Defense Tutorial

[Guest Pillar]

Recieved, thanks.

Who were you playing against for this tutorial?

[Triumvir]

Scout,

(Quick disclosure: although in my basic and NCO training I did some infantry work, my occupation was a 155mm detachment commander. I did this for two and a half years as part of my conscript obligations. Just so that you know that I have some experience in this field and am not talking entirely out of my backside.)

I agree with your comments on the column. It definitely is the easiest for a commander to manage and control. However in CM, unlike real life, since you have a god's eye view of the battlefield, you never have to worry (as I constantly did) of losing contact with your subordinate elements. For this reason, if I have enough time, I'll almost always move in what you call a wedge formation (the inverse V with two units up, one unit down.)

As for your comments about positions being anchored in the MLR, though... I'm not so sure that that's the case. Yes, if we were attacking the MLR (i.e. the FLOT) then no doubt there will be anchoring units. But CM replicates the FEBA, not the FLOT. It's small unit action across the very front of both lines.

If you look at Korea, the battle frontage could vary from ~10km for a division to ~15km for a battalion! (See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/BOOKS/KOREA/20-2-1/sn17.htm) This means that yes, there can be sufficiently large gaps in the battlefield for a flanking move to occur.

But if it was the culmination of an attack that leads up to the FLOT...

If you assume the existence of supporting units to the flanks, you can also assume that this attack is not an isolated attack; that both the attacking and defending units sibling units are engaged in conflict of their own. This means that the battle you're involved in is presumably being repeated the next map square over; and that the defender's sibling units are having enough trouble of their own.

Even if they're not, how many commanders who aren't engaged would be willing to tell off a portion of their men to support their sibling units when this might _exactly_ what the enemy is waiting for; that this will be the moment that the hammer _really_ drops on the newly weakened areas? Sibling commanders should _definitely_ request higher authority's permission to engage; but higher authority should already be providing reserve troops in this case.

(By the way I use sibling to describe those organizationally equal, so that you can apply it to any level from squad to division.)

I don't think that the use of edges is gamy; I'd support the use of maps where VLs are in the centre and which have realistic frontage, which gives the units much more room to manoeuvre.

In the Ardennes, the frontage for each battalion was about 2 miles. (See http://www.trailblazersww2.org/riviera.htm) In other words if you assume that the battalion is spread evenly across the frontage, in that 800x800 yard area an attacking force meets about two platoons of defenders. If the battalion commander tells off one third of his troops as a reserve force, that drops to about the force size you were facing.

What does that mean? Basically, I miss the ability to have that reserve appear when it's most needed; that a reinforced platoon of fresh men (or more likely, a reinforced company of fresh men) comes in to support the defence. Course, the white knights don't always come to save the day, but still... the utter lack of any reinforcements, when you as the attacker/defender know exactly what you're facing; that I find to be a big loss in the FOW.

There aren't many good ways to solve this; the best I can think of would be to have some chance of computer chosen reinforcement units, from 30% to 200% (obviously weighted towards the lower end) appear at some random turn after at least 10 turns after reinforcements are requested.

It takes time, after all, to notify higher HQ that you need reinforcements; to recognize the magnitude of the attack; and for higher HQ to approve, assemble and assign the reinforcement forces. By which time the game may be over, of course.

To disencourage the constant use of reinforcements, you'd have to assign a victory point penalty (probably on the order of dropping the victory by one level). This makes things more interesting for both sides, as you might win the battle on the ground but lose it on the points.

[ScoutPL]

Tri.,

You miss my point. If you allow full movement of attacking forces across the CM map then you limit the defender to only one form of defense, strongpoint. My point being that this sorta restriction is not true to a good simulation of WWII combat on the western front. (The strong point defense was much more common on the eastern front.) IF you are playing for VP locations. I personally only like to play for exit points since it offers alot more flexibility and realism to the play. I know Fionn did an example of using counterattacks as a part of his defense once but I doubt very seriously he can always do that since it requires almost parity with the enemy in maneuver units. I.E. there's no way a platoon can defend against a company team by launching a succession of counterattacks and still have sufficient force to hold key terrain (VP) at the end of the battle. If in every CM battle, the attacker can maneuver to attack from any direction then you are not simulating WWII combat along the FEBA, FLOT, MLR or any other acronym. In most combat situations the commander will rarely have enough knowledge of the situation and the enemy to even begin to guess at how to get around to the enemy's rear anyway. If you want to play the "God's eye view" to the hilt then yes, you can run rampant all over the map. I choose to play as realistically as possible and take the harder road. Just a difference in playing styles and desires in gaming experience, thats all.

Ask yourself this: As an artillery officer I know security was something you had to worry about when it came to battery location. But was it ever a major concern? Probably not, because you knew the grunts at the FLOT/FEBA were tied in tight and werent about to let anyone through if they could help it. I know there are plenty of examples from history of wide unit frontages and gaps, but they were the exception not the norm.

OK now for some definitions, right out of FM 100-5-1 (Operational Terms and Graphics):

FLOT: Forward Line of Own Troops. A line that indicates the most forward positions of friendly forces... The FLOT may be AT, BEYOND OR SHORT of the FEBA...

FEBA: Forward Edge of the Battle Area. The forward line of the Main Battle Area.

MBA: Main Battle Area. That portion of the battlefield extending rearward from the FEBA in which THE DECISIVE BATTLE IS FOUGHT to defeat the enemy attack.

I think using these definitions one could argue that CM covers the entire MBA to include the FEBA and the FLOT.

Once again this is not an attack on you, just healthy debate.

[Triumvir]

Scout,

Please don't worry. I've been on USENET for 6 years now and I know an attack when I see one. I also wasn't an officer; I was an NCO.

I agree with you about security; we were concerned about it and often had to fight off simulated infiltration raids. But we never had to worry about anything larger than a platoon strength attack because it was assumed that higher HQ had sufficient reserves in hand to deal with anything bigger.

Before you reply to this, please read Fionn's AAR against Wild Bil at combathq.thegamers.net. In the Sunken Lane scenario, he managed to defeat a battalion plus of infantry with two companies of panzergrenadiers. Did he have enough forces left at the end to hold his position? Debatably yes.

Never having been to JRTC, I can't speak with certainty about it; but having read Dan Bolger's review of his experience there as a battalion commander, it seems that a single team of irregulars (their basic unit of 4 men) can regularly tie down a platoon. Admittedly the JRTC irregulars are just that; irregulars. But that doesn't mean that you can't duplicate that.

Now, back to the discussion.

I don't agree that the defender is limited to strongpoint defence. Against even 2 to 1 odds, I usually have enough favourable terrain to defend on a broad front, so long as I have something that reaonably approximates mobility.

In one game, I defended against an incoming company minus of infantry supported by one tank with one platoon and wiped them out (literally -- no survivors). My losses? Half the platoon. That's a 4:1 kill ratio.

How did I do this? I ran into ambush positions and surprised the enemy across open ground. I then gave ground and sucked the advancing units into a prepared fire sack. As they advanced into my vacated positions, I hit them from the flank and the front, then counterattacked.

I'm not saying that this can be done all the time; I relied heavily on the terrain for this and couldn't possibly have done it on a billiard table. But it can be done.

I'm also not prescribing that in every instance in CM one can manoeuvre around every obstacle. Clearly this isn't the case. But I believe you should prepare for the case and wherever possible try to perform some kind of infiltration.

I agree, using those definitions CM represents the FLOT/FEBA. I was obviously mistaken when I spoke about the FLOT. What I took to represent by the FLOT is where the bulk of friendly forces defensive positions are as oppsed to forward defensive positions. If you defend in depth, typically the most forward elements are least defended of all. So I suppose the correct term should be the MLR or main line of resistance.

[ScoutPL]

In your example above were you fighting the AI or a human opponent? If it was a Human opponent how would you rate his experience level?

I apologize if you're taking my opposing view as an attack. That was not my intention since I didnt think you were attacking me when you posted critical views on my tutorial. Bygones.

[Triumvir]

Scout,

I didn't make myself clear enough. When I said I know an attack when I see one, I should have followed up by saying that your post was no attack. (It's the whole "you're no Kennedy" thing!)

I hope you didn't think that I was being defensive.

As for the opponent, he was human and I would rate his skill as being reasonably high. I won't reveal his name, but as I understand it, he is a military professional of quite a bit of experience.

He was unlucky because of the terrain and weather; I took full advantage of it. I had snow on the ground and was in a lightly forested area.

Basically, he reacted as he should have done; after trading fire for two turns or so, he saw my contacted split squads suddenly all get up and start running away. No doubt he thought that my troops had broken and decided to finish them off; which then led him straight into a close quarter ambush.

Again, please don't think I'm attacking you personally or that I think you're attacking me personally. If I do, you'll know! I want to be as amicable as possible.

[ScoutPL]

I wont argue that a fluid (mobile) defense in depth will not work against a frontal attack. Thats how I was trained to defend, after all. My argument was that due to the way CM has to be played on a isolated battlefield it allows players (sometimes) to force an opponent to defend VP locations, usually with a strongpoint defense. Case in point, you arent the first to come back to me about my attack tutorial and offer up pincer/envelopment tactics. I was trying to explain why I felt the way I did about those options, not that I thought delay/counterattack in depth defenses wouldn't work. I'm currently working on a battalion level defense in depth tutorial that will illustrate alot of the tactics you're talking about here.

[Graymane]

Can you send me a copy of this please? dennison@mitec.net.