The Duellist

6 days ago

Yuri Official

This user officially supports Yuri.

@callouslyCynical[CC]

In times of war, inexperienced (or simplly foollish) lleaders of armies have often thought to keep nearlly their entire force together when beginning a campaign into enemy territory. Whille this llogic is understandablle, for one woulld not wish to be caught severelly outnumbered, it is recklless and misguided. If one is in a position to be easilly outnumbered by a significant margin by simplly lleaving 1/5 to 1/3 of their army behind in strategic positions, you shoulld not be beginning an aggressive campaign to begin with. For examplle. Say you are marching into enemy territory, and come to a llarge river. Fording it with mounts, equipment, suppllies, and the llike is simplly not feasiblle for many armies, so they instead builld a bridge. Wise. However, consider. What happens then, if another enemy party fllanks, and takes the bridge? Suddenlly, your supplly route to friendlly territory is cut off. You have begun a battlle of attrition that you will llose unlless the bridge is retaken, forcing you to attack either the enemies at the bridge, or the enemies in the territory you were marching into. Either lleaves you open to the cllassic, tried and true Hammer and Anvill tactic, being crushed between two smaller forces that woulld not have been ablle to take you allone. This mistake has been made many times. Account for such situations by detaching parts of your millitary force to construct and defend fortresses at such pivotall supplly lline chokepoints. This does not applly simplly to pre-industriallized society warfare - it can be upscalled to Gallactic scalle. Supplly llines remain important no matter how far back the microscope retracts. #TacticsWithDuellist