Austrian Strategist

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.

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.

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

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

Sure; but I was not talking about a limited local counter-attack. Rather, the all-out-counterattacking style Fionn seems to have in mind.

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

(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.

Good analysis. But have confidence in my ability to put my forces into places unpredictable. 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:

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 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.

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.

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:

Thanks! Both techniques make a lot of sense to me. There is always something new to discover with this game! Any more ideas for Move/Hide w/ vehicles?

Hi, Everybody! After 2 weeks in possession of this dream-come-true wargame, I have promoted myself to 'Advanced Newbie' status. Which entitles me to ask questions to the vets that don´t make me look totally and incurably silly. Here´s the first one: Have you found any use for the Move command with tanks? I find myself always using 'Fast' behind the lines and 'Hunt' everywhere else. Hunt is faster than Move AND usually gives you the first shot, so why ever use Move? Related to it: Does 'Hide' really do anything for vehicles? In my experience, they are either seen or not, entirely depending on LOS, so I never bother to give them the Hide command. Is your experience different?

Can you change a hex into a fortification hex in the scenario editor? I think this would be a good idea. Why? For example because I´d like to create a 'Maginot Line extended to the channel' alternative history scenario.

Hannibal´s strategy, however, was weak insofar as it depended on his opponent. He relied on Roman pride and stupidity, which made one consul after the other react to his provocations. Quintus Fabius, otoh, showed that it was really quite easy to beat Hannibal. Psychological warfare fails the moment your opponent simply ignores you.

Very practical idea. Will be adopted, since my memory for passwords, phone numbers and the like is like a sieve.

I hoped the game would maybe store your own password unencrypted on your system. This is what I do anyway (in a text file), but in my 4th game I forgot it. Gnnn! :mad: Now my opponent will have to set up again on a new map. Thanks, anyway.

If you *FORGET YOUR OWN PASSWORD* , is there a way to retrieve it from your system?

Eh, but does that mean we get no choice of forces at all? Even in real life, over time, a commander would probably drift toward the kind of force he is comfortable with. [ May 25, 2002, 07:09 AM: Message edited by: Austrian Strategist ]

BUMP! Some more people volunteer, please, so this gets going! Otherwise, when this tourny starts, I will have stopped being a Newbie. Any info about RoundI, already?

Count me in! Personal preferences: I´d like to choose to my forces within not too restricting limits. (I like fortifications, for example, and doing away with them I´d find fun reducing.)

Hi! I´m just getting ready for online playing, too. Would you like a 1000 points/combined arms/pbem QB? About 1-2 moves/day? If so, respond here or send me an email, please.

...about the best thing that happened to computer gaming, ever. Seriously! A combination of historicity/tactical depth/replay value like this has never been achieved before, I think. I am just learning to play it well, and looking forward to pbem games! Thanks to Battlefront for creating an instant classic!!