Defending under the opening salvo

[Jiggathebauce]

So I'm doing the small Scenario in defense with the starships, but it's a problem I'm having in general with these scenarios: I need to defend ground that is already TRP'd and the enemy is definitely calling in FFE in the first minute. I always find myself in reptile brain when this happens.

 

Am I supposed to sit there and take it in these positions that will be useful after the barrage, if any of my forces are left?

 

Should I anticipate this by staging my forces away and then moving them into place after the barrage is done, risking being out of position for the killshots?

 

Perhaps these questions should be obvious, but hearing from the armchair generals would alleviate my panic haha

Edited May 5, 2021 by Jiggathebauce
Typo

[domfluff]

If exposed infantry come under indirect fire, doctrine is to get the hell away from there as fast as possible.

Infantry in prepared positions (foxholes, trenches), can stay in place. The Hide command will get them to keep their heads down and increase survivability. They will still take some losses, but you'll have dug in for a reason, and you'll want to stay there.

Soviet HE in particular is not good at taking out vehicles (nor is it designed to). That means that you can mostly button up and ride out the attack. Open topped vehicles should relocate, as above. You might still suffer subsystem damage or immobilisations, but again, you're presumably sitting there for a reason (or else you'd leave).

 

It's worth considering what the purpose of the bombardment is. Any kills an artillery attack gets are secondary to the main point, which is suppression of your AT assets. That allows the Soviet armour to move into position to start puttig down effective fire. 

 

If it's possible to hold a secondary position that would still control this ground, then sure, but the chances are that this wont be possible, or else the attack would be on a broader front.

That means that withdrawing from your defensive position is exactly what they want you to do.

 

This is where the principle of Active Defence really came from. This is the doctrine that the pre-1982 kit was designed for, and it's something of a reality with how disadvantaged the US are in 1979.

Similar to how you'd play the Syrians in CMSF, the basic plan would be a defence in depth - multiple pockets of resistance, which can support each other, and slowly bleed the attacker, inch by inch.

Active Defence was an attempt to take that concept, but apply it to a mechanised battlefield - rather than having fixed defences, instead having fluid positions that you fight and withdraw from, under cover from supporting positions. Fight, withdraw, fight. Part of the point of this was that it avoids the set-piece Soviet attack, since large set pieces are inherently inflexible.

This doctrine is also necessarily defensive in tone. When the US closed the technological gap and started to surpass the Soviets, the doctrine was able to change, and there was increased focus on proactive counterattack and disruption.

This is basically the narrative arc of CM:CW, and it really informs what you're doing throughout.

 

[MikeyD]

Maverick Pentagon planners at the time snidely dubbed the US doctrine in West Germany as 'Don't lose'. They were advocating for a far more aggressive counter-punching strategy but its doubtful that US warfighting material (pre-Abrams) was sufficiently superior to pull off that feat.

The objective of the B2F scenario is to have you feel what a Soviet assault on your defensive line would be like. If you aren't pooping your pants in fear at the initial artillery prep then it didn't do its job. Everything in the scenario's meant to heighten your anxiety, from the bad weather to the approaching enemy randomly area-firing into your position, to the spotty LOF, to the sounds of overhead planes circling.

Edited May 5, 2021 by MikeyD

[Jiggathebauce]

The respect I have for this game and the folks who put it together is immense, that scenario does exactly what was intended! 

Can I also just mention how awesome it is that with a company this size and in this market, that the people who worked on it are accessible for conversation and advice to their customers and fellow enthusiast (especially when compared to big AAA corporate studios with layers of HR and PR people between us and the devs)

 

I'll get off my fanboy chair now