"What do you mean "no do-overs"?" Topic

A couple of other polls and suggestions have lying awake at night (sometimes for minutes before the drugs kick in) wondering about how we assess victory and defeat from a societal level. A couple recent examples are:

TMP link

TMP link

OK, some win, some loose. That is the nature of conflict. But how much of a spectacular win or loss is ability (at different levels) and how much is situation. If we follow the school of Sun-Tzu, a battle is over before it begins. But even that leads us to strive to focus our prowess on controling the situation before we engage. Isn't that still ability vice situation?

… oh, yeah, this is the Poll Suggestions board, not the Philisopical Navel Gazing board … so a question:

What is the biggest military "failure" that you feel is wrongly attributed to a commander's ineptness rather than the no-win situation he faced? Why?

Since it's fresh in my mind, I would say Puebla. Rather than an amazing victory by Zaragosa over a superior force, it seems to me that the French were looking for an easy sweep against a government debilitated by a civil war and continuing internal unrest. When they didn't get that, they went home, came back with a real army, and won.

Name a WWI western front battle 1915-1918. Defensive technologies out matched the ability to execute an offensive.

"Defensive technologies out matched the ability to execute an offensive."

As did troop density. At least until three years of intensive attrition had thinned them out a bit.

The Soviet Generals attempting to defend the western USSR in 1941 were similarly doomed but for different reasons.

Nicias of Athens in the Syracuse campaign. He actually campaigned actively against the war, saying they couldn't win, so the Athenian Assembly made him the General in command (he was supposed to have Alcibiades as co-General, but there was that drunken party) and gave him even more troops. He lost the lot.

Everything is worth playing…

Just dont tell them what they are playing… Disguise the scenario and it is open.

Example: I gave on player a british army with tech of 1880 and gave the order to clear out some revolting peasants. The opponent had boers ready to ambush the british. Vola, I had a 100 procent colenso.

Another example: i gave on player a international army with tech of 1900 and said he had to storm some forts with prirats. And vola i had 100 procent historic taku forts.

Yet another example… I gave on napoleonic player a amateur amry (all landwehr?) and that he had to cross a river with 4 divisions with a reenforced flank. And I gave another an amateur army with some good units and demaned a forced march to block a river crossing. Vola so i got my 1. Manassas….

I have written a d-day scenario ( not yet played). One player has a inf brigade supported by light tanks and is promised air support.
The other player has a panzer division and must kick out the invaders….
For sure the air support will not come and you ammo / supply ships are placed on the table as valid air targets for the enemy….. You have just played the bay of pigs… And not omaha beach!
:)))))

Rudi,I love doing those disguised scenarios

Live with the result.
The absolute BEST rule I ever encountered after years of sloppy "do-over" style game play that always resulted in arguments, were these words, uttered without a drop of rancor or irony: "Well, you won't make that mistake again."
Games got better, more fun, more thoughtful, more competitive and WAY more enjoyable. Ego was restored to its rightful status as a source of bragging rights, rather than whining over wounded feelings.

Still wondering what happened, here…