Help support TMP


POLL: Ultimate Test of a Wargame General


165 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


Tom Bryant writes:

I believe a lot depends on what you are defining as "campaign". I use the definition of ' a series of actions using a fixed or only slightly modified force list'. As such, I believe that, yes a campaign set up does indeed test a general better than single battles.

In a single battle, there is no real reason to "hold back" in your attack or defense strategy. "winning" at any cost is the name of the game. It becomes a different proposition when that armored company or aircraft carrier you just let get blown to smithereens may be needed in the next, or subsequent actions. As such how you employ your forces becomes as important, perhaps more important than winning. Take a look at Cornwallis' Yorktown campaign for an example.


Back to the Homepage



1,084 hits since 3 Jan 2015
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
true
83
50%
bar of chart
false
55
33%
bar of chart
no opinion
27
16%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION

A sea that raged no more Supporting Member of TMP wonders:

Is the ultimate test of a wargame general fighting a campaign of your chosen period?

Wargaming battles, one-offs, are all very well, but surely one discovers one's ability as a general (of your own chosen period) only when embarking on a wargame campaign.

Poll set up by Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian, based on this pre-poll discussion.