Sgt. Spiff Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 How many folks out there besides myself prefer infantry battles to tank battles? I'm still working my way through the scenarios in CM and I have yet to select one that put more than 2 or 3 tanks on my side. I get the feeling that most folk playing the game go for tank heavy battles. Further, it seems that everybody likes the heavy tanks in the tank heavy battles. This is a phenomena I have observed in WWII wargaming since my micro armor days. Most everybody I played miniatures with collected the heavy German and Russian armor. Most battle fields were chock full of king tigers, jadpanzers, JS-III's, etc. Panthers were about as small as it got. I was the only one in our gaming group who could field so much as an infantry company. Actually I had full motor rifle divisions for Germans and US, painting 1/256 scale infantry figures was real fun by the way. Sometimes I think I supported CnC's production of medium trucks. So does anybody else find the infantry action more interesting? Or am I alone on this one? I love playing with an infantry battalion and making use of all the assets. Toss in a couple of tanks for close support and you've got a ton of flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 I guess I am of the same persuasion as you. I have done a few infantry only PBEMs, but never a tank only game. Tanks just bore me, they always blow up so fast. The funniest description of CMBO that I have read on the board was 'long-range tank slugfest', made me laugh. PBI, the queen of the battlefield. ------------------ 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 11-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 I agree, myself I prefer games with say 75%+ Inf and only some tank support. CM really shines with this kind of warfare, where you have to mainly play "the grunts", tank-heavy battles seem more like chance-heavy battles ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 I'm with you. I'd be happy if there was an option for historical rarity in purchasing units. It's unfortunate that some players don't use the "lesser" armored vehicles. In all wargames I hate how the first few turns of every game is "Kill all Tanks." Then after one side has tank superiority, the opposing infantry gets chewed up and is hard pressed to deal with the tanks. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Spiff Posted November 11, 2000 Author Share Posted November 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM really shines with this kind of warfare, where you have to mainly play "the grunts", tank-heavy battles seem more like chance-heavy battles ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, tanks always seem too fragile to me. One lucky hit and they are toast. Infantry are much more rugged, they take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Spiff Posted November 11, 2000 Author Share Posted November 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by citizen: I'm with you. I'd be happy if there was an option for historical rarity in purchasing units. It's unfortunate that some players don't use the "lesser" armored vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like I said, I'm still playing the scenarios. Still have not tried a QB game. One thing I like about the scenarios is the fact that they seem well researched and thus (by definition I guess) the force mixtures are historically accurate. Nothing beats the tension (and resulting satisfaction upon victory) of pressing home a methodical infantry assualt on a town or capturing a woods line, using mortars and machine guns to cover the advance. I've found that the pacing of CM makes me pay much closer attention to how I setup for an attack. Don't get me wrong, I like the tanks plenty. I just like to use them in support of my ground pounders, particularly in the close terrain found in CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Advice- don't do infantry heavy battles when your opponet has Priests and M8 howitzers! ------------------ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Well since CM is a more or less, an infantry simulator, then yes. I often find that if I don't have enough infantry to take and hold an objective, then the game's pretty much shot. Another thing....tanks can't occupy buildings too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager 7 Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Have to agree. Have played and am playing several Infantry-only PBEM ladders and find them challenging and rewarding. MGs shine, infantry mortars and arty spotters shine...infantry manuever shines...it's great! ------------------ When the situation is obscure....attack! CGen. Heinz Guderian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterk Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 You're not alone. I've always preferred infantry battles without many vehicles present. I think it has a lot to do with the fearsome rules on vehicles in the ASL rule-book (Chapter D???) that always terrified me so much I never even bothered reading them. Hated tanks ever since. I love artillery though ! Bad news - I've yet to come accross an op where the tanks didn't figure heavily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Tanks and other armor are in this game to support infantry as it was in the actual war. I prefer to play well designed scenarios over QBs that emphasize tanks. If you want some good infantry heavy scenarios go over to Col. Klotze's sight at http://w1.312telia.com. ------------------ 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...
Supertanker Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 I look at tanks as support units for the infantry. In fact, the other night, I set up a QB where I attacked with an infantry force vs. the AI's armor force. It was a lot of fun, and the AI lost big time (which I expected). ------------------ We eat like kings, drink like czars, and game like fat drunken king-czars. - CaSCa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 I use tanks as hole-punchers and exploiters. Tanks as infantry support comes second, as the infantry should be able to support themselves with mortar, mg, and field gun assets. There's nothing like watching your opponent react to a tank break-through, opening up wonderful holes to rush your infantry through. -johnS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Im with you guys. I have grown to somewhat dislike tanks. Sure, their big, powerful, and look cool, but they also have the amazing ability of takeing the game directly out of your hands and giving it over to Lady Luck and her fickle ways. I enjoy a tank battle once in a while, but mostly I like inf. battles. I tried a few all inf PBEM's and they were really fun. I'd like to do some more if anyone is interested. ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windstarz Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Infantry only is about all I play with QB's. I do like the scenarios also. Just seems more fun to manuever and fight infantry only battles to me. And it is easy to design your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Spiff Posted November 12, 2000 Author Share Posted November 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: If you want some good infantry heavy scenarios go over to Col. Klotze's sight at http://w1.312telia.com. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the URL. I'm sure I'll be looking for extra scenarios soon. I wonder if the Russian front version of CM will be more tank oriented? I remember that with the close combat series I loved "A Bridge Too Far" but never got into "The Russian Front" because the game went from infantry oriented to tank oriented. I think that part of the difficulty I have is in the scale of these tactical games. To really do an armored battle justice you really need room to maneuver. The TalonSoft West Front / East Front series seemed to have a more appropriate scale for armored operations. At least I liked the tank heavy scenarios better in that game system. In CM the scale of the battles seems too closed in to really accomodate armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 IMO, infantry battles are the most interesting aspect of CM. I have yet to buy a heavier tank than a PZIV in a PBEM. I did buy a Jumbo once though... ------------------ Der ver zwei peanuts, valking down der Strasse, and von vas...assaulted! peanut. Ho-ho-ho-ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBoozer Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Agreed here too. The infantry/small arms tactics is what turns a game into artwork. Anyone can race tanks around and cross their fingers. Boozer *hic* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shatter50 Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Not huge force of infantry. I think the most exciting is Company vs Company. To many tanks or infantry is just mindless playing, yet just played a good armor vs infantry where Germans are mostly mechanized passing through woods and a nice cliff great for ambushes was most exciting scenario I played in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted November 12, 2000 Share Posted November 12, 2000 Apparently the URL for Col Klotz's ASL2CM site is not working or is not the correct address so check out the links at CMHQ to find his site. It's worth the effort. ------------------ 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...
Wayne Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 ASL2CM's address is as follows: http://w1.312.telia.com/~u31213280/index.htm Hope this is right. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. [This message has been edited by Wayne (edited 11-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwin Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Advice- don't do infantry heavy battles when your opponet has Priests and M8 howitzers! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like our battle I love infantry but prefer combined arms. Any of the tools (infantry, support, armor) used alone are not being used to their full potential and only truly shine when integrated into a combined arms scheme IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 Sgt. Spiff- I prefer infantry battles to tank battles. When I use tanks they support the groundpounders. I lo-o-o-o-o-o-ve trying to stop enemy armor with infantry. It's always difficult and never boring. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzertruppen Posted November 13, 2000 Share Posted November 13, 2000 I think infantry warfare may be the most fun, but at a minimum tanks are a necessary evil. It has happened to me several times recently that I found myself without any available armor support. The enemy's armor was not all that formidable (a couple StuGs), but I had no way of fighting back. The enemy wisely picked a position in open terrain where my bazooka had no chance to get close enough for a shot, and then proceeded to pummel everything that moved. There is simply no substitute for a well organized combined-arms force. Of course extreme terrain can dictate in some situations, but all things being equal, I like a little of each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Posted November 15, 2000 Share Posted November 15, 2000 im with you. a couple tanks can keep it interesting, but armor is very brittle, and dull by itself. a nice mix of a few tanks,, a couple platoons of infantry and a couple HTs or guns is a wonderful mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts