h a l f b a k e r yExperiencing technical difficulties since 1999
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Different military leaders have differing styles - ie some
are bold, some cautious, some favour full-on frontal
assaults while others prefer cunning and so forth. The
enemy will learn this style and counter-plan accordingly.
This
idea
is to create a pool of Generals with attendant planners
who are selected randomly at random intervals to take
over leading the campaign. They are constantly
informed
of the existing position of all assets and troops but NOT
told
of their side's intended strategy and are encouraged to
follow their own heads once they are put in charge at a
moment's notice.
This would drive the enemy's planners to despair trying
to
anticipate your side's next move. Once they think they've
figured out one of your Generals' military style there is
always
some Other General.
Erich von Manstein
http://en.m.wikiped.../Erich_von_Manstein
Not a Russophile … [8th of 7, Dec 18 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
My God, it's full of stars... |
|
| |
Nah. Militaries are driven by the capabilites of their
respective divisions. Swapping the leader out still
keeps the same boats, planes, rockets, and tanks
with the same tactical advantages. |
|
| |
There's a reason [RayfordSteele] that this wasn't posted
under War:Psychological. |
|
| |
Well, at least it's not in .... Oh, wait ... |
|
| |
So, also swap out all of the equipment and personnell? |
|
| |
You should go for what the enemy expects the least, replace your generals with their generals, on a heftier salary. |
|
| |
The traditional welcome to the new officer, "Yeah! Yeah!" Is updated and extended with voice and drums, i.e. a 3rd 'yeah!' & a roll. |
|
| |
It seems like any advantage due to
unpredictability would be overcome by the
disadvantage due to lack of a cohesive strategy.
Resources would be wasted redistributing
resources. |
|
| |
It seems like this would be true in chess as well. Is
it possible that [21]'s chess master was observing
that it took more moves and required more
thought to defeat the idiot, not that the
probability of victory for the chess master was any
less. |
|
| |
I could see a war taking longer to resolve if one
side is randomly changing their strategy, requiring
both sides to spend more time redeploying
resources, but it the end it will be a disadvantage
to the ones making the changes. |
|
| |
Now if you could make the opposing side think
that you are stupid by apparently changing
strategies all the time yet have an overall coherent
strategy that is not too badly damaged by the
overhead involved in the apparent switching, then
it might work. |
|
| |
Yes, that's served the USA surprisingly welll over the decades … |
|
| |
//Now if you could make the opposing side think that you are stupid by apparently changing strategies all the time yet have an overall coherent strategy that is not too badly damaged by the overhead involved in the apparent switching, then it might work.// |
|
| |
//Swapping the leader out still keeps the same boats,
planes, rockets, and tanks// |
|
| |
What if we added a shaggy dog? |
|
| |