Flank attack in operations

[Guest Manstein22]

I`m doing a CMBB operation. The Germans at the time it is settled were constantly under danger of a flank attack.

How can I simulate that.Before I have to say that this is either Germans vs the AI or PBEM.

The normal way an operation works is that the battle window ( front) moves to the east as far as the main body of the attacker can proceed forward and the no man`s land is set.But if the defender holds to the flanks he is soon cut off his line of supply.

Also if you place a reinforcement fixed to the map at an edge of the map it does not appear there but anywhere.

My question is now: if I give one edge of the map to the defender can I place a fixed to the map reinforcement there and it arrives there?

Has anybody some experience with the use of this feature?

Manstein22

[WWB]

You really cannot simulate flank attacks in CM operations, aside from the first battle where you can place forces manually. They are really linear affairs and most attempts to circumvent that lead to failure.

WWB

[flamingknives]

You can't place fixed to map reinforcements on an operation map.

I don't think that there is a way to have fresh troops hitting the flank, unless you're fighting over a very large map with all the interest in the middle.

[Sergei]

Operation reinforcements ALWAYS appear within friendly controlled deployment zones. You cannot make them appear on enemy controlled ground.

I myself am currently working on a similar case. To allow pockets to operate for several battles, I made the operation static (maybe assault works too, haven't tried) and gave enough no-man's land so that those forces are more likely to be supplied.

[Guest Manstein22]

Hi Sergei

I myself am currently working on a similar case. To allow pockets to operate for several battles, I made the operation static (maybe assault works too, haven't tried) and gave enough no-man's land so that those forces are more likely to be supplied.

Can u please inform us if your idea works?

I think that the lack of the possibility to hit an enemy unit from the flank is a real deficiency.

In the vast area of Russia there was often for both sides the necessity to have an controlled open flank.

After the encirclements during Operation Typhoon lots of Russian units who managed to evade were harrassing German units in the rear and on their flanks. The same happened vic versa when the Germans were on the run in 1943-1945.

So a large range of battles can be simulated if we have the tool to position reinforcement where ever we want

Manstein22

[Sergei]

Sort of. It has been or is being tested at the Proving Grounds (one match played, one going on). I am playing the on-going game, it's battle 2 of 3. At the start my frontmost units were "cut off" (not on deployment zone) but they were supplied. I couldn't freely relocate those units, but I could withdraw them back to friendly areas if I wished so.

[Kingfish]

One possible work around is to make it a series of connected battles, rather than as an Op. This can be done by creating one map, then making one copy for each battle. You can then go in and customize each scenario in ways not possible in an Op.

Want to bring in forces from the flank in the second battle? No problem. Airborne units dropping behind enemy lines in battle #4? Again, no problem. Fortifications breached and removed? Can be done.

Granted, it creates more work for you, as you are in effect creating all new scenarios (minus the map), but also gives you much greater freedom to tailor each scenario exactly to your liking.

[Guest Manstein22]

Hi Kingfish

I made some maps for Biltong`s Campaign Rules the way u mentioned. The problem is with losses and the advance both parties make.How should I anticipate the next battles placement and strength of the forces involved.

Why can we have functioning the map edges like a door

by which u can leave the map as well as enter the map.

In Eastfront by Talonsoft it was possible to appear anywhere on the map on a given moment.

Manstein22

[WWB]

Originally posted by Manstein22:

Hi Sergei

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I myself am currently working on a similar case. To allow pockets to operate for several battles, I made the operation static (maybe assault works too, haven't tried) and gave enough no-man's land so that those forces are more likely to be supplied.

Can u please inform us if your idea works?

I think that the lack of the possibility to hit an enemy unit from the flank is a real deficiency.

In the vast area of Russia there was often for both sides the necessity to have an controlled open flank.

After the encirclements during Operation Typhoon lots of Russian units who managed to evade were harrassing German units in the rear and on their flanks. The same happened vic versa when the Germans were on the run in 1943-1945.

So a large range of battles can be simulated if we have the tool to position reinforcement where ever we want

Manstein22 </font>

[Kingfish]

Manstein22,

In the work around I mentioned each scenario is really a stand alone battle, even though they share the same map, forces, etc. That is one of the drawbacks of doing it this way. However, what you lose in continuity (if thats the proper word) you gain in creative freedom. You could factor in projected losses, resupply, shifts in the front line, etc. into each new scenario.

If anything, it gives the players a new look at Operations.

[Guest Manstein22]

Hallo WWB

CM is a tactical, not an operational game. Concentrate on the breakthrough battle not the encirclement operation.

U are right.

But the enemy is always in front of u and there is no unit at any place holding to its position?

That is boring, no moment of surprise it is not like war. If a battle is so predictable why is not always everything going like a swiss watch in a battle.

Manstein22

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

One possible work around is to make it a series of connected battles, rather than as an Op. This can be done by creating one map, then making one copy for each battle. You can then go in and customize each scenario in ways not possible in an Op.

We need a third party to serve as a Game Manager to set-up the battles (establish set-up zones, reinforcement spawn points, etc.). After the first battle of the Op, the turn (with passwords) would be sent to the GM. The GM would resolve any operational movement that effects the battle (reinforcements), establish supply, casualties, recovery of bogged/damaged vehicles, etc. The GM would then send the 2nd Battle of the Op back to the players (with new passwords) with perhaps a short briefing or Intel report.

However, I'm not sure how much beer and pizza the two players would have to offer someone to GM their Ops, but it might be worth it as far as realism.

My 2-cents,

Ken

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Manstein22:

But the enemy is always in front of u and there is no unit at any place holding to its position?

That is boring, no moment of surprise it is not like war. If a battle is so predictable why is not always everything going like a swiss watch in a battle.

Manstein22

You can easily make unpredictable games for CM.

For instance, give one side a company of infantry and a company of T-34's.

Tell him that the enemy is on the run and that he must pursue the fleeing enemy.

Then give the other side a battalion of Panthers. Surprise!

Seriously though, you can present encirclement battles in several ways. The presupposition is that in all cases there is some real fighting taking place, which naturally makes things predictable already. Encirclements were done to avoid facing the enemy's strength, so when you are presented with such a scenario, you already know that you have lost the sought advantage (because norm is that scenarios are balanced). On one hand this is a bummer, on the other it is understandable that players play to make decisions that should give them some sort of success, not to watch their front rout at the realization of having been flanked.

Anyway, that's irrelevant here. The operation format doesn't go very well with this kind of situation, as it supposes that one side of the map is controlled by A and the other by B. While in an encirclement you tend to have one side (say, north) controlled by A who is trying to cut the connection between the two sides (west and east) controlled by B.

But do have a look at my view to the issue at The Proving Grounds. link