Jump to content

Why is there no tips and tactics subforum for CM:BN


Recommended Posts

Another thing that has improved my gameplay alot is pre-battle terrain analysis by apllying OCOKA. Although that is mentioned in the armchairgeneral vids and is also impilcated by JasonCs excellent post (i even added that one to my favorites :D ), i want to point the importance of OCOKA out explicitly in case the OP hasnt picked it up already:

OCOKA is used to analyse the terrain during the planning phase and during the battle and it helps one to exploit the terrain to maximum advantage.

Observation (spots that allow observing the opfor from safety)

Concealment & Cover (areas that cannot be observed by the enemy and that provide cover from enemy fire)

Overwatch Positions (positions that allow you to effectively provide overwatch for your moving elements)

Key Terrain (terrain features that will give the owner a significant advantage)

Avenues of Apporach (avenues that will let your forces move while maximizing cover & concealment and/or have good overwatch positions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand the problem, but let me ask: you do know that in the setup phase that you can place troops outside of any vehicles they might be in?

Michael

Haha yeah I know that, and it isn't a problem as much as it was a question of tactics and maybe what the r/l usage of ht mounted infantry :D It felt bad to dismount from start and leave so much stuff behind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snipped>

Combat is the art of not fighting fair.

<snipped>

Excellent post @JasonC. That is my favorite line - it sums all your points up nicely.

Agreed. I learned it put this way, "Tis a poor general who seeks a fair fight."

@JasonC - Great post. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try and make sure you only use weapons for the role they were designed for, this might sound obvious, but you will be surprised at how many players break this rule to their detriment, a good example is the infantry squad, if you split it into two sections, one with the long range weapons (LMG's), and one with the short ranged weapons (SMG's), you can put them in the combat situations those weapons were designed for, otherwise, when the infantry squad is engaged, one of those weapon types will be operating outside of it's comfort range, and therefore will be less effective (SMG's at med to long range), or more vulnerable (LMG's at close range).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha yeah I know that, and it isn't a problem as much as it was a question of tactics and maybe what the r/l usage of ht mounted infantry :D It felt bad to dismount from start and leave so much stuff behind!

Real life usage was—as with just about everything else—all over the map. US doctrine for the use of mounted infantry was to follow the tanks on assault. When resistance was encountered, the HTs would halt, preferably in some kind of cover, and the infantry would debus and advance on foot using normal fire and movement infantry tactics and supported by the tanks. They were to close with the enemy, mop up remaining resistance, and if necessary hold the captured ground.

That was one case. They would also provide local security during overnight halts/laagers, etc. They tended to get used for any task that normal infantry would be used for. What they didn't do much of was fighting from their halftracks, although the MGs on the HTs could sometimes be used to provide supporting suppressive fires. The halftracks were actually pretty vulnerable to fire (as you will discover if you try to use them too boldly) so the tendency was to try to avoid exposing them to direct fire of almost any kind.

And BTW, if by "stuff" you mean extra ammo, bazookas, and similar items, your men can acquire those and take them along if they are needed.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The halftracks were actually pretty vulnerable to fire (as you will discover if you try to use them too boldly) so the tendency was to try to avoid exposing them to direct fire of almost any kind.

And BTW, if by "stuff" you mean extra ammo, bazookas, and similar items, your men can acquire those and take them along if they are needed.

Michael

I second what Emrys is saying here. WWII HT's are basically glorified trucks that allow the infantry to keep up with the tanks on the move. Before the shooting starts, get your guys out and let them fight on foot.

Don't mistake WW2 HT's for modern day IFV's or you'll regret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found half tracks to be pretty good at protecting infantry from artillery, which is what they were primarily designed to do.

They are also reasonably resistant to small arms fire as long as you don't get too close and keep the front end pointed towards the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a round lands close enough to blow up the HT then it stands to reason that had the squad inside been on foot they would have been similarly discomforted. HTs are certainly not invulnerable to indirect fire but I have had them weather prolonged 81mm mortar barrages with much lower casualties than I would have expected laying prone in the open. They can also move out of the barrage much quicker than if on foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not movement, but firepower, takes ground. Any piece of ground that you can saturate with so much firepower that the enemy cannot stand there and live, you own. Where you are standing yourself, is irrelevant to that
JasonC

There are elements of chicken and egg in the statement. It is true but obscures the point that movement is what gets your men into position to be able to fire on the desired ground. And to move on for the next area you want.

It is important to be realistic about the terrain you fight on. I always want the largest maps because then I can use movement to gain local superiority where I want. Transport can be important.

If you play on small maps ,of which there are so many, then movement is very much reduced to a plodding means of grinding out a result. The designer of the scenario has already committed the forces and defined it as "fair".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you play on small maps ,of which there are so many, then movement is very much reduced to a plodding means of grinding out a result. The designer of the scenario has already committed the forces and defined it as "fair".

The challenge at that point is to manipulate the situation so that you can still generate fights that are unfair to the opponent, which still requires maneuver to apply your overwhelming firepower while denying the opponent the chance to apply theirs. It's just more subtle. It might lack the panache of sweeping mounted displacements over a click or two, but it's still maneuver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dt - I deliberately downplay the role of movement because commanders new to tactical combat always overrate its importance. I also stress fire over everything, including terrain, because the next most frequent error is to fixate on ground control or terrain, rather than force vs force match ups. We don't need to tell commanders that movement or ground matter - they come to the table vastly overrating their importance.

Yes movement matters in fire and movement, but it matters precisely when it creates many of fews or when it allows friendlies to avoid enemy fire by denying combat on unfavorable terms. Yes terrain matters, but mostly as complete LOS blockages creating "differential LOS" or keyhole opportunities, rather than as physically occupied by friendly or enemy forces trying to own things by stepping on them.

Stepping on something then dying won't own it, and owning locations doesn't win tactical combats anyway, destroying the enemy does. This is what new commanders always get wrong. They also move about way too frantically, trying to solve problems created by enemy fire by moving out of it to cover, and to correct poorly located friendlies late in the fight by rushing here and there.

What they need to hear above all is that people who can fire effectively have no business moving until they run out of targets, and still have no business moving if they are "covering" spots where fresh enemies are likely to appear. And to learn to move with small portions of their force at a time - that safety comes from the number of stationary guns trained on possible enemy locations, not from how fast someone races across the scary open ground patches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JasonC,

"Surprise is thus one of the fundamental principles of all combat. Everything is five times as effective when the enemy doesn't see it coming than when he does. Conversely, if your own force announce themselves, so that the enemy clearly sees them coming with plenty of time to adapt, we say you are "telegraphing" your blows. Telegraphed blows are weak blows, and die in ambush, often as not, or "hit air" if the enemy prefers to "skulk" away instead.

You want to be inside the other commander's mind, thinking his thoughts as he thinks them, and acting 3 moves ahead - that is how surprise is achieved, at bottom. Terrain and arrangement of forces are just implementation details that can help bring that about."

I found this section interesting. While no one can deny that surprise isn't useful, I remember in earlier posts on these forums you cautioned against the danger of trying to get inside the enemy's head. If I remember correctly, you felt it lead to unattainable perfectionism and overly complex plans. Instead, it may be more desirable to come up with a robust plan of action well suited to your own forces, while ignoring the enemy's plans and dispositions. Obviously the you will react to threats, moves forces around etc, but the guiding star is simplicity and robust combat power. The commander does not care if his moves are seen ahead of time nor what is going on in his opponent's head. Just wondering if you have changed your position on this and now ascribe more importance to surprise, or if I missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot argue with JC, in any contact with the enemy, there are two options, fight or flight, fight if you think you can deliver more firepower, flight if you cannot, however given the power of indirect fire, one of my first priorities is to try and get my oppo to waste theirs by feints and manouver, and i also try and retain some of mine for the endgame, this is a game within a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuirassier - it is fair to say I am giving "equal time" to the maneuver concept of being inside the other commander's "decision loop" in that part of the discussion. I do believe that surprise is a fundamental principle of combat and that unexpected blows are stronger ones. I think putting all your eggs in that basket is unsound, and likely to lead to overreach and failure when most commanders attempt it. I don't myself rely too much on such effects - but I feel I would be shortchanging the maneuverist side of a principles of tactics discussion if I just left it out.

Fair question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jason made excellent "walk before you run" points on the basics.

Movement, indirect fire tactics, misdirection and smoke usage, etc can all be taken up by a player as his comfort level grows with his current knowledge.

Smoke can be a forgotten asset. A King Tiger threat is negated if it is blinded by a single 81mm mortar smoke round. With the right wind conditions, you can move the Rose Parade down a map unseen by using nothing more than a platoon of Shermans and their pop smokes. Infantry pop smoke can be critical to the "flight" part of Jason's advice. You can misdirect by laying smoke with nothing behind it, while the true attack takes place elsewhere. It alters the terrain on your schedule for the time you wish it to.

Terrain is a four dimensional condition. Time of day changes LOS. Temporary "terrain" such as smoke screens or dust trails from convoys can drastically alter a battlefield for a set amount of time. Rain will cause ground condition to change over the course of a battle. Fire is coming, and you can imagine those effects on terrain over time. Structures collapse and alter LOS. A tree can be vaporized by a single 150mm round.

Be mindful of ways you can shape the battlefield, and ways that the enemy may shape it against you.

The same piece of ground can be shaped from traversable into fatal terrain in the space of a few minutes. Some will get that, others will Google. :D

-----------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Structures collapse and alter LOS. Be mindful of ways you can shape the battlefield, and ways that the enemy may shape it against you.-----------

Reminds me of a time an enemy Panther was hiding behind a building. My Shermans destroyed the building with HE which then allowed a killing flank shot on the Panther.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot argue with JC, in any contact with the enemy, there are two options, fight or flight, fight if you think you can deliver more firepower, flight if you cannot, however given the power of indirect fire, one of my first priorities is to try and get my oppo to waste theirs by feints and manouver, and i also try and retain some of mine for the endgame, this is a game within a game.

Flight is one of the hardest things to do. At least for me. It usually results in losses, without being able to hurt the enemy. I always try to prepare a flight route for my units, but when they take flight, they are usually under fire. Probably because I start retreating too late, but it is hard to pick the right moment. Smoke is not always available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flight is one of the hardest things to do. At least for me. It usually results in losses, without being able to hurt the enemy. I always try to prepare a flight route for my units, but when they take flight, they are usually under fire. Probably because I start retreating too late, but it is hard to pick the right moment. Smoke is not always available.

Generally, retreat has to be planned in specifically rather than done opportunistically, since spotting the need to retreat often, as you've found, means you're too late to do so successfully. Decide beforehand that the element in question is going to fight for 1 minute, or 2, and then bug out before the enemy they've surprised can get enough buddies up to suppress you/apply lethal firepower to your escape route.

If you didn't have enough firepower in that spot to make the enemy put their heads down long enough for you to get away, you should probably either have decided that element was to "die in place" or to have it slink away without having alerted them to your presence, because successful retreat was always going to be unlikely once the shooting started.

This is kind of an illustration of JasonC's point about controlling the things you control: your forces' actions. If you wait and see what/how the enemy does, you risk them doing something that you can't counter. Initiative, I suppose. Or combat tempo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...