Housellama wrote:And you will notice that in WW2, the French's eggshell Maginot Line did them a lot of good. There's a reason that trench warfare as a major thing ended in WW1.
No, it did work. The Germans did NOT attack the Maginot line to invade France. It achieved its goal. The flaw was that they were not able to extend it along the Belgium border (prevented by politics in the inter-war period), and so it was NOT complete. (BTW, few know that the Germans actually did attack the Maginot line, with bombers and heavy artillery. They just didn't try to push troops through. Vast stretches were destroyed.) The French were fighting the last War, and hadn't built well for WW2, but it's hard to fault them too much for not predicting the future of warfare. No one got it entirely right. The Germans overcomplicated the engineering and missed sloped armor and couldn't believe someone could break their codes. The Americans couldn't design a decent tank, but could build floods of them. The Russians built pretty good tanks, but messed up their Officer Corps with politics. The French had great tanks, but no concept of how to use them. And the English just didn't have many forces in the first place, but figured out Radar, ASDIC, and code breaking.
... If you call France getting invaded a functional success. The Maginot Line's ultimate function was the same as any defensive strategy: to defend. I'd say that was a failure. Sure, the Germans blew it up but it was built to stop troops, and I'm sure it was very good at it. But the Germans didn't attack it like that, so it's kind of a moot point. A fortress than no one attacks is pretty booping useless. And in the end, France still fell.
On Defense in Depth:
Yes, and that's what I was talking about in the first place.
me wrote:The other trick is only available to extremely large Sides. Sides that are excessively large do not need more than minimal defenses to stop Barbarian attacks on Cities deep inside the borders. You basically only need to keep strong defenses in the outer band of cities, and scout it very well.
Which is exactly Defense in Depth, as you just described. A "band" is not a "line", and I did not state exactly how deep the band needed to be. (2x flier Move from "border", I'd say, so around 130 hexes based on Dwagons and gwiffon ranges of 56.)
So what's your problem with what I said? You just created a wall of text for a strawman argument that had nothing to do with what I said in the first place.
*facepalm* You said eggshells work. Sure. In certain circumstances, they work great. And yes, a band will do better than a simple eggshell. But even a band isn't Defense In Depth (DiD). That's just a thicker eggshell. DiD is multiple layers of different kinds of defenses. DiD means having guys on the walls, plus heavies behind the lines, plus air support, plus highly mobile reinforcements available to deploy at hotspots. Not to mention physical barriers and other security measures as well. DID is an entire defensive strategy. Not just "strong defenses in the outer bands of cities." A good DiD plan would have an outer band, yes. It would also have a secondary line about three to five turns behind that, then another stronger defense line around the most valuable cities.
Here's the problem with a band. Even a band of we'll say three moves from the border, a full turn move thicker than your example. If I had to pierce a ring and I knew that there wasn't much inside, I'd have a very highly mobile force, something that could cover that band in three to four moves. I'd also have a secondary force that was heavier and slower. Say it takes five to six turns to cross the band. I'd send the secondary force in first. Let them hammer away at the band, get maybe a full one turn move distance in, a third of the way there. Sure, they are taking casualties, but that's their point. Once they are a third of the way in, my strike force comes through hauling tail. Since they started one turn move in, they cover the band in two turns. They don't stop at all, they just move as fast as they can. If units get engaged, they shed them and keep going. Even if just a small squad of fast and tough get through, you've got a real problem.
That's is exactly what DiD is built to stop. Say you've got a second ring a few more turn-moves in. Sure, I might get my strike force through, but unless they are really tough, that second ring is going to slow them down enough to give you time to get your troops together and deal with them. And even if they do make it through the second band, they are going to pay for it. It's going to weaken them enough that you can deal with the survivors.
A good DiD strategy is pretty much exactly the opposite of an eggshell. It gets harder as you go in. The deeper the enemy penetrates, the more force you are bringing to bear. Like thick jelly. Sure, you can go through the first layer or two without much of a problem, but then you slow down, whereas their defenses are just getting started. Eggshells crack. That's what happened with the French. They built their eggshell and the Germans, like any good army, simply ignored it. They found a crack and at that point it was all over but the crying. Russia on the other hand, pretty much perfected the DiD. The Germans marched in, but they sure as boop didn't march back out. (Although really, invading Russia in the winter isn't exactly a masterstroke of planning anyway.)
So no, not a strawman. Defense in Depth is simply not what you were talking about.