CM Tactics

[Guest Captain Foobar]

Ok, Im actually going to use this board as intended for once. To talk about meaningful topics, instead of chatter. I want to continue the conversations about the most effective ways of using units, not necessarily historically, but as implented in CM.

Here are a couple of questions that you can respond to:

1) When attacking with infantry, what is the best distance to engage the enemy? I have had many encounters where I was low on ammo by the time I got in close, and yet, you cannot simply march up close, and then engage.

2)What is the best way to set up arty spotters and mortars? In a group for guaranteed concentration of fire, or distributed across the field for safety?

3) Is there a "good" time to unbutton a tank. Weighing safety of crew against the need for accurate battlefield information.

I realize that *all* of these questions have a million answers, for every specific situation, but I am looking for responses in the broad sense, and what others have encountered.

[Fionn]

Captain Foobar,

1. Why not? I'm 7 for 0 in demo PBEMs now (although I probably will draw or lose one I'm playing now) and I consider anything above 40 metres to be LONG RANGE when it comes to infantry.

I feel any fire at targets more than 100 metres away is virtually wasted and hold it till under 100 metres and preferable about 50 or 60.

Sure you'll take some casualties closing but SS Panzergrenadiers won battles with dash, not sitting around suppressing everything in sight.

Accept 4 or 5 casualties from MGs as you run across a wheatfield and use MGs to keep the US infantry squads down. That';s whay MGs are for anyway.

Stop on the other side of the wall and within the first 30 seconds of the next turn you'll have wiped out a US infantry platoon.

It's not quite as simple as it sounds but its very, very effective.

2. Disperse them. HMGs and FOs can hit ANYTHING they see. The more you disperse them the greater their coverage of the battlefield will be AND the less of a good target they'll be for the enemy. If your enemy is stupid enough to waste arty etc on 1 HMG team then so much the better. That team just saved one of your platoons from being mauled.

3. Always unbutton unless you're within 50 or so metres of the enemy (then incoming fire does become lethal). Quite frankly if the enemy is pinging rifle and MG fire off your tank then your infantry isn't putting him under enough pressure.

I have had tanks 40 metres from the US 1st platoon positions in Last Defence butchering the US (because the tanks were behind the wall they were hiding behind LOL) and not get fired upon.

Sure, you'll suffer a casualty every so often but it's worth it. I am suffering an average of 1 TC killed every 4 PBEM games which is quite acceptable.

My advice is to realise that in PBEM games you have got to beat the PERSON. Once you get inside their decision cycle you will win. A pBEM game I recently played gave a very interesting illustration of how I rattled a player in a strong position into declaring a ceasefire when both his forces and his position were superior.

BEAT the player and the scenario will take care of itself. Against the AI just apply good military maxims and things should take care of themselves.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[guachi]

My first PBEM game was Riesberg as the Americans. I stood off and pounded everything in sight with my Shermans. I maneuvered my platoons around to get in close and launched assaults at close range. I wiped out one German platoon in about a minute and another in about 2 and a half minutes.

My opponent surrendered and after looking at the map told me that he was surprised at how many casualties he had caused. The casualty ratio was about 1.5:1 in my favor. One benefit of short, decisive combat that I hadn't considered was that my opponent wouldn't get good intel on my squads.

I won that scenario by fighting the battles n my terms. Make the opponent react to you and not the other way around. Think of it like sports. If you control the tempo of the game

and can dictate the style of play, you will likely win. I wholeheartedly agree with Fionn's last statement. You can't play mind games with the computer but you can against a human so use that to your advantage. By the same token, don't let your opponent rattle you. Check out the AAR between Fionn and Martin to see what happened when Fionn got rattled by Martin's artillery and ground attack aircraft.

Specific answers to your questions:

(Note: Unlike Fionn, I'm not an agressive player. I am extremely methodical. I am playing LD PBEM as the Germans and I'm trying to be aggressve. It's only turn 3 and I'm failing miserably at it)

1. Here is some data on the strength of squads at various ranges. Data has been normalized so that each squads' firepower at a range of 40 meters is equal to 1.00.

40 100 250 500

Rifle 44 1.00 .51 .22 .08

Rifle 45 1.00 .55 .25 .10

Platoon HQ 1.00 .49 .19 .06

Company HQ 1.00 .41 .12 .02

Battalion HQ 1.00 .34 .07 .00

M1919 MMG 1.00 .79 .48 .32

M2 .50 HMG 1.00 .80 .55 .43

VG 1.00 .56 .25 .12

VG SMG 1.00 .31 .01 .00

VG Heavy SMG 1.00 .49 .20 .11

SS PzGren 1.00 .62 .30 .16

SS Motorized 1.00 .63 .31 .16

Platoon HQ 1.00 .34 .05 .01

Company HQ 1.00 .32 .03 .01

MG42 HMG 1.00 .81 50 .34

***I've tried twice now to get the above numbers to line up in nice, neat columns. I'm obviously not succeding. Can anyone help me get figure out how to fix it?***

The squads (except for one) pretty much follow the same pattern of 1.00, .50, .25, .1 for their firepower. The one notable exception is the VG SMG squad which is useless at anything past 100m. The SS squads fare a little better than the others because of their 2 inherent LMGs.

The HQs fare miserably past 100m because of their lack of long range automatic firepower. The MGs, on the other hand, fare well even at long ranges with each having a firepower curve of roughly 1.00, .80, .50, .35.

With the exception of the SMG squad, there really isn't a range that you can gain an advantage over the enemy at. Against the SMG squad, you could sit back at 100+ m and fire at a squad that can't really harm you.

To me, the best engagement ranges begin where the ratio is .5 or higher. This is roughly 250m for MGs, 100m for most squads, and 75m for HQs and the SMG squad. With MGs, I try and find a good spot and keep them there. They are slower and have more ammo than other units that moving them around, unless they can be transported, seems to me to be a waste of time.

If you can get an advantage of, say, 1.5 or 2 platoons attacking one enemy platoon, press the attack at as close a range as possible. It ends the battle quicker and prevents the enemy from reinforcing or retreating his units under attack. Conceivably, given CM's one minute turns, you could have an assault started and finished before the opponent even has a chance to react.

The long range assets (MGs, mortars, arty, AFVs) are used to suppress the target before the attack. When the attack begins you can either keep up the long range support fire or switch it to enemy units that might interfere with the attack.

2. Might as well disperse them. In LD the Germans have 3 platoons, 3 FOs, and 3 HMGs. I just divided things up evenly and gave each platoon one FO and one HMG. In Riesberg, I think the Americans have 4 platoons, 3 mortars, 3 MMGs, and 1 HMG. I gave one platoon the HMG and divided up the others evenly. I also separated my tanks enough to try and provide as much coverage of targets on the town as possible. I did get lucky, though, in picking a good spot for my one spotter playing Riesberg. He had adequate LOS to the town and my opponent never spotted him.

3. In Riesberg, my tanks were the only thing firing for some turns as I moved my platoons into position. So naturally they drew fire. Sometimes I left them buttoned because all they were doing was area fire against buildings. I wanted to make sure I could unbutton them when the time came to fire at live targets. Otherwise, you might as well unbutton them. It increases the risk to the TC but it also increases the effectiveness of the tank. I suspect a buttoned tank would have a hard time spotting a PS/bazooka team.

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 11-17-99).]

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 11-17-99).]

[Guest PeterNZ]

Structural stuff hasn't been discussed yet, so I thought I would.

I tend to be fairly brutal and strip most support from my inf. platoons. As the Yanks I make a big pile in a corner of all support during the setup phase so i can see what's going on, then I add them or move them around. If a unit is going to be on the attack, i generally don't give it any support units, except for a bazzoka to scout with (on riesburg), figuring I want them to move quick and not have them hang around for an MG. Obviously I'd reinforce those platoons with tanks and so on. If a platoon is unlikely to have tank support then I provide it with some heavy support and alow it to move slowly and defensively. Such a platoon might find itself with a mortar and an mg attached, and in reis, a bazooka to scout out front

The end result is often a mob of unasigned support which gets chucked on some spare company HQ and is used to reinforce any spare platoon which isn't going to immediately be involved with an assault. Quite a few of my opponents have learnt that it's pretty effective! I end up with a very tough center, (say a platoon, 2 or 3 mgs, 2 mortars), effective assault force of two platoons with tanks, and a holding force on the other flank with one heavy platoon. Dunno, seems to work for me.

Mostly I do this because I hate to slow my guys down with MG's and Mortars, guess I'm just not that cautious often

PeterNZ

[Fionn]

Well, my opponents will tell you I play very aggressively. I counter-attack on the defence and am prepared to take major risks on the offence.

I got 3 platoons of US infantry into Riesburg by turn 7 and have forced the Germans back into the 2nd and 3rd row of buildings already. See, a methodical approach allows your opponent to shift reinforcements around and resist you more effectively.

I basically timed my approach so that as my arty hit the town on turn 5 the first infantry scouts would reach it ( half-squads) and then over turns 6 and 7 the rest of the infantry platoons would run in.

End result... I have lost roughly 3 squads but appear to have wiped out 2 platoons, 2 mortars a HMG team and have tanks and infantry in positions such that any German retreat is covered by fire thus ensuring a slaughter.

hell I even managed to close assault a German squad with two half-squads and wiped it out for the loss of only 2 men purely because the German squad was overwhelmed by the sheer number of targets charging towards it and nearby houses . (I had infantry running into every house in the first row of Riesburg and this squad was the only squad in any of those houses.)

I centralise my MG and mortar teams. They are there to provide support and tying them to an infantry platoon only ensures they will be walking forward when they could be sitting back and firing.

I've used my 60mm mortars to drop 2 buildings on my enemy's right flank ( destroying 2 entire squads). I've used my FO to drop two buildings on his left flank ( killing an HMG and 1 squad plus casualties to others). Admittedly I've taken casualties due to the speed of my advance. One platoon which entered the town with only 1 casualty has now suffered about 14 since two of its squads got exposed to all the Germans on the map when they advanced a bit too far BUT the point is that I've hit so hard that for the end-game I can simply take my time and blow the enemy apart.

I really am in favour of attacking hard and fast since most people simply can't re-orient their entire plan of defence whilst in motion. They stay in positions 1 or 2 turns too long or they try to move reinforcements up too late (thus just ensuring these reinforcements merely run into an ambush you set up after you wipe out their forward positions) etc.

Decisive and risky action can cause you to be slaughtered every so often but more often than not it really unbalances the opposition.

Remember as an attacker you have the initiative but the slower you move the more of that initiative you cede to the enemy.

I keep my infantry units light (no HMGs or mortars to slow them down) and put my support weapons where I can bring them to bear on any enemy who fire on my units and then I quite simply charge straight towards them from 100 to 200 metres. ( There's a bit more thought than that of course but that's the gist of it. If done properly it works really well.)

Other playing styles work well too but I think the people who give 1 mortar and 1 HMG to each team are simply allowing their "punch" to be dispersed too much.

Quite frankly if I drop mortars from one 81mm mortar and fire some HMG42 rounds into a position as I launch a platoon-sized rush I wouldn't expect it to have much effect BUT if I'm using THREE mortars and THREE HMG42s to support a platoon-sized rush then I would expect that platoon to get through relatively unscathed.

Of course this means that my other platoons accept casualties due to long-range MG fire etc but the assault (which is the decisive component) will have a greater chance of success. I guess it comes down to how heartless you are and where your particular lives vs success limit is.

I DO sometimes get very conservative with my men's lives (like in the Alpha PBEM game) but usually the cost is worth it.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Los]

I'm in a huge rush right now but let me make one point. (Not to take anything away from the good advice already given) When assessing at what range to open fire don't worry so much about causing casaulties, worry about creating supression.

Meaningful casualties occur at ranges under 100 meters or from well directed HMG/indirect fire, but suppressing units allows you to manuever your forces within range for them to make the kill or drive off the enemy. And unless I've been playing a different game then everyone else here, you can achieve successful suppression at various ranges (short medium and long), but then again what matters is putting fire on the target from multiple sources turn after turn while your guys move in. Works like a charm for me.

I'll write more when I have time, good luck.

And one other thing, always maintain a reserve. if you have three platoons, let two do all the initial fighting so you have projectable combat power when you need it the most, during the end game.

Los

[Fionn]

Los is right regarding suppression BUT that's why I like grouping my support weapons strategically (whilst ensuring a little tactical spreading out).

3 MGs and 3 mortars (which a company can reasonably have supporting it) makes for a hell of a lot more suppression than an entire platoon of infantry.

I use the support group to suppress and te infantry to rush. Rushes without suppression OR a distraction to keep the enemy occupied are rather "dangerous" tactics to use.

More really good AARs are going up soon though which should show this off. The first of them are off in proofreading now.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Vehicle movement tip:

How to leave from a road formation, (column), in CM. Say you have two vehilces ,one after another moving along on a road in the same direction. Have the vehicle in the rear move off the road first, then the one in the front. You want this order because the slight pause when the vehicle starts a turn will cause traffic for the vehicle behind. So make sure the vehicle behind initiates the turn first.

More tips to come.

[guachi]

Fionn wrote:

> Well, my opponents will tell you I play

> very aggressively. I counter-attack on the

> defence and am prepared to take major risks

> on the offence.

> I got 3 platoons of US infantry into

> Riesburg by turn 7 and have forced the

> buildings already. See, a methodical

> approach allows your opponent to shift

> reinforcements around and resist you more

> effectively.

I tried a completely different strategy with Riesberg. There is only one objective in the front of the town; why bother attacking there? I swung out way wide to both flanks. I wanted to get my opponent to move his forces and perhaps expose his positions. He did and that pretty much doomed him. He thought I couldn't see him but I could.

An attack on one platoon was done without any supression fire at all because I wanted to maintain surprise. It worked because the attack started at a range of about 50 meters.

The LAST thing I did in the scenario was attack the fron row of houses.

I'm not saying that my tactics are great or anything. But with only two scenarios I figured my opponent had played it a couple of times already so I wanted to try something he might not expect.

The main reason I don't make quick attacks is that I'm not good at coordinating them yet. Fionn, I think you wrote some time ago that you had problems with coordinating attacks at first but have gotten a lot better with practice. I hope that with practice I'll get better at coordinating attacks, too.

I hadn't really come up with a good plan on what to do with support weapons. I have no idea how they are actually used, so I just made a guess. I've used my vehicles to transport the slow moving support weapons so they can keep up with the infantry. I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, though. I'll try to keep them together next time and see how it goes.

Los said what I was trying to say. I should have written that I thought the best engagement ranges for causing casualties is under 100m, or longer for MGs. My very first game I had the same problem that the first poster did of my units running low on ammo. I spent all of my ammo supressing and not enough was left for the assault. I still won because the AI isn't the most brilliant tactician.

I'm obviously an amateur at this game, but I'll agree wholeheartedly with Los about concentration of fire. I was a believer after getting it to work for the first time. Squads just disintegrate under concentrated fire, especially the less experienced ones. It's fun watching an enemy squad spend its entire turn with its face in the dirt. Not so fun when it is your units.

Thanks to those of you who are far more skilled than I for the good tips.

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 11-17-99).]

[Los]

A few points when attack a poistion.

First try and identify and use a covered and concealed route as far to the atrget as possible. (Surprise!)

Second, try and isolate the target form the rest of the enemy's defensive line. This can be done several ways, by laying smoke to block interdicting fire from other enemy positions, or by attack from a direction that keeps much of the enemy's defense from bringing fire on you, or by interdicting those key long range weapons with HMG fire or indirect fire.

Third, carefully position your support weapons to lay maximium fire on enemy positions for the duration of "the assault crossing" if there is one.

It's better to suppress everyone and kill no one than it is to kill a few guys but have others free to fire on your units. Save the real carnage for close assault and short range fire.

Your indirect fire is a precious resource. There is damn little to go around so use it gingerly. It should be used not when you see this or that target but when it supports whatever you are trying to do.

Don't go killing stuff just because you can see it. manuever around threats (i.e. like AT gun killzones) so that you can bring your combat power to bear where it is needed the most. (With ammo left)

Again that's just a few tidbits to consider, in a general sort of way, when tackling individual tactical porblems. Remember there is no hard and fast magic bullet rule or trck. Situation dictates. Good luck! There will be a more concise tactical tips guide in the future.

CHeers...

Los

[Ken Talley]

Here is a quick question? How do you defeat the "back of the house" defense in large buildings? In Last Defense, I have used and my opponent has used the tactic of hiding one or two infantry squads at the back of large buildings. Suppression fire by tanks and MG's from the front of the building can't touch them in Last Defense. Inevitably any Germans entering the house are quickly massacred. After hammering the Church with a Stug and 2 MGs plus a platoon for two turns, I lost an entire fresh platoon during entry to two squads hiding in the back of the church. It was an ugly sight. I did something very similiar to my opponent in the Church in the first game.

Also is there any validity to the "back of the house" defense in real life? I would imagine preventing the actual entrance of enemy troops into a defended building would be an absolute top priority. Once an enemy has gained entry into a house in numbers, I would imagine it would become primarily a grenade and firing through walls battle with neither side having much of an advantage. At that point most of the advantage of a house as a defensive position would be lost. Yet in "back of the house" defense no attempt is made to actually prevent entrance into the house. They are destroyed once they enter the house. I am sure this is a CM simplification but the simplification seems to be producing an effective "gamey" tactic. Any comments?

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 11-17-99).]

[Fionn]

Well, the way I see it a lot of time it would make sense to set up in some rooms and mow the enemy down as they enter you know?

As for the best way to defeat the "back of the house" defence. Answer, recon OR come at him from a different angle. The back of the house is NOT the back of the house if you come at him from the side.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Los]

Like any other problem you must isolate the house from it's supporting fires, and as Fionn says, come from differnt angles. Fire at him from one side and assault form another. Particular in house to house fighting you should orgnize your forces so you have a support element which provides overwatching and suppresive fires, a security element that isolates the area and protects you from counterattack and then an actual assault element which goes in to finish the job.

Contrary to what one may thing, the assault element should be the smallest force possible to get the job done.

Los

[Ken Talley]

Let me rephrase my ""back of the house" defense in real life"" point. Is it SOP to allow entrance of an attacking enemy into the building before defending it? Or is it SOP to defend a building by preventing entrance into the building?

And I agree, the best way to neutralize "back of the house" defense is to attack from two opposite sides. Although that only works when you have them surrounded.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 11-17-99).]

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 11-17-99).]

[Fionn]

Well I've heard of numerous cases of this actually being done in combat.

One of the analyses of the umm Chechnyan fighters during the last civil war they had there commented on how they defended the village from the outskirts instead of letting the russians in and ambushing at close range.

The same applies to house fighting. ONCE an enemy unit is spotted you are half-way to killing it. The longer it remains unspotted the better and an "inside house" ambush works very well for this purpose.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Los]

"Let me rephrase my ""back of the house" defense in real life"" point. Is it SOP to allow entrance of an attacking enemy into the building before defending it? Or is it SOP to defend a building by preventing entrance into the building?"

Actually if you are dealing wit an attacker that can project overwhelming firepower upon you then the back of the house defense seems like an urban version of the "reverse slope" defense.

Not that I would necessarily recommend it.

BTW was that unit hiding in the house in an objective location? If not and if he's not shooting at you, why not just bypass him? Make him come after you?

Los

[Ken Talley]

LOS, I appreciate your comments and agree with them on how to take a house. And both your comment and Fionn's are appropriate when the enemy has overwhelming firepower on the edge of a town. Although I am not necessarily talking about defense on the edge of a town. I am considering SOP for defending a building tactically worth defending. Not necessarily defense of a building in which the enemy can focus overwhelming firepower. To me, the major advantage of a building is similiar to a castle-freedom of movement w/o observation w/i the building, lines of fire over open space surrounding the building, cover, and the delay of an attacker in entering a building exposed to fire from supporting defensive units in other locations. If you allow entry into the building by an attacker before defending, you give up all those advantages. And the odds even up quite a bit once an attacker is w/i a building. To me, currently w/i CM the best defense of a building is the "back of the building defense" and it feels gamey rather than realistic because it does give up all those advantages and works. It seems that the defensive value or offensive value of units exchanging fire w/i a building may not be appropriate. If there is some strong reason for keeping an attacker out of a building then the defender may not use "back of the building" defense.

My particular sad story involved the"Last Defense" scenario. I was approaching the church on east side of the map on turn 7 or 8. I absolutely needed to have cover for troops and tanks prior to turn 10 by taking the church. I had managed to get two platoons into position with perhaps 4 casualties prior to the assualt. The other 2 tanks and smoke were suppressing/screening enemy MG/squads that could interdict my last rush into the church. However my opponent had two hidden squads in the back of the Church which were apparantly unaffected by the MG's and Stug and one non-assaulting platoon hitting the side and front of the Church. They just absolutely massacred my three almost full strength 10 man assualting sqauds and platoon leader squad upon entrance into the church. And my opponent did it right. I also did the same thing to him in the first game although not on this scale. I think it is a very good tactic but I am not sure how often you would see this in real life.

Ken

[Guest Charles]

This may or may not be an undesirable gameplay "feature." It might help to pretend that the platoon at "the back of the house" was firing through the windows of the building, using the wall and window-sill as protection from enemy fire. Since the unit entering the building has no such protection, they get massacred.

------------------

Not THE Charles from BTS

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... Ken, your American enemy let me peak at this turn as he was as concerned about it as you. I got to see it from the US perspective, and the guys inside the church didn't do the real damage, they just finished you off.

The reason your SS guys got their asses handed to them is that you attacked a position with nearly as many men as you were rushing with (from your own estimates), who were most likely not surpressed. Plus you did a frontal assault, from a single direction, over open ground. This puts in you a bad spot from the start.

Unfortunately for you were not able to surpress a couple of support units, including a [witheld for FoW reasons]. I saw that one unit plink 1/3 of your point squad, and basically screw up its momentum. Then it got into the house, alone, and faced the firepower of nearly three times its number, all with semi auto weapons at about 10m distance. Your HQ was sent into a tizzy from the fire coming out of the Church, but it didn't cause any casualties so far as I saw. Other units, not surpressed and external did that. Then your two following squads, which lagged too far behind IMHO, were faced with the same problem and wound up getting whacked the same way.

I'm not saying there isn't a potential problem with the back of the building defense, but in this case you were defeated before you got in. Once inside it was a forgone conclusion what would happen. 6-8 men rushing in against more than three times that number is suicide

Steve

[guachi]

I played Riesberg for the second time as the Americans today. First time against the AI. I tried to put some of the things mentioned in this thread into practice. They worked great. Final score - 88-12. I tried the same tactic I did the first time, swinging wide and attacking the town from both sides rather than frontally.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A few points when attacking a position. First try and identify and use a covered and concealed route as far to the target as possible. (Surprise!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luckily, Riesberg has a lot of trees so staying hidden isn't much of a problem. I think I did a good job of maneuvering my platoons down the flanks with minimal contact (wiht one exception).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second, try and isolate the target from the rest of the enemy's defensive line.

This can be done several ways, by laying smoke to block interdicting fire from other enemy positions, or by attack from a direction that keeps much of the enemy's defense from bringing fire on you, or by interdicting those key long range weapons with HMG fire or indirect fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The attack on the left needed the most support fire because of the 88 on the hill.

I managed to pick off two squads before I hit the main body of resistance. I put the 88 under enough supressive fire from MGs and mortars that on the turn it was destroyed it didn't get off any shots before my M4 destroyed it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Third, carefully position your support weapons to lay maximium fire on enemy

positions for the duration of "the assault crossing" if there is one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My M4s mowed down 10 buildings to get a good LOS the the rear areas and interdict reinforcements moving within the town to the outskirts from whence I was attacking. I kept the MGs with the tanks and they also helped supress enemy fire from within the town. For the close assaults, I made sure that whatever enemy I was assaulitng was coming under fire from at least three units. I also tried to keep units moving forward into better cover fire positions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's better to suppress everyone and kill no one than it is to kill a few guys but

have others free to fire on your units. Save the real carnage for close assault and short range fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were a few times where I had to wait a turn or two before I began my assault. I tried to divide my fire up as evenly as possible and keep the heads of as many enemies down as I could. The ones I couldn't bring adequte fire on, I tried to move my units out of the way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your indirect fire is a precious resource. There is damn little to go around so use it gingerly. It should be used not when you see this or that target but when it supports whatever you are trying to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasted my 105mm artillery by firing it too early. When I realized I was firing too early I should have called off the mission and plotted another one. I think the M4s were useful, though, in providing direct support with their 75mm guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't go killing stuff just because you can see it. manuever around threats (i.e. like AT gun killzones) so that you can bring your combat power to bear where it is needed the most. (With ammo left)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mangaged to move one platoon around suspected German positions on the right. The second one got caught, however. An 88 was positioned in the woods behind the pond. It caused 15 casualties before I had my platoon charge the gun. Thankfully, there were no support units around. My bazooka ended up destroying the 88 (Whoo hoo!) and I mowed down the escaping crew. But I would have rather avoided the gun altogether and attacked it later. Luckily, this platoon hadn't fired a shot yet so it still had all its ammo left.

Thanks Los and Fionn for the tips. The attack was more aggressive and better coordinated than the first time. I took only 55 casualties and lost one mortar and no tanks. And no squad took more than 50% casualties. Winning 88-12 was my best performance yet with either scenario by one point. When I played Riesberg the first time as the Americans as a PBEM game I won 73-27.

Jason

[C Colapietro]

As far as the 'Back of the house' thing goes, I rarely assualt a building that I don't know for a fact is empty without first spraying it with some MG fire, and HE shells if I have armor available (using area fire). This goes for any position that potentially has concealed units. 'Recon by Fire' can be very effective and can cause hidden units to reveal. I don't know how well this will work in CM for units in the back of a building - BTS: are they in complete cover at this point, or will MG fire & HE fire still get to them through the building?

Same for mortars and artillery - if a position seems like somewhere you would definately have your units set up if you were the opponent, there's a good chance that it is occupied.

[Ken Talley]

Hi Steve,

It is good to hear you guys are looking at the issue.

The FOW lifts a bit. That is definitely the last time I try the rapid massed assualt on the right. I could talk further about the tactics I used in that scenario but it is too painful. < >

Ken

[Fionn]

Don't worry Ken, we've all got horror stories.

For SOME reason US bazookas are wreaking havoc on my tanks in Last Defence.

Rick Brown from here killed both StuGs with a zook team (I managed to get him in the end though hehe ) and now in a new PBEM game Scott Clark has just killed a Tiger and a StuG by turn 2 with a zook ambush. Of course, unfortunately for him he's just lost ALL his zook teams and is about to get payback (Hiya Scott hehehe )

AArs of both of these are being done.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>too painful<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pain is losing 2 stugs and a tiger 9 seconds in turn 10 of LD playing against BDW. My stug was pointed directly at the enterance point of the hellcats. Perfectly aiming at where the Hellcat should appear 90 deg from the side. The cats appear and had time to rotate before my sleepy tank commander would fire. Well at least he'll go to an American prison camp.

During my orders phase for turn 10, I didn't see the cats in order to target them but I guess BDW did see the catz in order to give them orders to target my stugs.

Only fair I guess as my move was pretty gamey

[Ben Galanti]

I agree that having units up there and waiting is kinda gamey, on the other hand, I still think the German player should be able to target (or at least see) the reinforcements the turn they come on the map (assuming, of course, that they're in LOS)