Trying to use real world tactics

[MikeyD]

I believe I heard long ago that one impediment to CM being sold as an basic military trainer was it doesn't give repeatable guaranteed results when the player follows doctrine. In other words the game isn't unrealistic enough. But lately militaries have started to come around to BFC's way of thinking, that BFC isn't a tool to reinforce rote drill but to workshop command decisions when facing tactical dilemmas. That's on a somewhat higher level than basic training of new recruits. One can only imagine what use the British Ministry of Defense is putting their version of CM to. 'Hey, let's test out our warfighting doctrine when facing an enemy with armed drones!'

[Sgt.Squarehead]

6 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

'Hey, let's test out our warfighting doctrine when facing an enemy with armed drones!'

I'd certainly hope they are doing just that and plenty more besides. 

[BornGinger]

17 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

I would also like to see the scenariodesigners getting somewhat more controll over the pre-battle intel...like being able to select certain units to be exluded from the pre-battle intel the enemy gets...

The way it works now, this can be done by having no intel given in the scenario but instead given in the briefing by simply telling where on the map certain enemy troops have been placed by you. If you as a scenario designer later on move those AI-troops to another position the player will maybe be a bit worried that they're nearby and slow down his advance a tad bit.

[Glubokii Boy]

2 hours ago, BornGinger said:

The way it works now, this can be done by having no intel given in the scenario but instead given in the briefing by simply telling where on the map certain enemy troops have been placed by you. 

This is true i guess...the designer might also use the markpoints to help specify various areas mentioned in the briefing.

[THH149]

On 12/7/2020 at 12:58 PM, Bil Hardenberger said:

Sounds like you are ready to rewrite Sun Tzu.

Yeah well, somtimes you just gotta punch a fella in the face to win the H2H scenario!

THH

[General Jack Ripper]

On 12/10/2020 at 8:08 PM, THH149 said:

Yeah well, sometimes you just gotta punch a fella in the face to win the H2H scenario!

THH

When you're playing H2H you must always remember, you're fighting the enemy player, not just his forces.
Break his morale, then you can break HIM!

[BornGinger]

9 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Break his morale, then you can break HIM!

You mean like in boxing? Tell the opponent that you thought he was better in playing this game or maybe that he's much too cautious in his movements just to make him do the wrong moves.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Or just wait for them to do something obvious & dumb, then brutally punish them for it.....So yeah, I suppose the boxing analogy works. 

[Combatintman]

4 hours ago, BornGinger said:

You mean like in boxing? Tell the opponent that you thought he was better in playing this game or maybe that he's much too cautious in his movements just to make him do the wrong moves.

No - it is an extension of the manoeuvrist approach - you shatter the enemy player's will by getting them into a situation where they think they cannot win and hit the surrender button.  This can be achieved in part by deception but it requires other mutually supporting activities.

[c3k]

Bil, as usual, makes a very good point.

Attacking where the enemy is weak is a key tactic. Given that most enemy positions appear strong, you can create a weakness by isolating that one spot upon which you wish to concentrate your overwhelming force.

In CM, this is done by suppression and smoke.

Once you break the integrated enemy position/setup, then exploitation is much easier. And, again referencing Bil, it forces the enemy to react. If he's reacting, you've won the OODA loop. The rest is up to your pixeltruppen. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by c3k
There's no "R" in "OODA"...that I know of. ;)

[Sgt.Squarehead]

This kind of feeds back to my point about duration, establishing the location of that weak-point and positioning troops for one's chosen assault can take time if one wants to do it without needlessly exposing them.....A lot of scenarios seem to assume the player will instantly understand the layout of the opposing force and react appropriately, first time.

[General Jack Ripper]

On 12/13/2020 at 5:40 AM, BornGinger said:

Tell the opponent that you thought he was better in playing this game or maybe that he's much too cautious in his movements just to make him do the wrong moves.

I use my match against BletchleyGeek as an example. I threw all my remaining forces at him in a very costly and ultimately fruitless counterattack, all with the intention of getting him to agree to a ceasefire under favorable terms for me. Result? Many casualties, but I squeaked by with a minor victory.

Now that probably wouldn't sit well to your average "fight to the last man/bullet!" player. But in this case it worked fine.

Sublime also did the same thing to me in our match. He convinced me I couldn't win by appearing to be strong everywhere, yet after I agreed to a ceasefire, it turned out he only had about half a platoon left, and I could have crushed him without too much trouble.

[Lethaface]

Some poker skills also come in handy. If a player, after a while, suddenly begins an 'information war' it is probably an indication that his forces are weakened or he is worried about something you might do for which he doesn't have an appropriate answer on the field. So he (or she) will try to achieve it using other means. 

Another thing which is imo, helpful, is to not focus too much on the objectives. Of course they decide the winner in the end, but if you focus on destroying the enemies force the objectives often come included.

Not attacking strength is also a good reminder; if something doesn't work, don't just throw more resources at the problem but check if you can apply those resources with more effect somewhere else (ideally on a flank, etc). That's a mistake I've made more than once in the past and I guess I have learned from it a bit.

At the same time strength is a relative thing.
I'm currently playing the huge 'No mercy in war' CMFB scenario (in heavy fog) against @BletchleyGeek. It's still ongoing but I can share some insights.

Having almost a full Combat Command under my command on such a big map, I decided on a enveloping approach with a breakthrough allowing me to approach an important town from several sides at the same time.

I massed a company+ of tanks with infantry support for the breakthrough. Recon showed I faced a number of Hetzers defending a railroad intersecting the map and offering a natural line of defense.  Thinking I had the numbers to defeat his Hetzers frontally, I tried dueling a bit. However the Hetzers showed to be quite able to bounce frontal shots fired from ~250m (even 76mm to my surprise). So the trading wasn't going in a way I thought favorable for my forces (I lost around 10 tanks (light/medium) for ~3 Hetzers, although other Hetzers were supposedly damaged from bouncing shots).

So, there I was faced with the decision how to continue the attack. The right flank of the Hetzer line is covered by at least one AT gun, probably more (the briefing says something about it too). The left flank is a large town. I'm already engaged there with mainly infantry and while progress is good, I guess I've yet to come into contact the main defenses.
Also, pushing so much tanks through a town is not necessarily a good idea in my book. Still, it is where my advance was meeting the least resistance.

Doubling down on the Hetzer line felt like 'attacking strength' or 'reinforcing failure', however what to do with my small Tank Battalion if not breaking through? 

The 'weak' point of the Hetzer is that it lacks a turret. So the idea formed to rush some light tanks across his Hetzer line, forcing them to turn their attention while pressing the attack along most of his Hetzer line, using the bulk of the tanks and supporting infantry (basically going from cautious stance to very aggressive).

And probably why I'm writing this ;-), it worked!   One light tank was lost racing across the line but another made it and forced the Hetzers to take evasive action upon which they were taken out. I lost a couple of more tanks due to the Hetzers and PanzerSchreck teams laying in ambush, but overall the trading was this time successful and breakthrough achieved. This allows me to roll up his Hetzer line (although that's sort of still ongoing).

All in all I thought it was a nice example of how 'strength' can be a relative thing and that there are more ways of attacking the weakness. Without the fog, the huge map and the vast amount of tanks under my command this would probably not have worked. 
However, using the mobility of Stuarts allows negating certain strengths / exploting the Hetzers weakness. Also I was thinking that the gun stabilizer on the Sherman might also give me the advantage in a mobile tank duel.

And, when does one get the chance to press the attack with what amounts to a small Tank Battalion . Great map and can sure recommend playing a huge battle in PBEM. While it does require quite the effort and time per turn, the payoff is certainly there. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Lethaface

[Erwin]

35 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Another thing which is imo, helpful, is to not focus too much on the objectives. Of course they decide the winner in the end, but if you focus on destroying the enemies force the objectives often come included.

Very true.  Actually, too many scenarios can end without most (or any) objectives being accomplished purely through destruction of enemy forces.  It's partly due to the "unstable" way VP's are calculated in CM2 (vs CM1).  In CM2 one can go from a loss to a win, even a Total Victory, simply cos one killed one extra enemy unit.

"No Mercy In War" sounds like a good scenario.  Is that only H2H or does it have AI?  (And where to d/l?)

[Lethaface]

17 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Very true.  Actually, too many scenarios can end without most (or any) objectives being accomplished purely through destruction of enemy forces.  It's partly due to the "unstable" way VP's are calculated in CM2 (vs CM1).  In CM2 one can go from a loss to a win, even a Total Victory, simply cos one killed one extra enemy unit.

"No Mercy In War" sounds like a good scenario.  Is that only H2H or does it have AI?  (And where to d/l?)

AFAIK it's a stock CMFB scenario, so it should already be residing on your hard drive. While I haven't played it against AI, it being a stock scenario I'd expect it to have AI plans for both sides.

It's indeed a good scenario imo!

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, Lethaface said:

AFAIK it's a stock CMFB scenario, so it should already be residing on your hard drive.

Am pretty sure I have the latest version, but do not see it.  Does it have a different name??

[mjkerner]

Do you mean "A War Without Mercy"? I think it's an original FB scenario. I have it in my scenarios and assume it has always been there.

[Erwin]

Well yes, I have "A War Without Mercy".  In posts above, it has been called "No Mercy In War" - hence my confusion.  (Names do matter.)

[mjkerner]

Was asking Lethaface.

[Freyberg]

One thing I've found is that on a CM scale, you'll be scouting and advancing from different directions, you'll meet resistance in one point, but not in another, so you'll be tempted to avoid the point of resistance and push forward where there is no resistance.

So one does this, and then you find where there is no resistance, you've actually walked into the toughest part of the enemy line, it's interconnected and to deal with it, you're going to have to take out the strongpoint you originally tried to avoid. You end up wasting time and walking into killing zones.

So when I meet enemy resistance, my response now is that 'this is something that needs to be dealt with, not avoided'. It doesn't mean throwing everything at the enemy where they are strongest, or attacking head-on - of course, you use stealth and finesse, you flank a point or attack it from defilade or whatever - but the idea of 'attacking the enemy where he is weak', at the CM scale, on the battlefield as a whole, doesn't really work. You will probably need to deal with enemy strongpoints as you discover them - there will be more of them and they will be interconnected; so while of course you continue your recon, you simultaneously begin planning how you are best going to attack the enemy you have encountered.

[Lethaface]

9 hours ago, mjkerner said:

Was asking Lethaface.

 

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

Well yes, I have "A War Without Mercy".  In posts above, it has been called "No Mercy In War" - hence my confusion.  (Names do matter.)

Yeah that's the one, I mixed up the name :-).

[slysniper]

23 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

 

Yeah that's the one, I mixed up the name :-).

What did you expect, he is Dutch, they say everything backwards.

Oh, wait a second, I am 1/2 Dutch. So maybe I do also.

[slysniper]

Well the size of the battle does have a great impact on what type of tactics might be used.

But it really comes down to the amount of troops in a given area as to how scouting and probes are to be used.

But no matter what, scouting is a art in every battle, For most CM battles, it might not be sneaking through enemy lines, but I have found a few where I have done just that.

 

For most, its more of being the lead point, finding out the hard way where the enemy is, being shot at and possible killed , to allow the main group to not be ambushed  and to learn safely where enemy forces are located.

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, slysniper said:

What did you expect, he is Dutch, they say everything backwards.

Ah, that's why I always have to explain stuff backwards to foreigners

[Erwin]

Good to know...