Gamey Tactics

[R-Man]

Having played the game nearly non-stop since June 19th, I have developed some tactics that work extremely well against the Tac AI. However, I would like some feedback as to what the Grognards and PBEM players think of these in terms of their being "gamey."

The first tactic is to use veteran bazooka teams as scouts, running and hiding from cover to cover. At a cost of only 15 points, these teams are expendable, and can uncover most of the enemy's tank, infantry and land mine positions. When advanced successfully, they are in a position to engage enemy armor at critical moments.

The second tactic is moving tanks in close formation. I mean really close formation; two or three tanks will hunt side-by-side, nearly touching, and engage armored targets almost simultaneously as soon as they are sited.

The third tactic is to area fire into spotted foxholes with my armor before any units are actually known to be occupying the foxholes. One tank area fires into the hole, while the others wait for the enemy to panic and reveal himself. It seldom fails, and coupled with the first two tactics, has devastating results.

Gamey? You tell me.

[sniperscope]

Hmmmm regarding the first tactic, if your intent is to draw out armor, then no. If your intent is to spot the enemy then yes. I can't see an AT team as recon.

As for the second one I am afraid to use that tactic for fear of getting my ass shot from under me. But I don't think it gamey.

Regarding the 3rd one I use area fire all the time, night, fog etc. etc. I don't think it's gamey. Just my 2 cents.

sniperscope

[This message has been edited by sniperscope (edited 07-10-2000).]

[RMC]

THe first tactic, using bazookas as scouts strikes me as gamey because a real commander would try to protect them to maximize their effectiveness. He certainly wouldn't be thinking "these only cost 15 points." But it does bring up a good point. What are the infantry recon units you can use? CC had 3-man scout teams. They didn't represent anything that was TO&E but they did fill the requirement. CM focuses on TO&E units so they probably won't ever add something like a scout team. The option to split a squad would appear to be inadequate because of the negative morale effects. Odd quirk that a two-man bazooka team would have better morale than a 6-man half-squad.

Putting three tanks in a line or wedge very close together is not gamey. It is pretty close to Soviet doctrine. The downside would be losing all three tanks in quick succession to a skilled ambush.

Recon by fire is a tried and true tactic. Most soldiers never saw who they were shooting at. Area fire was more the norm than the exception.

[R-Man]

I have to agree that the bazooka/recon tactic is gamey. But, RMC brings up good points regarding the lack of recon teams (as in CC3), and the poor moral of squads separated from HQ units. I would really like to see inexpensive (-50 point) recon teams that can act independently introduced into the game to replace the gamey use of AT teams and snipers in that role. Although, we would still have the unrealistic global spotting.

As for bunching tanks together, the only big downfall that I have witnessed is the hidden AT gun ambush. Enemy armor is much easier to deal with than that pesky, invisible 75 mm Pak 40 at the top of the hill. I'll have at least one tank brewed-up before I can even see its firing position, no matter how good my gamey recon efforts are.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I dislike ALL gamey tactics.

But, I don't see any of these REALLY that gamey at all.

The first may seem to be gamey but since we are unable to detach 1 or 2 man scout teams to use, if he wants to use 2-man baz. teams...then its fine with me. I prefer to use 1/2 of a split rifle squad myself.

And for the record, NO one can spot hidden mines BEFORE the mines explode with the exception of "Daisy Chain" mines that are not buried. If you bazooka teams are 'spotting' mines it is becuase they are setting them off.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[iggi]

I thought having your tanks very close together slows thier ability to travers the turret.

I don't think it's a good idea to waste your zooks to find the armor. Zooks are your last hope when you have lost your tanks. If you lose them , you will be screwed. If you want to take the risk , go for it. I don't think it's that gamey tho cause there a high price to pay for failure.

[Los]

If one is using valuable bazooka teams as scouts then you risk exposing them to loss which could come back and bite you in the ass later. If you are designing a scenario, better off using sharpshooters or infantry squads that can be split in two. However the occasinional anti-armor ambush is also a viable tactic. At La Fiere, A/505 stuck their bazooka men out ahead of the main line on the causeway to stop up enemy armor. Doing so without a few infantrymen to cover them is normally a stupid and risky move of valuable "specialist assets" regardless of how much they cost. (But then again I never give points a second thought anyway.)

RE: Tightly packed tanks moving together, again failure to disperse your force brings it's own substantial risks. An astute defender could ask for nothing better.

RE: spotted foxholes. If you can see foxholes without having to spot them first then that's a problem. However If one spots enemy positions then they should be engaged. I'll give you a hint. In real life when you spot enemy psitions (i.e. freshly dug dirt, dead camouflage or other positions), you will almost NEVER see enemy troops poking their heads out ala CM (which is nothing more than a graphical representation). It's possible to put fire into occupied positions all day and not actually see anyone until you walk over to them and see the bodies in them.

I think most gamey tactics can be easily punished by an opponent, but unless you make he player actually suffer the consequences of these tactics for real, then you can't eliminate them totally.

A quick word about recon teams: We hashed this one a round a bit in design and beta testing. The problem is this. In WW2 most units did not utilize scout platoons and recon platoons attached to battalions in the same way they are done today. Yes divisions had recon battalions which operated in an operatinal sense above the scope of the tactical battlefield you see here and in fact generally worked as a unit together rather than be penny packeted out to line battalions and companies. When designing scenarios, these specialist battalions and companies are normally given a higher troop quality to reflect their better ability to spot.

Even battalions with their own recon elements (i.e. the marine battalion Scout-Sniper platoon or the I&R platoon) tended to use the units in specialist roles such as night patrolling and intelligence gathering, or as a battalion reserve (given tehir higher quality) than they did in the role of battlefield scouting during the main operation. This was a task invariably assinged to split-off elements of the advancing unit. I.e the point company or every company would split off scouts for their own rifle squads which is something you can do yourself in CM.

Cheers...

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 07-10-2000).]

[Pak40]

In response to your tactics:

1. I remember reading some detailed accounts about how 2nd and 99th infantry in the bulge dealt with german armor during the bulge. One effective tactic was to call in artillery which would drive off the german infantry, then send in lone bazooka teams using stealth to knock out the german armor which usually chose to wait out the barrage, even though their infantry support had buggered off. This tactic works best in wooded areas - tree bursts were very effective against infantry and would usually drive them off and create a lot of carnage and confusion.

2. This was a common tactic I used in Close Combat. My theory was that three shots against one will almost always prevail. Just be damn sure you know what you're going up against. If your enemy has a concealed AT gun in the woods then you can bet at least two of those tanks will be toast.

3. This is very common and probably the most under-used tactic by wargamers. It should be used a lot more to flush out the enemy. I know I and others used it a lot in Close Combat, usually with moderate success. It should be more effective in CM.

[boz]

As a side note, the author Kurt Vonnegut was acting as an army scout when he was captured and sent to Dresden. There he was housed in a slaughterhouse during the Dresden bombings, hence the title of his novel.

Mike

[Talenn]

Concerning point #1:

IMO, it depends on the number of Bazookas purchased/force size. If you purchase a 'semi-realistic' force, then use the Bazookas like that if you wish. If they DO die, and you uncover armor, its gonna hurt.

However, if I read you properly, you are buying Baz Teams well in excess of any standard TO&E because they DO make cheap, efficient Recon. In that case, yes, I find it extremely 'gamey'. Its all a matter of force selection IMO. I try very hard not to buy a 'cheeseball' force in any QBs I play. To me, it destroys the feel of the game.

Another point concerning this: In :USERNAMES:'s post on abusing running, and mine on MG Effectiveness, its fairly clear that the effects of troops running in the open are not overly realistic. If those Baz teams were cut down/pinned down as they ran by forward security elements, I doubt you'd continue to use that tactic..even 15 points is too much simply to uncover a single enemy squad/MG position IMO. The 'moving in the open' issue touches MANY deeper issues, and is something I think needs to be addressed in some way. BTS has mentioned a number of possibilities. I hope they soon implement one. The more the game is played, the more evident I think it will be.

Concerning point #2:

I think its pretty much SOP for many folks (particularly veteran CC players with omniscient AFVs). The problems arise when enemy arty starts to land, if an Airstrike hits or if you are ambushed at close range. These possibilities are enough to encourage me to keep some spacing between the vehicles. This is also a scenario dependant thing. In a small point Scen, where you are pretty sure the enemy is not going to have large calibre arty or airpower, sure, its a good idea. If you have to advance though close terrain, I think its nuts. Anything that knocks out one tank is going to able to get them all, especially if the opponent has buttoned them all up first so their reaction time stinks.

Concerning point #3:

Again, IMO, feel free. I will often have my troops positioned in one location during setup, but have them sneak to another during play if the situation warrants. If you want to waste time and ammo shooting up suspected positions, I think thats perfectly valid. IMO, fighting holes should be concealed in some sort of terrain or else you invite this type of attack. Its a matter of defense set up IMO. I dont find it gamey at all.

Talenn

[Los]

Another scenario design point. A lot of time purchased forces will come with lots a HHC/weapons company units which might not be task organized to the scenario you are desigining so for instance if youa re doing mostly an infnatry fight you may want to delete out of teh force mixture the some of the dozens of bazookas (and other units that won't play a meaningful fight in the battle) that might come with your battalions or chop them down to a reasonable level. Not nly will they cut down on these gamey tactics but also increase speed of play because the speed with which turns are calculated.

Los

[OsinO]

Well, I have not played this game as much as many of you, and did not like any wargames before this one but I have a comment on tactic #2. This does sound effective and Ill probably try it, but I can think of one main disadvantage this can have: If you have 3, even 4 tanks right beside each other, and an AT tank shoots at the center one, there is a good chance that even if he misses, that he will hit one of the other 3. Same with artillery. If they get caught in a barrage of artillery, it is almost guarenteed at least one of them will get hit. But if your willing to take that chance, the tactic may very well pay off. Ill try it soon.

[Eridani]

I thought I would add my $.02

Recon- I don't know about recon patrols, but for scouting purposes recon vehicles are outstanding platforms - small, fast, lightly armored, they can make contact with the enemy without dying, even hurt the enemy a little bit before retreating, and cover far more area than a simple recon team can... I really do love recon vehicles, the intellegence advantage it gives you can really be the difference between life and death.

point two, my only comment is a good commander can set it up so two tanks hit the same target from two differnent angles at the same time... Far safer for each tank, and far harder for and opponent to counter (that works for guns just as well as it does tanks.

Point three - and why wouldn't you do this? in a pbem game my forward recon vehicles spotted a set of foxholes and I ordered them to pepper the holes with mg fire until I could move a wasp in range... the result? 2 routed platoons seen running out the back of the woods to not a single shot returned fire... I would call that a successful tactic.

oh well, back to battle

-EridanMan

[IntelWeenie]

Tactic #2 VERY CHANCY if you're playing as the Germans and you know/suspect that the allies have air support. While playing *snip*, I had a Tiger and a HT knocked out plus a PzKfw IV immobilized from ONE Jabo attack (left a big hole in the road, too).

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb