"Grand Strategy" Discussion Thread

[PinkyGen]

With all these talks about grand strategy invading other threads, I thought it would be good to actually start a thread to discuss what this fabled "grand strategy" should be.

This thread is for the sole purpose of discussing the "grand strategy": Who gets reinforced, which fronts should attack, and where we want to go. Nothing here is official, but just a place for armchair generals and actual generals to talk things over.

This thread is not for arguing over who controls the supposed grand strategy (aka the tiresome Politburo versus STAVKA discussions). Take that stuff elsewhere. This is where we want to fight Nazis and Finns, and not over our own internal power structure.

With that said, my thoughts.

I think our priority should be first to liberate our territory, then to advance into enemy territory. I'm not saying every inch of soviet ground needs to be freed before we go into enemy territory, but I don't like seeing long flanks such as what is going on the Belorussian front as 2nd and 1st Ukranian fend off attacks. This is not to criticize Colwyn's advance, but that I think he has reached a limit. He has done it on his own without being too demanding on rush buys, and is now giving units to other fronts.
I also think some strategic targets, like the Ukraine, Ploesti fields, and Helsinki are important to capture.

What I would generally want, most of which is happening.
Have BieloRussian halt outside of Warsaw. If Warsaw can be taken with what is there, great, just stop afterward. If Warsaw can't be taken, go on the defensive.

Have Baltic and NW Front coordinate an attack to drive to the Baltic, and significantly shorten the front we have to defend.

If Baltic and NW Front can spare kaytusha rockets, aid Murmansk fronts drive on Helsinki, as taking that will crush the Finns. However, I think the drive to the baltic should take precedence, as Helsinki would be tough to crack for just one city, while the other liberates more territory.

I know 1st and 2nd Ukranian plan to counter-attack some time, which is good. Bielorussian may be able to aide by using Brest-Litvosk to attack Kiev from the rear, but this is more of a battlefield decision.

Figu also has a plan to attack Ploesti, I don't know if it's feasible or not. However, particular from an economics point of view, capture of Ploesti would be a very good thing, and I would put that equal to reclaiming the Baltic cities, and above capturing Helsinki. Not to mention we could get Rumanian surrender if we attack that area as well.

I make no claims to be a master armchair general, but that is generally what I am thinking, for whatever it is worth.

Now feel free to post your thoughts.

[Colwyn]

I concor re shortening the fronts

I've taken Warsaw but I don't plan to go further (can't not enough artillery units now, berlin I feel will require about 10 kayusha's to take)

Will move south to shorten the fronts of other commanders with mine, though they need to attack now though and take a few cities with a followup of 3 KV1's to defend againsts counter attacks, if they have a Sturmovik following up it usually can eliminated german units in range on the newly taken city so it doesn't even get attacked on the german turn.

[Dr. Nick]

I agree, I think the continued assaults into Poland could be disaster if we overextend our supply lines.

[conmcb25]

Well this isn't exactly what I had in mind but thats OK.

From Greeny's first post and from the follow on posts we are also discussing Operational and Tactical issues.

I dont have a problem with that but just so you all know what we do Operationally and Tactically is finally decided by the Marshall and the Front Commanders.

Where reinforcements go is decided by the Marshall with input from Front Commanders. It is not decided by the Politburo. We can all talk about it but the Marshall has the final say.

I have officially given up trying to discuss a "Strategic Direction of the WAR". I just dont think we are ready to do that.

Its kind of a shame because when it comes to staff planning we are putting the cart before the horse.

But it probably doesn't make much difference the war is going pretty well right now anyway.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by conmcb25
Well this isn't exactly what I had in mind but thats OK.

Its kind of a shame because when it comes to staff planning we are putting the cart before the horse.

But it probably doesn't make much difference the war is going pretty well right now anyway.

then can you show us what you mean? Our lack of understanding is what brought up the feud in the first place

[conmcb25]

Well I thought I tried to explain it in the "b1tch" thread but here goes again.

Strategic: That is basically very simple general goals that EVERYONE works towards;

Ill use my example from the Stavka Thread:

"Hold along the River Don and launch Two major thrusts towards Berlin and Ploesti with the intent of capturing both by the end of winter 1944-45."

Now very simply what I have given the STAVKA is a "Commander"s Intent", now just bear with me here this is an actual term used in staff planning. So please dont get all pissed off.

With that "Commanders Intent" I have told you "Politically" what I want to get out of this war. What I want the next phase to be. (And Im using "I" a lot here but for the purposes of the game that means what we decide from a discussion.)

With this broad sweeping Goal I have told you what I want and you have a deadline but I have deliberately not told you the HOW, WHO , WHERE or specific WHEN of what is going to happen.

Now that the Commanders Intent is stated you and the Front Commanders and the Ministers can begin developing Operational Plans and Tactical plans to satisfy the comanders intent. The ministers because they provide you the right units and enable the rush buys. The Marshall still determines where thay go!

Operational for the terms of this game would mean something that crosses front boundries. Tactical would be things that happen on a single front.

With a commanders Intent established that makes operational decisions all that much easier to make. Because we dont have resources to support everything.

So if this indeed the Strategic Direction of the war we all agree upon for example:

"Hold along the River Don and launch Two major thrusts towards Berlin and Ploesti with the intent of capturing both by the end of winter 1944-45."

Then at this point in time the Marshall has to make some big decision with help from STAVKA.

Do I send more resources south to support the counterattack against the Breakthru across the Don near Stalingrad?

Do I send resources to 1st Ukrainian and NW front to support the Flanks of the Belorussian Front advance?

And I think you are doing that decision making loop pretty well right now but no where have we really layed down a commanders intent. So we are moving forward but Im not convinced we are all moving forward with the same goals in mind.

And the point is I (and the Politburo) dont care whether you reinforce Stalingrad or the Belorussian Flanks this month. Thats your decision. The only thing I care about is making sure the Germans dont get past the Don and at the end of winter 1944-1945 there is a Soviet flag flying in Berlin and Ploesti.

Thats the beauty of staff planning. I give you a commanders intent that is basically a very general non specific set of goals, and I trust you are smart enough to develop plans that will satisfy the intent.

And again commanders intent for the purposes of this game are determined by group discussion. This is after all a demo game.

Let me know if that explains it better. And I will say right now I have seen politburo members talk about operational and even tactical issues in this thread and others. Which is fine because this is a demo game.

But final operational and tactical decisions lie with the Marshall and STAVKA.

[Bossy20000]

Originally posted by conmcb25
And again commanders intent for the purposes of this game are determined by group discussion. This is after all a demo game.

Let me know if that explains it better. And I will say right now I have seen politburo members talk about operational and even tactical issues in this thread and others. Which is fine because this is a demo game.

But final operational and tactical decisions lie with the Marshall and STAVKA.

I totally agree. When I say something on a tactical or operational matter, I just give my opinion. It's up to STAVKA to decide what to do with it. It just gives us more angles for every problem. Everybody has his own ways of playing Red Front, and somebody else might have a good/better strategy. It would be a shame if we wouldn't listen to everybody's input.
If you want, I could create an alter ego to discuss on tactical and operational matters, to make a difference between me as Politburo member and me as Red Front-player? It would get complicated for me, but it could make things easier for you (making me schizofrenic )

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Bossy20000


I totally agree. When I say something on a tactical or operational matter, I just give my opinion. It's up to STAVKA to decide what to do with it. It just gives us more angles for every problem. Everybody has his own ways of playing Red Front, and somebody else might have a good/better strategy. It would be a shame if we wouldn't listen to everybody's input.
If you want, I could create an alter ego to discuss on tactical and operational matters, to make a difference between me as Politburo member and me as Red Front-player? It would get complicated for me, but it could make things easier for you (making me schizofrenic )

The easiest thing to do is just say in a post where you are expressing your opinion that it is only an opinion. I do that now to make sure folks aren't thinking Im issueing a directive.

[yop73]

Well, if this thing is settled, then the politburo can begin debating the "grand strategy" and let's see what comes out of it.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by yop73
Well, if this thing is settled, then the politburo can begin debating the "grand strategy" and let's see what comes out of it.

Members of the Politburo, STAVKA, Central Committee or anyone can always debate "Grand Strategy", whatever the context is.

What I want to establish is a "Strategic Direction of the War".

Two different things. See my explanation above.

[PinkyGen]

I said I didn't want this thread to be a discussion of this debate, but a place where anyone could spew about strategy!!! I realize that nothing here is official.

With that said, feel free to post what should be the "Commanders Intent."

[Dr. Nick]

*bangs shoe on desk*

Listen to Comrade Pinkygenovich! Listen to him please!

*bangs shoe on desk again, for effect*

[Colwyn]

Yes what is the strategic direction for the war, the front commanders need to get clear and precise instructions as does the Marshal most of all.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Colwyn
Yes what is the strategic direction for the war, the front commanders need to get clear and precise instructions as does the Marshal most of all.

There we go! A Front Commander that has some vision! Now thats what I like to see.

Ok lets start with this:

"Hold along the River Don and launch Two major thrusts towards Berlin and Ploesti with the intent of capturing both by the end of winter 1944-45."

I will entertain maybe one or two more sentences at the most. This direction is STRATEGIC! I dont want you to give me suggestions that talk about Operational or Tactical issues.

My intent here is to give the STAVKA some goals to direct there efforts and resources in trying to achieve. When we fufill these objectives (or get close) we can talk about the next phase.

I would like to see maybe an economic flavor added to these goals. Big picture economics.

OK lets talk. 2 or 3 days, and then we will publish.

Greeny could you change the subject of this thread to "Discussion on Strategic Direction of the War?"

[conmcb25]

Arghhhhh!

Darn server and double posts, what a nuisance!