.
 
HanEmpire said:
It's not so much that the Wyrmyn are making mistakes it's that they have no hope of beating our numbers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All they need is a choke point, cause in the end one has to march into firing range in order to fire, and then beg to their overlord. Meanwhile our troops have never once stood their ground and as such our moral is more likely to break first during their final stand.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
All they need is a choke point, cause in the end one has to march into firing range in order to fire, and then beg to their overlord. Meanwhile our troops have never once stood their ground and as such our moral is more likely to break first during their final stand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well if they do that we simply surround them and then bombard them with all of our cannons.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
All they need is a choke point, cause in the end one has to march into firing range in order to fire, and then beg to their overlord. Meanwhile our troops have never once stood their ground and as such our moral is more likely to break first during their final stand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right. Modern thinking on your part. See, wars of this era? They aren't won by field battles, well they are but less like today. Eventually, the enemy will run out of space... To feed and equip their army. "Final stand" in this case is more operational than tactical, eventually they will have to make a do or die counterattack into superior enemy numbers, which will quite seriously risk their armies getting surrounded and annihilated as a fighting force.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
All they need is a choke point, cause in the end one has to march into firing range in order to fire, and then beg to their overlord. Meanwhile our troops have never once stood their ground and as such our moral is more likely to break first during their final stand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If Wyrmyn is anything like Poland then the place is a massive plain. "Choke point" is a bit of a theoretical concept outside of some bridges here and there, and in that case we can just bombard them with our cannons, or have another army march around the chokepoint with another bridge. Do note that by the time the Wyrmyn have to make a stand we'll have overrun most of their country. I'll be surprised if the Wyrmyn have enough supplies left for a proper battle.

And I don't get what you mean about morale. Our soldiers are marching ever deeper into enemy lands with little casualties suffered, and given how they've been acting so far our officers will consolidate into a massive army before the final battle. How are they likely to break?
 
SpeckofStardust said:
All they need is a choke point, cause in the end one has to march into firing range in order to fire, and then beg to their overlord. Meanwhile our troops have never once stood their ground and as such our moral is more likely to break first during their final stand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They don't have the numbers to hold all the choke points without ultimately getting surrounded, especially since they are in the middle of plains and the only choke points are rivers and small sections of woods. Morale is actually being maintained to a fair degree, because the officers make sure that the groups that engage never actually break while the other columns tend to just see the Wyrmyn running away.
 
DaLintyGuy said:
Right. Modern thinking on your part. See, wars of this era? They aren't won by field battles, well they are but less like today. Eventually, the enemy will run out of space... To feed and equip their army. "Final stand" in this case is more operational than tactical, eventually they will have to make a do or die counterattack into superior enemy numbers, which will quite seriously risk their armies getting surrounded and annihilated as a fighting force.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A sure death tomorrow or a possible death today.
HanEmpire said:
If Wyrmyn is anything like Poland then the place is a massive plain. "Choke point" is a bit of a theoretical concept outside of some bridges here and there, and in that case we can just bombard them with our cannons, or have another army march around the chokepoint at another bridge. Do note that by the time the Wyrmyn have to make a stand we'll have overrun most of their country. I'll be surprised if the Wyrmyn have enough supplies left for a proper battle.

And I don't get what you mean about morale. Our soldiers are marching ever deeper into enemy lands with little casualties suffered, and given how they've been acting so far our officers will consolidate into a massive army before the final battle. How are they likely to break?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
most if not all of our troops have never gotten into a serious fight, their will be a point were our men will have to cross a line that seems to end in death for them, and their not used to the idea of death because.
Academia Nut said:
while the other columns tend to just see the Wyrmyn running away.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
most if not all of our troops have never gotten into a serious fight, their will be a point were our men will have to cross a line that seems to end in death for them, and their not used to the idea of death because.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
These are trained soldiers, liberally sprinkled with veterans of the last war. If they break as easily as you think they will then I'll eat a hat.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
A sure death tomorrow or a possible death today.

most if not all of our troops have never gotten into a serious fight, their will be a point were our men will have to cross a line that seems to end in death for them, and their not used to the idea of death because.

This.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Basically, what is going on is essentially a statistical artifact. You only count battles that are actually fought, in which case in the individual moments the Wyrmyn "win", but they are achieving none of their strategic objectives. If there is a final battle rather than an ultimate surrender it will be done with something like ten to one numerical advantage for your side, with your troops well fed and rested and the Wyrmyn under supplied, tired, and hungry having already expended the cream of their army in delaying action after delaying action.
 
Academia Nut said:
Basically, what is going on is essentially a statistical artifact. You only count battles that are actually fought, in which case in the individual moments the Wyrmyn "win", but they are achieving none of their strategic objectives. If there is a final battle rather than an ultimate surrender it will be done with something like ten to one numerical advantage for your side, with your troops well fed and rested and the Wyrmyn under supplied, tired, and hungry having already expended the cream of their army in delaying action after delaying action.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nothing here explains why we lost less men then they have so far.
Academia Nut said:
It is best to say that you are losing every battle but taking fewer losses than the victor while decisively winning the war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This breaks my SOD, I understand winning while suffering more men lost I really do, what I don't get is how were winning and losing ever 'fight' but have less men dead.
Because this.
Academia Nut said:
Morale is actually being maintained to a fair degree, because the officers make sure that the groups that engage never actually break while the other columns tend to just see the Wyrmyn running away.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Would never be described as a lose in ANY standard.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
Nothing here explains why we lost less men then they have so far.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Basically every loss has been "winnable" if the commander decided to take it to the knife, but on the tactical level the Wyrmyn have been willing to suffer higher losses to beat back slightly numerically superior forces locally. The Wyrmyn are throwing themselves on your guns and the commanders are deciding that they don't want to be rendered operationally nonviable for individually unimportant battles when the Tortun are still out there and they know that they can win the day tomorrow. The Wyrmyn are suffering 2% losses to inflict 1% losses on you, at which point the commanders shrug and go "Pull back, we'll get our friends and crush them tomorrow" and since losses haven't been too bad and they are maintaining high morale, they are able to make an orderly withdraw towards friendly forces. The Wyrmyn scouts then report back "Hey boss, there's like four times as many guys coming in" and the Wyrmyn realize that holding current positions are untenable. They are trying to slow you down in the hopes that Faron will deal with the other forces and deal with you, because if they held their ground they would have been wiped out already. They are thus fighting harder than you to buy time, but they are unable to stop the People on an operational level.
 
SpeckofStardust said:
snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The military's counting losses in the sense that "our soldiers marched in the reverse direction after the Wyrmyn put up a resistance".

The war's been going like this:
-Our armies meet Wyrmyn forces
-Wyrmyn are outnumbered and outgunned
-Wyrmyn put up ferocious resistance despite suffering disproportionate casualties
-our officers pull back rather than get into a meatgrinder CQC attrition match
-Wyrmyn "win" the battle by making the Dual Monarchy forces pull back
-Wyrmyn abandon the field because it's about to be swamped by enemy reinforcements
-Dual Monarchy claims empty field, which isn't a "win" because no battle was fought
 
Last edited:
No one can stop the Not!Russian Flood, we will drown them in men!

A well led Russia would have been terrifying in the 19th and 20th century.
 
Last edited:
065tdsa said:
Well led Russia is terrifying period.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This.
The main problem in Russia were late reforms and low standard of living, which led to a revolution and a long period of chaos.
Since we are starting the reforms a century early, we have some hope to push them through rather gently, and with our higher education and industrialization level should be able to build a terrifying juggernaut of a country.
 
Once we have machining and trains to move troops east/west we will be able to drop more men with guns on some poor other nation that it won't even be funny.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top