Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests

Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Fubar   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 12:04 am

Fubar
Ensign

Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:50 pm

If the Army of God (Mighty Host of God? I've lost track) troops under Rainbow Waters are equipped and managed as well as they seem to be in the upcoming fighting season of 898, do the Allies really need to gain ground beyond what they can in the open field up to obvious defensive terrain? I understand there is some original Siddmarkian territory to be recovered, but they have pushed back on all fronts a lot of ground previously lost to the AoG. They find themselves in good defensive positions with strong lines of supply back East and South. Why go try and take more from the Mighty Host if you can just wait and the other guy is forced to move because of politics?

In other words, between the two sides, doesn't time work for the Allies more than for the Church? Having a year or two extra to develop and manufacture the nitrate based explosives and propellants would make a huge difference if nothing else. The Allies have absolute dominance in intelligence and little to no fog of war at the strategic level. The Church's internal economy is not sustainable. Does the Church still have such a huge advantage in population that the Allies have to gain whatever they can before the other side catches up? I'm sure I'm missing something here.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Browne   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 12:38 am

Browne
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:18 pm
Location: Austin Tx

They may not need to go on the offensive, but they must keep the initiative they have built up. In war you want to fight from your war plan not reacting to the enemy's plans.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Fireflair   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 1:10 am

Fireflair
Captain of the List

Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:23 pm

There is certainly something to be said for holding the defensive and letting the church's soldiers smash themselves against that defense. There is a force multiplier that comes into effect while on the defense. The church would loose staggering numbers of bodies due to the artillery alone, due to fighting against fortified positions with dug in artillery and well supplied, confident troops. Their own guns wouldn't have the support, etc. etc.

However the time delay could be just as lethal. While the armies of the church are fighting against fixed positions, they have enough people to send out secondary armies to encircle those fixed positions. To create siege conditions which Charis cannot survive. Additionally that time, while Charis is building new and better weapons, is time that that the church can use to do the same.

There is a momentum to events that suggests it is better to keep hammering away at the church forces, to work from an aggressive strategy of movement rather than sit on the defensive. Maintaining pressure on the church's forces will keep pressure felt all the way up the line. I feel that if the church is given enough time their millions of people can produce sufficient forces to win. Charis must deny the church that opportunity.

It's not really about land grabbing.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Alistair   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 3:24 am

Alistair
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:48 am

They certainly could go on defensive in the North while punching out Dohlar and Silkah in the south.

With no Dohlar and Silkah in the south and centre and forcing the church to go on the offensive in the north the church wouldn't last long.

BTW if the church didn't go on the offensive in the North how long would there finances last?
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by WeberFan   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 6:48 am

WeberFan
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:12 am

A couple of points:

- The Charisians / Siddarmarkan's are vastly outnumbered by the Church's armies, and the technology that the Church armies have is improving quickly. We've seen several times the line "at some point, quantity takes on a quality of its own." Frontal assaults against prepared positions are a good way to get dead - in a hurry. Troops don't particularly like this idea.
- Given their access to SNARCs and their parasite remotes, the allies have great access to intel.
- I can definitely see the need to remain on the offensive STRATEGICALLY, but TACTICALLY?? Hmmm. Seems to me that with the intel advantages they have, the allies can choose the time and place that gives them the greatest advantage. And that's a commander's dream come true...
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Randomiser   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:20 am

Randomiser
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1452
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Scotland

This is an interesting question. Does tbe Alliance need to keep up pressure on every front? They are certainly intending to keep up strategic pressure by taking the Gulf of Dohlar away from the Temple, isolating South Harchong and depriving the Church of all it's production.

What could the EoC do with a lull? Build up production at home and in Siddarmark. Get OWL to build mining bots and start building up resources, produce several new fabrication units, design and build something to take out the OBS, build more AIs to help with the load, design and build several space going craft armed with KEWs which can attack planetary targets from space. Then who cares whether the Thing under the Temple wakes up?

To be honest that programme for OWL should have been started long ago. Caleb realises the EoC has to devote resources to development of capacity, that should have been applied to federation tech as well, certainly once they heard about the return.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Fubar   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 1:13 pm

Fubar
Ensign

Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:50 pm

Alistair wrote:They certainly could go on defensive in the North while punching out Dohlar and Silkah in the south.


Something like this - Hold in the North, take our Dohlar and Silkah in the south and if you are feeling your oats, how about landing a *Corisande* army in South Harchong and going Sherman March to the Sea and wreaking every industrial area they can get to. The news that a mainly Corisande manned army is working for the Allies would be a emotional blow to many in the Church, and that news would get out eventually. It's October 897 now, I'm sure they could have some trained troops and transports ready to go by Spring 898.

Or do you use your Corisande manned army somewhere else?

*North Harchong* and going for the coal deposits? Those coal mines in North Harchong are a single source point of failure I haven't seen anyone talking about yet - too disperse or remote to access? Without access to coal the Church is toast because you can't burn enough trees to forge steel.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by DMcCunney   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:45 pm

DMcCunney
Captain of the List

Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:49 am

I think the allies need to maintain the initiative, but I don't think that requires a frontal assault on the Mighty Host of God. RFC posted a lengthy piece elsewhere on the MHoG's organization, and one takeaway was that about two third of it would be fine for holding a defensive position, but far less suited for any offensive maneuvers. It appears Rainbow Waters has gotten well dug in with a substantial stockpile of supplies, and the liberation of the various Inquisition camps in northern Siddarmark has reduced the demands for him to try to protect them. I suspect he just wishes Duke Eastshare and Baron Green Valley would try a frontal assault. I don't see either gratifying his wishes. :P

Eastshare and Green Valley are likely to be content to keep the MHoG just where it is. The question is what they do instead. We may just see Earl Hanth get more attention in his slow drive to push Rychtyr back into Dohlor proper, and it is about time Silkiah got taken out of the equation.
_______
Dennis
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Alistair   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:56 pm

Alistair
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:48 am

Also remember the Chisholm Nobels they might need a Brigade or two to deal with them if they go for a revolt next year.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by DMcCunney   » Sun Sep 04, 2016 8:44 pm

DMcCunney
Captain of the List

Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:49 am

Alistair wrote:Also remember the Chisholm Nobels they might need a Brigade or two to deal with them if they go for a revolt next year.
Chisholm still has the ICA training cadre of something like 20,000 and is busy training more recruits. If the Chisholmian nobles do try to revolt, it will end badly for them, and I doubt a brigade will need to be recalled from Siddarmark to see to it. And since the new recruits are folks like freed serfs from Zebediah who probably think becoming part of the ICA was the best thing to ever happen to their homeland, they'll be remarkably short of sympathy for the rebellious nobles.

The fact the potential rebels seem to think a revolt will produce anything other than their heads up on pikes in front of their own palaces speaks volumes about human stupidity. But then, if their experience with King Saillys and later with Queen Sharleyan didn't teach them anything, it's apparent they aren't capable of learning.
_______
Dennis
Top

Return to Safehold