-
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.
Instead of quoting some well known Ethiopian general and his famous words, I will only say:
amazing... :rofl:
amazing... :rofl:
We DOWed Austria twice. I guess we realy miss not marching on Viena after WWI.
I have a strange suspicion well get screwed even more than Italy. Too large coast to defend and simply no navy, while even Italy can amphibiously land there.
A the good old Balkan cluster f**k. I've missed that.
If Romania still exists by 1950 in this world, Tucacevschi (a bit of Ro spelling) or Antonescu will probably be considered a generalissimo.
If Romania still exists by 1950 in this world, Tucacevschi (a bit of Ro spelling) or Antonescu will probably be considered a generalissimo.
4th Dimension said:
Fixed... thanks...
Yugoslavia can take comfort that the UK and the Allies will be too busy with Italian possessions in Africa to take notice of them for a while and that Italy is, well, Italy...
Capibara, Legu, stnylan, Kurt_Steiner, HannibalBarca, likk9922 - glad to have you on board. Hopefully I will make it an interesting read for you. The BCF is really the UK's fault for DOWing. Bad UK...
Maj. von Mauser - Tukachevsky's stats are about as comparable to Antonescu.
Myth - Indeed, they are fun. Not sure how such an early war will screw things over in the long run though - do the Soviets come out ahead because they are sitting things out?
Slaughts - yes, but its a manageable can or worms. Thats the key.
Crush3r - 1950? Hmmmmm... its the Soviets that worry me more than anything, unless the UK manages to make a foothold in Italy or the Balkans.
ColossusCrusher - well, in this case the only way to avoid it was to not go after Hungary, but Romania was merely pursuing its "historical claims" and remanding their "fair reparation" (see character section for this rationale) and the Hungarians refused to recognize the claims...
Maj. von Mauser - Tukachevsky's stats are about as comparable to Antonescu.
Myth - Indeed, they are fun. Not sure how such an early war will screw things over in the long run though - do the Soviets come out ahead because they are sitting things out?
Slaughts - yes, but its a manageable can or worms. Thats the key.
Crush3r - 1950? Hmmmmm... its the Soviets that worry me more than anything, unless the UK manages to make a foothold in Italy or the Balkans.
ColossusCrusher - well, in this case the only way to avoid it was to not go after Hungary, but Romania was merely pursuing its "historical claims" and remanding their "fair reparation" (see character section for this rationale) and the Hungarians refused to recognize the claims...
The Vienna Conference
It was in Vienna that I met Ileana.
I had been invited to the “Konferenz auf den Effekten der Manövrierbarkeit im Kampf”, and was frankly surprised that my work had made it as far as the west. My theory of Deep Operations, where combined arms formations were tasked to strike deep behind enemy lines to destroy an enemy’s rear, logistical capacity and provide for encirclement opportunities, was seemingly at odds with the trench warfare mentality that the west espoused. The idea of simultaneous operations, conducted in parallel throughout the breadth of his ground force to induce a catastrophic failure in the enemy’s defensive system, all designed to guarantee a victory was a concept that the sheep who suckled at the buckles of Stalin’s boots were categorically against, and I thought that this attitude was shared by those in the west. After all, the French were famous for their defensive mentality, hence the asinine Maginot Line.
But here, at the conference, I found a sympathetic ear. JFC Fuller and Basil Hart both agreed that the use of deep operations could be an essential element of the burgeoning field of tank warfare. In their eyes, after the failure of the defense system, highly mobile formations would then exploit the gaps by breaking through the lines and into the deep rear of the enemy, destroying his ability to rebuild his defenses. Charles de Gaulle, an old friend with whom I shared many moments during the last great conflict added that such an avenue of attack would work best when airpower was arrayed against the enemy, using tactical aircraft employed en masse, to destroy the will and ability of any opposing force.
This notion of a “shock army” was of particular interest to one of the German representatives, Heinz Guderian, a Colonel who was chief of staff to the Inspectorate of Motorised Troops. He was convinced that tanks, working in conjunction with other mechanized elements and backed by close air support, could punch through gaps and destroy an enemy in a “blitzkrieg” type fashion. I came away from the conference more convinced that my ideas were not just sound, but the future of warfare. Those who I met at the conference I was sure would become the leading lights of their respective militaries. Of the Americans who attended, I was more impressed with George Patton than I was with Jacob Devers or the others. Like a cat waiting for an opportunity to strike – that is the feeling I picked up from looking in those eyes. That would be one to watch, I remarked to Charles.
After the conference was over, I had intended to return as soon as it was possible, to fully digest what was said and done and confer with a few like minded colleagues. Had I done so, I would have been arrested and executed for treason, charges that were patently false but kept to the spirit of the paranoia of Stalin and his need to be surrounded only by those who were content to be leashed like neutered dogs. Meeting Ileana, therefore, literally saved my life. Given how many were killed during Stalin’s “great purge of the party ranks” by the Gosudarstvennoye Politicheskoye Upravlenie – the GPU or secret police of the state, I do not imagine that I would have been spared. To disagree with Stalin, even over minor policy, was a death sentence, though one that could percolate for years before being carried out.
This is where my firm belief in the non-existence of luck, of circumstances beyond one’s control, of Mistress Fortuna, of destiny or whatever terms one uses to describe forces outside one’s ability to control, was shattered for all time.
At the conclusion of the conference, while speaking in informal gatherings, I noticed a peculiar individual who, for the most part, remained silent, one of those who preferred to hear more than what was spoken and speak less than what was on his mind. From his mannerisms and looks, his lineage could not be easily identified – perhaps southern Mediterranean but without the strutting peacock attitude that most of the Italians displayed. When I asked who he was, the Austrian hosts merely answered that he was a businessman – a “person of interest” who had the ear of those in power. The most striking thing about him was his eyes – if they are truly the windows of the soul, then his were of a soul a thousand years old or more.
Just as I was leaving, he approached me and thanked me for sharing my ideas. As we chatted amiably enough, he found out that this was my first time in the city and that I was due to leave on the morning. He then insisted that I should visit the cathedral of St. Stephen before I left. When I casually replied that I was not interested in being a tourist or seeing attractions, that important matters awaited me back in Moscow, his millennial eyes fixed on me with such a penetrating look that I knew that I should visit this building. That ignoring his advice would be somehow catastrophic to me.
It was the oddest feeling.
And with that, he was gone.
His name, I found out later, was as unique as the individual: Malik.
Last edited:
Certainly a mysterious end to the conference! BTW, were you not working on a book when your last AAR was put on hold / died?
I have missed your writing and especially enjoy your "noir-ish" style. I hate to nit-pick but while I enjoyed the easy poetry of "asinine Maginot Line" I thought that "suckled at the buckles" left a lot to be desired. This may also be because of the mixed metaphor referencing "sheep" suckling while that word tends to be used to describe pigs or dogs (or even cats) in a vulnerable or greedy fashion. Sorry, I know that everyone's a critic.
WhisperingDeath said:I have missed your writing and especially enjoy your "noir-ish" style. I hate to nit-pick but while I enjoyed the easy poetry of "asinine Maginot Line" I thought that "suckled at the buckles" left a lot to be desired. This may also be because of the mixed metaphor referencing "sheep" suckling while that word tends to be used to describe pigs or dogs (or even cats) in a vulnerable or greedy fashion. Sorry, I know that everyone's a critic.
"Suckled at the buckles" would be a rhetorical flourish akin to "boot licker". In this sense, it would refer to the "yes men" that dictators tend to surround themselves with.
Maj. von Mauser said:
One just never knows in these things...
Vann the Red said:
Oh, no - a completely different Malik...
Kordo said:
Aye, that I was. Working on one now as well, though would prefer to keep that out of this AAR, if at all possible. Time and a place and all that.
GregoryTheBruce said:
Just a name of a thief, nothing more...
Well now, this is interesting. A conference of leading minds in this sort of warfare, an alluring lady (or so I presume Ileana is), and a mysterious stranger.
stnylan said:
Whats mysterious is trying to figure out the most cost effective way of securing the Mediterranean.
In the absence of a fleet, and given the eventuality that the Allies will own the Mediterranean, leaving the entire underside of Europe vulnerable, there are two options that I can see (note, this assumes that Italy is crushed earlier than usual):
(1) Air Defence System. Build massive amounts of naval bombers to take out any invasion fleets. There are 8 sea zones from the western most edge of Italy to Istanbul. This would mean 8x4 Naval Bombers, as well as 8x4 Fighter/Interceptors. Very expensive in terms of IC, but cheap on manpower. Would still need to garrison the areas, so would need about 50 divisions which negates the value of such an expensive air defence system.
(2) Coastal Defence system. To safeguard the entire region, from Turin/Genoa to Istanbul, would require, at the cheapest, 70 divisions or so (5 at the main fronts of Turin, Genoa, Reggio, Athens and Istanbul, 2 coastal at the 13 coastal regions as well as 26 garrisoned units - 2 each in 13 slots). The Turin/Genoa units would me MTN + ART, the rest would be INF + Art. The coastal areas would be backed by 3 coastal forts each, while the point regions would have a level 5 fort. A lot of manpower but once its built I can turn my back on the region and forget about it.
This is all long term planning, of course...
I think the CDS would be a better strategy. Given that this would be a long term defence option, it should prevent any excursions into Romanian held territory (assuming that those regions fall to me). Once the US enters the war, if they do, then the coastal forts can be upgraded to level 5. I would have to divert some tech planning towards coastal defences though, which is a bit irritating.
Decisions, decisions...
[edit]
This, of course, down not include the 50 divisions (30 arm/mech on a 2:1 ratio as well as 20 INT + ART) I would like to have up and ready for the Soviets, which should be enough to at least allow me to perform reasonably well on the Eastern Front.
Last edited:
Crush3r said:
I agree... but too many zones to protect AND make sure that there are coastal defences.
Not to mention that I am trying to avoid going deep down the aviation tech tree. There are many, many more important techs in this mod than the ones needed to have a reasonable air force.