Picture this completely imaginary situation: you have an ennemy which you think you have proof detains a solid amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction (attack:+200;defense:+5;magic:+CNN). You have a couple hundred thousand soldiers that you can deploy pretty much everywhere except in countries eaten during national holidays. Would you:
- deploy the vast majority of those soldiers concentrated in a tiny area, within arms reach of your WMD-equiped ennemy;
OR
- deploy them in smaller separated patches, close enough but mostly where the Other Guy's WMDs can't reach?
Strategy
ziggy on 2003-03-13T15:02:59
Would you:
- deploy the vast majority of those soldiers concentrated in a tiny area, within arms reach of your WMD-equiped ennemy;
OR
- deploy them in smaller separated patches, close enough but mostly where the Other Guy's WMDs can't reach?
At the risk of sounding trite, I'd lift a few pages from the
Gene Rodenberry Manual of 23rd Century Strategy instead:
- The Kobyashi-Maru Maneuver: create a third acceptable option (like deploying a lot of automated weaponry that removes the need for 100K troops deployed in enemy territory: JDAM and various drones with missiles)
- The Corbamite Maneuver: make it clear to the opponent that there's a weapon so deadly that he can not possibly survive an engagement (i.e. MOAB)
- The Picard Maneuver: use trickery to make it appear like there are 100K troops at every possible location (i.e. frequent updates through CNN about the base camps that are nothing more than ghosts across the channel from Calais)
Hmm... I see an opportunity for someone to write «
Everything I Ever Needed To Know About Warfare I Learned from a Peaceful Federation Crew on a Scientific Mission of Exploration to Seek Out New Life and New Civilizations»
Re: Strategy
rafael on 2003-03-13T17:02:05
Strategy is for SISSIES !
