Where to set up defensive infantry?

[Enfors]

When I'm defending a village, there's one think that always makes me hesitate.

Should I place my infantry inside the buildings, or in front of them?

Putting them inside the buildings gives the best cover and concealment (I think), but then my opponent will probably shell the building, causing it to collapse on top of my infantry. But putting the infantry in front of the building doesn't sound too attractive either, since they will be more exposed there.

So, where should I put my infantry? In the buildings, or in front of them?

I know, I know, you're all going to say "it depends on the situation". Well then, in which situations would you place them in the buildings, and in which situations would you put them outside? I'm guessing terrain is a key factor here.

-Enfors-

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Enfors:

When I'm defending a village, there's one think that always makes me hesitate.

Should I place my infantry inside the buildings, or in front of them?

Putting them inside the buildings gives the best cover and concealment (I think), but then my opponent will probably shell the building, causing it to collapse on top of my infantry. But putting the infantry in front of the building doesn't sound too attractive either, since they will be more exposed there.

So, where should I put my infantry? In the buildings, or in front of them?

I know, I know, you're all going to say "it depends on the situation". Well then, in which situations would you place them in the buildings, and in which situations would you put them outside? I'm guessing terrain is a key factor here.

-Enfors-

Why don't you try putting them behind

the buildings instead. That way they

get LOF out diagonally to the sides,

but the building protects them from

HE (somewhat) from straight ahead. If

you have several positions like this,

with overlapping fields of fire then

you can slow down the attack quite a lot.

THEN....

When the enemy is in position to start

whacking the heck out of your infantry,

you run back and defend from heavy buildings

farther inside the village. The idea is

to force his armor to move into the town

if he is to shoot at your firing positions.

This way his armor has to engage you at

much shorter range and your zooks/schrecks

get effective shots.

Oh, one more thing. You can split your

squads at the beginning, and move the

BAR team or German equiv forward into

each building while the rest of the squad

is hiding behind. The LMG can ambush his

infantry and then immediately run back

to the cover of the foxhole, hopefully

avoiding long range HE from the enemy

vehicles.

regards,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Enfors]

I see, very clever. I'll try it when I get home, thanks.

Is this how most of you do it?

-Enfors-

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Enfors:

I see, very clever. I'll try it when I get home, thanks.

Is this how most of you do it?

-Enfors-

check out the new paragraph I just

edited into the message, if you want

to squeeze the most out of your defence.

regards,

--Rett

[Guest ciks]

There is one very cool article on defense (from Pillar). Be sure to read it: http://combathq.thegamers.net/articles/Learning/learning.asp

[coralsaw]

Originally posted by Enfors:

Putting them inside the buildings gives the best cover and concealment (I think), but then my opponent will probably shell the building, causing it to collapse on top of my infantry. But putting the infantry in front of the building doesn't sound too attractive either, since they will be more exposed there.

Welcome to reality friend. No one is safe on the battlefield.

Player has suggested a couple of good tactics. However, IMO, putting infantry behind buildings depends too much on terrain and is usually applicable to dense urban environments. Also, again IMO, splitting squads is a valid tactic, but not good on the long run, as it surrenders possible assault points to enemy infantry (the buildings!).

And here is my point. HE is a killer, but what you don't want to do is give the enemy the chance to occupy good posts, such as buildings. Here are a few pointer I find useful.

- I tend not to occupy prominent (especially light) buildings, as they will be the first to be destroyed.

- Top floors are good for MGs and FOs. Buildings will in general (unless targeted 105s or many 76s) sustain one turn of fire. If the building becomes * or ** (damaged/very damaged) get the hell out of there. Squads will get out if the building is dangerous, so don't discount that.

- Remember that the enemy hasn't got an infinite number of HE rounds. It might seem simplistic, but every round spent on firing on a building, is not spent firing directly on your troops. This is what cover is all about.

- Putting units in front of the buildings, only succeeds until they are spotted. Then any HE fired against them will probably hurt them more than if they are in a building.

- If you have woods around buildings, use them, HE is not as effective in woods.

- Buildings protect you from most arty. Keep it in mind if you deploy your units outside buildings, especially on prominent places.

- Never mass your troops inside a building. No more than a squad and a leader, unless you are in an "alamo" position.

- A building with a flag on it, is probably the worst place to be.

Last, experience will tell you what works for you. Start rationalising the outcome of a battle, and do try new things. Unfortunately there is no Holly Grail, there are just doctrines and rule of thumbs to help you.

Do experiment, you will enjoy CM much better.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[Lordfluffers]

I will happily put troops in heavy buildings, not so keen on light buildings, particularly if the building controls an avenue of approach, covers a clearing etc.

Im also happy to stick my men in prominent buildings at the start of my defence. I simply hide them or ambush them and wait for the enemy to step up in front of them. If the building starts getting shelled then I'll crawl the unit out the back.

However woods is almost always the best cover. It is dense providing good concealment, but it is also much healthier to be in under shell fire.

[Enfors]

Are you saying woods provide better cover and concealment than buildings? If there are patches of wood in the outskirts of the village I'm defending, should I put my infantry there?

-Enfors-

[coralsaw]

Originally posted by Enfors:

Are you saying woods provide better cover and concealment than buildings? If there are patches of wood in the outskirts of the village I'm defending, should I put my infantry there?

No, IIRC buildings provide better cover and concealment. When HE starts to fire, especially if you are somewhat deep in the woods, you have good cover. The main point is that there is no building to collapse over your head, which is quite damaging to the troops.

As to using woods in the outskirts, it depends. Is it high ground? Does the enemy have to traverse a lot of open ground to reach the woods? Do you get good fields of fire?

Sorry I can't be more constructive.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[CrapGame]

Don't count on trees giving you cover if your opponent has artillery - Especially if it's that VT fused variety, which will turn your infantry into something resembling the output of a sausage grinder really quickly.

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

CrapGame

Buying CM for yourself is like giving lingerie to your significant other. It's the gift that keeps on giving back!

[coralsaw]

Actually, I find VT a waste of resources on woods, but a real killer in open ground. Better to have normal arty in the woods, to take advantage of treebursts.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Enfors:

Are you saying woods provide better cover and concealment than buildings? If there are patches of wood in the outskirts of the village I'm defending, should I put my infantry there?

-Enfors-

In woods, if you are dug-in then you get

pretty good protection, but if you aren't

dug-in then accurate 75mm HE fire will rout

your guys really quick, in my experience.

On the other hand, you are more susceptible

to mortar fire in the woods because of

tree bursts. One nice thing about woods

is that, if they are a few tiles wide,

they both block LOS and vehicle movement.

So putting your guys in the _back_ side

(away from attacker) of the woods can be excellent.

From there you send a half squad forward

to peek out the other side and locate

his attacking forces. If his infantry is

planning to use the woods you are hiding

in as a route of approach, you can shoot

once then skedaddle back to the foxholes

and wait for him to come walking through

the woods, where your dug-in guys will

have a decided advantage.

If you're defending with just infantry against armour, then anywhere you are,

where his tanks can safely pummel you from

just out of range of your zooks, and out

of LOS of your AT gun(s)is somewhere you

don't want to be.

You have to keep disemplacing and reambushing

his infantry, and lure his armor in close

if possible. CC2 provides pretty good

practice at this (if that's not heresy to

say on this board). Coralsaw made a good

point though, that you don't want to

surrender those heavy buildings to his

attacking infantry too easily, though.

He can put MG's and the like in there

to cover the next stage of his attack.

All around it's a nasty situation to be

in and you _will_ take casualties.

One of the fine things about CM is that

you can use QB's and the scenario editor

to test out doctrines. For example, if

you get really hooked on this game and

start reading tactics articles on the net,

you can recreate the examples on a CM

battlefield.

So if I were you and had the same questions

you are asking here I would set up a

QB along the following lines. (this is

just one of my personal favorites, but

the possibilities are endless)

Axis attack, September 44, 500-1000 pts

You are the Allies: American or British

Airborne (i.e. infantry only) purchase

lots of vets, no heavy arty

The AI is the Germans: SS or Heer,

combined or armour

village, flat, moderate trees (various

paramaters tweakable to try things out)

computer experience bonus +1, 40 turns, clear

weather, dry

Buy your infantry, don't forget the zooks,

and some AT guns, MG's, mortars, TRP's etc.

Try it putting your guys in the trees,

in the buildings, in front of the buildings,

behind the buildings, etc. etc. till you

see what works and fails, and why.

You can even design super-mini scenarios

almost akin to chess puzzles where the

objective is as simple as 'get across

the street alive'. (Jag svindlar bara

jag tänker på möjligheterna.) Then

come back and report here, if you

feel like it. Interesting questions

you have, and I benefit from hearing

other people answer.

regards,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Terence]

Seems that I remember hearing on the board that German sop was to defend from within the village, drawing the enemy into ambushes, while US sop was to defend from outside the village.

Anyone care to

--correct me on this if ive got it wrong,

--comment on if this is actually the way they did it,

--or tell us how they prefer to do it in the game?

albest,

Terence

[IntelWeenie]

I'm somewhat suprised no one has mentioned my favorite tactic.

Defend from within the building far enough back that your squads only have LOS to the front 1/2 of the building or slightly outside of it. This way, as the enemy approaches, he will not be able to spot or target you until he gets really close or enters the building when you can put the whammy on him with all those SMGs (that are useless past 100m).

Of course, this works best when your squads are armed with lots of close-range firepower like SMGs, etc. since it maximizes their firepower at close range.

(Edit for spelling)

[This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 01-23-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

In the building to look and shoot, behind the building to ride out fire. When setting up on defense, you can start them "behind" and get the free foxhole, which helps provide some cover. Especially useful if there is something offering concealment - even scattered trees - in the same place.

Then stay at the rear edge of the houses, but inside, until you are going to engage. Put only HQ units forward as spotters. When the targets are good, "sneak" everybody the few steps forward to the front windows and light 'em up. If they gang up on one unit, or are shelling a building with direct fire HE, then bug out of the building to the foxhole behind it, using the building itself to block their LOS.

Also works with two-level buildings, using the ground floor on the side away from the enemy as a "safe area".

You can also keep an eye on the state of a building you are in. When the terrain type window ("in light building" e.g.) has one "*" next to it, the building is damaged. Two "**", like that, and it is heavily damaged. If you are in a heavy building and the guys shelling you are using typical tank guns, 75mm and such, then the time to bug out is when you see that second "**". In lighter buildings or if you are being shelled by 105mm or bigger stuff, then you don't want to cut it so close, and one "*" can be the signal to bug out.

As for the cover they provide, heavy buildings are in practice about the best cover in the game. Only a foxhole in woods or tall pines is in the same league. The building isn't at its best against direct fire HE, but then the woods foxhole isn't at its best against air-burst HE from mortars or off-map artillery. Both have their weaknesses.

The big thing is to have a way to fall back, and to remember the infantryman's ability to slink out of LOS altogether and back again (farther into the woods, or behind a building rather than in it, or back away from a crest-line, etc). Enemies losing the target and ceasing fire, even on-and-off, will do more to protect your men in the long run, than any cover they are in that the enemy can still see.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The SOP differences were there, and they relate to the differences in the two forces. The German infantry had good but short-range Panzerfausts and many submachineguns (MP-40s e.g.), which means high firepower but limited range. In addition, the Germans on the attack had fair amounts of armor and direct-fire HE weapons like assault halftracks and the like, but less in the way of heavier artillery.

Meanwhile, the U.S. had M-1s with better firepower at range that the Germans SMGs, but at a disadvantage in close. Bazookas have better range than fausts, but couldn't knock out many German tank types from the front, only from the side or rear. And the Americans had tons of artillery support, including large amounts of heavy 105mms.

Well, if you want to ride out enemy artillery fire, a stone building is a lot better than a foxhole in the woods. But if the threat is direct-fire, aimed HE shells from a tank, the building isn't as useful, because the tank is going to hit it with shot after shot, which indirect artillery fire can't do.

Similarly, when the Germans defended inside, they were trying to ensure engagement ranges of 50 meters or less, where their fausts and MP-40s would be deadly. But the Americans did not want to invite German infantry to the same kind of duel. Defending from outside the village, they could use their better ranges and set up cross-fires to try to keep the Germans from getting into the built-up area. Cross fires also mean flank shots for the bazooka teams.

So, it is different weapons and mixes of unit capabilities. Naturally, both sides could try the other - Americans using grenades in close fighting, Germans setting up MG nest cross-fires from outside a village to keep anyone from getting in. But there were good reasons for each side's prefered doctrine.

[Terence]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

The SOP differences were there, and they relate to the differences in the two forces.

Thanks! I had been wondering about that for quite a while.