Here I will discuss the traits of the various facets of warfare and how they play out as opposed to reality. 

General Characteristics

There are a few themes, traits, and concepts that pervade the storyline in general.

1.) The world of Takomen is more technologically advanced than Earth. They are 50-100 years ahead of us IRL. The degree of superiority varies between states and departments, of course. They would in, Star Trek terms, be a post-industrial, pre-warp civilization. 

2.) Warfare on Takomen is far more humane than Earth's last world war. While the two pairs of nations are fighting a war of governmental annihilation with each other, they are tightly bound by the Karamesh Convention and have no desire to deviate from it. The leaders would generally rather lose the war than start firebombing cities. As a result, the war's terrible destruction is very much removed from the citizenry, barring the need to strike an urban target or a city coming under threat of capture or encirclement. 

Additionally, the bombardment of industrial centers, which WOULD be allowed despite the civilian casualties since it is directly tied to the endeavor of warfare, has usually been deemed unfeasible given the very high bomber losses that would be incurred. Bombers seem to have a greater effect if used on military infrastructure and positions instead, especially closer to the front line. And, of course, this is more chivalric, anyway.

3.) The sizes of the militaries of the four nations, relative to those nations' populations, are quite small. In full-scale mobilizations in modern and pre-modern times, you might see 10% or more of the population in general serve in the military, and 50% or more of the young male population in the military (IIRC, something like 25% of the draftable male population of the Confederacy in the US Civil War were DEAD, and far more had served). Maybe at most, 5% of the population is in the military, with 50-67% of them being combatant personnel. Kantaria's combatant military personnel comprise maybe 2-3% of the general population. Their material and logistical needs are great, however, so the other 95% or so struggles to keep them adequately supplied.

4.) Battles in general tend to be short, very ferocious, and very bloody, often ending when the attacking side abandons the effort or runs out of supplies and stamina. Between major battles, violence is intermittent and conducted by bombardment assets such as bombers and howitzers.

5.) The areas on the Eastern Continent- the one where Kantaria and Bengaria reside- are divided into three 'fronts': Western, Central, and Eastern. The Western and Eastern Fronts the Kantarians are safer on because the full might of their superior navy can be brought to bear. In the Center, only air power, ground forces, and some extreme range naval assets can be utilized by them, which makes those offensives riskier and more exhausting.

6.) Takomen is not as experienced at warfare as Earth/Terra. They have all of this really cool and lethal technology, but not much experience using it. They never had a WW2 of sorts to put concepts and tenets and technologies to the test. They're sometimes literally writing the warfare manuals as they carry on with the war. Roketsune especially will extensively study relevant texts from our legendary figures such as Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, and documentary texts on various wars here, and is eager to recruit suitable veteran officers from Terran nation-states. 

7.) While the duration of the war itself might about match that of many actual major wars, the pace at which things are done is extremely accelerated, by a factor of 10 or more frequently. Construction, design, repairs, redeployments, are accomplished much more rapidly on Takomen. IRL, a plane or a ship might need 3-5 years to go from conception to functional prototype. On Takomen that can be done in a few months. The non-lethal damage caused by even the worst naval battles can be repaired in about two weeks. Base upgrades can be conceived and implemented in a matter of days or weeks. 

Obviously, the pace of the storyline has to match those of my RL experiences, so, if it takes me a week to complete room upgrades, Marietta in Kantaria will have its own upgrades completed in a week. Of course, addressing my emotional, cognitive, and circumstance deficiencies and liabilities will require a great deal of time and effort, so the war itself won't be concluded any more quickly despite most of its critical functions being done almost instantly.

8.) Overall, the plot and the war itself are realistic and plausible, and that is a primary concern when fashioning new material. Sometimes events on Takomen don't fully reflect reality, because adhering strictly to that formula would sometimes cause unrealistic results. Sometimes I must invent something out of thin air or change the date of an event to preserve realism, but usually the natural imaginations and RL are synchronized.

9.) As stated in the Takomen and the Nation-States submission, each nation generally represents a type of person or enemy. Kantaria represents me and close friends, Likuria assistance from other people, Bengaria the 'internal' foes such as inefficiency and fear and the like, Wesitaria the 'external' foe that is other people. As explained above, at times a nation's role in a battle will deviate from the norm. Due to the established storyline, Wesitaria will always be the primary combatant when dealing with social matters IRL or conducting yearly AA meeting tours, whether people are causing problems or not.

Ground Warfare

What is portrayed in my storyline is rather anachronistic and eclectic, a combination of World War 1 and modern maneuver warfare. The ground offensives have many of the hallmarks of those of the First World War, but they are simultaneously mobile affairs. I suppose this makes ground battles more dramatic and bloody, which is most akin to how I feel in modern times.

Similarities to WW1 The similarities to World War 1 (and to a lesser extent the US Civil War) are numerous:

1.) Each side digs extensive and deep systems of entrenchments whenever they are availed the opportunity. The trench systems would very, very much resemble those in Europe 100 years ago. Once a side has had sufficient time and manpower, more permanent and hardened field fortifications are erected, leading to nearly impregnable opposing defensive lines after several months of stalemate on a particular front.

2.) A major offensive is more often than not preceded by a massive preliminary bombardment by ground, aerial, and naval assets. Often grand batteries are formed and thousands of cannons are directed against particular objectives, which will broadcast an impending offensive with the magnificent fireworks display the enemy failed to discover through espionage or signals monitoring. The defending side generally will mobilize its own bombardment assets and return fire, resulting in steel blizzards of death and fire. Of course, this is periodically done to throw off the enemy as well, or just to prevent them breathing room in between attacks.

3.) When the order to begin general offensive operations is given, often 100s of thousands of infantry leave their entrenchments (a.k.a. "going over the top") and rush at the opposing side en masse. This often will accelerate the breakthrough process, but with much greater risks. While this feature is identical to WW1, it also differs in two key ways: 1.) Troops don't just recklessly charge at or march towards the enemy trenches. They'll get on the ground and advance in spurts and such. 2.) They have far better equipment and armor than their WW1 counterparts.

4.) Battles tend to be extremely violent, heroic, and bloody. Casualties rapidly accrue over a span of a few days or a week, which is in line with some of the epic battles of World War 1 and the US Civil War. Unlike WW1 battles, however, they tend to be resolved rapidly rather than degenerate into horrifically protracted attrition battles or end in a minimal tactical victory for one side. Whether an attack or stand succeeds is usually determined rather quickly, after a lot of ordnance has fallen and a lot of troops have perished or been evacuated to hospitals. 

Dissimilarities to WW1 Takomenian ground warfare also contrasts with that of World War 1 in several ways:

1.) The technological disparity is extreme. Airpower and panzers were being used in large numbers and concentrations only at the end of WW1, and the concepts of blitzkrieg and combined arms were only initially conceived at the same time and refined and practiced later. Takomen in contrast has had panzers and aircraft and more since more or less forever.

2.) Because of #1 and the fact Takomenians are generally not retarded, they use all the various components of a modern military, and are well acquainted with the principles of maneuver warfare. While some battles might bog down outside the defenders' primary and secondary defensive lines, more often than not a series of breakthroughs occur which effect large encirclements and/or the untenability of the rest of the line. In contrast, World War 1's pace was excruciatingly and depressingly slow (at least on the Western Front; Germany's war with Russia was far more fluid and beneficial for the former) until the last few months of the war, to the point the front line was not on German soil when the Germans acceded to the armistice (other nations celebrate Armistice Day; America wanted to be different and call it Veteran's Day). 

3.) As briefly stated before (there's overlap multiple times here, but each point has a specific focus), while ground battles tend to be replete with heavy casualties, proficiency, and gallantry, they often are decisively concluded in some manner. There might be a stalemate, or a victory so minor the winners think to themselves, "Fucking Hell, we might as well have stayed home.", more often than not a side (usually Kantaria) will capture at least 20 km and/or inflict many losses, and sometimes there is a critical and systemic collapse that results in a massive victory. In World War 1, maybe 5 to 10 km of territory or killing a few more soldiers was a major success. Ultimately, the Allies were able to take more hemorrhaging than Germany once America gave them fresh blood and enthusiasm, and strategic matters of manpower and industry caused Germany's defeat rather than an invasion of their homeland (which would have occurred sooner or later, of course, but usually it happens sooner). Takomenian warfare is tragically lethal, but at least the front lines move somewhat swiftly.

General Traits and Features With all that explained (and you are a great person if you actually read all that), I'll expound the remaining characteristics and such of Takomenian ground warfare.

1.) Fronts are typically occupied by one or two 'grand armies', the equivalent of our 'army groups' (and Soviet Russia's 'fronts'). These grand armies can contain 300-600k troops. A front, therefore, can convulse violently as over 2m combatants fight each other in the largest battles and campaigns. Even the smallest Front-level engagements have 600k simultaneous combatants.

2.) Kantaria fights under a doctrine of blitzkrieg and offensive momentum. Thus, Kantaria and Roketsune have almost a neurotic fixation on resuming general offensive operations, and they thus are usually the ones to launch major ground operations.

3.) Ground assets include marines and paratroopers, such troops and tactics Kantaria is the indubitable master of. Theoretically, these can add another 300k combatants to a battle if they're all deployed at once, more if the enemy uses theirs as well. These help ensure battles which end in victory are mobile maneuver battles.

4.) About 50% or more of the time, whenever I embark on a major project or endeavor, I envision a massive ground offensive. Sometimes an aerial or artillery offensive makes more sense to me, but, often visions of heroic Kantarians assaulting positions and fighting a war no one wants to fight will flood my mind. Sometimes, IRL, it just feels like a bitter and terrible battle to get anything done, and often that battle is with myself. So, a violent and sudden ground offensive seems to be the most fitting interpretation of my life events.

5.) Kantaria's combatant forces often do not even match those of the enemy numerically when they take to the field, though the disparity has somewhat declined. A perfect example of the numerical disparities is the Western Campaign earlier in the year. Kantaria's grand mobilizations brought 1.2m regular soldiers to the Western Front, but the enemy alliance mobilized 1.8m total, with a similarly proportionate disparity of panzers. Kantaria's forces are just so well led, so motivated, equipped, and pissed off at the whole stalemate there, that they were able to overcome an extremely hardened defensive line manned by 50% more soldiers regardless. This, of course, cost a great deal of time, energy, materiel, and lives, but they won.

6.) Fortifications beyond hurriedly dug entrenchments typically are to some degree reinforced with large-caliber artillery turrets, which take a substantial amount of time to transport and install. Fortresses (whether they're coastal or inland) and front lines will commonly feature guns in size up to those of capital ships, which gives the defenders an advantage over the field artillery that would be used against them. Sometimes the super-large cannons are brought right to the front line to maximize the defenders' reach (which would also aid them if they go on the offensive), at the expense of higher risk of being knocked out of action. This further reinforces the primacy of artillery in battles.

How a Typical Battle Plays Out

There is a great deal of variation between battles and dialogue, of course. However, this is a general guideline to how a major ground battle proceeds.

1.) Major preliminary bombardment from all available assets is conducted to knock out transportation and logistical infrastructure, demoralize the enemy, and destroy or attenuate sections of the front line. Sometimes this might be started at the same time as the invasion, but usually not. This may last a few hours or a week.

2.) Most available assets are sent to attack. If it is a coastal area, marines and naval forces will join the battle. Otherwise, only the regular army and the paratroopers. 100s of thousands of soldiers start trading fire very quickly, while panzers surge past the fortified lines (they will take fire from turrets and the like, obviously) and attempt to encircle segments of the line while simultaneously repulsing the counterattacking enemy armor. If the panzers cannot do both of those things and the infantry cannot achieve breakthroughs, the defender usually wins.

3.) If major breaches are achieved, reserve forces are sent in to contain the flows, which can lead to terrible melee fighting if both sides are very spirited and/or desperate. One or both sides have the option of attempting to utilize nuclear weapons to change the course of the offensive. The attackers are most vulnerable to nuclear weapons unless the defenders have been driven onto open ground after a retreat or a successful previous attack, but they might not get through point-defense and they are indiscriminately lethal. A division or army caught out in the open can lose 10s of thousands in an instant.

4.) The attack might fail, leading the attackers to either postpone the offensive or resign themselves to defensive warfare for an extended period of time (or, occasionally, a headlong retreat). The attack might succeed somewhat, gaining substantial territory from an enemy that was able to orderly withdraw. The attack might succeed massively, causing the destruction of one or more armies and loss of 100 km or more. Usually, either casualties are more or less even, or one side suffers 2 or more for every 1 they cause.

Naval Warfare

I don't know why, but, naval warfare has always had a special place in my heart and mind. In fact, I want to get back on EVE Online (a spaceship MMORPG game, essentially) as I write this, though that is not practical for various reasons. Warfare in general, obviously, is my autistic obsession and manner of expression, but naval combat is just especially cool. It is fundamentally different from other types of combat, as ships are essentially floating and mobile military bases. I guess that makes it... I guess naval combat has the capacity to be less bloody but also wilder, because shells and missiles generally slam into armor and weapons rather than maul and vaporize helpless soldiers. Despite my fixation on warfare and this world, I actually have a great aversion to seeing or imagining someone being hurt. My imagination and the images I would commission are/would be very sanitized. All the heroism and gallantry with none of the bloodshed and pain. With naval fighting, there's an awestriking display of various weapons, but people aren't often hurt (well, RL is different, as we lack such durable armor). 

Anyway, ground warfare has many similarities with the First World War, but naval warfare has many with the Second as well as the First. Of course, it is dissimilar in many ways, too. It shares a couple with the new Battlestar Galactica, too (I didn't watch the whole series and the ending sucked royally and it was far too depressing, but they had PAWESOME combat scenes!).

Similarities to the World Wars

1.) The main general weapon type is tube artillery. Warships and most artillery platforms in general are of the railgun (electromagnetic) rather than traditional (chemical) type, but, their prevalence and versatility is extremely akin to the ships of WW2.  Warships not only rely very heavily on cannons, but those cannons are dual-purpose. Before the advent of surface-to-air missiles (and now lasers, a nascent weapon), ships would use various calibers of artillery (even their main guns) to destroy incoming aircraft. Cannons which could be used to engage both surface and aerial targets were called dual-purpose/DP. Ships do not have many cannons these days and usually missiles are used to destroy aircraft, but, the Takomenian warships have many guns and they are used as a primary anti-air/point defense weapon. 

2.) Takomenian navies deploy heavily armored artillery-based capital ships, and they are a primary naval weapon. The primacy of battleships quickly evaporated during WW2, because they were massive floating targets with very weak armor relative to what they stood against. However, up until aircraft were proven to be far superior to the main cannons of battleships, battleships were seen as very powerful weapons of war. A great deal of the firepower projected and withstood in the various battles on my world is from/by artillery-based capital ships. 

3.) Takomenian capital ships utilize primary, secondary, and tertiary artillery systems. If you have watched many clips from combat footage aboard ships during WW2, you'll remember that often small-caliber cannons were used to shoot down enemy aircraft, and sometimes the larger guns of 3-6 inches or so were also used. If you have done much perusing of naval military articles and documentaries, you may have noted capital ships also use a secondary artillery system to engage surface targets that are closer. The various capital ships of the four nations tend to have at least primary and secondary turrets, serving the same roles that the ones on Earth battleships served. Unlike the WW2 ships, however, a sizable minority of their platforms are energy-based, which will comprise much or most of the 'tertiary' turrets.

Dissimilarities to the World Wars

1.) Warships are very, VERY durable (and also panzers and fortifications which use armor). Ships IRL do not actually give much protection to components, systems, and crews, and never have since maybe the first decade or two after the advent of modern ironclads. I have read and heard various accounts of battleships in combat, and one thing I have marveled at is how little protection even battleships attain from its armor. Small shells and machine guns would bounce off or cause small dents, yeah. But, shells from other battleships or maybe even heavy cruisers would rather easily take out a major system, or even kill an admiral who just happened to be at the impacted spot. It sort of seemed like there was no point in having armor at all, the shells would cause such damage regardless of the thick belt of steel (I even read once a destroyer survived an impact from a battleship shell because there was so little armor/hull it passed through rather than exploded). The Yamato was perhaps the most heavily armored ship of all time, but I think it took less than 40 bomb and torpedo hits to sink (and was severely crippled long before then).

In contrast, ships in Takomenian naval battles will withstand many, many shells and even torpedoes. Strategic nuclear weapons will only instantly destroy or disable smaller vessels, and tactical nuclear weapons might do 10-20% armor damage to one facing of the largest ships. It's actually very similar to EVE Online, and also Battlestar Galactica. In fact, if you were on the Procyonidae (the flagship of Kantaria), unless a nuclear weapon strikes, your only indication of being in combat would be from alarms and announcements. It's very quiet and serene within the larger ships even as massive shells periodically strike the armor.

2.) The artillery ranges in Takomenian naval warfare are extremely great compared to WW2 or even today (though a few ships do have railguns now). In WW2, 20-30 km was high to extreme range for even a 16-inch gun. The secondary turrets routinely have a range of several times that, and the primary turrets of capital ships have an ordinary range of over 400 km, which might have been the average operating range of a WW2 naval warplane. The only way the opposing ships would ever see each other in my world aside from freak occurrences would be electronically. However, the time from firing to target at extreme ranges would be about the same for both scenarios, since railguns can fire shells with 10-20x more speed then chemical-based artillery. So, on Takomen, Roketsune might order his primary weapons officer to fire on an enemy battleship 450 km away, and they won't start scoring any hits for 20-40 seconds.

3.) Largely because of #2, battleships often will engage other battleships on Takomen. In WW2, it was unusual for battleships to get a chance to target other ships of its class (and not that common to be able to fire at ANY ship due to the ascendance of the carrier). On Takomen, this is rather routine, and the navies do not generally send smaller ships after larger ones because a battleship-sized vessel would probably obliterate destroyer-sized ships long before they would have closed to within primary weapons range. However, Takomenians do often send aircraft after ships, which is what navies generally did in WW2.

4.) Coastal batteries and fortifications are extremely powerful and very extensively relied upon on Takomen. WW2 saw the decline of both the battleship and heavy coastal fortifications (and fortifications in general). There were cases where coastal positions caused major damage to naval forces, particularly if backed up by field artillery (unlike fortress guns, field artillery can move) or the enemy proceeded idiotically. However, coastal fortifications were marginalized during WW2, even the great fortress guns of Germany on parts of the Atlantic Wall. As Takomen has extremely superior armor and also reliable point-defense weapons, though, static defenses can withstand a massive amount of firepower through passive and active means. The most heavily fortified bases on Takomen, Marietta and Kalobol, would require such a large and sustained concentration of firepower to suppress completely that neither side has attempted to do this in one great attack, because it would be suicide. The Procyonidae once engaged Kalobol directly with only moderate naval support, and it was quickly overwhelmed by a blizzard of ordnance before Roketsune frantically ordered a retreat and use of emergency defenses.

5.) Repairs and construction are FAR more rapid on Takomen than on Earth, now or before. I'm reasonably sure repairs are somewhat more rapid now, but, in WW2, even America might need months to repair a severely damaged ship. Capital ships would require at least a year or two for full assembly from start to deployment, and longer when the design time is factored in. In more modern times, the USS Cole's repair process didn't even start for about 3 months, and over a year was needed to fully repair it. In contrast, even very severe damage can be repaired in less than a week, and Kantaria's current flagship (albeit its far more primitive original form) was completed less than two years after it's revolution began. It's never needed more than week to fully repair damage incurred from a battle.

6.) Submarines are not a primary manner of warfare on Takomen. Perhaps that's not realistic for their era, or maybe it is. I just don't imagine them whenever I contemplate naval warfare. They do exist and I have at times imagine one landing a torpedo strike, and they might play a major role if there were the need for extensive maritime trading like there was in WW2. But, they're not feasible primary weapons of war given the levels of technology of various things and the degree of nautical militarization of the four powers.

General Traits and Features

Now that those concepts have been expounded, I'll expound the remainder.

1.) Naval battles are as much a battle of logistics as one of outright destruction. Since the defensive capabilities of bases and ships are far in excess of Earth's, there is a tremendous amount of tonnage being let loose with relatively little effect. Additionally, point-defense systems are quite effective, so many shells don't even make it to the target. Both fleets might go through an entire day's supply of ordnance and only severely damage or destroy 20% of the enemy, even less if they have to overcome a base's anti-projectile measures as well as the ships'. In a very fierce battle with a fleet within the secondary range of its home base, maybe 10% will be destroyed or disabled, 10-20% more damaged but functional. That also means the two sides have to expend massive amounts of manpower and materiel effecting repairs, which are extremely rapid compared to reality here. 

2.) Kantaria is the only nation with a large corps of marines (Maritime Assault Command), which means it will frequently have to land troops and other assets in addition to contending with the enemy ships and forts. While this grants it a unique ability to outflank and encircle the enemy on land, it also means a large portion of their capabilities must be diverted to other roles, which means lower damage to the enemy fleet and higher damage to their own. When I make an introduction in a new location or site, particularly as part of a greater plan, I envision that as an attack by marines.

3.) As with ground battles, naval battles tend to be epic conflagrations. Sometimes they last a day, sometimes they last several. The battles themselves are about the same length they might be here. The amount of time ships are under fire and firing probably is far longer than the reality here, because of armor and point-defense differences (here the former is next to worthless, the latter barely exists), and also weapons fire is less accurate on Takomen than it is IRL. So, the battle itself doesn't last long, but a lot more of it is spent directly engaging opposing ships, supporting ground forces, and defending endangered vessels. 

To give you a more tangible example of what I'm referring to, have you watched some of the battle sequences in Star Trek and the remake of Battlestar Galactica? If so, you perhaps know what I mean when I say Takomenian fleet battles are akin to the latter. If not, I'll explain. In Star Trek, ships are destroyed or crippled with frightening ease. A few phaser volleys or a well-timed torpedo will destroy or critically damage a regular ship. Only maybe the super-villain's ship will be able to survive a protracted intense battle. One hit and the whole damned ship feels it, even the Enterprise. The speed in the latter is much, much slower. The Galactica had limited or zero armor fitted and doesn't have energy shields, yet is on multiple occasions struck by many missiles and shells. In the final ship battle scene, it warps in, and the enemy base gives a constant and prolonged barrage of heavy shells and PD fire immediately. Inside the ship, there isn't extreme physical indication of the ship being attacked. It just sits there and takes dozens or even hundreds of heavy strikes over a couple of minutes until the base's defenses are deactivated. 

4.) Fleet battles are remarkably similar to those in EVE Online in the regard that virtually all systems and components require large amounts of energy. If you've played that game much, you know you have to ensure your ship under normal combat conditions will have the power to run everything simultaneously long enough to do the job, which is difficult to achieve even when your pilot is well trained. Even armor resistance modules cost a fair amount of energy (and the repair modules even more). If you use 'active' hardeners and you cannot power them, your effective armor integrity plummets. Takomenian ships also run power through their armor belts to triple or more the effective strength (though repairs usually can only be done at port). Power is also needed to power primary weapons, which is often or usually the case in EVE (missiles and projectile-types don't, but I'll save you the explanation of the differences). Of course, as is the case IRL, ships also use power to propel themselves, and can divert more power to engines than usual temporarily to achieve flank speed. 

Thus, as in EVE, vessels in the field often must prioritize when there is a high demand for armor, speed, and weapons. Ships are never stationary in combat and not powering armor is unconscionable, so any remaining output is usually diverted to weapons when there's a need. Weapons can be staggered, fired at a lower rate, or powered less per salvo at the expense of range and projectile speed. It is difficult for even the Procyonidae to maximally run all of its systems constantly, much less most of the rest of the fleet. Sometimes even the flagship needs to reduce power to weapons and go to flank speed to retreat or maneuver, just like people often do in EVE.

How Naval Battles Typically Play Out

1.) One side will begin a major operation (usually Kantaria), either purely naval in nature or in concert with regular ground forces, mounting an incursion of some sort to achieve its goals. Available field and fortress artillery, airpower, and naval power is deployed by both sides. Usually the Procyonidae is deployed and leads the operation. The goal is usually either territory or a weakening of a part of the line, rather than the enemy fleet.

2.) If the attack is a quick sortie rather than a large multi-day operation, the battle is rather short. The attackers bring whatever naval firepower they can to bear on the targets during their several hours in the field, while fending off counterfire from the various defenders' branches. Both fleets on that front generally are fully engaged, but within or not far from their home port's primary weapons range. If the battle is part of a campaign, the fleets will be spending far more time and ordnance shooting at each other over a period of days until one must withdraw to the home port indefinitely, leading to massive repair queues and emergency prioritization.

3.) Sometimes the goal was some destruction inland, in which case it usually is achieved and the respective fleets go to their home port for repairs over a day or two. Sometimes the battle continues for 2 or more days, which means the front line is probably moving as ships stream into secondary ports for emergency repairs. The Western Campaign's middle phase was a massive series of naval confrontations which ultimately forced the Wesitarian-Bengarian combined fleet to retreat from the line of battle. Long after the main naval battle ended, ships on both sides were being repaired all along the coast and thus reducing the effective combat strength of the respective alliances. Crews on the Eastern coast were sent west and even given amphetamines to increase their ability to man machines and the like, and even the maritime Kantaria almost ran out of components to use for repairs. 

Aerial Warfare

This section will not be quite as long, as there isn't as much to comment on, especially since much of the relevant stuff has been addressed already. Aerial warfare on Takomen shares similarities with World War 2 and the present. It tends to be one of the more constant and less intermittent types of aggression, though sustained campaigns are frequently conceived and executed. Warfare on both the tactical and strategic levels does happen, though the latter tend to focus on purely military infrastructure rather than industrial infrastructure which produces military objects.

General Characteristics

1.) Kantaria is the nation with the lowest capacity to field a dedicated bomber force. Like Nazi Germany, Kantaria is geared for blitzkrieg warfare, which tends to focus on tactical and operational levels. Germany never had a large strategic bomber force, only tactical bombers. It was great at winning battles, but could never defeat an enemy on a strategic level alone. Kantaria uses so much of its still-developing industrial capacity to produce sufficient numbers of panzers, infantry equipment, ships, etc, that there isn't much of a capability remaining to replace bombers and bombs. What few strategic bombers they have are often used on tactical and operational/campaign levels (fortifications, troop positions, etc). During the momentous Western Campaign they fielded a strategic bomber force of over 1,700, but that took months of conservation and planning to achieve. Now they usually have around 800 or so at most. Their enemies routinely have over 1k each, and have higher Attrition Thresholds. 

2.) Stand-alone aerial campaigns usually represent preparations for a major project IRL, whereas ground and naval operations represent the actual attempt to complete the project. If something requires a very high level of research and preparatory work before the main stage can begin, this usually plays out on Takomen as a bombardment campaign of airpower and artillery. Enemy aerial campaigns generally represent a series of setbacks or concerns in rapid succession, which will worsen my emotional state and complicate the completion of whatever I had set out to do. There's one going on right now, in fact, since everything from tenant issues to internet outages to new health problems are happening ALL RIGHT NOW IN JULY!!! Often these sudden and unavertable problems are envisioned as attacks on the Kantarian home port by stealth bombers. Speaking of which...

3.) Stealth technology is less effective proportionately on Takomen than IRL. Bengaria and Wesitaria have a larger industrial capacity and have diverted more scientific capacity towards bombardment technology, including stealth. However, 'stealth' on Takomen doesn't make an warplane invisible or unengageable- it only reduces the range at which they can be detected and fired upon. A fleet of regular bombers approaching, for example, Kantaria's Marietta base, could be fired on from the primary ranges of the ships and fortress weapons, which can exceed 400 km. A fleet of stealth bombers might not be conclusively detected until maybe 50 km or less, and by the time the fleet and anti-aircraft guns can open up, bombs are starting to fall. Those bombers are often faster and more heavily armored, which means they'll almost always be able to drop their ordnance on the target. That being said, they often perish from fire from air defense platforms since they are a favored target and have less armor.

4.) Surface-based opposition to airpower largely mirrors the WW2 variety. While SAMs and laser cannons do exist and are used extensively, Kantaria especially tends to rely upon artillery to both down planes and destroy falling ordnance. If you could fly above a Takomenian bombing target, you would see a real blizzard of traditional flak from large-caliber cannons. Flashes from the muzzles of large guns could be seen while you would see and feel shells exploding around you, particularly if you were over a Kantarian base or fleet. Kantaria tends to rely more on artillery despite its somewhat lower effectiveness because it massively values versatility, and those cannons can be brought to bear on ground troops when not engaging aircraft, whereas SAMs and laser cannons usually cannot.

5.) Bombers tend to fly at altitudes that are between WW2 and the present, rather than from orbit or sub-orbit. Supposedly the future of aerial warfare is to have bombers and fighters practically be in outer space, but my only research and source of information on that exact topic was some television show on the History Channel once (any of you old enough to remember when the fucking History Channel ACTUALLY FOCUSED ON HISTORY?!). Regardless of whether that is the direction most experts in this field believe we're heading in, planes are often still in blue skies when they are in combat in Takomen. Lower altitudes mean less time the defenders have to destroy munitions while falling, so it might be realistic regardless.

6.) Aircraft use primarily energy weapons and missiles to engage other aircraft, and thus often engage at prolonged ranges. Occasionally the traditional dogfight will occur and the contest becomes a bit less impersonal, but usually planes are targeting and shooting at each other from distances of 50+ km.

7.) Airplanes are more resilient on Takomen, both due to armor and active defensive systems. Panzers and vessels generally are far more durable, but bombers especially are able to take a few hits and parry many more. Tactical bombers are rather resilient to either explosive or thermal damage, while interceptors have limited armor and that armor is primarily anti-thermal (missiles can be downed, but lasers can't be blocked and are instantaneous).

Nuclear Warfare

This section will be the briefest, as there isn't much to say on this specifically. As does Earth, Takomen does have atomic weapons. Unlike Earth, they are more apt to use them, and they are not prone to destroying their own planet with them.

1.) Atomic strikes generally represent some acute stressor or significant event, or a significant expense to effect a breakthrough, and are either tactical or strategic. A tactical nuclear strike is something that causes great upset or paralysis temporarily, but has no greater effect. Open verbal or textual hostilities, becoming furious or highly uncomfortable from a topic or comment (particularly while in the field; the group of people I'm surrounded by in a social event suddenly discussing circumcision and Judaism in a cavalier manner would count), or a major piece of equipment failing, would be portrayed as a tactical nuclear strike. If I elect to expend a fair amount of money or other resource to push through a project, that might also be envisioned as a tactical nuclear strike.

A strategic nuclear strike generally represents an event or revelation which has very negative and destabilizing effects for an entire front or even higher, acting against a person in a manner which will endanger them beyond pissing them off, and a sudden and glorious development. Suddenly learning of a debacle in the field would generally be interpreted as such a strike on the Procyonidae as well, causing severe armor damage and multiple system failures from EMP. A very sudden and major boon might be portrayed as a strategic nuclear bomb being detonated on an enemy base or an exposed army.  

2.) Unlike on Earth, Takomenian nations don't produce massive quantities of nuclear weapons, so there are not these epic stockpiles which can destroy the planet many times over in theory. They are not insane peoples and they recognize they can only do this so many times before their environment starts to be seriously affected. 

3.) Atomic weapons are usually not used anywhere near heavily populated areas, nor are they used on targets other than military. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to make the Bengarians less ethical in such regards given the crap my own mind comes up with to attack me, but, the war and the world it's fought on is supposed to be idealized.

4.) Nuclear attacks do not always succeed because of point-defense capabilities, and sometimes wouldn't work regardless. If the soldiers on a front have been sufficiently fortified (entrenchments morph to full and enclosed static defenses), detonating even hydrogen bombs on top of them might be pointless.