WWI Strategies Everybody should remember
A look into the complicated and diverse strategies that the Major Powers had devised entering into WWI and their various levels of success.
WWI, contrary to popular belief, was not just a war about sitting tight in a trench while being shelled silly, all whilst the officers have no idea how to deal with any of the modern weaponry. Strategy adapted throughout the war. Traditional marching orders and the previous methods of looking at combat were discarded as the trenches grew deeper and the Race to the Sea ended without a flanking position. What came out of this? How did tactics and Strategic Planning differ? To answer those questions one has to look at how war was thought about before the Great War. Particularly how the various nations thought they were going to conduct WWI. This answer both how the fighting stagnated and why the powers of Europe found themselves in this issue.
Germany
The most famous military plan for the war was the one construed by the Germans. Namely one Staff-General, Count Alfred Von Schlieffen. He devised a plan of how German ought to deal with its continual nemesis France after the 1894 treaty that allied them to Russia. This forces Germany to consider the realities of a two front war with two of the more powerful nations in Europe, both of whom have numerical superiority, and drastically higher conscription rates (this was Bismarck’s nightmare). This left Schlieffen to deduce that the only war to win this conflict is to defeat the faster mobilizing France first. No by a frontal assault on the fortified regions abbutting Alsace and Lorraine. (Both of which would be targets for France to reacquire after the disastrous Franco-Prussian war.) But by maneuvering roughly 90% of the German army through Belgium taking the key rail-line of Liege and striking into the less fortified and less prepared French-Belgian border. While the remaining divisions in Alsace and Lorraine were to lure the French army into attacking by retreating across the Rhine into more defensible positions, forcing the French, in their glory-lust to take Alsace Lorraine and be too far extended to move back to defend Paris, a wing of the divisions from Belgium would then encircle the French army and France would be again humiliated by the numerically inferior German army. Leaving only the question of crossing the Marne and dealing with a skeleton crew manning ‘Fortress Paris’ (Verdun to Fort Douaumont). After this the German army would have to reel back to the Eastern Front to take up a ridged defense against the vast Russian army.
When this was conceived in 1905-6 this was a brilliant plan, one that likely would have resulted in a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War. But there was one glaring problem with it. The plan did not count on Britain sending expeditionary forces to defend Belgium’s neutrality, nor did it account for Belgium arming itself better. These changes in the state of Europe as well as Helmuth Von Moltke the Younger’s Schlieffen’s replacement (not to be confused with his uncle, one of the heroes of the Franco-Prussian War), the decision to not retreat across the Rhine and to not let any piece of German territory fall into enemy hands. Thus the Schlieffen Plan failed to deliver German victory. The assault stalled at the Marne, after taking three weeks just to take Liege (well behind schedule), and the French army could recover, move and adapt to their defenses. This gave Russia the time it needed to mobilize its large army across the vastness of the Russian Empire. Germany was only saved on the Eastern Front by the crafty planning of Von Ludendorff executed flawlessly by Von Hindenburg.
Austria-Hungary
Other nations had issues choosing the correct plan for the conflict. Austria had three plans for a conflict in the Balkans available, one for dealing with Serbia as an isolated threat, one for focusing on a mobilized Russian Army, and one for dealing with a small Russian force and the Serbians at once. Franz Conrad Von Hotzendorf, who was not informed quickly that Austria was at war with both Russia and Serbia, due in part to the ineptitude of the Austro-Hungarian government and in part to his own failures. And thereby the Austro-Hungarian forces were in disarray when the war started. Which proved catastrophic when one considers that all of these plans were based in the ‘Cult of the Offensive’ which meant they called on massive amounts of men to be called up, put in place and be readied to attack BEFORE war was to be declared, thus given them, the Offender the advantage. Austria wasted their advantage of planning and preparedness to blunder through much of the early war. This lead to Austrian forces struggling to deal with the smaller nation of Serbia in a timely manner and they too were ill-prepared for when Russia actually got their army to the border.
Italy
Other nations strategies were slightly more complicated and hidden with a great deal of secrecy. Italy was on the surface part of the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary (thanks to Otto Von Bismarck). When war would eventually break out in 1914 Italy considered Austria-Hungary the aggressor, not a defender, and thereby used their stance that was allowed if Austria-Hungary were to declare war on Russia. They declared their neutrality. This annoyed the Central Powers quite significantly, since Austria-Hungary considered themselves defending their integrity, and the Germans would have liked support in their efforts in France. Italy however had in secret promised France that they would not enter a war with them, but would instead enter the war against their traditional enemies the Austrians, whom they had to get Venice off of earlier and with whom they still had numerous territorial disputes. This occurred due to the apparent weakness of the Austrian forces, as noticed by Italian General Luigi Cadorna. The Italian forces plans for if a war were to happen with the Austrians previous to 1915 were that of a static defense with precise and definite counter offenses, not an offensive doctrine. The realities of the war and Italian over zealousness saw this front being relatively unsuccessful, largely due to the constraints of the rough Alpine terrain and Austria finally winning in Serbia, freeing up more men for this and the Eastern Front.
France/ Russia
France’s prewar planning resulted in plan XVII which called for selective and rapid deployment of the French army. So as to not be humiliated by the quickly deploying Germans. It also called for a massive system of fortresses and dug in positions to be erected throughout the French frontier regions to slow any assault on Paris. It also relied on the forces of their ally Russia, to mobilize by the time these positions had to be manned. Thereby the German build up would have to defend Prussia and the forces assaulting the positions would drastically lessen. However the plan also called for an offensive, since its origins in plan XI. This offensive was to be a push into Alsace Lorraine as well as a counter offensive in the Frontiers along the Belgian Border. The French attempts to take Alsace-Lorraine would prove to be disastrous resulting in tens of thousands of casualties for little if any gain. Also the French advances past their fortifications in the north led to a seriously lack of fielded manpower in the region resulting in a string of German Victories until the Battle of the Marne. Plan XVII was a disaster, saved only by the fact that the execution of the Schlieffen plan was flawed, and the entrance of additional British forces.
Britain
British strategy entering WWI involved establishing naval dominance over the increasing navy of potential rival, Germany. The British navy however outspent the German navy by a factor of two to one, and could not have been caught up with. The successful British-led blockade of the Central Powers would go on to be a feat of logistics and force several neutral nations to join one side or the other. In addition to naval blockade the British Army was sent as an expeditionary force to bolster France and Belgium, to some success, stalling the Germans enough that the Schlieffen Plan in all its rigorous scheduling faltered. In addition to this British Command was split into two camps and two strategies. One was the Westerners, those that attributed success in the Western Front and focused on it to win the war. The other was the Easterners who sought to make a new front in the East against the ‘poor man of Europe’ the Ottomans, thinking that they would be easier targets. This lead to the Dardanelles and the disaster at Gallipoli. This after the disastrous misadventures in the Baltic lead to a growing sense that military planners were throwing away British manpower. Then came the Mesopotamian front and the Arab revolt. Where the Easterners saw some success. One of which used little British manpower. There was also contemporaneously a front opened in Greece, to some questionable legality given that Britain only entered the war to secure the independence and neutrality of Belgium. That being said the forces in Greece and Mesopotamia offered fronts with less high casualty rates that the massacre that was the Western Front.
Great Resources for Books
From Around the Web
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/pre-war_military_planning_austria-hungary
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/pre-war_military_planning_italy
https://www.britannica.com/event/Schlieffen-Plan
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-III-king-of-Prussia-and-emperor-of-Germany
Diplomacy the Game
A deep dive into the strategy and background on Diplomacy as a family negotiation game about WWI or a hardline chess for the Geo-Politically wonk.
As a part of our second podcast for November 2017, we are recapping Great War strategy games. Here is a deep dive into the widely play game Diplomacy.
Diplomacy is probably one of the better known WWI games. It is a slow paced, orders, intensive game of promises and backstabbing. One of the classic Avalon Hill titles that truly impacted strategy gaming. The mechanics of play leave a heavy demand on having multiple players (Preferably 1 per power), however there are methods of play to ignore the Eastern Front and/ or the Ottoman Empire to allow for play with less players. (There are also methods for multiple nations to be controlled by the same player, although I do not suggest this.) As such Diplomacy does not get played as often as one would think, in person as a board game. But is largely surviving thanks to email, or online based play. Highly recommend play online with www.playdiplomacy.com.
The objective of the game is to control of the most cities on the board. This goal changes on what method of play is used. To begin players either pick a power or randomly select them (This will be better explained once Balance is discussed). Then undergo a series of 3 phases, first comes the Negotiation Phase where players scheme with and against each other. Then at the end of that players write orders, in secret, for their units and then execute them during the Movement Phase. This is the phase that most have issues with for technically all actions happen simultaneously, thereby all the orders from all the players have to be executed, as written at once and then resolved the conflict by conflict. To note in this game ALL units has equal value (which is silly from a tactical standpoint). There is not random element in the conflicts. If two forces have equal value they offset and there is no gain. Then after two orders phases it is the build phase, where if successful in taking additional cities' powers can make more units, or if territory has been lost they must remove units such that all units in play for a nation are equal to the number of cities they hold.
Diplomacy is perhaps infamous for always ending in gridlock, much like WWI. There are some powers easier to play than others, both due to the nature of how battles work, and due to the nature of the map. For example, Britain is usually an easier power play, as most nations do not build up enough of a fleet to oppose their unusual starting 2 fleets, both focused in the Atlantic. Which means that any hopes of an invading power landing in Britain are easily dashed.
So, given that most battles, will end in stalemate and that not every nation is equally difficult to play as, how does one actually win? This game is not about tactics or brilliant offensive/ defensive doctrines, it is about negotiation and strangely enough Diplomacy is a diplomatic game at its core. Players that cooperate with each other tend to have a higher chance of victory. That chance depends on how well they cooperate and how well they can coordinate. Some nations rely on this principle to survive. Germany, Austria and Italy all are stuck without a secured border, two of them with limited expansion into non-powers. They are generally considered the most difficult to play as because of this. Such is not the case with the aforementioned Britain or Russia or the Ottomans. France is in an interesting position as it has two routes to expand into, much like Germany, but is only bordered (directly) by two powers. Britain is a naval power that will have to choose whether to contest with France and a possible Italy in Iberia or the Benelux (Belgium and Holland) with France and Germany or mess with Russia and Germany in Scandinavia. The existence of these three options means that Britain has the ability to choose sides more easily. As promises to France to not enter Iberia do not halt expansion, nor would a promise to Germany to stay out of the Benelux.
Then there is Gunboat Diplomacy. Which I find to be enjoyable, due in part to its sped up nature and lack of having to talk for 15 minutes every turn. Gunboat differs to regular Diplomacy in that all orders are written without time for consulting other powers. This means that you are unlikely to trust anyone and that you will not normally get support on movements where you need it (like entering Warsaw). This makes the game much more challenging and suddenly all the nations with multiple bordering powers begin having to be much more careful. That and the strict time limit on turns keeps the often ponderous game flowing better. However, this feeds a conservative foreign policy, namely posturing and showing strength are the only options on the table. One cannot seek out any meaningful alliances and thereby all other nations are to be inferred as rivals until either defeated or in too weak a position to stop you. This version of Diplomacy is still a diplomatic game, but is one that relies more on reading the intentions of your rivals in their troops than trying to convince each other that no hostilities will occur. Or that two powers should band together against another.
In conclusion, I would call this game a Strategy game. However, it is not tactical nor does it concern itself with questions of how plans are operated nor how armies work. They are made the same and treated the same across the board. Nor does the game focus on historical accuracy. Diplomacy is a game focused on the interactions between nations and whether or not they may trust each other. It is a game often used by those who study international relations, not to perfectly model the period, but to give a feeling for how countries interact, such that diplomacy will not falter to the point it did before and during WWI.
Check out Diplomacy for yourself using our Amazon Affliate link bellow:
Scale of Strategy
A breakdown of the scope of different strategic analysis and how this creates different genres of
A Great War Background is a fine example of how the scale of the game changes what the strategies and play space is all about. This element of the strategy focuses on how the scale of the game and thus what the player needs to plan about changes the nature of play and what players take away from the game. I am going to divide all these game set in the Great War by 5 categories about the scale of the decisions: 1st Person, Tactical, Logistical, Negotiation/Diplomatic and Grand Strategy. These categories often are how the roles within modern conflicts are delegated between officers, but also are a great way to remember how strategy different levels of strategy impact how we can plan in our own lives. A common reminder to not just live day to day, but step back and make sure our objectives and plan is being met by our daily grind.
Also, this is our first use of amazon affiliate links many of the games link to where to buy, since searching for these titles out on the open web proves to quite difficult with limited print ever produced too often the larger publishers pushing the more expensive versions. These links do not alter the price you pay, but do give us a little kick pack percentage to support the site.
1. 1st Person - Ace of Aces
This scale of strategy is quite common in modern video games and is quite immediate to the vast majority of wargame hobbyists. Unlike the rest of the wargaming genre this allows players to immerse themselves in the thick of a wartime experience of the personal choices, drama and action. Just as popular and thrilling as many of the war action dramas in TV in Film. But it all gets its start in a now obscure picture book game from the 1980s.
Ace of Aces - 1980 Picture Book Game might just be the first person simulation game. A fantastic game to check out. We have a copy in a family pile from when it first released. However the designer did a Kickstarter campaign for a reprint in 2012. They still have copies to sell via there website as of now in 2017, http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/ace.htm and check out the interesting simple rules: http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/aoarules.pdf
2. Tactical - Squad Leader
Tactics is commonly mistaken being synonymous with strategy, but it is truly a popular subset. This genre is generally defined by not just the control of a singular fighter, but a company of units pursuing a defined objective. This is the major difference between the skill of tactics being about the details of accomplishing objectives, where strategy is more about the decisions of the plan. Here we focus on the major genre of hex chit wargaming within the Great War genre. Like many wargame genre, there are very popular titles and rule sets for American Civil War, or WWII, where The Great War WWI became a little overlooked by popular titles.
Tactical Game are dominated by the Hex and Counter system. Popularized by classic titles such as Panzerblitz and Squad Leader, which are game set in WWII about tank and combined arms at the unit level.
Here are some less known titles that focus solely on WWI, many of these games you can't find on the open market, or amazon and are special hunts that you may come across on BBG.com or other singular item ebay sales.
Red Poppies: WWI Tactics (2010)
A 8 scenario game forced on the Western Front, well reguarded on Board Game Geek. But this might be the only place for to find it on the web.https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/73960/red-poppies-wwi-tactics
Infantry Attacks
Early Day scenarios for the Eastern Front between Imperial Russia and German units. http://www.avalanchepress.com/gameEastPrussia.php
Landship! - Tactical Weapons Innovation 1914-1918 is a 1994 stand alone title that focuses on the vast array of unique weapon innovations from WWI tanks, planes, machine gun, trenches... With simple rules and 20 scenarios, certain one to check out.
GWASL I: Tankschreken! (2014)(2015)(2017)
This is a set of Great War scenario and map packs sold on paper and chit print outs for Advanced Squad Leader. You can pick them up from Critical Hit http://www.criticalhit.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=SRCH
3. Logistical - Path to Glory
Logistical makes the next step removed from combat. Here the scale of the play focuses on the product and deployment of units to which particular battles. The strategies here are far more focused on the costs and timing of objectives, rather than the skill in the technique of war. In our lives this would compare far more to understanding the scope and returns from projects, choosing what to undertake and when, and seeing if you can accomplish projects. Really the scale of management rarely practiced in daily life, but a significant part to focus on in play.
By far one of the best WWI titles out there is Paths to Glory. While this is a Point to Point style game, includes a huge map of Europe and the Near East, and hundreds of counters, cards, and a nice thick rule book. GMT Games makes a fine Campaign style game that gets deep into the battle choices and logistical details of the conflict.
4. Negotiation / Diplomatic - Diplomacy
The highest level of scope that strategy can be about, yet rarely has enough details to know what is going on. This is all about setting your own objectives as players and seeing if objective against objective can compete. Equally it allows players to very quickly over a couple of plays to see just how misguided certain plays are and how difficult particular option may be.
Diplomacy is most likely the most popular game about WWI out there. Large thanks to its designer Allan B. Calhamer designing it at Harvard 1954 to 1959 and licensing it to Games Research, Inc. Which then got bought by Avalon Hill and then Hasbro. Equally this game is immensely popular with play by mail, then play by email style play. But I’ll let Strategist Primus Explain more of that in his article on just the game Diplomacy.
Two certainly available options exist for this game one with metallic pieces and one with punch out chits.
This is a game that fits well for those who love Risk, but are looking for something with a bit more intrigue than pure world domination.
5. Grand Strategy - Axis and Allies
This is more of the mixing of several scopes into one bigger picture. Very popular and common in PC strategy as it often takes a whole series of nuanced rules to work out which is best handled by a machine. Yet a well designed game can just run on the table top sinking players into the total perspective on the war. From the top level diplomatic choices, to harden details of logistics, and to maybe event the eventual play of battle. Grand strategy sells very well on being the full weekend entertainment that can sink 2 to many players into the full perspective.
The best title out there for this, even while Path to Glory has enough of this to maybe even count, is clearly the popular Axis and Allies. A large full table kind of game that allows players to have the same kind of experience from their WWII game in a WWI setting.
Games On The Horizon
Strategy Games for Fall 2017 that focus on the operations of single or a few people in a larger society. Saelig, Black Death, The Guild 3, and Bannerlord.
This is a new exploration of 3 early access games on Steam for the moment that are in the segment for our new Podcast: here. While most have mixed reviews on steam at the moment, the first one Saelig has a strong small following with mostly positive reviews. Clearly, it's about how soon this all released and how each group tailored expectations.
SÆLIG
http://store.steampowered.com/app/612720/SAELIG/
At its core SÆLIG is a trading and management game centered around the accumulation of wealth, and the prosperity of your household. You will be in charge of managing the life and affairs of a young Anglo-Saxon in the kingdom of Wessex, a kingdom at constant war with Viking Kingdom. It is in this world that you must find a way to thrive, and make a name for your family. Tastes a lot like the guild just earlier and it runs differently.
Haven’t had had a chance to play yet. Sounds like a different kind of strategy game much like the rest of this list. Should prove to be interesting, because Saxons really.
Black Death
http://store.steampowered.com/app/412450/The_Black_Death/
A catastrophic plague has left a trail of destruction across 14th century Europe. Survivors confront sickness and scarce resources in a land rife with banditry. Attempt to find a cure, acquire power, learn skills and adapt to survive.
A multiplayer game in which players attempt to stop a disease from taking over. Players are Plague Doctors learning to prevent and halt the spread of this disease.
This first person multiplayer game, has players trying to figure out a quite substantial amount of information in hopes of being successful.
The Guild 3
http://store.steampowered.com/app/311260/The_Guild_3/
Continuation of the Guild series. Players play as a family of merchants and try to cement control through their wealth and power. Some new features are secret societies, improved graphics and logic, multiplayer capabilities. So far it has entered open access in a very early and rough stage of development.
Seems promising, is not stable at the moment, they are putting work into it frequently. The only real knock on it is it was released early. Should rise to the standards of previous.
Between this and the others which would you like to see explored on Twitch, and/or YouTube series? Comment bellow here on this post, and I shall gather the results.
Strategy Article: Galactic Engagement
It’s Primus here and I have a few thoughts from the First Episode of Star Trek Discovery. In that episode, we were presented with a decision to be made by the First Officer Cm. Michael Burnham. This decision is either to start conflict with the Klingon ship via rendering the Captain unconscious and unable to object, flee the system and rendezvous with back up in the form of more starships, or hold your position and call in for support.
Chay' vay' veS!
It’s Primus here and I have a few thoughts from the First Episode of Star Trek Discovery. In that episode, which I do strongly recommend watching, we were presented with a decision to be made by the First Officer Cm. Michael Burnham. This decision is either to start conflict with the Klingon ship via rendering the Captain unconscious and unable to object, flee the system and rendezvous with back up in the form of more starships, or hold your position and call in for support.
She chose the first option, and failed to execute the necessary steps to ensure the Captain was subdued. Thus resulting in the situation the Klingons likely most desired, a large disorganized force without full knowledge of the situation. This, and not one lone starship, is a meaningful tactical target. Say the Federation sends 10 ships a handful of them ‘Ships of the Line’, ie primary large warships and the rest the general multipurpose ship class Starfleet seems to run on. This represents a meaningful amount of fleet power, production costs and importantly meaningful casualties. The Klingon commander/ general/ chosen one, T'Kuvma, seems to have substantial knowledge of Starfleet protocol, he knows the will not be an aggressor in a hot conflict. Meaning they are more willing to give ground than to make their own demands, which is substantial when applied to a standoff. He thinks they will not pursue the mentioned Option 1 of a direct assault, whether all of this is due to perceived weakness or actual intel is a moot point at the moment. This allows him to plan for an ambush, lure in a vessel sent for repairs, stalk it, wait for the right time, signal to reinforce, stall actions of enemy and wait for support to be called (and for his own from that signalling) and then strike when the force is still under the impression that this is a cold conflict. This is based on the Klingon knowledge that Starfleet are not abiding by a hostile doctrine, as most fleets/ armies operate VERY differently from Klingons when entering a war-zone versus entering a region of potential conflict.
T'Kuvma: Klingon General? Chosen one? Big bad.
Commander Burnham, via the counseling of Sarek (Spock’s Dad) and her own opinions on Klingons, determines that the best strategy when encountered with said instance. Arguing for it on the lines that “Klingons only respond well to violence” or something that could just as easily say that. The show is correct in stating this is not racism (or speciesism) but is a comment on their cultural identity. This is far fetched on a less strategic level. A race that only thinks in and of violence wouldn’t have developed as advanced a cloaking device as it does not directly correlate with violence and generally the direct and typical approaches violent groups deploy is not as intricate as this scheme, which relies on patience, technological superiority and then violent decisive action, on a outmaneuvered and distracted foe. Not the kind of glorious battle against impossible odds Klingons like to boast about.
A word about timelines.(1) Discovery is set some 15 years before Kirk’s Enterprise is launched on its voyage. This puts the series considerably after the time of the canonically previous Enterprise show (Captain Archer). This means that humanity, and the Federation have encountered Klingons before. Enterprise starts with a Klingon warrior being shot by Human Farmer and then being returned to Kronos.(2) Then again this series is already drowning in continuity issues.
Then there’s the issue of strategy, a frontal ‘surprise’ assault against a foe during this standoff is unlikely to result in victory. Here’s why:
The USS Shenzhou appears to be outclassed, the Klingon vessel is larger by a slight margin, and due to the nature of Klingon ships in Star Trek it has to be implied that it is armed to the teeth. However it doesn’t have the usual key features of a Bird of Prey so its exact class and firepower has to be estimated. The Shenzhou’s class has not been noted.
The Klingons would be expecting a frontal assault, they are attempting to provoke this. Why else would they only conceal a single vessel? They presumably have the ability to hide larger forces, and a larger force, with more points of attack, would be more able to deal a swift abush than this single vessel. Thereby the Klingons are either attempting to lull the Discovery into a false sense of security or are planning something that requires less firepower.
Intel levels, the Klingons seem to be more informed of the internal workings of Starfleet than they are of Klingons. T'Kuvma seems to understand the Starfleet command system and their operating doctrines to a surprising degree based on this line of thought. Starfleet seems to have been in a Cold War with a fractious divided Klingon Empire up to this point, the Captain in the field is just operating under usual protocol and seems to be unaware of how Klingons might react differently than other species.
Command Experience, while I am not one to make claims to the abilities of none of the commanders on Star Trek, they seem to pull off some nearly impossible victories with some frequency, I am calling into question whether they are better at operating in this situation than the Klingons, who at this point seem to be either a rogue faction in a civil conflict attacking a perceived external threat or members of whatever is left of a centralized command. (Star Trek is notoriously bad at explaining the exact political situations in anywhere not directly related to whatever vessel we are observing). Either way as an observer I would stress that T'Kuvma seems a more capable commander than certainly Burnham would have to be. Burnham would have to operate under the presumption of the Captain being either incapable, out of commission or deferring to her judgement. This would distract and delay any commander enough that I would be forced to give T'Kuvma this edge.
Also proposed as a ‘plan’ though hardly elaborated on was Science Officer Lt. Saru. He stated that the Discovery should withdraw its position. I’m going to extrapolate here and infer that this meant regrouping with a larger force. The problem with this is you are conceding the objective to a presumed enemy, yes you take no losses, but on the other hand your relay is gone, and no actions were taken to reprimand those that sabotaged your communications. T’Kuvma continues to harass and instigate conflict with with insurgent or guerrilla forces and your border region will become involved in the Klingon civil unrest.
So then what should you do? If calling in support is not a good idea but neither is a direct assault, then the better option is either a feigned retreat, leaving a EMP and then retreating or there’s diplomacy.
Diplomacy with Klingons sounds like a complicated and nasty affair. As a Strategist I’m going to attempt to avoid negotiations as much as possible. Also due to the likelihood this is an insurgent group, Diplomacy may have unintended consequences such as angering the Klingon Faction’s enemies, giving them legitimacy due to the nature of diplomacy (it isn’t engaged with by non-actors).
That leaves us with two equally compelling situations either feigning a retreat and hoping that the overzealous Klingons will pursue (sounds like Klingons to me) or leave behind a little tit for tat.
Personally the feigned retreat sounds like a better option due to the fact it would draw the ambushing Klingons out of their ambush and truly test their discipline, as well as feigning your will be following your protocols (what you’re most likely to do in a situation). This combined with the nature of tit for tat (everybody gets a black eye)x makes the feigned retreat sound even better.
Trek has however gotten me on a Sci-Fi binge, as has Stellaris’ recent set of updates and new DLC Synthetic Dawn. As such I shall be streaming a play-through of that DLC up on twitch at:
https://www.twitch.tv/strategist_primus
Stream will start 8:00 EST (GMT -4) planning to end at 11:00 EST
We will be taking questions about this, Stellaris or anything else that comes to mind.
See you then!
-Strategist Primus
1) On issues with continuity, I bow to a higher authority here:
https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2017/05/19/star-trek-discovery-timeline-continuity-issues/
2). Berman, Rick, and Bannon Braga, writers. "Broken Bow." In Star Trek: Enterprise. UPN. September 26, 2001.
3) Link is to an explanation of Tit for Tat by Prof. William Spaniel, University of Pittsburgh. His web series and book Game Theory 101 will be often referenced here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Ug4vHHtGo&list=PLKI1h_nAkaQoDzI4xDIXzx6U2ergFmedo&index=61