Attack, attack, attack, and attack again until there are no more bullets. Then question why the bullets are all gone and attack with bad jokes and crude humor.
What type of leader are you?
- Thread starter Wimpola
- Start date
-
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.
I'm an offensive player. Someone's backyard is about to get wrecked and it's not going be mine! I needs that backyard to grow more troops.
I favor all the classical techniques, hammer and anvil, envelopment, concentration of force, middle positions, tactical flexibility, and a focus on elite, mobile troops. Political considerations should never be disregarded and Plan A should always be a limited wargoal that can be accomplished quickly or abandoned entirely. Like the Paradox AI, I prefer to pick on small fries and wait for good opportunities to take on the bigger fish. On the rare occasion I find myself on the defensive, I go for a combination of defense in depth and chevauchee, because if I can't stop you from burning my backyard, I can at least burn yours.
I would also like to take this rare opportunity to brag that I have read all Seven Military Classics.
I favor all the classical techniques, hammer and anvil, envelopment, concentration of force, middle positions, tactical flexibility, and a focus on elite, mobile troops. Political considerations should never be disregarded and Plan A should always be a limited wargoal that can be accomplished quickly or abandoned entirely. Like the Paradox AI, I prefer to pick on small fries and wait for good opportunities to take on the bigger fish. On the rare occasion I find myself on the defensive, I go for a combination of defense in depth and chevauchee, because if I can't stop you from burning my backyard, I can at least burn yours.
I would also like to take this rare opportunity to brag that I have read all Seven Military Classics.
Depends on whether i have the initiative or not.
When able to set the pace, i guess i am kind of a 'Schwerpunkt' guy. I use to concentrate on one theater of action at a time, overwhelming the enemy with superior forces i have assembled for that matter. I then shift to the next step of my overall strategic goals. To achieve superiority, combined arms play a significant role and i seek a point of weakness to push into. This usually tips the balance of a whole front in my favor.
If the situation has me on the defense i start to gather a mobile reserve as a reaction force and relocate it a lot as i don't like being surprised but seek a spot to regain a local superiority. Trading ground or giving up something i cannot hold for the time being is no problem for me. Better save the remaining men than going for a gambit to utterly fail.
Micromanagement seriously affects my play and i pause often. Therefore i am not into multiplayer in strategic games. There is way too much hassle around and gamey tactics often spoil the fun for me.
Overall i favor the strategy of Manstein who had the big picture in mind. Like him i would call it flexible defense which is far from being purely defensive in style.
When able to set the pace, i guess i am kind of a 'Schwerpunkt' guy. I use to concentrate on one theater of action at a time, overwhelming the enemy with superior forces i have assembled for that matter. I then shift to the next step of my overall strategic goals. To achieve superiority, combined arms play a significant role and i seek a point of weakness to push into. This usually tips the balance of a whole front in my favor.
If the situation has me on the defense i start to gather a mobile reserve as a reaction force and relocate it a lot as i don't like being surprised but seek a spot to regain a local superiority. Trading ground or giving up something i cannot hold for the time being is no problem for me. Better save the remaining men than going for a gambit to utterly fail.
Micromanagement seriously affects my play and i pause often. Therefore i am not into multiplayer in strategic games. There is way too much hassle around and gamey tactics often spoil the fun for me.
Overall i favor the strategy of Manstein who had the big picture in mind. Like him i would call it flexible defense which is far from being purely defensive in style.
I'm a defense leader with a focus on special forces and breakthrough counterattacks. I love to find weak spots in the front, let airborne land behind it, set my mobile divisions on full thrust and encircle the enemy. When in less numbers, i prefer mobile defense, let the enemy push forward and bag him, if he pushed too hard...
I like divide and conquer. My picture of an ideal front is one where I can pick on one weak enemy at a time while holding back or avoiding the rest. Smash down one weakling and then take down the rest in fast, brutal strokes. It's not the most refined strategy but it works like a charm in the right circumstances.
Due to this concentration of power and relative advantage, I dislike suffering from inferior quality soldiers and I always like to be on good terrain. Technology is important to me. My biggest fear and weakness is clever raiding; I like to be able to take one opponent and smash them down quickly before removing the next. If the enemy constantly retreats and harasses me while others focus on fronts I'm not covering I can find myself in trouble quickly. For this reason I hate skirmishers or people who attack from the sea or from some other barrier I can't easily overcome. Fighting Britain in any of Paradox's games is always a frustrating experience for this reason, and America doubly so. Switching to the battlefield I have yet to beat a skirmish army in Rome II's multiplayer.
Due to this concentration of power and relative advantage, I dislike suffering from inferior quality soldiers and I always like to be on good terrain. Technology is important to me. My biggest fear and weakness is clever raiding; I like to be able to take one opponent and smash them down quickly before removing the next. If the enemy constantly retreats and harasses me while others focus on fronts I'm not covering I can find myself in trouble quickly. For this reason I hate skirmishers or people who attack from the sea or from some other barrier I can't easily overcome. Fighting Britain in any of Paradox's games is always a frustrating experience for this reason, and America doubly so. Switching to the battlefield I have yet to beat a skirmish army in Rome II's multiplayer.
- 1
There are a lot of different leaders out there and some are good but some are bad. On another forum page I posted this same forum and one person said he wouldn't care for losses but as long a progress was made he would be fine.
Holding back behind a strong defence line until i have built up a massive force and then i push HARD.
I love doing that in all strat games.
I never thought about that strategy. I always go for the offence but I am going to try this sounds neat.