Cannon-fodder

Ah but how did Germany conquer both France and Poland without some level of maneuver strategy. In addition, I would say that the Schlieffen plan failed not because there wasn't enough maneuver in it, but because the maneuver element was damped down too much. The younger Moltke transfered far too many forces from the North breakthrough force, and put them on the South force. This was foolish, because the whole idea was too produce a 'turning' motion, cutting off the French and allowing a quick victory in Paris. That was the original plan, anyway, but who can say whether it would have worked...

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the argument. JasonC has said that the idea of an attritionist is to trade off ammo for enemy casualties at the best possible rate. This means that gaining cover, or good places to shoot from are of course to be reccommended, since they allow your units to 'eat' a lot more fire when in cover, and be in an advantageous position to fire on enemy units who are moving in opne ground etc. Also, on the strategic use of maneuver, I guess it's worth pointing out the Russian doctrine of Deep Operation, whereby they would smash through a narrow front, and mobile mechanised formations would deepen the breakthrough, enveloping enemy units still on the front line and forming 'pockets'. I believe that this strategy was particularly successful in the Russo-Japanese war, even if the Russians didn't exactly come out of this with a win. So I think that, often, maneuver at a strategic level should be designed to form pockets, which the attacker's reserve forces can mop up while the mobile units continue on, crushing logistics and hopefully stopping the enemy from regrouping sufficiently. Even if the enemy does regroup, the act of breaking so far through the front line means that you not only don't have to fight on your own land - so you can happily bleed the area dry for defense - but also that you are now another step closer to the enemy's cities, which, when taken, should hopefully cut the enemy's recovery rate.

Nah flamethrowers are notoriously vulnerable - you generally need some infantry support when you use them, if just to pin the enemy squad so that the Flamethrower can break it. I think the lesson here is not to use your flamethrowers unsupported, and also to make sure they are in a keyholed position.

Yeah I saw the film in the UK yesterday. It was very good.

Borg spotting makes that pointless anyway - if you open up and someone sees you, the whole army does. Still, if you are only visible to one unit, then whipe it out, you are effectively 'hidden' anyway.

I was just wondering what people thought was the right kind of point number on different size maps. I usually only play QBs on Small (I mostly play Scenarios), and I usually give into playing between 1000 and 1500 point battles, but I want to try certain things as primers... What parameters should I have for Infantry only engagements and Armour only engagements - from batallion level all the way down to platoon. How many trees, how steep the terrain etc. makes for good maps?

Thanks JasonC, took me a while to read your post:) I would just say on this that because, in CM, there is no logistics - that is, you can't disrupt an enemy's supply, take his capital cities etc., the 'goals' of a maneuver strategy often aren't there. Thus we have to revert to your 'Attrition-maneuverist hybrid' strategy, since in CM it is virtually impossible to win without fighting the enemy. I agree with you on shifting to an area where the opponent must shift his forward facing setup to meet your flank attack - this is very useful, even if it is rarely pulled off. My point was not that flanking was useless, but that all too often it is thought of as the end product - no real thought goes into what the flanking units can realistically achieve once they have flanked the enemy. Of course not everyone is like this, but I have noticed it in a number of games I've played with people. Good to have an interesting debate:)

There is another point I was thinking about recently. Everyone seems to be differentiating Manoeuvre and attritionist strategy, but I think this is an incorrect concept. I will explain. Often, people who consider themselves 'Manoeuvre' strategists fall into just rushing units down a flank and so on, and running into defences which seriously weaken their own forces. They then attempt to flank, but flanking should not be an end in itself, as many Manoeuvre thinkers seem to think. Instead, flanking should be an attempt to make an frontal attack easier, or to slowly roll up the OPFOR's army. However, all Manoeuvre warfare will fail unless the use of Attritionist style is made central. Any unexpected, flank breakthrough will still meet some form of resistance at some point, so firepower in the Manoeuvre force must therefore be overwhelming to achieve a fast and effective breakthrough. The upshot of all this is that there is no distinction between Manoeuvre and Attritionist strategy. However, there are far too many strategists calling themselves Manoeuvre users when in fact they are just reckless and bad at looking after their units. Too often, flanking is pursued as an end in itself - people think "If only I can flank the enemy, I will automatically win." This is obviously a fallacy, and a skilled defender will quickly tear such a player apart. This, however, doesn't tear apart the illusion of the Manoeuverist that they were simply unlucky that time. In short, feel free to flank people, but don't forget that flanking is a means to an end - the means to the eradication or routing of an enemy force. Flanking should never be pursued as some kind of seperate tactic, or as the defining nature of a campaign; it should be used to support and, hopefully, ease an attritionist strategy on it's way. Just my two cents, anyway:)

Attacker MG fire will hopefully be out of range - you're opening up at 500m, so it is unlikely that an MG could advance to 250m or less in order to offset advantage of cover. In addition, it is to the defender's advantage if the attacker wastes precious infantry squad ammo 'looking' for a couple of MGs - it means that the infantry's notorious lack of ammo depth will make them falter as they begin to face your MLR. By the way, JasonC, I used many of your attacking over open ground tips, and they have improved my attack enormously. I now simply won't advance unless I can do so with a 'Move' command. Thanks! By the way, if anyone wants to play a scenario that kind of depicts what JasonC is talking about here, try out 'Defense of Verkhne-Golubaya' - it serves as a very good primer for these kinds of tactics.

The usual high-quality 'essay' we've come to expect from you, JasonC. Your approach is something I must admit I simply had not considered - I intend to get to work testing it out now! However, I have a couple of questions: If the eventual objective of a battle is the annihilation of the OPFOR, and the best way to do this is through local superiority (as you were basically saying), then wouldn't firing at long range with MGs, HE and so on be useful in disrupting enemy movement so as to allow Firepower ascendancy in the required area? If we view the battlefield primarily as a spreadsheet, devoid of map, and attempt to purely gain firepower ascendancy, is that not ignoring the advantage of flanking infantry and the resultant morale hit the flanked unit takes? Isn't maneuver the best way to produce a flanking position, and therefore the massive increase in effectiveness of firepower worth viewing the infantry battle as often a case of movement? Obviously, not criticising, just wanting to understand your theory more completely...

Don't forget that you can play pre-made maps in QBs! There are some really great ones out there... It's like playing a scenario with your own hand-picked army. Still, I tend to play both, although I often find that scenarios are weighted too much towards one side. I've played some real stinkers:(

I'm not sure your opponent was that good a player? Most people would have mowed your tank hunters down with inf squads... Still sounds like a funny battle:)

As to the sharpshooter taking out the driver, well... luck? These things did and do happen after all... And anyway, I'm sure some of the guys in the ghetto would have had experience with rifles - don't forget some of the men would have served in WW1. As to historical accuracy... well, I look at it like this: nothing 'gamey', but I should use my own tactical/strategic doctrine to battle... If you just follow someone else's rules, where's the creativity? Having said that, the Germans/Russians weren't stupid, and worked out some pretty advanced doctrine anyway as the war went on. If we try to restrict our playing to what the commander would have done at the time, that'll mean far too much research... not doing one thing because, in 1940, overwatch hadn't been invented or something like that:)

The trick with that map is to get your AT guns through to the Moscow area while you keep his T34s out of the way so you can set up. Then, when he comes for you, blow him away with the AT guns.

Yeah it wasn't just the tanks that were crappy... Japanese military technology was seriously useless (except I think their navy). In their defence, though, it would have been nigh on impossible to use any real armour in Japan itself, due to the difficult terrain...

Attackers have more advantages than you give credit - provided they have a bit of time, they can recon, then strike weak points. Defenders also tend not to advance, so you can get your support elements and armor onto commanding positions for overwatch. As for advancing infantry, if you think you're about to be attacked, use smoke. It works beautifully.

This game has just been released, and I wondered what you guys thought of it? It looks kinda like CM style realism on a strategic level. What d'ya think? worth getting?

Well, I guess having the TacAI understand what a road is will be coming in CMx2... It'd better:) I'm thinking maybe changing the whole waypointing system to a more 'intelligent' one (hugging areas like tree lines etc.). So the waypoints could be assigned so that they automatically keep to the road.

Or if you're doing PBEM, just swap the CD between each other? I take it you live near each other? But, come on, the Anthology costs like 15 quid! That's NOTHING! get your cheap mate to shell out for it:)

Also, part of the trick with flanking is to time the flanking force so that they make contact at a decisive moment - usually when the enemy's forces are wavering. Then you can create 'pockets' of enemy units, and kill them off at leisure.

I agree with this - Half Tracks were designed to work on a strategic level; the MGs are really only a defensive, worst case scenario backup weapon. On large maps, HTs can be useful to transport your reserves around, but then so can trucks. Never advance them into insecure areas.

To be honest, when you're in the army, it doesn't really matter what the Geneva Convention says on small arms. It doesn't really matter what the army itself thinks either - officers will just turn a blind eye, as long as the troops are happy. For instance, an awful lot of British vets carry shotguns (often Police-Issued shotguns at that) rather than standard pistol sidearms. In the same way, combat shotguns would have made their way into the ranks of the ordinary soldiers in WW2. However, I do not think that it was nearly common enough to simulate in the game.

I've been playing a few urban warfare games recently, and have a few new tips I don't think anyone has mentioned. What I've found is that most people try to have a LOT of units in all the buildings, and often have more than one squad in 1 building. Because it's much harder to cause casualties in city environments, squads tend to waste a lot more ammo. What I've started doing is using perhaps only a quarter of my troops on the front line at any one time. The rest wait in staggered groups and, as the front line takes losses and moral hits, I cycle the next wave of troops in. After the first couple of cycles, you'll have 2 fresh waves while your opponent will have a single group of tired, hurt and low ammo platoons. That's when you lay down all your artillery, HE fire etc. and push towards him. He should be so surprised at a sudden show of strength, and so understrengthed, his line will buckle and collapse. Also, remember that opponents tend to get cocky after minor victories. use this - let him make the mistake of rushing from building to building, into a hail of bullets from SMG squads!

Well, since you know your opponent is setting up pretty close to the flags so he can get there quick, why not use a preset arty barrage on a likely crossing ground? You don't need LOS, and the chance to disrupt your opponent while you advance into the village is very good. Sure, you might not get it right every time, but when this does work it can provide you with enough time and softening up power to hold the flags and set up at an advantage. Finally, don't be afraid to keyhole your tanks and just systematically demolish the buildings with the tanks and, if you can, a 75mm or even 150mm infantry gun. This can work wonder, since the SMGs are going to be very little use if they're forced onto the streets where your rifle squads long-ranged firepower can pount them. Those are my two cents anyway:)

I must admit that I wonder if we'll ever have a flawless leadership/quality system. Such a task will always be open to people saying one aspect is overly important and so on. Good luck though, anything that increases realism is okay by me!