Cuirassier
-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cuirassier
-
-
Wow!
That is all to be said.
-
Hi. Just wondering if any progress is being made on some AAR's, or if this has become a dead subject. I realize this scenario will take a long while, but I just want to know if anyone is actually doing it, because I would love to see some AAR's. I have not had a chance to play the scenario again myself yet, Christmas in all, but will be soon. Thanks.
-
Thankyou very much for the brilliant comments. Yes, I do expect a detailed AAR to take a long time, though I think it would be worth the wait. I have read many of your tutorials JasonC, and have found them very helpful, but they are all much smaller scale than this scenario. Thus, I thought it could be helpful if you showed me, and others if they are interested, how to conduct an attack with large forces, that I often find overwhelming.
Your information was very helpful, and I will apply it when I play this scenario again. Also, I never noticed this scenario had so many inaccuracies too. Never noticed, as I do not know stanard TO and E, although I felt there was a shortage of on map mortars. Lastly, thankyou for answering and giving me an awesome battle plan. Now I can feel like a military genius if I win!
Thanks! Looking forward to an AAR-that is if you want to spend the tons of time one needs to invest in this giant scenario.
-
Oops! I'm very sorry. I accidently listed the wrong scenario. I meant Ponyri Express SP. That is the scenario I found difficult. Thanks for bringing that to my attention Philippe. Anyway, I was unaware that I should link it, because the scenario came with my version of CMBB.
Anyway, if someone would care to go to the website Philippe listed, find Ponyri Express SP, play it and give a detailed AAR, I think many players would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
-
Hi, today I played Little Ponyri Station, the single player version, on CMBB. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to play it and post how they won as sort of a tutorial. Or even just talk about it. I would like this, because when I played, I found it somewhat a large and overwhelming game, and the battle ended in a draw, both sides incurring massive casualties. Since there are no large scale fighting tutorials on this thead, I thought it could be beneficial to many players. By the way, I played the Germans, as most of you would probably figure out.
Thanks.
-
NUB-read some posts (if you haven't already) on attritionist tatics posted by JasonC. I'll admit I was not very much of an attritionist before, but his tactics do work and do not contain the weaknesses you imply. I would be much more confident employing his straight-forward and effective attrionist methods in CM than using some vague maneuverist approach as you describe in your post. For example, you say when fighting an attritionist opponent (who will certainly have more forces than you in a given battle), one must be gutsy, hold ground and be steady. OK, but how will you hold ground when you only have a platoon, and entire companies are engaging your squads with heavy overwatch support. Not even elite units can withstand such fire dominance.
Also, you mention utilizing stealthy counter-attacks and keeping weapons hidden. Well if you intend to keep them hidden, they won't shoot, and if they don't shoot, they have little use. Attritionist tactics involve depth, and depth can counter any of your hidden shooters. (except heavy and well placed indirect artillery) Anything else is a pin-prick. For example, some German howitzers may have been hiding in dense woods waiting for the perfect, stealthy ambush against those relentless attrionist Russians, and open up on a platoon, halving it in size. Well, the point platoon may be broken for the time being, but the depth allows for fresh shooters to move forward and counter your now not so stealthy howitzers, while the broken platoon rallies.
Also, pure meneuvering is a lost cause in an open groung engagement, for their is no stealthy movement in those.
Attritionists also do not take prohibitively high casualties and of course, any sane commander cares how many men he loses. That is why firepower and reserves are important. They let a commander stack odds in his favor and allow him to have the flexibility to react to unforseen threats. Can you attack over open ground with a green company and take less than 16 casulties against a dug in opponent with better, though less, troops and ultimately rout them by maneuvering?
Now, I am not as skilled as JasonC, by a long way, and cannot match the feat in his tutorial probably. But attritionist tactics, to me, seem much more reliable, simple and sure than the vague implications you gave for maneuverist warfare above.
Just my thoughts.
Cheers!
-
At the risk a further beating an already dead horse, I have decided to re-open a topic that I feel I need clarification on. I have read many of JasonC's earlier posts where he has described his view on attritional methods to achieve anything from tactical the strategic victories. For me, this is a rather new concept, as I am more well rehearsed with the concept of maneuver warfare, as this recieves much more attention from authors and historians.
When I think about it now, I am not sure if I am an attritionist or a maneuverist. As JasonC explained in some posts I have read, an attritionist's only objective is the enemy's main body of troops. If you destroy it, all other objectives are easy. Napoleon also followed this idea. As for me, I also believe this is an effective strategy. Just grabbing certain chunks of terrain, whether they are political or economic objectives, a hill in a tactical engagement, etc, I don't think this wins anything from a tactical engagement to a war. However, if you destroy the enemy army, everything becomes simpler.
However, I don't think I am a true attritionist, because I find it difficult and bloody to achieve victories by beating down the enemy in a fight with numbers, where the side with the most reserves wins. Though victories have been achieved like this in the past, I guess I am not drawn to its simple, bloody and direct nature. Thus, I am partly a maneuverist, because I greatly admire spectacular, deceptive and glamorous schemes that famous commanders have utilized to win engagements, (though not wars) like Hannibal at Cannae and Napoleon at Austerlitz.
In the long run however, commanders who have employed attritionist warfare have traditionaly won wars, while maneuverists win engagements, but tend to lose in the long run. The spectacular and glamorous commanders just don't win. Go figure.
Also, I have a question for those who are attritionists. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, they set out to fight attritionist, somewhat I think, in that they were attempting to destroy the Soviet armies by means of cauldron battles before they could retreat to the east like what happened to Napoleon. So, in doing this, were the Germans attritionists in seeking to destroy Russian armies, or meneuverists in having certain objectives, like Moscow for instance, and by bypassing resistance before they set up cauldrons?
Also, when the German's diverted their central armies to complete the Kiev pocket, would this follow attritionist thinking in that it destroyed or captured a large chunk of the Russian army? In addition to this, many historians believe this tactical victory cost the Germans the war because they lost their chance to seize Moscow. However, I cannot see how possesion of Moscow could have won the war itself, other than it was the railway hub of the Soviet Union and, by taking it, the Germans would be in the central position and then could deal with the Russians in the South first, and then fight them in the north, or vise versa, to negate their numerical inferiorty to the Russians. So, was the Kiev encirclement a sucess or failure? And did it follow attrionist or maneuverist thinking?
Finally, (yes, this is a long, confusing post) I have read JasonC's tutorials on Company and Battalion infantry attacks that utilize attrionist tactics. In many examples, JasonC makes his attack look like abroad sweep but actually strengthens one wing, which has much depth, and advances using superior rally power and firepower. (correct me if I am wrong)Of interesting note, this tactic bears a resemblance to Frederick the Great's tactics, as he often weighted one wing of his army, (At Leuthen against the Austrians is an example)smashed his opponent at a selected location and then rolled them up along their flank. I just though it was interesting to note the similarity.
Well thats it. I am tired of typing and don't remember what I said, so please have informative and generous responses.
Cheers
-
Occupation of an enemies land does not bring automatic victory. Sure, a conventional army with no resources and supplies may capitulate, but guerilla warfare is still possible, even if a territory has been overrun. Examples are the Fabian strategy, Spain during Napoleon's reign, Vietnam and Mao in China. I do think that for a strategy to have success, a commander must destroy the opposition, not simply grab as much territory as possible. That is why Napoleon was so successful during his various campaigns, as his number one objective was to destroy the opposing army. Just my thoughts.
-
Oops typo. Do=Doing
-
From what I have read, the German WW1 offensive stopped dead in its tracks because Moltke seriously undermined the Schlieffen plan and allowed von Kluck's army group to turn directly on Paris instead of wheeling around it. Do this, the army group exposed its flank and was counter attacked at the battle of Marne, ending any chance of movement on the western front. Not positive, just what I have read.
-
The German army did have plans somewhat to win by attritional warfare against the Soviet Union by maneuverist means, I think. I could be wrong, as my knowledge is no where near that of some people who contribute to this forum, but, I believe that the Germans tried to destroy the Russian army with minimum loses by utilizing Kesselschlaten, or Cauldron battles.
-
Scenario 200 is a tough cookie to crack. I have tried it many times, and my infantry get scattered. I have read some posts though, and realize I am not supporting my infantry enough. When I lost, I never used the abundant HE to area fire MG sound contacts, which has been suggested on this thread.
-
Jason C, your tactics and scenarios are excellent. On my first try of the second infantry scenario, the one where you command to green platoons, I took the objective by turn 18 and suffered 8 casualties. I figure this isn't too bad. I accomplished this by packet movement and fire superiority. Also I kept the platoons in their original formations and locations from set up, and advanced from there.
The scenarios are great fun and teach hard lessons about combat, where advantages the attacker will normally take for granted are not available. Awesome job!
-
I'm 16. One of the younger ones I see. Not an insult, just an observation.
-
I wouldn't mind to try these scenarios either. Sound like an excellent idea!
-
I stand by in saying that Jackson was the only military genius of the Civil War. His campaign in Charlotesville would have been a success and possibly would have one the war for the South if he hadn't died beforehand. Lee on the other hand can hardly be considered as being a great General. Remember this is the guy that launched fruitless frontal assaults with ridiculous repetitiveness. He was also the man behind Pickets Charge, the bloodiest and most disatrous battle of the war for the south.
Also, it is not untrue to blame the Atlantic Wall on Hitler. It was Hitler who insisted, and had control, for such a defence. Rommel, if he had his way, would have had a completely mobile defence.
-
Hannibal's failures were not the result of his lack of strategic ability, but instead caused by the success of guerrilla warfare. Hannibal had too small of an army to seige Rome, so he instead tried to make various city states join him by winning decisive battles against the Romans. Perhaps this strategy wasn't the greatest, but Hannibal's failure, I think, is mostly credited to Quintis Fabian Maximus, who's guerrila warfare techniques prevented the city states from joining Hannibal.
As for Rommel, I do not feel he is over-rated. The Atlantic wall did fail, but this resulted from a variety of things, most of which weren't his doing. First of all, hitler insisted on the use of a static defence and the idea of "fortress Europe". Also, most military strength was concentrated at Pas de Calais, not the Normandy beaches, where the actual invasion fell. The greatest failure that resulted in defeat however was the inability for Guderian and Rommel to decide where to locate the Panzer reserve, which resulted in only a limited counter-attack during the invasion. I guess I do agree that Rommel never did master logistics and failed in France to a degree, but i think he was better than his contemporaries such as Patton and Montgomery. Perhaps Guderian is the best commander to emerge out of WWII.
The greastest commanders I think, emerged during the Napoleonic era however. Napoleon, Suvorov, Kutuzov and Blucher (to some extent) were all very capable. Frederick the Great also had very successful campaigns. Gustavus Adolphous is another consideration, though only tactically, as strategically, he was the most inept commander to ever live. The Khans of Mongolia are also worth mentioning, like Ogedai and Subedai-(again, not sure on spelling)
Oh wait, can't forget Stonewall Jackson-the only genius of the Civil WAR
-
OOPS!
I almost forgot an excellent commander!
The great Carthagian Hannibal Barca, who practically invented the double envelopment in Cannae against the Romans.
-
Alexander actually did have a superior army compared to his foes, similar to how the Mongol's has a superior army. The Macedonian phalanx was equiped with the two handed 12 foot pike called the sassisas (not sure if I spelled it right) while the persians only had a 9 foot pike and small shield. Thus, Alexander's phalanx's could out strike any persian phalanx. Also, Alexander was one of the first commamders to make his calvary the decisive arm of his army. Normally, it was his spear equiped calvary, including his elite unit, the Companions of Alexander, that achieved the decisive battle results over less capable persian calvary.
But anyway, has anyone considered Surorov or Kutuzov. The latter was the one general who actually out-maneuvered Napoleon in combat and defeated him in Russia. I agree that Alexander and the various khan's of Mongolia were also excellent commanders. In modern times, the most capable commander was probably Erwin Rommel. I think Napoleon should also be considered. Though his invasion was Russia was a profound blunder, he achieved many successes that matched anything of comparitive commanders. My personal favorite of Napoleon's work is Austerlitz.
-
I'm sorry if anyone is angered that I am filling this forum with a question that has nothing to do with anything, but I just wanted to know who people think is the greatest military commander of all time? (On a strategic scale, ie Napoleon)
-
Out of curiosity, i was wondering if most players thoroughly plan their movement of troops down to the smallest of detail before the action begins. (Creating a battle plan for every unit during the set up phase) Also, for a battalion sized game, how long does it take one to complete the set up phase? The normal turns of average?
Just wondering where I should be. Thanks!
-
That was more than sufficient information JasonC. Your tactics and knowledge of small unit actions is excellent. I'm sure this information will go along way if I can find the common sense to use it. I will also read some of your old posts. Thanks!
-
Thanks for the help again! I can't wait to find a human player to fight. I will probably recieve a drubbing first time around, but that is how you learn I guess. Thanks again!
-
Thanks a lot. I'll experiement and develop my own tactics, though refer to others when I must. Also, what do I need to do to play some PBEM games. I have never played against another human, and I think that would be good practice as well.
Little Ponyri Station-SP
in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks
Posted
Oh, and please keep me updated on your progress if you can. I would enjoy to see how things turn out piece by piece.