NameUsedBefore

Steamboat Willie got his in the end, though the bastard. Great movie.

I'm not sure if CM's map-sizes could cover Stalingrad. Not to mention a good portion of the battle wasn't even in the city anyway.

If you took it that I 'meant' the infantry weren't a big factor, that's not what I meant. But you're scenarios look interesting.

My theory of modern warfare has always been that infantry is there simply to engage the enemy and then call in the support. Whoever has the best (or most) support wins. That's mainly what I do in CMBB, unless all I have is infantry, then their role changes somewhat. Basically: both side's infantry advances and then engage each other, spotting each others' positions. The support then comes in, whoever has the best or utilizes it the best will win. Infantry itself, I find (in combined arms), will never actually win a battle themselves; but they sure go a long way in helping you win it.

I was trying to think of what strategies you guys typically use. I find myself, right now, using quite a mix in trying to find what works and what doesn't. A lot of hit and miss, generally. I've tried mobbing my men like the armies in Starship Troopers (movie). The daunting amount of firepower that you can shoot out from one area is fantastic, but I never liked having my flanks so open. I've tried an even front with troops spread across the line. The problem with this is a lack of reserves and a brittle frontline. I've tried strengthening one wing over another. This is okay but it doesn't allow for much maneuvering if your strong-wing is caught with some unexpected fire. The best way to make this work, I've found, is to make the left wing appear as either of two things: it's advancing (using smoke to act as if I'm moving out); or acting as if there's more there then there really is whether this is through cycling movement of a squad or two (or a half-track/light tank etc). One thing I don't like about this strategy is that your opponent can easily split up and destroy both wings if he's wily enough. Generally I find myself using a wave-like line that I put into positions where they can maneuver without too much time taken or with above-average concealment. It's a "bend but don't break" defense and an adaptive offense. It doesn't really have any standout offensive/defensive capabilities, but nor does it have ugly weakenesses. What do you guys generally find yourself doing?

I remember seeing one fired in some sort of video and it just looked very awkward (and innaccurate, at that) coming out of the tube. I just couldn't possibly fathom it of being any use against tanks but I guess it was...

I say buy what you want, but then again I don't know near as much about the game as JasonC and others, but I'm learning. Anyway: It sounds to me like you overestimated the strength of the T-34's a little too much. Sure the tanks themselves are great, but you have to take into account that the German's have better optics and usually more experienced crewmen (although I don't know if this was the case here). You may also have had faulty tactics, such as only showing one tank at a time or some other blunder which allowed him to pick-pocket you (your one T-34 appears, a trio of his Panzers target it and destroy it; another one of your T-34's appears... rinse and repeat). Also note that most CM-battles are relatively close affairs. After a certain distance almost any tank can knock out another simply because they are so close. So try not to be too surprised when a Tiger is taken out by something you would never expect it to die from. Your opponent also could've destroyed your last remaining force if he simply took the time to destroy the entire area around it (such as the buildings you described). It seems while you made the mistakes early, he made the mistakes late.

PIAT can penetrate the front of a StuGIII? Isn't the PIAT like a propulsion-through-springs design? Or does it have charges like a mortar-round shot out of a mortar...?

It probably doesn't look as snappy when viewed from a greater distance (I am assuming this).

How could he do that? Did he just know all the schematics (sp?) of infantry vs. tank combat? Or was it that he put more money into infantry with AT abilities then simply ATG's and tanks themselves? I've always found that most people who are very good in strategy games tend to have their own unique ways of doing things. That's why strategy games are so great (RTS or wargame), IMO.

I would play JasonC using maneuverist tactics, but the thing is I don't always use them. Like I've said before, there's nothing wrong with attritionist-ways, but if I see another possibility I will usually take it. Instead of going for the general trade-off I will instead make a bid for something that favors what I paid for. Of course there is a certain amount of a failure-expectancy, but that's why they call it a risk. In one chance I could end up getting a 3:1 kill ratio, in another 0:1. I think as I become more experienced this ratio will become a little more consistent. As far as I can tell, though, JasonC, as well as others, are far more experienced in the game. I'm still learning the ropes (even after having owned it for awhile) and am just now starting to do PBEMs.

Another question, can an engineer squad demo' buildings?

JasonC, what you're "afraid of" is exactly what a good maneuverist will do: he wont give you those targets to push your firepower on. You said you're afraid of tanks and infantry popping up where you don't expect them, getting a kill, then scurrying away --- this is what a maneuverist will do. He'll take that risk of leaving behind units to mingle with your 'depth'. And, honestly, if I don't have the advantage in numbers/firepower I might as well do some risky attempts. I don't mind leaving behind a panzerschreck team and having their cheap-buy bag me a T-34 or something of another. I don't mind leaving an ATG gun almost completely out of the battle until I see it fit that he starts shooting (and doing so at precise and specific targets). I have no problem with shooting-and-scooting, then moving said tank elsewhere to do it again. I don't mind leaving decoys or buffers or letting you carve into my terrain. You said that my tank that pops out and bags one of yours is efficient, then also went to say it was not because all of its "ammo" was destroyed along with it. Well YOUR tank's ammo was destroyed as well, and considering your leaning on said ammo more than myself, this would be considered a minor-victory for me (one I'd take gladly, unless I'm terribly outnumbered, of course). You say that I assume everything I do will work (I definitely do not, I have my expectations though, just as you do with your area-fires) and that everything you will do will fail (I definitely do not, again; wherever I fail you will succeed and vice-versa). However, this may reign true for you too: not everything I will fail as it appears you think it will. Not everything you do will work either. Also, I'm not some 'extreme' maneuverist person either. I use attritionist tactics whenever the situation calls for them, but if I see a chance to get more of my money (and perhaps without any loss at all), I will take it. I am also not much of a 'flashy' maneuverist. It simply is not very possible, especially with armor, because there will always be sections of open fields. While our views on how to use troops may vary quite a bit, I think we both believe in getting the most out of our purchases (or given-units). (Side note: by FO, what exactly are you referring to?)

Also, I have to ask what point-levels are we talking about (and how big of maps). I also play on 'Extreme' Fog-of-War (on full I could get head-counts and what experience the unit had which screamed being unrealistic to me).

How does one take pictures in this game? And I heard about F-AA options but I never see any graphics tab... I've actually killed tanks before with infantry, but that was because I was the Germans and their panzerfausts/schrecks are just so vastly superior to the other nations' armaments. My main problem is doing it with the Russians because they seem to lack any efficient way to destroy tanks.

A better example would be that the gun only has two shots, and with maneuvering I can make each shot miss. And then after that my stick becomes quite handy (in theory that my friend wont use the butt of the gun, of course). You also seem to believe that since I am maneuvering I am not using my weapons (or at least properly). This is false, the point of maneuvering is, depending upon the situation or opponent: to 'kill' depth (aka, not letting any amount of troop the time to recover); to take shots that favor my troops (such as my tank facing his tank's side or even rear armor); and to wither his army. He says trade ammo for my men, except this in theory will not always work. Why? Because there is only a certain amount of ammo you have, and of course, a certain amount of men. We have both, of course. However, if he wishes to present his men in such an ambitious way, and I have mine rather obscure (if not hidden entirely), wouldn't it be true that most of the firepower that is supposed to kill my men falls on empty grounds, while my men's firepower hits targets that I can actually see? He can take 10 shots with his tanks HE-rounds into a nearby forest, none of which does any significant harm (if there is a target there to begin with). With one shot, aimed at an actual target, I can terminate one of his tanks or disrupt a platoon. Your giving too much up to "possibility" and "guess work" to depend so much on your ammo. For every 1/4 of infantry rounds you fire into a blank space, I can have 1/10 of mine hit an actual target. What if, throughout the entire game, you guess completely wrong? You are left with a force low on ammo (and by this time, probably a little lost) facing a force that has been conserving it. There's also the act of filling in areas you barraged. You can hit that empty trench to all hell, then after you're done THAT'S when I move my HMGs and infantry into it. You can bombard that forest's edge all you want, but once you stop that is when I'll move my ATG's up. Again, if your strategy is focused on ammo and firepower, then mine is focused on making you waste both.

Yes, but when do you comfirm that you are firing at a numerable target? What's to say that the 'Infantry?' or 'Tank?' icons have not died along ago (or have not left the area entirely)? Wouldn't it be hard to concentrate fire when you're not completely sure of what you're firing at? You can pile all that firepower into one spot, but what happens when it turns out there was nothing there? Two things: You've wasted your ammo; and I get some beefy intel on your positions due to the massive amount of 'ruckus' (for lack of a better word). If the attritionist wishes to put his forces into a blob, what is to stop me from having a 'company'-amount of mortars and artillery spotters? If I see a concentrated force I'll hit it with said mortars and artillery. If my forces are spread out, what is there to mortar besides the occasional squad or platoon? Again, I can simply wait around and watch you fire into nothing or have my men being fired upon sneak away and then let you fire into nothing. If your strategy is to use firepower to its strength, then what better way to nullify this strength by letting it go to waste? If it comes to a city battle and you wish to destroy all the buildings, what would stop me from destroying the buildings and then putting the men into the rubble (so as to avoid losses from collapsing buildings)? Ultimately what's going to stop me from piling up fake foxholes and trenches? Or having decoys that slither away once you put the weight on 'em? What's going to stop me from not shooting and conserving ammo, and making you blast it all away? If you concentrate firepower I'll make sure it is at little as possible, if anything at all. If you concentrate forces I'll make sure to hit it with as much support-weaponary as possible. If you wish to destroy the buildings of a city, I'll do it myself (saving a select few just for you). How can you concentrate fire when you're not even 100% sure what you're firing at is worthwhile or even there?

I'm getting that feeling too. My tactics sound vague, but they work. Again, it is all about surviving the initial bang. Whatever depth the attritionist has I will have too (unless we're doing scenarios, or otherwise; again, play to the situation at hand). What's not to say that I my ATG lays into a platoon of his men. He falls those men back and brings up reserves. Well what happens when, during his trek into my territory, some ATG/MG he had completely passed up appears and start ripping him from the side, namely those he's making fall back. If it is depth the attritionist counts on, then I'll be sure that those front-line troops never actually get away from the combat, whether it be through mortars, hidden MGs/ATGs, snipers, or whatever. These are merely ways to combat an attritionist. You can either become one yourself and have the battle come down to sheer firepower, or, if the situation deems that you cannot match his firepower, you have to make some placements that harass the depth that he relies on. That's ultimately the only way you are going to beat an attritionist if he has the upperhand in terms of sheer-firepower and numbers. And, again, I use whatever strategies are necessary. Just today I did some 'Hornets Nest' scenario. I was the Russians and I was given a good lot of tanks and half-tracks and trucks all supplied with men. Once I realized that opposition was light for the most part I took every single tank and went straight for a hill in the far back, literally mowing everything down in my path. Then I took my mortar/arty support and levelled some areas around their forest-encampment. I took the half-tracks on sprees to get flags and used them to, really, just charge head-long into the German positions. The game was over by turn 21 when I took over the German-hill and destroyed all their reinforcements before they had time to act (although that proved costly). This is attritionist-strategy at its extremes, and it worked. Funnily enough, though, it was after my initial charges that I eventually took the majority of my casualties for the engagement, such as when the reinforcements surprised me (I came over the hill to spot them) or when a German regiment suddenly appeared in the forest that I had not seen before. If it hadn't been for the Germans mis-using an entire platoon (or two?) I may not have took a crucial flag at all, in fact. Anyway, just an example of when even I use the attritionist strategy (and even example of how it can faulter).

Can an ordinary infantry squad take on a tank by assaulting it? I mean utterly landing on top of it. About the molotovs, I kind of figured they might do pretty good against tanks, but this is not the case...? What about demo charges? I find that the Russians are usually in good supply of those, but rarely have the magnetic mines or RPG-esque weaponary (bundles of grenades, as you said). When positioning a tank hunter team should I always have them in a building; and when in a buliding should it be the top floor (if available) and should I put them away from the windows or near them (does it matter, in essence)? Also about snipers, I find that they rarely actually kill anything. They're good for recon and surveillance but besides that they don't do a whole lot of damage. So what do they do, combat wise, that would effect the enemy?

How close do infantry need to be to start throwing their demos'/molotovs? Should I put them in "Hide" mode and set a 'Cover Armor'-arc around a certain area...? Another question: do mortar-barrages (let's say... 82mm's) hurt tanks, or possibly even destroy them? One time I baited a group of tanks into a street I had designated for bombard-ment and they were certainly being rained-upon, but due to the 'Extreme' fog of war settings I am unsure if this had any effect.

I'm not saying fightin by attrition is stupid, there's just better ways inwhich to win a battle IMO. Take, for instance, a situation inwhich you try to overwhelm a certain area of my forces. I can place a buffer, such as an ATG or a MG (or a combination) and hold off this threat long enough to flank. Or if an attritionist is attacking a city instead of piling a lot of firepower into one spot, why not spread it out? I often have my tanks looking awkwardly down roadways just so they can tag unsuspecting (and over-ambitious) AFV's. An attritionist can also be pick-pocketed very easily. While your tactics involve piling as much firepower into one spot, I can create brackets of defence made to deprive your very means of such a tactic, albeit slowly (but ever so surely). My defensive tactics take to heart the factor of stealth and being hidden, unordinary locating, and of unsuspecting counter-attacks. While I can see everything your bustling force is doing, you cannot see where something of mine is, what it is, or if there is more of it around. I have faced attritionist opponents before. What most often happens is that there is a lot of bang to begin with, but as things slow down and their initiative fades away, my thieves come out to play. And that's the very thing to do against an attritionist: let him have the initiative. Let him envelope as much terrain as he wants, more terrain then he can handle. It's all about surviving that initial onslaught, then simply chipping away at a bogged-down contingent. Attritionists are certainly a scary foe, though. And to be a maneuverist against such a person you have to be gutsy, hold ground, and be steady. Attritionists are what I call 'the ignorant'. This is not a bad thing, as 'ignorance is bliss', as they say. Basically what I mean by this is that an attritionist has little to think about besides the rotation of his firepower-roster. Besides that, such things as morale and casualty-rate are of little value. Ultimately, though, I believe that to be truly successful (on a consistent level) you have to utilize both tactics. If I run into a building full of MGs, infantry and ATG's then I'm not going to set up a glamorous six-pronged assault. No, I'm going to roll up the tanks and simply demolish the building. Or if there are no tanks around it comes down to a human-wave-of-an-assault. I utilize both namely because certain situations call for them. I find that city-battles tend to be more of a brutal-affair. The only "maneuvering" is locations of defence and if you want to cluster your defence or spread it out. But if there's a battle in a huge field with plenty of spots for hiding and moving-about you wont find me crashing through forests willy-nilly with columns of tanks and rows of infantry.

Might be a stretch, but I'd say Russia during WWII had its initial armies dismantled but later re-organized to fight on as well.

Is it at all possible? Countless times I've had tank-hunters hidden in the attics (or whatever) of buildings, sitting in wait of an oncoming tank... when that tank comes they either: don't follow my orders (understandable to a degree) --- attack it but with their... rifles? Or simply get blown to bits when they reveal themselves but fail to do much of anything. Ultimately, though, they are almost always spotted before a tank can even close the distance in the first place. This is pretty much the case for most infantry vs. tanks. From experience the AT-guns are of little help. Most shots ricocheting and those that penetrate appear to not slow down the tank one bit. The best that they can do is immobilize a tank, but that is a bid for luck. I have little experience with flame-throwers. They are hard to maneuver and often you DON'T want to maneuver them during anysort of engagement because they're slow and easily shot-up. I've seen it used against infantry, which utterly demoralized them, but not against tanks... The best I've seen is simply the hand-held panzer-fausts/schrecks. Besides that, nothing from the infantry really stops tanks. The Russians seem to not utilize their molotovs like they should, and neither side seems to use their demolition-charges when they should. Should I just send my infantry RIGHT up to the side of the tank...? I'm a little stumped on this one. *Another question: when a sniper takes a shot at an infantry squad, who is he aiming for? And is it possible for him to kill a tanker that has his hatch up?

Well, since CM:BB is more or less a run of singular engagements (unless you're doing an operation), then wouldn't a more agile strategy work? If you're doing an operation I can see where grinding down the enemy (and probably yourself as well) can 'work', but I for one don't believe in it. I believe in the preservation of my troop, not the destruction of it. Why simply trade off (attrionist-style) when you can have the possibility of a striking-blow with little-cost to yourself (maneuverist-style)?

War is our past-time, that's what I've always said.