Tactical vs Strategic Victory

[Adseria]

Historically, it was quite common to see battles in which one side won a tactical victory, but the other won a strategic victory. An example would be the Battle of the Coral Sea; the loss of Shoho and damage to Shokaku was more than outweighed by the sinking of Lexington and the heavy damage to Yorktown, making it a tactical victory for the Japanese. However, the Port Moresby invasion fleet was forced to turn back, giving the strategic win to the US/Australian forces.

In the game, AFAIK, this is not represented. Here's an example I just had. I'm playing as the US, and fighting a war with Germany. The Germans have kept the vast majority of their ships in Europe, so I have control of the only region in which we both have territories, Southeast Asia. As a result, I decided to invade the Northern Marianas. The initial invasion went smoothly, my troops landed and have been fighting for a couple of months when I get a "battle in support of land combat." Specifically, it's a convoy attack. I get my entire SEA fleet (2xBB, 2xBC, 1xCA, 1xCL) against the convoy with a handful of escorting DDs. Unfortunately, it's a night battle, and they manage to put a torpedo into one of my BBs, which pulls away and focuses on damage control while the other all but wipes out the convoy. Thanks to superior US damage control, the damaged battleship survives with heavy damage, and limps back to Guam.



As you can see, the game considers this a victory, which, from a tactical point of view, is perfectly logical. I'm not denying that. The thing is, I stopped almost the entire convoy (not counting the escorts) from reaching it's destination. Thus, I feel that this situation, and others like it, should count as a victory for the purposes of the land combat.

What I'm proposing is this: after a battle like this, have an additional check to see if you sank a sufficient number of merchants (the existing objective system would probably be fine for this; in my example, I had to kill 6 TRs, which I did). If you sank enough, it should still award the victory to the enemy, but it should consider it a victory for the purposes of the land combat. So, in the example above, the enemy would still get more VP for the damage to my BB, but I should get the bonus in the land combat, with the higher chance for a victory there.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 30, 2020 8:36:13 GMT -6 Adseria said:

Historically, it was quite common to see battles in which one side won a tactical victory, but the other won a strategic victory. An example would be the Battle of the Coral Sea; the loss of Shoho and damage to Shokaku was more than outweighed by the sinking of Lexington and the heavy damage to Yorktown, making it a tactical victory for the Japanese. However, the Port Moresby invasion fleet was forced to turn back, giving the strategic win to the US/Australian forces.

In the game, AFAIK, this is not represented. Here's an example I just had. I'm playing as the US, and fighting a war with Germany. The Germans have kept the vast majority of their ships in Europe, so I have control of the only region in which we both have territories, Southeast Asia. As a result, I decided to invade the Northern Marianas. The initial invasion went smoothly, my troops landed and have been fighting for a couple of months when I get a "battle in support of land combat." Specifically, it's a convoy attack. I get my entire SEA fleet (2xBB, 2xBC, 1xCA, 1xCL) against the convoy with a handful of escorting DDs. Unfortunately, it's a night battle, and they manage to put a torpedo into one of my BBs, which pulls away and focuses on damage control while the other all but wipes out the convoy. Thanks to superior US damage control, the damaged battleship survives with heavy damage, and limps back to Guam.

View Attachment

As you can see, the game considers this a victory, which, from a tactical point of view, is perfectly logical. I'm not denying that. The thing is, I stopped almost the entire convoy (not counting the escorts) from reaching it's destination. Thus, I feel that this situation, and others like it, should count as a victory for the purposes of the land combat.

What I'm proposing is this: after a battle like this, have an additional check to see if you sank a sufficient number of merchants (the existing objective system would probably be fine for this; in my example, I had to kill 6 TRs, which I did). If you sank enough, it should still award the victory to the enemy, but it should consider it a victory for the purposes of the land combat. So, in the example above, the enemy would still get more VP for the damage to my BB, but I should get the bonus in the land combat, with the higher chance for a victory there.

Well, I would say that at Coral Sea as you related, Operation MO was scrapped due to the loss of Shoho, and damage to Shokaku and loss of the air group on Zuikaku. This two losses also prevented those ships from being present at Midway. They also lost some aircraft and ships in Fletcher's attack on Tulagi which the Japanese were planning to use as a seaplane base for scouting the Coral Sea and areas to the SE. It was a draw tactically, but Goto retired after the losses to the two Japanese fleet carriers. It was the beginning of the end for Japanese offensive action. More importantly, it was the first real use of the Station Hypo breaking of the Japanese Operational Code JN-25B. 

[Adseria]

Oct 30, 2020 10:00:28 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Oct 30, 2020 8:36:13 GMT -6 Adseria said:

Historically, it was quite common to see battles in which one side won a tactical victory, but the other won a strategic victory. An example would be the Battle of the Coral Sea; the loss of Shoho and damage to Shokaku was more than outweighed by the sinking of Lexington and the heavy damage to Yorktown, making it a tactical victory for the Japanese. However, the Port Moresby invasion fleet was forced to turn back, giving the strategic win to the US/Australian forces.

In the game, AFAIK, this is not represented. Here's an example I just had. I'm playing as the US, and fighting a war with Germany. The Germans have kept the vast majority of their ships in Europe, so I have control of the only region in which we both have territories, Southeast Asia. As a result, I decided to invade the Northern Marianas. The initial invasion went smoothly, my troops landed and have been fighting for a couple of months when I get a "battle in support of land combat." Specifically, it's a convoy attack. I get my entire SEA fleet (2xBB, 2xBC, 1xCA, 1xCL) against the convoy with a handful of escorting DDs. Unfortunately, it's a night battle, and they manage to put a torpedo into one of my BBs, which pulls away and focuses on damage control while the other all but wipes out the convoy. Thanks to superior US damage control, the damaged battleship survives with heavy damage, and limps back to Guam.

View Attachment

As you can see, the game considers this a victory, which, from a tactical point of view, is perfectly logical. I'm not denying that. The thing is, I stopped almost the entire convoy (not counting the escorts) from reaching it's destination. Thus, I feel that this situation, and others like it, should count as a victory for the purposes of the land combat.

What I'm proposing is this: after a battle like this, have an additional check to see if you sank a sufficient number of merchants (the existing objective system would probably be fine for this; in my example, I had to kill 6 TRs, which I did). If you sank enough, it should still award the victory to the enemy, but it should consider it a victory for the purposes of the land combat. So, in the example above, the enemy would still get more VP for the damage to my BB, but I should get the bonus in the land combat, with the higher chance for a victory there.

Well, I would say that at Coral Sea as you related, Operation MO was scrapped due to the loss of Shoho, and damage to Shokaku and loss of the air group on Zuikaku. This two losses also prevented those ships from being present at Midway. They also lost some aircraft and ships in Fletcher's attack on Tulagi which the Japanese were planning to use as a seaplane base for scouting the Coral Sea and areas to the SE. It was a draw tactically, but Goto retired after the losses to the two Japanese fleet carriers. It was the beginning of the end for Japanese offensive action. More importantly, it was the first real use of the Station Hypo breaking of the Japanese Operational Code JN-25B. 

That's exactly why the VP should remain the same. The strategic objective of MO (the landing of Japanese troops at Port Moresby) was not met, thus why, in game, I think situations like this should give the US (Coral Sea example) or me (my example) an advantage in the ground combat. On the other hand, the damage/loss of ships at Coral Sea caused major issues in the long run for the Japanese, which is already represented both "manually" in the form of VP, and naturally in that those ships are unavailable in future battles. This is why I said that (in my example) Germany should still get the VP (and, obviously, my BB probably be unavailable for the next couple of months), but I should get the advantage in the ground combat.

Also, the losses from Fletcher's strike at Tulagi were, IIRC, relatively minor; a few minesweepers, maybe a destroyer or two. Certainly nothing to sniff at, but pretty minor compared to the fleet carriers lost and damaged over the next few days.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 30, 2020 10:43:04 GMT -6 Adseria said:

Oct 30, 2020 10:00:28 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Well, I would say that at Coral Sea as you related, Operation MO was scrapped due to the loss of Shoho, and damage to Shokaku and loss of the air group on Zuikaku. This two losses also prevented those ships from being present at Midway. They also lost some aircraft and ships in Fletcher's attack on Tulagi which the Japanese were planning to use as a seaplane base for scouting the Coral Sea and areas to the SE. It was a draw tactically, but Goto retired after the losses to the two Japanese fleet carriers. It was the beginning of the end for Japanese offensive action. More importantly, it was the first real use of the Station Hypo breaking of the Japanese Operational Code JN-25B. 

That's exactly why the VP should remain the same. The strategic objective of MO (the landing of Japanese troops at Port Moresby) was not met, thus why, in game, I think situations like this should give the US (Coral Sea example) or me (my example) an advantage in the ground combat. On the other hand, the damage/loss of ships at Coral Sea caused major issues in the long run for the Japanese, which is already represented both "manually" in the form of VP, and naturally in that those ships are unavailable in future battles. This is why I said that (in my example) Germany should still get the VP (and, obviously, my BB probably be unavailable for the next couple of months), but I should get the advantage in the ground combat.

Also, the losses from Fletcher's strike at Tulagi were, IIRC, relatively minor; a few minesweepers, maybe a destroyer or two. Certainly nothing to sniff at, but pretty minor compared to the fleet carriers lost and damaged over the next few days.

Well, for the US, the losses were nothing in relation to what we were building. The Japanese fleet did not have many destroyers or minesweepers available and any losses had an impact on their strategic designs. I believe it was a tactical draw, an operational victory and a strategic victory.

My view of the game in this regard is simple. You have a strategic goal to develop your navy and use it to further your country's geopolitical goals, depending the country. Wars are fought to further that goal and to impede your possible opponents. The battles are fought to further the operational goals which are designed to achieve the geopolitical goal or goals. Battles further operations and operations are designed to achieve the geopolitical goal. Does it actually work? Not necessarily, but I leave that to all of the rest of the forum members to decide that, I have my own ideas.

[Adseria]

Oct 30, 2020 10:54:32 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Oct 30, 2020 10:43:04 GMT -6 Adseria said:

That's exactly why the VP should remain the same. The strategic objective of MO (the landing of Japanese troops at Port Moresby) was not met, thus why, in game, I think situations like this should give the US (Coral Sea example) or me (my example) an advantage in the ground combat. On the other hand, the damage/loss of ships at Coral Sea caused major issues in the long run for the Japanese, which is already represented both "manually" in the form of VP, and naturally in that those ships are unavailable in future battles. This is why I said that (in my example) Germany should still get the VP (and, obviously, my BB probably be unavailable for the next couple of months), but I should get the advantage in the ground combat.

Also, the losses from Fletcher's strike at Tulagi were, IIRC, relatively minor; a few minesweepers, maybe a destroyer or two. Certainly nothing to sniff at, but pretty minor compared to the fleet carriers lost and damaged over the next few days.

Well, for the US, the losses were nothing in relation to what we were building. The Japanese fleet did not have many destroyers or minesweepers available and any losses had an impact on their strategic designs. I believe it was a tactical draw, an operational victory and a strategic victory.

My view of the game in this regard is simple. You have a strategic goal to develop your navy and use it to further your country's geopolitical goals, depending the country. Wars are fought to further that goal and to impede your possible opponents. The battles are fought to further the operational goals which are designed to achieve the geopolitical goal or goals. Battles further operations and operations are designed to achieve the geopolitical goal. Does it actually work? Not necessarily, but I leave that to all of the rest of the forum members to decide that, I have my own ideas.

You make some good points, but consider this: if you're invading somewhere, it must have at least some strategic value to the invader (whether that might be actual value in terms of resources, or military value in terms of being a useful position from which to carry on the war), and that means there is also a strategic value to the defender in denying it's use to the attacker. Thus, any naval battle fought in relation to the invasion also has a strategic element.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 30, 2020 12:15:09 GMT -6 Adseria said:

Oct 30, 2020 10:54:32 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Well, for the US, the losses were nothing in relation to what we were building. The Japanese fleet did not have many destroyers or minesweepers available and any losses had an impact on their strategic designs. I believe it was a tactical draw, an operational victory and a strategic victory.

My view of the game in this regard is simple. You have a strategic goal to develop your navy and use it to further your country's geopolitical goals, depending the country. Wars are fought to further that goal and to impede your possible opponents. The battles are fought to further the operational goals which are designed to achieve the geopolitical goal or goals. Battles further operations and operations are designed to achieve the geopolitical goal. Does it actually work? Not necessarily, but I leave that to all of the rest of the forum members to decide that, I have my own ideas.

You make some good points, but consider this: if you're invading somewhere, it must have at least some strategic value to the invader (whether that might be actual value in terms of resources, or military value in terms of being a useful position from which to carry on the war), and that means there is also a strategic value to the defender in denying it's use to the attacker. Thus, any naval battle fought in relation to the invasion also has a strategic element.

An invasion is an operation whose goal is to further the geostrategic goal. Example: Invasion of Sicily was an operation to do two things: gain control of the trade route through the Mediterranean and gain airbases and jump off points for the invasion of Italy which would be a strategic goal to eliminate one of the Axis powers. Now, battles, whether air battles, fleet battles or land battles would be the tactical part of the  operation. But the actual invasion of Sicily was an operation. The invasion of Italy at Salerno and Anzio were two operations to further that strategic goal. BTW, logistics is a part of this. Sometimes invasions are specifically operations to gain logistical points for further movement. This is how the Central Pacific was used by the US. Tarawa, Ulithi etcetera all were part of that.  As to the opponent, his operation is to defend a strategically valuable point in the world for further use to hinder the goals of his opponents. He uses land force, air forces, naval forces and logistical forces to perform that mission which will lead to success in the operation. It is a two way street. 

Sometimes, BTW, an operation is conducted and the real reasons are vague to all. Tarawa had no real strategic value but the operation was conducted with terrible losses. Why? Well, most don't know but the real reason was to test Japanese defenses and learn coordination of invasions for the future. It was, amazingly, a test case, no more and no less. We had no idea how tough the Japanese would be in defense and it did save lives over time.