Austrian Strategist

*Bump*! Scout Teams would be really nice-to-have. (I´d sacrifice the bicycles, if people don´t like them. Or make them an option.)

Your explanation makes a lot of sense; I´m sold.

Given that radios did exist, aren´t the limits of what on-map mortars can fire at a bit unrealistic?

If the Umpire AI could do something similar for QBs, this would also be great.

I don´t think this is unrealistic. It would be analogous to the sharpshooter. Some are good at shooting, some are good at scouting.

Well, some commanders feel some sort of responsibility for their men and would hesitate sending half a dozen into their probable death to confirm their suspicion of an ambush. A specialized scouting party would be only two men, and their chance of survival would/should be higher.

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.

2 men with bicycles, lightly armed, but stealthy (sort of FOs without artillery). Realistic way to get rid of gamey 'sacrifice half-squads'.

AS: Which sort of defense do you think would "hold out" longer, given those unfavorable conditions?[/QB]</font>

Hmmm, yes, though what I mean is, do they have something that is useful in a CM context, similar to the Soviet Battlefield Doctrine you have studied? I would bet the Chinese approach to Modern Warfare is much more indirect than either the Soviet or Western approach. It would probably sound a bit like: "Sente allows a player to maintain the initiative, but it gives his opponent an opportunity to counter-attack; gote on the other hand, forsakes the initiative, but it builds a solid foundation for future attacks. Light moves are flexible, yet they sometimes form loose shapes; heavy moves are inflexible, but they are solid. Thickness leads to profit, but there is a danger of forming overdeveloped shapes; thinness is weak, but more flexible. Making life is safe, yet one loses sente; leaving a precarious group unattended is dangerous, but one gets sente. Thus, the key issues of initiative, profit, safety, and the life and death of groups must all be harmonized within one global, strategic framework. When separated from this global framework, these issues lose their meaning, and the game loses direction." This is, you guess it, from a GO book. But the thoughts can be applied to Wargames, I believe, including CM.

***HEALTH WARNING: My experience with CM is extremely limited; use of my advice may lead to losing your games.*** Stuh42 Keyword: Infantry Support Description: Infantry Support AFV Advantages: Great to kill Infantry Guns, Mortars and such from a distance; good against Infantry; relatively inexpensive Disadvantage: Useless against Tanks How to use: Keep hidden until all enemy AFVs are goners, then use it to help your Infantry clean up the board OR Use as a bait to draw enemy Tanks into the LOS of your Paks/Flaks/Nashorns/Jagdpanthers/Whatever StugIII Keyword: Flexibility Description: All Purpose AFV Advantages: Not very bad at anything; inexpensive Disadvantage: Not very good at anything How to use: If you have no clue what your opponent is up to, buy a few StugIIIs and use them to back up either your Infantry or AT assets as needed

I would have bet on that. Btw, do you know anything about Chinese Doctrine? I don´t, but I have a gut feeling it would be the perfect counter to Soviet Doctrine.

The Forum looks very good now; all it needed was the lightening up.

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.

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.

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>

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.

: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).

Your best bet if you want to beat Fionn is challenge him to a game of GO. The most important things about GO: -The pieces never move. -Very rarely, if ever, is a piece taken. -Attacking gets you nowhere. -Actually, attacking is not really possible, because your pieces cannot move. -Even if your pieces could move, it probably would be pointless to move them. (They could only move to worse positions, because, at any given time, any positions better than those you occupy are already occupied.) -Even if you could attack, there is no reason to do so. The whole purpose of the game is keeping your territory, and you can do that better, if you stay put. "Don´t play the game; play your opponent." -former Chess Worldmaster Lasker, attributed "Even better: Play a game that is ill-fitted to the mentality of your opponent." -me British Go Association web page So I think I have solved the problem of beating Fionn, once and for all. [ May 31, 2002, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

I like your philosophy. As to Fionn, he must be quite a tactician. Otherwise he would always lose, given the fact that his doctrine is totally faulty.

Another (slightly) different use for Move: Infantry Support Tank slowly following retreating enemy Infantry while shooting it up.

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.

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.

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>

Lighter colours, please! The darkness of the background has an effect on me that is depressing. Thanks! [ May 30, 2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]