Christian Knudsen

Really, Really, Really, Really annoyed by 400. Tried it twice now, with minor defeats both times. The first time was admittedly more of a wash - I took too long to get to the MLR, and my assault was fragmentary at best. The second time I put some more thought into it - It helped that I now knew where the basic enemy lines were. I put arty into the proper places, two 122s onto the right woodline, and one into the center house/rubble position. The 120 went into both areas. I managed to get a good portion of my support weapons into places where they could get at the enemy, even my 76s, which focused on the right woods. I pushed two platoons up the left, another two or so up the right, and used cover to push the remainder up the middle. I paid much attention to interval, etc., and got the majority up to the wire obstacles, and had pushed two platoons through the wire when the auto-ceasefire kicked in on turn 26 or so. Three things made this battle a loss for me. 1. The +2 morale platoon in the center. I think they were fanatics. They steadfastly resisted all arty, mortar, and smallarms fire for turn after turn. Platoons plus support would be blasting away at individual sections under 150 meters, to no effect. The enemy would pin for about 3 seconds, then pop up and engage whatever I was vainly trying to push into assault range. I even focused all fire onto the enemy platoon cmdr, hoping to panic him and deny his morale effect, but to no avail. Pin, disappear, recover 3 to 5 seconds later. By battle end I had this platoon down to about 10 effectives through sheer weight of fire, but they were still defending away, my ammo was running very low, and it cost me all forward progress. I will call them Platoon Eisenkreuz. 2. That bloody defiladed MG bunker. Faced with a serious loss of momentum in the center, I tried to push up a company to engage the enemy left platoon in order to flank Platoon Eisenkreuz and actually break in to the village. That MG bunker stopped the comapny flat. Anything that attempted to actually advance/assault into the enemy position got pinned and panicked right away. Again, the enemy's refusal to break didn't help much. I artyed the bunker, smoked it off, and put about 5 ATRs onto it. Nothing doing. The only things that might have hurt it, the 76s, couldn't see it, and are far too slow to have repositioned, even if they would have survived coming into the bunker's LOS. 3. The cavalry, which arrived on turn 18, and proceeded to really stop the center dead. I was just starting to think that I would be able to dislodge Platoon Eisenkreuz when the tanks arrived. Several things went well. The arty really punished the right side woods, smashing the INF gun and 81mm MTR, (They never fired a shot), and messing up the enemy HMGs and infantry. It did nothing to the bunker, but I would have needed a pretty lucky shot for that. My Maxims did fairly well in suppressing the enemy HMGs. Of course I knew where they were ahead of time, and could pre-emptively area fire at them, which I think is mighty gamey, but I needed the advantage. I think that next time I will try putting the main weight on the right side. I will delay the arty a bit more (I put the two modules on the right on turns 7 and 9), and put way more infantry on the right. The only problem is that big open space, which is both long and narrow enough to cause problems. I also worry that Platoon Eisenkreuz will enfilade and mess up my assault. I will also make more of an effort to position the 76s so that they can persude Platoon Eisenkreuz to get lost. One complaint - I find it very difficult during attacks in anything but the most simple of terrain to find the enemy effectively. This makes it VERY difficult to plan heavy bombardments to be effective without being gamey. In this exercise the Russians MUST have effective pre-planned artillery; they lack the HE assets to dislodge a company defensive position otherwise. So how then to do this without resorting to gameyness? (and playing twice is super-gamey, as far as I am concerned). This ties in to the problem of time in assaults. The first time through, I advanced cautiously, using much move to contact, as I had no real idea of where the MLR was going to be, and wanted to scout it out a bit. As a result, by the time I made contact, I was quite a bit behind schedule, and the attack probably would have needed another 10 turns to develop properly. I find that this is the biggest failing of CMx1; there is no mechanism for intelligence info. I hope that when putting in a deliberate assault I would at least have a rudimentary idea of where basic frontline platoon positions are. Is this realistic? Possibly not. Maybe realistically it is enough to know that there is enemy in that village, take your batallion and get a move on. Any thoughts or suggestins would be appreciated - When I looked at the survivors of Platoon Eisenkreutz after the battle (still mostly in good order, the bastards), I almost chucked my computer out the window.

AARs for the 300's: 310: Easily managed a total victory. As with all meeting engagements vs the AI, especially with cover, the secret is to get to the flags first and to force the AI to attack you. 311: This was the one I had the most difficulty with. Even after a couple tries I was only able to get a tactical victory. I followed JasonC's advice about forming a mobile reserve, but basically I ran out of time to use it to properly flank and roll up the enemy positions. 312: A total victory, but at a pretty high cost. Basically put half my forces into the center woods and steamrollered the defense. Pioneers did great at removing minefields, and SMGs did great at removing enemy. Took a lot of damage from the enemy arty, which was just about perfectly targeted on my main body of troops. Very effective, costing me 25 troops just from the arty alone. Still, at night mass is everything, especially in close ground. 315: Played it three times. First time I got a tactical victory, and had a very tough time taking out any tanks, which just sat out of DC range and shot anything that moved. Second time, the enemy managed to lose three tanks on daisy chains, and the rest was anticlimactic. I figured that this had been too easy, so I tried it again, but with a different setup that focused more on the center road. Worked very well. I was able to get DC kills from ambush, and took very few casualties. 316: This was a tough one, and I suspect that against a human it would be much more difficult. Still I found this interesting. There is a real conflict between the need to hide from enemy armour but still effectively engage enemy infantry. This highlighted the need to defend from the back of buildings, much in the same way as you defend woods. In addition, you must try and hunt enemy armour. I managed to get three of the four PzIIIs, but most of the halftracks got away. I lost the T34 and one T70. I think that if I were to play it again I would change the setup quite a bit, to spread out the Pioneers and make them more of a reserve. 320: Easy. No changes to setup required. One interesting thing was the effectiveness of ATRs against halftracks, which carried on throughout the 320 series. 321: More challenging. Much focus on ATR vs halftrack, HMG vs infantry until the Stugs get into the killsack, which was roughly even with the right platoon position. AT mines proved very effective. 322: Very challenging. Played it twice, first time only got two Tigers before losing my AT assets. Sturmoviks were useless. I won, but only because the enemy ran out of time. The second time I moved some stuff around, most notably a 57mm ATG to the right flank, and I made a large wire/mine obstacle in the center, around where I wanted my killsack. Sturmoviks were useless again, but I found that by mainly engaging his infantry from the right, I forced the Tigers to move that way in order to try and neutralise my smallarms fire. This, thanks to the terrain, created situations where my ATGs could engage lone Tigers in the killsack without being seen by the others. Once I got the first one, it was a quick domino effect. I did lose a Su-152, but the Tiger had to present a flank to one of my ATGs. Finished with only 5 casualties total. One of the main things in the 320 series is the relationship between positioning and springing the ambush. One should position the AT assets so that they can simultaneously engage the killsack with effective fire (killing shots). Then you have to decide when to spring the trap. This should be done so that every target which can see the shooter(s) should be engaged. If you have one gun and two visible targets, wait, unless it's really desperate. If you can safely and effectively reveal AT assets on a one to one or better basis, fire away. Anyways, thanks again JasonC. I am looking forward to the 400s. Only one problem. What comes next? I guess I'll have to go back to ROQC...

NUB, you seem to be advocating a concealment based defence that borders on no defense at all. JasonC espouses the use of preparatory fires into likely enemy locations when your recce information is not complete. A good map recce combined with reasonable intel on enemy strengths will give good candidates for prep fire, and his strategy is to soften up these likely spots. Note that this does not mean expend all rounds until the grid square is turned upside down (unless you have the resources to do this and it would make sense, then go ahead). This means put the minimum amount of fire into likely enemy locations that is required to do one of several things: 1. Suppress the enemy so that a hasty attack can be launched. 2. Force the enemy to vacate their position, thus weakening the defense (because the likely positions being targeted are ones from which fire could effectively impede the advance). 3. Force the enemy to choose between leaving (see 2, above), or firing at the advancing troops. Note that this fire will be less effective because of the incoming area fire, and will be responded to with overwhelming force, as the attacker will have ensured that he has force and fire superiority on the axis of advance. Yes, it is possible to use withdrawal and delaying tactics to slow an attacker down and make him bleed. But this is a dangerous game, because if you leave too little behind you will not slow him down or bleed him enough to avoid him catching up to your main body at some point, and if you leave too much, your main force gets smaller and smaller to no real gain - at some point you are no longer delaying, but offering a MLR. And it's hell on morale. Again, this is an arguement of apples vs oranges. JasonC talks about the primacy of firepower at the tactical level, and the primacy of resource at the strategic. The nation with the most firepower at the critical points will on average win tactically, and the nation with the most resources used efficiently will on average win strategically. NUB, you seek to refute the primacy of firepower at the tactical level, but with what do you propose to replace it? Maneuver will only get you so far. To test, go out with a friend into the outdoors. Give your friend a BB gun, and tell him to defend a patch of ground, which you are resolved to take. Arm yourself with anything you wish, but because you are going to use maneuver only, you are not allowed to use it. Note that supply will not come into the picture, as we are dealing only on a tactical scale. Maneuver around the position. Please ensure you are wearing goggles. How did it go? Feel free to try again. Now switch sides, except that your friend, as an 'attritionist', is allowed to use his weapon without doctrinal restriction. He may only, however, advance in a straight line toward your position. To simulate the 'attritionist' gamey tactic of local attacking force superiority, you will be armed with a small stick, which you may use in any way you choose. Wear running shoes. How did it go? Try again. Are you in pain yet? How about your friend? Repeat until satisfied.

Seems like there is a discussion of the infamous case of apples v. oranges here. I recall reading that Chesty Puller once said that there is very little room for fancy tactics below the division level, or something to that effect. Now I definitely do NOT wish to get into a debate about Chesty and his abilities as a tactician. It just seems a little pointless to me to describe 'attritionist' or 'maneuverist' styles at a tactical level, which is what CM portrays, after all. "Attritionists" would never deny the use of maneuver at the tactical level, as long as it brings about conditions that lead to the destruction of enemy fighting power. I think that the danger of 'maneuver' as an operational/strategic concept is that it can lead to the delusion that a conflict can be won without the destruction of enemy force. Sure, "attack the enemy C3I", say both sides, but the attritionist qualifies that by adding, "then make damn sure to destroy the body too, because armies are like weird zombies that can live on even without a head." Perhaps our attritionist has been watching too much George Romero, but you get the point.

Total Victory for 202, with an enemy surrender on Turn 16. I put the T-70 on the left as gun bait, one platoon in the center depression, and the other on the far right. Arty stayed reactive. T-70 served purpose, so I set the middle T-34s to shoot and scoot out of the depression - but I forgot to give them covered arcs on the gun, and it went to a flag contact just as my tanks were cresting. This lost me a T-34, but I had staggered and spread the crest orders just enough that the last tank up managed to get the gun while it was busy putting extra speed holes in the first one. I didn't like losing two tanks, but I'll take it in this situation. Rest of the battle went swimmingly - This tends to be how I play as the Russians anyways, with me (and this is a pretty broad generalization) using lots of tanks to ferret out ATGs, and then shoot up enemy infantry. What this series is teaching me so far is: a. Infantry has a role besides defense of tanks in close terrain - in fact, infantry, given time and/or heavy weapons, can get the job done on their own - they are very resilient if handled right. b. Proper use of supporting weapons, in particular arty; I used to be terrible at using arty, but I think I am getting better at it. There's some other stuff, too, but those are the main things thus far. Anyways, I am off to my no-family, no-CMBB job for another week - I am eager to get at the 300's when I get back next week, though! On the other hand, maybe I should start my Christmas shopping...

Try The Proving Grounds

Try The Proving Grounds

Yeah - I figured that since the 120s had a delay of 6 turns, then the 122s couldn't be that much longer. 20+ turns? Whoops. Although having that 122 module start coming in on Turn 24 was a real treat, as it really put the coup de grace on the remainder of the enemy infantry. With regards to the 120s and reactive fire, are there any tricks to ensure that the barrage comes in in the later parts of the turn, and so only puts down a couple of rounds before adjusting again? I was able to switch the fire around quite well (position of spotter makes a huge difference), but found a couple of times that through bad timing a lot more rounds got dropped on a particular spot than I needed/wanted. With regards to the gun, I am unsure what was panicking it so reliably - probably the 81mm again, but less lethal from longer range. I never really did look too hard at the replays of what was doing it, as I couldn't see the mortar anyways, the gun wasn't actually taking casualties, and it would rally eventually. The only other possibilities were the HMG's or maybe some LONG distance shots from the sharpshooter. I think the major lesson of 200 for me in terms of A-ATG tactics was that of avoidance - make his first shot be a poor one, and you can hopefully avoid losing armour. Of course I knew roughly where the gun was, so I was able to do this with some confidence. Perhaps the secret is to have an escape route for each tank... I begin to realise why Pakfront tactics worked so well, however. To encounter three or four ATGs in a similar space would be very daunting, and would certainly require a pause for arty / reinforcement. Anyways, I still think that 201, focussing as it does more on 'pure' infantry tactics, should be played first. Of course this shows some of my bias as an infantier - all other arms are merely there to support me, after all...

Major victory in 201, with an auto-ceasefire in turn 26, just when I was really bringing my last 122 and the 120 into play. Major revisions to the setup - moved the 120 spotter over to the left, put a full platoon on the right, and moved the first center platoon more behind the rough, with the independant platoon set to advance into the dead ground. I found the extra infantry really made a difference, as well as the extra arty - 122s went into the right and center woods on turn one, with the remainder saved for the endgame. Guns were for the most part ineffective, one being killed by the german 81mm with one shot, and the other being panicked on a regular basis. I found it much easier this time to get into the rough objective. I used hide a lot more, and pushed forward in bounds. Worked great. Anyways - JasonC, I think that 201 would be more logical to put before 200. It builds more on the 110 series. I found myself in 200 getting more concerned about overcoming the AT defense than about pushing infantry up to the rough. Basically I was counting on the tanks to win the battle for me. Since one of the lessons of the 200's seems to be that any sort of HE will do, and in 201 the German ATG is much less of an annoyance, I think it would be more logical that the infantry-heavy lesson should be first. After all, artillery cannot take ground, while the fact that tanks can clouded the lesson of 200 for me. Thanks again Christian Knudsen

HA! Finally beat 200. I work away from home with no computer, so I spent the last week pining for CMBB, um, and my family... I guess. What was different from the earlier dismal failures? I changed the setup to place a full platoon and 2 tanks on the right, and moved the mortars around, but otherwise as default. I put the 122's onto the right woods house. The big difference was that I put my center tank into the depression where he could be neither seen nor see. When I moved the tanks on the right up to about the house, the gun opened up, but with quite a bit of concealment between it and the target. It got off 5 shots before I was able to get the tank to safety, but for the last three I had mortars on the way. It did hit once, but I lucked out and got a non-damaging hit. Tanks hid until the Pak went away (2 turns), and then it was game on, with the center tank moving up to whack the HMGs, and the two on the right going for the center woods. Enemy surrender on Turn 25. The only real disappointment was the performance of the 120s. I did not change his setup, from which he cannot see the woods objective, so the turn 10 barrage onto the center woods was unfortunately WAY off target, and much of the ammo went into empty space. I attempted to move the spotter to see the flag, but he was messed up by the HMGs who were not quite dead yet, and for whatever reason really let him have it. He recovered, and about turn 21 put the few remaining rounds just shy of the woodline, but did very little and was really as much a danger to the parked T-34s as to the enemy. Still, I feel that I have learned a bit more about anti-antitank tactics, and about blasting infantry at close range with tanks. It's too bad they get PFausts and PSchrecks soon...

Having a hell of a time with 200. Basically caught between a rock and a hard place - those HMGs on the left totally stop my squads on the left far short of spot range, and usually mess up the main infantry grouping in the center, sometimes even before they get into the depression to the front. Area shelling the the HMGs has virtually no effect, and when I move my left tank up to try and get a spot, it is immediately KO'd by the gun, which then steadfastly resists all shell, mortar, and Maxim fire, usually taking the center tank out while cheerfully being shelled away. Dropping 120mm on the MGs does nothing. Only on the defiladed right side do I enjoy any success, and this is more than made up for by the complete paralysis on the rest of the map. I think one problem may be that I am slightly bunching up in the center in order to get into the dead ground, but when I attempt to advance up the hill with proper intervals, et al., I get nowhere. Any suggestions? I realise that I need to provide multiple infantry targets to diffuse the HMG's FP, but with only 2 squads on the left it is difficult to maintain any momentum, and once I stop, it becomes very difficult to start again. I want to avoid using the 122's on the HMG's location - too gamey. I also realise that the key is taking out the gun before I lose 2/3 of my armour, but the damn thing seems indestructable to all mortar and Maxim fire, and just when I think I have it really pinned and crest my center tank for the 76mm coup de grace, it pops up again and my tank goes boom. Frustrating.

Tried 112. Basic same setup as 111, but put the arty for turn 8 on the flag. As it turns out this was way too long; I could easily have done it on turn 4, and possibly even on turn 3 - a 122 battery with 30 rds fires over about five turns, so my assault ended up getting held up. Same general start as in 111, with left platoon moving first, then area fires from heavy weapons and right platoon onto firing right HMG to flush it out. I was able to devote more attention to this lone HMG with the arty falling near the trench, so he disappeared pretty quickly. Meanwhile, after the arty stopped (about turn 13), I resumed my advance, only to face a counterattack against my left platoon from the extra enemy, which had up to then stayed quiet. This was broken up pretty quickly by the company's fire, and the AI auto-ceasefired around turn 17, with about 9 friendly casualties. If I were to do it again, I would shift the right platoon more to the left into the 'village', and let it be a better-positioned firebase than it was. With a couple of MGs and an 82mm, a lone HMG in a foxhole is not going to last that long provided one is smart with the area fire and can flush it out. Another possibility is to use the left platoon as a firebase, and assault the trench with the right platoon, although the firing positions for the left platoon are a lot less secure... Oh well, On to 200.

just had a crack at 111. First Time Oot - managed a victory, but it was messy, as the right hand platoon got bunched up and shot up at the final house before the fence. The left platoon started off to the stone wall and got up to the road before being engaged. One of my MGs was shot up trying to move to the last house on the right. (I had planned for more enemy near the objective, not out in the middle of nowhere. Whoops) I basically used smoke and HE, plus the recovering right platoon to area fire the fence/trees location while the MG and the left platoon took care of the trench, which it did, barely. I then switched the left platoon to area fire and advanced with the right platoon. By end Turn 20 I was victorious thanks to the flag, but the right MG's days were numbered. Second time Oot - moved the left platoon up to the house/scattered trees, and the right platoon up to the last house on the far right side, with MGs and 82mm in the rear slightly. Started the left platoon off first, started area firing the trench with mortar and MG as soon as it appeared. Got hung up when the right HMG opened up, but then switched 82mm and one MG onto the fence/trees and got one squad into spot range in all the confusion. Once spotted, I let the trench have it with the left platoon and one MG, and got the HMG routing and dead very quickly. Switched all fires onto the right, and started advancing the right platoon, which very quickly spotted the HMG and as quickly killed it. All finished by turn 13 with only 1 friendly casualty! I did notice during the second try that spotting was way faster, and from what seemed to be considerably longer ranges. Any theories as to why? On to 112!

Funny enough Juan, it actually works much better advancing the platoon using fire and movemant and integral overwatch - two squads move, two fire - than by using a secure but seperate firebase. I guess green troops really need to be close up to hit that trench effectively. Totally counter to all the infantry tactics I've been taught, but I assume that if you could get a secure firebase up to about 100m, you could fire the platoon in just fine. From 200m I just waste a lot of ammo to no effect. I guess that firebase tactics require an EFFECTIVE firebase. Who Knew?

So I tried 110 again with half the platoon acting as a firebase in the two buildings next to the road, and 2 squads and the LT advancing. It appears that two green squads do not at this period possess the firepower neccessary to suppress a regular entrenched german out-of-command HMG, even at full spot. The firebase was providing about 100 FP total. Basically, my advancing squads got shot to hell (one actually eliminated). It surprises me that this is the case, and really illustrates the point about proper interval - basically you need to provide a multiplicity of targets. Juan_Gigante, did you succeed with a three-squad firebase? This would provide about 150 FP on the target, but I imagine pushing only 1 squad up would make the full spot very difficult

Of course you are right JasonC - for a defender a major question centers around what range one should open up at. Even in a hasty defense, strict orders are given regarding engagement range, with different levels (ie pl cmdr, sect cmdr, individual troop) allowed weapons free at different ranges, some surprisingly short, depending on terrain. A key factor here is that as a defender one wishes to maximise the firepower inflicted while not letting the enemy get too close. I used 600-800m because it is what we train to nowadays in a platoon defense, but I would rarely open up that far out in CM. I am going to take another crack at 110, but this time using a split platoon - one or two squads as a firebase and the remainder with the platoon cmdr approaching/assaulting the trench. This is the way we would do it today, but maybe it is expecting a little much from green troops, especially as the firebase will have reduced FP at the slightly longer range, and will be out of command. I tried it once, and failed, but I spent insufficient time winning the firefight, and got my assault team hopelessly pinned, etc. Ran out of ammo with the firebase, too. We'll see how it goes. PS - I have a feeling that as we all work through these this is going to turn into a monster thread - why don't we open a seperate thread for discussion of the 200, 300, and 400 level scenarios?

Having lost 110 several times before I pulled it off, I realise now that this exercise is about two things: 1. Reconnaisance by death. Not the ideal way to do things, but sometimes the only option. Incidentally, infantry section and platoon commanders are still trained to do this as a last option for locating the enemy, right after speculative fire. 2. Winning the firefight. The point is that once the enemy is located, you MUST get his head down in order to start approaching his position for the assault. Still it must be remembered that this is an exercise designed to show how to maneuver unsupported infantry to the point where the enemy can be reliably located without losing too many troops, and as such one can, as a new platoon commander be assured that you won't have to take that MG out by yourself. Of course the reasons for this are not too morale-boosting: a. Any tripod-mounted MG would most definitely NOT let you get to within 250m of a forward slope position before firing. Expect to be engaged between 600-800 meters, depending on the effective ranges of the supporting infantry (see . b. No HMG would be sited without some more infantry (and likely other supporting arms) to back it up. Expect at a bare minimum a platoon. So Runyan99, you are right, in that you wouldn't likely see this situation as platoon leader, and JasonC, you are right in that it is possible to locate the enemy, win the firefight, and successfully assault an enemy trench with poorly-led green Russian troops. PS - Am greatly enjoying these scenarios thus far. Was very chuffed when I finally won 102 without changing the Russian start locations - Great job, JasonC!

31. Or 8, if you ask my wife.

Hi all - I too, have experienced this problem, but only with Tanks a Lot's building and terrain mods. When I attempt to view the BMPs with MCMMM (whatever version), the pictures shown will either be those of whichever mod was successfully viewed last, or no picture at all if I try to view one of Tanks a Lot's mods right after firing up MCMMM. Unfortunate, but I still love MCMMM - I suppose if I was really inclined I could just overwrite the relevant BMPs myself...

Ahhhh... Good old V for Victory - I remember buying Utah Beach when it first came out and then being devaststated when my roommate's computer (I did not actually have one) couldn't handle the cutting edge VESA graphics. I still dust off Stalingrad every once in a while, when the mood takes me.

Bump-o-Rama

Hi guys - It appears that the link to Supersuolo's site is broken - Anyone else finding this?

Ouch. Ok Michael, of course you are right, and I must admit I am guilty of a bit of oversimplification there. Schoerner, I think you may have the right of it. I guess the need for orders has more to do with the morale issue. All of the orders that are treated this way (Assault, Human Wave, and Withdraw) cover situations that definitely need extra briefing and motivation. I know that if someone told me to advance in a group at a walking pace toward an enemy MG I would probably require a whole lot of convincing before I crossed the LOD...

Good point, Tarqulene - We may be engaged in a discussion of semantics based upon personal perception of just what advance and/or assault mean. Schorner, the reason I brought up the point in the first place was that I felt the way assault is handled can cause a real loss of momentum in the attack. Momentum is everything - for a good example of this, see the Band of Brothers episode where E Coy attacks Foy and the Coy cmdr freezes up. The Battalion commander in this situation realised immediately that if momentum was not restored the attack would fail. The same applies in CMBB. A stop to pause and reorganise just short of the objective, especially in the open, would be fatal. And as for casualties, yes this is a problem, but other soldiers are expected to show initiative and achieve the objective despite what has happened to others in the section. If this means that a different fire team ends up taking out the enemy position, so be it. Also keep in mind that I am talking about section level attacks here. Anything bigger would be coordinated in advance by the Platoon cmdr and/or 2ic. And as for orders, these are usually very short. In the Canadian Army we use the acronym GETM (Group, enemy, task, movement). So a typical section attack order consists of something like: "One section will do a frontal attack on the two enemy trenches. Charlie Team will assault the first trench, Delta team will assault the second trench. One section will advance using section movement- SECTION SECTION SECTION" Takes about five seconds, and if everyone knows what they are doing, there is no confusion whatsoever.

Ok, not wanting to sound like a complainer, but why is this? (Now I step, with a good deal of trepidation, into actual design criticism) The manual states that the assault is similar to advance, and I assume that really the only difference is an increase in speed/aggression and a lot more grenades, as well as an increase in covering fire from the rest of the squad as each enemy trench or firing position is cleared. My arguement is that the assault is a natural extension of the advance (on an enemy position). It only makes sense that when coming right up to the enemy position one would definitely step it up a bit, and get a few more grenades downrange. I think that my perception here is coloured a bit by Canadian Infantry doctrine, which at the section level calls for (once the firefight is won) an approach to the enemy position using fire and movement (advance, in CMBB terms), followed by the actual assault on the position. The point is that the transition between the two phases should be seamless, since the section commander should have at the beginning of the attack detailed which fire team(s) will actually take the enemy positions. Of course casualties in the attack become a factor, but again a well trained and/or experienced section should be able to cope with this. I would argue that any squad of regular or higher skill should not need to stop and reorganize/receive orders in order to use assault as a secondary waypoint. Any thoughts? BTW, wwb, I find to my embarrasment that the answer to my question is actually on pg 81 of the manual. Again I must improve my research, it seems. [ November 04, 2002, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Christian Knudsen ]