Power user strategies

[Cavguy]

Hi all!

As pointed out here previously, 3-16 CAV is using Tacops in the Armor School for tactics instruction. Now I am fairly decent at playing the game but we have a "tournament" between the students in the advanced course coming up and I wanted some strategies that would put me over the top. Figure I will be working with US Company Teams and Armor/Cav Battalions. Any techniques out there to give me an edge (i.e. battle positions, TRP use, hide positions, infantry employment, etc?)

Thanks,

Niel

cavalrylt@yahoo.com

[SeaRich]

I'm just a Canadian sort of guy so I really like to use the TUA Eryx ATGM in all of my strategic engagements. I like to place dug-in ATGMs in entrenchments in shallow roughs overlooking roadways or ravines. This way, the TUA or the Eryx (The US calls it something different, I guess) to eliminate the forward recon units of the enemy. Eliminating these enemy recons saves my own troops and armor from being blasted out of the ground by those big bad OPFOR FA units that are soon to follow. Yay! Canada!

Richard

[This message has been edited by SeaRich (edited 11-21-2000).]

[minmax]

Shoot and Scoot! is the name of the game. If listening and reading the advice from the more advanced players. SOP of shooting then popping smoke and backing 200 meters. This will allow for numerous ambushes. Also I like to reduce the engagement ranges to up the possibility of a first shot kill. For instance using Javelin and Dragons this makes them more effective.

Well that is my two cents!

Good luck in your Tournament.

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

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[Trooper]

I've been told I follow the philosophies of Clauswitz. It seems to work for me. I will keep my forces together, leaving only observation units running around the place (But a large number of them. If there's any secret to winning a game, it's finding out what the enemy is up to and keeping them under observation and also artillery fire).

I will engage only when I have superior numbers or have no choice in the matter. In TacOps terms, I find that even popping smoke and retreating doesn't do me much good if the smoke doesn't defeat thermals. On defense, choose defensive positions that cannot be covered by enemy overwatching forces. This rules out the front edge of treelines! Means that you can engage and eliminate enemy recon forces for little or no loss. Behind hills, tree groupings and whatever works well. If on the attack you have to go somewhere where you cannot overwatch, everyone goes over the top at the same time. That way you can direct overwhelming fire immediately.

I'm not mad.. I won the TacOps list tournament like this.

NTM

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[Guest MajorH]

Don't use direct fire when indirect fire can do the job.

When defending it is often very important to positively control the fire of your units by limiting the ranges at which they will automatically engage and thus controlling the timing of their first fire. When I am defending, I ususally set the engagement range of all of my forward units to zero so that they will not fire until I get a chance to see what is going on during an orders phase. Once the enemy has reached a point of max advantage to me, I then 'turn on' these units and whack him with as strong an intial volley as possible.

Limiting engagement range is particularly important when you want to get the most out of the first volley from an ambush position into a fire sack. Read paragraph '8.2 Controlling Unit Direct Fire' in the User Guide very carefully. Pay special attention to the instructions there on how to set a 'high priority' engagement range limitation.

In that paragraph you will find (for example) that a priority targeting order (unit, type, or DF TRP) can be a limit as well as a priority. A low priority targeting order is only a priority, it does not forbid a unit from firing at a different target if the priority can not be fulfilled. If a low priority targeting order is given and it cannot be fulfilled exactly, then the unit will continue searching for other targets and it is allowed to select an alternate target - one outside the priority settings. A high priority targeting order creates a hard limit - it forbids a unit from firing at a different target if the priority can not be fulfilled. If a high priority targeting order is given and it cannot be fulfilled exactly, then the unit will usually stop searching for targets and will usually not fire on anything. To give a low priority targeting order, you simply click on the appropriate target priority button. To give a high priority order, you must hold down the [Windows] Control key or [Macitntosh] Option key while clicking on the appropriate button.

Don't be greedy in ambushes against a superior enemy. Take what you can from the first volley and fall back to a new hidden postion. Do this by using the unit SOP to cause the unit to move backward as soon as it fires. Place the unit so that this initial backward movement will almost instantly move it out of the line of sight of the enemy.

Time your direct fire ambushes so that they coincide with (or follow) the arrival of arty salvos in the fire sack. Arty usually distracts and suppresses even when it does not kill. Enemy vehicles will often be significantly less accurate and slower to return fire if they have been under accurate arty in the last minute or two.

In human vs human games, lay smoke and arty prep fires in odd places distant from where you are actually fighting. The solitaire computer opponent ignores things like this but the sudden appearance of smoke and prep fires in unexpected places often shakes up human players.

If you are doing a withdrawl or delaying action, use 'stay behind' units. Leave infantry squads behind in hidden positions with good lines of sight into large areas. Set their engagment ranges to zero so that they will not reveal their positions by firing. Use them to track and mantain contact with the advancing enemy formations and as spotters for calling accurate arty fire into the enemy's rear. If you can afford it, leave some ATGM teams behind to snipe at the enemy arty units, HQ, and SAM units that often trail behind the first echelon. Human players in CPXs often fail to protect these units with accompanying combat units and often run them right down the most convenient road.

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

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[Guest MajorH]

I probably don't need to mention this to a student at The Armor Center but ...

Always have a reserve. No matter how small it is, always have a reserve. If you commit your reserve then immediately start looking for something that you can use to create a new reserve.

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

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[minmax]

Major H,

Did you help write the FM for LAI and the Scout Platoons? When I served with 1st LAI as a scout we began work on the FM but I was moved to a different job before our work was done. Just curious as to your input on these subjects. Did you attend the Amphib War College at Quantico? Again, just curious about your Marine Corps background. I think you and I may have been in some of the same classes.

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

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[Guest MajorH]

I didn't work on any FMs. I did not attend the Amphib War College at Quantico. I did complete The full AWS Amphibious Warfare Course and also the full Command And Staff Course but I did them both by correspondence while in exile at MCLB Barstow, CA.

> curious about your Marine Corps background.

From 1970 to 1973 I was an enlisted Marine. After reaching sergeant I was commissioned as a 2d Lt via OCS in late 1973. From 1974 through 1979 I was an infantry officer in the 3rd Marines and in the 9th Marines - I commanded rifle, weapons, and recoilless rifle platoons, was an H&S Co XO, was a Bn Adjutant twice, was a Bn S-4, was a Regt S-3A, and was a Regt S-2. I became an intelligence officer in 1979. From 1979 until 1983 I served in the G2 section of Headquarters Fleet Marine Force Atlantic, Norfolk, Va. While there I did considerable R&D work with an experimental computer system for Intelligence analysis called the MAGIS IAC EDM. For nine months of 1983/1984 I attended and graduated from the Defense Intelligence College in Washington, DC. From 1984 through 86 I worked at Naval Intelligence Command, Washington, DC on various USMC, Navy, DIA, and national Intelligence programs - in particular the Fleet Imagery Support Terminal. From 1986 through 1990 I worked on various classified projects as the Officer In Charge of the Marine Corps Tactical Information Systems Integration Facility, MCLB Barstow, CA. I retired from the Marine Corps in 1990 and moved to San Antonio, Texas.

Not very exciting stuff .

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

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[Cavguy]

Thanks for all of your help. I applied some of the techniques in the TF Moody scenario and got much better results. Some questions -

1) Battle Positions - Better in trees, rough, reverse slope, front slope? The problem I had with fire and withdraw was that a withdrawal through trees was way to slow and resulted in T-80's kicking my butt.

2) Use of scout helos. Prefered alt/distance?

3) Supression of Air Defense. Even wit arty hammering the SAM squads my planes aborted half the time.

4) Engagement ranges. The close ranges provided more hits but also allowed OPFOR to kill the M1's better than max range engagements.

5) Unit size - combine from indiv vehicles into platoons, squads, or sections? More micromanagement at the smaller level - is there an advantage to the dispersion it offers?

Thanks,

Cavguy

[This message has been edited by Cavguy (edited 11-22-2000).]

[minmax]

Thanks Major H,

Well sounds like you were busy. I was a grunt and then a GCI controller. Except for getting shot at in Central America and the Phillipines my shorter career was less than front page news. I do however, think that while some clowns are out making speeches and appearences the real Marines are doing their jobs. Semper Fi! and Happy Thanksgiving.

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

M. L. Johnson

TAOC DAWG

[Trooper]

I still go for close range. Opfor quantity has a quality all of its own. so what if you hit him at a 20% chance at 3200m and he hits you at 5% when he's got four tanks and three ATGMs for each of yours?

I find the 'reverse after firing' option is most effective when you are only a pixel away from an elevation change. Reverse one pixel, and you drop down to E0 behind the hill. No chance for the enemy to hit you. Any attempts to reverse out of sight into trees, unless I take ludicrous pains with the LOS tool to position them in the first place usually meets with disaster.

Scout helos... Depends on terrain, I guess.. But don't get any closer than 1500m! It will be close enough to spot units moving in rough, but keeps you out of small-arms range. The downside is that probably more anti-air assets will be brought to bear.

As regards airstrikes.. tough! WarPac forces always did put a heavy emphasis on above-battlefield air denial, and there are a serious amount of anti-air assets available in an MRD. In a WWIII scenario, it occurs to me that WarPac aircraft would have a very tough time getting to the front lines (Courtersy of Air Superiority fighters), but if they got there, there's only the occasional Stinger and Vulcan to stop them. NATO fighters wouldn't have much hassle getting to the front line, but would have to run the gauntlet of all sorts of mobile SAM and gun systems.I think the Russians (sensibly) decided that the Air Superiority battle could not be won, and put their assets into denial equipment that cannot be shot down!

NTM

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[Guest MajorH]

> The problem I had with fire and withdraw was that a

> withdrawal through trees was way to slow and resulted in

> T-80's kicking my butt.

You need to position the center point of your unit marker farther back in the terrain cell - conceptually a little bit deeper back from the apparent edge of the woods.

Terrain cells in TacOps are 10 pixel by 10 pixel (100 meter x 100 meter) squares. You can usually intuit where the border of a woods cell is located by looking at the map art (at least with factory provided maps). The edge of the woods as shown in the art is usually within a pixel or two of the edge of the terrain cell. If the center point of your unit marker is 6 or 7 pixels back from the apparent edge of the woods then you don't have very far to move backwards before the line of sight will be cut.

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

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[Mike Robel]

Well, well, well. Tis a small world. I was teaching ROTC at Cal State San Bernardino from 87 - 90, so we were there at the same time.

With regards to tactics. You will find that what works in the real world, works in the game. What I find useful is to print out the map of the scenario, cover it with acetate, and then draw the avenues of approach and key terrain on them just as I would have in the field.

You should find that at the school, you will find people playng the game slightly differently than most people do on the forum. Hobby players tend to pay more attention to victory conditions, while former/current military players are perhaps less focused on the victory conditions and more concerned with (1) defeating the enemy and (2) preserving their force.

These game vs real life goals can lead to different styles of play.

Again, if use the tactics and techniques found in FM 71-1, FM 71-2, and FM 71-123, then you should have a high degree of success.

Mike Robel

LTC, AR USAR

[Trooper]

Can that not lead to losing sight of the woods for the trees?

If there are a set of victory conditions, they should be striven for, no? Consider it a kind of operational order from your commander. If he tells you "You must take and hold 'A'", surely he's not going to be too pleased if you said "Well, I could have done it, but I found this MRR over here I could wipe out instead for less loss"

In the meantime, an Opfor cavalry troop has just taken Objective A and the yacht hidden in the barn that the CO wanted in the first place!

I think that's something more that the scenario designer should look at, not the player.

NTM

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[Mike Robel]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of you defeat the enemy MRR, but you only have three vehicles left. Technically a win, but terrible for your troops and tis easy picking for the 2nd echelon.

Concur about scenario design.