Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?

[Sir Uber General]

As the subject says...

[MrSpkr]

First, umm, how do I put this - do a search?

Look for a thread with posts from Panzer Leader (or just send him an email and ask for the link -- he posted quite a bit on the subject IIRC).

I think a lot has to do with style of play. Some people take the Longstreet position - the best way to attack is to seize the objective quickly and make the enemy come to you.

Others are better at using their assets properly and prefer the attack.

In game terms, all other things being equal, defending against an attack or assault is a little harder, in my opinion, because the attacker can swamp you.

Steve

[Panzer76]

Simple and fast answer is, it's WAY easier attacking when u play. The % bonus you get is more than enough to make up for attacking. If you play attack/defend against a human, you should turn down the % bounus if you want a fair game.

[Talenn]

This has all been covered before, but I think there are several things that make it far harder for the defender in the game than in real life. Some examples:

1) MG effectiveness (not enough) and lack of options (fire zones etc).

2) Units break fire discipline at odd (and suicidal) times...like at enemies moving in the woods 100m away when if they waited a few more secs, the enemy would be in the open. Too often they engage piecemeal and are cut to ribbons piecemeal unless you take great pains to (unrealistically) limit their LOS and engagement opportunities.

3) That attacker KNOWS that you only have 'x' points, and doesnt have to be as cautious as a real attacker who doesnt necessarily know what he is walking into.

4) The lack of higher unit goals and restricitions lets the attacker squander troops and ammo at unrealistic rates to accomplish his limited objectives. In effect, the attacker doesnt have to think about 'tomorrow'.

5) The defender rarely has access to the 'proper' number of fixed fortifications for the defense. Mine and wire belts are rarely at 'realistic' strengths.

6) Other....

Note that this is not meant to knock the game. IMO, its still the best thing going, but there are certainly things that makes that defenders life more difficult in the game than IRL. I know at least some of them are being worked on for CM:BB. Others, there really isnt anything that CAN be done as they are outside the scope of a tactical game.

Talenn

[Chupacabra]

I usually win when I'm attacking. I usually lose when I'm defending. Not exactly scientific, but I'm convinced.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Talenn:
3) That attacker KNOWS that you only have 'x' points, ...
4) The lack of higher unit goals ..., the attacker doesnt have to think about 'tomorrow'.
5) The defender rarely has access to the 'proper' number of fixed fortifications ...All of these "flaws" can be countered by proper use of the scenario editor.

3) With a pre-made scenario the attacker never know what's in front of him.
The briefing might say "the defense is a platoon of weak conscripts". That may be true at the start of the battle, but 15 minutes later a reinforced battalion arrives at the scene...

4) Nor does the defender.
Proper setting of victory conditions can help a good deal though.

5) A liberal allocation of wire, TRPs and mines will do wonders.

Cheers
Olle

[von Paulus]

It also depend on the situation.
In a QB, I think it's easier to attack, but you must have experience.
In denfece you have not a lot of things to do, but if you have mobile reserves you have a good advantage but you are most of the time under artillery fire
In the two sides, try to keep reserves when the enemy is getting tired.

[Redwolf]

In a Quickbattle with human-chosen forces, there is practically no way to win as the defender.

Because you just cannot buy enough AT weapons that are capable of taking out Churchills an SuperPershings, and at the same time enough stuff to stopp a pure human wave attack. At the least you cannot deploy it so that you are safe against an attack route along a map edge.

Fionn rules (or now mine) help a lot, almost as much as scenarios :)

[KNac]

1) MG effectiveness (not enough) and lack of options (fire zones etc).

2) Units break fire discipline at odd (and suicidal) times...like at enemies moving in the woods 100m away when if they waited a few more secs, the enemy would be in the open. Too often they engage piecemeal and are cut to ribbons piecemeal unless you take great pains to (unrealistically) limit their LOS and engagement opportunities.
being fixed or already fixed in CMBB smile.gif

[Austrian Strategist]

I actually prefer defending in a QB.

The way to even the odds is as follows:

1)SMALL MAP. (The less to defend the easier for the defender.)

2)ATTACKER MUST USE COMBINED ARMS. (He cannot go all tanks or all infantry.)

3)LOW TURN NUMBER. (Attacker must hurry.)

If you play with these settings, and still find defending way to difficult, I think there is something wrong with your defense. :cool:

[Ligur]

I highly recommend Fionn/redwolf rules for QB attack/defend battles.

The hardest part in defending IMHO is the vast space you have to defend with your weaker forces.

So how about just giving a few flags to the enemy (place weak defence, withdraw when engaged) and concentrate on properly defending the rest.

You also have to "feint" and try to make the attacker waste arty, use the "withdraw" liberally and the defender must, must, must try to build a defence in depth.

As an attacker you just smash everything while taking 70% casualties and still winning.

Hurrr hurrr. Not always very fair.

I suggest timelimits in TCP/IP and short battle times to even the odds, when your attacker doesn't have 15 turns to scout he will be forced go into your designated killzones losing armor to hidden guns, seeking cover in mined forests and suffer from your heavy mortar arty while in LOS of your FO.

Try this: 2500 attack, medium/small map, do NOT use dense cover, TCP/IP, timelimit 10 minutes (bye bye micromanaging and taking 89 minutes to plot tank moves), turns 25. I think it can be a challenge.

Defender gets as much time as he wants for setup.

Agree on force composition and army before game, combined arms, infantry, SS or Volksturm or Heer etc.

[ May 29, 2002, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Fionn]

Neither is actually intrinsically harder but since most players who defend adopt the defender's role the defence is harder, in practice, for most players.

If OTOH you get assigned to defend and just go "screw that I'm going to be aggressive and kill the enemy whenever and wherever I can whether that be in my setup area, in no-man's land or via an attack right into the heart of their setup zone" then you have the right state of mind to ensure that defence won't be a problem for you.

I habitually chase attacking forces back to their start lines when defending. It really freaks them out and makes the game a bit more fun than just sitting in your foxholes waiting for them to come to you.

So, in summary, both are equally easy. If you find one harder then it is either due to:
a) a lack of experience on your part or
b) a suboptimal mental attitude going into the game. ( because I agree that if you simply sit in your foxholes waiting for the enemy to come to you then you ARE going to have a tough time of it)

Just my 2 cent.

[ May 29, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Depends on the terrain. If the terrain is open then it makes attacking more difficult [hidden guns, etc]. More dense terrain can be overcome with a variation of Fionn's aggressive approach. That means engaging and killing the enemy's scouts in front of your MLR. Have that forward MLR to fall back to and deny the enemy both his scouts and gives misleading intel about your lines. I would not push it too much further than that because the greatest equalizer is the defender's access to TRPs. In a QB buy plenty. Match with heavy mortars and arty. Don't waste buying the small stuff in a defense situation. TRPs + heavy arty takes away the enemy 3:2 infantry advantage quite well.

Don't get locked down to your foxholes. Use them as a fall back position, but seek and engage the attacking enemy where you can.

So given these tactics and others, and depending on the terrain: Defending could be easier.

IMHO.

-Sarge

[ May 29, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Fionn]

Broken terrain with lots of IVs ( Intervisibility Lines) lends itself to counter-attacking IMO . Check out the rather infamous Bocage AAR on CMHQ to see what I mean. Outnumbered 2:1 and facing about 10 tanks with no ATGs or tanks and in close terrain aggression can still win out.

Believe me, if I can do it so can you.

[StellarRat]

Generally, I like defending better and find it easier. But, I'm always trying to beat overwelming odds (just to see if I can) so I've played a lot more defense than offense. More practice = better defense.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Believe me, if I can do it so can you.*chuckle*

Thats sort of like a physicist saying, "...hey if I can understand Quantum theory so can you" ;)

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Fionn:

So, in summary, both are equally easy. If you find one harder then it is either due to:

a) a lack of experience on your part or
b) a suboptimal mental attitude going into the game. ( because I agree that if you simply sit in your foxholes waiting for the enemy to come to you then you ARE going to have a tough time of it)

Just my 2 cent.Hah you said it! Passive defense is bad for you, I don't know if I have what it takes to assault an attacking force with defending force composition (say launch an 2000 pts attack vs 3000 pts of enemy) but I move a lot.

Ligur's case example of active defence for those newer to defending:

Let me remind everyone I have no illusions about being a mighty CM über-smart tactic genious, but this is one example of how I've done it with success in a fitting map.

In my second to last defense I moved deep on my other flank during the first rounds and engaged far from my setup zone, causing confusion and disrupting attempts to organize a jump point for launching the attack that was planned by the enemy. Close combat able troops who surprise an advancing enemy in densely covered part of the terrain can cause a horrible loss of morale AND men.

When the attacker started engaging me in force (spending critical minutes to switch weight of force) I withdrew out of sight, when he tried to advance opened fire again. I kept at this in various forms, causing the enemy to be extra careful while on advance. I made sure I caused enough damage to keep my enemy on his toes, if he had known how light my forces were he could have overrun them fast but... How could've he known. The opponent became annoyed, then demoralized. In the end I was back at my foxholed main defense line in good cover and pulled fresh forces to man them, another surprise for the foe who thought he will be facing a reduced company.

On the other flank I let my opponent advance deep without resistance (which, I suspect, was additionally confusing) then closed in from three sides and annihilated his force. I disengaged the ambush group that and moved it back to give more depth.

By this time the enemy was very careful about moving at all, and was facing fresh troops on every attempt. Artillery barrages fell into positions I had already abandoned. In the final push I drew my 2nd line of defence back and formed a solid defence from all my troops. None of the companies or platoons had suffered serious casualties and they formed a solid line indeed

I pulled a major victory, with only minor casualties against an opponent who can give me a good spanking.

If I had just waited at my original positions he would have identified strongpoints, shelled me to suppression and moved in, albeit with high casualties, but still winning.

IMHO the "trick" is to demoralize your buddy and play for time, forcing him to fight several lines of defence.

[ May 29, 2002, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Redwolf]

Defending can also be improved (in scenarios or third-party force insertion):

- give lots of TRPs. In doubt enough to lay a complete line along a ridge so that every AFV that crosses it can be nailed with improved hit probablity, even by Nashorn and friends. Also makes devices like Pak88 useful

- apply a much lower price on mines, but be careful with the non-daisy-chain AT mines, they are slightly unfair since they cannot be spotted by infantry at all, not even by engineers

- allow the defender to modify the terrain with walls, like give him 8 or 10 terrain squads he may change. That will make for prepared hulldown positions and/or better protection for guns. The attacker can see where they are, of course, but still useful and not completely unrealistic

- Maybe give high-quality spotters and towed gun to the defender. Lower arty responce time might be in order. Regular guns tend to be abanonded easily on minor crew injuries from arty or mortars, crack or elite guns will be put out of the game rather by actual equipment damage

- Give lots of smoke to the attacker, I think editing all vehicles and mortars is in order

- Ammo levels for the defender may be raised, especially for on-board 81mm mortars, put possibly also for things like infantry guns

- If people trust each other "fix" MG problems by giving extra squads and saying that these squads must not be used in any other way that to be place directly by a HMG, one half-squad per MG

- Don't allow Stuarts/Greyhound/Daimler ACs when pillboxes are present

Of of this of course favour the defender, but the intend is that the attacker can now roll in with a 3:1 advantage, especially in tanks. I believe that this is more fun and better from a historical standpoint.

Be sure to give enough flags, like 70% of what the attacker's force is worth. You may plant some flags outside the defender's area to encourage destroying the attacker by counterattacking if he/she screws up.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:
Neither is actually intrinsically harder but since most players who defend adopt the defender's role the defence is harder, in practice, for most players.

If OTOH you get assigned to defend and just go "screw that I'm going to be aggressive and kill the enemy whenever and wherever I can whether that be in my setup area, in no-man's land or via an attack right into the heart of their setup zone" then you have the right state of mind to ensure that defence won't be a problem for you.
Fionn, I respectfully totally disagree with this statement.

In all tactical games I have ever played, including Chess, I always adopt a defensive mindset, even when attacking, and I am reasonably successful with it.

When Clausewitz said that, all else equal, the defence is stronger than the attack, he knew what he was talking about.

The key to defending in CM, imvho, is fortifications. Minefields -especially my beloved AP mines-, bunkers, barbed wire, AT guns, machine guns, artillery, infantry dug-in and well hidden, ambushes, ambushes, ambushes. If my attacker is prone to nightmares at all, this will be it. :cool:

My defensive ideal is: Winning a total victory without moving a single piece. (With a grain of salt; but you get the picture.)

When attacking, I still play defensively, siege-style; trying to push a wall into my opponent.

My method -I call it the Anaconda Doctrine- has worked in every game I have played so far, and I am pretty confident I can make it work in CM as well. smile.gif

[Ligur]

Respect to all, woe become us if there would be only "one way to win in defence."

Some of us can do anything, or so it seems, others nothing at all (me!) and some master a single form of defense.

[Redwolf]

We also shouldn't forget that defensive abilities or inabilities depend a lot on circumstances, amoung them the game in question and the timeframe.

I for one are better defender than attacker in TacOps, but the other way round in Combat Mission.

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[JasonC]

To Austrian strategist - what kills the defender on small maps is the attacker's artillery. A small map means limited places to put the defenders, that make any kind of sense. That means easy artillery targeting for the attackers. This is especially true in the smaller point-size scenarios. Then there is a cover trade off - lots means covered approaches for attacking infantry, while little means few places for the defenders to set up, and thus predictable neat artillery targets for the attackers. As for the turn limit, you can't set it below 20 in QBs, and on small maps that is not low enough to really force the attacker to hurry. Recon infantry half-squads can poke into defender cover in just a few minutes on a small map, blowing any neat ambushes. And small maps aren't deep enough to play "ambush and fall back" or make much use of alternate-successive positions.

Typically you kill some of his scouts, his artillery messes up your infantry, his overwatch firefights you from not far ahead of his start line, you mess up some of his bases of fire with your own artillery, you run low of artillery ammo, then of good order "up" defenders, then he closes. Unless you have previously won the armor war in lopsided fashion, or the attacker blunders under heavy arty TRPs too bunched up, or you have uber-infantry vs. vanilla (and even then there are problems with things like squad ammo), those usually are enough to do you in. 3:2 odds, or 3 minus some scouts against 2, are still livable. But 3 minus a few scouts vs. 2 minus 155mm treebursts often isn't. What defenders can't afford is feeding the attacker's guns. On a bigger map it is easier to avoid artillery, but harder to cover everything, while the attacker's expedient in that case is to fight only part of the defenders ("right half", e.g.) with nearly his whole force.

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Patgod]

i would say that on most qb maps, with human picked troops the attacker has the advantage. i'm not all that great at either, but generally speaking i find attacking easier since i have more points to work with, and generally have the initiative.

[JasonC]

Austrian Strategist also said (later) "The key to defending in CM, imvho, is fortifications. Minefields -especially my beloved AP mines-, bunkers, barbed wire, AT guns, machine guns, artillery, infantry dug-in and well hidden, ambushes, ambushes, ambushes"

I agree that mines are one of the defender's key assets. TRPs are another. Hidden guns, AT or otherwise, are also key defender assets - and bargains in CM. But bunkers are undermodeled and overpriced, while MGs are significantly undermodeled, making them marginal for CM defense schemes.

MGs still matter because they can pin scouts in the open without revealing heavier guns or main infantry fighting positions, and they can take a heck of a pounding in spent-ammo terms before being silenced. But the amount of actual damage they inflict is trivial.

Wire I find only effective against the AI, which isn't saying anything because anything works against the AI. The problem is the ease of spotting it, after which humans just go around. As a result it denies small areas of cover, but nothing more. In QBs you can't afford to spend gobs on the stuff, because the fighting force odds rise too steeply if you do - e.g. 1/4 of your budget spent on wire etc and you are facing 2:1 fighting force odds - about the outer limit of livable.

You are better off with AP mines for the denial-of-cover mission. They are likely to actually hit something, and after discovery humans will still have to go around, just like with wire. It is true engineers can clear paths through AP but not wire, but they are rare in human QBs and if the field is covered by fire actually doing it successfully is not at all easy. Wire might occasionally be useful as a bluff, to lure attackers to something nastier when they go around, but it is marginal in CM.

TRP artillery is very important for defenders. Along with AP minefields, TRP artillery provides an unsuppressable area fire ability. Meaning, the effect multiplies the more attackers bunch up. That is vital to prevent the attacker just overloading a section of your front with his superior odds. Fully armored AFVs can sometimes pull this off too, but they are too fragile to count on for it, when the attacker has his own armor out looking for them. AP and TRP arty can also serve to shelter broken infantry by seperating attackers and defenders.

The problem with TRP arty is that you run out of shells before the attacker runs out of men. It is easy to suppress enough men to pay for the stuff, but very hard to kill the attackers dead. They come back for a second try, fighting "ugly" (in remnants, half-squads, etc), and the shells don't.

E.g. a typical German medium arty module costs 102-113 as regulars and gives 2-4 minutes of effective fire. Add 2 TRPs and multiply by the attacker's odds ratio, 3:2, and you get 180-200 points. (US modules are more expensive but give more minutes of fire, while German infantry is cheaper). 1.5-2 platoons of attacking infantry.

You can easily break a platoon in 2 minutes of such fire, so breaking the equivalent point cost is achievable, and that does help you shape the battlefield and run the attacker out of time. But you can't kill a whole company of attackers with one medium arty module and 2 TRPs, so you are really just "exchanging off" pieces, in chess lingo, not winning a combination. You will run out of arty ammo before he runs out of platoons.

Guns (plus infantry AT, a related item) are the part of the defense that can give truly disproportionate payoffs. AT minefields are that way too, with a low cost and potentially high return if you bag a full tank with one. Especially if you buy cheaper guns, or only a few AT mines - higher "variance" plays compared to lots of AT mines (will hit something, but only an exchange) and multiple super-powerful guns (will kill something, but often only cover their costs again).

With infantry, German uber types do have defense potential, the SMG heavy types in particular. But defending infantry faces three basic problems, only one of which is really fixable by clever play, and one of which can be mitigated but not really solved. The fixable one is avoiding the superior range and firepower of attacker overwatch forces, especially AFVs, and the solution is reverse slopes (including inside treelines rather than at them, yada yada).

The one you can limit but not solve is attacking artillery. Defenders just can't afford enough infantry to lose whole platoons to indirect fire before even engaging, and still win the later game infantry firefights. You can limit it by having alternate positions, bugging out when you see spotting rounds, avoiding predictable locations (especially at set up), and not firefighting the attackers from any one position too long.

But these don't really solve the problem in CM, because you run out of room. On small maps you don't have enough to start with, while on bigger maps you still get backed up, and have only a few choices of covered locations able to defend along route A or route B. Then the attacking artillery knows where you have to be unless you plan to just give up and get out of his way.

So you will get pounded. If the attacker is hasty or careless, you may deceive him into wasting part of his arty early or on small unimportant targets, when you have time to recover from its effects, etc. But any competent attacker (note - does not include the AI) is going to hurt something with his fat shells, because CM QB maps are small and the flags are quite close to your allowed starting positions.

The third problem defending infantry faces is ammo. The logic of facing 3:2 or 2:1 infantry odds is pretty unforgiving. If the rest of the support weapon war has not improved things significantly, down to more like 1:1 or 5:4 infantry odds in the decisive engagements, or you have uber-infantry against vanilla at its magical ranges (80m or less for SMGs, e.g.), you can't win negative odds infantry firefights without running out of ammo.

Oh, you can pin or break the attacking platoon over there since it doesn't have good cover. But you have only 2-3 such occasions in you, in ammo "wind" terms. Then you are tuckered out. And the attackers rally, with plenty left over from each "break". Cover alone reducing the incoming can't do it, because you don't also have twice as many shots to dish out, outgoing.

Which is why defending in CM is hard. There are a number of ideas that can still work from time to time, though. One is to do something risky at the force mix stage, and live with the resulting handicap. The idea is to get parity with the attacker in either armor-war terms or in infantry-HE terms, and then rely on winning only one or the other to hold out.

So, an infantry defense might guess how much infantry the attacker will bring, and match it, and guess how much arty HE he will have, and match that too, plus TRPs and some AP mines. Then fight the armor war on a shoestring, with a few cheap guns and infantry AT teams and the odd AT minefield against numerous attacking tanks. Try to keep the infantry out of sight with reverse slopes and fight an infantry-HE war, while using the guns and such as "risk-sacrifice" items to neutralize as much of the enemy armor as you can, cheaply. This effectively neutralizes the enemy infantry and HE, while leaving his armor superior but ineffective because of the breakdown in combined arms.

Or, an armor defense might figure what the attacker will bring in number of tanks, and match that with strongly armored defending AFVs - not just guns. Preferably types with good HE abilities against infantry, or with a few such HE chuckers added (like Priests or Hummels). Then you try to win the armor duel fast, after which your surviving armor shoots up the abundant attacking infantry whenever it comes into LOS. This effectively neutralizes the enemy arty points (because arty does little to AFVs), kills his armor points, and leaves his infantry superior but unable to proceed because of the breakdown in combined arms.

If you don't pull off such a "disarticulation", it is hard to win at defender's odds. Attacker mistakes, like bunching up too much under artillery, or not scouting for ambushes, or rushing armor all-at-once into kill sacks of hidden guns - can still give you an "unearned victory". But those are really "own goals" by the attacker, more than anything else. The AI will let you do them all day long, and clobber the attackers "without moving a piece". But humans are not that simple, by a long shot.

[Michael Dorosh]

I would like to see, in concert with Jason's point above about the ease of spotting wire, some sort of special spotting rules for wire in future versions of the game engine. Not only is wire easily spotted, but it is always spotted in exactly the place it really is, and as such, you immediately know how wide the obstacle is.

Real wire is just not strung like that. Would like to see some of the same logic that is used for spotting tanks - just because a squad in heavy trees blunders into a stretch of wire, in real life that squad would not know for a certainty where the wire obstacle started and stopped - or that it was in a straight line, come to that.

In CM terms, would be neat to see wire slow down a unit, but not be revealed - or only partially revealed - until "spotted" by infantry actually making a conscious effort to find the end of the obstacle, once it was encountered. In open ground, the current rules work, in woods and other foliage they don't. Wire in a hedgrerow should be nigh well invisible, with no clue where the end points are until infantry actually try to find it.

Even better would be the ability to "wire" a position in by giving the player X number of feet/metres, and allowing him to "unspool" it - perhaps by drawing with the mouse where he wants it to go? This would allow him to customize the wire, avoid straight lengths and predictable wire obstacles.

[Patgod]

Originally posted by JasonC:
Or, an armor defense might figure what the attacker will bring in number of tanks, and match that with strongly armored defending AFVs - not just guns. Preferably types with good HE abilities against infantry, or with a few such HE chuckers added (like Priests or Hummels). Then you try to win the armor duel fast, after which your surviving armor shoots up the abundant attacking infantry whenever it comes into LOS. This effectively neutralizes the enemy arty points (because arty does little to AFVs), kills his armor points, and leaves his infantry superior but unable to proceed because of the breakdown in combined arms.
In a current game this is what i tried to do. german defense, only had 100pts to spend on armor. i took a crack hetzer, and assumed he would come at me with 2 76 shermans. given that the map was going to be relatively open i gambled i could win the duel at that range. 2v1 with them being regulars.

once the armor was gone i intended to use the hetzers limited HE to sure up which ever flank he hit the hardest, in combination with a good 81mm spotter. given that the terrain was rather poor for defense i figured this was my best bet. in fact i still think it was.

unfortunately i got oh so very unlucky. in the first exchange between my hetzer and his 2 sherm76's(i guessed right hehe) my commander was hit by a richocheting shell, shocking the tank. as it sat there taking hit after hit, all non penetrating, eventually the armor began to flake, and after a second casualty the crew bailed.

i dont know why i'm typing this, the game isnt over, which is btw why i havent given specifics on my infantry numbers, locations, and types. it does look however like he will win, the 2 sherms are taking their toll on my infantry, which is slowly being eaten up.

[JasonC]

To Fionn - it is not a matter of whether someone chooses to "rely" on artillery or on infantry rushes. It is a point about small maps, which the previous fellow said favored the defender.

Infantry rushes do not work on small maps, and he was quite right about that. The reason they do not work on small maps is the few covered approaches the infantry rush can be delivered over are easily blocked by TRP artillery or AP minefields, which do not care how many guys are rushing and just bust them all the harder the denser they are packed.

So the previous fellow was right that small maps trumps infantry rushes. Since some seem to think infantry rush behavior is the thing that favors attackers in CM, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that small maps will eliminate the attacker's edge.

My point was that this does not follow, because the same multiplied effectiveness of area weapons that small maps create for defenders - which enables such effects to beat infantry rushes - also can be exploited by attackers, by using artillery instead. Small maps are high force to space ratio situations. They favor attritionist firepower strategies and area effect weapons, over maneuver strategies and shock action (which are relatively more effective in lower force-to-space situations, e.g. larger maps).

Attackers can react to TRP and AP blocks by just not putting their head in that noose, and instead standing off and letting HE do the heavy lifting. Because the same conditions that make the first effective against infantry rushes, makes the second effective against infantry defenders. And at attacker's odds, infantry defenders generally can't afford the losses.

These are not optional personal preferences. Somebody trying to attack mainly through infantry rushes on a tight map against TRP-HE and AP mines will get his head handed to him. They are move and counter in response to a changing military variable, the ratio of force to space. Small maps effectively mean already concentrated defenders - there aren't many places to put them, so just about every reasonable place will be occupied. Spread defenders you can go after with shock action, but concentrated ones you go after with fire action. You can hardly miss.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:
Austrian,

Ah but I fear you may have missed my central points. My central points were as follows:

1. An aggressive defence is superior to a passive defence ( if properly executed).
Fionn,

I do understand you perfectly.

What I was saying is I disagree with (1) above theoretically and in principle.

What you call 'Aggressive defence' is really another name for Counterattack, and IF Clausewitz is right -and I am perfectly sure he is!-, then a Counterattack is only the correct move if

a) the Attacker has already spent his forces -Napoleon at Waterloo!-, or
b) the Attacker is inept in the first place.

A competent Attacker WANTS to be counter-attacked, because in counter-attacking the Defender forfeits his most important advantages -defensive installations and being hidden.

I do not doubt your method works for you -because you are probably a superior tactician-, but your theory is scientifically wrong regardless. Given an equal amount of ability/experience, the defensive mindset will win all the time. smile.gif

[JasonC]

To Patgrod - I don't think that really fits the idea I was talking about. You had only ~100 pts against 300-350 for his improved Shermans. The Hetzer has very limited HE, so it can't really fufill the second half of the mission.

A better example might be a defense built around a single Tiger I using the available armor points, plus 2 SPW-251/9s (75mm halftracks), and perhaps an AT gun or two to help the Tiger win the armor duel. With minimal artillery and limited infantry.

The AT guns try to start with a simultaneous ambush, and the Tiger hunts into LOS the same turn they open up - perhaps turn 4 or 5, as soon as you think you've seen all his armor. You gamble on "running the table" in that intense armor duel. The SPWs are out of LOS in the rear. If you win the armor duel, then you park the Tiger somewhere with commanding LOS, and bring up both SPWs. You chuck direct fire HE at anything that moves. Your infantry just tries to keep enemy AT teams from getting close to the vehicles, which back up as the attacking infantry advances.

If you win the armor war, you might have only 2-3 platoons of relatively cheap infantry, without any artillery support to speak of, against a reinforced company with a 105 FO for the attackers (say). But you can still hold, because your vehicles have 150-odd HE firecrackers, a third of them 88mm, to break up the attackers with, and are nearly invunerable to replies (beyond close range). Plus on the order of 300 MG bursts combined. Not 10 HE shells in one Hetzer.

I hope this explains what I meant by building a defense around the idea of winning just the armor war, and carrying the infantry-HE fight on a shoestring.

The one good Hetzer idea is actually more in keeping with a focus on winning the infantry-HE war. The attacker spent 300-350 on tanks and you spent only 100. That means the overall point odds in everything else was more nearly even. Perhaps you bought as much infantry as he did, and just have somewhat lighter arty made up for by attackers being in the open and a TRP or two. Then, if your shoestring armor-war force (the Hetzer) won the duel with the attacking tanks, you'd have an even-odds fight for the rest of it - about. And might thus overcome the defender's odds problem.

So yes, that was a way of gambling to break up the attacker's combined arms and match him in something. But it wasn't the armor-force version of it, it was more like the infantry-force version of it. Although typically an infantry force might rely on a few towed guns, AT minefields, and infantry AT teams instead of one high quality Hetzer. It is still fighting the armor war on a shoestring and hoping for a chance good result there, in return for a bearable-odds fight on the infantry-HE side of things.

[ May 29, 2002, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:
3:2 odds, or 3 minus some scouts against 2, are still livable. But 3 minus a few scouts vs. 2 minus 155mm treebursts often isn't. What defenders can't afford is feeding the attacker's guns. On a bigger map it is easier to avoid artillery, but harder to cover everything, while the attacker's expedient in that case is to fight only part of the defenders ("right half", e.g.) with nearly his whole force.Good analysis. But have confidence in my ability to put my forces into places unpredictable. smile.gif

I say, on a 1500pts small map, there is space enough to hide. If attacker fires blindly, he will waste more #pts ammo than kill #pts men. This is, so far, my experience. :cool:

[JasonC]

Oh, he doesn't have to fire completely blind. I agree that wastes ammo. But a few half squads search around, and LOS is established to a few places, and perhaps one firefight is started in earnest - and suddenly the remaining reasonable space for defenders is a whole lot smaller than it was during the set up phase.

The attacker picks his line of attack, and he can see what areas have LOS to it. He has already crossed the areas not actually covered by defenders, with his scouts. Almost by definition, he can only be stopped by contact. The relevant number of areas to put people has then shrunk to a managable figure.

A few scouts here, a fire mission there, and he searches the space. He will hit something. For a while it may be 4-8 big shells a turn, with a lift each time. But eventually his heavy shells are going to hit defenders. I agree the problem is most pronounced in smaller battles, though, and in terrain types with less cover (more cover has different problems, e.g. with infantry rushes). In 500-1000 point defenses in moderate tree farmland, attacking artillery is nasty, because there just isn't room to hide.

[Sir Uber General]

Good points all-round.
Im off to find an attacker, cheers!

[Tarquelne]

Fionn: 1. An aggressive defence is superior to a passive defence ( if properly executed).
(snip)
AS: What I was saying is I disagree with (1) above theoretically and in principle.
(snip)
AS: defensive mindset will win all the time. I disagree with your disagreement. ;)

First, I wonder if "carefull" or "cautious" would make a better argument than "defensive."

An attack - or counterattack - happens when you think you have some sort of local superiority and can hurt the enemy more than you'll be hurt. (And "hurt" doesn't necessarily refer only to casulties.)

If I'm understanding Fionn correctly, then you could rephrase his basic argument as "Be quick to take advantage of any local superiorty to (counter)attack, and when you setup/buy your forces try to foster the creation of local superiority."

Someone in a "seige mentality" could easily overlook most opportunities to counterattack, which would certainly make defending far more difficult.

I think AS, though, would argue that against a sufficiently carefull attacker it is very difficult for the defender to create enough counterattacks to carry the day.

Much, though, depend on the amount of time the attacker can spend scouting the defender's positions. I think good CM mission scenarios/QBs don't give the attack the time needed to explore the defender's positions to that extent. Not unless the attacker is willing to take some risks...

Furthermore, from what I've seen it is quite possible to set up a scenerio/QB in which the defender would have an extremely difficult task. (The posts on small maps, fortifications (or the lack), artillery, etc.) However, I don't think those are the most realistic (or enjoyable) scenarios.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:
But bunkers are undermodeled and overpriced (1), while MGs are significantly undermodeled, making them marginal for CM defense schemes(2).
(1) No.
(2) Undermodeled, perhaps; marginal, no.

The rest of your analysis has very many good and important points, but misses one critical fact: A Combined Arms Defense is *more* than the sum of its parts.

True, a single bunker, for example, is not particularly strong. But a bunker that is part of a checkerboard of mg/minefield/AT/wire/mortar defences can be literally invincible. Such defences, if perfectly using the terrain, do not simply add up: they multiply, like the abilities of an RPG Ueberhero.

And this is the part you are overlooking. Your defending units and structures should work together in a harmonic and cohesive manner like the pieces on a chessboard. The power of 'The Position' should be an order of magnitude greater than the power of your individual units added up.

So my Zen of CM Defense is:

(1) Never think 'Unit', always think 'Position'.
(2) Never underestimate the power of the checkerboard. smile.gif

[Panzer Leader]

Great debate folks. I have a (still) unfinished document I was writing for the now defunct "Combat MIssions" site about my personal experiences in the multitude of Assault-Defense pbems I played. Most every time I play it is this type of game, and I definitely enjoy being the defender, though I also take the Assaulting side every once in a while so I can win occaisionally, LOL!

Sadly, I know I am not the greatest tactician around, so my theories are all based on what the 'average' (me) player has to work with. If I had the finnesse of a Fionn my article would assuredly be different than it is.

That said, I would have to agree with the Austrian fellow. By its nature, defending against the assault is a SET-PIECE battle. This is what it is set up to represent in reality. The defender is given time to make a prepared position, while the attacker builds up his forces until he is ready to ASSAULT. I believe that was the intention when BTS made this type of QB, and it does its best to mimic (within the game) what an actual assault would be like, i.e. a large force attacking a weaker but dug-in defender.

I cannot understand what Fionn means by his technique. Do you mean that you do not have a static defense? Does your strategey differ from that of current or past military thinking? Anyways, "playing by the rules" to me means that in an Assault-Defend quick-battle, it is the defenders duty to have a line, and it is the assaulter's duty to crack it. That said, I will use any gamey tactic at my disposal to achieve those ends. Let me dig out my old half-written article and I will post it here (LONG - 4 pages) for your entertainment. Actually I will start a new thread since it is a rteal monster and not totally on the subject of this here topic, but rather lays out guidelines and options of how to play this type of scenario.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Fionn:
1. An aggressive defence is superior to a passive defence ( if properly executed).
I think that is highly game-dependent.

In CMBO foxholes are very weak, especially foxholes outside tree where you avoid treebursts. Foxholes can't be dug in rough, infantry can't use cellars. So the advantage of staying in the prepared defenses is not very big in CMBO. If the advantage was bigger, a balanced attack/defense scenario would give you fewer forces and counterattacking would be less possible.

The weak vehicle MGs also make a breakout of the defender's infantry easier.

The small maps also make a difference, both in favour and against counterattcking. The defender's vehicles are not likely to find a covered route to attack with minimal threat to their sides. But on the other hand the attacker can't just step back by some distance with his AFVs to shoot up the counterattackers. I have repeadently seen pure-infantry forces, in fact pure squad forces, literraly pushing AFVs into map edges and kill them with Panzerfausts.

All that is different in other games, amoung them reality.

[Priest]

Time to chime in.

First off I think we are all talking about some different things. Jason is concerned with small maps and in game issues, Fionn and Aust are talking about higher level ideas on tactics, and some AARs are thrown in for good measure.

Jason, in QB small maps you are correct, the solution is to play scenarios or even better operational games. This is similiar to the French tank fiasco on the SC forum. The tools are there to fix this, I think you are looking at a worse case scenario.

Fionn and Aust, I think you are both right. That being said I am one of the folks Fionn has demonstrated (mostly through AARs, you never really got a chance in CPX) that an aggressive defense is a good defense. I of course have my own spin on it, but that is realistic. No one attacked exactly like Rommel but a lot of other commanders used the same principles. Can static defense work? Sure! Can aggressive defense work? Sure! It depends on the situation and the commanders involved, because it always depends on the situation and commanders involved. Not to mention the troops and so on and so forth, but in CM it is really the sitaution and commander (players) that are involved.

Everyone else, cool, I love to know how other people are playing! I like the Hetzer buy myself btw, but I would have bought an ATG to support it. Maybe a 50mm or two.

[JasonC]

I will substantiate my claim that bunkers are undermodeled and overpriced. First the log bunker, which is the most extreme example. It costs 50% more than an HMG team.

I have seen HMG teams withstand the fire of an entire attacking company for minutes, with 2 men down and middling suppression. Light mortar rounds can typically pin them with a dozen rounds fired, or break them in more like the whole ammo load of the firing mortar (but the MG crew may still rally later). A bazooka has essentially no chance of taking one out. 37mm light AFV fire slightly suppresses them. 75mm HE from serious tanks will pin the crew and can break them over a number of shots, but sometimes one will last through a full minute of aimed tank HE, in building cover. They are nearly impossible to spot if hiding in cover until they choose to open up, although their fire discipline becomes spotty under about 100m. They shoot in any direction, can relocate though at slow speed, and can use any form of cover. I have seen some shoot over 80 times in a single QB. And they suck away attacking infantry ammo in large quantities.

Log bunkers, on the other hand, are destroyed by 81mm mortar rounds, any direct fire HE, including 37mm, bazooka rounds, and any indirect artillery. You can spot them clear across the map even if placed in tree cover. It is a rare log bunker that fires 40 times before it dies. If weapons capable of KOing them were scarce, they might have some value for their resistence to small arms fire, but they are not and they don't. They have limited covered arcs outside which they are defenseless, and cannot move. For the price of 2 of them you can have 3 HMG teams which are superior in essentially every practical respect.

Next come MG pillboxes. These are actually protected against light mortar rounds and indirect artillery fire. They are major fortifications with the price tag of a superior ATG. However, they can be KOed by bazooka and 37mm cannon fire from the front. At least they can reply to the bazookas. They can deny open ground to unsupported infantry within their limited covered arc and LOS, and so have the potential to play an important role in an integrated defense. But a little examination will show that in practice they can essentially never do this very well.

The problem is that two aspects of MG pillboxes pull in two different directions. Their limited covered arc counsels placement to cover wide areas in one direction, with long LOS lines. Because otherwise the area they cover is so trivial that once spotted (which they will be rapidly, having no stealth at all) they are easily avoided. But such long LOS lines invite countering AFVs, which trump them outright without loss. The way to avoid vunerability to AFVs is to use reverse slope or angled deployments that limit the zone they can be fired at from, and preferably require any AFV that can see them to come close by, and thus potentially into range and LOS of some supporting AT weapon. But such deployments give tiny total LOS footprints in their forward arcs, making them easy to avoid.

So either they don't cover much area and the attacker just goes around, or they do cover a lot of area and the attacker can safely put any gun-armed AFV in any part of that area, and they die. Meanwhile, with attacker's odds the size of force they must account for to pay for themselves is a tank or infantry platoon, neither of which they have any serious prospect of actually killing. No human is brain dead enough to march so much infantry through their covered arc for so long, in open ground, that they might actually kill an entire attacking platoon. To deny a modest open ground area, you are better off with a large AP minefield. As a positional ranged shooter, you are better off with a serious AT capable gun, or several cheaper guns, either of which the enemy will have greater actual difficulty (or will have to risk, spend, or lose more) (1) detecting (2) avoiding being killed by and (3) actually neutralizing.

Which leaves as the only truly useful pillboxes the gun armed ones. These are indeed capable items. Unlike MG pillboxes, they can kill the item that can easily kill them - direct fire HE shooters. They are protected against artillery and infantry fire, and they are dangerous to AFVs. The only problems with them are (1) limited covered arc combined with being stationary and (2) cost. Of which the last is the more important.

The limitation of LOS can be dealt with by interlocking their sighting cone with that of another long-ranged AT shooter, AT gun or another pillbox. Two gun armed pillboxes that cross their fields of fire can indeed form a significant military barrier. The problem is, creating such a barrier costs 260 points for a defender outnumbered 3:2. And 1-2 minutes of artillery smoke will let attackers run through the crossed fire lanes. The 88mm pillbox is not vunerable to another potential counter, Jumbos or Churchills just crawling up and putting HE through the firing slit. But it costs 50% more than the 75mm one in return for this.

For the cost of 1 75mm pillbox you can have 2 75mm PAK dug in rather than pillbox protected. The PAK are vunerable to artillery, true. But they can also hide, while the pillbox can't. And they can fire in any direction they can see. And there are two of them. Each of which, and especially all of which, make them much harder to bypass with just smoke.

It is generally more practical to build a defense around 2 75mm PAK with crossing lines of sight than around 1 75mm pillbox. You are more likely to get a flank aspect from one of them if a Churchill or Jumbo comes along. They are less likely to always face you since they don't know where you are, since you can hide.

Meanwhile, to actually take the PAK out with artillery is not as easy a counter as it may at first appear. First, they usually fire to reveal themselves, meaning they have often already killed something by the time the artillery counter is reached for. Second, just 75mm or 81mm fire is unlikely to KO them - though it will pin them - in just a minute or two. It takes medium artillery, or sustained fire (a whole module) from lighter stuff, to stand a good chance of neutralizing one dug in PAK (without exposing anything to it, I mean).

Which means the point cost to the attacker is around 100 pts, after whatever the PAK killed. The attacker can exchange off a discovered PAK, yes. But he can blind a discovered pillbox. I'd much rather have two exchangable guns that hide, than one blindable gun that sticks out like a sore thumb.

What parts of this are undermodeling? Far too easy to spot, and far too easy to KO with firing slit hits even with tiny HE rounds. What part of it is overpricing? Twice the cost of stealthier gun in guns, in return for indirect artillery invunerability which is not as useful as it first appears, "economically" speaking, in the existing CM price structure for towed guns vs. artillery ammo.

Notice that the last is wholly a CM price issue, not an historical reality one. In reality, attackers could easily expend thousands of rounds of artillery HE per day and defenders could not afford to lose hundreds of towed guns per day. CM shells are expensive compared to their historical availability, and that makes the cheaper towed guns they counter relatively more useful in CM than in reality. Also, smoke is more readily available for all artillery and in any quantity desired than it actually was historically.

It is also worth noting that AFVs can be a more effective and less expensive way of getting gun firepower protected against indirect artillery and infantry fire. For 64% of the price of a 75mm pillbox, you can take a Hetzer instead. With the same gun, essentially the same defense against infantry and artillery fire, and the ability to move around. It is also invunerable to 37mm and 75mm guns from the front, while the firing slit of the pillbox is not. For 87% of the price of an 88mm pillbox, you can have a Tiger I, which is tough to take out even with 75mm or bazookas even from the side, let alone 37mm from the front. It also has a turret, 2 MGs, and moves. Yes, 76mm Tungsten will KO it from the front more reliably than it would KO the pillbox - if fired first. But an 81mm smoke fire mission will not neutralize the Tiger.

Yes, I am perfectly well aware of the combined arms aspect of defense systems. Attackers seek to dismantle such constructions one piece at a time, of course. Which makes the single-counter match ups each unit type faces still highly relevant. The defender can rarely afford to simple firefight the whole of the attacker's superior firepower from the word "go", at range. Many defenders are hiding, and the attacker has a larger force to begin with. What I dispute is not the need for functionally articulated defenses, but any serious role in such defenses for bunkers (or much for wire, in CM QBs as they stand).

I have already explained why AP mines typically outperform wire in CM conditions. Undoubtedly this is primarily a pricing issue too. It was historically much easier to stake out wire than to sow hundreds of hidden AP mines. And wire itself was not scarce; time and manpower were the real limit on amounts of it used. You might see more realistic field fortifications if 10 pts bought a 40x40 tile of AP mines or a 100m string of barbed wire. As it is, wire is overpriced compared to AP mines for what it does (especially its lack of stealth).

A typical effective defense is based around infantry, guns, TRP registered artillery, and minefields. Infantry AT complements infantry and occasionally acts as a poor man's AT gun - it is a marginal but useful suppliment rather than a major arm. HMGs complement guns by suppressing scouts without the guns needing to reveal themselves, and by wasting attacker's ammo by drawing fire - again a marginal useful suppliment rather than a major arm. (Note that the last is due to undermodeling, not historical reality). Occasional AFVs can stiffen a defense and give it some adapting power and counterattack possibilities, but they are not essential and sound defenses can be built without them.

In the items that matter, infantry counters close approaches by enemy infantry and lives inside bodies of cover tanks can't get at ("reverse slopes" of one kind or another especially). Guns cover areas of more open ground between such areas, and provide ranged AT defense. TRP artillery and minefields provide area fire effects that cannot be suppressed by local attacker firepower, countering attempts to mass into a narrow spearhead.

Those roles are essential, and a defense that can't do one of them will collapse if the attacker has the right weapon to bring to bear. Bunker and wire are twiddles and not essential. AFVs can perform the role of guns with mobility and less vunerability to attacker artillery, but are a luxury item. HMGs are only needed to stop scouts without revealing more valuable things (because they are undermodeled - otherwise they would have the gun-like role of covering open ground, but specifically against infantry).

For what it is worth...

[ May 29, 2002, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Tarquelne]

But a bunker that is part of a checkerboard of mg/minefield/AT/wire/mortar defences can be literally invincible. Such defences, if perfectly using the terrain,"Literally invincible"? Oh, come now.

My problem with your, ah, position is that you seem to be overemphasizing the power of the _static_ defense. Or, maybe just overestimating the ease of setting up a practically invincible static defense in CM... at least with the map sizes and force sizes I play with. I'd like to see you and Fionn comment on what map and force sizes you prefer to play with. It'd also be interesting if one of you tends to play QBs and the other scenarios.

do not simply add up: they multiply, "Synergy"


like the abilities of an RPG Ueberhero."Too little to do on the weekend." ;)

[Redwolf]

My take on the problem of pillboxes best killed by 37mm light armor is to pair them with a 37mm Flak. Due to the extreme hit propablity the Flak takes care of armor up to a Stuart nicely and the pilllbox gets used for what it is meant to, Shermans and up. TRPs are a must to buy with gun pillboxes, otherwise they are wasted.

The best thing is that in the CMBO world pillboxes are vehicles, which are transparent - so to ensure same LOS for Flak and pillbox you can put the Flak right behind it and shoot through it :D

http://www.cons.org/tmp/pillbox-flak.jpg

[Redwolf]

More points on the pillbox post:

Pillboxes can be hulldown. Placing them appropriately so that likely target positions are seem from hull-down increases their survivability substancially. Of course, this is a slight gamble since the LOS without an actual target, which is all you have in setup, does not show where you can see while being hulldown to the target.

The Hetzer is not really invulnerable to 37mm or 75mm fire, gun damage is a common occurance. I would have to measure but I think it is about the same probablity for gun damage and firing slit penetration (while the weak spot penetration is more rare on tanks without shot trap). The pillbox also comes with substancially more ammo, it is a useful HE shooter. It is no question that the Hetzer is one of the price/performance cherrys in CMBO. The comparision of Jagdpanther and 88mm pillbox is similar from capablities, but they have almost the same price.

A very tough pillbox is a dug in Tiger 1E. I know it is hard to believe that the CMBO Tiger is good for anything, but yes it is. When dug in it is hard to hit, hard to kill and it covers an angle of 360 degrees with a "short" 88 and a coaxial MG, both with lots of ammo.

[ May 29, 2002, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Scott B]

This is an interesting discussion.

Austrian Strategist, I take your comments to mean you've read Clausewitz, then? I've spent a few weeks studying On War in my time-- enough to know that I've only scratched the surface-- and the reading of it is something I take very seriously (and I suspect Fionn does as well, given the impact of On War on Soviet military strategy).

I think you're misunderstanding why Clausewitz considered the defense to be the stronger form of war. In his words, quoted from the Howard/Paret translation:

The one advantage that the attacker possesses is that he is free to strike at any point along the whole line of defense, and in full force; the defender, on the other hand, is able to surprise his opponent constantly throughout the engagement by the strength and direction of his counterattacks.When he states that the defense is "intrinsically stronger than the offensive," it is immediately following this statement:

Tactically, every engagement, large or small, is defensive if we leave the initiative to our opponent and await his appearance before our lines. From that moment we can employ all offensive means without losing the advantages of the defensive-- that is to say the advantages of waiting and the advantages of position.Finally, he also notes the following:

But if we are really waging war, we must return the enemy's blows; and these offensive acts in a defensive war come under the heading of "defense"-- in other words, our offensive takes place within our own positions or theater of operations. Thus, a defensive campaign can be fought with offensive battles, and in a defensive battle, we can employ our divisions offensively. Even in a defensive position awaiting the enemy assault, our bullets take the offensive. So the defensive form of war is not a simple shield, but a shield made up of well-directed blows.So it would seem that a more close reading of Clausewitz does not support your assertions-- which has me puzzled. I think that you have some of the right ideas, but they are being poorly communicated. I think this in part because of your chess analogy; a strong defensive player in chess knows well the importance of initiative and reflexive control of one's opponent. So I suspect your approach is a cautious, methodical one, but not necessarily the "passive" one that it is being characterized as.

I do not believe Fionn is advocating a reckless course of action-- it is every bit as calculated as your defensive network of fortifications. Both, if done properly, can exert pressure on the attacker and force him to react to you; the advantage of Fionn's method is he isn't constrained to choosing where to force that reaction prior to the beginning of the battle. The (potential) disadvantage is that it can require a great deal more skill to execute.

I hope this is of some use.

Scott

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Tarquelne]

I would just say that it seems self-evident to me that the course of action which gives one the greatest leeway is the superior course of action. What I think you're missing is the gap between theory and practice. (Or, alternatively, if all you're addressing is theory, then you aren't missing anything.) Not all courses of action are equally easy to followed, and its not always clear which action should be taken.

Rather than being only a matter of attitude, someone may be much less skilled at maintaining a fluid defense, as opposed to a largely static one. The fluid defense does indeed have more courses of action availble... more possible actions. The catch is that a huge number of those possible actions are _bad_ ones. Poor moves.

A static defense, OTOH, is relatively straight forward. If nothing else, less movement = less opportunities to make a foolish move.

I do firmly believe that a fluid defense is superior to a static defense... in theory. But a player has to know his limits. I, for example, try to fight my defenses as fluidly as possible, but I still rely on many static elements. I'm just not skilled enough to not take the "easy way out" pretty often.

A static defense can also easily be the best option if the troops used are low quailty - high command delays increase the difficulty of maneuver. And, outside the scope of CM, if you've got the time and material, a static defense is a safer bet than a fulid one. Fewer opportunities for the commander to make a boo-boo.

A very straight forward example would be digging in a tank. I've never dug in a tank at the beginning of a scenario... and sometimes I've lost that tank when a dug-in tank probably would have survived longer.

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[xerxes]

A passive defender will have serious problems if the attacker is flexible. An active counterpunching defender is an attackers nightmare.

There is nothing more devastating/demoralizing to an attacker then to have their heavy hitter force counterpunched.

[NightGaunt]

there is no static defense i have played against that can not be defeated. It is just too easy to probe until a weak spot is found or pile up and attack 1 main spot. With flxible units and more specifically the ability to locally counter attack, a defense is bound to fall against even a smaller attacking force that can hit each defensive area peacemeal and slowly nibble it to death.

[PiggDogg]

Redwolf,

In your post with the snapshot of the pillbox, 37 killer AA, and soon to be dead Stuart, you are well aware that the 37 AA will get a turn or two of unabashed bliss of whacking Allied thin skins if they are foolish enough to hang around.

However, against a competent opponent with sufficient resources, probably in two to five turns, the 37 AA will assume ground temperature from off board arty, from on board mortars (spotted or not), and/or from a bunch of heavy skinned vehicles and ground pounders.

Indeed, your set up is finely done and I would use it, but is certainly not perfect or permanent. However, as we all know, in CM there is always a counter to everything. :rolleyes:

In general, he who kills and, thus, is seen soon is turned to ashes. :( :(

Cheers, Richard tongue.gif tongue.gif :D :D

[ May 30, 2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[karch]

Fionn,
I'm very interested in your tactics. I'm really curious if you save your PBEM files.. esp movie files. We have a T1 I could post a batch of your PBEM files on in evenings. (we run our company on the T1 during the day, but I could batch the directory to server from 6pm-6am). I'd really love to see a small/med size game and watch your technique in action. Especially if it's against a particularly good attacker. Email me at skarch@mac.com if you are interested. I can get a directory put together pretty quickly.

Great thread, BTW. I'm learning a lot.

all the best. Scott

[GenSplatton]

TRPs are a must to buy with gun pillboxes, otherwise they are wasted.
Redwolf, I know of using TRPs with artillery, but what does it do for a pillbox???

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:
Redwolf,

In your post with the snapshot of the pillbox, 37 killer AA, and soon to be dead Stuart, you are well aware that the 37 AA will get a turn or two of unabashed bliss of whacking Allied thin skins if they are foolish enough to hang around.

However, against a competent opponent with sufficient resources, probably in two to five turns, the 37 AA will assume ground temperature from off board arty, from on board mortars (spotted or not), and/or from a bunch of heavy skinned vehicles and ground pounders.

Indeed, your set up is finely done and I would use it, but is certainly not perfect or permanent. However, as we all know, in CM there is always a counter to everything. :rolleyes:
No question about that. This is not meant to be permanent or universal.

The construction is meant to optimize the damage you do to the attacker. Even with the resource superiority he/she enjoys there is no endless amount of 37mm vehicles, artillery or mortars.

The attacker's choice is basically what to expose to get the 37mm Flak spotted the hard way. It must be something that the defender is willing to expose the Flak for. Tanks won't. MG-only vehicles won't. Infantry probably won't if there are MGs defending the pillbox/Flak combo. Only 37mm-armed armor will. So basically if the attacker plans to kill the pillbox by exploting the high rate of fire and high hit probablity of the 37mm guns, then he has to commit himself to it without getting a chance to probe for the Flak. The alternative within the 37mm attack is to nuke the position without actually knowing the Flak is there, which most attacker's can afford either.

Of course the attacker can choose an entirely different tactics, not trying to exploit 37mm guns anymore, like infantry rush under smoke. But that is all the combo I proposed is about, goal reached.

Also note that the 37mm Flak is pretty deep into the woods. That increases stealth (a 2+ stealth HQ is good, too), but usually the drop in hit probablity does't make deep-woods placement worthwhile for guns. The Flak however has plenty of hit probablity to start from so we can affort doing that.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by GenSplatton:
Redwolf, I know of using TRPs with artillery, but what does it do for a pillbox???TRPs increase the hit probablity of anti-armor shots. Rather dubious in the manual, but the effect is there.

[JasonC]

I find the 75mm pillbox plus co-located 37mm set up rather silly. It costs 182 points as regulars. For that price you could have 3 positions with just a 37mm Flak or 75mm PAK stationed alone. All of which can hide, and any of which can kill the 37mm AFV from ambush. If I encountered that set up, I'd just smoke the pair. Co-locating to get the same LOS also means you can be taken out of the battle by the same couple of smoke rounds. But 3 towed guns at different locations could not be masked so easily.

What does the pillbox get in response? Individually it is more likely to win a solo duel with an ordinary Sherman, certainly. But compared to 3 hidden towed guns? If those opened up together they would be practically assured of bagging a lone Sherman. Invunerability to artillery? Fine, but it would take a lot of artillery to knock out 3 seperated dug in guns, and it does not take a lot of smoke to mask the pillbox-flak pair.

I can imagine situations in which 1-2 gun armed pillboxes might be a useful part of a defensive scheme, though an expensive one (god like attacking artillery, wide open LOS lines from a pair of dominant peaks, etc). But hardly an essential aspect of general defensive schemes, or one likely to repay the high cost most of the time. Most of the time you will be far better off using those accurate 37mm FLAK beside simple 75mm PAK, with stealth rather than concrete, and more of them.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Patgod:

In a current game this is what i tried to do. german defense, only had 100pts to spend on armor. i took a crack hetzer, and assumed he would come at me with 2 76 shermans.(1) given that the map was going to be relatively open i gambled i could win the duel at that range. 2v1 with them being regulars.

once the armor was gone i intended to use the hetzers limited HE to sure up which ever flank he hit the hardest, in combination with a good 81mm spotter. given that the terrain was rather poor for defense i figured this was my best bet. in fact i still think it was.(2)

unfortunately i got oh so very unlucky. in the first exchange between my hetzer and his 2 sherm76's(i guessed right hehe) my commander was hit by a richocheting shell, shocking the tank. as it sat there taking hit after hit, all non penetrating, eventually the armor began to flake, and after a second casualty the crew bailed.

i dont know why i'm typing this, the game isnt over, which is btw why i havent given specifics on my infantry numbers, locations, and types. it does look however like he will win, the 2 sherms are taking their toll on my infantry, which is slowly being eaten up.(3) (1) This is me you are playing against. Good guesswork!
(2) No, your best bet would have been a Crack 88 Flak. Would have killed me.
(3) Correct! Anaconda Doctrine applied. :D

[ May 30, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Someone in a "seige mentality" could easily overlook most opportunities to counterattack, which would certainly make defending far more difficult. [/QB]Sure; but I was not talking about a limited local counter-attack. Rather, the all-out-counterattacking style Fionn seems to have in mind.

[Austrian Strategist]

DP.

[ May 30, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Next come MG pillboxes. These are actually protected against light mortar rounds and indirect artillery fire. They are major fortifications with the price tag of a superior ATG. However, they can be KOed by bazooka and 37mm cannon fire from the front. At least they can reply to the bazookas. They can deny open ground to unsupported infantry within their limited covered arc and LOS, and so have the potential to play an important role in an integrated defense. But a little examination will show that in practice they can essentially never do this very well.

The problem is that two aspects of MG pillboxes pull in two different directions. Their limited covered arc counsels placement to cover wide areas in one direction, with long LOS lines. Because otherwise the area they cover is so trivial that once spotted (which they will be rapidly, having no stealth at all) they are easily avoided. But such long LOS lines invite countering AFVs, which trump them outright without loss. The way to avoid vunerability to AFVs is to use reverse slope or angled deployments that limit the zone they can be fired at from, and preferably require any AFV that can see them to come close by, and thus potentially into range and LOS of some supporting AT weapon. But such deployments give tiny total LOS footprints in their forward arcs, making them easy to avoid.

So either they don't cover much area and the attacker just goes around, or they do cover a lot of area and the attacker can safely put any gun-armed AFV in any part of that area, and they die.Yes, they die. The AFVs, I mean. Because there is a hidden 88 Flak just beside the bunker right on top of the hill. The bunker is the bait in the AFV trap. Let´s say the three enemy AFVs kill the bunker right before they get killed by my flak, I am ahead by how much? tongue.gif

Combined Arms don´t add up; they multiply. :cool:

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

So it would seem that a more close reading of Clausewitz does not support your assertions-- which has me puzzled. Oh, it does. You read Clausewitz correctly. But there is a vast difference between the local, tactical counterattack, which is indeed a vital part of defence, and the 'carrying the war into attacker´s territory', which Fionn, if I understand him at all, has in mind.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by NightGaunt:
there is no static defense i have played against that can not be defeated. It is just too easy to probe until a weak spot is found or pile up and attack 1 main spot. With flxible units and more specifically the ability to locally counter attack, a defense is bound to fall against even a smaller attacking force that can hit each defensive area peacemeal and slowly nibble it to death.Well, ok, after a fashion. But I believe QBs are meant to be played with a turn limit that forces the attacker to somewhat hurry. ('Finish the enemy, before his operational level reinforcements arrive')

I agree with you in principle, but the turn limit should not allow the application of your method.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:
I find the 75mm pillbox plus co-located 37mm set up rather silly. It costs 182 points as regulars. For that price you could have 3 positions with just a 37mm Flak or 75mm PAK stationed alone.
I find it silly, too, and I was even thinking of an 88 bunker smile.gif

This is just meant to solve the problem that people engage punkers deliberately exploiting their weakness against 37mm shot floods. It will do the job, if you defend in a quickbattle and bunkers were not excluded, then you will see lots of targets for the 37mm, for sure.

20mm Flak guns on the flanks may do as well, though, because people tend to buy Greyhounds, not Stuarts, to save the armor points for the Super Pershings you will shoot with your Pueppchens.

Did I mention that I almost completely switched to playing scenarios these days? :D

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:
Oh, it does. You read Clausewitz correctly. But there is a vast difference between the local, tactical counterattack, which is indeed a vital part of defence, and the 'carrying the war into attacker´s territory', which Fionn, if I understand him at all, has in mind.It's not my reading of Clausewitz that I'm concerned about-- it is yours. You correctly note that Clausewitz argues that the defense is the stronger form of warfare, but then you go on to misinterpret some of the reasons why. Then, you have him saying that the only time one should counterattack was:

a) the Attacker has already spent his forces -Napoleon at Waterloo!-, or
b) the Attacker is inept in the first place.This is quite clearly not the case, as I have previously noted. Your interpretation of Clausewitz is tremendously flawed if you do not appreciate how what he actually wrote is far more akin to what Fionn proposes than what you have written; indeed, I'd say Clausewitz outright disagrees with you. Which is why, in my previous post, I offered that you were likely miscommunicating your points; now, I think you are just wrong.

To be fair, I'd say it is not entirely wrong, though-- I should add that your argument does mesh well with On War in that the point is made that time passing benefits the defender, all other things being equal, and at the least your point regarding game lengths in Combat Mission being adjusted downward to benefit the defender appreciates this fact. However, if it does come down to a matter of turns, or map size, as to whether your defense succeeds or fails, I imagine that it would be rather difficult to characterize as "nearly invincible."

Scott

[Fionn]

Scott,
Check out CMHQ ( http://www.combatmission.com ) They have some old AARs I've done and there's a new AAR going up at Mods and Modders ( link can be found in news section of CMHQ) featuring a Soviet-style attack (using American forces) on some German Fallschirmjaegeren entrenched in a village and its surrounding terrain. You may find it interesting and illuminating. If you have any questions there is a thread here on the forum to post comments and questions re: the AAR

[ May 31, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

It's not my reading of Clausewitz that I'm concerned about--(1) it is yours. You correctly note that Clausewitz argues that the defense is the stronger form of warfare, but then you go on to misinterpret some of the reasons why. Then, you have him saying that the only time one should counterattack was:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />a) the Attacker has already spent his forces -Napoleon at Waterloo!-, or
b) the Attacker is inept in the first place.This is quite clearly not the case, as I have previously noted. Your interpretation of Clausewitz is tremendously flawed if you do not appreciate how what he actually wrote is far more akin to what Fionn proposes than what you have written;(2)(3) indeed, I'd say Clausewitz outright disagrees with you. Which is why, in my previous post, I offered that you were likely miscommunicating your points; now, I think you are just wrong.

To be fair, I'd say it is not entirely wrong, though-- I should add that your argument does mesh well with On War in that the point is made that time passing benefits the defender, all other things being equal, and at the least your point regarding game lengths in Combat Mission being adjusted downward to benefit the defender appreciates this fact. However, if it does come down to a matter of turns, or map size, as to whether your defense succeeds or fails, (4) I imagine that it would be rather difficult to characterize as "nearly invincible."

Scott</font>[/QUOTE](1) But, perhaps, you should -see below.

(2) Definitely not. Clausewitz would never argue that the (morally and/or physically) weaker side should carry the war to the attacker. As Fionn does.

(3) Furthermore, Clausewitz explicitly says -and you seem to have overlooked this- that there are positions that cannot be attacked at all. Torres Vedras was such a position. What I am saying is: Building such a position should be the defender´s ideal. Ideal in the Kantian sense: Something that, in the real world, can not always be achieved, but, as far as possible, should be approximated.

(4) I can not take you seriously here. Make the map large enough, and there can be no defence at all (WWII, North African Desert). Give the attacker unlimited time, and he will nibble away at the defender until the latter is destroyed. Without a given space and time limit, there simply is no defence -so I totally fail to see you have an argument here. Of course, a static defense doesn´t work on a large map with no time limit -because this is not a balanced scenario. Such a map can, quite simply, not be defended. On that map, as an attacker, I build a moving hedgehog and take 2.000 turns to kill the defender one man at a time. You are really arguing that I am wrong, because my argument depends on the existence of space and time. :D

Commonsense, please!

[ May 30, 2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

[JasonC]

No, you are not "up" anything, in fact you get behind. Because (1) it does not take 3 AFVs to kill an MG bunker - one 37mm light AFV, or at the outside a plain Sherman will do just fine (2) said AFV costs the attacker 73-122 points, but also outnumbers you 3:2, so you have to KO one for a loss of 52-81 points or less just to break even while (3) the MG pillbox costs that much all on its lonesone and (4) you just revealed a hidden 88, which nobody will walk into the LOS of afterward unless they first distract it, smoke it, or shell it to death indirectly, which (5)they will do presently, after which the MG pillbox is dead too. Which 88 (6) has to kill more than one vanilla Sherman to pay for itself, in addition to the loss of the pillbox. And which 88 (7) could have done the job without the pillbox in the first place, by just hiding, since enemy AFVs have to get LOS to something sometime to be worth anything, making every item you have useful as "bait" in place of the expensive MG pillbox, in addition to fufilling their own proper tactical roles.

It is just a waste to buy a MG pillbox just to lure a Greyhound into a trap. Greyhounds walk into traps for a living. You don't have to expend a platoon's worth of your force to bring that about. If you want to lure him to that particular spot, put an HMG team there with reasonably wide LOS and then just don't hide it. It will see things and open up soon enough, and attract an AFV to suppress the MG. More likely a 75mm vehicle rather than 37mm, too, because smaller direct fire guns aren't as useful against an HMG team as against a pillbox (silly but true).

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I wasn't limiting myself to discussing only tactical or operational or even strategic counter-offensives or offensives.I know. What you are, in effect, arguing is that there is only the meeting engagement. If the defender is to maneuver and attack as if he were the attacker, there is obviously no reason to give the attacker a pts advantage.

You are implicitly denying there is any real advantage in, specifically, being the defender. (Because he should act like the attacker, anyway.) I say that cannot be correct.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I am materially weaker ( at the start) but I am definitely always (in my own eyes) morally superior since I never have any doubt going into a game. I firmly believe that but for a fluke ( and/or playing Bil Hardenberger) I'll win 100% of games I play. Fionn,

Morally superior meaning: Cracks vs. Greens. I am talking not about believes and self-images, but about the kind of moral superiority that can be expressed point-wise. ;)

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Fionn:
I play with Regular troops mostly. Because I BELIEVE I will win they outperform most opponents' Crack troops. MORAL superiority is a real phenomenon with real effects on your in-game troops.

Now we know how Fionn cheats. It is the ultimate cheat with no counter measure. He uses his overwhelming psychokinetic powers, the POWER OF BELIEF to twist the bytes to do his bidding ;) .

(There has actually been many parapsychological experiments where human intention seems to affect some random atomic level processes in a statistically meaningfull way. Go here for more info: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/
You can also hone your CM cheating skills trying those on-line experiments! Well, propably this is utter bull, but you never know...!)

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:
No, you are not "up" anything, in fact you get behind. Because (1) it does not take 3 AFVs to kill an MG bunker - one 37mm light AFV, or at the outside a plain Sherman will do just fine (2) said AFV costs the attacker 73-122 points, but also outnumbers you 3:2, so you have to KO one for a loss of 52-81 points or less just to break even while (3) the MG pillbox costs that much all on its lonesone and (4) you just revealed a hidden 88, which nobody will walk into the LOS of afterward unless they first distract it, smoke it, or shell it to death indirectly, which (5)they will do presently, after which the MG pillbox is dead too. Which 88 (6) has to kill more than one vanilla Sherman to pay for itself, in addition to the loss of the pillbox. And which 88 (7) could have done the job without the pillbox in the first place, by just hiding, since enemy AFVs have to get LOS to something sometime to be worth anything, making every item you have useful as "bait" in place of the expensive MG pillbox, in addition
to fufilling their own proper tactical roles.

It is just a waste to buy a MG pillbox just to lure a Greyhound into a trap. Greyhounds walk into traps for a living. You don't have to expend a platoon's worth of your force to bring that about. If you want to lure him to that particular spot, put an HMG team there with reasonably wide LOS and then just don't hide it. It will see things and open up soon enough, and attract an AFV to suppress the MG. More likely a 75mm vehicle rather than 37mm, too, because smaller direct fire guns aren't as useful against an HMG team as against a pillbox (silly but true).I'm not quite sure whom you are answering to here, but a couple of points:

In a normal quickbattle I would buy this stuff mainly for fun. A Jagdpanther is clearly better from a winning standpoint and costs even slightly less that the 88 pillbox.

Seriously employing a conrete pillbox would be reseved for a defense where you can review and walk the terrain beforehand - which would be entirely historical, pillboxes weren't build anywhere.

It is true that even with terrain review beforehand, the pillbox will most likely not pay off point-wise because as you say the opponent may wish to avoid it. It will, however, shape the terrain. The attacker will either have to try to kill the pillbox, which you can make costly, or he will have to narrow his choices of approach paths, where all the other paths can enjoy a high friendly unit density.

With regards to the other discussion going on in this thread: I agree that pillboxes are fundamentally unsuited for couterattacking.

[Zipper]

Originally posted by Fionn:
I firmly believe that but for a fluke ( and/or playing Bil Hardenberger) I'll win 100% of games I play.What a testament to this game that someone who thinks they'll win 100% of their games still plays it. If I had a game that I won all the time, I would drop it and find another (harder) one.

Zipper

[Tripps]

Aww look, can we see the AAR's of say, 4 games between Fionn and Austrian Stategist, 2 games defending, 2 games attacking?? smile.gif

then maybe we can see how these differing tactics work against each other?? ;)

Austrian Strategist's "siege like attack" vs Fionn's "Attack defense" would be a mighty encounter smile.gif

good thread too, totally absorbed!

[JasonC]

I think Pillar's comments are very much to the point. I think Fionn's comments about moral superiority are the emptiest braggadocio, and obscurantist nonsense. I see nothing more than the blue pants St. Cyr French 1914 cult of the offensive, which is one of the most thoroughly refuted and ruinous ideas in the history of land warfare. (It is also thoroughly drummed into many a junior officer's head to this day, mostly for its training and morale effects, and pretty heedlessly considering the common historical consequences of that attitude).

But I nevertheless agree with Fionn that aggressiveness matters in a defender. To put that together with Pillar's "doesn't it depend?" comments, I think we have to start making distinctions rather more careful than "counterattack" vs. "sit still".

There is a difference between all adaptative movements to roll with an attack, shift reserves about, etc, and counterattacking. A defense that doesn't do even the former is usually a weak defense, unless the terrain is unusually favorable for it (which does happen - more on that below) or the attacker particularly dim. Against the CM AI, if you can't win without moving a piece you don't understand some basic principles of defense. But that is a demonstration of the stupidity of the AI - a "stupid AI trick".

Particularly favorable terrain for it might be successive linear ridges, each steep but fairly close together, with relatively bald tops. With a reasonably high ratio of force to space, and not too long a frontage compared to weapon ranges. Then one's forces behind each ridge line are "firepower integrated" - the slopes and bald tops allow pretty much every shooter between crest A and crest B to see every point between those two - but does *not* allow them to be seen by overwatchers beyond crest B. Firepower integration makes attempts to achieve local odds basically futile. The attacker will have to fight everything between the ridges with whatever he gets over the first one. Some AP mines and TRP artillery is still necessary to prevent "dense packing", but that is pretty easy.

On a flat table top, you don't get the same fire integration because the attacker can stand off at long range from this or that angle, and disunite the defending shooters by range. And he can suppress here or there, with his whole superior force. The ridges effectively remove the first option by requiring all initial ranges to be less than some figure set by the defender, who chooses how far behind the crest to set up. And the ridge seperates the attackers front to back.

Even in those circumstances there are reasons to move. Dodging artillery is one, shifting positions along the rear of the crest is another, and switching valleys on is in (e.g. to shelter a reserve one ridge farther back) is another. But the need to move about is minimized, because the defenders don't really need to choose to block route X or route Y.

Terrain typically breaks up defensible locations and gives the attacker choices of route, with defenders along one out of position to defend along another - but rare types of terrain make nearly all approaches practically equivalent. The simultaneous attacker imperatives to crest the ridgeline together and to avoid presenting too bunched a target for artillery nearly force the attack to be delivered as a broad front shove.

More broken terrain favors mobile defenses. Such terrain compartmentalizes the defensive zone into cells seperate from each other in single-firefight (and thus fire ascendency) terms. That makes it much easier for the attacker to achieve local odds by picking his route through the defense and going along it in a relatively tight spearhead. If the defenders cover everything they are too thin in each spot. If they don't, the attacker may blow through one of the thin spots and compromize the defense before the defender can react.

Essentially the only way to deal with that is by using a concentrated reserve and maneuvering on the defense. You can make it an MLR in one area with others covered only by obstacles or artillery, or you can start with the reserve well behind a thinly held planned MLR, and then reinforce at the right spot. But any way you cut it, you have to play "man to man" rather than "zone" defense, and key off the attacker's moves. Otherwise you will be defeated in detail, one bite at a time.

There is another issue about local counterattacks and aggressiveness on the defense where I think Fionn has something. A counterpunching defense is less predictable than a passive one. This need not involve grand transitions to a meeting engagement or any cult of the offensive. Often it means just swinging forward one platoon to catch an attacking force from two sides, cut a line of reinforcement to prevent help for a hotly engaged area, or finish off an attack group broken by ambush fires or an artillery trap.

There is a counterintuitive aspect to the last of those, which can be the most important in CM QB defenses. The front of the enemy attack force is not always the most dangerous place. Sometimes it is a vunerable place instead, because he has walked into your fires. The flank of his attack force may be the location of his overwatch group, which is probably in better shape. So straight ahead counterpunching, but with very careful timing, can often pay off.

The idea is to not just break a portion of his attack, but to kill it dead, beyond the possibility of rally, and creating a real threat of your own. The attacker may be winning elsewhere, but if in the spots you win you don't merely hold him off, but smash him, you can even the score.

Understand, this is not a matter of playing the whole fight like a meeting engagement. It is a matter of stepping out of your holes to "finish the bastards" that you've already shot the heck out of from defensive positions. *That* kind of aggressiveness on defense, I have indeed found often pays high dividends. Executing it properly requires judging the current state of his attacking forces, the depth of his attack, etc.

There is also a version of both the previous and the need for "man to man coverage" in certain types of terrain that can put the two together, in a sense. Sometimes you can send your reserve not after his main effort, but after a secondary one or a direction he has neglected to attack. On a compartmentalized battlefield, you can get your own many-on-few fights that way. The edge you have is better intel from him entering your defended zone instead of the other way around. The most common case is the original attacker's secondary route (or feint) that you first mess up in an ambush, and then counterattack with your reserve to finish off, before he can react.

Obviously the forces available also influence which sort of defense you use. AFVs and high quality infantry are better at delivering local counterattacks than green infantry with dug in guns. And terrain enters in various ways - e.g. in a town the best cover is heavy buildings so you don't care about moving out of foxholes. Half squad extra sets of holes, holes from HQs, and integration of some heavy buildings into defensive positions (moved to after set up) can also create large alternate fortified positions, so that moving within your defended zone need not mean giving up your cover edge.

I think a smart defense does move, but mostly within the defended zone, with only occasional and typically limited scale "sorties" beyond it. A smart defense is aggressive about finishing off attackers broken by defensive fires. And a smart defense tries to act unpredictably, to throw curves, and never lets an attacker just dismantle it one piece at a time while doing nothing about it. But a smart defense is a defense, not a blue pants faith in l'arme blanche and the power of positive thinking. Giving up the intel differential, use of obstacles, and the cover differential by fighting in the attacker's own zone, down in odds, is usually foolish rather than smart.

[Sir Uber General]

I'd like to chip in.

As a defender, I find the style of play I go for (fluid or static) is determined by a)my purchases and b) the terrain.

There are situations such as loads of cover where a fluid defence works better - you can counterattck with your forces getting into their jump-off postion unseen which is very important. On the other hand, counter-attacking across open terrain is pretty suicidal so in those situations a more static defence is appropriate. What I hate most though is that once past the purchase screen, I cant go back and change my forces if the terrain is inapropriate for my selections :(

Now to pillboxes and bunkers. My take on wooden bunkers is dont give them a terrific LOS because they WILL get nailed before they do any good. If used to defend a reverse-slope V infantry I have found they simply dont die unless the attacker can get a piat/zook up close to knock it out, which can be terribly difficult if the attackers are being counter-attacked off the reverse slope. If the attacker wants to use up arty trying to get a top penetration on the bunker, please do. I wont cry because because it is still a lucky shot IMO and it uses up his arty nicely. Now, if the attacker wants to move an AFV into position to take out the bunker that is fantastic too, because it will have to expose itself inside the covered arc of an ATG somewhere, and the earlier I rid my enemy of his AFV's the better.

Now AT pillboxes. Placed correctly and backed up with more mobile buddies these things make a great strongpoint. Yes, the strongpoint can be avoided but to do so will mean the attacker is going use an alternate route, and on a CM map there is only going 1 or at most 2 possible other routes, and those will be the focus of the rest of my defense. I use pillboxes to dominate the terrain and funnel attackers down routes I want them to travel. If the attacker decides to try and kill my pillbox though via 37mm AFV, it means it is time to roll out the big tank that will kill his light armour and shrug off their AP (or anti-light-armour gun, both do nicely, but I prefer the tank as it can be moved elsewhere if required). That forces the attacker to go around the strongpoint (and into a towed gun ambush) or try again with bigger armour that has even less chance of taking out the box. Both results are satisfactory in my book.

Pillbox MG's arent worth it to me, end of story.

Now combine the woodies (I often buy 2 and place them to cover each others backsides) with the Pillbox75, you have the cornerstone of a nice static or semi-fluid defence.

I gotta change this signature

[NightGaunt]

I never play QBs.

the battles I involve with are usually 40-60 turns with a 2kmx2km map of some sort with important locations pointed out, and objective laid out.

But you point out the significant point that I don't take the clock into account when I play.

However, if the battle is properly made, you should have some amount of time to probe defenses, or, lacking that, the designer should tell you some information to guide your general attack plan. during a shorter term battle, you simply have to keep a larger reserve to immediatly take advantage of any perceived weakness. A shorter timed game definitly favors the defender. However, I have not had trouble with 40 turns on a 2kmx2km where I had to really travel the whole map to reach the objectives.

With all that said, the counter attacking defense is STILL better in a short length battle. Any disruption to the attacker in a short term battle is critical, if you screw up his advance in a 20 turn battle by even 5 turns, you have seriously affected his chances of winning.

[skelley]

I believe attacking is way easier than defending. I would love to see a defender running troops across the map to reinforce or counter attack my forces. Any smart attacker has his arty already targeted to areas that he thinks will give him trouble so just walking it over as his boys come running in tired as can be should be no problem. The key to defense is putting off the fighting as long as possible. Keep the attacker searching for your MLR and use MGs to keep his scouts pinned. Also putting assets in the least likely places as possible with good LOS. I think that the only way for a fair attack is for the attacker to take a -10% force reduction and for the map to be fairly open to reduce attackers scouting with MGs. Even then the defender should only hope for a minor win at best.....if both sides are equal in skill.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:
Clausewitz would never argue that the (morally and/or physically) weaker side should carry the war to the attacker. As Fionn does.Clausewitz believed that the defender should ALWAYS be looking to carry the war to the attacker-- it is the logical progression, and he specifically states that the counterattack is "the necessary component" of the defense.

Additionally, since the defender has the advantages of terrain and surprise, at the point of contact it certainly does not necessarily follow that he will be the "morally and/or physically" inferior of the combatants at all.

On War, Book Six:
If defense is the stronger form of war, yet has a negative object, it follows that it should be used only so long as weakness compels, and be abandoned as soon as we are strong enough to pursue a positive object. When one has used defensive measures successfully, a more favorable balance of strength is usually created; thus, the natural course in war is to begin defensively and end by attacking. It would therefore contradict the very idea of war to regard defense as its final purpose, just as it would to regard the passive nature of defense not only as inherent in the whole but also in all its parts. In other words, a war in which victories were used only defensively without the intention of counterattacking would be as absurd as a battle in which the principle of absolute defense-- passivity, that is-- were to dictate every action.Now clearly, he's not advocating a passive stance here by any stretch. Use the defense to construct the opportunities that will allow you to effectively attack and defeat your enemy. This is potentially out of the scope of individual Combat Mission battles, which exist in a vaccuum where you can win just by standing in the right place and never firing a shot.

Originally posted by Austrian Strategist:
(3) Furthermore, Clausewitz explicitly says -and you seem to have overlooked this- that there are positions that cannot be attacked at all. Torres Vedras was such a position. What I am saying is: Building such a position should be the defender´s ideal. Ideal in the Kantian sense: Something that, in the real world, can not always be achieved, but, as far as possible, should be approximated.Sometimes it is preferable to build an impregnable fortress. And actually, Clausewitz tells us that it can be even more beneficial to create a virtually impregnable fortress-- that which will draw an enemy and damage him in vain attempts to assault a position that is tougher than it seems. But Clausewitz, in his discussion of the defense, does not agree that this is always, or even often, going to be the preferable objective.

Book Six, Chapter Nine
...we stated that in the course of his defense the defender can fight a tactically offensive battle by seeking out and attacking the enemy as soon as he invades his theater of operations. Alternatively, he may await the enemy's appearance and then attack him in which case the the battle is still offensive in a tactical sense, though somewhat modified in form. Finally, he may actually wait for the enemy to attack his position and then strike back; not only using part of his force to hold the enemy locally, but also attacking him with the rest.It should be clear that Clausewitz realizes the value of passive defensive measures-- and he indeed specifically mentions fortifications-- but he was still offensively minded in that while the offensive is the weaker form of warfare, it has a positive aim.

Fortifications are force multipliers, as you have correctly pointed out. If properly handled, in real life conditions they can potentially turn back an opponent with significant material superiority. In Combat Mission, however, due to a variety of factors (of which several have already been noted in some detail in this thread), they are often not an efficient use of points.

Do you believe that fortifications are preferable to additional maneuver assets while on the defense? In Combat Mission, specifically?

In what ratio?

I can not take you seriously here.In that, I assure you, you are hardly unique. :D

Make the map large enough, and there can be no defence at all (WWII, North African Desert).You're suggesting, then, that effective defenses were impossible in North Africa? It's sort of down and to the left of my area of interest, so I'm certainly interested in hearing about that. Elaborate.

Was, say, the whole of the Western Soviet Union too large an area to effectively defend?

Of course, a static defense doesn´t work on a large map with no time limit -because this is not a balanced scenario. Such a map can, quite simply, not be defended.While this was not my intent, you have generated an additional point. We're not interested in defending a map; we're interested in defending an objective. Several of the inherent advantages of the defense-- such as surprise and terrain-- still go to the defender in this situation. I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable?

On that map, as an attacker, I build a moving hedgehog and take 2.000 turns to kill the defender one man at a time.All attacks have a weakness; all defenses have holes. He that best takes advantage of his opponents vulnerability, wins. While it is true that time works to the defender's advantage, it is not the defender's sole advantage, and possibly not even the most important.

My original intent in that statement, I should probably mention, was to point out that if you depended on the clock or the map size in a Combat Mission quick battle to win, then it is difficult to consider such a defense "impregnable." By taking it to its logical extreme, though, I think you've raised some interesting questions.

You are really arguing that I am wrong, because my argument depends on the existence of space and time.Actually, I was mainly arguing that you were wrong in your discussion of Clausewitz thus far; I'd probably never have bothered posting here if you'd not mentioned him. Unfortunately, misinterpretations of Clausewitz grate like nails on a chalkboard; I'm pretty far from an expert on it-- I've met maybe three people in my life whom I think are-- but I've at least spent some time trying to grasp the basics.

Fionn,

I'll have a look, thanks for the heads-up; might be a few days, but I'll get to it.

Pillar,

I'll try to answer your questions.

1) Is it possible that sometimes mobile defense may have large demands on the skill of the commander using it, because it is not the most efficient way to go? In other words, the skill of the commander must make up for the poor defensive doctrine?I do not believe it is a poorer doctrine, although there are certainly more moving parts, so to speak. It could be that the moving parts, however, are what makes the defense more efficient. I see the main advantage in enacting a mobile defense as being able to choose the timing as well as the location of an engagement; sometimes-- maybe even often-- this is the preferred course of action, to the commander that feels that it is within his grasp.

I do feel that the mobile defense is to some extent more resource intensive; you only have a 3-2 point ratio difference in a normal CM battle, while in real life the actual manpower ratio might be three or four or ten to one, and the only option to "make up the difference" is in organizing a defensive zone. I think the whole reason anyone employs static defenses is an economy of force measure; you use them, so you can use your troops someplace else to greater effect.

I think that last part was a fair response to your second question, on the necessity of static defenses. Clearly the need does exist for them.

Unfortunately, I'll be out of town the next few days and will likely not be able to post to the thread again until Sunday. Good stuff, though; I am very much enjoying reading the posts in this thread.

Scott

[ May 31, 2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Scott B ]

[Tarquelne]

Austrian Strategist's "siege like attack" vs Fionn's "Attack defense" would be a mighty encounter smile.gif Watching this battle from my FO position, I think that AS may have missed that Fionn's full-scale counter attack is an extreme form of the "fluid attack", not the default form. If I've misunderstood, and the full counter attack is something Fionn uses every game, then the psycho-kinetic theory for Fionn's success might be true... ;)

I think it's simply the fluid attack version of the "static defense." Like an extreme form of the passive-defense is a utterly static defense, an extreme form of the active-defense is a full scale counter attack.

I suspect that we all (with the notable exceptions of those involved in the Great Bunker Debate) agree on the theoretical issues, it's just the gritty real-world issues - the practicality and frequency of how the "ideal forms" manifest themselves - that are the real sources of disagreement.

This discussion game me a number of ideas on how to counter a fluid defense.... or at least a fluid defense run by an unsuspecting enemy. Making sure my opponent was aware of this debate, I arrainged for 105mm arty to fall behind a section of Woods the turn after the 81mm mortar started hitting one of his positions in those woods. Sure enough, he wanted to demonstrate "mobility", and ended up trying to withdraw through a 105mm barrage.

Later I used a HMG as bait and drew a counter-attacking platoon into a 81mm attack. Heh heh. I love guessing games. Huh... come to think of it, that's an example of using a static-type tactic on the attack.

[ May 31, 2002, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Fionn]

Removed because it REALLY wasn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Wreck]

"emptiest braggadocio, and obscurantist nonsense."

I'll also point out that people seem fixated on "full scale counter-attack" and think I do that from the first turn or something. I never said that.
But yet:


I habitually chase attacking forces back to their start lines when defending. It really freaks them out and makes the game a bit more fun than just sitting in your foxholes waiting for them to come to you.
That certainly sounds like a prescription for "full scale counter attack". I realize you might not be thinking that, but players without your skills will not be able to deflate the rhetoric and realize what you are saying.

And this:

I play with Regular troops mostly. Because I BELIEVE I will win they outperform most opponents' Crack troops. MORAL superiority is a real phenomenon with real effects on your in-game troops.
... is obscurantist nonsense. Your regular troops perform well because you lead them well and do not do things with them beyond their ability. There is no moral influence at all, outside of the commands you give. Your beliefs do not affect the computer, outside of your actions made predicated on those beliefs. To suggest otherwise, as you are doing, is nonsense.

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Hmmm...been following this thread enough to comment for what it is worth. According to Fionn, mental attitude is key to victory. Fine. I will grant that belief in victory will more likely garner that victory than lack thereof. However, we are not all as talented as Fionn so we actually lose sometimes. What does that do for one's attitude? [retorical question...]

Here is what wins: Tactics. How do tactics win? Belief that a tactic is good (formed from experience) and skill at carrying it out.

That is it. Skill can even override belief. (ie. I am not sure if this tactic will work but I know how I want to execute it....)

Oh did I mention luck helps? Timing?

JasonC's and Redwolf's posts, among others, are helpful because they are specific. General statements coming from players who win all the time about moral attitude (should that not be "morale"?) can only help so much because the rest of us CM mortals will lose sometimes and become more cautious (sometimes incorrectly) as a result.

It is all part of the game and I will probably never start a game "knowing" I will win. This would qualify as an improper mental attitude. So be it. I still win and lose with my skill as a player.

Just speaking for us mortals here.... ;)

MHO

-Sarge

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Cooper]

posted by fionn I lose sometimes too. What is important is that you always BELIEVE you'll win. That
belief is, mathematically, unsupportable BUT the belief is important since it sets the tone
for your decision-making cycle.

You will be more daring, more aggressive and more attuned to searching for enemy
weaknesses. Certainly you will sometimes lose ( that's life) BUT you'll lose far less than if
you go into a game believing the other guy can beat you. I going to have to agree here, the commander's moral is key. Back when I first started playing CM, I can't count the number of games I could have won had I kept a aggresive attitude.

example

game starts, VL are taken by both sides, shot are exchanged, pitched battle begins, damn I am taking a beating (this is before I could estimate size of enemy force by points and realize the damage I am causing him), damn I really am getting my a@# kicked, better hold on to what I got and hope for the best, game over draw.

Then you look at the map after the battle and you see that if your threw those 2 plt. of inf. in reserve into a counter attack (instead of reinforcing the mlr) you could have won the battle.

When you think you are "losing" you make decision based on "Saving your remaining manpower/afvs/support units" instead of "destroying the enemy" I believe that is the key, and if you look at your own games (that you lost) you will find the moment that you decision making changed. I know I do.

ps. BTS needs a spell check in their forums for the non spelling bee champs like me : )

[ May 31, 2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Cooper ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:
Hmmm...been following this thread enough to comment for what it is worth. According to Fionn, mental attitude is key to victory. Fine. I will grant that belief in victory will more likely garner that victory than lack thereof. However, we are not all as talented as Fionn so we actually lose sometimes. What does that do for one's attitude? [retorical question...]
I think that touches a very important issue: playing against a known good player.

Inexperienced Players who think the opponent is much better will often play very cautiously.

But that is exactly wrong. Being predictable and slow against a superiour opponent (whether from tactics or numbers doesn't matter) is a very sure way to defeat.

Granted, you shouldn't be be reckless, especially not with AFVs. But you need to be agressive. That way you may still fail because you ran into his/her teeth, but the alternative is having his teeth come to you at a position and time of his choice. You have no chance that way against a much more experienced opponent - whatever you do once you are pressed into a non-agressive position he has seen X times before and will counter it with ease.

If you can take space while it is free or very cheap, then do it. You need firepower overwatch to do so, and if you don't have it there, you have to move it. You may lose AFVs this way from a lack of experience. But you probably learned a lesson about AFV positioning you can use next time. If you keep your AFVs at your start lines until it gets overrun by Panzerfaust carrying Volksgrenadiers, you did not learn a useful lesson except that you need space.

Against an experienced opponent, do not feel pressed to let loose ambushes earlier because the opponent is experienced. Granted, it is true that he will much more likely detect it in the timeframe between now and optimal ambush than a normal opponent. And then you haven given up the limited ambush damage you could do right now. However, even if he blows the ambush, you learned an important lessen and can build a better one next time. The premature ambush only teaches you that constantly winning less than neccessary leads to defeat.

BTW, Swamp has a nice ME tutorial at thforums.com (see my signature).

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:
Hmmm...been following this thread enough to comment for what it is worth. According to Fionn, mental attitude is key to victory. Fine. I will grant that belief in victory will more likely garner that victory than lack thereof. However, we are not all as talented as Fionn so we actually lose sometimes. What does that do for one's attitude? [retorical question...]
I think that touches a very important issue: playing against a known good player.

Inexperienced Players who think the opponent is much better will often play very cautiously.

But that is exactly wrong. Being predictable and slow against a superiour opponent (whether from tactics or numbers doesn't matter) is a very sure way to defeat.
</font>[/QUOTE]OK I would describe cautious as fine but not predictablity. Against those very good players whom I have played, it quickly becomes a fencing match. Thrust/Parry/Dodge until an opening is found.

In fact patience is the first and best thing a player needs to learn. From it stems better scouting, manuever for good terrain, attack plans based on some intel of enemy position or strength.

I mean really, a 30 turn game can be spent in 10 minutes with an overly aggressive attacker and then the defender knows enough about the attacker to counter-attack effectively. Same goes for MEs where one side rushes to capture the VLs from turn 1. AFVs that are sacrificed early by an aggressive player may be sorely needed later, etc.

Anyway, my vote is for patience. The really good players I have played showed patience and forced me to show patience.

It means waiting for opportunities to open up. If none do, then at least the big push can be done as a surprise with your having some knowledge of the enemy position and strength.

Having said that, I have failed at times to take aggressive advantage of a situation that I should have. But hindsight is 20/20 and the more one plays, the easier it is to spot those openings

This is all quite general and situational but I hope it makes sense.

-Sarge

[ May 31, 2002, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[NightGaunt]

"I lose sometimes too. What is important is that you always BELIEVE you'll win. That belief is, mathematically, unsupportable BUT the belief is important since it sets the tone for your decision-making cycle."

"You will be more daring, more aggressive and more attuned to searching for enemy weaknesses. "

This is turning into a broken record, but once again I understand exactly what you are stating.
BELIEVING you will win, all the time no matter what the situation is critical.

Unconciously, if you have a doubt about your ability to win a battle at any time, you seriously comprimise your chance to win. You make dumb mistakes, miss important details, etc etc etc. It your own personal "morale".

Think of it like sports, when a boxer has an opponent a little staggered, he goes in for the kill because there is a good chance to put him away.

Same thing with the game, when you are staggered (ie your personal morale is low), you give your opponent an edge.

That is what I believe FIONN is stating, and I agree with it. Boardgames are great examles of it, diplomacy,EA, and A&A come to mind. When you can see in your opponents eyes he is demoralized, you go for the kill. And the same time, if he sees you supremely confident, it can shake his confidence and affect his decisions, I've seen it many times.
Its a bit harder in CM to affect your opponent, or at least see the affects, unless your opponent is a big typer during games. so you have to concetrate on yourself and make sure you are always confident.

On a side note, it is the confidence that kept Priest pestering me to challenge you, FIONN. He recognized the same trait and wanted to see me get kicked by someone whose confidence style (for lack of a better term) was similar. I, of course, insist I would win...although I haven't actually played a game in close to 7 months smile.gif

[ May 31, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

[Panzer Leader]

Ahem, could we get off the old self-help, be your own best friend bandwagon, and maybe start talking about TACTICS again?? Not to insult for sure, but we are starting to sound like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

[Fionn]

Nightgaunt,

You don't have an email address listed. If I read you correctly you said that you emailed me once looking for a game? I don't see the email here in my challenges folder so maybe I didn't get it... I change email addresses regularly to prevent my email address getting out to people whom I don't want to have it... so can you post your email here or send it to priest and have him send it to me?

It won't be immediate ( still got to clear about 20 games backlog) but if you want to play I'll certainly give you a run out.

[JasonC]

To Panzer Leader - quite. More diplomatically put, but my previous point exactly. Norman Vincent Peal is not a profound military theorist.

To Fionn - apparently you see nothing insulting (your term) in claiming you always win because you are morally superior to everyone else in existence, but do see something insulting in being quite accurately called a braggart for saying so. Why is unclear. Why shouldn't you regard "braggart" as a term of praise, if you think humility is a defeatist vice and bragging the key to victory?

On the more realistic distinction between patience or caution vs. a risk taking or aggressiveness (which, not being metaphysical-magical qualities of persons, can actually be varied consciously by any commander), the claim seems to reduce to "most CM players err on the side of caution". That is somewhat plausible, as it is noticable e.g. that all double-blind wargames induce relatively more cautious play than full intel ones. So somewhat more aggressive players are acting more like their full-info counterparts.

But this is hardly a matter of extremes or maximizing anything. Overconfidence is just as deadly as despondency, if your opponent expects and exploits it. Rashness can lose battles as easily as caution. For every wavering position not rushed when it might have been, there is a kill sack blundered into. The balance between them may not be even *empirically*, meaning the average player might improve by more aggressive or by more cautious play. But they are perfectly symmetrical relations theoretically, in the sense that too much of either can hang you.

And that is obvious enough historically. Fionn may not have understood - or accepted, perhaps - my France 1914 analogy. But there have been times and places when entire militaries have subscribed to something very similar to his faith in the power of confidence and "moral ascendency", along with a cult of the offensive believed to go hand in hand with it. It was called the school of St. Cyr.

It resulted in the French army charging into the attack in 1914, against the advancing Germans, expecting their moral superiority and supreme self confidence to carry them to victory. The clash that resulted is known as "the Battle of the Frontiers", and it cost the French one million men.

All the self confidence in the world did not defeat superior heavy artillery. Confident men rendered into small pieces of bloody pulp do not win every battle because they believe they will. Petain, the only general officer of his day in the French army who never bought in to the St. Cyr cult of the offensive and of "moral superiority", drew the lesson - "firepower kills".

The reason I take this sort of thing seriously has nothing to do with Fionn personally, or even with CM. The attitude he is expressing is one intentionally cultivated in modern US and NATO military training, for junior and field grade officers in particular. And it is every bit as dangerous today as it was in 1914. I care very little whether CM players believe the Norman Vincent Peal philosophy of warfare. But I care very much that future commanders of American fighting men (and of allies) may face the modern smart weapon firepower revolution with a contempt for Petain's dictum as extreme as the boys in blue pants of 1914. Preaching rash self-confidence as a military philosophy is not something to be done lightly.

But Panzer Leader is right, that such things are distant from CM tactics, which is a more proper subject of discussion here. I also note that it is entirely possible Fionn does not himself fully understand what he does to win, and may mistake effects of his tactical skills on his confidence, for a cause of victories actually due to those skills. That he has seen others "learn" the same is unsurprising, if he has also taught them such skills. Just being more confident without them, I am willing to claim, would have no such effect.

[Ligur]

The power of will will lead us to final victory!
-Adolf

Now for some humour!

6th Army can't be supported by Luftwaffe and a wacky airbridge.
-Various officers

Power of will blah blah!!!
-Adolf

[Fionn]

Deleted because it simply isn't worth it.

[ May 31, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[arax3]

Fionn: I need a lesson. Send me a setup, your choice. Your convenience. It would be an honor to play you. A3

[JasonC]

To Fionn - You think that you win more because you are more confident, I think you are merely more confident because you win more - for other reasons. You think your confidence before a game is a superior mental attitude, and I think it is an inferior mental attitude. You think it is a superior attitude because you think belief in victory leads to victories, and I think it is an inferior attitude because I think pride is a weakness, as stupid as plucking your own eyes out. I am not misunderstanding what you are saying, I am disagreeing with it.

[Tarquelne]

cult of the offensive... The attitude he is expressing is one intentionally cultivated in modern US and NATO military training, for junior and field grade officers in particular. And it is every bit as dangerous today The cult has spread well beyond purely military matters. For example, most people are trained to attack an opponent's argument where it seems weakest. Which is a good "offensive" tactic, and used because it does, indeed, win arguments.

For example:
apparently you see nothing insulting (your term) in claiming you always win because you are morally superior to everyone else in existence, Is a great example of reformulating an opponent's argument into a weaker form. One's opponent will reject it - maybe just because you've pissed 'em off. It's usefull for convincing someone else (or yourself) that your opponent is wrong, but won't sway your opponent one whit. Not concerned about swaying your opponent? Then you're not trying to participate in a discussion, you're trying to win a game. Which is fine, in it's proper place.*

Ignoring any qualifiers or further explainations ("the belief is important since it sets the tone for your decision-making cycle.") is also classic tactic used by this rhetorical "cult of the offensive."

(As are, of course, personal insults.)

OTOH, if you want to try to get at the truth, or just communicate effectively, you should be willing to attack an opponent's argument where it is strongest. If your opponet doesn't seem able to give a decent argument to attack then you have to try reformulating it. This can be as simple as assuming your opponent simply made a poor word choice. Yes, that does put more of a burden on you. But unless your opponent is completely wrong - which is unfortunatly rare - there is some degree of truth to be delt with. If you want to find it you have to remove the truth from the dross _and keep the truth_, not respond to the dross.


The reason I take this sort of thing seriously has nothing to do with Fionn personally, or even with CM....But because it's more or less my profession, and I think it's important. This discussion, for example, seemed far more fruitfull when everyone was trying to understand just what the other person was talking about, and try to change his mind, not simply demonstrate that the other one is wrong.

*Speaking of "proper place" - I swear not to follow up on this subject at all in this thread.
But seeing the "cult of the offensive" mentioned again was too tempting.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by JasonC:
The reason I take this sort of thing seriously has nothing to do with Fionn personally, or even with CM. The attitude he is expressing is one intentionally cultivated in modern US and NATO military training, for junior and field grade officers in particular. And it is every bit as dangerous today as it was in 1914. I care very little whether CM players believe the Norman Vincent Peal philosophy of warfare. But I care very much that future commanders of American fighting men (and of allies) may face the modern smart weapon firepower revolution with a contempt for Petain's dictum as extreme as the boys in blue pants of 1914. Preaching rash self-confidence as a military philosophy is not something to be done lightly.Jason,
Where do you get that? Explain how this is translated into an officer's military education. There are no courses entitled "Battle and victory through Norman Vincent Peal's philosophy of confidence and over confidence." Better yet, explain how this particular discussion is even remotely going to affect any officers?

This is not AC3 or CGSC or the War College. This is a forum for a game, and Fionn, a fella who plays the game damn well, was giving us his opinions of what makes a successful player.

Lighten up Frances.

Tarqulene,

Bravo! Well said.

[NightGaunt]

FIONN:

[edit] I will get my email address to you shortly. Happy to hear you have a backlog, I will have time to shake the rust off smile.gif

JASONC:

This thread really shows what sort of debater, and I use that term loosely, you are. Frankly I am very thankful that people of your calibur are few and far between on this forum.

It is obvious you don't subscribe to the theory, probably because you don't have the awareness to recognize and understand what is being stated. That is fine, it is good to DEBATE a subject you do not subscribe to.

However if I was interested in reading rants and personal attacks, I would go to a less intelligent forum.

And with that, i depart this thread. I'm sure you will come up with some smart reply. Rest assured I will read it, but will not respond.

[ May 31, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

[Priest]

I will forward that email address. And Fionn and NightGaunt if they choose to avoid the mental game so be it, one more advantage for the "cagey" ones! smile.gif

[Panzer Leader]

O' Brother (where art thou!) When I mentioned the Alanon bit, what I was trying to imply, is that defensive tactics, and their counter, are a wonderful field of debate, where both sides of any argument, in fact where a complete LACK of argument, is still sure to enlighten and entertatin the participants. Why is it that on page two of this discussion we have wonderful ideas about skirmish lines, mobility of units, with even a bit of groggish penetration factors, yet here on page four (five now) we have a huge and boring discussion on the mental attitude of the commander??

I would like to get back to the idea of staging a defense, perhaps with some actual examples from CM or real battle, and how these can be used to win victories. Sure, Fionn has a point -- if you go into a battle fearing the worst, chances are you will lose. Thanks! Point taken!

Now let's move on to other aspects of the battle and discuss various options that the defender has, perhaps SPECIFIC options, and how best to utilize them. Let me see if I can take this bull by the horns. Here are the things I like to see in a QB Assault-Defend:

Under 1500 points for the defender
25 turn limit under normal conditions
Max 30 turn limit if rain, fog, mud or snow
At least SOME hills and woods, preferably more.
Never really considered map size, but I do now see the benefits of a small map.

I think these options go a long way towards helping the defender, by either forcing the attacker to move slowly (bad conditions) or by forcing him to move quickly (short time limit.) It seems to me, not an Uber-Defender, that a few constraints placed on the Assaulter will even the score.

Now, once that is done, and it is time to pick forces, I have recently begun with the traditional units (towed guns, mines, wire, and a basic static force) but to that mix I add a "Shck unit" or "Fire Brigade" and my goal in the game is to keep them hidden and out-of-combat until the crisis point is reached.

We all know the crisis point, it may be different each time, but you know it when it comes. Your men are low on ammo, your line has been breached, a strong point is in full retreat. A new formation has just appeared over the rise. It is the moment when the defender says "Oh ****." and we'e ALL done it.

This, my friends, THIS is the moment when that pair of Stugs, or that platoon of HT mounted troops, or perhaps the concealed priest and M10 pair should burst out of their hidden flank position and reallt open up on the attacker.

I used to loathe spending points on these extravegant units. "Why I could get four more HMGs and two more Paks for that!" I would tell myself. Still I'd lose. Then when I convinced myself to buy them, I'd hold them until I couldn't resist then throw them ino battle before the crisis moment. They would damage the enemy, they would bring the crisis moment to them, but STILL I'd lose.

It was only after I held them for 2-3 turns longer than I thought I could bear, usually slinking them along the rear towards my surprise point, that I could unleash them with a fury that would win me the battle.

In my last game, I had a 250/9 a stug, and a platoon of SMG troops, that I slunk around to the left (behind some woods) as the center of my line began to cave. For two turns I watched as a Pak was overrun and an entire platoon was routed. Two shermans moved up and began pummeling my rear (HMGS and a few other heavy weapons. Then I unleashed the Fire Brigade. The Stug got flanking shots on the shermans, while the 250/9 chewed up the infantry, and my SMG troops, inflitrating through the woods, began firing into the enemy troops who were now taking fire from in fron AND the left flank. Their extended line broke, many enemy were killed or routed, and their thrust into (and THROUGH!) my line was broken. My line sealed and I stalemated thr few remaining turns for a major victory. One flag (the center) was neutral, but I won the battle.

That is the type of thing I think we all agree on as a local counter-attack that is possible in a CM Assault-Defend. A larger attack could not succeed, and a smaller one would probably be ineffective. The difficulty in a defense is spending your points wisely. It is my belief that you must spend ALMOST all your points on static weaponry and troops, but having a small contingent able to "take the battle to the enemy" is well worth spending. That, to me, is a FORCE MULTIPLIER.

Now, I am no god of battle, and I still ose more Defending games than I win, but this tactic, to me, offers me the best hope ofpulling out a victory. I am surprised and fascinated that certain people can claim to win as the defender all the time. Are we playing the same game?? Are my skills that low, or are yours that UNBELIEVABLY high?? It is strange, and I would love to hear more particular details on your successes, all of you "defender-winners."

[Tarquelne]

This, my friends, THIS is the moment when that pair of Stugs, or that platoon of HT mounted troops, or perhaps the concealed priest and M10 pair should burst out of their hidden flank position and reallt open up on the attacker.Not quite on topic, but:

I've found myself keeping more and more forces in "reserve" lately. Both as the attacker and as the defender. (More as the attacker, I think.)
I had a Tiger in a game recently, and I didn't bring it out until the game was 1/2 over. (At which point it kicked *ss! smile.gif ) That Tiger was the majority of my armored might.

Whenever I do this I feel like I'm missing many opportunities and wasting resources, but I've generally been glad I did it by the time the scenario ended.

How many of you do this? A standard tactic, or should I get some hustle and put that Tiger on the line when the fighting starts?

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by JasonC:
To Fionn - You think that you win more because you are more confident, I think you are merely more confident because you win more - for other reasons. You think your confidence before a game is a superior mental attitude, and I think it is an inferior mental attitude. You think it is a superior attitude because you think belief in victory leads to victories, and I think it is an inferior attitude because I think pride is a weakness, as stupid as plucking your own eyes out. I am not misunderstanding what you are saying, I am disagreeing with it.Jason, I believe you are very wrong. CM, as any other game including war is very much solved between your (commanders) ears. You can't count out the psychologigal effect of what's happening to your pixel representation of yourself, how much you wan't to hide behind numbers and systems. Your ego, when it's attached to your plans, styles, systems etc. is very vulnerable, and this can be exploited by your opponent. The point is getting the other MIND of balance so it's incapable of coherent and cool thinking. I've lost my cool many times, and the game as well. It seems to me that Fionn says there's a sore spote to be found in his style also, and it can and has been exploited at least occasionally(?).

It is a mind game, and don't fool youself or anyone else believing otherwise. No one is praising foolishness, but pride and trust in ones capabilities do indeed bring victories. Don't confuse pride with foolish pride, which is utterly different thing.

Else, put your money where your mouth is, challenge and give us the AAR of the year smile.gif .

[ May 31, 2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Priest]

Tarq

The answer is as always playing style and situation. I tend to like the battle to play out before me and I flow with it. I have learned to trust my instincts (yes I have instincts for combat, admittedly non-real simulated in my game room not being shot at video game combat instincts, but instincts nonetheless!) If I believe my Tiger can make an immediate impact and scatter my opponents forces thus breaking up an attack I do so, but most of the time I pick and choose my spots. I make the other player react to me and overcompensate. One of the keys to battle is to make your opponent commit his reserves to the wrong area all the while he believes it to be correct. His momentum becomes his enemy as he carries and wastes his strength on nothing.

There is no always.

[JasonC]

Tarqulene said ""you should be willing to attack an opponent's argument where it is strongest." I quite agree. And I do. If you didn't notice, I wrote "But I nevertheless agree with Fionn that aggressiveness matters in a defender" and "On the more realistic distinction between patience or caution vs. a risk taking or aggressiveness", with detailed discussions of every scrap of merit I found for Fionn's stated arguments.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps some people just shut down as soon as they see one "bitchy" comment I suppose, but I addressed the full substance in each case because I was and am interested in the truth. I don't studiously refrain from every "bitchy" comment I happen to think is true or justified, either, and obviously some people don't like that. Tough toenails. Pretending I did not address the substance, however, is simply innaccurate.
I mostly got replies only to tone, however. I was not the one who brought up the relatively empty "commander's state of mind" subject, that another fellow laments, and continued to discuss tactics well beyond that point. But apparently the theatrics of personalities are more riveting that tactics, to some. For instance, Tarqulene's remarks are singularly devoid of comment on my statements about CM defense tactics, which would seem to be an instance of not practicing what he preaches.

Blackhorse asks a perfectly fair question as to where I get the idea that a modern cult of the offensive is preached to officers (by maneuver theorists in particular). I read US army manuals, for starters. I also know a number of young officers and would-be officers, including CM players, who have been exposed to it. In debates over the army transformation process (including e.g. the medium brigade program, the Crusader debate, and others), I have discussed it in many places. There has been a running debate on this board for over a year on the general subject of maneuver warfare ideas, their usefulness and possible limits, under the general rubric of maneuver and attrition.

Yes I know this is not a war college. I was explaining why the subject (not its arising here, as I thought I made clear when I said is was not anything personal) gets my back up. No, I do not think Fionn's musings determine the military theory of the US army. As I thought I made clear, I think those musings reflect them, rather than causing them. They are the kind of thing maneuver warfare gurus teach, and it is reasonably obvious to me that Fionn knows their teachings.

Since others obvious lament the turn to "attitude of commander" stuff, and to "bitchy" comments, I will drop the subject. I would still be interested in anything Tarqulene or Blackhorse have to say on the defense tactics stuff discussed.

Panzer Leader gives a fine example of a CM defense and how it often realistically goes. I would call what he describes as the principle of a reserve. In smaller CM battles, a defender's reserve is typically a single infantry platoon, with an AFV. Rarely more, although sometimes a higher HQ and half a platoon might be added, or a second AFV. That is for more or less linear defenses where the bulk of the force is on the MLR (though perhaps layered, guns behind infantry e.g.).

Sometimes it makes sense to use a bigger reserve, committed earlier - before the crisis but after the main avenue of approach is discovered. That is what I earlier referred to a "man to man" rather than "zone" defense. Yes, a reserve held out beyond that until the crisis is often helpful. If the attack is heavily weighted along a particular avenue, though, it can often make sense to throw in the whole initial reserve to hold that part of the line, and then reconstitute the overall reserve by shifting a force *not* hotly pressed, to the rear.

Because typically you can get away with leaving other areas thin or naked once the main avenue is determined, but can't afford to meet the enemy's main strength only piecemeal. Feeding in only small forces too slow can result in the same sort of many-on-few several times, as just sitting still in tighter terrain. You die piecemeal, and the attacker keeps fire ascendency for too many of the fights. So, a big supporting force for the area of attack right away, without holding any reserve. But then reconstitute the reserve from forces elsewhere, ASAP.

[Wreck]

First of all, I use my defending advantages, meaning foxholes, mines, and TRPs (and other defenses if I am assigned them; I would not buy them). I set up planning for static defenses of certain lines of attack. Typically, covered routes: lines of trees perpendicular to the setup zone; places where there are stone buildings, etc. You certainly don't have to cover all possible lines; generally just the best. If the attacker uses inferior lines then you don't get your fort advantages, but he has worse cover for it.

Setup is the most important time for the defender. You can win or lose in setup. If you accurately predict where the enemy will go, you can be there in good cover, with TRPs set right, ambushing AFVs and AT guns to take out his tanks when he uses them to try to get his attack moving, etc, etc. If you don't accurately predict the enemy's advance, then you will fight without the fortifications. And that is a 3:2 battle; you should still have an edge in intel but that's about it.

Here's a tactic that you won't learn about in WWII or your favorite modern command manual. I don't set up to have any infantry off of the front line. All of my infantry is up, more or less. (Some perhaps slightly further back, but still in positions I expect the enemy to come to.) This is not WWII; it's CMBO. You have borg sighting and full control over all units at all times. The only reason to keep infantry reserves back is for covered movement.

So, the battle starts. Typically, an attacker will not choose to pursue all the routes that are possible. He will focus on several; in a small battle only two usually. Your guys in the path of that, just sit there and wait to statically defend. You might use them to pinch a half-squad scout or two if you can forward of the MLR, but basically their idea is to hold the enemy off when he comes by exploiting their prepared position.

Meanwhile, you have the guys that you set up where the enemy is not coming. These guys are now your infantry reserve. With them, you should be thinking you are Fionn: how I can I get these guys into a flank of the enemy, or to a surprise two-on-one? Sometimes you can do this and really clean up (though beware the enemy artillery). Sometimes you can't; and you can only move the reserves in to plug a hole.

Outside of that, about the only advice I can give is to win the tank war. Keep your tanks moving from spot to spot, using interior protected lines to prevent the enemy from predicting you. It's hard to do right, and tank warfare is always chancy.

All of what I just stated, other than the non-use of reserves, is pretty much there in what Jason posted two pages back. Read him and learn.

Incidentally, on the commander's moral situation. I don't set up a defense knowing I will win. I know it is possible, and perhaps even likely depending on the other guy; that's all. I try to anticipate the sort of attack I would plan, and I set up to stop it. Once the game is going for a while, then I might start to think that I will win. But I try not to let it affect my decision process. I don't understand Fionn when he talks about that stuff.
If I am aggressive (and I am; I know that), it is because I see it as superior to sitting there. If I am passive, which I am at times, it is because I cannot find a way to improve my position by movement. I always try to play to the odds, as cold and rational as I can be.

[JasonC]

To Kalli - Fair enough. I agree there is always a "mind game" going on. What I disagree about is whether pride always helps in mind games. Seems to me it can help or hurt, depending on whether it is enough or too much, and also on how the opponent uses it. Now, I do not doubt that many a CM player could improve their play by being more confident. But I sort of doubt that is Fionn's problem - lol.

I mean, I know for example the Wreck is a very good CM player. I have never detected that sort of thing from that quarter. Fionn is obviously a very good CM player. It is not only detectable in his case, he regards the right amount as "as much as possible". Conceivably Fionn might benefit (I realize some regard that as a metaphysical impossibility) by playing with less - at least against a player who specialize in traps that exploit overconfidence, if there are any such. But that is really just speculation, not really advice. The point is merely that there is probably a right amount of confidence, less than infinity.

[ May 31, 2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Kallimakhos]

To the original topic. I am a top dog, not the best one, but I honestly believe I can make it to the top ten on any ladder if I have the stamina and time. I haven't lost on attack or ME for a long time. But I really do suck on defence. If my opponent is on par, I will lose, and often if he's below me.

The game is problematic in some aspects, playing axis, the usual defence is built on MG which ispretty much broken but I stubbornly choose to play "as it should be". Oh, if the time limit is low, it is easier, you can design your defence to stall, but this is no real challenge. I wan't to beat the attacker with plenty of time.

I don't play very static defence, but still maybe too static. The main problem is I think my tactics aren't as good as my overall grasp of the situation. On attack, you are allowed some mistakes, on defence none. My small scale counterattacks usually end up the troops getting killed or demoralized. After reading these posts, especially Fionn, maybe the problem is being too cautious, not giving the counter/harrassing attacks my full heart. When on defence, also active recon should be paid more attention. Anyway, I bet CMBB is going to change a lot smile.gif .

[JasonC]

Wreck said it is important to win the armor war, and added "It's hard to do right, and tank warfare is always chancy". I agree with these comments, and I for one know that I am not particularly good at it. With Fionn's W-L record, I suspect he is probably among the best CM tank drivers there is, and I suspect this has a lot to do with his success.

My standing impression is, like Wreck, that the armor war is chancy and much turns on it. That anyone could face such chances hundreds of times and not have them break against him hard enough to prove decisive, practically ever, is to me the standing miracle in Fionn's stated record. If he hasn't gone off, I'd love to hear his advice on that aspect of CM defenses.

I suspect he'd start with "win the recon war - superior intel helps win the armor war". But I am sure he could add more than that.

[ May 31, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Priest]

Jason

I think you confuse confidence with over-confidence. I read Fionn's post like this:

You have to go into a battle feeling as if you can win. Trusting that the way you see the field before you is and the way you interpret it is correct. You cannot second guess yourself. And you have to do this always.

I have fought Fionn and he was not over-confident, he was confident. Regardless the "mental" game is the game. Think about it, you have a decision to make, do I move this platoon or let them sit? If you have confidence you know the answer, you make your decision and commit yourself totally. If you are not then you second guess or half ass it. If you are over confident then you will most likely make the wrong decision without considering all of the factors.

In a game the other day I lost a platoon all at once as I walked into an ambush. I was dismayed that I would allow that to happen. Then I looked at the field, re-adjusted my plan, compensated properly, and lost zero momentum and time. My mindset allowed me to put it behind me and not allow my opponent a moment of initiative as I tried to regroup. I flowed with it and continued my advance (and I was on defense).

And Wreck a cool calm calculated approach only comes from someone with confidence, someone without is simply too busy trying to figure out what he/she is doing wrong.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by JasonC:
Wreck said it is important to win the armor war, and added "It's hard to do right, and tank warfare is always chancy". I agree with these comments, and I for one know that I am not particularly good at it. With Fionn's W-L record, I suspect he is probably among the best CM tank drivers there is, and I suspect this has a lot to do with his success.

My standing impression is, like Wreck, that the armor war is chancy and much turns on it. That anyone could face such chances hundreds of times and not have them break against him hard enough to prove decisive, practically ever, is to me the standing miracle in Fionn's stated record. If he hasn't gone off, I'd love to hear his advice on that aspect of CM defenses.

I suspect he'd start with "win the recon war - superior intel helps win the armor war". But I am sure he could add more than that.Obviously, I can't speak for Fionn, but I think there are just two uses for tanks in CM: intimidate opponents tanks and hail that HE ammo. Infantry IS the king! And usually roookies buy too much of them and loose. It is virtually impossible to win with tanks only against infantry only. Playing combined armes one should remember that tanks are support weapons, like mortars and MG's. They can make a difference but they can't replace infantry. My few successes defending have been infantry only. Don't get me wrong, I love armored battles, there's nothing like a company of Shermans or PZ IV's attacking across a field in formation...

One more thought: wheather on defence or attack, take greens! You can't beat greens!

[Priest]

While I am no Fionn, I usually win the "Armour Battle". Without a doubt recon is important, the location of all units with AT capability is essential. The higher the percentage of known AT assets and their location, the higher the survivability rate of your own AFVs. I actually use a doctrine based on Fionn's own force allocation methods. And while I cannot speak for Fionn I believe his is probably more apt to kill infantry with infantry than me. I use direct HE fire from tanks to kill infantry. I also use tanks and ATG guns (especially on defense) to take out other tanks. Hmm the above statment is not as clear as I would like, let me try another method.

Here is how I like a battle to go, it is basic and applies to both the attack and defense. An aggressive (not stupidly so) recce/picket screen of my forces. Combat groups built around a strong armour force with AT put first (I will explain this in a moment). I will use my main ATG forces to engage the enemy outside of effective infantry range and hope to take out most of the enemies MBTs. Once this is done, and the infantry battle is joined I will assign my main AT forces on overwatch and my infantry will focus on screening my designated HE throwers. My HE throwers will blunt the enemy advance and attrit the enemy. Once any local man portable AT assets are eliminated the infantry can join in the destruction of the enemy with the now "indestructable" HE thrower. The designated AT assets can watch for the possible reserve forces and act as a reserve themselves for me. Before the main infantry battle the "HE throwers" also can act as an AT reserve (I will explain).

Now for the explaination of my earlier statments about my AT assets and HE throwers. Most would assume I believe that I would be talking Hetzers and Jacksons for the AT assets and M8 HMCs and Stuhs for the HE throwers, actually I usually take the same weapons systems for both. An example:

Normal AT group armour layout:
5 Panthers for the Germans or possibly 3 Sherman M4a3s with the 76mm gun and 2 TDs.

Normal HE group armour layout:
5 Panzer IVH for the Germans or 3-5 Shermans (75mm or 76mm guns).

I would happily sub the Panthers for the Panzer IVHs and while I would lose some effectiveness in the 75mmvs76mm gun tradeoff I have few qualms using the 75mm gun in the AT role. I also prefer more MGs on an AFV compared with caliber of main gun. An example would be that I prefer the Panzer IVH over the Stuh42. The Panzer IVH has more MG ammo and more MGs (IIRC) than the Stuh. This will allow my small arms immune tank to fire on infantry with MGs pinning them, allowing my HE, infantry, or artillery to deal the real damage. There is a limit obviously as a Stuart is not as desireable as say a StugIII.

Regardless the armour fight deals with you seeing the enemy, achieving position on that enemy with a locale superiority in main guns, and maintaining the initiative by constricting the operational room the enemy AFV has to manuever.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, can you tell I am at work smile.gif

[ June 01, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Priest]

Kalli,

I currently have an opponent who has learned otherwise, and I was the teacher. Generally you are correct, but you have to realize that is not automatic, the commander still has to be as good as the one he is fighting.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Priest:
Jason
I think you confuse confidence with over-confidence. I read Fionn's post like this:

You have to go into a battle feeling as if you can win. Trusting that the way you see the field before you is and the way you interpret it is correct. You cannot second guess yourself. And you have to do this always.

I have fought Fionn and he was not over-confident, he was confident. Regardless the "mental" game is the game. Think about it, you have a decision to make, do I move this platoon or let them sit? If you have confidence you know the answer, you make your decision and commit yourself totally. If you are not then you second guess or half ass it. If you are over confident then you will most likely make the wrong decision without considering all of the factors.

In a game the other day I lost a platoon all at once as I walked into an ambush. I was dismayed that I would allow that to happen. Then I looked at the field, re-adjusted my plan, compensated properly, and lost zero momentum and time. My mindset allowed me to put it behind me and not allow my opponent a moment of initiative as I tried to regroup. I flowed with it and continued my advance (and I was on defense).

And Wreck a cool calm calculated approach only comes from someone with confidence, someone without is simply too busy trying to figure out what he/she is doing wrong.Good post, and I allmost agree. But I would say: go to battle knowing that you WILL very likely win. Everybody CAN win or loose. Maybe i understand you wrongly, but in "platoon terms" confidence means lot of game experience, calculating the odds and acting accordingly. Which is the basis but not the point. I'd say the totality of the situation is the real point and thats where mind games make a difference. Your ambush story makes a good example of not loosing your cool and resolution, and keeping your mind on the objective and big picture.

Second guessing is where you hit a nerve. I do that. A lot. Are they suppressed enough or should I bomb for one more minute? Or if I don't move now will I lose pace and initiative? Can I risk these platoons getting annihilated if the rush goes bad? Are these just questions of understanding the game mechanics and having lot of experience against superior opponents? Are these just solvable calculations, or is there more to it?

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Priest:
Kalli,

I currently have an opponent who has learned otherwise, and I was the teacher. Generally you are correct, but you have to realize that is not automatic, the commander still has to be as good as the one he is fighting.I'm not sure what part you are answering, but if this about tanks beating infantry, I would like to hear more. Like allways, there is no rule without exception.

[Priest]

Basically you can make up for the lack of infantry with MG and HE firepower. Due to some restraints I cannot go in depth right now about that specific game. Note that to do this is much easier on the defense. I have successfully defended against large (very large) infantry formations with either little or NO infantry at all and done so very (and I mean very) successfully against multiple players. Although the game situation was shall we say more realistic than your normal QB. Was that cryptic enough for you?? When I can I will divulge all smile.gif

[NightGaunt]

I am only stepping in to comment that Priest is very good at using tanks without much (any) infantry support. If you are interested in learning, he is someone who I would pay attention to. We have had several very good battles with tanks (his favorite) vs infantry (my favorite).

[Tarquelne]

destruction of the enemy with the now "indestructable" HE thrower. A question (for everyone): How often do you see a game dominated by the last AFV? (How common was that in RL, anyway?). I'm wondering (for reasons that can be examined if it's true) if this happens most often in games involving those who think defending is significantly more difficult.

I'm also interested in how often those who think defending is harder play armor-heavy games. (And no, I don't have a good definition for "armor-heavy", sorry.)

[JasonC]

"Are they suppressed enough or should I bomb for one more minute? Or if I don't move now will I lose pace and initiative? Can I risk these platoons getting annihilated if the rush goes bad?"

To me that is ordinary analysis. Can't be avoided, it is the meat of CM decision making. You can make every one of those decisions right or wrong, but you have to make them. To me, it is much better to look at them - in something like Wreck's cold-blooded weighing of the odds - than to just "feel confident". If all "feel confident" means is "make the decision, and let it stay made once you make it", then I entirely agree. If "feel confident" is a substitute for cold-blooded weighing of the odds while looking at the decision, going with your first impression and "believing in yourself", then to me it is not helpful. As GKC once noted, people in lunatic asylums believe in themselves, which hardly helps if what you believe is wrong.

On the armor war, I first have to say that Priest's picture of how he wants the battle to go is only recognizably to me when I am fighting the brain-dead AI. Sure, if it were trivial to locate and kill most of the enemy's main battle tanks before the rest of the engagement even gets started, then protected HE chuckers merrily plinking away for you would be just peachy. And the AI - and I suppose some players, but not all that many - might oblige by driving their MBTs right into wide LOS areas in the first 5 minutes, let you run the table, and so give you all of that.

But when the tanks are trailing the infantry and using cover, carefully changing their LOS "sighting picture" only gradually, I find this distinctly harder to do. I fully acknowledge I am not a very good tank driver. But to me the trick is whether I kill his MBTs and am left with the HE chuckers, or he kills my MBTs and is left with his HE chuckers, or just as often, both MBTs and HE chuckers play cat and mouse, having some impact on the intervening infantry and occasionally trading off each other. Later, after one side or the other has whacked the opposing infantry harder.

I understand the importance of infantry, and of big shell HE to intervene against infantry. I usually use infantry and HE intensive strategies myself, since I am not a tank ace. I am reasonably good at using guns for AT work in defense, along with AT mines and teams. But typically I am trying to neutralize the enemy AFV strength - often on a shoestring - to let an infantry-HE advantage "tell".

A big variable from game to game winds up being whose armor wins the duels. I do well when mine does, or even when mine just neutralizes his. When his kill mine, or last long enough to seriously mess up my infantry before dying, I don't do well. It is not that pure armor is any panacea, it is that the armor war is very high variance. It can break hard against me. By comparison, the infantry-HE war is much more "deterministic" or predictable.

[Ligur]

Fionn is Jesus of CM. He helped me achieve a series of small and important wins yesterday. In a big armored game featuring several companies of armor from either side, my recon and leading elements were destroyed with almost no trade-off for my burning hulks. My crews were aiming so bad I have rarely seen such and when I gave them in a platter to boot the situation looked grim.

I read some Fionn posts in between and started a-new with confidence and victory in my mind. True enough, I positioned remaining light armor elements with utter confidence of my devious plan succeeding, and it did. I destroyed the left flank force of 7 PZIV's and few light armor units with three Stuarts and a supporting Sherman4 and two of the brave little buggers lived to tell about it.

Fionn Kelly turns defeat into victory!!!

Seriously, good thread and thanks for the contributors, and there really is quite a lot to gain with your set of mind. I've always been like that in every game.

You can see how huge variety in style there is on various defending/attacking doctrines and most tout their own as a way to win. To each their own!

Priest: I'd be quite interested in hearing more about your armored style of attriting and destroying infantry in the future.

I've been an infantry guy for a long time now, I even had a phase where I usually had a section of armor at most, designated AT assets (TDs, veteran Hetzers or Hellcats) and the rest was arty and inf. Now I've introduced more HE vehicles to the mix. I like to have me a mobile set of guns that can deliver HE where I want to fast. But I still count on my infantry to take the terrain, keep it and to destroy the enemy in the process.

Like Wreck, JasonC, I consider armored combat too fickle for my tastes. With infantry I know where I'm going and what I'm doing and most of all how long my guys are going to be there, with armor there is always the "38% to hit, kill rare" you have to deal with and the binary nature of armored combat will ensure sad surprises over and over again. Also, that might be because I suck. But I just can't put my money on percentages you might lose and losing almost invariaby means the loss of your expensive unit.

[ June 01, 2002, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Ligur]

Originally posted by JasonC:

A big variable from game to game winds up being whose armor wins the duels. I do well when mine does, or even when mine just neutralizes his. When his kill mine, or last long enough to seriously mess up my infantry before dying, I don't do well. It is not that pure armor is any panacea, it is that the armor war is very high variance. It can break hard against me. By comparison, the infantry-HE war is much more "deterministic" or predictable.My position exactly. JasonC is just able to use more fancy words ;)

[ June 01, 2002, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
How often do you see a game dominated by the last AFV? (How common was that in RL, anyway?). I'm wondering (for reasons that can be examined if it's true) if this happens most often in games involving those who think defending is significantly more difficult.
I'm one of those who consider defending not-that-much-harder but as for a game being dominated by the last AFV, never.

That "might" happen in a 1000 point game (indeed when I was a complete newbie it did), but I usually play 2000pts and up. When I defend I'm ready to deal with an overwhelming force of AFVs and HE shuggers and have a plan to survive it, and it does not feature my own AFVs 80% of the time.

[Priest]

NightGaunt thanks.

Kalli, it is not the last AFV, it is my force of AFVs.

Jason, you numbnut smile.gif

Of course no plan works perfectly and they never survive contact. You know you are really strange guy Jason. If someone asks a factual question you are great and wonderful. If someone states an opinion you are a very literal and annoying. And for your information I have not played the AI since about the second month of the games release.

Kalli if you like we can discuss this, and Jason if you want to get in a pissing match but I would rather not, you are not that fun to argue with because you cannot seem to delve past the first layer of an idea. Case in point, lets take what you took from Fionn's comment and what I took from Fionn's comment? You thought differently so you shall we say "questioned it vigorously" while I looked at it closely and found it inciteful.

Regardless I can give you a laundry list of opponents I have played and beaten using my "stupid AI" tactics. And I would be careful not to insult them as you have already indirectly done. Many of them are on this forum and would take you to the woodshed over it.

[Tarquelne]

I'm one of those who consider defending not-that-much-harder but as for a game being dominated by the last AFV, never.

That "might" happen in a 1000 point game Right - sorry. I should have written "last few AFVs. Or really, "How often has a scenario (or QB)outcome been largely determined by AFV exchanges during the first 1/3 of the game?"

Some comments have made me wonder if, for some of those who say that defending is harder than attacking, the issue really revolves around the attacker's AFVs and how they're handled.

That'd match my personal experience. I used to think that successfully defending was harder than attacking. AND I used to have much more trouble handling attacking AFVs. Once I got the hang of that defending didn't seem so daunting. And, going back to the fluid vrs. static thing, I think my AT tactics improved when I started concentrating more on mobile AT assets (or at least using mobile units to lure or drive AFVs into ATG fire) and being more aggressive.

Priest:

Here is how I like a battle to go, Ok, fanboy ;) , I've got some questions.

How often do your battles go that way? How far toward the attacker do you place your picket line? (Or it might be better to ask: How far back do you like to put your main line?) Finally, what % of MBTs would you need to KO to consider the opening ATG-based phase successfull?

[Priest]

Sorry to post again so soon but Ligur once I can I will. It was kinda forced on me but hey adapt and win.

[Tarquelne]

Regardless I can give you a laundry list of opponents I have played and beaten using my "stupid AI" tactics. Oh dear, I think that may actually be a worse interpretation of JasonC's argument than the job he did on yours. A catty smilie: ;)

I'd consider JasonC's post a long implicit-request for more information. (Alternatively, you could ignore it and respond to my short-explicit request for information. ;) )

[Priest]

Tarq

First off I was writing (and playing CM) the last post while your was posted. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

And the answer that your are going to get is, it depends on the situation. Okay that was a lame but true answer.

Lets take for the granted that the enemy is not going to trot out his MBT's for you to kill. That is a given. Fine but you can force a confrontation, especially on the defense. You can bait your opponent out with which works with weaker opponents. Or against a better opponent you can make him take notice. Your opponent doesn't want to show his armour, SUPER, then start killing his infantry in droves. Again this is great as a defender because the attacker has to come at you. You can set the range most of the time also. Eventually he will have to react. That is when he runs into your overwatch tanks from the positions he sacrificed because he "hid" his armour. Hiding your armour gives the other commander certain prime positions and tons of latitude. An interesting note, if a waits to commit his armour then normally he faces my "HE" tanks and my "AT" tanks when he finally is forced to come out. Remember that my "HE" tanks usually can double as "AT" tanks (especially as the Germans) and you basically end up facing more fire that way. Leaving the tanks on overwatch after the initial armour duel then will protect from a second wave of armoured reserves.

Now lets take this over to the attack. In a battle I had with my friend Stix (time to be an example Stixxy smile.gif ) (DISCLAIMER: STIX AND I PLAY HUGE BATTLES!) I used this tactic for the attack. I built two forces, on was comprised of a company of Panzer IVH's and a company of grenadiers. There was some quick medium and light artillery included. They would attack up the left flank with the infantry screening the PIVs. When Stix's tanks showed themselves they recieved serious firepower, as stated in an earlier post, I had local superiority in guns so I won the duels. Knowing that I am a mobile warefare kinda guy and that means I can quickly come from anywhere hence I force my opponents to cover a lot of ground. When an AT gun ambushed a formation it either a.) hit with it's first shot costing me a tank, or b.) missed, was suppressed by infantry, and then taken out by a huge volume of HE fire. They normally lasted less than the turn they opened up. Of course if it was too dangerous I would reverse out and let my artillery take care of it. I walked right up that flank. I think i lost two of 15 tanks and maybe a squads worth of men throughout my company while I had traveled 1.5 km (we also play on big maps) of a 2 km map. I decimated his forces and caused him to commit his reserves. That was really not good for him because as soon as I saw him shifting I attacked the other flank with a platoon of Tigers, a platoon of Panthers and 2 companies of infantry (like I said we play big games). The problem was my "diversionary force" already was ending this battle. I cannot remember how big this battle was (7000 vs 8500???) but regardless with my 2000 in tanks and maybe 700 in assorted assets I defeated a 7000 point defensive force. The "Main Attack" group barely made it half way across the map. And Stix had a good plan, with good coverage. But he invested a lot in artillery, my advance was too rapid to fire artillery at. He also used a layered defense with a mobile armoured reserve, but I attacked on a very narrow front and sliced through a lot of strong points by the time his armour got to me. By then I had position and more guns to put on target. I had the initiative and I set the pace of the battle. Most of this due to my tanks. Oh and just so you see I was following my own doctrine. Two platoons of the PIVs were my AT tanks, one was my HE tanks. Of course since his tanks were not initially out to play I used them all to bait him, and then all to destroy his armour. My PIVs were out of HE by the end of the game, which I believe was 27 turns.

It is 5 in the morning here and I am going to go to bed, sorry if this kind of meandered but I wanted to give some example before I went to sleep. Just an FYI, since I know Stix will come in here and thwap me about something for using this example, when we replayed the map with me as the defender I showed him the power of the TRP and rocket. That barrage got what 27 assorted vehicles. Needless to say that game only lasted about 15 turns ;) Of course he beat the last game out so don't discount this Aussie!

[Stixx]

27 AFV's? I think it was more like 37 AFV's! In 1 bloody rocket attack!!! I had tanks spread out for miles but every bloody round hit something!!! Bastard!!!

I must say thouugh, Priest has the best armored Tactics i've ever seen!. When i first started playing him i used primarily Infantry and i just got stomped!. I started using armor a LOT more, i was buying over 5,000 pts of Armor and still gettin beaten!

It took me 7-8 of these "HUGE" (20,000 combined points on maps over 2 X 2 km) battles to start getting used to Priests armor tactics...

I still take out more of his tanks with AT guns then i ever do with armor. The bastard must train his gun crews himself!

Anyway what was the point of this post?

Hmmm, Dunno, must be time to leave then.

Hooroo

[Tarquelne]

First off I was writing (and playing CM) Commanding a large CM battle while sleep deprived? I'm sure BTS would find your dedication to realism laudible. I hear CM:BB will come with some "starvation" pills (enzyme blockers or something) and a double handfull of uppers to help foster realistic Eastern Front game play.

I am sorry if I offended anyone.Only be sorry if you offended unintentionally. (That's a joke, btw - not trying to add fuel to the fire.)


And the answer that your are going to get is, it depends on the situation. Okay that was a lame but true answer. I'm not really fishing for numbers, but descriptions of your decision making proccess, and some of the most important variables.


It is 5 in the morning here and I am going to go to bed, sorry if this kind of meandered but I wanted to give some example before I went to sleep. I understand. Hopefully after you've gotten some R&R, and have some free time (and the inclination) you can FULLY COMPLY WITH MY DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION! ;)

And it's 8:30 in the morning here. smile.gif Before I babble in response to the rest of your message, I think I'll go rest my eyes.... for a few days.

[ June 01, 2002, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Priest:

Now lets take this over to the attack. In a battle I had with my friend Stix (time to be an example Stixxy smile.gif ) (DISCLAIMER: STIX AND I PLAY HUGE BATTLES!) I think your excellent post makes one very good point: tank battles start to get really interesting only on the BIG scale, with at least a company of them and a huge map. This is where sound tank tactics, thinking platoons, using speed for manouvre etc., start to make a difference. On smaller, platoon scale, too much is left to sheer luck for my taste.

Others might and do disagree.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

Additionally, since the defender has the advantages of terrain and surprise, at the point of contact it certainly does not necessarily follow that he will be the "morally and/or physically" inferior of the combatants at all.:eek:

That he has physically and/or morally inferior forces is what makes him the defender, by definition. Otherwise he would/should be the attacker, according to Clausewitz.

You may understand some of Clausewitz`practical concepts, but I have a really grave suspicion you don´t quite get the underlying philosophy (Book I !!, the most important of them all).

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

You're suggesting, then, that effective defenses were impossible in North Africa? It's sort of down and to the left of my area of interest, so I'm certainly interested in hearing about that. Elaborate.

Was, say, the whole of the Western Soviet Union too large an area to effectively defend? Yes, and yes. Seesaw battles in WWII were always a symptom of fronts too broad to be efficiently defendable.

Manstein tried to combat this problem with his famous backhand blows -a measure as ingenious as it was desperate. In the final analysis, the backhand blows came at a cost, increasing attrition, which the Germans simply couldn´t afford. But it was still the best try -nothing else would have worked either.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Of course, a static defense doesn´t work on a large map with no time limit -because this is not a balanced scenario. Such a map can, quite simply, not be defended.While this was not my intent, you have generated an additional point. We're not interested in defending a map; we're interested in defending an objective. Several of the inherent advantages of the defense-- such as surprise and terrain-- still go to the defender in this situation. I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable? </font>[/QUOTE]You joking? What I am saying is, on a large map, no turn limit, attacker wins by default.

With a broad front, no time constraints, the 50%pts advantage of the attacker will always win, period. :rolleyes:

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:

..."most CM players err on the side of caution". That is somewhat plausible, as it is noticable e.g. that all double-blind wargames induce relatively more cautious play than full intel ones. So somewhat more aggressive players are acting more like their full-info counterparts.

But this is hardly a matter of extremes or maximizing anything. Overconfidence is just as deadly as despondency, if your opponent expects and exploits it. Rashness can lose battles as easily as caution. For every wavering position not rushed when it might have been, there is a kill sack blundered into. The balance between them may not be even *empirically*, meaning the average player might improve by more aggressive or by more cautious play. But they are perfectly symmetrical relations theoretically, in the sense that too much of either can hang you. Very sound analysis. I usually tend to agree with most of your points. Though I also notice that you have some of a liking to bash in the heads of people who disagree with you even by 10%. ;) If you could work at this a little, your posts would be even better, and still more enjoyable than they already are.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

It is a mind game, and don't fool youself or anyone else believing otherwise. No one is praising foolishness, but pride and trust in ones capabilities do indeed bring victories. Am on neither side of the fence here. I believe the best mindset in a strategy game is the imperturbability of the Borg. If Star Trek TNG were real, I wouldn´t bet a cent on the Federation. :D

[Blackhorse]

We can use the Principles of War to analyze whether the attacker or defender has the advantage.
----------------------------------
Objective

Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective.

At the operational and tactical levels, objective means ensuring all actions contribute to the goals of the higher headquarters. The principle of objective drives all military activity. When under-taking any mission, commanders should have a clear understanding of the expected
outcome and its impact.

COMMENT: No clear advantage exists for either the attack or defense. The mission statement and clarity of the commander determine objective.
----------------------------------
Offensive

Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.

Offensive action is key to achieving decisive results. It is the essence of successful operations. Offensive actions are those taken to dictate the nature, scope, and tempo of an operation. They force the enemy to react. Commanders use offensive actions to impose their will on an enemy, adversary, or situation. Offensive operations are essential to maintain the freedom of action necessary for success, exploit vulnerabilities, and react to rapidly changing situations and unexpected developments.

COMMENT: The advantage here lies with the attacker. The attacker determines where and when to attack. He sets the conditions for battle. The defender will have to work harder to seize the initiative away from the attacker.
----------------------------------
Mass

Concentrate the effects of combat power at the decisive place and time.

Commanders mass the effects of combat power to overwhelm enemies or gain control of the situation. They mass combat power in time and space to achieve both destructive and constructive results.

COMMENT: Advantage to the attacker because he chooses the time and place of attack. Defender must work harder to achieve similar results
----------------------------------
Economy of Force

Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts.

Economy of force is the reciprocal of mass. It requires accepting prudent risk in selected areas to achieve superiority—overwhelming effects—in the decisive operation. Economy of force involves the discriminating employment and distribution of forces. Commanders never leave any element with-out a purpose. When the time comes to execute, all elements should have tasks to perform.

COMMENT: Basically a wash. Both sides equally affected.
----------------------------------
Maneuver

Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of combat power.

As both an element of combat power and a principle of war, maneuver concentrates and disperses combat power to place and keep the enemy at a disadvantage. It achieves results that would otherwise be more costly. Effective maneuver keeps enemies off balance by making them confront new problems and new dangers faster than they can deal with them. Army forces gain and preserve freedom of action, reduce vulnerability, and exploit success
through maneuver. Maneuver is more than just fire and movement. It includes the dynamic, flexible application of leadership, firepower, information, and protection as well. It requires flexibility in thought, plans, and operations and the skillful application of mass, surprise, and economy of force.

COMMENT:Advantage to the Attacker. Defender again must work hard to gain advantage over attacker.
----------------------------------
Unity of Command

For every objective, ensure unity of effort under one responsible commander.

Developing the full combat power of a force requires unity of command. Unity of command means that a single commander directs and coordinates the actions of all forces toward a common objective. Cooperation may produce coordination, but giving a single commander the required authority unifies action.

COMMENT:No distinct advantage to either attack or defense.
----------------------------------
Security

Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage.

Security protects and preserves combat power. It does not involve excessive caution. Calculated risk is inherent in conflict. Security results from measures taken by a command to protect itself from surprise, interference, sabotage, annoyance, and threat ISR. Military deception greatly enhances security. The threat of asymmetric action requires emphasis on security, even in low-threat environments.

COMMENT:Advantage to the defense.
----------------------------------
Surprise

Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared.

Surprise is the reciprocal of security. Surprise results from taking actions for which an enemy or adversary is unprepared. It is a powerful but temporary combat multiplier. It is not essential to take the adversary or enemy completely unaware; it is only necessary that he become aware too late to react effectively.

COMMENT:Advantage to the attacker.
----------------------------------
Simplicity

Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure thorough understanding.

Plans and orders should be simple and direct. Simple plans and clear, concise orders reduce misunderstanding and confusion. The factors of METT-TC determine the degree of simplicity required. Simple plans executed on time are better than detailed plans executed late. Commanders at all levels weigh the apparent benefits of a complex concept of operations against the risk that subordinates will not be able to understand or follow it.

COMMENT:No clear advantage.
----------------------------------
Conclusion

Overall, the attacker has an easier time than the defender. Attackers choose the time and place of the attack and strive to choose conditions that favor them. The attacker plans to attack at ratios that benefit him and disadvantage the defender. Thus, the Defender is at a disadvantage in that the battle is not fought on his terms but rather his enemy's terms.

Defenders that successfully defeat their attacker know how to take the Principles of War and use them to their advantage.

Caveats
Attacking does not guarantee victory/success.
Defending does not guarantee defeat.

Purpose of the Defense (FM3-0) Operations
Army forces defend until they gain sufficient strength to attack. Defensive operations defeat an enemy attack, buy time, economize forces, or develop conditions favorable for offensive operations. Alone, defensive operations normally can-not achieve a decision. Their purpose is to create conditions for a counter-offensive that allows Army forces to regain the initiative.
Although offensive operations are usually required to achieve decisive results, it is often
necessary, even advisable at times, to defend. Commanders defend to buy time, hold terrain,
facilitate other operations, preoccupy the enemy, or erode enemy resources.

Purpose of the Offense (FM3-0)Operations
The offense is the decisive form of war. Offensive operations aim to de-stroy
or defeat an enemy. Their purpose is to impose US will on the enemy
and achieve decisive victory. While immediate considerations often require
defending, decisive results require shifting to the offense as soon as possible.

In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense
depends on the war-like souls of those conducting it.
General George S. Patton Jr.
War as I Knew It

[Priest]

Uggh sorta back awake. 5 hours later I am up and why, because I have a CM game scheduled. I am sick.


posted June 01, 2002 07:25 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm one of those who consider defending not-that-much-harder but as for a game being dominated by the last AFV, never.

That "might" happen in a 1000 point game
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right - sorry. I should have written "last few AFVs. Or really, "How often has a scenario (or QB)outcome been largely determined by AFV exchanges during the first 1/3 of the game?"

Some comments have made me wonder if, for some of those who say that defending is harder than attacking, the issue really revolves around the attacker's AFVs and how they're handled.

That'd match my personal experience. I used to think that successfully defending was harder than attacking. AND I used to have much more trouble handling attacking AFVs. Once I got the hang of that defending didn't seem so daunting. And, going back to the fluid vrs. static thing, I think my AT tactics improved when I started concentrating more on mobile AT assets (or at least using mobile units to lure or drive AFVs into ATG fire) and being more aggressive.

Priest:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is how I like a battle to go,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, fanboy , I've got some questions.

How often do your battles go that way? How far toward the attacker do you place your picket line? (Or it might be better to ask: How far back do you like to put your main line?) Finally, what % of MBTs would you need to KO to consider the opening ATG-based phase successfull? My battles often go that way, I win the great majority of my battles. You question on the picket line is soley based on the terrain, there is no other honest way to state that. And there is no set percentage, it is what the enemy commander gives you. As long as I have the local superiority of guns then I consider it successful.

Folks the key to armour duels is space and who controls that space. If you can move and have area while restricting the area of your opponent they you have won half of the battle. Making your opponents tanks useless is as good as killing them. Currently in a battle I have a guy with a bunch of AFVs stuck. Not bogged, but stuck. He moves them they die. I pinned them with my tanks and the moved up ATG assets. Now I can move my tanks away. The ATG assets maintain the local gun superiority and my opponent loses a platoon of armour.

There is more that goes into it, I will get more in depth tonight.

[Tarquelne]

That he has physically and/or morally inferior forces is what makes him the defender, by definition. Otherwise he would/should be the attacker, according to Clausewitz.Given that, shouldn't we think of a such an "inferior" force advancing against the enemy as force practicing a mobile/fluid defense, and a "superior" force which more or less sits still as a force practicing an "seige like" attack? (One assumes that the "superior" force's very presence is in some way hurting or threatening the enemy.)

Or, we could admit that not all RL WWII commanders applied Clwtz. perfectly, and did, indeed, sometimes attack without the requistie "moral" superiority.

But rather than misunderstanding Clwtz, I think Scott B. was merely using "attacker" in the way it's commonly used - to refer to the advancing force. Not a misunderstanding, just a departure from Clwtz's terms.

I very much look forward to more exchanges between you and Scott. Very interesting!

[Tarquelne]

SB:
I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable? AS:
You joking? What I am saying is, on a large map, no turn limit, attacker wins by default.

With a broad front, no time constraints, the 50%pts advantage of the attacker will always win, period. :rolleyes: [/QB]Which sort of defense do you think would "hold out" longer, given those unfavorable conditions?

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:
SB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable? AS:
You joking? What I am saying is, on a large map, no turn limit, attacker wins by default.

With a broad front, no time constraints, the 50%pts advantage of the attacker will always win, period. :rolleyes: Which sort of defense do you think would "hold out" longer, given those unfavorable conditions?[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Dispersing Forces and Playing Hide and Seek would probably deliver the best result in game turns.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:
As the subject says...Just curious: What were you wondering about - Harder in RL, or harder in CM? (Or both?)

[Tarquelne]

Dispersing Forces and Playing Hide and Seek would probably deliver the best result in game turns.Another interesting parrellel between argumentative style and message content.

[Stixx]

Originally posted by Priest:

There is more that goes into it, I will get more in depth tonight.Like hell ya well!!!

Your fightin me tonight! ;)

[JasonC]

To Priest - I am sure you meant to say "insightful". I found it "inciteful" - lol. My comment on your description of how a battle should go was "Priest's picture of how he wants the battle to go is only recognizably to me when I am fighting the brain-dead AI." Notice the pronouns. Recognizable "to me", "when I".

Your description of killing the enemy MBTs before the main engagement is something I (I, me, not you) can pull off regularly only against the AI, or equally inexperienced opponents. Better players keep their tanks back and I don't manage to kill them. Indeed, I have to worry about theirs killing mine. As I said repeatedly, I am not a very good tank driver.

If there is some magical wand you wave that makes enemy armor blunder forward into LOS of your AT shooters early, please share it with us. I do not doubt that scads of your battles have gone that way. But it just leaves me with two options - I can finger my noodle and look all confused and ask you "how in God's name...", expecting an actual answer with content, or I can give up and put it down to your being a lucky sod. They don't blunder into LOS of *my* (notice, a pronoun) AT shooters. Although I catch more with hiding guns I place pretty well, than with big sore thumb tanks I don't drive very well.

Presumably your AT shooters are in better places, or moving more intelligently, or you are leading his MBTs about thus or so. But until you tell us something about how to do that, I for one am just stuck with the two rather empty choices above. The trick is beating his MBTs. I "grok" all the stuff after that. The question is how you (notice, a pronoun) beat the MBTs (while defending, of course, sans odds) without losing your own.

[ June 02, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Ron]

Originally posted by JasonC:
To Priest - I am sure you meant to say "insightful". I found it "inciteful" - lol. My comment on your description of how a battle should go was "Priest's picture of how he wants the battle to go is only recognizably to me when I am fighting the brain-dead AI."

Your description of killing the enemy MBTs before the main engagement is something I (I, me, not you) can pull off regularly only against the AI, or equally inexperienced opponents.

If there is some magical wand you wave that makes enemy armor blunder forward into LOS of your AT shooters early, please share it with us.

The question is how you (notice, a pronoun) beat the MBTs (while defending, of course, sans odds) without losing your own.Lol - you aren't alone in thinking that. Snippets of what Priest wrote: "achieving local gun superiority", "AFV MG/HE defeating the enemy infantry", "enemy AT gun suppressed by infantry", "restricting enemy AFV maneuver" and my favourite "reversing out and let the arty take care of it"! which would be the norm in most cases I think ;) To me speaks of a Subatai-like playing level, weak opponents and/or a lot of luck.

I don't think there is any 'magic-wand' except maybe sacrifice a little more to Lady Luck and there is a lot more latitude for *bad* luck when you are playing huge games, and from what he says he plays big ones, so bringing more toys to the party at the time of your choosing will reward you. To counter that you have to do the same thing, integrating all your possible AT assets at the time and place. No, revealing lone AT guns or letting enemy infantry within range to suppress them won't work lol.

Yeah you need to know the *CM system* and the usual basic stuff like advantageous positions for your assets, fully identifying the enemy, time and place and the like, but once you have committed to it and engage, it does come down to luck, no question about it, and bringing enough to matter. ;)

Ron

[NightGaunt]

[/QUOTE] The question is how you (notice, a pronoun) beat the MBTs (while defending, of course, sans odds) without losing your own.[/QUOTE]

From what I have witnessed, there are a couple of ways:

(and yes you keep pulling me back)

1. You force your opponent to use his tanks by pummelling his infantry with YOUR tanks, or better yet your MG carrier/HT type vehicles. Leaving many tanks on overwatch positions behind this first line of engaged vehicles. If he does not engage, his infantry gets slaughtered, and you win.

2. Bait, it can be anything, infantry, tanks, whatever, again, force his tanks to show themselves or they loose valuable positions.

3. Keep Initiative. One of the most important things. Even on the attack, forcing the opponent to react to you gives you an advantage.

One thing that priest does exceptionally well is DENY THE ENEMY POSITION. Find good hull down positions with overwatching fields of fire denying the enemy movement thru areas, at the same, finding paths of COVERED movement where your units can move either unseen or at least un molested.

5. LOS. Usually, in a fair fight, the first side to see the other's tank wins. So getting intel on where the enemy tanks are is huge. At the same time, preventing the enemy from locating your tanks is also huge.

HOW?
1. HIDING (duh)
2. Use ambush markers to PREVENT YOUR UNITS FROM SHOOTING.

This one is huge. Everyone uses some type of scouts, however many people are lazy. They send their units right behind their scouts, not waiting long enough to MAKE SURE that a path is clear. Many a times, you can wait for the first scout units to pass your original sight location, which would normally be shot at automatically, by putting an ambush marker right in front or right behind your unit. Then, when a bigger target comes along, blammo.

Another varient is keeping his tanks just behind a ridge, building, trees, whatever, just short of hull-down/and out of sight.. Wait for another unit, preferably with a different angle, with LOS to the other side of the hill to see something, and then moves tanks up to hull-down.

6. Waiting. Plain and simple waiting. I have played many/witnessed priest in many games simply keeping X tanks waiting. for 20-30 turns in a 50 turn game. They do nothing but sit in the back, well out of LOS.

After 20-30 turns, you have an EXCELLENT idea of where/what the enemy has, especially in regards to AT assets.

This force is NOT a true reserve. A true reserve is to support attacks, fill wholes, etc etc.

This force is kept apart from a true reserve, it is waiting for intel. Once intel about enemy AT units is gathered it is used to counter those assets.

It is a tough thing to do, especially in a tense situation, but keeping these units out of the fight for an extended amount of time can win the battle all by them selves.

An opponent, busily fighting for 20-30 turns is not expecting a significant force to suddenly appear, many times players will have already moved up their AT assets or moved them to support the attack thinking that by now all enemy at units were engaged.

[Austrian Strategist]

Nightgaunt,

Absolutely. I didn´t know these were expert methods. Glad to hear that, since I am using them, which means my play must be improving. smile.gif

[Priest]

Ron - I do not always play HUGE games, scaled down the overall idea still works the same.

Jason - If you do not know how to bait someone and exert some your "will" onto the battlefield to cause things to occur then you have problems far greater than tank use.

Nightgaunt - thanks

While luck is a factor it does not explain why some folks do far better consistently than others. There is a definitive skill to this, I will soon start a thread on Armour tactics. After I get some sleep under my belt. Four days of heavy CMBO has taken a lot out of me. Jason even you can join in and do you JasonC thing. It is mildly amusing from time to time. Thanks to Kalli and others who showed interest, I will go into more depth.

Lastly, Jason and Ron, for your information I play a very high level group of CMBO players. A very high level! Some of the oldest members of this board (some even in this thread) are my opponents. Most if not all of them would hand you your heads in a game. Do not speak on something you know ZERO about.

[Fionn]

Ken,

They're not worth it. You know what you say makes sense. I know it. Those you play know it. Professional military know it. Explaining it all again isn't gonna achieve anything since some aren't interested in actually understanding what you are saying. They're just interested in disagreeing with whatever it is that you say

As Colonel James Dewar once said "Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open".

NightGaunt.
Same message.

[JasonC]

Thanks for some substance Night Gaunt. Most of it is well known to me, but hardly impliments itself. Two items I can recognize I don't do as well as I should - waiting, and overwatch fields of fire. My problem with overwatch FOF, particularly on defense, is that usually if I have any decent area coverage that way, the tanks providing it are easily spotted and stalked.

Live, hidden, and not having much LOS tend to cluster together. Just being hull down does not handle this. It is slightly easier with thick fronted German AFVs, to be sure. But I tend to keep AFVs back until they hunt something, and that means they are not denying a lot of area until they pop up.

As for waiting, I try to wait in back positions, yes. But that hardly results in Priest's description of wiping out the enemy MBTs before the main engagement even starts. And I probably don't wait long enough. I typically play smaller fights, with 20-30 turns not 50. But I very rarely keep an AFV out until turn 15-20. On the attack, an HE chucker, maybe. On defense, I don't manage to afford it. I also don't quite see how this is supposed to fit with keeping the initiative while on defense and outnumbered to start with.

As for Priest's comments on bait, yes I am aware of the metaphysical existence of the category "bait". But try as I might with my limited powers of telekinesis to "impose my will", I can't make decent players take bait just by wanting them to. They tend to walk forward the LOS picture of their AFVs very carefully, as they scout places with infantry. Undoubtedly he can dangle bait that they regularly take. Perhaps in his armor tactics thread he will tell us how, instead of just insisting over and over that he can, which is doubtless the case but hardly helps those he thus continually mocks, rather than helps.

[Redwolf]

In my humble opinion, most of this CMBO tank usage debate also show
how game-dependent all these tradeoffs are, and battle-size dependent.

A unit of 2 or 4 single items that die on single shots each is
extremly fragile. You need a certain number of maneouver elements to
do battle, and each of them must come with a given level of
robustness. I think noone here doubts that infantry rules the CMBO
battlefield in normal games at least up to 2000 points, the units are
just too fragile and tanks are extremly expensive in vitory points
when knocked out (they die completely, which a platoon rarely does,
and they place crews for additional VPs on the map).

Given that the number of maneouver elements in a 120 points platoon is
3.5 (HQ not fully combat-effective), and the number in a 120 points
tank is 1, it is not surprising that tank games have to be 3 times as
big (point-wise) as infantry games to offer the same level of fun,
variation and reward for good planning.

I think that you, Jason and Ron, do not understand that the bigger
(tank) units take the randomness out of CMBO tanks combat. If you
would have a battle with 5 infantry maneouver units it would be as
random as a battle with 5 pieces of armor. I am the first to say that
CMBO tank combat is very random, but games with 20 or so AFVs will
help a lot.

As a side note, I find it interesting that Priest is voluntarily using
Pz IV, they rock, but few people believe it.

Now, back to all this being game-dependent, imagine that the price of
armor would be half of what it is now in CMBO, to make up for the
number of maneouver elements, and crews would't costy extra victory
points. Don't you think everyone would say tanks rock (even in
smaller games?). I won't even start on better MGs, more turret
control, reliable move-to-LOS and move-into-hulldown and no bugs that
turn rotate commands into movement commands.

[Priest]

Jason,

If a person is holding their armour and not "waltzing it" right to the front that works to my advantage. This means their infantry is in the open most likely. That means I can attrit their infantry.

So lets take a look at an example shall we?

You have a company of infantry in the woods you are supposed to be a.) advancing or b.) holding the area, it matters little. To each side of the woods is area in which tanks can pass. You decide to hold your armour back, waiting for me to commit mine. Super. My recce forces are scattered by your company but I know you location. I call in some quick artillery (low caliber stuff that I have a lot of like 81mm mortars). This should help to pin your force. I then advance my forces, a platoon of infantry and 5 tanks. Three of the tanks sit back and cover the two previously mentioned clearings to the right and left. The other two tanks head forward and engage the infantry with the infantry as a screen. Now here is the question, what do you do? Hmmm you could move up AT teams and ATG's but my infantry will probably focus on them not to mention 2-5 tanks depending on the LOS in the area. You could send artillery, but light stuff will have no effect and I will not be there by the time you could call in the heavy stuff. Heavy stuff takes time and in the 3-5 turns it might take to come in, I would have decimated your company and moved into those positions or beyond. Or on the defense I would have moved back and out of the area, my counter attack finished. Regardless what are you going to do? Hmmm maybe you are going to run away , that is fine although I tend to focus my artillery to the rear (simple adjustment) after my tanks engage so I will do so good damage to your fleeing troops and I will either blunt the attack or I will take the position. So hmmm what to do eh Jason. How about send you tanks in to relieve your infantry? Hey that is a great idea! But wait isn't that what I wanted you to do? Didn't I put you in a position where either you have to or you lose the position? Did I not just exert my "will" into the game and make you do the very thing I wanted? I think I did.

Now does this work perfect every time in every situation? Hell no. But it is a good model of how I conduct battles, with armour as my core force, not infantry. I have many games where my infantry gets few if any kills. Most are AT teams or the occasional ATG crew member. So there it is spelled out. I am not sure I can make it any more basic.

Lastly Jason I am losing more and more respect for you and your opinions. Not because of your attacks on me but those of my opponents in previous posts. They are my friends and I do not take to kindly to that.

Fionn, yeah I know. Guess I could just give Jason a list of my opponents that I have run asunder and the can all call him an idjit for me. Saves having to read his long drawn out posts stating that he doesn't understand because he doesn't agree with it.

[Sir Uber General]

Quite a thread going on here. To answer someone a page or so back, I am interested in Attack Vs Defense in CMBO only.

I think the anser can be summed up by saying which is easier will depend on the parameters of the game; smaller map sizes with less turns and less cover will favour the defender, while the opposite scenario favours the attacker.

Ultimately though it is initiative that wins the battle and how you achieve that has been talked about thoroughly. Thanks to everyone that has chipped in, I really enjoy hearing the opinions of fellow CMers, especially from players that are considered top-notch - your words of wisdom often save me hours of playing to figure something out.

Priest - re post above - what happens if the defender decides to open up with ATG's on your armour core? I dont set up any sort of area I plan to defend without giving the infantry AT support!

If anyone here wants to put their theories to the test (or mayhaps disprove someone else's theory!) please email me for a hit-out, I am keen to try some defensive action.

Cheers

[ June 02, 2002, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Sir Uber General ]

[Priest]

Sir General

You let your infantry deal with it and HE fire. You are going to lose tanks but infantry can spot guns, especially moving guns. Infantry, MGs, and artillery can take out guns very very easily as can direct HE fire from 2-5 tanks. If you are in a smaller point game you have less guns to worry about but you also have less tanks so it does not matter about the size of the game.

[Tarquelne]

A unit of 2 or 4 single items that die on single shots each is extremly fragile.My "It's because of early experiences with armor." theory of CM attack/defense difficulty:

Beginning players tend to start with smaller QBs and scenarios.

Such players will tend to loose a _lot_ of armor to "bad luck." (It's hard for a beginer to manufacture the opportunities that lead to good luck.)

Chance, being a numbers game, will favor the player with the highest # of armor units - generally the _attacker_.

Thus, (the theory goes) beginning players will often get the impression that defending is harder than attacking, since the armored battle so often goes to the attacker.

Now, I don't think that all (or any of) the people here who think defending is easier are beginners, but I do think that early impressions often last a long time.* Esp. in this case: Early troubles with defending armor may cause a player to loose faith in it's effectiveness (echos of the "mental attitude" debate), and fail to fully exploit it even after "beginner" status is lost.


As a side note, I find it interesting that Priest is voluntarily using Pz IV, they rock, but few people believe it.As #s increase offense is generally more important than defense. (True in many games.) And the Big Cats greatest's improvement over the PzIVs is armor, IMO.

OTOH, I seem to NEED for a significant fraction of the hits against my tanks to fail in order to get anywhere. ;) I really need to practice finding elevation based cover. tongue.gif

*I cite the fact that the X-Files lasted longer than 4 seasons. ;)

[Sir Uber General]

Priest - what do you say to the arguement that gun-for-tank exchanges will favour the defender, especially if they are preserving their tiger for the end-game? If each of my guns take out 1 tank each I'm usually happy and end up on front at the end.

Also, what do you do if you run into a pillbox? These are not dealt with as easily as an ATG.

Defending and attacking is an endless game of check and counter-check... I love it!

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:
[QB]Priest - what do you say to the arguement that gun-for-tank exchanges will favour the defender,Here's what I say to that:

1) Artillery (both HE and smoke) and infantry. (In other words, try to avoid playing the gun-for-tank game.)

2) Local superiority. The tanks are moblie, the AT guns aren't. (Good overlapping fields of ATG fire is a nightmare, though. My response to _that_ is generally "What happened to all my tanks?")

I think gun-for-tank exchanges favoring the defender are not a general principle, but simply an example of what happens when the defender is smarter than the attacker.

Hopefully an attacker can use 1 and 2 above to create a favorable ratio. However, an unfavorable ratio still isn't necessarily a Bad Thing for the attacker. If the attacker is parked on the objectives at the end of the battle, and didn't take _too_ many losses: bully!

I feel _very_ satisfied if I can beat an ATG defense and never give some of the guns the opportunity to fire at a tank. I might loose 3 tanks for every ATG - but if I only face off against 1 ATG, I'm still ahead of the game. (Assuming I've got well over 3 tanks total, of course.)

[ June 03, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Priest]

It depends how many guns and tanks we are talking about here. If you have a concentrated ATG front and the enenmy walks right up to it then you are going to rip them most likely. But if you concentrate your forces then there is a chance the tanks drive right around it out of LOS. If you spread them too much then the tanks can gain the advantage in numbers and position (ie one tank goes left and one goes right where does the gun rotate to?) Whether it be an ATG or tank it still falls under local gun superiority. Try this though, set up a little admittedly "boxed" scenario with a small set of woods with two ATG guns in it, lets say either 75mm PAK or 76mm US. Put a platoon of infantry in the woods also to shield the guns. (another test that can be done is swap the MORALE bonus on and off of the HQ units and see how much tougher your guns become!). No choose two platoons of infantry and 3-5 tanks (test with different numbers to see the different results and they play upon one another. For testing choose Panzer IV or Shermans. You the infantry platoons to screen the tanks. Us a ridgline to shield the oncoming force and have engagement happen at about 200m-250m. Once the guns show themselves you will see the infantry and tanks eliminate them very quickly. Most of the time before the second shot. So ATGs are a risk, but proper position and screening can make them a one or two shot risk. Adding overwatched hulldown tanks on the ridge will as two advance and so on and so forth increase the survivability of the tanks also.

[Redwolf]

We should start a thread on tank tactics, but especially with regards to attack/defense a good starting recommendation is to move your tanks like they are very cowardly infantrymen. Go to view level one, search for the next piece of cover like you would if you was a grunt running around that battlefield and then move it, go there fast. Have a buddy standing behind you to "cover" you, which of course usually means revenge your death, but that's better than nothing.

I know it's not a popular comparision here, but some experience in first-person shooters with leathal sniper rifles helps, e.g. Action Quake 2.

[Ron]

Priest wrote:
Ron - I do not always play HUGE games, scaled down the overall idea still works the same.

While luck is a factor it does not explain why some folks do far better consistently than others. There is a definitive skill to this, I will soon start a thread on Armour tactics.Of course there is a skill to this, no one is denying that, but why the superior attitude? I have no doubt you consistently apply certain principles in what you do. The question is "what is it you do" and "why"? From what you have written you say you consistently gain local superiority, yes fine we all try to achieve that and are successful many times as well. You give examples but to my mind they are situations that are "simple and ideal" and don't say much, so it comes to "how you achieve that" consistently. You respond by saying you "bait and exert your will" to create them. Again I believe most of us try to do the same thing in varying degrees also to create favorable situations, so what are we left with?

All of us here play and enjoy CM for varying reasons - to learn, to play well, to have fun etc, we have all had our successes and defeats. If you invest your time and energy, devote yourself to your games and playing well in them then I know you will consistently do better than others. It is something I have experienced myself. The difference between someone actively thinking of the "total" at hand with vested interest versus someone plotting their moves(a simple analogy). Again not lessening your abilities at CM or your opponents (not sure why you would think that) but it is a fact. I have played many games where I saw the total and acted accordingly and many games where I didn't and suffered the results. The difference being how much you give, how much you put into it.

I agree partly about the idea being similar no matter the scale, but from my experience larger games require a different mindset from smaller ones and allow greater freedom and options for grand tactical maneuver, for lack of a better phrase. In smaller games you don't have enough pieces to do 'things', especially pronounced for the defender in Attacks/Assaults, and the luck factor plays a larger role.

Fionn wrote:
They're not worth it. You know what you say makes sense. I know it. Those you play know it. Professional military know it. Explaining it all again isn't gonna achieve anything since some aren't interested in actually understanding what you are saying. They're just interested in disagreeing with whatever it is that you say

As Colonel James Dewar once said "Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open".You sound like a bitter man, if that's what you truly believe, there's nothing/no one worthy to discuss, then I agree why bother and walk away. No one is forcing you to read or respond to anything said here.

Priest wrote:
My recce forces are scattered by your company but I know you location. I call in some quick artillery (low caliber stuff that I have a lot of like 81mm mortars). This should help to pin your force. I then advance my forces, a platoon of infantry and 5 tanks. Three of the tanks sit back and cover the two previously mentioned clearings to the right and left. The other two tanks head forward and engage the infantry with the infantry as a screen. Now here is the question, what do you do?A highly unfavorable position for the defender to be in, a company of infantry 'hanging' alone. To even create such a situation in the first place you, as the attacker, are ahead of the game and the defender made a major mistake. Let's try something a little more realistic.

Your recce forces are scattered/destroyed by a forward platoon. You drop light arty to suppress and advance your platoon and 5 tanks, 3 in overwatch. The defending platoon retreats back out of LOS, leaving a squad behind which is destroyed by your infantry and direct HE fire. You follow up quickly with your platoon to finish them off but run into a fresh defending platoon, previously unseen and out of LOS of your supporting tanks. What do you do now? Do you reposition your tanks to provide support, running the risk of being exposed to an AT gun(s) placed in the rear to cover just that eventuality as envisioned by the defender? Or maybe risk being ambushed by the third defending platoon? Do you decide to pull back your platoon and call in your light arty to cover them? Do you decide to push in more infantry and run the risk of the defender calling in arty of his own to blast your concentration? Do you doubt the defender has not accounted for that? Who has the initiative now?

Yes, we could go round and round with example, counter-example etc all day long. In the end it is a battle of initiative and forcing the other player to react instead of act.

You may have some previously unknown *principle* or technique when you post your thoughts on armor tactics but I doubt it. I think you devote a lot of time and energy to your games, a *truth* for everything we do in life, and that gives you the edge, good for you(not said condescendingly), and others can learn from that.

Ron

[Ligur]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I know it's not a popular comparision here, but some experience in first-person shooters with leathal sniper rifles helps, e.g. Action Quake 2.Holy Handcannon! I was an enthustiastic AQ2 player when it was introduced to the Q2 mod scene ages ago. Belonged to two prominent Nordic AQ2 clans as well.

I'm still amazed how often former AQ2 players pop-up and mention it; on almost ANY internet community. You can pick a gaming msg board, post "Hello old AQ2 players" and you'll meet a few friendly faces every time... Hirr. [/end thread hijack]

A real, authentic TANK TACTICS thread would be greatly appreciated since I consider them tin coffins easily the weakest point of my game. Playing the monolithic "Blood & Steel PBEM" by SuperTed with a friend (in the middle of round 45 I think) only served to convince me of this more then ever.

[FFE]

Far too many players are complacent. How often does one fiddle with weather and ground conditions? I can assure you that in certain weather combinations, the attacker needs more then a 50% bonus to conceivably win. Players are more likely to pick clear skies and dry ground. There are some players who play for ‘fun’ and jostle game conditions to make things more interesting. But the vast majorities I have played on the net tend to opt for pristine gaming environments.

As I see it the key factors are time, map environment, and weather conditions. Generally weather conditions are ruled out due to the favoring: clear/dry (this favors the attacker). More time favors the attacker. Less time favors the defender. The last variable is the most random, map environment. Without enough cover the attacker’s infantry dies out in the open. But with too much cover the defender is able to continuously ambush and withdraw.

So what I suggest to anyone who thinks the attacker is winning his lion share: muck with the weather. Set the ground conditions to mud and have ‘fun.’ Do not let blue skies and hard compact grounds be your only battlefields.

[Tarquelne]

Yes, we could go round and round with example, counter-example etc all day long.I like the idea of a tank tactics thread... I was about to start one, but I think it'd be much more usefull if someone less lazy than I posted a map and an OoB to "hang" the discussion on.

(I think that's why the discussion has tended to be unsatisfying for some people when to gets down to the practical specifics. So many variables, so many counters. Priest - to pick someone completely at random - has done a fine job of presenting what he'd do, but pretty much neglected all the counter-tactics and qualifiers. I think that's OK, because it'd take for-bloody-ever to get into them all.

Unless I'm looking at a specific map and OOB, I don't even like to "discuss" tactics. I like seeing techniques described, and discussing general principles, but I think that's all that you can do constructively without refering to a specific situation.)

[Priest]

Ron,

If I was defending then I fall back, the counter attack has worked and caused you to stop your attack and halt your momentum in the sector.

On the attack if you pull farther back into the woods then you are not a threat to my advance. I choose either the path right or left, send my recce, and repeat the process on the next time I find a strong point. If you infantry is hiding in the woods why in the heck do I care about it anymore?

A unit that cannot move or act on it's own initiative is as good as eliminated. The diffrence in my example and yours is that you assume that I am going to go after your infantry and allow them to be pulled away from my tanks. Kind of a reverse of what I am doing with my tanks, pulling yours towards me. The difference is that you assume I need to send my infantry in, and that I will send my infantry in. As the tank is the core of my force, their protection (thus infantry screen) is priority. If I some how find that your forces are strung out through the woods (glimpes from recce forces or whatever) then that is where artillery can be used to flush you out. The only time I can see otherwise is if the objective is in the woods, thus I may have to go "and get you". Other than that I would in essence just drive around you.

A tank thread would be good. Maybe I will start one tonight.

Lastly you are right I am showing basic examples but that is so you can learn. There is no magic wand that you can wave, I cannot tell you just to "flank" or "adjust" or anything else and WHAMMO you are good with tanks. It does not work that way. I can't just say always use a wedge formation and you will win, because it is not so. There is no "tactic" but a philosophy being stated here. There are some rules to armour combat, like shooting at the enemy flanks is good, and so on and so forth but the I think a lot of you are asking me to tell you point blank what I do, and the answer is it changes every game with every new map and opponent. I simply follow the previously stated model.

[Kallimakhos]

What are the advantages for defender in armoured battle? I can think of three (I'm sure you can think of more):

1. Ambush. This is obvious but very difficalt against a good opponent, who uses infantry screen to find traps. And you get only 1-2 shots before you get shot at. Advantage, but not a big one.

2. Spotting. With patience, defender will know where the attackers tanks are before his own tanks are revealed. A definite strategic advantage.

3. Buttoning. Using snipers and other small armes to button up the attacking tanks before defenders unbuttoned tanks appear on the rigde, will give a good tactical advantage.

Of course, all these advantages can and should be utilized simultaneously to create better odds for the defender.

Last, one general remark that may have not come up. Usually one needs a good "fist" of many tanks to advance and create local superiority. But fist alone is suicide, four Panthers on a hilltop lose against four cheap TD's sniping at them from four different directions. As said, one has to also controll the map and deny enemy movement, spreading the tanks in good overwatch positions.

The real art is reading the map and deciding how to balance your forces between fist and overwatch. Timing and synchronization are extremely important tactical skills but difficult to master. Also very time consuming, not for TCP/IP. As pointed out earlier, only very big armoured battles are chess-like fun, these finesses have little meaning when playing with few tanks, even though same principles apply.

All in all I think armour is more difficult to master than infantry, and to play well with armour one has to be also good with infantry. Infantry alone can defeat combined arms, but tanks alone without infantry support won't accomplish anything.

[ June 03, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Priest:
If I was defending then I fall back, the counter attack has worked and caused you to stop your attack and halt your momentum in the sector.

On the attack if you pull farther back into the woods then you are not a threat to my advance. I choose either the path right or left, send my recce, and repeat the process on the next time I find a strong point. If you infantry is hiding in the woods why in the heck do I care about it anymore?Given that the woods you refer to do NOT contain the VL flag, I can see that you would bypass any hidden infantry since they are relatively irrelevant. However, wouldn't the best course of action for your opponent be to sneak behind you and ambush your flank, whether you're still in the same woods, or better yet, as you leap out into the open towards the next cover, nailing you in your "six." AT guns would then in turn shoot at your supporting tanks' flanks as they target the ambushing infantry. Just a thought.

[Priest]

Silvio,

First off how would the AT guns get away from my attack initially? They are not fast enough to manuever. Second without ATG's why am I worried about an infantry company in my rear? First off they have to move through the woods. Lets say on a purely game basis 1-3 turns. Hmmm now this is where it begins to get hard. Where is the next strong point, what is the lay of the land? Can you pop out of the woods behind and have LOS? If you do what is the best you can offer, AT teams as a threat? How many, maybe three? Would they even be in range? In any sizeable area of woods it would take far too long to bring ATG's around so they are not a concern. But lets say for arguements sake that 250m behind me and infantry company all of a sudden appears with LOS, no ATGs but some AT teams. There is 250m of open ground between me and them. Why again am I worried? What can they do? They might cause me to divert one tank to harrass them while I wait for some light artillery to scare them off. They aren't much of a concern because they are not a threat at that range to my tanks. Closer and maybe they become a bit more scary because of the fragile AT teams they might have but we are still talking low percentage stuff here. AT teams die fast and supress easy. Also as long as I keep pushing forward they cannot keep up, at least not the AT teams. Normal infantry (unless in very close range) mean little or nothing to a tank. They are simply targets. Also I tend to have follow up forces to deal with these little problems. Amazing what three or four HTs will do to an infantry company given time.

A quick edit for clarification, I am aware but did not address the ATGs you now imply in front of me. As the infantry draw minimal resources from me I would deal with them in the manner of my first example, infantry fire with direct HE support.

[ June 03, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Priest,

I was envisioning the terrain to be Woods "centrally located" on the map, and containing 1 Coy. You said that you would have 1 tank each heading past these woods to the left and right, whilst 3 tanks cover them. My idea was that if you are moving your tanks PAST the woods, surely there must be other cover beyond the woods, and that's where the ATGs/tanks would be. Of course an Inf Coy 250m behind you is no threat. Yet to match your 5 tanks, the defender would have a decent combo of tanks/ATGs, enough to be a threat. The defender should use the reappearance of his bypasseed inf in your rear together w/ his AT assets to trouble you.

This whole thing hinges upon how fast you get your inf. PAST the inf-containing-Woods. Of course, both of our images of the terrain in this situation could be radically different, meaning that we won't see the context for my idea above.

Thanks,
Kevin

[NightGaunt]

the most important thing posted on this thread was that it depends on the map.

Explainations won't work without a visual reference. From seeing it, I know exactly how priest would tackle the situation suggested, and I know his tactics would probably work (nothing always works). But to try to explain it without seeing it is really a futile topic.

Unfortunatly even a view 8 map would not suffice or I would paste one to work from, you really need to see the lay of the land to get the whole concept.

[Tarquelne]

the most important thing posted on this thread was that it depends on the map.Did I ever mention that I think reading the terrain is the most important skill? Well, I meant to. ;) + tongue.gif


Unfortunatly even a view 8 map would not suffice or I would paste one to work from,]What I was thinking is that someone could post a well-landmarked map file.

Hmm... this is sounding like fun... units could be placed via the editor, and discussion could be helped along by screen shots showing specific LOSs, ATG placement, brew-ups smile.gif , etc.

Anyone want to suggest a map/scenario that'd be good for discussion? (I don't have any suggestions.)

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

Raising this thread from the dead. It deserves new life and vigor. :D

Generally and most of the time, defending is less hard than attacking. Further, generally and most of the time, defending should win most of the time. :D

& by the way, where is JasonC ??? :confused: He is missed because of his insightfulness. smile.gif

Cheers, Richard :D

[sand digger]

Lots of food for thought here. Having just placed my game order, I'll be looking at using defensive arrangements similar to Morshead's Tobruk '41 and Rommel's El Alamein '42.

For those not familiar with those arrangements, there are basic similarities. Both were defences in depth using minefields to channel armour into killing grounds, both used static defence strongpoints with mobile reserves, mainly armour, held back to plug threatened breakthroughs and counter-attack where practical.

Has anyone else used such historically modelled defensive arrangements? From what has been said here, it appears that such static defensive strongpoints may be a bit vulnerable. Historically, such strongpoints would be manned by infantry, usually with AT and artillery support but rarely with armoured support initially.

I realise that the game covers a later period than '42 and consequently a lot of the equipment is different, particularly that hand-held AT weapons were essentially not available in '42.