Which do you find harder - attack or defend?

[Juardis]

For me, attacking is more difficult. I've played 3 scenarios so far, playing the defender once and the attacker twice. When defending, I won easily. When attacking, I'm 0-1-1 (no wins, one draw, one loss). Rooting out foxholed infantry is just a pain in the arse. The only effective strategy I have found to date is....

SPOILER ALERT

....

is to bull rush the foxhole. Sure, I take casualties, but much less than if I try to take out the squad before advancing. Am I doing something wrong here?

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

Jeff Abbott

[Scott C]

A two-step process works quite well. Step 1: suppress the enemy. MGs, mortars, tanks if you have them - just put enough fire on them to keep their heads down. Then, and only then, exectute Step 2: move your infantry into close range to take them out. Frequently, this tactic will allow you to eliminate entire platoons with no losses... so long as the defender lets you do it properly, which is the tricky part.

[edited to fix a stupid spelling error]

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

Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories?

[This message has been edited by Scott C (edited 06-25-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Defending can be difficult, due to the relative lack of mobility, but having to advance into the unknown on the attack is absolutely gut-wrenching at times. Attackers usually need a larger force than the defender to succeed.

So its a trade-off. If you want the control over where the fight happens, you want to attack. If you want to pound people mercilessly as they try to figure out where you're hiding, defend..

[Trooper]

Depends on if you're fighting an intelligent opponent or not. From long hard experience playing TacOps, scenarios which are quite easy to defend against the AI can be bloody difficult if you're playing against a conniving human opponent, because the chances are he starts out with the initiative.

NTM

[Guest Germanboy]

I have had games of VoT where as a defender I had nothing to do for 10 turns (I somehow have not got the hang Fionn-style aggressive defense, it seems), and than got wasted quickly. So I like defense, because I have a lot to learn there.

As for rushing infantry in foxholes - one trick I have found to work is slowly advancing one or two teams through an area where you suspect the enemy. Once they trigger ambushes, bring support fire onto them and have the teams hit the ground. I used that in VoT to make one German platoon leave their position for almost no cost on my two teams. Only works if they are not in reverse-slope, though. Otherwise your point troops are up sh*t-creek without a paddle.

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

Andreas

[thetoad]

I think it depends on the scenario. I've been the attacker and have had some easy wins and some crushing defeats, ditto with defending.

When attacking, I like to move a couple of small teams forward until they contact the bad guys. I then pound the area with artillary and/or mortars as I reposition my other units and move any armor up into good firing positions. After a few minutes of pounding the enemy, I usually rush the enemy positions with lots of infantry. The defenders are usually overwelmed.

For defense, I like to use a lot of HMG and MMGs and setup ambushes with bazooka teams in buildings (if there are any). I then wait until the enemy probes my defenses. After they do I reposition my other units into good flanking positions, etc.

The best part of this game is that the use of real tactics works as it should.

It is also great being able to generate random maps and or battles and then saving them and later tweaking them into custom battles. It's easy to do and works well.

Darn game! I can't stop playing it....

[Papa Khann]

Personally, I find Defense to be a bit more challenging in general than Offense. But it really depends on the scenario more than anything else.

Papa

[thetoad]

Yeah, if I had to pick between defending and attacking, I find I have a more difficult time defending (in general) in CM. This is a little odd since this is the first game I've played where that was true. In the Steel Panther games I'd rather defend than attack since I did better on the defense (ditto TOAW1 and 2).

Overall though, I agree that it really depends on the scenario.

I have to say that this is probably one of the best games I've ever owned. Thanks bigtime BitTime! (grin)

[GreasyPig]

I loath assaults. I look at my troops and say "Ok boys, who wants point" but they don't answer. I just hate knowing Im going to grind a couple platoons up just trying to loosen up the defensive hold.

GP

[Fionn]

Attack is harder psychologically since you KNOW you're going to lose 10 to 25% of your force just finding the enemy. That knowledge hurts.

The difficulty in defence comes when you're not able to see your opponent. At night and in fog it's just a game of blind man's buff and that gets nerve-tinglingly terrifying very quickly ( wouldn't you agree Chris )

[Blackhorse]

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

At night and in fog it's just a game of blind man's buff and that gets nerve-tinglingly terrifying very quickly ( wouldn't you agree Chris )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree completely. Fighting the uncertainty and the unknown is half the battle alone.

Confusion reigns supreme sometimes.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I prefer playing the offense because I like having the initative, and the offense usually has it. If the defense has a mobile reserve and is cleverly played though, it can wrest the initiatve away, but few games permit a sufficiently large or powerful enough reserve to do anything beyond try to plug holes in your line. If the offense is able to stage a sufficiently convincing demonstration or feint attack that pulls in the defense's reserves, it can then commit its true attack where the defense is now weak. I *love* that kind of whing-dingery!

Michael

[killmore]

Depends on the lay of the land. If there are multiple and separated points of possible breakthrough then defender must distribute the assets. Attacker can easily create local superiority and shash the defense line, after that outflank the rest of the enemy.

[Bullethead]

I think I prefer to attack, mostly because the attacker usually has the most arty . And I hate getting shelled.

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Lanzfeld]

I like to attack but I always run into a problem. My boys get a little carried away and end up out-advancing their support. I move up those MG's, Mortars, and Flamethrowers but they are too slow. I have to learn to advance less quickly. I over Blitz!!!!!!

[Guest Michael emrys]

That's why I like self-propelled support weapons: tanks!

Assault guns are good too, but tanks are better.

Michael

[iggi]

I like the meeting engagement like chance encounter. kind of like musical chairs.

[Hakko Ichiu]

For me, the hardest part of a battle is the setup, since that will determine both the shape of my strategy and its likelihood of success. I would say that defense is the easier mode when seen from this perspective. You are at least intially static and can plot out ambushes, TRPs etc. based on the terrain and your mission objectives. i always find it takes much less time to set up an effective defense than an effective offense.

With the offense, you have to plan your line of attack, you have to figure out how to do your initial probe, you have to find a safe basing area for your reserve, and you just know that you are going to run into an ambush somewhere along the line. The question "where is the enemy hiding?" is more difficult to answer than "where is the enemy going to come from?"

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

With the offense, you have to plan your line of attack, you have to figure out how to do your initial probe, you have to find a safe basing area for your reserve, and you just know that you are going to run into an ambush somewhere along the line. The question "where is the enemy hiding?" is more difficult to answer than "where is the enemy going to come from?"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that is my problem. It's easier for me to answer where will they come from than where are they hiding. For this reason, the first time through each scenario I'm playing the attacker. More challenging for me.

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

Jeff Abbott

[EScurlock]

I thought I'd be better at defence than offence in this game. Wrong answer. I love the offence. I feel I have the initiative, and really love a well executed attack. A defensive plan that comes together is a real joy too, for me it's as much luck as planning. Now if I could just learn the art of baiting an attacker I might do better on the defence.

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

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Guest Michael emrys]

For you guys who are losing a lot of men in your attacks there might be some things that would help.

1. Long range prep fires of the objective (and any other locations that might contain enemy units that would fire on your assaulting squads). I use machine guns and any artillery (either on- or off-map) for this. The purpose for this is not so much to cause enemy casualties, but to keep their heads down, shake them up, and degrade their ability to fire on your units.

2. Use bounding overwatch. Move half your force up until they are within effective range of their weapons and halt them, preferably in some kind of covering terrrain. Then leapfrog them with the other half of your force. If enemy units open fire as you close with them, your overwatch force can provide close-range suppressive fire.

3. As you should now have located the enemy forces, you can engage them in a firefight. Once you have sufficiently attrited them through fire, you can rush the position to mop up, take prisoners, or at least compel them to take flight.

N.B., it's always handy if you can get a flanking position or even behind the enemy. I don't know yet if CM models the psychological consequences of being surrounded, but you will in any case be in position to pick off retreating enemy soldiers.

Michael