Poll: Do you attmpt to attack/defend all Victory Flags?

[Lawyer]

When playing CM, particularly QB's, do you plan your initial attack or defense to cover all Victroy Flags, or do you intentionally abandon some from the start in order to concentrate your forces and enhance your ablility to win selected flags?

In a recent 30-turn QB on a medium map involving about 5 or 6 flags, my opponent and I disagreed on this issue. As the attacker, he focused on winning the central majority of flags, which he accomplished by turn 20 or so. Despite my goading, he refused to attack my last flag, which was defended pretty well. Realizing finally that he wasn't bluffing as the game hit turn 28, I made a few hasty and unsuccessful counter-attacks to gain back a flag and kill some more units to improve my score. The game ended as a draw.

My opponent defended his approach to playing CM as a matter of smart tactics, where choosing selected flags and focusing all units on them enhanced his winning opportunities and score overall, even though he gave up the chance of total victory from the start.

My response was that CM is a tactical game simulating a company commander being ordered to take or defend all victory flag objectives during a 30-minute battle. The company commander is not allowed to choose which part of his orders he should follow. Even if he fails to accomplish all flag objectives, at least he has tried to do so. Consequently, my defensive forces were spread to cover all flags.

What practice do you follow? My experience is limited to medium maps and 1500 point games, so maybe map size dictates that all flags cannot be covered by a sensible battle plan on large maps. But medium maps?

My former opponent challenged me to poll the forum on this issue. He says a majority of players, particularly experienced players, follow his approach to CM and other wargames.

This issue is fundamental to a satisfying game experience because both players need to share the same approach. Otherwise, force selections, unit deployment, and in-game tactical decisions will be based on incompatible overall goals.

What is your opinion?

Thanks for any input.

[Cueball]

"He who defends everything defends nothing"

I'm pretty sure that's Sun Tzu, but I may be mistaken

Words I live by though.

[mensch]

well seeing how my streek is I rush the flags get all my guys killed, my tanks are burning hulks in memorial to some long forgotten War god and then I have nothing to take anything resembling a flag.

or two I hammer them with arty to no end hoping that anything in the area gets some.. but seeing how my streek is going my arty falls on my troops slaughtering every one of them and whats left over get peppered by the laughing opposing force.

or three I take a flag with a bloody nose and sit on it and wait for the game to be over.. but knoing my streek at the momment the enemy comes in and slaughters everyone and I end up watching "ALF" re-runs on T.V.

mensch

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

Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

New Updates come check us out

[Peterk]

It comes down to a decision of maintaining a reserve and ignoring some flags or giving up the reserve and attacking everything. I alternate between the two tactics, so as to not be so predictable an opponent actually.

I think my goal would be to control enough to guarantee myself at least a draw and then once that is accomplished, decide whether I can expand the lead by attacking the other objectives. It's tough when you only have 3 platoons, 2 of which at least should get pretty beaten up in the initial attacks.

p.

[Jadayne]

um, mensch, could you then send me my turn before this streak ends?

I always play to take at least the main flag any closeby ones. If I have the resources left over, I go for other flags. I always play that the main flags are primary objectives and the smaller flags are secondary.

similarly, as cueball poetically points out, if you chose to defend only the main victory location and left one flag unguarded, would that also constitute unrealistic play? I don't think so. but that is, of course, just my opinion.

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[Guest Germanboy]

Works both ways, doesn't it? His job is to take all the flags, your job is to hold all the flags. He did not do his job, you did not do yours.

I am sensing a 'gamey or not' question here, and I would answer it that you have both been gamey if you insist on labeling it such. You will have to answer to your CO about losing the objectives you lost, ans why you did not counter-attack, he will have to answer why he did not make a more determined effort to take them.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Juardis]

I play to win and end up losing. I don't beleive Sun-Tzu said that

Seriously, I let the terrain dictate where I attack/defend and in anticipation of where the enemy will come from or defend at. Concentrate on killing the enemy one squad at a time and the flags will follow.

As has already been said. He who defends everything defends nothing.

But what do I know, I'm 0-3 in ladder play

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

Jeff Abbott

[John Hough]

I defend the terrain, and attack the enemy army. I don't even think about the flags until the endgame, except in how they affect what my opponent is likely to do.

Whether I concentrate my forces or attack on a broad front, how large a reserve I have, the breadth of the front I defend, these are all determined by the terrain and the whim of the moment.

-John

[aka_tom_w]

I don't think you need all the Flags to win.

I look for the Big 300 point flags and make them a priority.

AND As Maximus says, kill ALL the opposing units and the flags are all yours anyway.

Focusing just on the flags can get your guys killed too quick.

Try also finding out where your enemy is weak and attack his units there. Then Exploit that weakness and continue the attack, if you are doing well killing the other guys units the flags when eventually fall to your control.

Anybody who plays a scenario in CM with the intention of starting out to take all the flags will likely end up getting their advancing forces all killed off far too quickly for my liking.

-tom w

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lawyer wrote:

When playing CM, particularly QB's, do you plan your initial attack or defense to cover all Victroy Flags, or do you intentionally abandon some from the start in order to concentrate your forces and enhance your ablility to win selected flags?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I play with the overall goal of a Total victory, all the flags, however initially when attacking I will concentrate in a certain area only, to dominate there first then proceed to the secondary objectives. I think that's a necessity for a successful attack. If I feel my force is not strong enough to continue on taking the secondary objectives, then I would feel my opponent had played a good game and I will offer a ceasefire. On the defense the same judgement applies I think, if a flag is indefensible, IMO, then I won't waste resources to 'hold' it.

Ron

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cueball:

"He who defends everything defends nothing"

I'm pretty sure that's Sun Tzu, but I may be mistaken

Words I live by though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I believe Clauswitz.

I usually defend all the flags that I believe I can. However, if by defending another flag, my army's strength is weakened by more than 100 or 300 points, then forget it.

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

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Works both ways, doesn't it? His job is to take all the flags, your job is to hold all the flags. He did not do his job, you did not do yours.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey lawyer, u should sponsor germanboy for application to yr alma mater...he'd make a good legal hair-splitter.

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz:

hey lawyer, u should sponsor germanboy for application to yr alma mater...he'd make a good legal hair-splitter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take that as an insult. Calls me material for a lawyer. Kartoffelgranatwerfer @ 300m in the dawn.

[lassner.1]

ON THE LADDER: Though my priorities are always initially dependent on terrain and the disposition of the victory flags, I rarely make it an initial priority to take/hold all flargs. I usually design my attack/defense to take/hold the high point flags first and foremost while simultaneously figuring out *what* I am up against and *where* I am up against it. It is always my intention to inflict the most casualties that I can given developments. If I do well enough that a draw seems likely (i.e., if i don't screw up, if my opponent seems vulnerable, and if I still have sufficent forces) I will extend flag/elimination objectives. I venture to suggest that this is how most competent players proceed.

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

"Gewaltige Naturen mit starker Eigenpersönlichkeit darf man nicht aus der Umgebung reissen, die ihren Rythmus angenommen hat. . . .In diesem Falle besteht die Gefahr, que du sublime au ridicule il n’y a qu’un pas."

[Jarmo]

When I defend, I pick a few flags to defend seriously, but still

leave a skeleton force guarding the other ones. No point in

losing a flag the enemy doesn't even attempt to take.

When attacking, I choose my primary objective and take it. If I still

have the strength afterwards, I'll try to also take the rest.

[coralsaw]

During my setup turn, I check if all flags are defensible positions, considering my intel and my force.

I do not defend hopeless flags, since I have better use of my troops. It's good though to set up at least an Observation Post to delay the attacker and provide recon. I deal with these flags at the end, by counterattacking (if possible).

If my forces are thin, I do not abandon any defensible flag. I arrange for a minimal defense of each one, keeping a beefy mobile defence that can be deployed as needed.

Remember, a good opponent will not attack across the board, but will choose his avenues. A bad opponent will get his butt kicked if he spreads thin anyway.

As an attacker, I try to control all flags, as per given orders, but if I can't, due to time or resources, I won't.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[jshandorf]

Here is what i do. I defend every flag, if I can. If I can't do that then I try and defend good avenues of approach. If I can't do that then I defend in such a way that I can displace my troops and move them to meet an attack.

When I attack I play to win. Period. Only if I am forced into a draw or lose do I take it otherwise I will try until I cannot anymore.

Jeff

Jeff

[Mannheim Tanker]

Haven't been around here lately...

Since I'm playing Lawyer right now (I'm defending), and this situation applies to our PBEM, I'm answering at risk of throwing the game to him. Fortunately, I'm confident enough that he'll still bumble it and give me the game

I tend to defend those flags that I reasonable can, but I always maintain (and update if need be) a plan to attack a retake "undefended" flags that may fall. You are rarely in a position that your main defense is so far from the "undefended" flag that you can't counterattack it. For this reason, I'd argue that you still ARE defending the flag, even if you don't have forces right on it.

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

"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have." - Jack Handey

[Croda]

I have been burned too many times trying to defend all flags. It spreads you too thin while the attacker can mass his strength against you. This takes the normal 2:1 force advantage he may have in a normal attack, and increases it to 5:1 or so. That's no way to defend. Numbers will win. If you want to defend and HOLD, you need to have the manpower and firepower to do so.

Likewise when attacking, attack en masse. The longtime strategy of 'divide and conquer' is appropriate here. If the defender splits his defense to defend multiple positions, then he has already done the dividing part for you. All that is left is to conquer.

Always use more of your guys against less of his. That is the best formula for success. That is the greatest lesson I've learned in this game.

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

"Nuts!"

[MadDog0606]

It depends on the terrain and how spread out the Victory Flags are. And I usually don't have enough men and equipment to attack or defend all the flags at the beginning.

I'll talk about defense first. If defending a village or rural area I'll cover the flags that I feel are important and that have good fields of fire with enough men and machines to ensure I can put a hurting on anybody trying to take them. If there is a flag (or two) way out in left and/or right field I'll maybe cover the approaches to them with a heavy machine gun or an AFV but I wont stick men or equipment out there to flap in the breeze. The covering machine gun (or AFV) will be nowhere near that flag. If I can weaken the enemy enough and I have enough time I will send a platoon or two to take the flags back.

When I attack I never go up the middle (unless it has the best cover and even then I wont send everything up the middle) and that is usually where the flags are. I pick a flank and put the majority of my troops there (and not bunched up either, I learned that lesson the hard way). If people think flank attacks are gamey, that's fine. I think sending the majority of your troops up the middle is crazy if the flanks offer better cover. Even the AI isn't that stupid. If I can, I will usually put some troops (a platoon or two) up the middle or on the opposite flank to keep the other side guessing about the sound contacts. I will then try to get as many flags and inflict as much casualties as I can on the defender.

Darn spell checker doesn't work. It should have figured I wanted "fire" instead of "fore".

[This message has been edited by MadDog0606 (edited 11-10-2000).]

[jackhammer]

"He who defends everything defends nothing" This famous quote was uttered by Frederick the Great. My favorite tactic is to start on one flank and roll up the flags one by one.

[PzKpfw 1]

Well as the attacker I have the iniative, its up to the defender to figure out where my main push will be & where. IMHO flags are just markers to the general area I need to go, not anything that forces me to have to go to each flag.

I generally centralize my push to an specific objective, after locating the MLR I try to asses then push. If I'm successful, I then decide by losses to move on to the other areas or not.

As defender I try to form an MLR that can cover most of the areas but that's dependant on force size, if I don't have enough assets I tend to defend only the areas I can cover w/o weakening the whole frontage while leaning towards a heavier flanks defense in case my opponent tries to roll up my flanks from the areas I chose to leave undefended.

Basically IMHO its up to each player on what he wants to attack or defend.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Mark IV]

I think the "defend everything, defend nothing" quote is Frederick the Great?

Anyway, I sort of agree with John's last. My goal is always the destruction of the enemy forces. If I'm defending, I know he's coming for the flags, or my forces, which are generally gonna be around the flags.

As for defending all the flags: my approach is very terrain- and scenario-dependent. In the case of the PBEM we currently have underway, the flags generally follow a ridge (thank you, QB gods), so I am basically defending the ridge and my flanks, rather than the flags themselves. I think that map was very kind to the defense, btw.

Sometimes the flags are widely dispersed, or there is a concentration of some of them with an outlier or two. I usually ignore those outliers, if they're outside the presumed axis of enemy advance. I assume that the "big" flags are the main objective and concentrate on attritting the enemy while defending the main points. If all goes well, I'll worry about the others later, when the enemy is too weak to stop me. If the feces hit the fan, at least I'm left battling over big points instead of little ones.

The flags only represent geographical objectives which are valued by both sides for some reason which doesn't really concern me. I try to connect the dots of defensible terrain between the bulk of the flags to look for patterns. I also look at the possible approaches the bad guys will have to take to get to the flags, to see if I might ambush/counterattack on the way, or if there is a more defensible area between his presumed jump-off point and the VLs.

Defending medium to large scenarios, I would say that more often than not, I start out with some flags unoccupied and showing neutral. This preserves my flexibility to deal with enemy forces.

Attacking I concentrate. There again the terrain dictates the approach, in part. I would never go after all the flags at once just because they are flags. If they are dispersed in a lateral line, I would look for a way to hit one end of the line and roll the guy up from the flank, so that I am never facing all his guns at once. If the flags are all over the place, I would pick an area where the terrain appears to give me an advantage.

Not to open any sore subjects, but I sure do want to know where the bulk of the enemy force was before committing the main force... if my hypothesis about the enemy's use of the terrain proves incorrect, I will try not to march into the hornet's nest just because it was the original plan. So I probe ahead a little to watch for ambushes and try to scope the open expanses before dashing into them.

[Splinty]

Attacking or defending I always let the terrain dictate what my plans are,once I have some clue as to what my opponent is doing,then I decide what flag to go for or hold as the case may be.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Ted]

I have two schools of thought on that.

If you take the large flag you probably have the edge in points and can quickly set up a defense for the other guy to crash against. Once his troops have thinned, if possible, counterattack against one or more of the smaller flags increasing your victory ratio.

Another way is to let the other side take the large flag and try an enveloping maneuver taking the smaller flags while setting up an assault on the large flag from two directions such as the front and side. This has an advantage over capturing the large flag in that if you have artillery, especially large caliber, you can pound the centralized location while moving around outside the blast zone.

The terrain dictates which method I would choose.

I don’t like to thin out my troops and try for all the VL’s at the same time when you can maximize your fire power and roll up the enemy in detail. Almost all scenarios give you enough time to do just that.