#1 Tip for Newbies????

[Capt_War]

Anyone have a #1 basic but good tip for newbies??

[ January 15, 2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Capt_War ]

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by Capt_War:
Anyone have a #1 basic but good tip for newbees??Read this (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=004792) and practice, practice, practice etc.

KC

[xerxes]

Concentrate your firepower. (and the corollary, try to stay out of the way of your opponents concentrated firepower.) Easy to say, hard to do.

[ January 13, 2003, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

[JasonC]

Look for the lopsided match-ups, the ones you win completely for free, not the even match-ups, the "fair fights". Save your men for the stuff they can do that well, and string together such "clean wins". Mindless mashing of like on like, without looking for the "angles" that let you hurt the enemy without being hurt, is the number one newbie mistake.

Examples - tanks machinegunning infantry caught in the open. Light mortars shelling a gun from out of sight, by using an HQ to spot for them. Indirect artillery fire smashing concentrated, good order enemy infantry. Guns firing from ambush at single targets they can reliably kill. Tanks killing other tanks they outmatch in armor terms, or at the right ranges. Hitting guns or tanks while they are facing the wrong direction or shooting at something else, before they can turn to reply. Your own infantry mopping up broken enemy infantry before they rally.

Examples of the stuff to avoid - he sent 2 platoons of infantry into those woods, I'll send two platoons of infantry into those woods. Only marginally better - sending 3. His tank can kill mine and mine can kill his; let's see who wins. I'll just stay another minute and see if I can take out that gun before it kills my tank. These are "mindless mashing of like on like".

[ January 13, 2003, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Have a plan, but don't fall in love with it.

Learn to analyze the map and identify key terrain and then either plan on how to take it or at least keep the enemy from doing so.

Take your time to set up your attacks and then be decisive. IOW build up your attack like water behind a dam and then hit the enemy all at once. Dribs and drabs in an attack will only get you killed.

Don't worry too much about things you can't control (bogging, weird AI moves) just deal with things as they come up and make the most of them. Remember even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day. Don't just give up on something because it seems usless.

#1 Have fun.

[Ex Bellator]

1) Take your time.

That's it really. Especially if you play PBEm or TCP. Build up the action gradually, keep high value units hidden until the mid or end game when threats have been identified.

[Fionn]

Read AARs. (preferrably with movie files attached). It is the best way to see what works for others and why. Gains you lots of experience very quickly if you do it BUT you have to be willing to improve/change ( which few are).

[ciphrix]

hey fionn can u put some links up to these AARs with movie files, and if ur not to busy, make something like a nwebie guide to CM but instead of text only or text and pic (like many of them), have a example movie of a battle on subjects of tank tactics, infantry defence etc, that way we can learn by watching how others do things, and thats a much faster way of learning

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Fionn:
Read AARs. (preferrably with movie files attached). It is the best way to see what works for others and why. Gains you lots of experience very quickly if you do it BUT you have to be willing to improve/change ( which few are).I heartily second this. Reading experienced players'(like Fionn) AARs is VERY eductional and has certainly helped me become a better player.

To take this one further, write your own AARs. Or at least, take notes of what you're doing while you give orders and why you're doing it so when the battle is done, you can go back and analyze what you did right and wrong, where you were lucky, where you relied on a 'gamey' trick that works against the AI but probably not against a competent human player, and what you should have done differently.

Cheers,

YD

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:
1) Take your time.
That can also backfire when done during the battle, for actual movement.

Thinking too much before the battle can mean coming up with overly complex plans which are doomed to fall apart and/or getting hoocked into assumptions about the enemy forces and positions which are purely a result of fantasy. During the battle, second-guessing and overdone "optimization" make your overall force fall apart. At the end of the battle, brillant new ideas will usually make you lose even what you gained.

Time is invested right at these places:

1) terrain study. During the battle you never want to re-analyze the terrain, you instantly have to know where cover, approch paths etc. are.

2) force analysis. But only of your own force. Enemy force info will usually be too incomplete and/or deceptive. Enemy force analysis must be done, of course, but not with much thinking, do not enhance facts and obvious conclusions with assumptions.

3) After-battle analysis. What of what you did worked and what didn't? Both on a small scale and for the overall battle.

Movement during the battle should be dictated by a plan, formations and be simple. It must be paired with deceptive moves unless you are very safe from observation before you strike, otherwise you become too predictable.

[OGF Keller]

Not 1, but a few:

--Maintain Unit Cohesion -- CMBB, as in the real world, gives you props for keeping command structure intact. It's not always possible, and things happen, but the more you can keep your guys together and organized, the more powerful you can be.

--Find good cover and defilade positions -- that means hull down/reverse slope positions/behind buildings for your armor. Woods, scattered trees, heavy buildings, reverse slopes for your infantry. Sneak through wheatfields.

--Achieve local fire superiority on the attack. More on them than they have on you.

--Find good fields of fire, enfilade positions -- you want hit the other guy from multiple angles.

[ January 13, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Good advice redwolf

Remember, you don't have to think alot you just have to think well.

Be decisive. Even if you mess up at least your guys didn't get killed waiting for something to happen. Just find what you did wrong and fix it next time.

[Redwolf]

This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way:

When concentrating your forces on one point, that means the one point is not where your units hang out, but where your units can shoot at. Platoon coordination is done by operating toward the same point to shoot at.

While it is obvious that you shouldn't bunch up, what I did for some time was moving with wide space and then concentrating only for a decisive blow, too fast for enemy artillery to react.

However, even though I successfully avoided getting artillery onto my head it still turned out to be very unhealty. I had occurances of bunches of tanks being shot up by a single enemy tank or gun with very slow turn rate (Panzer IV/70, M10, PaK43/41) that I wouldn't have with more space. In CMBB the direct fire that people can deliver instantly to attacking infantry is so effective for a wide area around the impact that it also puts a halt on infantry concentrations even if you are swift enough not to get hit by artillery.

Jeep rushes are out, too smile.gif

[Hat Trick]

Maybe not number 1 tip, but some common newbie mistakes (ok, mistakes I made):

1) Let my tanks lead my infantry. Tanks have armor, so they should be out in front, right? Unfortunately, no. Unless there are very wide open spaces on the map, tanks and other vehicles are vunerable to hidden anti-tank guns and infantry anti-tank weapons (not to mention other vehicles). You need to use your infantry to screen/probe all woods and buildings before bringing a tank within 100-200 meters of such areas. In fact, its often a good idea to keep your vehicles completely hidden (behind woods or a ridge) until well into the game, when you have a better sense of where your opponent's positions are. Even then, you usually want to keep your tanks well back from the front line; a tanks advantage over infantry is its range, so use this advantage.
Caveat: In wide open maps, one can lead with tanks over open terrain where infantry might get cut down by enemy machineguns or other fire. Also, against heavily armored tanks, a more lightly armored but faster tank can be raced ahead to get in side or rear shots at the heavy tank.

2)Put my anti-tank gun or machine gun on top of a hill with a wide line of sight. After all, this way the gun can cover a wide field of fire, hitting multiple targets. Unfortunately, being able to hit multiple targets means that one can also be hit by multiple targets. What happens to your anti-tank gun when 3,4,5 or more tanks come into view at the same time? Better to place the anti-tank gun so that it oversees a narrow field of fire, over key terrain, where you expect the enemy to bring his vehicles singly. The same holds true, to a lesser extent, for machineguns, especially in CMBO, where their supressive effect is less, well, effective. For machineguns, you want a fairly wide field of view, but not one so long that enemy tanks can blast away at them. Its often useful to set up machineguns to fire across the width of the battlefield, rather than its length, so to speak.

I've made many other mistakes as well, but these two stand out as the ones that I think other new players may make.

[Silvio Manuel]

Read the CMBO strategy guide (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000812;p=) , which is very relevant even for pure-CMBB use (great basics).

[Fionn]

Ciphrix,

I actually had planned that (an interactive, downloadable tactics and strategy guide with associated movie files and scenarios for teaching/learning purposes hyperlinked into the text at salient points) as well as a weapons database programme which would have included tactical tips on how to use the weapons ( as well as their important tactical-technical characteristics and pictures). I actually had a fair bit of both of the above type out and a coder and artist involved.

THEN I got told to burn in hell/ calls for banning etc for asking people to give a bit of consideration to non-American civies who died in the aftermath of the 11-9-2001 anniversary and my enthusiasm to "give something freely" to the community dried up. ALL innocent civies who die are equal. Sure maybe I should have started a new thread ( and I apologised for not doing so) but the reaction was egregious and the failure of most to do anything about it was almost Chamberlinian in its error.

So, short answer. I fully intend to never, ever produce anything of help to people in this community in the future. The only caveats to that are my friends and, of course, newbies. You stated you were a newbie so I sent you files to help... I never received acknowledgement of receipt BTW did you receive it/find it helpful? Sorry but it seems that people are still not clear on my position so I thought it worthwhile to clarify it one more time.

P.s. YankeeDog, cool sig. I LOVE it ;)

[ciphrix]

Well, no cos my email is on exclusive and it probably sent it to the junk mail, however I did thank all the feedback and the help I got, and YOU were the main dude giving me helpful tips and even took to the time to sent me files regardless if I got them or not. So if I didn't make my gratitude clear in that post, I apologise and yes, THANK YOU for taking the time to help a noob.

[General Bolt]

Play early, play often. Ignore the wife, kids, and job. :rolleyes: Don't ignore the dog it could get real messy.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Fionn:


[snip]

P.s. YankeeDog, cool sig. I LOVE it ;) Thanks. It's a little snip of wisdom I picked up in Sociology class back in college, and ever since I've found it applicable to life on a number of levels. I've also found it quite applicable to my CM strategizing. ;)

If I've got the meaning of yours figured correctly (i.e., the Latin), it's rather ironic considering what you allude to above. I must have been offline when the fracas developed as I don't remember the thread in question (and I'm sure I would remember it if I'd seen it).

I'm sorry to hear that the ugly actions of a few have damaged the community as a whole, but I can't blame you for not feeling much like participating after an experience like that.

Regards,

YD

[Redwolf]

Another thing new people do wrong:

If you slug it out with an enemy you often gain a wrong impression how strong he is or still is. You directly see the damage done to your guys, but you only have spotty info on his damage. He will look scarily strong, but do not bail out. His damage will usually be much heavier than it seems. Do not back out too early, slugging through may be the more successful strategy.

On the contrary, if you face an enemy you didnt slug it out with, which is only partially spotted then you better assume he is stronger than he looks.

Related to that is the rule of thumb to let artillery rain down one turn more than you think is right. You cannot se the damage you can clearly enough, and usually a turn more is very much worth it when you are targetted and through the spotting rounds anyway.

[CombinedArms]

To add a few specifics regarding redwolf's good point--damaged units don't always show their damage, but they may be significantly weakened by your fire. For example:

1. HT's may have lost a crew member and thus be unable to fire their MGs. If so, they're totally harmless.

2. Tanks may be shocked and thus unable to unbutton--or in CMBB, they have have lost their HQ tanks and be prone to panic and command delays.

3. Infantry squads may be sorely depleted, esp. if under tank or arty fire. Three squads down to one or two men each can look like a full strength platoon from a distance. (Another illusion can come from split squads. A platoon of split squads can look like two platoons.)

4. Even intact squads can be depleted of ammo.

5. Other squads that seem to be holding ground may be panicked or broken.

Study the map when the game is over to begin to pick up on this info--then remember the action on your part that caused this effect. Gradually, you'll be able to "read" the likely damage your actions have had on enemy units with fair accuracy. This can encourage you:
a) not to give up or lose heart

b) to push the attack or counter-attack at the right moment: i.e. when the enemy is likely to be depleted, broken or down on ammo.

It can be tricky, though. A unit that pulls back from the firing line might be panicked, but it also might have been deliberately withdrawn, etc., etc. It takes experience to learn to read all of this, and one still doesn't always get it right.

[Fionn]

Ciphrix,

Want a resend?

YD,

Very good points. Another couple I've come to appreciate through interaction on the forum is that "People see things not as they are but as THEY are" ( alternate but less snappy version "People see things not as those things are but as those people are") and "Some people are more interested in being RIGHT than in being CORRECT" ( that one comes up time and again in "factual" debates here on the forum).

As re: the Latin. Well, you are of course correct. Believe it or not you're the first person to ever comment on it. I take that as a sad reflection on the utter unimportance of such sentiments to the world at large. The world is a bunch of Chamberlains nowadays unfortunately.

Free snippet for your CM strategising "People never believe so completely as when presented with something they want to believe". IOW most people are so blinkered that when they see things beginning to go their way they'll suspend all their critical faculties and be led around by the nose for a considerable amount of time. Show him an attack where he expects you to attack and the odds of him keeping his reserve to meet your real main effort are absolutely minimal.

[ciphrix]

Fionn:
Yeah that would be real helpful if u can buddy, but not rush, so send it whenever you feel like it, and thanks dude.

Also, I haven't got teh chance to test this out, so this is going on basically nothing. If say you have a ATR dude shooting at a turret tank from the flank (tank that has a turret that can turn without the body turning), and assuming this tanks sees nothing else on teh map, would he turn his whold body (front facing ATR dude) therefore putting his thickest armour to bare?

If so, wouldn't that make a good ambush tactic? Have the tank turn to the ATR dude and maybe the 45mm can take it out from the rear. Like a distraction and then kill.

Thanks

[Fionn]

Theoretically yes but, in practice, you'd be foolish to rely on it.

No, what you want to do is create a firesack. Any half-competent site dealing with Soviet army tactics can explain the thinking behind this for you... Firesacks pretty much guarantee either lots of flanking fire OR lots of "dead frontal" enemy assaults. Either one is in your favour when you are defending.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Fionn:
Free snippet for your CM strategising "People never believe so completely as when presented with something they want to believe". IOW most people are so blinkered that when they see things beginning to go their way they'll suspend all their critical faculties and be led around by the nose for a considerable amount of time. Show him an attack where he expects you to attack and the odds of him keeping his reserve to meet your real main effort are absolutely minimal.Boy, have I ever fallen into that trap before! There's a fine line between exploiting the opportunities your opponent (and luck) present to you, and allowing yourself to be led by deception into disaster.

As I'm sure you'd agree, this concept is equally applicable on the defense; if you show an attacker defense where he thinks you will be defending, or an opening where he wants there to be one, you can control his plan of attack.

It seems to me that this whole idea is related to the RIGHT vs. CORRECT idea you bought up. It is remarkably easy fall into the trap of clinging to the belief that you are RIGHT about your opponent's intentions rather than continually analyzing whether or not you have sufficient evidence to be reasonably sure you are CORRECT about what's going on. . .

None of us come even close to attaining complete objectivity in any sphere. I have a lot more respect for (and am much more likely to listen to) people who at least try to examine their own assumptions with an objective eye occasionally. I suspect not coincidentally, such people seem to also make considerably more challenging PBEM opponents. . .

I must say I'm proud of myself for figuring out the Latin correctly as my knowledge of the language is pretty much limited to learning the origin of Latin roots in primary school grammar class.

Well, I've probably sidetracked this thread for long enough. If you ever feel like dispensing any more tactical wisdom, I'm all ears.

Cheers,

YD

[xerxes]

I'm almost always wrong in predicting what my opponent will do, in fact, I've stopped trying. I assume I'll be wrong. smile.gif

[ZOR58]

Fionn mentions reading and viewing AAR's. Where can you find good one to use and how can you tell the good examples from the bad?
Thanks.

[ciphrix]

Its abit hard for me to tell higher ground from lower, from some screenies I found some grided terrian but its for CMBO, was wondering if there is such a mod for CMBB? And if so, where can I get it?

[Edward Windsor]

Originally posted by ciphrix:
Its abit hard for me to tell higher ground from lower, from some screenies I found some grided terrian but its for CMBO, was wondering if there is such a mod for CMBB? And if so, where can I get it?Try Captain Wacky's creations here: http://www.cmmods.com/

Teddy

[Fionn]

YD,

Actually this concept is MOST applicable in defence since giving your opponent the initiative, allowing him to keep it but gradually leading him into a firesack is the most imperceptible of things if done correctly.

That is why I once argued that defenders moaning about attacker initiative and going spare trying to take it from him was stupidity exemplified. Instead they should count on turning this attacker's advantage AGAINST the attacker ( a little bit like using your opponent's mass and speed against him in Tae Kwando). Of course as is their wont on this forum people chose to misinterpret this and pretend I was saying initiative wasn't important so I left that discussion and topic.

I suggest you go and take the "What is God" ( it has a different name) test listed in the General Forum. I would suggest that those players who are best at CMBB (and have best made the switch from CMBO) are those people who score very well in that test since that test is actually a test of the ability to reason rationally and with rigorous internal consistency about an emotionally laden topic.

Self-criticism is emotionally laden and the ability to self-examine honestly and rigorously without making excuses or taking the easy way out is what separates the guys who are going to become good wargamers or chess players from those who are simply going to be the mediocre mass. (Not politically correct but true nonetheless.) Most people need others to critique them but then again most people end up lashing out at those who do, so even that fails for them.

They then end up posting threads to these fora asking for tactical advice either for a given scenario ( little more than "learning how to beat the boss" in an FPS... of limited value outside of that scenario/level and certainly not going to improve your overall play much if at all) or solicit advice from others re: their play ( which invariably ends up with lots of terrible advice and a smaller amount of good advice... this good advice is NOT internally consistent both within the topic being discussed or across the wide variety of topics the gamer wishes to learn about. Thus the gamer has difficulty fitting all the advice together. A VERY common issue brought up by repeat posters is that they cannot reconcile advice by one player in one thread re: ATGs with advice from another in another thread about infantry ( or whatever two examples take ur fancy). The reason for this is that the two pieces of advice are inconsistent since they come from two different schools of players. Unfortunately the gamer wishing to learn almost never seems to have done that most essential of things; "deep reflection" on what was said in order to incorporate them into a cohesive and internally consistent whole.

Of course all of this goes unnoticed and very few people ever realise the stunningly similar patterns of question-asking, answer-giving and future disasters which occurs because these factors are unrecognised both by those asking for advice and those giving it ( because neither party has ever thought deeply about the issue of teaching people how to think tactically and operationally and develop their OWN style).

So, the best things, IMO--- which I'm sure loads of people will happily tell you are BS ;) --- are:

1. Read AARs, watch movies of them and then reflect on what these guys did and what worked and didn't. Figure out which aspects might work for you and then integrate them into your play. If you identify major shortcomings in your play ( e.g. too slow) then work to eradicate them by constant practice.

2. Find a good thinker who understands MORE than just CMBB ( we can all find good CMBB players whose lessons will only apply in CMBB but they are worthless for your overall tactical and operational thinking IMO) and play him/her, get critiques from them and watch them play others. Discuss things with them and their opponents and then try to come up with your own style. If they try to force you to play their style (except in the earliest stages when your own style is likely to be extremely error-ridden) then you should drop out. Develop your own style which will probably be similar to but slightly differently flavoured than theirs.

That's what I, personally, find works anyway and was the ethos I was using in the tactics stuff I was typing for CMBB. It took longer and made for more complicated lessons but I think it is a superior approach.

[ January 16, 2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Specs]

Holy cats -- Fionn and JasonC both posting to the same thread! I feel like I've just plunged into a Las Vegas swimming pool after being lost for weeks in the desert...

One thing I didn't notice anyone mention but which, I think, deserves to be stressed to every newbie until it sinks in is to start playing against another human ASAP. Eighteen months ago or thereabouts, I foolishly reasoned along the lines of, "Gosh, I guess I should play against the CMBO AI until I can beat it soundly, then I can apply what I've learned to human opponents." I'm still paying for that stroke of genius, and probably always will...

The CMBB AI is an improvement, to be sure, but still no substitute for the real thing. Not much of a conversationalist, either.

[ciphrix]

Damn right, being a noob, I don't even make some of the dumb mistakes the AI does (some what to my delight).

It was 2 Panzer 38s vs my 1 Kv 2, I backed it up behind a dead tank and out of LOS, I thought it would do something like come around from both sides of the dead tank and therefore make me having to change the greatest direction to shoot both of them....not so, not only do they not follow me, but turn 180 degrees (showing their pretty rears) as well as bunch up.....now I'm no expert at this game, but that seems to be a pretty dumb thing to do, and they paid for it. Umm, out of sight, out of mind? If this was a "improvement", I'd hate to see how it was like before....

So yeah, if anyone is tired of getting their butts kicked by such as Fionn and JasonC and would like to dish some out, email me :D
I'd be happy to get my arse kicked up and down the map.

[Redwolf]

The is a true bug around the turn/rotate cmmand at the end of movement paths that is currently being discussed on the main forum. You might want to check the thread out.

Tanks, vehicles and pillboxes do not give cover to objects behind it in CMBO or CMBB, except when they burn and hence the smoke obscures view (why this mechanism cannot be extended to have the dead vehicle block view without smoke is bejond me, BTW).

I think the TacAI in CMBB is cause more problems than the oen in CMBO. I was always thinking the TacAI whinerin CMBO times were wrong, that the TacAI is adequate. But in CMBB I had an annoying number of clear screwups (unrealistic screwups) and totally uncomprehensible choices of paths etc. so far.

I don't know whether the code got worse of the fact that the game is more detailed exposed more existing problems or maybe I just look closer. Probably a mixture of all of that. But fact is the CMBB TacAI annoys me, the CMBO one didn't.

[ciphrix]

Really? Thats kinda dumb ain't it? A tank hiding behind another dead tank still gets shot at like his in the open? Are u sure, a game with such high attention to detail screws something so obvious? Or was that how it was?

Who knows, not me obviously, I'm just another dumb noob.

[Redwolf]

It's true.

You have to take into account that this would be a feature difficult to implement.

First, tanks, vehicles and pillboxes are just points in space in CMBO and CMBB, they have no dimensions you could use for detemining LOS.

Even if they had, the 3D engine right now makes most LOS calculations (with the exception of smoke and shot down buildings) in a totally static environment. Most of what is true in turn 1 is true in turn 30, with regards to LOS lines.

Last but not least it creates a TacAI and strategic AI nightmare. You would have to teach units to go around vehicles to have a field of fire (or to take cover). Take into account that the TacAI right now is so dumb it doesn't even know a wall is offering cover. Imagine how much of a leap it would be to make it take moving objects into account for cover.

And last of the last, I think it is good for the player. How so? Because we don't have enough control over tanks and resulting LOS. Imagine you move 4 tanks to a shooting point somewhere on the map. In CMBB you can just place them one after another and since they can shoot through each other. In reality they would have to go side-by-side or otherwise interleaved to have a free field of fire each. But I think it would be punishing the player in CM unrealistically. The player has no way to influence the exact end-of-path placing of a tank precisely enough. In reality the tanks would micromanage the positions of their tanks to achive a field of fire. You cannot do that in CM. So I think just assuming they did and giving them the open field of fire "for free" is overall a better choice for realistic gameplay.

Edit Thinking about it, I think it would be best to make them transparent for friendly fire (for the reasons given in the last paragraph) and LOS and fire blocking for enemies.

[ January 17, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[YankeeDog]

Fionn –

Interesting test. I ended up biting the "rational discourse about God is impossible" bullet, but that doesn't make me logically inconsistent, just weird (according to the test, anyway). I guess that makes me a 'high scorer'.

Your comments about defending and using the attackers' initiative against him and the similarities to some of the basic concepts of force redirection in martial arts are quite apt. One can argue that the defender, by anticipating and directing the attacker's energy, is effectively co-opting the attacker's initiative, rather than ceding initiative to the attacker. That is, does an attacker who allows the defender to control his actions through the use of ruse still maintain the initiative, or has he effectively ceded the initiative to the defender by allowing his actions to be controlled, however unwittingly?

You brought up Tae Kwon Do and the fundamental ideas of energy and counter-energy present in many eastern martial arts. Since I have studied TKD (and other martial arts) for quite some time, I thought I might put down some of the teaching from that sphere in regards the strategy of conflict. If you’re not interested in (or are already familiar with) these ideas, perhaps others would be interested in my musings (it’s a slow day at work. . .).

The Tae Kwon Do master I study under teaches that there are three basic strategies that can be implemented in any conflict:

1. Attack. This strategy relies upon the idea that the combatant who initiates attack generally has the advantage of moving first (i.e., the initiative). This is an inherently speed-based strategy. Theoretically, if I attack first and keep attacking, my opponent will be forced to continually react to my moves, never gaining space to initiate a counter-move. In this way, the best my opponent can do is continually block my attack, never mustering the energy for a counterblow himself and perpetuating a draw. If I can keep the attack up for long enough, eventually my opponent will make an error and I will gain an advantage. The weakness of this strategy is that its success is dependent upon keeping your opponent off-balance (and keeping yourself in balance!). If your opponent anticipates your next move, you are vulnerable to counterattack as all of your energy is going into attack, leaving little or none for defense.

2. Defense. In this tactic, I cede initiative to my opponent in an attempt to take advantage of the weakness that is inherently present in any attack in order to counterattack at my opponent’s most vulnerable spot. Theoretically, since I am focusing in watching for my opponent’s attack, it should be easier for me to read him and anticipate his moves in order to counterattack at the most opportune time and place. The danger inherent in defense is that my opponent will misdirect me with his attack and I will counterattack at a time and place that my opponent is anticipating, thereby exposing myself to attack.

3. Feint. This is the strategy that we have been discussing. Here, the martial artist masquerades as an attacker, but the initial attack is not his primary effort. In so doing he is hoping to draw his opponent into an anticipated counter and so be able to counter the counterattack at the most opportune time and place. The danger of this strategy is that, since the martial artist is splitting his energy between attacking (some energy must be committed to the initial attack in order to make it appear authentic) and defending (so as to prevent the anticipated counterstrike from landing), he is in danger of being caught ‘neither here nor there’. If the opponent simply attacks strongly and consistently, the martial artist will be unable to either defend effectively against the incoming blows, or muster sufficient energy to mount an effective counterattack since his energy is split between the Attack and the Defense.

Tae Kwon Do holds that none of these tactics is superior to the others. Rather, their effectiveness is interrelated. As the above descriptions imply, Attack is generally considered the most effective against an opponent who is employing the strategy of Feint, Defense is considered the most effective against Attack, and Feint is considered the most effective against Defense. A true master, therefore, must be equally adept at all three tactics, and employ them each as the situation dictates. To give a simple concrete example, assuming equal technical skill (i.e, both fighters equally competent at the raw mechanics of punching, kicking, moving, etc.), if one combatant always employs the strategy of Attack, once his opponent understands this pattern, he can move to the strategy of Defense and so gain an advantage.

Tae Kwon Do masters view this ‘mind game’ of the choice of Attack vs. Defense vs. Feint, with each combatant switching back and forth between these three strategies many times within one contest (and usually at blinding speed), as the fundamental determinant of victory vs. defeat.

I currently structure my CM strategizing on this basic triumvirate as well, although I must admit that much like the beginning martial artist who is still learning to kick and punch properly, I am still learning many of the basic techniques needed to implement the strategies effectively. The important thing to recognize in CM, I think, is that it is quite possible to use any of the three basic strategies in any tactical situation – i.e. it is possible to be the defender in a CM battle, but structure your defense around the “Attack” strategy, or to be the attacker in a CM battle, but structure your attack around the “Defense” strategy.

Anyway, I hope at least somebody else finds this stuff interesting.

Cheers,

YD

[Hammer]

Wow, a lot accurate, and well prose statements in here. I’m going to print them on nice paper and put them on the wall around my office! Just like when the Navy started pushing Deming’s Law, many upwardly mobile officers and senior enlisted folks used to put quotes of what we called “Deming ****’ around their spaces.

Of course there is no comparison between Deming **** and the "thoughts to fight by" I find here.

They will love this around the office:

“Remember even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.”

“Remember, you don't have to think allot you just have to think well.”

But the more tactically focused statements will get the most attention: o

[ January 17, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Hammer ]

[jtcm]

Fionn:

it's "Qui tacet, consentire videtur", not "Que tacet"

[this from a professional classicist. I'm terrible at CM, but still know Latin for my job]

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by jtcm:
Fionn:

it's "Qui tacet, consentire videtur", not "Que tacet"

[this from a professional classicist. I'm terrible at CM, but still know Latin for my job]I was wondering about that. . . I figured it was some wierd conjugation thing I didn't know about (not being a professional classicist and all ;) ).

[Fionn]

YD,

Couple of points...

"That is, does an attacker who allows the defender to control his actions through the use of ruse still maintain the initiative, or has he effectively ceded the initiative to the defender by allowing his actions to be controlled, however unwittingly?"

I believe that:
a) the defender can "guide" the attacker without having to use "ruses". Showing the enemy real strength where he expects to see it isn't a "ruse". It does however still accomplish the objective of causing a predictable attacker to re-evaluate his plan and alter it in a predictable way.

b) An attacker who is guided into a certain set of actions or on-map region maintains the initiative until the point in time the defender ACTS ( by moving his reserve to counter-attack or opening fire with his ambushing units etc etc). After all up until the instant the defender opens fire the attacker can make an unexpected choice which throws all the attacker's plans out of kilter and which will force the defender to engage in another OODA loop (whilst the attacker doesn't have to engage in an OODA loop). By this criteria it is the attacker who has the advantage in terms of potential OODA loops ( which is what we really mean when we talk about "initiative"...) and thus has the initiative.

Once the ambush is begun both sides must begin new OODA loops. Whichever side has the LEAST success in the ambush will have to re-orient most and enact a greater number of new decisions ( all of which takes time ) than the side which has the most success in the immediate aftermath of the springing of the ambush ( this side will have to re-orient and enact little).

I believe that while I am couching these discussions in lower-tactical level terms you can easily transcribe them into Tae Kwon Do euphemisms ;) . ( I am familiar with the form.)

" their effectiveness is interrelated. "

As are all things. To attempt attrition without maneuvre is as stupid as attempting maneuvre without attrition as is attempting to attack without being aware of defence as is defending without being open to the possibility of launching an attack.

" Tae Kwon Do masters view this ‘mind game’ of the choice of Attack vs. Defense vs. Feint, with each combatant switching back and forth between these three strategies many times within one contest (and usually at blinding speed), as the fundamental determinant of victory vs. defeat."

Of course ;) . What is true in Tae Kwon Do and life in general is also true in battle. Most people here view the on-screen battle as what is important. This is, IMO, a fundamentally flawed approach and I've been on record for years stating that the game is decided by the "mind game", the contest of wills and flexibility which goes on between the minds of the two opponents.

The "pieces" on the CMBB virtual battlefield are merely minor adjuncts to the mental battle going on between the two opponents. They are, if you wish to so phrase it, the "physical manifestation" of one's mental stance ( attack, feint, defence, ruse) and help to "strengthen" the impact of that mental stance on one's opponent.

At one time I used the phrase moral superiority to describe the effect of winning the mental battle ( this is the phrase used by writers of the calibre of Napoleon and Clausewitz to refer to the same issue) but some folks of course chose to state that I was claiming I was "morally better" than my opponents as if my morality could have any bearing on a CM game. Would this mean that if I was a burglar and thus "morally impure" in the eyes of some that my CM play MUST, necessarily, be worse than if I had never gotten a speeding ticket? It is a laughable concept but it is what they chose to take from the discussion and how they chose to misrepresent my point.

ANYWAYS... Suffice it to say that I've never lost the "physical" representation of battle ( the CMBB game) once I've won the mental aspect of the battle ( cowing the opponent psychologically). Of course the mental aspect of the battle is the most important aspect... All the great commanders knew this ( even Napoleon that great proponent of dreadful slaughter wrote that "In war the moral is to the physical as three is to one")... unfortunately most CM players don't seem to be even the slightest bit interested in acknowledging the existence of this aspect.

Caveat: Obviously you've got to have a good grounding in the basics of movement, fire and terrain analysis to get into the top, say, 20% of players but the thing that differentiates the top few players from everyone else is a conscious or subconscious manipulation of the psychological aspect. This doesn't just occur in CM, it occurs in chess ( most famously of all) and also in the physical sports many people here will support on weekends.

FWIW I find the discussion interesting. Unfortunately discussing this sort of non-conventional thing here is usually a bad idea and attracts vermin.

Ps. Re: your view that any of the three strategies can be used in any given situation. Of course that is correct. They are, after all, only ethos within which to frame your responses.

[Fionn]

jtcm,

TY. Unfortunately Latin isn't my strong point and I only put it in Latin so that those whom it spoke of wouldn't cotton to it... The knowledge of Latin amongst said entities would be extremely limited.

Thanks for the pointer though, I've amended it in my sig. Personally my favourite part of the sig is the 2nd portion. It is just such a "powerful" statement of action and misrepresentation IMO.

[Hammer]

"Latin", aint that the stuff they say in church?

:D :cool: :eek:

[Fionn]

Not since 2nd Vatican Council ( at least so long as you aren't a follower of Bishop Lefevre (sic) ). :D

[ January 17, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[jtcm]

Fionn:

you're v. welcome. Actually, I was wondering where the second part of your sig comes from: sounds like Plutarch or Diodorus, certainly not in Herodotus, the main, earliest and most reliable source. But I'm being a prig, or worse.

[Fionn]

Ah, indeed a classical scholar. The search for sources and concern therefor is typical ;) .

I will admit that it is not material to me where it came from (although I believe you are correct. If it is important to you I can find the source for you tomorrow. Just let me know ok? ). I chose it simply because of the sentiment it embodies.

[Malcom987]

Originally posted by Fionn:
Read AARs. (preferrably with movie files attached). It is the best way to see what works for others and why. Gains you lots of experience very quickly if you do it BUT you have to be willing to improve/change ( which few are).I think he wrote this before his psychotic episode.

[Xipe]

Originally posted by jtcm:
Fionn:

you're v. welcome. Actually, I was wondering where the second part of your sig comes from: sounds like Plutarch or Diodorus, certainly not in Herodotus, the main, earliest and most reliable source. But I'm being a prig, or worse.From what I can find it should be ascribed to Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303), in the Decretals (canon law).

[Troy Spiral]

Interesting Scholarly comentary goes *points elswhere*

Awesomet thread idea. Hopefully it will not be hijacked to badly smile.gif

Some very good ideas in this thread. smile.gif

Im still somewhat of a newbie myself but my

NO 1. Newbie Tip (applies to all areas of endevour)

Develop a deep burning desire to become successful.


That one will help you more than any other. Once you get the "hunger" the rest will come eventually.

[Fionn]

Malcom987,

Well as a first post to the forum it is certainly interesting. Did it help the newbies? No. Did it move the discussion forward? No. Was it on-topic? No.

Was it anything other than a spiteful little post designed to get an angry reaction? No. Hell, I doubt you could even define psychosis without running to a dictionary or google, nevermind accurately label it in accordance with your in-depth knowledge of what I was talking about.

P.s. BTW thanks for clarifying to people the sort of completely off-topic BS which saps my will to contribute. You were a great "case in point".

[SurlyBen]

Here's my newbie tip (and it's as simple and concrete as I can make it): keep your armor at least 200 meters behind your infantry, and farther back is better.

Obviously there are times when violating this rule is ok, but keeping the armor back means never losing it to close assaulting infantry so it's a good rule of thumb.

Other than that, practice, learn what all the numbers mean, and if you get to buy your own units, make sure you know what you are buying.
Make an effort to relate non CM knowledge to CM are spot on. I tend to think of CM battles in chess terms smile.gif

IMO, Fionn's comments about the headgame are pretty much spot-on. Between good players of roughly equal skill, the fight is likely to go to the one who doesn't lose his nerve. One second guess, or overcautious (or uncautious)move and suddenly the guys are all over the place, dying in detail. I'd say that most losing players defeat themselves. Once they start losing they stop caring about the fight, or they just make bad moves.

I guess I try to take the view that any given fight on the CM battlefield is a sideshow to the overall fight. Losing any one fight doesn't necessarily mean the battle is lost.

Surlyben

[Cogust]

I agree fully with SurlyBen, keep your armour in the back until you are skilled enough to know when to move it up front. I am also of the opinion that giving your enemy enough rope to hang himself is a good tactic, I have more than once seen an enemy advance falter without any intereference by my forces and allowing the enemy enough time to do stupid things more often than not pays off.

This will of course not work against Fionn and other great players, but it works pretty well against new and medium players. You just have to play it safe and take advantage of the mistakes your opponent makes and you'll find that you will start to win more than you lose in short time.

Try not to shoot yourself in the foot while purchasing your forces, stay away from 'spiffy' and 'cool' stuff and go for more robust things and stuff that's easy to use (T-34s for example) until you have learned to use the more exotic equipment (flame tanks and assault guns for example).

And never give up, things are almost always brighter than they seem.

[Xipe]

I find it ironic that while Fionn seemingly doesn't want anything to do with 90% of the forum, 90% of the forum mentions him in their posts (yes, including me smile.gif ).

Incidently he reminds me of some of the ARI-people, which is ok I guess.

My only #1 advice is to make sure to put oneself in the position of losing, or in very close fought battles, as often as possible. Nothing breeds skill as superior/even adversity.

[ January 19, 2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Xipe ]

[Cogust]

Hehe, I guess it's a kind of hero worship as Fionn was one of the participant in the original AAR when CMBO was still Beta. smile.gif

It will be very interesting to meet Fionn together with a pretty scary crew of senior Soviet commanders on the fields of CMMC2, it will be no cakewalk for the Grey team I fear.

[YankeeDog]

Well, it's been an interesting discussion. At the very least, you've given me some things to think about. It is now clear to me that this thread is not the best the time or place for this discourse, though.

I hope it can be picked up at another time and place. I am easy to find.

Cheers,

YD

[jjelinek]

Fionn,

Any chance that you could send me a copy of the files that you sent to Ciphrix?

[Redwolf]

Some tips on how to do training:

why you pratice setting up killsacks (defense), do not do it with the AI attacking. Your expectations will be totally disadjusted and the first human will either go around your killsack without even noticing. It is better to do a minal hotseat. Give the attacker plenety of decent-quality units, set them up in a formation and have them crash through your defense. Not especially realistic training, but way better than the AI. You can also have a human plot one movement which is good for much of the battle (only problem is the stupid new delay for adding waypoints...).

Whatever testplay you do against the AI, you shouldn't give them high-quality units (that means do not give the AI the AI experience bonus). The hit probabilities are too different, you cannot practice armor combat that way. The supression model is too diffeent, you cann tune your supressive fire to be just sufficcient. The best way to make the AI strong is to make the battle long and give it lots of reinforcements with long pauses. That way you will have to fight the initial battle with force preservation in mind.

If you ever look at the battle results of training against the AI or inexperinced player, give the scenario enough flags. At the very least it should have 1/2 the point value of the stronger side in flags. Otherwise you can keep killing and no matter whethr you hold the terrain or decisivly defeat the enemy force the game engine will report a win. Give it enough flags, better to much than too few.

[Fionn]

Xipe,

Well, life is very strange. Plus have you ever heard of the expression regarding a "few bad apples ruining the bunch" ?

Next point. What's ARI? I have a guess but I'm sure it is incorrect so I'm curious.

Cogust makes a good point. Many people simply end up defeating themselves if you let them. This is because many CM players have no confidence in their CM play and/or little actual ability and so will do exceedingly silly things given the time and opportunity. (Kind of mirrors real life.)

You can see it on this forum actually. A lot of people on here don't check their facts before they post, over-reach themselves when they post or exhibit a number of insecurity-rooted patterns of behaviour etc. All of these errors of logic and evidences of insecurity are things which exist within their mind and, as such, they are present in that persons' interactions in the real world, their forum persona and, most importantly, when they play. I won't point out specific examples but if you keep your eyes peeled you can see them aroundabouts.

The guy on the forum who is all up tight about being right ( as opposed to being correct) is the same guy who when you play will dogmatically fall for every ruse you present in which he appears to be succeeding. The guy who has obvious insecurity while posting is the same guy who is gonna screw up his plans by 2nd-guessing himself. They guy who wants to win very badly is the same guy who is going to keep insisting (post-game) that he "almost had you". etc

Most importantly... The guy who sounds like you aren't going to enjoy talking to on the forum is someone you should avoid playing. It won't improve your skill but it will mean you have a LOT more fun since over half the fun of gaming is meeting nice new people and, unfortunately, there's a minority of guys here who are just hell to play.

All of which leads me to:
#1 Advice to Experienced Players who want to get that extra 20%. Gain an appreciation of personality types and psychology.

[jtcm]

To Fionn:

well, yes, sources do matter, as much for events of 480 BC as of AD 1944-- otherwise, ancient history just becomes a source of edifying epigrams. It's likely Leonidas didn't say anything like this; the incident was quickly mythologized, by the Greeks themselves-- but I am v. curious to know where this particular quote comes from. So if you have any time at all, I'd be interested. But there is no rush, obviously. Giving good advice is just as important, and I'm reading yours.

regards
jtcm

[Quintus]

-Looks at preceding pages-

Well, my 2penneth has largely been covered by some of the really rather good postings that have gone before buuut... One good piece of advice I was given is "Don't re-enforce failure."

I need to remember that one myself, especially after pounding away at a pillbox that I could have bypassed for half a game and losing a lot of my reserves while doing so.

... Qui tacet, consentire videtur.

Reminds me of the Paster Niemoller quote I used to have on my door, along with the famous saying of Edmund Burke.
Some of Fionn's past stuff has helped me claw my way up from hopeless to the tottering heights of 'mediocre'. If I could only remember the lessons I might be dangerous

[Fionn]

JTCM,

I fear you misunderstood me. I wasn't being disaproving of your desire for sources. I was merely noting that it was a characteristic of those who study antiquities to seek the source for all quotes etc. I was, at most, cracking a slight smile at your adherence to stereotype but not deriding.

As to whether Leonidas said what the quote has his saying. I doubt it. At the very best he said something of the same sentiment and generations of scholars decided to enoble it etc to make it "fitting" of a man who would go on to such acclaim at Thermopylae.

Still, that doesn't change the essential message contained therein. Much in the same way as most of the Greek and Roman Myths are either cautionary tales or thinly veiled instructions on how to conduct politics, personal life, war, business etc and yet still have a value AND a literary worth which extends beyond their instructionary nature.

[ January 20, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Slappy]

I may have missed it, but I am shocked that no one has mentioned Fionn's AAR of The Sunken Lane at Combat Mission HQ. I can only assume that he is being modest. This is one of the first AARs I ever read, and it is still, without question, my favorite. It's for CMBO, but is well worth a read for those starting out, as are many of the others in that batch.

[xerxes]

Naturally, to become very good, you have to know the "rules" of how to play. The very best players know when and how to break the rules.

For example, keep armor back, go hulldown, keyhole, strength in numbers. Good tactical armor advice. It will serve you well.

But, in some situations you can bring your armor very close and have it work out very well. I regularly bring my armor within 40m of enemy infantry and it works shockingly well. With canister modelling in CMBB, close armor is absolutely devastating.

[vbfg]

FWIW, that I have this game at all is due to Fionn's AARs on combatmission.com. I can't remember quite how I came across them but I was searching for something on Google to which the answer was found in the articles section. I had a browse around, got reading the AARs and something in it appealed to me. I'd never been much into wargames before. I'd done a bit of D&D but nothing tactical in the same sense.

Now I've been playing for 18 months or so and as an added bonus I have a whole new relationship with my Dad because of the game as he's got into it too.

Nice one mate. Should you ever find yourself in the north of England I owe you beer and curry. smile.gif

[jtcm]

Fionn

We're on the same wavelength there I think

regard
jtcm

[Malcom987]

Originally posted by Fionn:
Malcom987,

Well as a first post to the forum it is certainly interesting. Did it help the newbies? No. Did it move the discussion forward? No. Was it on-topic? No.

Was it anything other than a spiteful little post designed to get an angry reaction? No. Hell, I doubt you could even define psychosis without running to a dictionary or google, nevermind accurately label it in accordance with your in-depth knowledge of what I was talking about.

P.s. BTW thanks for clarifying to people the sort of completely off-topic BS which saps my will to contribute. You were a great "case in point".

[PlatCmdr]

[ February 27, 2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: PlattCmdr ]

[PlatCmdr]

Originally posted by Fionn:

So, short answer. I fully intend to never, ever produce anything of help to people in this community in the future. The only caveats to that are my friends and, of course, newbies. You stated you were a newbie so I sent you files to help...[/QB]I can appreciate your frustration over simpletons who are unable to aknowledge 9-11 as a tragic event, without the need to identify it as an "American tragedy". I am an American, and as proud and dutybound as I feel, and hurt by the great loss we as a nation continue to feel, I cannot discount or ignore the fact that there were many representatives from other parts of the world who also lost their lives that day and also deserve to be recognized. It was more than an American tragedy, it was a tragedy affecting all of humanity.

Not to tarnish the sincerity of what I said above, but I am new to CM (hence, my reason for being in this forum) and, since making a "public" offer, am wondering if you'd be able to send those help files my way as well.

[klapton]

1st Newbie tip: If you drop from a PBEM game, tell your opponent you do so.

[Carl Puppchen]

My simplest newbie tip would be to keep your units in command, including AT Guns and Mortars. It is difficult in the heat of battle when men are advancing and retreating to do this, especially since a smart opponent and the Tactical AI targets leaders. Units fight much more effectively when they are in command. Look for the green bar next to them to let you know that they are in command radius, which varies based upon the "star" power for that leader. If you are moving forward, pause and wait for your stragglers to catch up, or leave a leader in the back that can come up and rally your panicked and routed soldiers. And don't forget to leave behind leaders to stay with your direct fire MG's and AT guns / howitzers when you push forward on the attack.