Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?

[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.

*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. +

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 , 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.

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.

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

Cheers, Richard

[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.