Troops density

February 20, 2001

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Keeping platoons together and focussed on their objectives is something I lose sight of when I play; perhaps others can comment on this. My platoons tend to get intermixed and I can't believe that is a sign of good play (my win/loss record ain't great). There is so much "invisible" going on (leadership, for one) that it takes a lot of experience to get these things down pat. I am especially bad at setting platoon objectives. What is the general consensus on how to do this? I am sure there have been a few treatises on this; perhaps someone can direct me to the best ones.

I am making an increased effort these days to keep my platoons together, not only so the squads will be mutually supporting, but so that they get the full advantage of any leadership bonuses available. In fact, I am learning to select platoons and assigning them specific roles within my overall plan according to what kind of bonuses their leaders have.

I have never yet even split a squad. I do not mean to denigrate the tactic, I have been convinced by what I have read on this board that there are occasions when it is the thing to do. It's just never come up for me.

I've been finding company level games are the most fun; a lot of scenario designers (myself included) seem to feel the need to simulate the entire battalion on the attack, but I think its possible, and desirable to limit one's self to a simple company fighting for its objectives.

I tend to agree. I am presently fighting a battalion+ sized action and finding it interesting, the the company+ sized actions play faster and are more manageable.

A more realistic way to do this is with random reinforcements during a single battle.

I wonder if it would be possible to program the game for conditional reinforcements. Say you were defending and things weren't going well. Would battalion HQ commit their reserves in your sector?

Or if you are attacking and making progress, but falling behind schedule, would you get that tank platoon that HQ has been holding onto?

Michael

Skipper · February 20, 2001

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II,

> continuous trench lines were very much the

> exception.

Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit.

The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

Skipper · February 20, 2001

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II,

> continuous trench lines were very much the

> exception.

Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit.

The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

February 21, 2001

Originally posted by Skipper:
Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position.

But not usually by a continuous trench line.

Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit.

The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

Good point. Another thing I am learning to put into practice (I already had the theory) is that, especially on defense, to have fallback positions and safe routes to get to them. And to remember that overwatch works as well in retrograde movements as it does in the advance. Timing is very acute. There may be no more than a turn's length between "too soon" and "too late".

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 02-20-2001).]

February 21, 2001

Originally posted by Skipper:
Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position.

But not usually by a continuous trench line.

Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit.

The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

Good point. Another thing I am learning to put into practice (I already had the theory) is that, especially on defense, to have fallback positions and safe routes to get to them. And to remember that overwatch works as well in retrograde movements as it does in the advance. Timing is very acute. There may be no more than a turn's length between "too soon" and "too late".

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 02-20-2001).]

Skipper · February 21, 2001

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II,

> continuous trench lines were very much the

> exception.

Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit.

The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

Skipper · February 21, 2001

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II,

> continuous trench lines were very much the

> exception.

Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit.

The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

Herr Oberst · February 21, 2001

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
Would battalion HQ commit their reserves in your sector?

Or if you are attacking and making progress, but falling behind schedule, would you get that tank platoon that HQ has been holding onto?

Michael

Sorry son, I don't reinforce failure. Give me the breakthrough, and I'll give you the troops to exploit.

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

To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee...

Herr Oberst · February 21, 2001

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
Would battalion HQ commit their reserves in your sector?

Or if you are attacking and making progress, but falling behind schedule, would you get that tank platoon that HQ has been holding onto?

Michael

Sorry son, I don't reinforce failure. Give me the breakthrough, and I'll give you the troops to exploit.

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

To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee...

Jasper · February 21, 2001

Since a trench can be considered nothing more than a field fortification I'd suggest "German Field Fortifications" for a more detailed description of how the Germans would use trenches in their strong points.

CM really needs trenches. It's kinda goofy to have mines, wire, bunkers and all that, and end up trapped in foxholes.

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Jasper · February 21, 2001

Since a trench can be considered nothing more than a field fortification I'd suggest "German Field Fortifications" for a more detailed description of how the Germans would use trenches in their strong points.

CM really needs trenches. It's kinda goofy to have mines, wire, bunkers and all that, and end up trapped in foxholes.

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

jasoncawley@ameritech.net · February 21, 2001

On a site for campaign results, no there isn't one designated yet. But perhaps there will be if the whole series works out. So far, eight people have played scenario one, and one has finished scenario two (that being Michael). The AARs for scenario on have been compared and a "lessons learned" composite made from them. I plan to do the same for the later actions as well, if everyone keeps up with the series. Probably a few will drop out, but if there are still ~five active players, then the AAR composites should be meaningful as "representative range" outcomes, rather than recording the abilities of particular players.

On the issue another fellow raised of platoon integrity and platoon objectives, I always use them. I think of the platoon as the basic maneuver element for CM infantry. Ad hoc platoons can be made out of weapons HQs and higher HQs, and occasional teams will operate far from support, although I try not to make that too common a practice because I find their life expectancy plummets.

I do not find any difficulty keeping platoons from getting intermixed, or at any rate they rapidly sort out again if some brief attack requires joint work. I think in terms of where the HQ is, and keep the men more or less around it or on definite missions. The men near the HQ move out faster, and having several means one is usually not pinned or is closer to where you need it to be. Somebody gets the immediate job, and the rest of the platoon redeploys or "shifts" to work with the new location. Forward or flank-extended units move out more slowly. They get longer moves and more "run" to close up, or they overwatch and wait for the HQ to draw near again, etc.

I find that formations smaller than an HQ and 2 shooters is just too brittle to accomplish anything in combat. Somebody gets pinned, and then they can't do anything, and some weapon that counted on cover or scout work is neutralized. When pinned or panicked they are easily overrun and there is nobody to defend them. Solitary units smaller than squads can be overrun by single enemy squads with little loss to those, especially in tight terrain.

By contrast, when there is an HQ the units rally. Pinning effects of fire are a passing thing, not a one-way descent into uselessness. Whoever is in worst shape can either sit tight and await help, or move out of trouble. The less-pressed elements can move to better locations, with reaction times fast enough they will actually get there before new enemy shooters pop up and change everything again. Enemies trying to get close get shot from several locations, can't suppress them all in reply, get suppressed themselves by the "free" shooters, and thus do not make it inside the formation.

Reducing a platoon to two squads, to transfer one squad to a higher HQ for its "ad hoc" platoon, can work. But smaller seperated forces do not work. And weapons teams work most effectively when supported by a platoon or mini-platoon, since the "line" squads can scout out cover for them to make sure it is clear of enemy, rush pinned enemies to fire at close range, cover the slower teams while those pull out and then catch up with them in their own retreat the following minute, etc.

You can just *do* so many useful things when you have a platoon, full or ad hoc. And you flat can't when you just have a spaghetti mess of teams.

Why do people worry about full platoon deployments? Two reasons. Enemy artillery fire, and trying to cover everything. The first is a real danger, but the "break up" "cure" is worse than the disease and not the only response. The second is an illusion, fooling oneself with overly "spatial" thought, instead of a time-included sense of the flow of the battle.

The right response to the existence of enemy artillery is not to stop fighting in platoons. It is to think of platoons as mobile things, not as "blocks" that sit in one place to "hold" or "cover" ground A or B. When the enemy artillery lands, you have to run. When it stops, you can come back. This is not easy and it is not fun, but that is what his artillery is able to do.

If instead you split, the enemy infantry platoons will run over your isolated units, and your own artillery will only make a small portion of his full platoons play "dodge ball" (aka "artillery tag"). His others will eat through your scattered men with little loss.

Because of this, the second reason is an illusion. You think you are "covering" that field, because one squad can see it. But if a platoon comes through that field, your one squad cannot really stop them. It might delay them a spell, if it is in good cover and the ground is open. But some of them will come around, and get close, and the best you can hope for is to trade your blocking squad for one of his, after which he still has most of a platoon and the position. So much for "covering" that field.

Instead, think of the area of terrain in which you deploy a platoon, as having different sides. These can be actual seperate foxhole lines on defense, or not, or this sides of the buildings rather than that one, or may include a shift of 1-2 squads while some just rotate. Whatever it is. The *platoon* can face A or B, with a short, rapid adaptation.

Face the one the immediate threat is from, and you can stop anything coming through there. If he therefore gets through the other, so you switch and have a short range, bloody firefight with whoever made it through the other area. As a full platoon, you can still win such fire-fights.

In other words, you have to be willing to cover areas in sequence, rather than simultaneously. That is good maneuvering - it is better to hit one enemy with 40 guys then hit another enemy with 40 guys, than to stare at where they might come with 10 each. So the "cover everything" reason to split up, just doesn't stand scrutiny (against all but the thinnest, weakest enemies, anyway).

I also recommend paying attention to the capabilities of your platoon leaders. Some of these are so outstanding, with their multiple bonuses in crucial areas, that proper use of them can win a battle. If you put your leader with 7 total bonuses on "point" with 3 squads and a zook with a mission to "go first" and "find the enemy", you deserve to lose. Why? Because half his men will be pinned or dead by the time he gets a chance to show his stuff - and probably isolated from immediate support by other elements to boot. So you just effectively put your best commander in charge of a zook and two pinned half-squads, while Joe Average commands half your firepower 150 yards farther back.

If the strategy is based on firepower, the best platoon HQ belongs in charge of the fire base (combat bonus especially, of course, but command too to reach all his teams). If the strategy is based on maneuver, he belongs in charge of the reserve, which should have teams added to it (stealth bonuses useful too). Put a commander with good morale, improved stealth if possible, but little else - on point.

In a battalion level fight with lots of armor and supporting artillery, there are a dozen other things to worry about. But in a company level action, with the infantry front and center and the other arms in supporting roles, this stuff is bread and butter. How to make the most of your platoons as platoons, how to task them, which to assign what teams, and the dance they are to describe on the map from the overhead shot - that is what company command is about. It is also what CM shines at, IMO.

jasoncawley@ameritech.net · February 21, 2001