Assault vs. Defend

[Clubfoot]

I'll have to agree w/ Panzer BoxB,

My droogs and I typically play Assault/Defend QB's of at least 40 turns. This allows the attacker to recon, probe and attempt to employ feint tactics without feeling hampered by a need to rush. Much more challenging to defend against.

[Windopaene]

Interesting thread, especially as I see a couple of opponents who have beaten me! In my last loss to Panzer Leader, I was the defender. One flag on the left, city on hill in the middle, all the other flags in hilly terrain on the right. Seemed a great defensive setup...

Placed minefields in key spots, one platoon to the left with an AT gun and some MG and zooks. Put a bunch of MG's in the town, in all the good sight spots, all of the rest of my inf and mg's by the flags.

Result, complete and total destruction. He avoided the minefields and my TRP. My zooks and AT gun on the left never had anything to shoot at, the MGs in the city got off most of their ammo before being overrun, (I didn't expect much from them though), and with three or four flags on the right, there wasn't much room for falling back. It was a head scratcher, as I thought I had done all the right things. Back to the drawing board I guess.

But on the other hand, I played a Probe against another poster on this thread, who pretty much wiped out my attacking Brits. An excellent defensive position on the top of a hill, but with an AT pillbox taking out my Stuarts, and a Panther to deal with my Churchill, I was unable to make much headway with my infantry, getting close to two of the flags, but not nearly close enough. He had a reserve I'd guess, though I never really was able to force him to use any defensive tactics, as I don't think he ever had to fall back. His forces did execute a nice infantry counterattack on some squads I got to a building on the top of the hill.

Not really sure what I did wrong in either of these situations, although sometimes I suppose even the best plans fail.

Guess we've just got to keep playing them, and try to learn from our mistakes.

[MrSpkr]

One point I omitted from my previous post -- I almost never place my primary line of resistance in a town or village. It is an obvious focal point for the attacker, cover is poor, and soldiers are too bunched up.

Consider defending in a village against enemy armor attacking at long range. The first thing he will do when he believes you are in the village is call down heavy artillery and use his armor to begin to dismantle the houses. This maximizes the effectiveness of his armor against your infantry because when the building collapses, you take much higher casualties than you might have taken entrenched in woods.

Defending in the village also gives the attacker a pretty good idea as to where your defensive lines begin and end. Again, this allows him to concentrate on the line, then work from one end and roll it up.

Instead, your primary line should be in cover in front of the village if at all possible (and given the space you have to set up in a typical assault scenario, it is almost certainly possible). Sometimes it is fun to go ahead and place a little bit of barbed wire or a roadblock in a position in front of the village (yet behind your primary line of resistance). Put them in places visible from the enemy lines if at all possible. This gives the enemy the impression that the village is indeed your primary defensive line and can lead to errors on his part. There's nothing quite like the feeling you get when an enemy column runs right into your main line and is crushed because your opponent mistook the village for your primary line of resistance!

I usually reserve the village for the final line of defense. This has several advantages. First, it offers your men decent cover and concealment to make the last stand. Second, if you have timed everything right, your opponent will not have nearly as much time to crush the village with long range tank fire or artillery as he would if you had started your defense there. Third, it is much more difficult for a blooded, battered attacker (and he should be if you have done your job right) to make a hasty assault on a village than it is for fresh troops. Finally, if you have sneakly placed (in front of the village) a little barbed wire, a roadblock, maybe even a minefield (AP, not AT) or two, the attacker may not have enough time to either scout out a proper route in or to blow a hole through the obstacles.

Again, just my $0.02 worth.

MrSpkr

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[gengisjon]

Quick question - can you build a second line of defense to fall back into? I.E. a line of foxholes. Or do you have to use on "natural" areas of cover? (I did a couple searches but couldn't find anything - so please direct me to an older thread if I missed something). Also any recommendations on what to use as a second line of defense (if I can't build them) would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[Mlapanzer]

I think everyones ideas have merit. The one thing I would add is on defense you MUST be patient. Too many people including me at times want to move units around alot. It is tough to just sit there and let the battle come to you.

One little tactic I like to use if possible is not to try and hold all the OB's but to hide a small counter attacking force that can come in late in the game and retake some over run OB's that are away from the main attack. Since most players will try to hold OB's with as little residual forces as possible it is possible to retake them with some weaker armor or 1/2 tracks with Infantry. I have used this tactic to gain a draw were none seemed possible and even a victory.

But it is still very very hard to defend and it takes a lot of time and practice.

[MrSpkr]

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

Quick question - can you build a second line of defense to fall back into? I.E. a line of foxholes. Or do you have to use on "natural" areas of cover? (I did a couple searches but couldn't find anything - so please direct me to an older thread if I missed something). Also any recommendations on what to use as a second line of defense (if I can't build them) would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you BUILD one? No. But What I am talking about with my three zone defense is really something you do at set up time, so building is irrelevant. Also, as mentioned previously, my final line of defense (generally unmanned or very lightly manned at the start of the battle) is in the village or cover around the victory location.

One tactic you can use to get more foxholes is to split your squads into teams. Place a few teams in areas you don't plan to hold initially, but will get to later. They will start out in foxholes; then you can run them up to reunite with their platoon. You have to be careful and keep them concealed, however, or they will reveal your primary line of resistance to the enemy.

MrSpkr

[MrSpkr]

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

One little tactic I like to use if possible is not to try and hold all the OB's but to hide a small counter attacking force that can come in late in the game and retake some over run OB's that are away from the main attack. Since most players will try to hold OB's with as little residual forces as possible it is possible to retake them with some weaker armor or 1/2 tracks with Infantry. I have used this tactic to gain a draw were none seemed possible and even a victory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Devious and gamey. I like it!

MrSpkr

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

PANZER LEADER!!! The attack/defend values are not what the game shipped with! The vaules have been tweaked. And I think give a tremendous advantage to the attacker. He can make more then one mistake. If everyone relizes this and agrees that a -10% for attacker is more challenging for the attacker, we can start having fun attack games. Not just lame MEs where both sides just kick the snot out of each other and both sides lose.

[Mlapanzer]

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

Devious and gamey. I like it!

MrSpkr

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to get into a gamey not gamey argument. But I concider this keeping the other guy honest.

If he garrisons his taken OB's properly it won't work. This then has the effect of weakening his attacking force. This garrisoning of taken OB's is what slower MG's and towed guns are good for. One time I garrisoned an OB with 2 flametrowers. He counter attacked with some beat up infantry and got toasted. Pun intended.

[ADAman]

Banshee wrote, "But the average, village map (even with heavy forest selected) is still far too open for a solid defense..."

This seems to go against my conceptions of what one would want in the real world. I wasn't a ground grunt but in the infantry training I did have, attacking across open ground was not one of those tactics they recommended. Assuming Banshee's correct with what works in CM, this would seem an area that might be revisted by BTS some time down the road.

[Banshee]

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

Banshee wrote, "But the average, village map (even with heavy forest selected) is still far too open for a solid defense..."

This seems to go against my conceptions of what one would want in the real world. I wasn't a ground grunt but in the infantry training I did have, attacking across open ground was not one of those tactics they recommended. Assuming Banshee's correct with what works in CM, this would seem an area that might be revisted by BTS some time down the road.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at WW2 in europe, where were we held up the most? Places like Huertgen Forest, Normandy Hedgerows, Mount Cassino in italy, etc places where we had limited maneuver room, airpower was neutralized by terrain, LOS for artillery observation was limited by terrain, etc. When we had to go village to village across your standard german/French countryside, we did it pretty easily. All of our firepower could be brought to bear. I think CM models this accurately. What you are thinking of from an infantry point of view is that you are supposed to advance under as much cover and concealment as possible. But you want as much supporting weapons and overwatch as you can get, which is what the open maps give you.

[MrSpkr]

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

If you look at WW2 in europe, where were we held up the most? Places like Huertgen Forest, Normandy Hedgerows, Mount Cassino in italy, etc places where we had limited maneuver room, airpower was neutralized by terrain, LOS for artillery observation was limited by terrain, etc. When we had to go village to village across your standard german/French countryside, we did it pretty easily. All of our firepower could be brought to bear. I think CM models this accurately. What you are thinking of from an infantry point of view is that you are supposed to advance under as much cover and concealment as possible. But you want as much supporting weapons and overwatch as you can get, which is what the open maps give you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm - I don't think that is entirely accurate or the point.

Monte Cassino was, I think, a different issue entirely.

AI agree witht eh Normandy Hedgerow - however, the speed of our subsequent advance had as much to do with the German inability to reform the line as it did with the type of terrain. The germans in late July and August 1944 simply were in no shape to form an adequate defensive line once we stretched the length of the front with the Normandie breakout.

As to the Huertgen forest, keep in mind that many of these villages in the ofrest had large cleared areas on their outskirts for farming and grazing purposes. Certainly there was more cover than in, say, north-central France, but it was not wall to wall trees right up to the edge of the village.

MrSpkr

[Banshee]

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

Umm - I don't think that is entirely accurate or the point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A) what part of the point did I miss? the person I was replying to said that he though advancing in the open was a bad thing. I explained how his perception was inaccurate since he was applying it to the scope of all of CM when he was talking purely of infantry tactics

What was inaccurate? I think you mean the stuff below,to which I will respond .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Monte Cassino was, I think, a different issue entirely.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big huge mountain range which limited maneuverability and the inability (due to terrain) to bring armor to bear against enemy positions. How is this a different issue entirely. Terrain was key, even though LOS was not directly blocked (i.e. you could see the whole mountain), LOS to the direct german positions was blocked and/or out of range of direct fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

AI agree witht eh Normandy Hedgerow - however, the speed of our subsequent advance had as much to do with the German inability to reform the line as it did with the type of terrain. The germans in late July and August 1944 simply were in no shape to form an adequate defensive line once we stretched the length of the front with the Normandie breakout.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did we "break out"? When we got outside the restrictive terrain, thus making a cohesive defense much harder. The plains of france and germany (and the steppes of russia) make for fast advances. Defensive lines were usually attempted at places like river crossings , fixed fortifications (sigfried line), big cities (Aachen is a good example), and heavy forests if possible (Huertgen). Where terrain maximizes defenders advantages. My point still stands and is valid so I'm not sure what the issue is, The defender was out in the open, where our airpower, firepower, and maneuverability could be brought to bear. In close in terrain this is much more difficult.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As to the Huertgen forest, keep in mind that many of these villages in the ofrest had large cleared areas on their outskirts for farming and grazing purposes. Certainly there was more cover than in, say, north-central France, but it was not wall to wall trees right up to the edge of the village.

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even when we were able to get to the village of Huertgen (i may be wrong about the name of the first big village we took, I'll have to dig out my copy of bloody forest) our forces were driven back. The terrain was still limiting the ability to reinforce/resupply, ability to find and fix the enemy, etc. Remember we drove the germans out of the village , but were subsequently driven back (when WE were in the village). Thus my earlier point of saying villages are not suitable places to defend is still valid. The maximum amount of damage that was inflicted on us was IN the close terrain of the forest. So im still not seeing your issue with my comments.

Edit: fixing many spelling errors lol, dont worry there is more!

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Banshee ]

[MrSpkr]

Oh geez - I misread your position entirely (that's what happens when you start off with a Guiness right away)!

Withdraw former objections - you are pretty much on the money!

MrSpkr (hiccup)

[Banshee]

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

Oh geez - I misread your position entirely (that's what happens when you start off with a Guiness right away)!

Withdraw former objections - you are pretty much on the money!

MrSpkr (hiccup)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol it is a loooong thread, I am just wishing I had a Guiness too!

[Chupacabra]

One tip for defending in village/city settings: use the troops that were designed to operate in such settings, for example SMG-heavy and pioneer units. That's what they're there for, after all.

[MrSpkr]

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

One tip for defending in village/city settings: use the troops that were designed to operate in such settings, for example SMG-heavy and pioneer units. That's what they're there for, after all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely true; however, in most assault scenarios, the enemy will have enough firepower to simply level buildings. But, if you HAVE to defend in an urban setting, then of course you are correct.

MrSpkr

[Banshee]

Kind of a side point to what Chup is saying has anyone received Gerbisjager troops through computer picks, I can't say I ever have, is this another situation like not getting TRP's when computer buys or am I imagining this one?

[Jarmo]

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

I'll probably be starting a BCE (Brigade Combat Exercise) for people generally interested in learning tactics and working in an environment greater than just CM engagements (thus fitting a context to each game) this summer. Historical TOE's will be used. Will need 10 players, 3 battalion commanders per side, one brigade commander per side, one reconaissance squadron commander per side.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh! Me! Me! Me!

I want in! :eek:

[Stixx]

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

has anyone received Gerbisjager troops through computer picks?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No i haven't but i play against a bloke (Guderian) who uses them regulary. Last night one Gerbisjager(Mountain troops) whiped out a complete U.S platoon with only 1 casualty. Not bad for a 5? man squad.

[Londoner]

Some good points here. Heres my 2p the day.

As the defender you will typically have less armour than your opponent. DONT force or be forced into an armoured engagment early. Let your AT guns go to work first, remember your opponent has to take those VLs. At some point hes gonna have to come down from those nice HD postions and get dirty, esp. if he thinks you've still got hidden tanks near the VLs.

When on the defence, using tanks as pillboxes is ineffective IMO, keep the enemy guessing. Also, even most German heavies will get KOed frontally from a relatively cheap allied TD. Keep your armour in reserve, only commit it when your opponent makes a major thrust, endangering a part of your line. Timing, as mentioned is critical though.

Most maps gives the defender the option of defending at least some VLs while being out of enemy long range LOS. DONT be baited out, dont display ANY of your assets until your fairly sure you can bag a decent number of enemy troops before the enemy can react. IMO the best way to KO enemy armour is getting it as its moving, not when its sat on that hill HD, in overwatch. Make that tank move, dont give it easy targets!

[ 04-14-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[ 04-14-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[ 04-14-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[ 04-14-2001: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[Londoner]

Also I'd be very careful about placing infantry ahead of your MLR as mentioned earlier. Unless youve got good LOS from heavy weapons to their area they will simply get cut off and destroyed for little enemy loss.

[Warmaker]

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

Also I'd be very careful about placing infantry ahead of your MLR as mentioned earlier. Unless youve got good LOS from heavy weapons to their area they will simply get cut off and destroyed for little enemy loss.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why you place a split squad(basically a 5-man Fire Team) as observation posts to scope out enemy advances & strengths, and if possible ambush w/ opportunity. To do this information gathering, hide your troops as much as possible. LMG42's and sharpshooters are well suited for this since they're cheap and small in numbers(harder to detect). If you want to be a real jerk, place a cheap, expendable Puppchen along with those Observation posts to harass enemy armor. A cheap 20mm FlaK gun can be used to deal with annoying HTs. They're cheap so their loss won't be felt much. But your split squads should fall back to their parent units before things get too hectic.

We all agree that numbers and firepower play huge roles, but also remember that information/intelligence is just about or if not the most important factor. Poor intelligence gathering will increase your time to react and the chance to commit errors. Knowing the force composition of your enemy also helps in your decision making.

[Londoner]

I agree m8, intel' is critical. However, in my experience, on the defence there is no need for this recon/screening force as you suggest, unless your were defending on a heavily wooded map. As long as you have at least one unit in a 2nd floor building or on a hill, you can get the gist of any large scale enemy movement without having to sacrifice anything.

[Stixx]

You have both got good points.

You don't need many units to act as scouts when you are defending. A unit or 2 with LOS of the most likely lines of attack is about all you need.

Something i have started doing on Large maps with a large force is making a couple of light platoons. No Mortars, MG's, Zook's, PIAT's etc. Just 2-3 rifle teams and HQ. Use them as scouts they are fast don't tire quickly and to an extent expendable.

Scout cars etc are good for this role aswell but it's hard to sneak a AC over the top of a hill undetected.

By stripping the platoon of all it's support units you also end up with a couple of Heavy platoons. Mount them on your Armour or just keep them moving behind your main line and you have alot of firepower when you need it.

Anyway i know it's a little off topic and some of you probarly already this. Just thought i'd share it with you.