• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Enewald: That's exactly the sort of attitude Clausewitz would have disliked. :p He argued, correctly IMHO, that the defense was the stronger form of warfare, but with a negative purpose. Attack was the weaker form, but with a positive purpose. Also, he conceived of a thing called the culminating point of victory, a point beyond which attack becomes defense. An Italian invasion of the Soviet Union would run into that point very very quickly. :p

Of course, what is interesting is the way this balance has varied over time. So by the mid-19thC the defense had real advantages - aimed rifle fire, the ability to stay organised whilst your opponent lost organisation when moving etc, leading by WW1 to complete dominance (if you had enough troops - different on the eastern front and in the Russian Civil War), briefly unlocked by armour and then by 1943-4 with the advent of effective infantry AT either a balance or a shift back to the defense. But throughout, as Womble says, it was the ability to apply superior command and control to overcome the inherent issues arising from weaponry.

But all these tactical shifts merely altered the relative pts at which defense overcomes attack. But you can win by defending - it just depends on what you want to achieve?
 
sneakey pete: I'm sure that was in HoI2 as well, but I just forgot about it. :p

Baltasar: Indeed. :p

womble: Multi-select provinces? :eek:

womble: True, but getting inside the decision loop of the defender isn't guaranteed. And doesn't the very fact that you need a concentration to overwhelm the defenses show that the defense remains superior, at least in some ways? Plus, defense is inextricably linked up with the culminating point of victory--the further back the defender withdraws and the attacker advances, the more and more the balance shifts. :p

Enewald: That's all well and good for a pretend armchair strategist, but what strategic effect would such operations have on the Soviets? None, basically. Their center of gravity may not be their army, but unless their army is defeated I don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting to their center of gravity. And, as you yourself have said, the Soviet army is rather superior to mine. I can't beat it all on my own, and the Germans certainly aren't pulling their weight. :p

BlitzMartinDK: Indeed. :D

loki100: Indeed, true enough. As for the last bit, it's interesting you mention that as just yesterday I got this fantastic bit from one of my professors, who's doing a book called The Strategy-Makers 1650-1850, and chapter 9 is about August Ruhle von Lilienstern. He was a contemporary of Clausewitz and some of the things he writes about war termination and victory are brilliant, much better than anything Clausewitz wrote on the subject. Just a single snippet: "Victory, however, is not always the necessary condition of conquest or of peace, and peace is not always the necessary result of victory and conquest." Good stuff. :D

Okay, there'll be an update tonight! :D
 
You cannot beat them on your own you say, then why did you enter the war? :rolleyes:
I say do not fight wars if the possibility of defeat is certain.
And you would trust the Germans to do the hard work?
They might grind something of the behemoth known as the Red Army, yet their attempts shall be futile if not hopeless.
Surrender!!! ;)
 
Now you've finally realized he's playing the Italians :rofl:

Then it'd be more like: Switch sides.

Just a single snippet: "Victory, however, is not always the necessary condition of conquest or of peace, and peace is not always the necessary result of victory and conquest."

Sounds much like: "Beer may cause a headache, or it may not. To be sure you've got a headache from the beer instead of any other reason, you should drink anyway and make sure to grab a bottle of whiskey while being at it. You'll still not be sure but will have more fun that way."
 
Last edited:
Sounds much like: "Beer may cause a headache, or it may not. To be sure you've got a headache from the beer instead of any other reason, you should drink anyway and make sure to grab a bottle of whiskey while being at it. You'll still not be sure but will have more fun that way."

well think of it in terms of a classic partisan/guerilla strategy and it does make more sense. Ignore any question of right or wrong and think about what it would mean to 'win' from such a perspective. The goal of such an insurrection is rarely to win by occupying the enemy's capital (unless it is an internal event such as 1789 or 1917), so the North Vietnamese were not aiming at occupying Washington, its to make your opponent go away, and if they do, you've won.

and there is no shortage of victories and conquests that led to no lack of future conflict - to take the timeframe of HOI3 the whole thing can be traced back to the consequences of the imposed peace settlements from 1919-21. So winning one war doesn't automatically give you a future peace.
 
Glad to see all divisions escaped, and looking forward to the update!:)
 
Enewald: Nonsense. I can have strategic effect without victory. The Finnish example of 1940 is the classic example. :p

Starfury: :D

Baltasar: I don't see the resemblance at all. :p

BlitzMartinDK: Indeed. Strategy is always inherently a gamble. ;)

loki100: Even beyond irregular warfare. Napoleon is the perfect example. He won victory after victory, and conquered all the bits of Europe that mattered, but never achieved a real peace. :p

Maj. von Mauser: Yeah, I was quite glad the divisions escaped as well. :D

Update coming up! It's a bit of a short one but I had forgotten all about it and only remembered about forty minutes before I was supposed to be off to what turned out to be a very interesting lecture by Chris Demchak on cybersecurity. :p
 
The Year of Upheaval
Part 7: The Wider War I, March 1 – May 16, 1942

January and February were undoubtedly the two months of most intensive operations Italy had experienced since the difficult invasion of Dacia two years previously. After the failed gamble in Dacia and the holistic Italian withdrawal into northern Illyria, however, the pace of operations slackened considerably. As noted previously, by the end of February the Italian armies had broken operational contact with the Soviet forces. The Soviets would not restore contact until long after the Italians had settled into their new defensive line. This allowed Mussolini to take his eyes off the east to some extent and examine the situation elsewhere.

By the 10th of March, the Italians had consolidated their new positions in northern Illyria, between the Adriatic Sea and the Hungarian border. Mussolini was quite thankful for Hungarian neutrality, as it gave his armies’ landward flank an anchor which was inviolable, at least inasmuch as the Soviets would have to be at war with Hungary to flank. On this day, however, the Soviets were still far from Illyria. Anatolia had yet to be completely conquered, and Thrace had barely been invaded, much less Illyria. The sheer scale of the Soviet effort, on the other hand, was rather intimidating. Between Dacia and Anatolia, the Soviets seemed to be employing at least fifty divisions in occupying what was essentially empty space. Despite this great commitment, nothing was happening on the German-Soviet front.

084-01-SovietsEncroaching.jpg

The Soviets encroaching upon the eastern half of the Italian Empire.

By late March, Italy’s three division Marine Corps was finally completed, and this third division was also sent southward into Africa. Here, the three marine divisions and three infantry divisions had begun waging a very, very big small war in the deserts of East Africa against a like number of British and other allied formations. The British managed some victories, such as the sinking of a number of Italian transports returning to Italy from Muqdishu and the defense of the island of Socotra, but otherwise during this period had little success. In particular, the marines finally occupied the last major British port north of South Africa, Dar es Salaam. This led to the destruction of an enormous amount of British transport and destroyer squadrons by Da Zara’s fleet, as well as even a small handful of light cruisers. It was hardly a major victory, but it was gratifying nonetheless for a Mussolini who was suddenly success-started.

084-02-DarEsSalaam.jpg

The marine landing and victory against no opposition at Dar es Salaam.

In Europe, meanwhile, Finland joined the Allies. This had two major strategic implications. It provided a buffer between Scandinavia and any possible Soviet encroachment into the region, thus influencing any potential post-war settlement. Secondly, it suddenly opened up another front for Germany to consider. In fact, the Finns themselves launched an invasion of Scandinavia from the north! If not checked, and by mid-May the Germans had barely moved a muscle in response to this move against them, the Finns could potentially threaten northern Germany from Denmark. In other news, Campioni’s fleet wrecked the remnants of the Nationalist Spanish fleet, which was based at Ceuta, and the Italian forces besieging Tel Aviv assaulted the garrison and coerced it into surrendering without, however, occupying the city. The British fleet would remain bottled up, but this could free Vercellino’s forced for other potential operations in the more distant future.

084-03-FinnsontheAttack.jpg

The Finns on the attack in Scandinavia.

To return to the Soviet threat, it was only in mid-May that they finally butted up against the new Italian defensive line. Even then, however, they had not yet conquered the entirety of Italy’s eastern empire: the Peloponnese apparently held some danger to the Soviets as they massed half a dozen divisions, including at least one armor formation, on the isthmus but refrained from advancing further. Perhaps they were too wary of the Italians and their propensity for maritime-based outflanking maneuvers and did not appreciate just how small the Italian armed forces, in fact, were. Indeed, of Italy’s six armies, four were in Illyria. Bastico’s army by this point had absolutely grown to become the single largest Italian army in existence at the time: it fielded two corps of six to eight brigades each, in three to four divisions, as well as one corps of up to twelve brigades in four divisions. It comprised some ninety thousand men. The other three armies on the line each comprised fifty to seventy thousand men. Italy had put a considerable proportion of the flower of her youth into holding the line in the east.

084-04-ChokePoint.jpg

The defensive line in Illyria.

Thus, as an be seen, on the whole the war settled down during the remainder of the first half of the year. After the comparatively large blood-letting of January and February, there was relatively little fighting during the following two and a half months. The question for Mussolini was, however, what to do next. Given the recent events, he was slightly shell-shocked from the Soviet successes and was not likely to consider any offensive measures in the east for a long time. Thus, he was primarily to be left with action in what were obviously subsidiary theaters in an attempt to marginally bolster his position.
 
Yes, I am glad I don't have to play the hand he has dealt himself.
What have you got in your production line, Myth?
 
Seems like a decent line.
 
BlitzMartinDK: Now now, place nice. ;)

Jemisi: They really do. :D

Forster: Nothing too much. Another few rounds of infantry, some (most?) of which actually go into the defensive line. My situation is a bit awkward, to be sure. :p

Maj. von Mauser: It should be! It's five provinces across and I've my density to one army per province, except in the north by Hungary where Bastico's army covers two provinces. :p

Starfury: If they do, then I'd immediately withdraw to a line in the Alps and show the Germans two fingers as the Soviets plunge deep into their rear. :D
 
The Soviets look to have quite the amassed amount of firepower on that border.

Question is, will the Italian infantry be able to hold off against the Russian armoured units? :confused: