Cuirassier

My money is on the commies...They are vicious with a bottle of vodka in one hand and a PPSH in the other.

Does anyone know any good online sources or books that discuss German tactical and/or operational doctrine?

I have a lake in my backyard. By rights I'm entitled to at least a platoon of sunken AFV's!!!

Wow!!! Thats a German T-34. What idiot took it mud-bogging???

"I would prefer their not being an ability to pause to give orders. That is a totally unrealistic feature that I'm sure the sargeants and officers in Iraq would love to have." But real soldiers also have brains and can react intelligently on their own without having to rely on commands given every second like their 'dumb' AI counterparts do. I see nothing wrong with the pause feature. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, don't use it. No sense in getting rid of it altogether. Personally I think its a good idea, because RTS games too often degenerate into clickfest melee's, with no strategy being used by either player.

Hi, I'm looking for a fun historical, early to mid war operation for CMBB to play H2H. Any suggestions?

Hi, I'm looking for a fun historical, early to mid war operation for CMBB to play H2H. Any suggestions?

Thanks for clarifying the few questions I raised JasonC. Its obvious I just have a difficult time wrapping my head around the high risk headgames that maneuverism requires. I've always been a cautious player. Nonetheless, I'm beginning to see how it works now. I have a few new questions now though: Is the description you give of maneuverism in CM essentially the same the Germans used tactically in WWII? If yes, do you know any historic examples where it succeeded? (I guess there would be many since the Germans did quite well tactically) Any examples where it failed? (quite disasterously) If you know any off the top of your head, or can point me in the direction of some online AAR's, that would be fine. Joachim, Thanks for the link. "What Jason says about achieving surprise and then exchanging it for dead enemies - well... to me attritionism is achieving favorable kill ratios while maneuverism is avoiding fighting a prepared enemy. So surprise is a key element in maneuverism. But if you trade surprise for dead enemies (aka something lasting) then surprise is attritionist to me. But maybe I just don't care about the maneuverism vs attritionism debate, take the best of both and fail to correctly identify the borders between both theories" Its certainly a debate that has gone on for along time. I enjoy reading about it, and often look in the old archived forums to see what information I can pull from those. From what I've learned tactical maneuverism has the same end goal as attrition (destruction of the enemy), except its accomplished differently (maneuver units the primary arm, rushing to engage enemies in sequence, etc) Yet everyone certainly has their own views. I learned that when reading the heated debates in the archived forums from the old CMBO days. But anyway, thanks for the replies.

Ok. As Corvidae said, you have 2 battalions of ski troops. This means you have lots and lots of infantry. Its also a good mix: each battalion has 4 companies-3 rifle/smg mix and 1 heavy weapons. You also get a platoon of engineers for each battalion, who can clear mines or demo charge buildings. Also, you get 2 platoons of T-34's and 1 platoon of KV-1's (these have tons of HE) Given your forces, you have a couple options. Since you have lots of infantry and overwatch, you can lead with infantry. Make sure you give them covered arcs and give them staggered move to contact orders. The snow is deep, so you don't want them ditching their skis. The 82mm can be used for smoke, perhaps to smoke just half of the defenders board. But don't smoke the whole thing, because you won't be able to keep it up, and it will mess up your overwatch los. Since los spans the whole map, you probably won't get much advantage from doing a wing attack. A broad advance of infantry, in waves, making for the craters in the center, with tanks, mortars and HMG's overwatching might be the best bet. Use smoke to screen some defenders. Your KV's should shell the buildings on the left of the map from the get go, as thats an obvious location for HMG's, snipers and maybe an FO. So make sure you drop those buildings even if you don't know if someone is inside, because someone probably is. Where the rest of the defenders will be is less obvious, though it is likely they will be strung out ahead and parallel to the road, as to protect the flags. Before you can fire at them though, you will have to find their foxholes, or trenches, with infantry. It would also be a good idea to have engineers following the point platoons, to clear mines that may cross the route of your advance. Also, if an HMG sound contact is really slowing you down and messing up men, don't be afraid to send a couple of T-34's near to find it and silence it. You may lose one or two tanks to an AT gun, but simply take it out in reply with your mortars. And know your combined arms principals: HMG's cover open ground, preventing repositionings and easy rally by already suppressed troops. Mortars (the onboard 50mm's) fire at spotted AT guns in pairs. Armor drops buildings, kills HMG's, and knocks out troops in trenches and foxholes. Infantry holds their fire until 200m. Shooting beyond that with rifleman is a waste of ammo. SMG squads should shoot only as far as 75m. And as other people have said, look at JasonC's 'advancing in the open' thread, because the absence of cover in this map means you will have to use these principals. Mainly though, just don't bunch up: so put your men in waves, don't cram them all on line. You may also consider conducting an attack lead by armor, if you don't want to do the slower infantry advance. I hope this gives you some ideas and help.

I'll check out the scenario and give my $0.02 as well.

dickesKind, What you probably should do is just make a small quickbattle with the quickbattle option in the missions menu. Make it the smallest size,(i think 300pts) and pick a variety of forces. Then you can just play around with them and see how everything works. I suggest you stay away from scenarios until you know how all the game's units function.

Do you mean the scenario "Pop Guns and Elephants." That is the only scenario close to the title you gave on my CD. Also, I suggest searching posts in the Tips and Tricks forum by JasonC. He gives good tactical advice that should improve your game.

Thanks for the analysis, JasonC. I have some comments on your posts. For the first one: Your comments on surprise and 'wrongfooting' the enemy seem very valid to me, especially the many on few idea and engaging enemies in sequence. But how some of these can be achieved still seems like somewhat of a mystery, because it depends largely on the other player and his mistakes. "But other simple examples are at least as likely to matter on the CM scale. Infantry caught moving in the open rather than in cover, especially moving en masse and with the cover they'd like to end up in already occupied by the enemy, constitutes being "wrong footed". A flock of tanks taken in flank by shooters they hadn't expected or seen, constitutes being "wrong footed". A tight main body of infantry in dense woods walking right under barrage, constitutes being "wrong footed"." For example, against competent players, I think it is unlikely that they would move significant portions of their force in the open in a big clump. They would probably use packet movement, even if they were almost 100% sure a maneuverist wasn't there. Also, overconcentrated infantry being shelled in woods I also see as a mistake that need not happen in competent play. Another thing: "Another theme is using infantry as the main component of the force only inside large bodies of cover, so that LOS is very short and FP very high. That makes any initial many-on-few tend to snowball. Or using it very aggressively (recklessly, really) in conditions of low visibility, which again isolates the first few enemy hit." I can see Soviet SMG's ending such an attack quite quickly and bloodily. These are just potential issues I see with the doctrine so far. To me it seems that it could be rather difficult to 'wrong foot' a more competent and cautious player. Nonetheless, it sounds like a doctrine that can work if you can consistently achiever surprise, as you said. When comparing it to the attritionist doctrine however, I can see it is much more risky. Now for your second post: I understand all the answers to my questions except one: ""For scouting, what are appropiate forces?"" "A full company of infantry with ~9 squads, nearly all of them on-line. 1-2 squads in second line behind them, with a company HQ or best platoon HQ. Plus one full AFV to trump light armor. Yeah, that is quite heavy compared to attrition methods. Call it "heavy front". All moving at speed. Will some run into full positions and get whacked? Very likely. Someone will do so first, probably." In this description, are you assuming this that I have more forces supporting this company (ie 1 or 2 more companies), or that the company is your only force? If the company is your only force (plus the support weapons), travelling fast on such a heavy front seems quite dangerous. But that is maneuverism I guess. I look forward to trying some of these concepts out.

Thanks JasonC for explaining my purposes to Tactical Command, so I didn't have to.

Thanks for the replies. Joachim, When using your half-squads 'feint,' did you actually have to engage the enemy with them to fix them in place, or just hold their portion of the front static in cover? Also, where did you get that scenario. I can't find it at TSD II or TPG. Normally, as you did in your example scenario, I plan how my attack will be launched in the Setup phase. I've played a couple of scenarios though trying the broad front scouting idea followed up by shoving the main body through a weak point. In my tries, I never had much success, because I seem short on time, and the speed my column has to move at means a single holdout shooter that scouts missed can severely slow down my forces. Also, if the defense has any depth, I find its difficult to keep momentum with the attack. With the broad front approach, I also found there might be a little too much of division of effort. For example, in one scenario, I was given two infantry companies (one would arrive later as a reserve). I decided to spread my initial company out so it could search for a weak point to exploit. However, my half squad scouts, backed by a platoon each for support, all ran into platoon sized positions: there was no weak point in his front. Also, the terrain was tight, and my overwatch weapons were quite light (50mm mortars and HMGs only). So basically, my first company was exchanging off platoon for platoon with the enemy. With an attritionist approach this wouldn't have happened. So I'm thinking after Joachim's and MikeyD's comments, in addition to my recent experience, this concept is unworkable in CM, unless conditions are very favorable (lots of time, big reserve, low force to space so there are actually weak points) Again, thanks for the input.

As I continue to play CMBB, I am becoming more interested in using the historical tactical doctrines unique to the specific nationalities. For most of my CM career, I've played mostly as the Russians, using the attritionist methods often explained by JasonC. Finally, I feel I am beginning to master this doctrine. Now however, I'm interested in also learning how to play CM with a more maneuverist approach, particularly using the Germans and their historical methods of annihilation battle. Earlier in the 'German tactical system' thread, I learned the basics of the German system, such as how maneuver units are expected to win the fight, attacking weak points, the use of shock action, reinforcing success, and the use of flanking, feigning and encircling. However, I've found putting these concepts into practice to be more difficult. Because of this, I think it would be valuable if noobs and veterans contributed their knowledge alike to this thread asking and discussing how the German maneuver doctrine truly works, given different force types and terrain. Off the top of my head I have a few questions. Do players who use this doctrine plan where they will conduct 'feints' and where the schwerpunkt will occur during the set up phase, or do they just send infantry across the map on a broad front hoping to find a weak point to send their forces through, making the decision where to attack later in the game? For scouting, what are appropiate forces? I'm thinking a half-squad would be too brittle and small. So perhaps for each scouting route a platoon lead by a half-squad? How is this doctrine used by tank heavy forces? Similar to the Russian Mech idea? And can infantry only forces still use the maneuver approach, or are they too brittle? Also, I know speed is important, so how does one quickly run over positions covered by an HMG without becoming bogged down? So those are a few questions I can think of right now. So if the brilliant tacticians could share their experiences using the German maneuver system and how it can be used in CM, it would be greatly appreciated.

I also forgot to mention that several of JasonC's Russian Training Scenarios involve using preplanned barrages to support infantry attacks. These provide good practice.

Its all about planning. Heavy Russian stuff has horribly long firing delays, and thus has to be fired as a prep fire (target selected on turn 1, then you delay with QQQQQQ etc). Rockets I find should also be fired as prep, for they are very inaccurate, so there is little point trying to pick a small target for them to hit. So basically, for this type of artillery, look at the map, decide where your troops are going and where probable clumps of enemy may be located. Target these locations and delay the barrage however long you see fit. With more reactive stuff, planning is still necessary. You need to decide where your men will be going, and how overwatch will support them. This includes your spotters. Basically, you want your spotters as far away from the action as possible, but still with good visibility to support your advancing troops. That is why you have to plan early on where they will need to go to get likely spots. A trick to lower the count down delay of artillery is to target a likely location of the enemy before it is confirmed whether or not they are there. This shaves a couple minutes from the delay. If the enemy is there, let the timer count down and shell them. If not, walk the targeting line to the next probable enemy location. For basic tactics, all artillery barrages should be followed up by an immediate infantry attack. This is especially true for the smaller stuff, like 81mm mortars. These cause little casualties themselves, and only really suppress. Thus they must be followed up by maneuver units. Light artillery is also useful for smoke. It is a waste to use heavy stuff for smoke, because it has so much HE punch. On the attack, 150mm or up is of greatest value, as it kills as good as it suppresses. For defense, smaller stuff is ok. I hope this answers your questions.

"Fair enough, maybe it's just a matter of personal preference. Towed guns are indeed useful, but they're not particularly mobile. Fair enough, put them in scout cars, but then they've got to unlimber, and that's often a big problem in itself." Agreed. They aren't mobile. When using them, you can't expect them to be. You need a heavy weapons plan. You need a covered route combed over by scouts first and ideal firing locations identified during the setup for your game. As long as you start moving them by turn 1 though, and have good, keyholed firing positions for them, they will likely deliver much of their HE and be as useful as an AFV. "My real issue in this debate is the one of costs and how much the vehicles are actually worth. All of the advantages (other than having a small silouette) point to the T-34, and they're often a lot cheaper, in relative terms, than a T-70, if one uses rarity." Generally I agree with this. The T-34 is cheap, can chuck HE, and deal with most tank threats. I just don't see the T-70 as being a bad vehicle. My point was, that in scenarios where you aren't allowed to select your force and are given T-70's, it is wise to know how to get the most out of them. "And your good armour point is pretty dubious, as well, to be honest. It has one good location. The rest are crap." Yes, it has only one strong area, and that location is frontally, which is most important. The T-34's armor is better, but the T-70's is stil sufficient. And when you think about the opposition, there difference in armor matter little. Obviously the 88mm L/56 will punch holes through either vehicle at any distance. So does the 75mm L/48. The 50mm L/60 is regularly bounced by the T-34 at any distance, unless very close and a turret hit. The T-70 performs not bad against this gun though too. At 500m the best the 50mm gets is partial penetrations, and above that it bounces shot regularly, if it hits the hull. So I think its frontal armor is sufficient for scouting, as it can't be killed reliably by 'silent' shooters. "Decoys, yes, scouts, not really. You want to scout with something that has some teeth, on the off chance that you meet any foes. In the real world, the T-70'd be the better scout, due to being amphibious, but in CMBB, it isn't, which reduces its usefulness." This depends on the situation. If you have limited armor, and can only afford to scout with one vehicle, then a T-70 is much better than a T-34. It is cheaper and less valuable, and can survive light AT. You must realize that when an AT gun or enemy vehicle not spotted yet reveals itself, it will kill your scout, be it a T-34 or T-70. Also, leading with a T-70 is a good idea if there are mines. I'd rather have a light tank immobilized instead of a heavier T-34. So wouldn't you rather have the less valuable tank die? So I think the proper way to scout with armor is to lead with a T-70 supported by a platoon of T-34's, because they can respond to and outnumber most shooters within a minute. "A-ha! This is where our main difference lies. I want something that can give back what it takes. A T-34 can do so. It can take a few hits, and genuinely give out some damage." A single T-34 stumbling upon a hidden PAK will give nothing back, unless you are strangely lucky. When a competent player reveals and AT gun, it means your tank is dead, be it a T-70 or T-34. "On the other hand, a T-34 very seldom needs a flank shot on an enemy vehicle, and when the Axis' heavier tanks arrive, so does the T-34/85. With this, I just simply disagree. In 1943, when the T-70 and T-34 are both common, the T-34 needs flank shots almost as badly as a T-70. The 76.2mm L/42 is undermodelled in the game. Because of that, it has seriously problems dealing with 80mm plates, even at point blank range. Thus, it needs flank shots on the Tiger (obviously), the Stug, preferably on the PZ IV, though the 50mm turret can be penetrated, and preferably on the PZ III too, because the 70mm armor is still quite tough to crack at range. "At this point, flank shots are still more useful, but on the other hand, the tank-mounted 88mm guns of the Axis will blow a T-70 to pieces in a single shot almost every time, making them a rather poor distraction. In fact, distractions in general are a poorer idea, and simply battering such enemies to death is often more effective." The 88mm will knock out any vehicle with a couple of rounds. Hail fire is an effective tactic, especially against the weaker armored PzIV and III, which can be penetrated frontally. Against Stugs and Tigers though, it is practically suicide. In these cases, distractions and flanking are nececessary, unless special weapons are available (eg. T-34/57, Su-152)

One of the Nazgul uncloaked.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Inola: For more HE I take 2-3 76.2mm regimental guns transported with M3 scoutcars. And 1-2 82mm mortars. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Which is a complete waste of points if you can get the same effect from your T-34s, leaving those points free for stuff like THTs and armoured cars." I disagree. I think towed guns are the greatest bargains in the game. Personally, I prefer the 76.2mm longs, because they are dual role. But any towed gun that can chuck some HE is extremely valuable. I get much more use out of cheap HE chuckers than THT's and thin armored cars. Also, the T-34 is obviously a better vehicle than the T-70. No debate needed. But I don't think that makes the T-70 a piece of crap. They still have decent frontal armor, and the 45mm is adequate when you get flank shots. They make for good scouts and decoy vehicles. They work very well when used with T-34's, beacause they can do the scouting work (hitting mines, getting shot by AT guns, etc), and also give his armor something to look at while you send your more valuable vehicles to get flank shots. Just my thoughts.

"But again, if you run into flak or tanks, your ACs just get committed later in the game rather than earlier....." Which would bring us a full circle then and determine that AC's can't scout, unless circumstances are unrealistically favorable.

In my experience, the best platoon HQ should be leading the last, or reserve, platoon. This is because this platoon will likely be the one doing the most 'decisive' fighting of the battle. The company HQ should be somewhere in the middle of the company, so he can give and take squads from their respective platoon HQ's as the situation requires. Since the point platoon is likely to 'go to ground' once in contact, stealth and morale are good attributes for them. However, if only one or two of your platoon HQ's has a morale bonus, don't use them as the point, because they'll be more useful in the closing, unegaged groups. For the maneuver platoons, which will be the ones firing back to free the pinnned point, combat and morale bonuses are the most favorable. Command bonuses are good in any position, but are maybe best for the point, as sideways sneaking squads will stay in command longer.

If everything seems hopeless, and you cannot move your teams from out of the building without getting slaughtered, I would consider just leaving the teams on the bottom floor. Remember, even if only one man survives from each HMG team, they can still shoot just as effective as a fully manned team.

No reason to lose sleep over it.