Total Economic War and its implications for EW4.
Nov 22, 2020 15:54:19 GMT
Arya Stark and ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ like this
Post by pathdoc on Nov 22, 2020 15:54:19 GMT
The historian John Terraine postulated that the flavour of modern war was brought to light when the entire economies of the opposing nations/sides were devoted to the war effort, and thus in the absence of other factors (e.g. complete failure of political will), the war would be decided by the stronger economy.
This theory regards the outcomes of the US Civil War, the First World War (once the Americans had entered it) and the Second World War (once the Americans had entered it) as pretty much foregone conclusions.
To flip such an outcome requires a sufficiently technologically ADVANCED industry for the same size, something that is not seen in EW4. It doesn't matter if you have 9999 of every resource; the most advanced weapons available to you are the same as those of the opposite side. The only thing that matters is the quantity. The one exception to this rule is the flexibility of the human player's Academy Generals, earned with medals earned in combat or bought with real money or farmed from the daily ads (on platforms that have them).
This leads me into the tactical problem of the non-rushing conquest and the nation which spams small forts all over its territory - typically but not always Spain, France or both. (England does the same, but having a lot of coastline it tends to spam coastal artillery instead, which invalidates what I'm about to discuss.)
It has hitherto been my practice in non-rushing "fun" conquests to have artillery smash the forts from a distance and then infantry standing off a hex away, far enough to be safe but close enough to occupy the ground the fort was on and stop it from being rebuilt. Now I wonder if I am doing the right thing. If the AI re-spams the fort, that's 120 gold and 10 wrenches out of its resources that it can't put into making mobile units (men, horses, guns, ships). If I can extract a cost out of the enemy (lost fort to rebuild) that I do not in turn pay (lost men to rebuild), I make a plus score against his economy and start to wear it down. The only reason for me to advance across that ground is to bring my artillery (siege or rockets) into a position to make the next hit, or to take facilities that generate his wealth. By waging war against his economy, you make it less and less necessary to wage war against his army.
This is one of the reasons why it is vital to either have from the start or capture ASAP a city in which a trade centre exists. Too often, one finds oneself with massive surpluses in one area (commonly wrenches or food) and crippling deficits in another (gold) which hinder the production of the heavy-hitting, powerful units that enable us to win more quickly. As an example, I just started playing Morocco 1809. Using a resource unavailable to the AI (medals farmed from the daily ads), I purchased Oak Wheel and War Horse and used them on Dumouriez and Kutaisov to rush Algeria. With Algiers in my hands, my economy immediately became more flexible and powerful. (A small-nations report on Morocco will follow when that conquest is complete.)
This is something to consider when selecting a small nation or certain large ones. Also worth considering, if you have the slots, is to buy a garbage general and train him up with cheap business trainers (I chose Emil, who started with three stars), so you will not be tempted to take him into battle and can leave him in the trade centre. If you are playing one of the minor (two-star) nations you have the potential for five other generals to deploy to combat anyway (assuming you have the slots), and the benefits can be quite remarkable (especially if they are also an Economic Expert or Master).
This theory regards the outcomes of the US Civil War, the First World War (once the Americans had entered it) and the Second World War (once the Americans had entered it) as pretty much foregone conclusions.
To flip such an outcome requires a sufficiently technologically ADVANCED industry for the same size, something that is not seen in EW4. It doesn't matter if you have 9999 of every resource; the most advanced weapons available to you are the same as those of the opposite side. The only thing that matters is the quantity. The one exception to this rule is the flexibility of the human player's Academy Generals, earned with medals earned in combat or bought with real money or farmed from the daily ads (on platforms that have them).
This leads me into the tactical problem of the non-rushing conquest and the nation which spams small forts all over its territory - typically but not always Spain, France or both. (England does the same, but having a lot of coastline it tends to spam coastal artillery instead, which invalidates what I'm about to discuss.)
It has hitherto been my practice in non-rushing "fun" conquests to have artillery smash the forts from a distance and then infantry standing off a hex away, far enough to be safe but close enough to occupy the ground the fort was on and stop it from being rebuilt. Now I wonder if I am doing the right thing. If the AI re-spams the fort, that's 120 gold and 10 wrenches out of its resources that it can't put into making mobile units (men, horses, guns, ships). If I can extract a cost out of the enemy (lost fort to rebuild) that I do not in turn pay (lost men to rebuild), I make a plus score against his economy and start to wear it down. The only reason for me to advance across that ground is to bring my artillery (siege or rockets) into a position to make the next hit, or to take facilities that generate his wealth. By waging war against his economy, you make it less and less necessary to wage war against his army.
This is one of the reasons why it is vital to either have from the start or capture ASAP a city in which a trade centre exists. Too often, one finds oneself with massive surpluses in one area (commonly wrenches or food) and crippling deficits in another (gold) which hinder the production of the heavy-hitting, powerful units that enable us to win more quickly. As an example, I just started playing Morocco 1809. Using a resource unavailable to the AI (medals farmed from the daily ads), I purchased Oak Wheel and War Horse and used them on Dumouriez and Kutaisov to rush Algeria. With Algiers in my hands, my economy immediately became more flexible and powerful. (A small-nations report on Morocco will follow when that conquest is complete.)
This is something to consider when selecting a small nation or certain large ones. Also worth considering, if you have the slots, is to buy a garbage general and train him up with cheap business trainers (I chose Emil, who started with three stars), so you will not be tempted to take him into battle and can leave him in the trade centre. If you are playing one of the minor (two-star) nations you have the potential for five other generals to deploy to combat anyway (assuming you have the slots), and the benefits can be quite remarkable (especially if they are also an Economic Expert or Master).