Guest Pillar Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 I'd like comments and critique from any players interested in tactical theory on something I recently thought up - a theory for successfull meeting engagements. Newer players should find the thread interesting, especially when (hopefully) it develops with more input. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000319.html Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 It's good but if the other guy plays the same kinda game, you're in for a long wait while you guess what the other guy is tryin to do and vice-versa I've seen this happen myself hehe PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 Certainly, but it sure renders the traditional "grab and hold" strategy obsolete, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 Well first, I think the Scottish militia should raise their kilts and flash their groins at the English Army. Then in reaction, the English Army looses arrows in an initial "artillery" barrage. The Scottish militia then raises their shields in defense. Several die when the arrows penetrate their arses. Then they rise. The English Army then sends in their Heavy Cavalry. The milita wait patently as the cav approaches, and then at the last moment, the militia's front line raises a wall of sharpened poles and impales a large amount of the cav. The remaining cav is then cut down by swords. With this humilation, the English send forward its infantry. In response, the milita starts a steady run at the English infantry. As the two close, they both set out on a fast charge. Two great armies clash and when it's all over, the militia has killed every single English soldier. Oh, whoops! You meant WWII CM Meeting Engagements! Oh well, that was a mighty fine Meeting Engagement if I do say so myself. ------------------ "Rule#3: You must be a member of my Meta Campaign to take part.(doh!)" - Rob/1 [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 10-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 Comments needed: Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations? DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACTOR Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 Get over to the chat and I will give you all the opinion that you need! He he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 Doug, Do you have anything of your own to suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 One thing I am concerned about is a way around the "long wait" that Peter described above. But we should all be talking about this in the thread itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 Pillar, The one thing you have to avoid (assuming that all maps will have their own unique characteristics), is sacrificing important firing angles by hanging back too long. I find that armor vs armor duels are lost simply by coming in second in spotting times. I dunno, it sounds like a good concept, and it definitely protects you from the 3 platoon bum rushes at close quarters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 I have tried this cautious approach in meeting engagements before and have always come up short. Meeting engagements seem to have pretty even odds, in quick battles anyway, and trying to attack a position with even odds is rough, especially if you are the Allied player against an Axis player with Panthers or Tigers. I still have to go with the "old haul tail and grab as much as you can" tactic. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 I think with Meeting Engagements, as with any other type of battle, there's no Sanctioned-by-God-on-high-never-fail strategy. IMO it's a bad idea to resolutely stick to one type of gameplan. So much depends on the type of map you're dealt, what your forces are, what your opponent's forces are, time, weather, number of turns, force quality, etc... In certain situations it is for sure a good idea to go hell for leather for the most defensible terrain on the map, and make the other guy try to beat you out of it. In other situations I think, as you suggest, it's a better idea to hang back and make the other guy commit his forces first. Hell, what kind of artillery support I have often determines what I do for the first ten turns. Cheers ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 Right on, Chupacabra. DeanCo-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 I just try to remember METT-T: Mission,Equipment,Terrain,Tactics,and Time. Which basically comes down to: recon the map thoughraly,find the high ground,the choke points,and the best cover and utilize them to my best advantage. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 28, 2000 Share Posted October 28, 2000 I think you guys are missing the whole idea of a meeting engagement. Basically what you are doing is fighting a deliberate attack/defense from scratch. Rather then having one opponent set up in a defensvie position prior to game start, you're just doing it all during the actual game. Meeting engagements are just that, meeting engagements. In your tactical "solution" the meeting engagement only takes place when your scouts or spotters come in contact with the enemy. After that everything is deliberate attack. Meeting engagement scenarios should be way too short for the kinda recon/maneuver you're trying to do. It should be short, fast and furious. Most meeting engagements on the scale of CM take place between light, fast recon units that are forward of the established MLR or advance guard element. Thats they're whole reason for being out there. Make a small contact with the enemy, develop the situation and report back. Anything bigger then a reinforced company in a meeting engagement could be characterized as a movement to contact, which is another form of attack. I know I'm getting finicky about terms but back my point, you're no longer fighting a meeting engagement when you use the tactics you laid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts