Defending Against the Assault, a CM Guide

[Panzer Leader]

Sodball, you bring up a very important point to what I am writing. I state early in the article that this is most useful for defenses of NO MORE than 3,500 points. After that point, many options open up that were previously unavailable, and the chances of successful defense begins to tip back toward the defender.

And yes, in a 5,000 point defense, I would say that the most important feature (after spending 1,000 points on interlocking mine fields) would be to have a sizeable MOBILE Counter attack strike force, made up of TDs, infantry tanks, and APCs.

However, I would cringe to think what type of map a 5,000 point QB Assault the computer would make. 2.5 kilometers wide, by 800 meters deep, with 24 small flags spread out over 2 km. Geesh!

No, this article will deal with 500-3,500 point defenses mainly.

[MrSpkr]

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

So the random terrain is not the problem, the problem is not being able to see it before purchasing units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree wholeheartedly. In a PBEM I am playing right now, I am the Allies defending against an Axis attack. We chose moderate trees, gentle hills. For my units, I got a couple of infantry companies, some offboard artillery, a couple of MG jeeps and a Hellcat for anti-armor. I also got an airplane because, well, I rarely purchase them in QB's and I thought it might be fun. I thought this might be a decently balanced force. I opted not to select any guns because I wanted more infantry instead.

Then I saw the map. :eek:

If you have ever read J.R.R. Tolkien, think "Mirkwood" and you will get the general picture. My opponent could infiltrate his units (looks to be around three companies of Gebirgsjagers and a SturmKompanie) all the way into my lines at several different locations without ever crossing open ground. My Hellcat has fired all of two shots (we killed three guys!). My jeeps got trashed because they had to engage from under 100m, a fatal problem for such a fragile vehicle. My airplane has flown over the battlefield once a turn for the past ten turns, but has never fired a shot - he can't see the enemy.

I have fired most of my artillery, but ineffectually. The problem is that I can only guess at general locations, all out of my LOS. What artillery I have left I can't use because his troops are within 50m of mine and I don't have a clear LOS - meaning that any artillery I did call down would whack my guys just as hard as his, and he has more men to lose.

Speaking of men, my MG teams and infantry can't see his guys at distances beyond 35m. So they are engaging his gamey troops (largely SMG armed) at extremely close range and getting slaughtered.

Had I seen the map, I would have made pretty heavy changes to my force composition. I probably would have dropped most of the arty and the tank. I would have grabbed some mines and TRP's. The airplane would be gone too. I probably would have looked at taking British airborne for their sten guns in this close range charnel house.

The blind map can bite both ways (if the terrain was more open, I could slaughter his troops before they got within effective range of my guys). However, I think both players are disserved under the current random map sequence because you cannot request more specialized units suited to the terrain at hand. This makes quick battles very frustrating, at times.

I think the map should be chosen first, then made available for both players prior to purchasing any units. This would allow for better force selection and more enjoyable gameplay.

Just my random thoughts.

Steve

[Panzer Leader]

Wow Mrspkr, what a battle!

I would have a VERY difficult time in a Defense convincing myself to buy an extremely expensive fighter-bomber. They might do well, and take out enough enemy vehicles to pay for themselves, but the huge risk of them not performing up to par would make me hesitate. In fact, in clear weather where the attacker ALSO has the opportunity for planes, his huge advantage in points would make me expect him to also buy a plane, thus rendering both planes inactive to my detriment, since a 1-1 trade is unacceptable to a defender.

As for the terrain, it is tough luck. The best you can do as the defender is to carefully pick your forces as to enable them to defend against any eventuality.

I would also hesitate to buy jeep MGs unless you have the points to buy a complete motorized counter-attack force. They are high priority targets and will not benefit like a heavily concealed (foxhole or building) .50 cal. would. Plus, in a defense, the defender doesn't need to have vehicles tooling around the neighborhood looking for pot-shots, what he needs is ambushes and defensive kill-zones.

It looks like your battle was doomed from the git-go. Maybe the only way you could have saved that one would be to invest in plenty of mines to bottle your attackes and force him to go where you wanted.

For example, I always buy a few mines, so I would place some AI mines at the limit of my defending platoons LOS IN the woods, so when the enemy moved into them, I could take them out. I might also channel them down this route using more minefields and maybe some barbed wire.

Really though, if you chose moderate trees, it seems a fluke that you got such a heavily forested map. The generator seems to follow the parameters pretty well. Maybe you should have written that forest off as lost from the beginning and trained your troops to fire on the dege of it when the enemy appeared? Who knows...

[MrSpkr]

Actually, I am surprised there is not more grog furor over the blind map in QB's. In reality, a local commander expecting an attack or preparing to advance into an area would have some idea of what to expect. The Allies had very good maps of Western Europe, as did the Germans. This would historically make it easier for a battalion commander to know what might or might not work (i.e., get that damn tank out of here - he can't see ten feet and can't get to where I think the fighting is gonna happen") or ("HQ? This is Mac. I think we need to pre-register some artillery concentrations here, here, and here") or ("Col., we need more AT assets here - otherwise, all this open space means the Kraut armor can stand off and blow us up at its leisure") or ("No Major - I don't think we need to call in the flyboys, they won't do much good with all these damn trees. We need more infantry"). I think this is a weakness in the game.

I do agree on the plane - in retrospect, it was a poor choice. However, as I said, I rarely purchase them so I thought, why not? Had the terrain been more along the lines of what I expected, it would have been useful - I think you have seen what a single airplane can do to a platoon of infantry charging across even 30m of open ground.

The jeeps were intended to be mobile units that could move far out in front of the lines, ambush, and flee quickly. Cheap throw away scouts, pure and simple.

I also agree on the mines - had I known how bad the map was, I would have bought LOTS of mines and a little barbed wire. It would not have been too difficult to channel him into my main kill zones with such a force selection. However, as I expected a little more in the way of open spaces, I thought my rifle and MG teams would be enough - I planned on conducting a few ambushes in front of the lines, then falling back quickly into cover. It is hard to do that when there are so many trees.

Steve

[L.Tankersley]

I am also quite interested in seeing what you have to say about the defense. I think I manage a pretty competent defense, but even when everything goes well (the attacker walks into all my ambushes, my minefields are effective, I get artillery falling on the enemy main effort) it seems I still get blown off the flags and punished on the victory screen with depressing regularity. Often I just don't have enough bullets to kill all the enemy soldiers attacking my position.

One of my regular opponents and I have been experimenting with changing QB parameters to make attack scenarios more balanced (for us, anyway). We've handicapped the attacker, but that was insufficient. We cut the time down to 20 turns, and had mixed results. It helps the defender, but mainly because the attacker is compelled to charge helter-skelter forward, which isn't really the experience we're looking for. One recent attempt has the defender purchasing forces but forcing the attacker to cope with a computer-bought OB. Coupled with a 25-turn limit we've had a couple of fairly close battles with this restriction.

I agree with other comments that being able to view the map before purchasing forces would help the defender out. Unfortunately, to do this requires either a neutral third party to do force purchases for the attacker, or a VERY strong bond of trust between the players.

[Olle Petersson]

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

We chose moderate trees, gentle hills. ...

Then I saw the map. ... think "Mirkwood" and you will get the general picture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess you forgot to mention "Rural" with your map choices.

The generated map isn't totally random, you know. It's quite easy to predict the general look of the map if you know the chosen parametres. The only random issue is if the topography will be most beneficial for the attacker or for the defender.

Here is some of what I've found on map generation:

Tree coverage

* The flatter the terrain the more trees, with hilly terrain there are very little trees. EDIT: Wrong! Topography doesn't alter any other parametre.

* Rural has most trees (just over 50% of the map with "heavy" tree coverage), in farmland some trees and open terrain is replaced by grain fields (roughly 25% of the map), village and urban have trees outside the built-up areas, but not that dense.

Buildings

* In village and urban terrain, the built-up areas are most dense around the VFs. EDIT: I can't confirm this, yet...

* With urban setting, it tries to use mainly large buildings in a dense formation. These can't be "built" on slopes, and are there replaced by paved squares. Mostly significant for hilly terrain.

Roads

* Rural terrain has nearly no roads, usually only one dirt road.

* Farmland does have one or a few dirt roads.

* Villages have a few dirt roads.

* Urban areas have some paved roads.

Cheers

Olle

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Olle Petersson ]

[Soddball]

Quick Query to Panzer Leader:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> No, this article will deal with 500-3,500 point defenses mainly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you account for different point costs through different experience levels? If I have 500pts of conscript troops, that gives me the same NUMBER of troops as, say 1,200pts of elite troops. Does this make any difference in your points calculation?

Secondly, how do the other members of this discussion feel about reserves for the higher points battles (say 2000-3000). What percentage of your infantry do you hold as a reserve, as a general rule?

[Panzer Leader]

Olle, thanks for that information! It will come in very handy, as I have a section devoted to 'parameters' and needed some good guidelines for the map parameters. Have you experimented much with different combination?

Sodball, the figures I use are VERY rough, and meant to give a general idea of the size and scope of the battle. For example, a 5,000 point force of Elite troops would really not be much greater than a 2,000 point regular defense, so sure it would work.

I do not go into great detail in "grand-strategic" defenses, the like which include mobile reserves and counter-attacks, but if I did, I would guess that a mobile reserve should be small, FAST, and pack a heavy punch against both armour and infantry. Perhaps 10-15% of force points tops.

It is meant to be used as a knock out punch, not a new front line. Perhaps in a later article I can go into these "grand strategic" games.

Incidentally, as for buying experienced troops, it is my belief that in the unusual circumstances of a defense, they are not worth the extra cost. See, better troops can only do so much, and with equal quality levels, there is simply TOO MUCH material on the Attackers side. In the above example, with 5,000 points of elite troops, the attacker, who will have over 7,000 points to spend will literally pound through your line at the cost of very high casualties, but will still outnumber you probably 3-4 to 1.

I think I would rather have more green troops. As for the ATTACKER having the higher quality, I am all for it, since the attacker gets some good bonuses but the ratio of material is a little better for the defender.

Imagine, in a defense where the defenders had elite and the attacker had conscript, the ratio might be around 10:1 against the defender. Now that is scary...

[JasonC]

Portion of infantry in reserve - 1/3rd or less, often 1 platoon, occasionally 2 platoons or one platoon plus a command group built around a company HQ.

On the fellow with the wooded map, trying to defend with 1 tank, 1 fly-boy, 2 infantry companies and artillery: I doubt it would work regardless of the terrain you "drew". Players don't seem to appreciate the full effects of taking large amounts of fire-support as defenders. It drastically increases the ground combat odds faced. I will explain.

The thing that is different about off-map artillery, on-map mortars with limited ammo (all but the Brit 3" essentially), and fighter-bombers, is that they take themselves out of the battle by expending their ammunition. They "exchange off" against enemy forces hit, at -best-. And one is always facing the "headwind" of the odds ratio.

Suppose a US player takes a 215 point module of 105mm artillery. Well, the enemy force has 322 points worth of stuff to counter that size investment. That is up to an entire company of infantry, or 2-4 AFVs (Hetzer to Panther), or 2 platoons of improved infantry types or improved quality, plus supporting teams. The 100 shells of 105mm have to neutralize -more- combat power than that, to pay for themselves. As they are expended, they will automatically take themselves out of the battle. The question is how much they take out with them.

Or, another way to look at it. Suppose that the fight in 1000 points for the defender. If the defender spends 250 points on artillery types, and the attacker only spends the same amount, 250 points, on such types, then the odds ratio in maneuver forces becomes 1250 to 750, 5:3 instead of 3:2.

When attackers avoid taking too much fire support, and avoid overpriced items of little value like halftracks and flamethrowers, and keep their purchases of vets and mongo armor within bounds, then they leave as much as possible for raw numbers of the critical maneuver elements - infantry platoons and AFVs. This possibility places the severest constraints on defender force selection. If you blow 1/3rd of your points on fire support, fortifications, and annoyance extras, then you can easily face 2:1 odds in maneuver elements.

There are very few items like that defenders can afford. A single platoon's worth of minefields and TRPs can help. One module of medium artillery can give tactical options that will repay the cost. Lighter forms of fire support - especially light mortars, but also the cheapest 75mm modules and such - can also work. -Some- of the budget must be spent on these things, to get area-effect weapons that can protect defenders from concentration by attackers. But too much spent on them will break the bank.

What defenders need above all is items that -have the potential to destroy more than their own cost before being neutralized. And not just marginally more, but several times their cost. That is the only thing that will even out the odds ratio. A tank that kills 3 tanks can even out the odds ratio - or 2 PAK/AT guns that kill 3 tanks between them. Infantry that breaks an attacking platoon without being badly hurt itself, then is repositioned - can even out the odds ratio. AT teams that cost 1/5th what AFVs do but can sometimes kill one - or guns that cost what squads do but can sometimes neutralized an entire platoon - those are the sorts of "trades" a defender must rely on.

Defenders must fight like poor men. That means doing things not with the best weapon for the role, but with the cheapest that will accomplish the task. They have to ask far more of their units than attackers do. A defender's platoon needs to cover two avenues at once; a defending AFV must kill cleanly and live to do it again.

Now, artillery modules in themselves cannot do this. Because they expend themselves and thus take themselves out of the battle, with a strictly limited amount of damage that can be expected of them. The way artillery can pay for itself is by setting up infantry counterattacks on broken enemies, that kill far more than the artillery alone could.

Firing blind into zones attackers are moving through, trying to "attrite" them before contact - will not work. Modern doctrine otherwise is based on a rich-man's attitude toward fighting, that defenders in CM cannot afford. Artillery must be bought sparingly on the defense, and must be used economically.

It should fall on units in contact, or just before contact, or in the worst case to break or prevent contact to enable a maneuver element to get away from superior enemy forces. Fire missions should be 1 1/2 to 2 minutes, only lasting another minute in rare cases, to keep attacker's guessing. Whenever possible, enemies broken by fire should be finished off before they recover, by ground counterattack.

It is by multiplying suppression into total destruction, that artillery can be made to

"pay", and can reduce overall odds ratios against you. Just fired "independently" to "soak" attackers, it will barely pay for itself. And even then, only if fired on known targets, not empty patches of woods half the time.

Defenders cannot afford to spend high portions of their limited point budgets on artillery and fortifications combined. They must avoid high-priced items of dubious lasting combat value - like more than 1-2 snipers, like flamethrowers and halftracks, like the most expensive uber-tanks or top unit qualities throughout the force. Some mines, TRPs, light FOs, and one medium FO, is the most they can afford to divert from maneuver element, combat-power "buys".

On board guns are the defender's best friend. They are not useful on the attack, for lack of mobility and cover. Foxholes and a planned deployment and ambush are the defender's advantages, and guns multiple their usefulness, while those advantages mask the weaknesses of guns. Cheap teams, like AT teams in particular, but also MGs with high ammo allotments and good firepower, have a similar usefulness. With AFVs, defenders should focus on the gun more than anything and its anti-armor abilities. Take only a few AFVs, and take types that can kill enemy armor efficiently. Use ambush to protect the hunters; get a kill and then move. PAK/AT are a budget alternative.

Often the defender can even out the infantry odds by strict economy in fire and armor support. If cheap guns, ambushing AT teams, and a few AT-capable AFVs can neutralize enemy armor, and if friendly cover and hidden locations, moving targets, TRPs, and minefields can equalize the effects of fire support despite less spent there, then defenders can win. Because enough can be left for infantry purchases to avoid being steamrolled by numbers.

But anyone outnumbered 2:1 in infantry, and especially if facing better quality or higher per-squad firepower at short range to boot, is going to lose eventually, unless his opponent makes numerous "unforced" errors. You cannot count on shooting down attackers that enjoy serious odds, at range with rifles and light MGs, even on relatively open maps. It is not going to happen.

Arguable, CM needs tweaks in some important respects, in favor of defenders. The two chief changes needed in my opinion are #1, more room for defenders to set up in, and #2 greater cover differentials from some sort of linkage between movement state and reductions in terrain cover.

The first is easy to understand. The more room the defender has, the more he can pick his terrain, and the less he is forced to defend right on objectives (easily located and artillery bait), or behind them (giving them up then counterattacking after a barrage e.g.), or to give them up. I think 50% of the map should be available to defenders in -probes-. In attacks it should be more like 2/3 to 3/4, in assaults more like 4/5ths, with only a thin strip of no-man's land between the attacker's jump-off line and the begining of the defended zone. And the maps should be 2:1 or 3:2 longer than wide, instead of twice as wide as deep.

Realistic defender's tactics all count on use of space and choice of terrain. Ambush and fall back, chosing terrain to get reverse slope effects, defenses in depth, time to gauge a main effort and meet it with reserves - these are the standard tools of real-world defenders. In CM, there simply isn't the space to use half of them.

The second is a larger change, and I have explained in repeatedly before. The basic point is that right now, attackers achieve %exposed numbers not much worse than defenders can get, the instant they reach any decent form of cover. Since players choose where they fire-fight from, time spent in worse cover is limited. The overall cover differential attacker's face is thus limited.

And odds are a "two-fer" compared to a better cover state. To match a defender with % exposed numbers twice as good, an attacker only needs 42% more numbers (square root of two). Because he both puts out greater firepower, and can absorb greater firepower, while cover affects only one-half of the "equation".

In real life, defenders often held off 3 times their numbers. For that to happen in CM, % exposed numbers would have to sometimes vary by factors up to 9 times. In practice they only vary by factors of 2 or 3, at best and counting approach time, and in urban settings less than that.

I won't bore everyone with my previous particular proposals on the movement-cover question; they have been explained to the CM folks well enough for them to consider them for CM2.

In the meantime, defenders have to be very wary of facing anything like 2:1 odds in infantry match-ups, anywhere on the map. Because the 2-fer nature of odds, and the "snowballing" or "knife-edge" nature of fire-ascendency and suppression, means such odds ratios will typically lead to lopsided success for the attacker, when cover differentials are only ~2 times or so.

Defenders need to focus on the survival of their men, first and foremost. Sometimes to the point of evading the attacker rather than trying to block his movements. The defense of the objectives are secondary, and will tend to follow in a manner at least somewhat satisfactory, if the defenders live. While nothing done in the meantime will hold them, if the defenders die.

To see this, notice the effects of "exchange" attrition when starting off outnumbered. If you have 4 platoons and the enemy 6, then a loss of 2 platoons each will move the odds to 2:1 - high enough that you will not be able to stand any longer if all forces on both sides can engage. A loss of 3 platoons each will leave the odds 3:1, a walkover. As with a side down material in chess, you cannot afford even exchanges and should avoid anything that just drives up the loss rate on both sides equally.

Don't let him pin you to the ropes, in other words. Don't jump in front of the steamroller trying to stop it. You have to stay loose and spring one-sided "jabs" (ambushs, TRP barrages followed by counterattacks, sniping work against enemy tanks, etc) until you have evened out the odds. You want the main attacking forces hitting air, or chewing minefields, or pinned by barrages. -Not- smashing into your defenders, who obligingly come running to stand right in front of him. Don't forget that your number one asset is that he doesn't know where you are.

[The_Capt]

A good solution to the blind defence is not to use the QB function at all. QBs give far too great a frontage for the defender (ie attacks occur along the wide side). The frontages are simply ridiculous to defend with the points offered and as has been stated leave the defender (and attacker) blind until set up. In short in every QB def/attack, Div/Bde and in some cases Bn/Regt Recce have all failed miserably and both sides don't see the map until the boys drive onto it.

In the Def/Off a scenario map should be generated so that both sides can look at it prior to unit purchase. Now the cries of "gamey" and " well the troops didn't get to pick the troops for the type of ground" are sounding but at this level the players each take on the role of Bde or Div comd. A Bde comd is not going to send an Armoured Heavy Battle Group into heavy forested terrain where infantry are needed (well he might but probably only once). So a force selection for terrain conditions does happen. Hell in reality a force selection based on preceived enemy happens (more engineers/arty/armour or less depending on what we think we might run into.) So create a map and purchase accordingly, you can even set some restrictions before hand (ie a Inf Bn with 2000 sp/arty/armour pts). Go by honor or a third party for unit purchase. You can then either attack on a wide front or (and more realistically) attack on a short frontage (along the short side).

All of these steps will make an attack/defend game more realistic. In fact in these situations you may find that a 3 to 1 ratio is required just as in RL.

[The_Capt]

On arty,

Arty is one of the few weapons systems which is really close to the real thing in CM. The rest have varying degrees of success and have been bitched about enough. But arty (when it lands) is pretty effective. In the defence it is one of the few weapons which can do a lot of damage over a wide area to a lot of troops. Key point is getting it too land on them.

In the defence, in my opinion, mortars are your best friend. They are cheap and effective against troops in the open. 4.2s and 120mm are devastating. They can shut down a coy assault..cold. As to how to ensure they land on top of the coy, well you can site TRPs on likely approaches but I have found the a "Three Stooges" plan is always the best. That is where you pick a spot for the enemy (ie woods) where a small force of your infantry can keep their heads down and force them to mass for attack. Kinda like hold a door and letting four or five people pile up behind it. Then drop a load of mortars on top of them (a bucket of water over the door) then have your troops F@$$ off at the high-port (open the door) and when the en spills out to avoid more buckets, have a second load on his likely exit points (a bag of flour) or if you really do it well a couple of "stay-back" flamethowers. If it works it can be hilarious to watch and pretty effect at scrambling an assault. And having been on the recieving end, I can tell you it works very well.

[ScoutPL]

"Actually, I am surprised there is not more grog furor over the blind map in QB's."

I think you will find that most grogs dont play QB's that often, for the reasons listed above. Another example of "if it doesnt do what we want then lets find something that will".

I'm in total diagreement with JasonC's comments. I dont play QB's so I dont place myself in situations where I'm in a game with poor force selection re: ground (unless the historical scenario just calls for it). And I've never had a problem with the defence. If I do lose its because of an error in my plan, not because the bad guys are good at hiding in the trees.

I suggest those interested read my defence tutorials. In them I discuss how to use indirect fires and obstacles to MULTIPLY the combat power of the defender. Just buying more rifles isnt the answer. I dont think CM is that off balance that it cant be played realistically (to a certain extent) mostly because the expose % Jason is talking about works both ways, the defender can take advantage of it just like the attacker can. Yes there are some problems, the chief one being that in CM obstacles just arent substantial enough. But that horse has been beat to death.

As far as a mostly infantry force being unable to defend in generally wooded terrain then I would submit you were probably trying to defend too much ground. QB's also place the VP locations rather randomly and you can come up with some rather impossible situations. If you insist on playing them I would suggest just defending one or two rather then trying to cover them all.

As a rule of thumb the more restrictive your terrain is the tighter your defence should be. A good rule of thumb is that if your units dont have LOS to one another then they are too far apart (this reflects real life as well). Its all about Mass after all. If your units cant support one another in the defence then it is rather easy for an enemy to mass his forces against one element at a time and he never has to fight your force as a whole.

[Panzer Leader]

Thanks Jason for the comments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Defenders must fight like poor men. That means doing things not with the best weapon for the role, but with the cheapest that will accomplish the task. They have to ask far more of their units than attackers do. A defender's platoon needs to cover two avenues at once; a defending AFV must kill cleanly and live to do it again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True words indeed. This is exactly how the defender should think of themselves. Outmanned, outgunned, and outclassed. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I like them so well.

As to everyone having their qualms with the way BTS models the game, that is really a whole different conversation.

Personally, I find Assault/Defend QBs extremely fun for the random factor involved, and often in real life neither side had the opportunity to pick where to fight. The challenge of seeing your terrain AFTER your force selection is historical as well, since a badly outnumbered and weary defender will use whatever he has left, not some hand-picked force that perfectly suits the terrain. It is supposed to be a challenge.

I would love to see changes done to the way Assault/defends are done, but only because it would mean bringing the ratio closer to the 3:1 odds it SHOULD be.

[JasonC]

Scout is confused. First he says he disagrees with me. Then he says "I dont play QB's". Then he says "I've never had a problem with the defence." Then he pretends there is anything in his tutorials I don't know.

He also simply ignores, with his "I don't play QBs" comment, that his defense example maps are about 4 times as deep as they are wide, while CM QB maps are about 2 times as wide as deep. When half my point was that they should at least by 2 times as deep as wide, instead of the other way around - while his examples are based on twice that depth again. With all that implies in defender choice of terrain.

Then he says good cover numbers without foxholes work both ways, for the defender too, which is patently silly. Not to mention the fact that defenders cannot "also" use superior numbers, and my whole point is that numbers matter more than cover differentials in CM, and that, considerably more than in real life.

Then he says when defending in terrain, just stay tight enough. But he also spoke of using indirect fire and obstacles as force multipliers, so he is perfectly aware of just how useful the injunction to "stay tight" is, when the attacker throws in 155mm artillery.

Then he admits it is too easy for attackers to cross obstacles, which were supposed to be the one assymmetrical force multiplier. Since obviously artillery is available to both, and the tighter the defender needs to stay, the more vunerable he is to it.

And when talking about staying tight, he traces it to trying to defend too much ground, while ignoring the fact that his defense examples use maps 1/8th as wide as a QB map of the same depth would be. He admits that QB VLs are sometimes impossible. He suggests avoiding QBs entirely. This is supposed to be a ringing endorsement of the balance between defenders and attackers in QBs.

Then he ignores the similarity between his injunction to defend one or two places rather than everything, and my advice to stay loose and keep out of the main path of the attacker, letting as much of his force as possible hit air. Perhaps he thinks defending just one or two places will magically not leave 6-7 others open. No doubt, if you simply make the map 1/8th as wide.

Further, he thinks it is tight enough if the defenders can see each other, and thus support each other. He mentions the importance of this for avoiding many on one attacks against portions, but ignores the reality that in CM, 3:2 or 2:1 odds will run defenders right off their feet if all shoot all. Why? Because of the cover differential limitations, compared to the odds differentials. Which he does not examine or analyze in the slightest.

Here is how to give yourself problems on the defense, scout. Take a map with only as much space as CM actually gives you, front to back. And as much width as CM actually gives along with it, side to side. Take an attacking force that does not spend everything on halftracks, but buys infantry instead, in quantity, plus a few vanilla AFVs and supporting artillery modules, of high caliber.

Put all your obstacles and fire zones anywhere you please. Stay as tight as you please - if you go tight, the arty will get you, if you go loose, the infantry will.

Sacrifice 1/4 to 1/3rd of your maneuever force on a forward screen, which the attack will hit not with a leading element but broad-front with his entire force, AFVs trailing not leading. The attack will annihiliate your screen for little loss. Try to stop the infantry from passing through all covered areas with just arty fire, and see how soon you run out, on a CM defender's budget, not the US army's "rich man's firepower banquet".

And try doing it with US infantry defenders, vanilla. Oh, and no stupid AI tricks either - the opponent commander needn't be any kind of expert, but he must be a human being, thus able to put down artillery intelligently, not lead recklessly with tanks or bunch up in obvious kill zones already revealed, and without you knowing beforehand what his plan is.

You will have problems on the defense soon enough, sir.

[Panzer Leader]

Was that a challenge, Jason? What do ya say, Scout?

Everyone else:

Did I mention that this article would be written completely in non-groggish laymen's terms?

[The_Capt]

Oh this is gettin good. I havn't seen this much potential for a Grog fight since the Manoeuvre and Attrition slugfests.

I have to agree with Jason here (yup I can't believe it myself). QBs and defence do not mix. Why? One reason..frontage. The frontages the defender is left with are way too large, you wind up in a half circle covering a few flags if you want any kind of "mutual support". Or you wind up with several coy/pl strong points which will eventually be surrounded and die. The only way to even come close to a fair fight is to conduct the attack on the "short side" and give a defender a realistic frontage. That's not to say that one cannot win a QB in the defence but the odds are really stacked against you and a lot has to "go right" in order to win.

As to obstacles...don't bother. The cost in order to actually empploy them as they were designed is very high (30% of your force purchase if I recall) and that means you will sacrifice too much firepower in order to make them effective. You may get luck but in reality a defensive position should have at least 2 belts which effect the entire frontage.

So at 10-15 points a buy per minefield/wire you can see how on even a 1000 meter frontage at 75% coverage x 2 belts you are going to have 750-1124 points spent on obstacles. So add in a Bn which can cover the frontage (say 1800 for German Airborne regular) and say 500 for Arty, 500 for Sp (AT guns and snipers) and finally 800 for a troop of armour to act as countermoves. You are looking at 4350 for an adequate "textbook" defence of 1000m. And it isn't even "adequate" as a Sqn/Coy of Armour is what one should be looking at and throw in a Covering Force as well.

Someone can check but I think a 4350 point defence will give you a much larger frontage in a QB than 1000m.

[Redwolf]

Panzer Leader said "and counter-attacks, but if I did, I would guess that a mobile reserve should be small, FAST, and pack a heavy punch against both armour and infantry.".

That would imply that SP guns, both howitzer vehicles and self-propelled AT gun (Wespe, Marder, Priest, M10 etc.) are the right tool for doing so, you need big guns and mobility and low price for large numbers.

Some time ago I did a decent number of test runs for such a counterattack and my finding were that this is not the case.

It is unrealistic to move such a counterattack force fast enough that no side shots happen. if you try, you will be killed by stationary new threats appearing right in front. In CMBO, stationary vehicles spot much better than moving onces.

On the other extreme, I found that any counterattack that is careful enough so that your AFVs do not to move into any enemy side shot opportunity is doomed to fail as well. It will be so slow that the attacker surrounds you and either kills your vehicles or virtualyy immobilizes them in a strip of terrain because every escape path is covered by guns.

I found that the only way to possible success is the compromise. Move as fast as possible , but only so fast that you can still react on threats suddenly apprearing in front of you. Unfortunately that is slow enough that people will get side shots on you from the distance, considering that you are just on the same height as the attackers main force. You cannot rush/run due to possible threats you will meet in front and you cannot use proven paths exclusivly because that is so slow that you are encircled. While you will be able to void LOS to positions of enemy overwatch AT weapons on the map edge and on hills, you cannot realistically avoid sideshots from the advancing attack force.

As a result, you need AFV that are thick enough to take a shot, especially side shots by HE, and have a turret. The bodyguard can only be infantry.

As strange as it sounds, the only Axis vehicle I found to be fast enough was the Tiger. Everything less, especially Panthers, cannot take the side shots from HE shells that are unavoidable when crossing paths of possible enemy LOS. You also need the side armour when breaking out of (partly or threatening) encirclement.

As bodyguards for the Tigers I found that nothing else than pure infantry worked. Thin vehicles like 20mm halftracks or Wirbelwinds are simply stripped off the detachment or are trailing too far behind if you move them over proven ground only.

I tried a counterattack with two Tigers and a Sturmgruppe Platoon on a human opponent. I knew he likes thinner AFVs and the plan was to strip them off his force. His purchase habit would then leave him with no more infantry that I had and insufficient support from AFV, not to speak of two 88mm and four MGs in his back. The result was that he killed the Tigers in no time. I moved them too hasty overall (too fast too far into enemy territory) and not hasty enough when reacting to spotted enemies (a Tiger problem). He agressivly moved evey gun vehicle he had around the Tigers and he had maxed out points in M8 HMC and Greyhounds, as expected. One Tiger fell from the 1% weak spot penetration chance that quickly added up due to several 37mm guns with their fast ROF firing at it. The other Tiger got the classic gundamage/immobilization/abadoned combo from M8 HMC shots.

My tactical errors can be avoided, especially I should have had a large number of Schrecks with the detachment. And you have to train the movement of such a detachment against a human opponent, my testing against the more cautious AI was insufficient. I also mishandled by artillery. But I am very sceptical about the overall value of such a way to conduct defense. The two Tigers require a 2000 points battle when using combined arms and they cost a substancial part of your points.

The goal to stripp off HE-firing vehicles from an attacker whom you know to buy many of them is certainly valid. But this force is also vulnerable to guns, and small cheap guns that is. I think he wouldn't have had a chance if I infected the battlefield with lots of 50mm AT guns instead. Now I lost the Tigers, the counterattack platoon is partly destroyed and the rest pinned from the surviving AFVs far away from the main line of defense.

The number of tanks is also important. In my opinion, you should buy at least 4 pieces of whatever thing you plan to expose to enemy LOS for more than a few seconds. The loss chance, may it be as low as it looks, is there and you have to make sure that statistically you are left with enough pieces to continue fighting even in a unlucky battle. Four Tigers mean a 4000 points battle and then you have no tank hunters or so left for the real defense.

Anyway, to summarize, in my opinion a defense by counterattack is not possible in any CMBO game below 4000 points or so, because:

- you need thick tanks for their speed because a thin tank counterattack is too slow (unless reskless)

- the battlefield in a high-point battle is larger and that is quite required for this undertaking

- you need substancial infantry with it, including AT teams and you cannot strip 20% of your defending force

- an artillery FO with this detachment would also be worthwhile

- you need enough AFVs for flank protection, but thinner vehicles as bodyguards do not work, so your only choice is a full platoon of similar ninja-macho tanks

I don't think that I will ever invest money into such a force again except maybe for Pershings in a big enough game. The Tiger detachment is effectivly moving faster than a Panther detachment (if both kept halfway save), but small-scale dodging of threats is not the Tiger's thing. A Churchill counterattack may be better, the faster turret is probably more of an advantage than the even slower speed is a disadvantage. But Churchills require roads or at least open ground, narrowing down your paths. And you are doomed when you meet big cats or Jagdpanzer IV/70. For such a counterattack, a tank must be good in every respect and only the Pershing is that in CMBO. Since that is reflected in the price, such an undertaking is extremly expensive, 4 Pershings with 2 platoons, many Bazookas and some mortar FO for supression or smoke.

A force of two platoons of Jagdpanthers, leapfrogging platoonwise first into possible lines of side threats, looking to the side and then the other platoon crossing it, may work, too, but that is more expensive and you need more infantry because of insufficient MG ammo.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

When considering the odds in QB and the flag cover question, some of you seem to overlook that victory is calculated to a major part based on losses, when those are high, and not on flags.

Imagine a 1500 points force attacking a 1000 points force and there are three flags, worth 100 points each and you give one to the attacker voluntarily, keep one yourself and one is neutral due to hard attack. Both forces loose 60% of their forces. Then you have 1000:700 points, which is already a minor victory. And that although the defender gave up one flag voluntarily, couldn't prevent another one from being neutral and "only" scored kills as he was expected to do.

It is more important to meet the expectation of kill ratio (1:1.5) than the expectation to hold the flags. And the attacker cannot avoid getting into high-kill engagements, because you start with the flags covered and if he stays passive you win with 100%.

Meeting the kill ratio expectation does not suffer from strange maps or unfair flag placement as much as holding the flags, so that point is somewhat lightend.

I would agree that defense in CMBO and playing for victory require using more game mechanic knowledge than other CMBO roles. For some people, that is against play fun.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[The_Capt]

Hey Redwolf,

The problem with your tanks is simple, you are violating the principle of mass. In the real world, tanks are not designed to be used in less than a Coy/Sqn formation. That would be 16(modern I think they had 14) tanks. You can violate that and use a 1/2 Sqn or 8 tanks in exceptional circumstances. An Inf Heavy Battle Group should have a Bn of Inf and at least 1/2 Sqn of armour. Now try your counter attack with 8 or 16 Tigers to see the proper result. 2 Tigers is commonly refered to as "penny-packeting" and is exactly how the Allies got their collective asses handed to them in 1940. Try taking 16 tanks in on an assault sometime and you will get the idea of how armour is suppose to be used. Now I don't know how this compares to actual numbers in WWII but then again I would hope to take the lessons learned from that conflict and use them today, rather than simply re-create them.

[MrSpkr]

Hey JasonC -

The real problem with this particular map is not me having the forces too spread out; quite the contrary, I am very concentrated and have still managed to avoid the brunt of his artillery. I dispatched a few scouts forward to determine the location of his advancing troops and directed off-board arty at them; however, as the spotter could nto possibly get LOS to them, I believe the fire was largely ineffectual. I felt, however, that given the map I had to use my arty before he closed on me to minimize friendly fire losses.

I agree the plane, in retrospect, was a poor purchase; however, had the terrain been a little more open, I believe it would have served its purpose by harassing or eliminating enemy armor. For me, that is worth it. Sure, I could get the same effect from guns in a less restrictive map, but the plane sounded fun and, as I previously indicated, I rarely use them and am trying for fun as well as competition.

Your suggestion for guns would not work given this map. Guns have several problems, not the least of which is a tendency to get knocked out by the smallest integral mortar. On this map, the crews MIGHT have been able to get off one shot before the enemy infantry overwhelmed them with sheer numbers - a tactic my opponent is using.

This overwhelming by numbers works particularly well in this scenario because my opponent is able to get most of his force close to mine without breaking cover. Mines might have been a littl helpful in channeling; however, given the number of points of advance I doubt they would have been a panacea.

The other problem I face is that the terrain, being so heavily wooded, natural gives great advantage to the Axis SMG squads. By choosing Gebirgsjagers and a SturmKompanie, my opponent has maximized this advantage. Even if I run now, then try to strike back later, he will decimate me because his SMG's are so much more powerful at the short ranges involved.

Granted, another company of infantry (obtained at the cost of the useless TD and plane I bought) would be helpful; however, I seriously doubt it would make too much of a difference given the unique circumstances here.

I recognize the defender must maximize the killing power of his purchases, and be ready to run to fight again. However, there are occasions when, given the forces you have, the map makes this style of fighting useless. I believe this is one of them. Rifle squads cannot compete man-for-man against SMGs. The SMG's are simply too deadly. Even if the defender manages to survive the first wave of attack, his forces will be so depleted that a second wave of SMG's will have little problem pushing the defenders aside.

Again, had I seen the map, my purcahses would have been much different. Mines, a couple of TRP's, and three companies of british paratroops (with those wonderful Stens) would be much more suitable for this map. Conversely, had I chosen such forces and the map were more open, I could not have suppressed his troops at range.

C'est la guerre? Maybe, but this is not merely a historical simulation. It is a game. It should be fun. Losing is acceptable if fun. Here, there is no joy in Mudville and there is no fun in the forest.

Steve

[Panzer Leader]

Redwolf and capt I have to respectfully disagree with both of you. I do agree that a counter-attack is impossible with all but the high-end games, but I disagree that it needs to be done with a couple of heavy tanks and hopping infantry.

The object of a counterattack (as it applies to CM) should be to fire on the enemies flank, and it should NEVER be attempted until the main thrust of the enemy is heavily engaged.

There is a moment (a few turns actually) where a properly directed counter-attack on a heavily engaged force from an unexpected (or at least lightly defended) flank can cause a huge amount of damage to the enemy.

In game terms, these losses are due to the enemy taking fire from multiple sides, flank shots to both tanks and infantry, and the amorphous idea of zones of control.

What you describe (redwolf) is a headlong counterattack that goes observed into an area of concentrated enemy.

On a large point battle, especially hilly (in which the circumstances are perfect for a counteratack) a pair of TDs, a pair of Infantry tanks, and a platoon of strong, range-firing infantry can reap great rewards during a successful counterattack.

At no point should this force come under fire of enemy AT guns -- if it does your plan is foiled or it was messed up from the get go.

As to QBs, they should not be debated as "wrong or right" They are what they are, and the wide front does offer some benefit to the defender as well. It gives the attacker the necessity to fan out his attack, or to concentrate on only a small front. Why not set up your defense around a small flag in one side of the map and force your opponent to come to you from ACROSS the field? Sure he could sit on the undefended flags and pull a minor without hardly a shot fired, but anyone who did that would not be playing in the spirit of the game anyway.

And as to a 1,000 meter minefield, that is just absurd. For one we are playing a tactical game, not "War in Russia" and two, I could use half the mines you call for, maybe even 30% and still cover it so that the enemy, seeing all those litle flags, even if they were a little spread apart, would be foolhardy to try and cross. As for two layers of mines, that is so far out of the scope of this game as to need no explanation.

Same goes with someone else's suggestion of Btn size tank forces. That is not Combat Mission, reality be damned! I read recently that Rommel in the early part of 1943 had less than 30 tanks in his ARMY, and that he pulled off a successful Attack with around 19 tanks, so numbers are meaningless here.

Besides, we are talking about attack/defense AS IT RELATES TO COMBAT MISSION.

[Redwolf]

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

The problem with your tanks is simple, you are violating the principle of mass. In the real world, tanks are not designed to be used in less than a Coy/Sqn formation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. But my question was is whether the chances of a small detachment that you can buy in CMBO are maybe still good enough to make it worthwhile. 360 of 2000 points invested into two Tigers are not that catastrophal, considering what masses of small vehicles they can consume if used properly.

Depending on terrain, I could imagine a map where the defense with guns and static support (including Marders or Jagdpanzers taking sniper shots only) is doomed to fail, mainly due to LOS reasons (trees, hills, weather) when the attacker comes in with masses of 75 and 105mm howitzer carrying vehicles.

That was the scenario that my counterattack force was borne from, I wanted to have a force that would strip the HE vehicles from the attacker, and that with more flexibility respectivly a smaller chance of fail due to external circumstances. I wanted flexibility and more independence from external factors.

It is obvious from my description that this is very difficult after realizing what tanks you need. For speed reasons and for the high prices, leading to too few tanks. Four is minimum, IMHO.

The Tiger is also overgunned, a higher ROF with a smaller gun and a faster turret would be of more value. That is why I don't dismiss the Churchill for such an attack.

You can say that in the PBEM battle I am going to loose is to use the Tigers as semi-mobile pillboxes when I saw that the terrain does not require avoiding static defense. However, the terrain was just perfect for the counterattack and it would be difficult to employ the Tigers behind the line due to the village having many houses and being on a hill in the center of my defense zone. Hence I went in, but it was first time against a human opponent and this kind of counterattack surely takes time to master. And it is not clear that it can pay off at all (statistically over several games).

[Redwolf]

Panzer Leader:

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

What you describe (redwolf) is a headlong counterattack that goes observed into an area of concentrated enemy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not that bad from planning. I had a good canal on the right side of the map (otherwise I would have used the Tiger from behind my lines) and I successfully moved up to his armour and at that point it was not concentrated.

The whole attack started in turn one to hit the enemy directly after setup, when his forces were in a march/approaching/sneaking formation approaching my lines.

And that worked, the enemy started concentrating his armour only after I hit him. But still he managed to concentrate his armour from all over his half of the map. The M8 HMC and Greyhounds were appearing faster than I could take them out, due to speed on M8, slowness of Tiger, slow turret, slow ROF. And low number of Tigers, of course.

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

At no point should this force come under fire of enemy AT guns -- if it does your plan is foiled or it was messed up from the get go.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. A said you must move carefully enough for a) suddenly appearing enemies appearing in your path a few meter from you and you must avoid positions of enemy overwatch AT weapons (typically rather a TD than a gun).

What I said you cannot do is to watch threats from the side through LOS canals crossing your path, where elements of the enemy forward forces may cross. That would require a turn more per canal and then you really meet concentrated enemies. If you accept that side threat, you end up with the Tiger requirement (or equivalent).

And that part worked for me, the Tiger survives the few side shots from the enemy forward vehicles (HE-carrying stuff) and successfully got where it wanted, was undamaged and met unconcentrated targets. But things still went downhill, after a plan went such straight up to contact. That is why I am now sceptical about counterattacks of this kind in CMBO.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[The_Capt]

Panzer Leader,

Your point as to composition of the c-attack is true. One does not have to use armour at all. As to mass armour, I really don't care what Rommel had, only what tactics teaches. You can do more with less but that should not be the "standard", nor should it negate an effort to use the basic principals.

As to the frontages of a QB, I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree. At small point values (less than 2000) the frontages favour the attacker just a little too much for my liking

A 1000m mine field is tactical my friend and can be put in place by an Engineer Troop in about 6 hrs. Or 1/2 the time it would take to build that MG bunker (depending on ground conditions). The two layers of which I speak is standard (in a prepared defence it is three actually) at the Bn level. The first is for engagement by longer range AT weapons while the shorter is for short range and infantry engagement. 30% coverage is a waste of time and effort and represents such a small amount of engineer effort that any Bn CO would flip if he received such a small amount (and probably did).

You have hit my point squarely in the general ignorance of obstacles and there composition in support of a Bn, which would be part of a Bde and Div. Even in a hasty defence one could expect 1000m of minefield to your front, unless of course something has gone seriously wrong. It is not "absurd" or "out of the scope of the game"(well only in that nobody really knows) trust me on this one, I used to do this for a living.

Now as you stated quite accuratly, this is CM and a game. So the defence within the game has an art all of it's own but detached from reality.

[Panzer Leader]

Good points, Capt. I would like to try a game, just for the hell of it, where the defense has a true dug in position, with bunkers, MG nests and a surrounding mine field. Of course, more often than not, a good opponent, might try to outflank your position and attack from one of the unprotected flanks, then you would be right back where you started: hastily dug positions, quickly scattered pockets of mines over especially tender areas, a few TRPs and probably not bunkers. All you would have would be those things that a CM battle gives you, and hey! a flanking force assault would even attack on an axis to your front, giving what for all practical purposes would be a wide (the side of your defense in depth) front on a narrow map.

Wow, that just came to me while writing this, but it WOULD fit the mold for a CM Assault/Defense QB pretty well. Interesting. Still, as for playability, since we continually hit upon that one note, the realism is relative, and a huge (in CM standards) belt of mines cannot make for a good battle.

I still argue that an Assault/Defend QB can be extremely fun and that the Defender CAN win with ALOT of work and a little bit of luck. My biggest piece of advice would be to agree with the attacker that if the map is horrible, than the defender can request another, but that the attacker may not. That alone would alleviate many problems.

Another way to allow the defender to see his territory and still be fair would be for the defender to create the parameters, then open it AS the opponent, insert a fake new password, buy a couple tanks and save, go back and open it as the defender and when you deploy, you se the map. if it is to your liking, GO BACK to the original save-and-send, and send it off. If it is bad, try again.

I think it would work, though I'm not sure. When does the game generate the map?