Aye, well. You never know.
2 Likes
Don’t for get to show who was victorious. That changes the dynamic a bit. Whoever has the battalion of Phalangites bearing down on them could kill half of them and still lose, and unlike the Finns this one is for the right to continued existence.
By the way whoever attracted a Phalangite battalion needs to run. There is a big difference in organizational scale between a company reinforced and a battalion. If they decided your rebellion needed that much attention congrats, but you need to leave now. That really ought to be an instalose to try and stand and fight that.
2 Likes
Are you implying that they lost? Because that’s wrong.
The Finns were victorious. Russia retreated with only a slice of land. To this day the Winter War of 1939 is seen as a sign of Finnish skill and patriotism. Finland might have given them territory but it was a Pyrrhic victory at very best; won on Finland’s terms only.
Not to mention the Winter War made the Union look so weak that Hitler decided to invade. Oh yes, it might have been a technical win, but in no way was it a victory.
1 Like
Not exactly. It was a miraculous effort by the Finns given the force disparity, but they were eventually overcome. They ended up ceding more territory to the Soviets then orginally demanded in the Moscow Peace Treaty and the Soviets invaded again in just over a year in the Continuation War and took yet more territory from the Finns.
It was essentially a Pyrrhic Soviet victory, but saying the Finns won is like saying the Americans won at Bunker Hill.
3 Likes
They were not overcome at any point; they simply did not think they could survive continuous attacks and ceded 11% of the land (11% for a million men lost, think how bad that made the Union look) essentially as a bribe.
“However, after reorganization and adoption of different tactics, the renewed Soviet offensive overcame Finnish defenses at the borders. Finland then agreed to cede more territory than originally demanded by the Soviet Union in 1939; the Soviets, having conquered the areas they demanded from Finland but at a cost of heavier losses in troops than anticipated, accepted this offer.”
-From the same Wikipedia article you gathered the statistics.
2 Likes
Yes, I read that. But the general consensus is that Finland got out with probably the best situation anyone could have. Yes, even after the Continuation War; they managed out much better than anyone expected. Realistically, it showed everyone up.
Here’s a good philosophy question: if the enemy loses, do you, really, win?
If by that you mean that were not entirely conquered by the Soviet Union I would agree. Some historians believe that was ultimately their goal, still others disagree. Still saying the Finns won is not accurate and had they not signed that very unfavorable treaty they would have been entirely conquered.
They deserve high praise for a valiant defense that certainly changed the Soviet estimation of them, but they ultimately lost the Winter War.
Not really a philosophy question militarily speaking because the answer is yes for wars and no for battles. The Soviets didn’t lose the Winter War though they won at extremely high and unexpected cost.
4 Likes
Even if they hadn’t signed it, they would have probably be decimated by the German (infighting) in the aftermath.
A victory is what one sets out to accomplish against odds, and that’s why it counts. To me, if no one else!
Hm. Where do you get that from? It makes no sense to me.
Doctrine and my professional military education are my sources here. It is sort of the way we look at counter-insurgencies now. You can win every battle and still lose the war, because your public support faultered due to expense and casualties inflicted in the attainment of your battlefield victories.
2 Likes
Go back to the Crimean War - its mess ups are much more clear cut 
1 Like
Oh, I get it now. You were just using singular nouns up there, and it’s like, why can you win a battle but have to lose a war? What’s the difference?
Sorry, my advanced English language and literature education is showing, lmao. I see ya. I get ya.[quote=“Eiwynn, post:5848, topic:1601”]
Go back to the Crimean War
[/quote]
it’s almost as if the universe is trying to taunt me back to referencing tellius when i’m not through you guys, without everyone else even knowing what you’re doing… damn universe… i’m trying so hard to play well and u just gotta taunt me like this…
1 Like
This actualy leas me to believe even more that something fishy is going on. In my walktrough, while I did not terribly trust breden at first, they still went out of their way to help me and we ended up with a good relationship. Breden was also one of those who voted with me on changing the rebellion to an undergound movement. Something that would make their job infinitely harder. I was told by someone that their goal could be to hoard us all together so the hegemony can all destroy us at one but they are the one who defended the idea of spreading the power the most.
They could indeed play the long game but at this point they are causing way more problems to the hegemony in my walktrough than they ever did to me.
Also, I feel like if they really were trying to bring us down they wouldnt try to undermine us in public at the risk of becoming suspicious.
They convinced peoples against the rebellion to change in favor of it. It could be to ensure no disloyalty in the future but I think peoples in the hegemony are too smart to create a widespread rebellion just to do a purge. It might just be me but like I said, all feeling toward Breden aside, it smells fishy and deeper than it look.
@cascat07 @Bagelthief
I am reminded of this little bit from the Battle of the Dunes (1600) (from Wikipedia):
Although Maurice had driven a Spanish army from the field, a rare feat in the 16th century, the battle achieved nothing. The Dutch lines of communication had already been stretched to the limit and Maurice was soon forced to withdraw as well. The Flemish, which Maurice had hoped to rally to his revolt, remained loyal to the Spanish monarchy. Moreover, the great port of Dunkirk, which had been the principal objective of Maurice’s campaign, lay out of reach and in Spanish hands. “The Dunkirkers”, would continue to prey on Dutch and English trade.
On the tactical side, the battle was paradoxical. Maurice’s army had beaten a Spanish army. However, his reformed infantry had been dislodged from a strong defensive position by the Spanish infantry using its traditional methods and it was only his cavalry that had saved the Dutch from defeat.
Strategically, the lesson was that it was more advantageous to besiege and capture towns than to win battles. This fact would continue to characterize operations in the Eighty Years’ War.
You can actually win a war without necessarily winning battles and without necessarily committing to guerrilla warfare. The quote above is an inverse of this.
Even with all of the Allied screw-ups, it is important to note that they still won against the Russians. Wikipedia is a bit confusing with the casualty count though.
2 Likes
I just hope it’s not an instalose if you decide on guerrilla tactics in the woods and trying to stay one step ahead of them.
Just replayed this thing again with these stats from the winter raiding
And I’ve now got a total of 938 soldiers, Alastors, and other armed enemies, to say nothing of the Theurges bearing down on me. Against some 200 odd healthy rebel adults, so what do you think @cascat07 what’s your tactical estimation of our ability to stay one step ahead of them and wreak some havoc on them in those woods until they’re ready to declare “threat contained” and give up?
1 Like
If you have many people it’s best to fight or split up, not to run.
I haven’t got that many people, about 400 in this last run. I know and more importantly even my mc knows that we stand zero chances in a “fair” fight, even though we’ve got enough weapons to arm all the adults. However splitting up also seems foolish as then he’d have to go back to being a slave in a helot camp again and just hope he blends in and no-one rats him out?
Yeah you can harrass them though I’m still fairly wary of the therugic deep reconissance capability. If they do catch you in any concentration you are finished so even harrassing tactics is a major risk.
The thing with effective long term insurgency is that they have to dominate some kind of human terrain that the enemy isn’t willing to simply raze to the ground. They always rely to a degree in the counter-insurgents restraint or lack of depth. We really don’t have that in this situation. If you try to stand and fight you are asking to become one of those famous martyrs that inspired your rebellion…
The closest model I have for our rebellion would be FARC but the Hegemony’s forces are not anywhere near as incompetent as the early Columbian ones. Even the other examples people have pointed to like the Winter War aren’t good fits because our rebels don’t have the kind of qualitative advantage the inferior force had in those historical situations.
I wouldn’t just give up but caution is the better part of valor here. Even just having them chase you through the woods for a couple months with minimal casualties will be frustrating and sap the Hegemony’s strength from other important areas. Although it may boost revolutionary forces like the Shayraden nationalists that your MC would also ultimately oppose.
Anyway a standup fight, like the one Radmar wants, with those kinds of odd seems impossible given what we know of the force dispositions.
@Herrington Absolutely. I would point to The Second Punic War and Fabian strategy as an example of strategic victory without tactical victory.
4 Likes
That’s what my mc is hoping for, they can’t keep that battalion there forever, although I’m certainly going to lose some followers I just hope that training and those weapons weren’t for nothing and I can make them bleed a bit too.
Yep, that’s what I’m very much afraid of too, that the Laconniers are using us to “test the waters” so to speak and if they deem the conditions favourable they may try to seize a lot of the mojo that should rightfully belong to my mc.
Still there’s nothing he can do about that now and I think I’ve said it before that should cicumstances compel us to “ally” with the Laconniers my mc will do his best to have their forces take the brunt of the casualties when actually fighting the Hegemony in the future, much like Mao managed to do with the Nationalists and the Japanese and should we “win” together my mc would naturally plan for an “October revolution” to follow the “Februari” one, as there’s simply no way my mc would entertain the notion of “serving” a new Laconnier monarch in any capacity (although given that they’re nobles it would almost certainly mean a forced return to helotry or serfdom that would be unacceptable in any case).
True but harassing them is necessary if we want to even keep up the pretense that we’re rebels and not mere bandits, I think.
2 Likes
Run. Run west until your legs can carry you no further.