Bamse Posted October 20, 1999 Share Posted October 20, 1999 Why did you use your HTs like minitanks instead of battlefield cabs ? That would have conserved your Inf force alot You could have used a couple of HT to pick up infantery instead of running around in the open ! What about running in cover behind vehicles instead of an all out "WW1 style" charge ! What your opinion about Tank vs Inf balance ? My best gaming experience so far is the citybattels in towns in CC2(US INF force vs a German mixed force) Björn "It's easy to critisize" Elfström Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 20, 1999 Share Posted October 20, 1999 Bjorn: Well, it's a question of philosophy and also of an error I made. My philosophy is that a weapon is of no use unless you USE it. USING a weapon necessitates employing it in such a manner that it affects the field of battle. A weapon can affect a battle either by its presence or its use. I believe that the two effective ways to win a battle are to instill fear into your enemy or kill your enemy. Preferably you instill fear by killing his forces en masse but with weak forces instilling fear can help you achieve things which you could not otherwise achieve. My employment of weapons stems in many cases from these beliefs E.g. If a US player knows I have a KingTiger in woods to his front he is going to be very, very wary of advancing his tanks into the open. The KTs presence affects the battle and denies a large area to the US player through fear of what it can do. Half-tracks are armoured and are vulnerable to only 5 classes of weapons: 1. The 0.5 Mg (of which I think Martin had 2 outside of the town) 2. Enemy tanks (all vehicles are vulnerable to tanks). 3. Bazooka teams ( all vehicles are vulnerable to bazooka teams) 4. Artillery (all vehicles are vulnerable to artillery ) 5. Jabos (all vehicles are intensely vulnerable to jabos) Now if we examine the range/effectiveness profiles of these weapons vis a vis my usage of HTs for close infantry support you will see that my HTs are intensely vulnerable to artillery, jabos and tank fire at ALL ranges and are vulnerable to bazooka teams and 0.5 cal MGs at within 200 metres. Given the fact that if I use the Hts as battlefield taxis I lose a lot of suppressive firepower and only eliminate their vulnerability to 2 of the 5 weapons systems which are effective against them I choose to use HTs close in with my infantry accepting HT losses in return for reduced infantry losses (since the HTS suppress the enemy during the manouvre phase of a close assault). One point of note is that I lost 10 or 11 HTs to air and artillery attack, 1 to tank fire, 2 to 0.5 calibre MG fire and 5 to bazooka teams and 1 to a grenade (I'm doing this from memory so I may be a vehicle out somewhere but it's pretty accurate). My point is that over half of my HT losses resulted from artillery, air and tank fire. IF I had kept my HTs well back behind hills hidden from enemy direct fire they would only have made tempting targets for Martin's artillery and instead of losing the 5 HTs to bazookas I would simply have lost them to artillery fire. One other fact I'd like to mention is that if you look at the number of HTs lost to direct fire I lost the vast majority of those before I reached the wall line. The reason I lost those was because when I attacked the wall line I did so in a disorganised manner. If you are attacking a platoon position and do so with a platoon of Panzergrenadiers 20 metres or so in front of 4 HTs which are laying down suppressive fire on the enemy you will take the position quickly and with few losses. close-range MG fire from HTs is a huge help in carrying out assaults. However, when I attacked in the game at the wall line I didn't co-ordinate the infantry and HTs properly because I was rattled by my losses to artillery... The artillery barrages really affected me for a few turns. Anyway have a look at what happened in the clearing in the first couple of turns to see how a combined assault SHOULD be executed. That battle was over even before it had begun due to the fire from my HTs. The idea of running behind vehicles is something I've always felt is unrealistically portrayed in movies. 1. Enemy units are not ALWAYS placed so that the tank is directly in between your infantry and them. If an enemy platoon is spread along a 120 metre front standing behind a tank will not protect an entire squad from flanking fires. It will however greatly lessen the squads ability to fight back as they become "wedded" to the tank. 2. The whole idea of the assault into an enemy position is to suppress them so you can get in amongst them and cause maximum casualties as quickly as possible. The BEST way to reduce your casualties (if you are the attacker) is to have everyone possible firing at the enemy as you advance so as to suppress them... If you have most of your infantry basically hiding behind tanks and HTs you will suffer very heavy casualties as the enemy won' be as suppressed as they otherwise could be. My mistake when assaulting was that I didn't have enough units online and firing at the US infantry at the wall and at the southern hill. As for the infantry running around in the open... Where exactly and when are you referring to. I made great efforts once the wall line was cleared to remount as many infantry as I could but I wasn't about to start a time-consuming and wasteful taxi service whereby HTs would bring one platoon to the next house along the road, drop them off, then return for the next platoon, move them up and drop them off. Basically my gaming experience and just my general non-gaming thinking about military matters leads me to think it is more effective to utilise HTs up close and accept a few HT losses since their MG fire will suppress the enemy and let your assault troops get into their positions with minimal losses. Obviously, if you don't co-ordinate the assault properly then no amount of it being the "right" thing to do is going to make it work. You need theory and correct practice for things to work in the CM universe. I do believe my theory is right but I didn't bring it into practice properly in the game .. it was my first time having so many vehicles under my command in such a game and it threw me a bit. I do, however, accept that the "keep HTs safe in the rear areas" line of thought also has merit but I;'m just such an aggressive and offensive-minded player that bringing them into the front lines just comes more naturally to me... Hell, I'm willing to bring tanks into a cityfight so that will tell you something about my willingness to do what it takes if I feel it is needed .. Sometimes violating tactical maxims works purely because your opponent never expects it. City battles in CM are great but I think night battles are the best hehe.. In night fights there are an awful lot of very short, intense firefights resulting in almost total anihilation of the forces involved in each local firefight. It's a real pain in the *** to co-ordinate those battles. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 20, 1999 Share Posted October 20, 1999 Hey Fionn, one question from me: One thing I was worried MOST about was that you would take your HTs with mounted infantry and simply race past my thin defenses. Your HT which made it past the wall and almost to the bridge proved to me how weak my defenses really were, and once I saw this I was certain that I lost the game and expecting to see all the other HTs simply race down the road into town. Why the heck didn't you just do that, and instead chose to mop up every single strongpoint east of town? You did a nice job while doing it, but adding all the losses together it made your forces too weak to go for the cigar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 20, 1999 Share Posted October 20, 1999 I think I can answer this one... 1. He didn't know how weak your positions were. He figured you had the bulk of a company on that wall line, instead of a reinforced platoon. So he feared #2 even more... 2. Getting shot in the back. As you well know from playing, there are few things worse than being shot at from two totally different sides. If he had scooted his infantry past you, and for some reason couldn't keep you pinned down, then you could have caused him a lot of pain. 3. It was the riskiest thing to do in theory, but in practice might have been an even shot. But lack of knowledge (#1) and fear of leaving strong forces in close range to the rear (#2) probably convinced him that it wasn't worth the risk. If he had to play it all over again I venture he *still* wouldn't have rushed by you, but instead done a much better job taking out your forward positions. If he had did that it would just cost time vs. risk. Since the risk was high, and time value low, I would say go with cleaning up things and then moving on. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 21, 1999 Share Posted October 21, 1999 Steve is right. Also Martin don't forget that as the HT dashed forward it was fired on by at least two bazookas and tracked by a tank. IF I had raced 10 HTs down that road and q had been hit by a bazooka they would all have had to slow down and "go around" the knocked out HT. In so doing the enemy tank and bazooka teams would have had a turkey shoot and wiped out an entire company of my infantry in this simple ambush. The risk was far too high given what I THOUGHT you had Ps. Even if I had known you only had 2 bazookas and the tank I wouldn't ave done it since if 1 HT got knocked out then every HT behind it would also have gotten knocked out. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamse Posted October 22, 1999 Author Share Posted October 22, 1999 Fionn: If a US player knows I have a KingTiger in woods to his front he is going to be very, very wary of advancing his tanks into the open. The KTs presence affects the battle and denies a large area to the US player through fear of what it can do. Reply: True, but it is much better if he dont know and suffer losses finding out ! You still deny the area to the enemy. Fionn: As for the infantry running around in the open... Where exactly and when are you referring to. I made great efforts once the wall line was cleared to remount as many infantry as I could but I wasn't about to start a time-consuming and wasteful taxi service whereby HTs would bring one platoon to the next house along the road, drop them off, then return for the next platoon, move them up and drop them off. Reply: When you assulted the wall, the blockhouse, and so on and so on. The whole AAR is full of casualtys because of long range mgfire. Never meant that you should drive the inf from house to house..... Armoured transport over large open areas is HT's purpose in my mind and non-agresssive light support. You hade 19 turns left when you surrenderd but almost no Inf. Timeconsuming ? No offense and no flaming here ! I dont think that i would have done any better. I'd love to met you in a H2H scenario. Björn Elfström PS. Give me the FREAKING DEMO ! DS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 When I assaulted the wall I dismounted my infantry within 100 metres or so of the wall. You have to dismount them sometime Bamse. Dismounting within 100 metres is about as close as I could get given the PF threat. Blockhouse: Umm, I only had two HTs left. That's enough to carry 1 platoon HQ and 1 squad// Hardly a worthwhile assault force. If you look at the southern axis once I took the hill I filled EVERY half-track but one full of men and move up to clear the river defences there in the south. When they ran into opposition I dismounted my infantry and conducted a dismounted assault. If you look at what happened I moved close to the enemy while mounted, dismounted to conduct an attack and then, once I had taken the area I moounted as many men as I could again. Sure I suffered some problems from poor co-ordination but I really don't see how else you think I should have advanced. FWIW IIRC I inflicted roughly as many casualties as I suffered (if one includes the prisoners I took). I ended the game with roughly 100 men and Martin didn't have significantly more. Martin's men and platoons were in roughly as poor a shape as mine from what I can see. I just don't see how else you would conduct assaults.. The move to the blockhouse HAD to be done dismounted since I had only 2 HTs left.. Until then I dismounted infantry for the attack and then remounted after the attack went in. How else could I have lost close to 20 men who were killed in the HTs which were transporting them? Ps. Don't worry about disagreeing with me., I don't consider it a flame unless you get personal or something. I LIKE people disagreeing with me over things cause it usually leads to good and informative discussions in which both sides learn things. That said I simply don't see how else you would conduct an assault on an enemy position. Would you only dismount when you were much closer than 100 metres or are you saying I shouldn't have dismounted or what? BTW don't forget that at the beginning of the scenario only one-third of my forces COULD be mounted.. The other two-thirds HAD to march everywhere.. Don't forget that fact when examining what happened ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 I agree with Fionn here. His assaults, which didn't come off that well, still resulted in about a 1:1 trade off. Unfortunately, that is TOO LOW for someone taking out the first line of defense in an assault of this size. Fionn needed to take out at least 2 men for every one of his. Reason being that by the time he got to the village the odds were about 1:1. Problem with this is that urban warfare is tough enough with a 2:1 superiority, but 1:1 is almost suicide. Heavy weapons and artillery can be called upon to even the odds, but as often happens, that "bolt" was shot before the village was within assault range. So... in the end it was a stalemate of sorts. Fionn was too weak to push into the village and Martin was too weak to counter attack. If Fionn had taken 50% less casualties in the stone wall line, or had taken out more of Martin's guys while defending the village, Fionn would have had a good shot at winning this thing completely. But I made sure, when designing the scenanio, that this would not be an easy thing to do. And it wasn't Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 It was one of those great scenarios where a single extra tank on turn 30 or a mounted panzergrenadier platoon at full strength would have won me the game. That's pretty good balance IMO. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamse Posted October 23, 1999 Author Share Posted October 23, 1999 Maybe I have to read the AAR again ? But the Volks Grenadier that came in late as reinforcements and was pounded with HE fire from a Sherman, wouldnt those units have been picked upp instead (out of LOS of course)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 23, 1999 Share Posted October 23, 1999 Bamse, Yes I think a reread of the AARS is in order: 1. The reinforcement platoon of Volksgrenadiers was not the same as the ones which were shelled by the Sherman so I think you are mixing up times and places like I thought above and 2. Within a couple of turns of the time the reinforcements came in ALL my HTs were full of my infantry. I think you must just have missed that but I spent quite a few minutes ensuring that all the HTs would be full of men. I wanted to mount as many as possible. I may not have made that extremely clear in the AARs but it is something I did. Hope that helps. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamse Posted October 23, 1999 Author Share Posted October 23, 1999 Mumbling to myself.... .......What if I take less red pills (with on) but drink more of the yellow goo, wounder if that will improve my memory ? But you lost ! uhmm yea you did ! And watch out for grenades ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted October 23, 1999 Share Posted October 23, 1999 >wounder if that will improve my memory ? Hope your not mortally woundered. Sorry, couldn't resist. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorsten Posted October 24, 1999 Share Posted October 24, 1999 >>wounder if that will improve my memory ? >Hope your not mortally woundered. >Sorry, couldn't resist. Heh... you know, things like this have a way of turning on you, such as causing a person to use your (posessive pronoun) instead of you're (contraction for you are). Live and learn, I guess. Thorsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts