Defending Against the Assault, a CM Guide

[Panzer Leader]

I have begun finalizing an article I have been working on for quite some time. Hopefully in the next week or so I will be able to send it to one of our esteemed web-sites for hosting. Below is a snippet (the introduction) to whet your appetites.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the most difficult military actions to take is to prepare and execute an effective defense against a concerted assault. There is good reason for this: if one had the forces and mobility, then taking an offensive action is always preferable. So Naturally, when defending, the opponent is bound to be much stronger and more mobile, and great pains must be taken to even the score through the usage of force composition and terrain. This article will detail the author's personal experiences as a defender in numerous battles pertaining to the game Combat Mission.

Much has been written and discussed about defense, and how best to handle it, but I will attempt to set aside all theories and real-world examples, and deal, in a down-and-dirty way, with how they directly affect a Combat Mission assault. This article will be split into four sections, each of them equally important in giving a defender a hope, if not a real edge, in winning the battle as the defender. The sections are, in order of occurrence, parameters, force selection, deployment, and finally execution.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hope you like it, and any feedback or advice would be welcomed.

[Abbott]

Very interested in reading it!

[MrSpkr]

Interested in reading it.

BTW, given our current game, I presume there will be a section on air defense?

[Knaust]

looking forward to read it!....as an Allied attacker in 16 games my score is 13 won 2 draw 1 loss

on the contrary as Axis defender in 14 games 4 won 5 draw 5 loss :mad:

so I think that an Axis defender is strongly unfavored

[chrisl]

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

I think that an Axis defender is strongly unfavored <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The defender is at a disadvantage whether it's allies or axis. The attacker has more units and typically greater ability to concentrate forces on a small number of defenders at a time.

[Brian Smith]

I look forward to reading it - I am trying to learn more about defence, particularly siting AT gunds and using terrain to help my disposition of forces. I think the hardest thing is keeping some manoeuvre in defence - on smaller maps it's often hard to move your troops into supporting positions in response to your opponent's tactics, without exposing them and getting them clobbered.

[Panzer Leader]

Thanks for the encouragement everyone! Hey I have a question. How do you all feel about setting time restraints for the battle. 30 turns is default, so in an assault, would you be more likely to want to increase or decrease that time limit?

How do you think this affects the defender? What do you think is most realistic?

[Redwolf]

The observation that in the typical CMBO battle the defender is in the more difficult position seems to be quite common.

Thoughts:

People train attacking much more than defending. And people learn within a games if it is long, i.e. a PBEM. The attacker has the greater benefit from such a short-term skill raise. The defender can usually not coorect early mistakes.

People are generally better in handling tanks than in handling infantry platoons. On the defensive, tanks are usually not very important.

A high-point game, 1500 or up, may be fairer to the defender. The defender has to prepare for a lot of different forms of attack (thick tanks, HE vehicles, infantry-heavy, artillery-heavy) and hence has to waste points "just in case" to defend against an attacker that doesn't come. However, a certain amount of such units will usually be sufficient for a 1000 points game and a 2000 points game. I.e. heavy AT guns, you need at least two, but that is good for a larger game as well. Only after such neccessary purchases can the defender begin to buy units that can execute some kind of special plan he has in mind.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

How do you all feel about setting time restraints for the battle. 30 turns is default, so in an assault, would you be more likely to want to increase or decrease that time limit?

How do you think this affects the defender? What do you think is most realistic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will improve the attackers recon since he can waste a few turns doing nothing but recon.

But once units engage for effect, the timing is pretty much set by exploration of opportunities. From my observation (not to many attacks, though), the standard 30 turns are quite right to bring a battle to the end and then have few enough turns left that no side may really reorganize to change the outcome again.

Fixed number of turns and realism is always tricky. People usually connect the two by saying that it simulates that other parts of an operation depend on the outcome. If that applies, it probably makes no difference whether its a ME or an assault.

[Terence]

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

Want to win as a defender?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two word strategy that guarantees total victory to the defender:

Play Me.

[Terence]

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

Two word strategy that guarantees total victory to the defender:

Play Me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, yes, I would like to read it, when it comes out.

[Panzer Leader]

Redwolf, I agree with everything you said, and Terence, don't worry, after you read this you will be like the Muhammed Ali of Defense!

[MrSpkr]

One thing I have noticed some people doing is tryingto defend the whole dang map and EVERY SINGLE ONE of the victory locations. Doing that stretches your forces awfully thin.

It seems to me that a better way would be to defend one or two locations, forget about the rest, and concentrate on punching the enemy HARD in the nose when he attacks. If you hurt the attacker badly enough, you can reclaim the remaining victory locations later in the game; if you spread out too far and allow him to crush you piecemeal, you'll never get the chance.

MrSpkr

[Micheal Wittman]

Whew, I thougt it was just me, defending about 50 percent of my battles and loosing

about 50 percent of my battles

And any assualts agianst me, my troops had

been harvested like wheat cut from the reapers blade Trying combinations

of tactics slowly improving, but if your going to write some helpfull words "o" wisdom, than Thank You!

CheerZ!

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

after you read this you will be like the Muhammed Ali of Defense!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which fight? Foreman or Spinks?

[Olle Petersson]

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

One thing I have noticed some people doing is tryingto defend the whole dang map and EVERY SINGLE ONE of the victory locations. Doing that stretches your forces awfully thin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Isn't this a matter of point defence vs line defence?

If you only defend a few tactical points then the attacker can sweep right through and cut your head (regimental/divisional HQ and supply lines).

I concur that it's sound tactics for winning a battle though. I haven't tried any operations yet, how does it work there if the attacker "ignore" the first defenders and instead move straight on to hit deep?

Cheers

Olle

[gaffertape]

Looking forward to the article, although I seem to be in the minority: I prefer to defend.

For me, the key is to plan how YOU would attack your own positions if you had about double your force size.

GAFF

[Olle Petersson]

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

For me, the key is to plan how YOU would attack your own positions if you had about double your force size.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do that too.

Then I get my defence all trashed, since the attacker use much better tactics than I'd ever come up with...

Cheers

Olle

[ScoutPL]

I look forward to checking out your tutorial Panzer Leader. The thing about TTP's is that they're a lot like opinions, everybody has one.

Until PL gets his posted those of you having trouble may want to visit my website and take a gander at my own tutorials.

www.geocities.com/fpd131

[Talenn]

I most other tactical games I enjoy Defense very much and do quite well at it. In CM, its an excercise in frustration.

This is not meant as an 'attack' on the game or a 'troll', but IMO, there are some somewhat serious 'issues' with the way CM models the defense. The fact that nearly EVERYONE has problems defending somewhat confirms that.

CM (or CM2) will never be able to live up to its full potential until people are able to come to grips with the fact that it IS possible for elements of the game to be flawed. Its difficult to voice such opinions, however, without being shouted down and flamed etc for lack of 'credentials' or whatnot.

For my money, I think the defense is so tough because you have so little control over when/how/what your troops engage. It makes for an unending stream of blown ambushes, ineffectual fire at 'wrong' targets, and flat out lack of ability to STOP the enemy from advancing. All of these things could be easily handled by giving the player a BIT more control of his troops initial engagements. I dont think its unrealistic or 'un-fun' to be able to control a bit more closely until the sh#t starts to hit the fan. At that point, yes, control should be more sporadic.

At any rate, I too look forward to reading your article(s). I'd want to see what some 'veteran' players have to say for how to defend effectively in CM. Most of what I have seen so far that works effectively involves 'tricking' your troops into doing what you want. In a game this close to 'perfection', I think that is extremely lacking.

So, to all you who have ever shouted down someone for daring to criticize the game, you only hurt the development of the game you so dearly love. I hope that at some time in the future, I can look at this board and see dissenting opinions (properly voiced, of course) be responded to positively and even encouraged.

Thanx,

Talenn

[Panzer Leader]

Thanks everyone. ScoutPL I have enjoyed your articles immensely, and have taken an understanding of them into this article. Your description of the battle was very good and it illustrated your points well.

I will focus on four areas: parameters, force purchase, deployment and execution, and how they DIRECTLY apply to Combat Mission, in any circumstance, but especially quick battles where the defender is at an added disadvantage of not controlling what ground to set up his defense on.

And Tallen, I would not argue that there are some issues with defending in this game. I am not so sure about the "control" aspect though. My complaints would be not having better fortified positions, like sandbags and trenches, as well as the inability for the defender to have better say in the map generation process. I am usually able, through the use of 'hide' and 'ambush' to get my units to behave the way I want them, and I would say that generally, over time, they perform my orders as well as a real-life unit can expect to perform its orders of the commanders intent.

But in the end, this articel will focus on the how-and-why of this game in its present form, and will not theorize on how it could be made 'better' or more 'realistic. Besides, I LOVE the extreme challenge of defending as it is. If things changed to better suit the defender in a future incarnation of CM, my greatest hope would be that they could raise the attacker/defender ratio to more realistic levels like 2.5/3 to 1.

Thanks everyone for your input. I hope when this is finshed you will be able to learn something from it.

[Sirocco]

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

Until PL gets his posted those of you having trouble may want to visit my website and take a gander at my own tutorials.

www.geocities.com/fpd131<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd recommend ScoutPL's tutorials to anyone interested in improving their defence. His defence tutorial gave me a lot of ideas.

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

...but especially quick battles where the defender is at an added disadvantage of not controlling what ground to set up his defense on.

And Tallen, I would not argue that there are some issues with defending in this game. I am not so sure about the "control" aspect though. My complaints would be not having better fortified positions, like sandbags and trenches, as well as the inability for the defender to have better say in the map generation process. I am usually able, through the use of 'hide' and 'ambush' to get my units to behave the way I want them, and I would say that generally, over time, they perform my orders as well as a real-life unit can expect to perform its orders of the commanders intent.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panzer Leader raises here what seems to me the key problem with defending in QB--and which also occured to me in a discussion of defense on another thread. The terrain is RANDOM rather than chosen by the defender. In real life, defenders naturally choose to defend "defensible" terrain. In QBs, the terrain is random and may lack features essential to good defense. Most human-designed assault and attack scenarios either reflect the defensible terrain found historical in actual life (like August Bank Holiday or Drive to Mortain or Knock 'em All Down) or are designed to present the attacker with fictional "problems" (like Valley of Trouble 2) based on a particular defensive terrain and force balance. This is one reason I prefer to play scenarios.

Like Panzer Leader I generally find the HIDE command gives me pretty good control over my units. Occasionally one shoots too soon or gets spotted before I want them too, but mostly my guys seem to sit tight until I give them the order to open fire or until I simply lift the hide command when I ready to let them find their targets.

Trenches and sandbags would be an interesting wrinkle. Arguably squad-sized foxholes (a bit of an abstraction otherwise) are meant to model these? Infantry can be awfully hard to dig out of a foxhole in woods or scattered trees. But a line of prepared trenches to fall back on would be an interesting addition to the defensive repetoire. Also "covered foxholes". In well-prepared defensive positions, a wooden cover that could be pulled over a foxhole provided good real life protection against artillery and mortar fire.

[Panzer Leader]

Good point Combinedarms. About a location for defense, I am reading a book (Rommels diary) right now where Rommel has to continually set up static defenses on ground that is NOT his choosing, due to the interference of "Higher Authority." So the random terrain is not the problem, the problem is not being able to see it before purchasing units. But again, it is a problem in theory only. I still enjoy defending and don't mind an added glitch.

Here is an excerpt (still rough and unedited, about the tools available to the intrepid defender((teaser)):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let us begin this great task by laying out just what the defender has as his advantage during a defense. Number one, any units in the open (i.e. not in a building or on a road) will be in a foxhole. This gives a good benefit to cover and concealment. Number two, almost half the map will be under the defenders control which gives them a great deal of latitude while setting up. Number three, the flags will be towards the back of the map, meaning, the attacker will be forced to cross nearly the entire map to achieve his goals.

That’s it. Your opponent gets almost twice as many units as yourself, and you get these three advantages. This alone should tell you (if you haven’t already experienced it!) that you are in for a tough fight. These three things should also form the basis of your deployment. They allow you to set up strong defensive positions from good areas of attack (hopefully) and you have the perfect opportunity to set up kill-zones and ambushes. This will win you the battle if it is done well.

As the defender, one might argue that the game will be won or lost in the deployment phase. Your most important move of the game will be placing your units into their hard points and defensive positions. This is a time consuming process, so when setting up, make sure that you have allowed a good deal of time for this step. I frequently spend over an hour, sometimes two, in this phase, as it is supremely necessary to scour every inch of the map to find the best defensible positions.

However, the excellent positions you find will not be only task. You also have the Herculean duty to get into your opponent’s mind and uncover where he will make his advance. The best position in the world will be of little value if it does not have a chance to inflict damage on the enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Soddball]

One thing I have found useful when conducting defence against an assault is, where possible, to retain small groups of strike forces to allow you to harry the defender and force him down a corridor of your choosing.

In a 5000pt combined arms battle, this might be groups including TD, AC, a platoon of infantry in HT's - that kind of fast-moving mix.

Any input?

PS - On bigger battles - a dozen sharpshooters well forward of your defences, in foxholes in woods, can upset infantry and button tanks.