Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 82

Author Topic: Armchair General General - /AGG  (Read 140223 times)

Erkki

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1035 on: December 21, 2016, 05:32:42 am »

Who would run a siege as a bluff? Moreover Leningrad the Germans failed to completely cut off all supplies to Leningrad, whose citizens were already fighting to the death. Without Finnish aid and with their forces spread between Leningrad, Moscow, Sevastopol etc. they were not able to capitulate on any advances or weaknesses, fighting a war of attrition they could ill afford to fight. One of the greatest benefits of this strategy is that it forces the enemy to surrender, however this incentive is completely erased when your side is offering two options:

I want to add, that Leningrad could have been conquered or the siege could have been more complete. It was a question of not wanting to do that(from the Finnish side). Marshal CGE Mannerheim, Chief of Staff of the Finnish Army and later President of the Republic, was a former General Major in Russian Army and commander of his majesty's bodyguards, Ulan regiment. Having achieved good defensive positions on Karelian Isthmus some 20 km from Leningrad and nearly overextended supply lines in East Karelia, Mannerheim and his staff refused German demands to advance further into Soviet Union at that front or bombard Leningrad.

Had Leningrad been conquered or sieged more completely in 1941, perhaps the war would have been won, but Mannerheim and his generals wanted to play carefully. Taking part to genocide or destruction of Leningrad would probably have been very bad for international reputation, and Soviet Union would not have forgotten it. You cant change geography and all that.
Logged

Amperzand

  • Bay Watcher
  • Knight of Cerebus
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1036 on: December 21, 2016, 05:34:08 am »

One factor that occurs to me is whether there is simply an equivalent to the chemical weapons policies in WW2, or nuclear weapons are considered nonrelevant and ignored.

If the stockpiles still are considered necessary to deter opponents using them, that has some potentially significant differences from a scenario where the nuclear assets can be safely converted to conventional warheads. Nonnuclear ICBM and SLBM strikes still have the potential to be pretty bad, not to mention thermobarics and deployed stealth bombers, but if nukes are still considered relevant, any long range missile launch is going to be seen as a potential act of escalation and incredibly dangerous.
Logged
Muh FG--OOC Thread
Quote from: smirk
Quote from: Shadowlord
Is there a word that combines comedy with tragedy and farce?
Heiterverzweiflung. Not a legit German word so much as something a friend and I made up in German class once. "Carefree despair". When life is so fucked that you can't stop laughing.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1037 on: December 21, 2016, 05:42:36 am »

There's no way to tell if an icbm has a nuclear warhead or not from early warning radar.
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1038 on: December 21, 2016, 05:48:59 am »

Well, it depends, if its not a massive launch, you could witheld your nuclear return fire because (especially with SSBNs) the risk of the enemy taking out your retaliatory capacity is low.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1039 on: December 21, 2016, 05:55:55 am »

I strongly suggest for this scenario we either vanish nukes entirely or assume that all nuclear powers also possess secret and fully effective ABM shields. Anything else just makes this immediately turn into "but how bad is nuclear war, really"?

That said, I'd almost support the latter version now that I think about it, as it also denies nonnuclear ballistic missiles while opening up the possibility of taking down the ABM shield and unleashing Armageddon. Or just having the US immediately burn every nation in the world not under a shield.

That also brings up a secondary question. What is the state of the world regarding America in this scenario? Are all other national bodies committed to bringing down the United States or is the entire population of the world except Americans seeking it? And what happens to Americans abroad?

Further, what are the win conditions for each side? Does the United States have to force a formal surrender, conquer everything, or just render the rest of the world militarily impotent? Does the world have to force the United States to surrender, occupy it by force, or exterminate the American people?
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1040 on: December 21, 2016, 06:30:36 am »

Even if America had a flawless missile shield and could even somehow stop SLBMs, firing off a bunch of nukes would be unwise still if only because it would lead to increased radiation worldwide (as happened due to above ground nuclear testing in the 20th century), increasing cancer rates, etc.
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1041 on: December 21, 2016, 10:44:30 am »

Every other country in the world simultaneously gets tired of our shit and declares war on the United States of America. What is the result of this?
The USA loses, because of fucking course the combined military of every country in the world are eventually going to stomp the USA.
Logged

Culise

  • Bay Watcher
  • General Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1042 on: December 21, 2016, 10:49:01 am »

Every other country in the world simultaneously gets tired of our shit and declares war on the United States of America. What is the result of this?
The USA loses, because of fucking course the combined military of every country in the world are eventually going to stomp the USA.
"In the first six to twelve months of a war... I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."
-Attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto
Logged

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1043 on: December 21, 2016, 11:03:05 am »

America has a very, very strong Navy. 10 (or 19?) aircraft carriers compared to a combined 12 in the rest of the world, and most of them don't come close to matching the capability of the best American aircraft carriers. I foresee a long naval conflict that the USA could reasonably win, in the sense that they would have free reign of the oceans, but the USA just doesn't have enough ships to stop the enemy from supplying ground attacks from Canada and Mexico. Depending on how much of the US fleet survives they could do a good job harassing supply lines stretching up from as far as South America. But America has no friends in this scenario. That means no trade at all. This is crippling in the long term. There is no way that America could win when everyone is against them.
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1044 on: December 21, 2016, 12:41:51 pm »

Yeah, the economic situation is the killing blow that'd be inflicted on the US. Sure it has one of the largest and most advanced militaries but without the resources to keep it supplied with replacement equipment and spare parts it'd lose on sheer attrition alone. It'd probably have some initial successes moving into canada and mexico but there wouldn't be much of a way for it to solidify those gains.

And given the resources and manufacturing capabilities of the UN (Better to use this than rest of the world, it's easier.), any naval supremacy by the US will be on a time limit with a lack of spare parts on the US side being the most crippling issue, combined with the fact the UN fleets will just have numbers and strategic mobility on their side.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1045 on: December 21, 2016, 04:43:55 pm »

One advantage the US has here is that the US has a coordinated military, while the EU/Russia/China does not. A further disadvantage is the the rest of the world lacks in the ability to project power across the Atlantic, although the US will certainly lose a lot of material with all those bases. A lot of NATO will be crippled without support from the US, but perhaps Russia and China can help them out (if they are willing). But then what? The question about win-conditions seems obvious: How is this supposed to go? I imagine the first steps will be overrunning US bases across the world (although the situation in Korea and Japan will be interesting), while the US overruns Canada and Mexico. What happens then?

Honestly I highly doubt Canada or Mexico would ever join such an exercise in the first place, unless the US was turned against itself in civil war, or it was some massive first-strike. Otherwise, they'd basically be condemning themselves to near-immediate military occupation: Canada because it's population is so much smaller and more vulnerable, and Mexico because while much, much larger (although still one fifth of total US forces), it's also poorer and worse organized. Then what? I imagine the two countries would negotiate some sort of deal, with them turning into puppets or collaborators or something (saves the US the trouble of occupying them). That radically changes the situation: the majority of US foreign trade is with it's neighbors, and once they are secured it's a lot harder to strike at the US economy in that manner. Of course that assumes that neither Mexico or Canada decide to go into guerilla warfare, but that's hard to predict (I can't imagine it'll be much worse in Mexico than it is already lol). After that, it's debatable how much farther south the US military will march (at least in the initial phases). I can see the Military going so far as Panama to secure that objective, but going into Venezuala would require more planning then sweeping through Nicaragua and defenseless Costa Rica (another question: why would these countries also ever go to war, especially Costa Rica? They literally have no military, they'd have no reason to do so). Most of the Carribean would also be seized.

(also Wikipedia informs me that Iceland has no military of it's own and is protected by the US military, so they'd probably also be occupied swiftly).

But beyond securing the initial borders all I can see happening is Fortress America. There might be more serious fights in places where US troops are already abundant (particularly Japan, whose entire self-defense force is roughly equal in size to the US military presence on the Islands; at a minimum, the US would seize Okinawa prefecture, and be reinforced by whatever troops could be evacuated out of South Korea) and maybe the US will hold on to a few of those areas, but beyond that the US is separated from the rest of the world by big oceans, and can reasonably expect to not collapse from trade due to the occupations of Canada and Mexico. It's a war that would stretch on almost indefinitely, with the involved countries more likely to collapse from civil conflict than to be taken out by military occupation (unless you live in Canada or Mexico). This really only seems like an exercise in inflicting unimaginable pain and suffering upon the world. If it's total war, the US will cripple international trade and the rest of the world will inflict the same on the US, but then they'll just sit and glare at each other from across the Bering strait and Panama. It would have to end in some sort of Kaiserreich-esque "Peace with Honor" arrangement for it to not drag on forever.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 04:46:27 pm by misko27 »
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1046 on: December 21, 2016, 04:53:47 pm »

Surely the USA would only need to destroy Canada, Mexico, Russia, UK, Japan, France, Singapore and Australia and then there would not be anyone actually capable of taking the fight to the USA anymore?
Ignoring the collapse in international trade and all, the USA itself would be untouched whilst the USA could foray out at their own discretion, and I'm not sure those combined nations would be able to launch a first strike on US soil without running face first into the US navy

Kot

  • Bay Watcher
  • 2 Patriotic 4 U
    • View Profile
    • Tiny Pixel Soldiers
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1047 on: December 21, 2016, 06:14:25 pm »

Surely the USA would only need to destroy Canada, Mexico, Russia, UK, Japan, France, Singapore and Australia and then there would not be anyone actually capable of taking the fight to the USA anymore?
Ignoring the collapse in international trade and all, the USA itself would be untouched whilst the USA could foray out at their own discretion, and I'm not sure those combined nations would be able to launch a first strike on US soil without running face first into the US navy
N a h.
I mean, the logistics of attacking USA and getting away with it and whatnot aside, you don't neccessarily need aircraft carriers. While, yes, air power would be a big, naval battles could be won without it (anti-air capabilites aside, the main way of hurting ships is pretty much the same when it comes to ships and planes - hueg anti-ship missiles), and all it takes is gettin a foothold on American continent - it doesn't even have to be USA, just some place in America where you can set up your own airfields and then just quickly rebase (while cross-Atlantic/Pacific flights are not something that all modern fighter planes can achieve, there are much closer pieces of America to other continents). Russians could easily get in accross Alaska, French Rafale is ~4k kilometers which is the distance of France to America, ferry range of Eurofighter is also something like that. Australia and Japan are trickier, since Pacific, but I guess if we're already dreaming of someone attacking America, you can as well make them go through Alaska or Antarctica.

Also, purely a food for thought - Poland uses American F-16s and MiG-29s and Su-17, their ferry range is 4,220 km/2,100 km/2,300 km. In any case, we would have to use a part of conquered Western Europe to get to America, but this way we would only be able to use the American planes (sweet irony, USA falling to their own planes... nearly a national sport of theirs, though), but we could also get through the whole Russia and attack America through Alaska and be able to use the Russian planes too.
It should be noted that Winged Hussars have night unlimited range and can strike at any time at any point in world thanks to their superior horse fuel capabilities and perfectly calculated wingspan.
Logged
Kot finishes his morning routine in the same way he always does, by burning a scale replica of Saint Basil's Cathedral on the windowsill.

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1048 on: December 21, 2016, 08:53:29 pm »

Speaking of which, the technology side of things bears looking into. All of America's foes will likely be coordinating weapons research if possible, while America will also be ramping up research into things like anti-ship missile defenses.

Unfortunately, Winged Hussars are outcompeted by Eagles, whose larger wingspan and piercing cry easily penetrates their metal hide.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Parsely

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My games!
Re: Armchair General General - /AGG
« Reply #1049 on: December 21, 2016, 10:54:41 pm »

Surely the USA would only need to destroy Canada, Mexico, Russia, UK, Japan, France, Singapore and Australia and then there would not be anyone actually capable of taking the fight to the USA anymore?
Ignoring the collapse in international trade and all, the USA itself would be untouched whilst the USA could foray out at their own discretion, and I'm not sure those combined nations would be able to launch a first strike on US soil without running face first into the US navy
N a h.
I mean, the logistics of attacking USA and getting away with it and whatnot aside, you don't neccessarily need aircraft carriers. While, yes, air power would be a big, naval battles could be won without it (anti-air capabilites aside, the main way of hurting ships is pretty much the same when it comes to ships and planes - hueg anti-ship missiles), and all it takes is gettin a foothold on American continent - it doesn't even have to be USA, just some place in America where you can set up your own airfields and then just quickly rebase (while cross-Atlantic/Pacific flights are not something that all modern fighter planes can achieve, there are much closer pieces of America to other continents). Russians could easily get in accross Alaska, French Rafale is ~4k kilometers which is the distance of France to America, ferry range of Eurofighter is also something like that. Australia and Japan are trickier, since Pacific, but I guess if we're already dreaming of someone attacking America, you can as well make them go through Alaska or Antarctica.

Also, purely a food for thought - Poland uses American F-16s and MiG-29s and Su-17, their ferry range is 4,220 km/2,100 km/2,300 km. In any case, we would have to use a part of conquered Western Europe to get to America, but this way we would only be able to use the American planes (sweet irony, USA falling to their own planes... nearly a national sport of theirs, though), but we could also get through the whole Russia and attack America through Alaska and be able to use the Russian planes too.
It should be noted that Winged Hussars have night unlimited range and can strike at any time at any point in world thanks to their superior horse fuel capabilities and perfectly calculated wingspan.
If the entire world is against the USA, then that means Mexico and Canada too. There are already "footholds" on the continent. There need not be an opposed landing or a suicidal hike across the Alaskan landscape (seriously, invading through Alaska is not an option).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 82