ScoutPL Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Rather then continue to harass all these other great site managers about posting my tutorials I set up my own page to do it. Go check out www.geocities.com/fpd131 to find my new defense tutorial, my old infantry attack tutorial, and a glimpse into the future! Thanks for all the great comments on past tutorials! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wildman Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I'll say this here. Nice job. A must read for even experienced players. Take the time and check it out. --- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ksak Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Nicely done. Airborne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mongo Lloyd Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I have found that the length of the game has a huge impact on whether the defender can hold off the attacker. I have not seen any guidelines as to an appropriate scenario length for attacks. The longer the game the easier it is for the attacker. I have been playing some 2000 point defense scenarios and 35 turns seems to be pretty appropriate under normal weather conditions. In snow perhaps 40 turns would be better. As battles get bigger the map size also increases so the attacker needs more time to move. Anybody else have any thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hey, you've got your own website now. Cool. Very good job, sir, in describing your plans and execution in the defense tutorial. Recently, a CM gamer at the Cdmag CM forum asked for tips on how to improve defensive play. I'll provide your link over there. And best of luck with your master's studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Todd, Just so you know, and others know, placing units on the VL will not automatically reveal your forces to the enemy. I used to think that too, but apparently the flag only changes when units are spotted as they are regularly. Are you going to start a thread for discussion on defense principles? [This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Adams Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Thanks I am just starting to work through it! Really helpful! ------------------ Scott Adams Not Dilbert, Adventure! www.msadams.com msadams@msadams.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted January 19, 2001 Author Share Posted January 19, 2001 Bumpty Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 ScoutPL, Very interesting insights on defence. The desire to coordinate withdrawals, concentrate combined assets to hold/control certain AOA's is graet. The problem is that mortar/arty usually wipes out any semblence of organized defense within five turns. As a result, especially on smaller maps, concentrations are really a no no. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 The site was clean and consise. Thanks for all the efforts. May I have a suggestion? I would like to see a printable version. Griffin. ------------------ "When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI." "Can't get enough Tank?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Very well done ScoutPL. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Mighty fine. A couple of points I noticed, in the writer's obviously fine play. There is always room for noticing new points. Number one, the positioning of the 75mm ATG probably accounts for its relatively rapid loss once it became engaged. It was set up for a wide field of fire, with the result that many enemy tanks could fire back at it. While such a "forward" deployment was obviously sensible for the "deception" force 88 (which would also attrite the enemy armor and tend to make it more cautious), it might have been better to chose a more "keyholed" deployment position for the second gun. For example, farther back into the village there is a stone-wall enclosure of sorts. Dug in behind that wall, the gun might have been able to see out behind the various buildings across its front, masked from a full view of the entire field by the buildings. I don't have the map to fiddle with the LOS tool, to see if such a place would have worked. But it is the general idea that is the point. The location where you had the AT gun would be fine for a Panzerscreck, able to hit any tanks that came close down the road, and to remain hiding until one did. A live AT gun somewhere inside the village might have restricted his armor, and the gun might have managed to outshoot the single tanks that would get LOS to it at one time in such a deployment, better than the entire enemy force. Yes, an open field of fire seems to restrict his armor more, but open views mean short life expectancy, and then no restriction on his armor. Of course, luck would play a role regardless, and eventually his artillery would probably have silenced it whatever yoy did. Second, I question using up the last of the 105mm ammo on further "interdiction" fires on the enemy infantry mass moving up along the southern approach. If you had the ammo for it, that would be fine. But I would have saved one fire-mission's worth of the heavy stuff for later. After the deception forces repositioned, it would have been great to have one 105mm mission to drop on the enemy massing behind the obstacles at the time of his attack, or at the time you choose to pull back into the interior of the village. But those are minor points. Obviously, the whole defense was well conceived and well executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Just one quick point re your photo caption... I personally would hope that mistakes would be analyzed. Analized mistakes might require the attention of the medics, although this approach could possibly yield a more effective teaching tool. You gotta watch out for those big mistakes though... Other than that, great site, and thank you for all the good work. ------------------ To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted January 20, 2001 Author Share Posted January 20, 2001 A few replys: "The problem is that mortar/arty usually wipes out any semblence of organized defense within five turns. As a result, especially on smaller maps, concentrations are really a no no. Any thoughts?" Limit your opponents to artillery that would realistically support a company or even a battalion in the attack. Such as a mortar platoon and a battery of 105's. If your arty is having that much effect against dugin troops then its gotta be the big stuff that was usually used for farther behind the lines for interdiction fires or for huge bombardments right before major offensive operations. The average rifle company in the attack has to beg for Mortar fires from higher and a 105 splash is like a godsend. Keep in mind we're talking about WWII here. The predominant mortar system was 81 and the arty system was 105. I think its way to easy to get bigger stuff in the game. On the other hand use your hide command and make use of cover and concealment. If he is moving spotters forward, he should be well into your engagement areas by the time he spots you and you should be able shut off his fires quickly by killing off or disrupting his spotters. Also keep in mind that MASS is a Principle of War for a reason... "Number one, the positioning of the 75mm ATG probably accounts for its relatively rapid loss once it became engaged. It was set up for a wide field of fire, with the result that many enemy tanks could fire back at it." This is a very good point, and serves to illustrate another. A company commader has three school trained LT's working for him. I'm sure the LT who was focusing on that EA would have noticed the gun was too far forward just like you did. But as the guy trying to do it all, I missed it. Stick that in your hat, team work is the key to success, always. "Second, I question using up the last of the 105mm ammo on further "interdiction" fires on the enemy infantry mass moving up along the southern approach." Like I said at the beginning of the tutorial, there's a technique for every man who would attempt to defend this ground. I felt that I would gain more by using the arty to disrupt his movement, cause him casualties, and disperse his forces. Also the spotter was located with the deception forces and I couldnt bet on him making ot back. I felt the firepower I could bring to bear on the hillside with my MG's and squads would sufice to make it costly for him. It worked well. Thats not to say that a well timed arty splash near the wire wouldnt have helped out, it probably would have. "Just one quick point re your photo caption... I personally would hope that mistakes would be analyzed. Analized mistakes might require the attention of the medics, although this approach could possibly yield a more effective teaching tool. You gotta watch out for those big mistakes though..." I realize by posting this work of mine I opened myself up to such criticism, but I'll just throw this out there for good measure. If Herr Oberst wishes, I'd be happy to send him my next work for proofreading, that way he can share in the effort and time put into it rather then just have a good laugh. Thanks for the point, its well taken (no pun intended). I'll try harder next time to do a better job of proofreading my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AbnAirCav Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: Very well done ScoutPL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I concur, and thank you. Looking forward to next week's projected publication of "Infantry Battalion Anti-Armor Defense, Part One". Airborne, All the Way! --Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 Hehe, Scout I think what Herr Oberst said was in jest Anyhow, I'd be interested in reviewing your next tutorial. I may spot some stuff you can cover before others bring it up in the forum. Keep em coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 Gee I've seen that style somewhere before. Nice work! ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 ScoutPL, very nice stuff indeed! A well executed defence despite losing and ATG early because of the !@#$% Transporter! Great work and something I'll have boomarked for as long as a play CM...(which will be until CM2 comes out ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windstarz Posted January 21, 2001 Share Posted January 21, 2001 I appreciate the effort you put out in the tutorial. Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Looks neat! Sitting in a patch of tall pines, are we? Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts