The Marrocidenian war

[Indirik]

It takes some serious effort and deviousness to be that bad?

[Anaris]

Oh, the Moot is nothing if not sinister. It's why we have handled the war so... un-dextrously.

I shudder to think what you could come up with if you tried with both hands.

[Lanyon]

1. We don't have to come south. Maybe we will, but that's far from necessary. Again, you really don't get the strategy at work here, or even our objectives. But I'll leave that to IC.

2. We won the last campaign pretty solidly. Again, look at the CS chart. In fact, the whole history of the war has been one of Terran displaying a faster and bigger recovery after each campaign than Aurvandil. Maybe ya'll will turn that around this time, wouldn't surprise me, but thus far you've managed to "win" battles but lose every fighting season.

The Moot has seen uninhibited growth since the Long Winter, but Aurvandil continues to struggle.

Only on the battlemaster forums will people say that charts matter more than actually victories. just FYI the greatest deal of our loses were from starvation in taking Celtiberia (because my army doesn't listen to me -.-)

No, they'd eat each other.

Neither side really stands to gain more than a few rurals at best, in terms of raw conquest.

I think we would more likely become a libero and just be boring. the dukes are to pro-aurvandil to even think of revolting.

We stand to gain the honour of defeating the corrupt republics that are cheap facsimiles of true and righteous government. Oh! and oranges. WE SHALL HAVE YOUR ORANGES!

[Chenier]

I shudder to think what you could come up with if you tried with both hands.

Awe-inspiring mediocrity.

Only on the battlemaster forums will people say that charts matter more than actually victories. just FYI the greatest deal of our loses were from starvation in taking Celtiberia (because my army doesn't listen to me -.-)


I think we would more likely become a libero and just be boring. the dukes are to pro-aurvandil to even think of revolting.

We stand to gain the honour of defeating the corrupt republics that are cheap facsimiles of true and righteous government. Oh! and oranges. WE SHALL HAVE YOUR ORANGES!

If your battles were significant, it'd show on the statistics charts.

As for oranges, I'm afraid you are out of luck. I hear Lurians grow 'em though. We do have pomegranates, however, which are infinitely superior to oranges.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Which war also demonstrates that casualties and soldiers lost in battle don't matter: your ability to replace losses is what matters.

I'm supporting your argument, derp.

[Eldargard]

Poor Barca, however, gets to live right in the middle of the three larger, waring realms...

[Perth]

You're doing "fine", well you haven't advanced your war aims whatsoever, the most damage done to Aurvandil was by war protests and you have yet to win a single battle against us.

You have something to this effect several times now; your amazement at the 'Moot not attacking Aurvandil, at the 'Moot "hiding behind walls" all the time, and not having the honor to come out and fight Aurvandil, all the while Aurvandil has been just so "forced" to come attack the 'Moot.


....is it finally dawning on you yet that that is because Aurvandil is the aggressor in this war and the 'Moot is on defense just like we have all been saying since Day 1? Because, yeah, that's generally how things go when a stronger, militaristic realm attacks some weaker, peaceful realms: the stronger realm launches attacks against the smaller realms who hide behind walls because they are, you know, weaker... and, you know, defending.


---


In other news.... Aurvandil is back to calling Barca uncivilized... their General declaring Barca the "Farmer Republic" needing to be put in their place.

[Glaumring the Fox]

Weaker, peaceful... Terran attacked Kabrinskia, not vise versa.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Could we have a moderator put all the military arguments into a separate thread?

[Stabbity]

The Union was never losing, only at risk of losing. The odds were on their side the whole time.

Not true for WW1 and definitely not true for WW2. If soldiers ever lacked for weapons it was due to logistical problems in getting the weapons to them NOT because they didn't have enough weapons to begin with.

USSR had superior manufacturing capabilities as well major support from USA. They also had superior numbers and as the war progressed the technological edge of either powers' armaments swung back and forth, always in contention. One thing that remained stable though is that German engineering tended towards more extravagant weaponry and that's what's earned them the myth that they totally had the Soviets outclassed techwise. Soviet weaponry for it's part was robust, easy to repair and easy to manufacture.

But still inferior. German weaponry, artillery, and armor outclassed the Soviets, and the combined factors of hostile terrain and sheer numbers are what ended up winning the day for the Soviets, who while possessing a robust manufacturing base, did not have enough armaments in the beginning of the war to equip all of their men. The Soviets spent the blood of their people quite recklessly.

[Gustav Kuriga]

The T-34 was more capable (leaving out the lack of radio equipment) than most of the panzers employed by the germans, barring the Tiger, until the introduction of the Panther and King Tiger. Then, as it was with the western allies, sheer weight of numbers told.

[Stabbity]

The T-34 was more capable (leaving out the lack of radio equipment) than most of the panzers employed by the germans, barring the Tiger, until the introduction of the Panther and King Tiger. Then, as it was with the western allies, sheer weight of numbers told.

If you consider a tank that can't travel capable. In June 1941 half a CORP was lost on the way to Dubno, not to enemy fire, but to wear and tear.

[Gustav Kuriga]

yes, mechanical issues dogged the T-34. That was early in the war, many of those issues were partially fixed by the time the Soviet army was on the offensive.

[Poliorketes]

If you consider a tank that can't travel capable. In June 1941 half a CORP was lost on the way to Dubno, not to enemy fire, but to wear and tear.

mmm... I consider a tank than is better armed, better protected, faster, lighter, cheaper and with a very low kg/cm2 (this in on snow or mud terrain is VERY important)

The BT-7, BT-9 and T-26 were better than the Pz-I and Pz-II, the T-34 was better than the Pz-III and the T-34(43) or the T-34(85) were better than the Pz-IV, the Tiger and the KV-I were similar, as were the Panther and the T-34(85).

The German advantage was their new tactic, the Blitzkrieg... and their elite crews. Even in the first days (1941) only ONE KV, well positioned, could stop the advance of one whole Panzer Division for one or two days... until the Russian tank retreated, or finally was destroyed. (usually by a FlaK-88, the German tanks were totally useless against the KV's)

After a battle, the Russian mechanics find on one KV-I more than 230 impacts of German guns (the usual was 30-40 'hits')... the tank was totally unharmed.

[Poliorketes]

And respect the mechanical problems... all the new tanks had them, see the Panthers in Kursk!!!