Meeting Engagement - Wedge Tactics?

[RSColonel_131st]

Howdy all. I'm currently getting slaughtered in my first PBEM. I allowed Cubes to get to the VL first (didn't want to rush my attack) and now he's sitting in defense positions at the backside of a slope which I have to cross for the VL.

In such a situation, wouldn't it be better to concentrate your troops and attack massed with them? I tried to assign equal forces to every VL and have them attack there. As long as both partys are still advancing, that shouldn't be a problem.

But when you are up against defenders, you need local number superiority to move ahead and pin them down, right?

So, what if I would have only spread my troops over half of the map, covering two of the three VL's? Of course you would need a decent flank buildup. Is that considered "gamey"? I mean, you win by numbers if you can jold the majority of VLs...and concentrating the troops that way would give a lot of firepower to break trough the defense of the local defenders. Of course the enemy could move troops in your flank, but then he has to give up static defense.

Maybe later on you could even roll up the enemy flank and get to the third location.

Also, I guess the same applys to defense? Here I also seem to make the mistake of spreading my forces to thin.

What do others use? Do you try to cover the whole frontline with adequate forces, or do you concentrate most of the men on a few keypoints? Let me know...

[Screeny]

Oh dear this gamey issue is getting out of hand:) I guess soon everything except running your troops straight to enemy troops with no cover is considered gamey

NOOOO that is not gamey. What you are doing is what this great game is all about!!!! I'm no expert just a veteran newbie but consider this: defending is easier then attacking, so 1:1 the defender is in the advantage. So when on defense..spreading is a good idea with some additional notes but let's stick at your problem at hand:

Attacking your opponent who is on the defence as he reached th VL first. It is always hard to to give advice from the side line and blind but here we go:

You got 22 options:

1) let him have his VL where he is now and rush to capture the other ones with the bulk of your forces.

2) attack him properly at the VL he has now and work your way after that towards they others.

I would go with option 2) as here you know where he is allready and hence have a good situational overview. You might run into an ambush when rushing towards the other VL's.

In general this is what I would do:

get the units that are in contact and in combabt allready with his troops at the VL flags sit thight or small retreat, this will make him stay put there and will distract him for a while This we will call this the COVER group. In the meanwhile gather and mass the rest of your troops (=assault group) and lead them to proper assault positions at the VL, leave however a small force (1 platoon or less) we will use this as recon (hence the recon group). Then under cover of the COVER GROUP Assault the VL with the new fresh Assault group. I will not go n to details how to assault, enough threads about that, just make sure you have some heavy stuff supporting the assault (tanks, ortars, MG etcetetc). In the meanwhile your small recon group moves/sneaks towards the other VL. DON"T try to capture these with this small grou unles you are 100% sure there is no enemy opposition. Just let them move in untill enemy contact and then make sure they stay alive. They will stay there as another distraction at the other VL's. Once your done with the first VL. Move towards the other VL's and catue those.

Ok mate so much for the theory have fun and succes on the battle map!

gr

Screeny

[RSColonel_131st]

Hehe, I have the feeling that this PBEM has run it's way and I can maybe hope to gain one of the three flags...

Yeah, I guess that "gamey" stuff is a problem, but then, in real life you couldn't use the edge of the map to secure one of your flanks. While in this game you can have your attackintg forces on one half of the map and only need to cover one flank-the inward one.

You are of course right, 1:1 the defender is in the advantage, you need 1:1,5 at least so you can have cover fire and advance. So concentrating more forces on fewer ground seems a good idea then.

Now, I just hope Cubes doesn't read this...I want to kick his backside in the next PBEM.

[Slappy]

Actually, my experience is that you need at least a 2:1 local superiority to dislodge a defender. As I am experiencing in a PBEM of my own, allowing your opponent first grab at the flags is dangerous.

There are a few solutions that may work in this case.

You can pound said flags with artillery, that seems to help if your opponent is in fact sitting on them.

You can flank the flags, making his hold less secure than he thinks.

You can hit one wiht everything you have and dislodge his piecemeal defence.

In any case, once he is sitting on/near the VL, you'll need far better than 1:1 to get him out.

I woulden't be terribly concerned about gamey flanks. That's just a fact of CM life. Given the wideness of CMBO maps, and some CMBB too, there is no way to effectively cover the entire front even without the map edges helping out.

[ December 29, 2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Slappy ]

[SaTyR]

I don't like rushers either. Now that CMBB models defence right (mg's more lethal etc.) it's even easier just to rush the VLs and then sit and pound away at the hapless attacker (who just was too slow). I only have a few suggestions: plan on it (not possible in your situation, as the game is already in progress, but in the future) and buy your troops accordingly. Heavy artillery and shock troops. Wait a bit in the start, just to give the rusher more time to get into the massacre zone. Build up the odds and unleash your artillery at him, then move the barrage to the sides of the main assault point and crush the survivors. Now this CAN backfire, but often rushers have their troops scattered on the VLs and it's easy to take one, when that is your main goal from the start. Reposition your troops and you can attack the enemy from three sides.

Then there's the old armored spearhead breakthrough tactic. Smoke and artillery at the breakthrough point and in you go. Wedge the enemy between the armored hammer (turning and attacking the enemy rear) and the infantry anvil (advancing from the front).

Forget about the VLs. They are rarely worth it in the end. Concentrate in maiming the enemy and in the end you'll probably ahead in points. The rusher is tied to the terrain he so eagerly want's to hold, you have the freedom to move. Use it and take your time. Poke here and there, make out his MLR. Decide when and where to strike. Contest the VLs you "don't need" to reduce the rushers points (and so nullifying the gains he sought when rushing).

In your scenario, I'd step back, concentrate my forces, break through at one point and then contest the other flags (there's three VLs, right ?). Remember, HE has made this a defencive battle for him, use that to your advantage. Local odds is everything.

I really do hate rushers. Usually in CM the VLs aren't in a key position on the map. VLs offer no strategic importance. I do not like to rush, I like to advance slow and steadily. I'd like the CM MEs to use somekind of a "hidden VL" typish thingy. VLs would be revealed when one gets close to them. In CM you instantly know where these "extremely important" locations are and you can rush your troops in the area early on. Not my picture of a ME.

I try to go around the problem by playing bigger maps (more room to manouver... and this also solves the map edge gamey exploit, VLs tend to be near the center of the map). Kinda like playing a "one size bigger" map than usual. IIRC the number of VLs depend on the purchase points, not the map. Try this next time... or become a rusher

[RSColonel_131st]

I'm quite certain that a good, steady attack can not be beaten. Rushing is such a crude tactic its got to have it's faults.

In theory, if a rusher wants to secure every VL, and we assue the map has three, he will need to split his forces into three large groups. The attacker could focus his single group on two flags, which would give a 3 : 2 advantage. Add to that that the assaulters recon will be better, easier artillery usage, and easier flanking manouvers.

Against an equal skilled enemy one shouldn't expect a total victory anyway...so two out of three flags will do I think. Not to mention that you could always roll up the third one from the side.

The real mistake I made in this CMBB is to split my groups too on all 3 VL's. Now that's bound to lose me the game, but I recognized this to late.

[Screeny]

I would want to go so far as Satyr as to hate Rushers, but for the rest I agree with him. If you notice, your opponent is a rusher, take advantage of this fact. His objective and tactic is clear to you. You can do what ever you want attack 2 VL, attack a ingle VL, frontal assault, flanking??. Basically wants he sits in defence, you have the initiative. USE IT.

Then again some guys out there have made the "Rush and defend" doctrine an art. They are really very good. They not just RUSH and sit. No they sneak fast (yes some guys can be very sneaky and still move fast.....), to locations near the VL yet NOT on the obvious locations, and they don't sit...they are masters at defence.

And I can respect this. As said they do NOT just use the RUN and HIDE command, no they have a much more "professional" approach like if they play a attack/defence game instead of a ME game with the difference that they do NOT start in defence positions but have to move to this positins first.

I sometimes use this appraoch, not always but when I play more games against the same oppononent, I try to play unexpected and different., because every tactic has it's counter tactic. At the end surprise is one of the greatest assets on the battlefield.

gr

Screeny

[SaTyR]

Well hate IS a bit of a strong word... dislike would be closer to the truth. I've just lost a game too many to rushers on a small map, with few troops (enabling units to support each other throughout the map, denying the slow advancing guy the possibility to concentrate forces and build the odds... and/or to flank the enemy). So I was being a bit too edgy. But I've learnt my lesson, no less than 1250 points and medium map for me. Oh, and minimum of 35 turns.

I still (!) dislike (!) rushers, but the new settings help a lot. CMBB is great in many ways, this being one of them.

[RSColonel_131st]

As for turns, I made it a rule for me to be in the last jmup-off points before combat by half of the turns.

That means I dont hurry to the VL, but if I'm playing 25 turns I want to fire shots by turn 13 or 14.

I found that keeping such rules of thump, and eventually planning a timetable for an attack, prevents you from running out of time - which happened to me before.