Infantry advance illustrated (was infantry advances over open ground)

[Michael Dorosh]

I think the Runyan-Cawley debate, and this thread in particular, highlights the difference between true CM afficionadoes and those of us who are mere "duffers".

JasonC's example - brilliant in its execution - does make clear how much knowledge of the game engine is required to be truly successful. I know that sounds like a "well, duh" statement, but look at some of the decision trees....

I'll give one example, that should suffice. When the platoon first comes under fire, JasonC checks the distance to the first house with the LOS tool.

Part of the decision required an intimate knowledge of how fast the squad would be able to ADVANCE towards the house.

So in addition to the obvious "real life" sensibilities (the use of fire and movement, dispersal of troops in the open, command and control, concentration of force at the appropriate time, suppression) there are of course a host of technical issues one must be aware of - that can only be gained via experience with the game system. Specifically, firepower ratings, the effects of fire on units, the length of the different suppression states, rally times, movement rates in different terrain using the different commands, etc. None of which is intuitive or comparable to real life experience to the degree with which JasonC is able to apply it. (44m takes approx. 30 seconds to cover while ADVANCING....)

None of which is to suggest this is not as it should be, but I think it fair to categorize JasonC type CMers in a league apart (above?) from those who merely apply real life technique (or no technique at all....) to their play of CM and simply go at it with fingers crossed. I will admit to being one of the latter.

I think articles like this are enormously helpful, and hope to see more of them in future.

I also like the AFV camo interface mod....LOS!

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Typical support for a single company advance is 2 MGs, 1 heavy or 2-3 light mortars, 1-2 field guns, an FO, occasionally a sniper. This gives a "toolkit" of ranged heavy weapons to reply to various defenses. In point terms about 50% of the cost of the infantry alone is needed, in addition. Split between "support" and "artillery" categories.

Well, your platoon level example probably would have included some of these weapons also, but you left them out for the purpose of illustration. If you provide the attackers with field guns and an FO, firepower is going to start removing the need for clever tactics.

With respect to my proposal, a village is typically held by more than a platoon, but that isn't the point.

I'll wait to see how your company level example plays out.

[Jim Boggs]

I am in agreement with Michael that knowledge of the game engine is a pre-requisite for employing successful tactics.

Knowing that you need your infantry covering force to shoot at anything that shows itself during the advance and dealing with the intricacies of covered arcs, area fire, etc.

sometimes makes it less than intuitive to convert your plans to action in game terms.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

are there really players who somehow manage to lose a platoon against a single MG? if so, i'd like to hear how on earth they managed to do it. i think it's almost impossible.

[JasonC]

Green Jade asks a fine question, why don't I split the squads? For leading scouts in a larger fight against a hiding human player, I often do. But that is because I expect them to be blown to heck at first contact, and would rather lose 5 men than lose 10.

The reason I don't during the approach march, and in cases like the whole example in this thread, is that half squads are more brittle in morale terms than full ones. Each MG burst will knock the half squad "deeper" into the low morale states. And the lower you go in those, the longer it takes to snap back up to "ok".

I want to minimize the number of units that get pushed all the way down to pinned, and especially that go below it to panic. Because a pinned unit is no longer capable of moving about upright - it can only "sneak". And can take 1-3 minutes to recover. A unit that panics won't even go where I tell it to, and risks a long sneak or worse a long exhausting run, in the wrong direction.

Full squads that get to cautious or shaken will typically rebound within about 30 seconds if the fire shifts off of them. Occasionally a "shaken" will last a full minute without improving, but that isn't very common, unless the fire continues.

And what I am trying to do overall is use "rally power" to get practically all the men to small arms range of the defenders, basically together. Understand why - my diagnosis of what makes attacks fail is that only a few best-shape attackers get close enough to the defenders to hurt them at once. The defenders outnumber them, as well as having better cover.

Scattered attackers elsewhere can't help. Sideways sneakers don't fire. Pinned units don't fire (unless being overrun). Panicking units don't fire. A unit that pinned 300m back won't be up on line. A unit that panicked and ran 100m the wrong way, took 3 minutes to rally, and drew fire once while coming back, it out of it for an extended period.

So, the critical thing is to get a full body of men to range close enough to use their weapons, with some close enough to see. To do that I don't need to avoid fire at one unit. An advance like this can last 10 minutes and a single MG can fire 60 times in that period. He is not going to lack for shots to spread around.

No, what I want is the best morale and the fastest rally to snap back from each hit before the MG gets back around to that unit's "turn", again. I want to get off as much "advance" movement before the MG gives me its attention, sure. But I am not racing to get out of the open, or to get the fewest number of shots fired at me.

I want the men I know are going to be shot at regardless, to be in the best condition to take the pain. That means cover when available, leadership always, "advance" rather than move, enough resting to avoid serious fatigue. And it means a full squad rather than a half squad.

But an excellent question.

[ February 04, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

URC - "lose" a full platoon? No. Get one scattered? Sure. Try just giving a group select "move" order and then don't interfer with any of the sideways sneaks and such that result. The platoon will be all about the shop inside of 5 minutes. Usually they will pin in succession at 300-350m or so, but rally a little once all down, and some at least continue on. By 200-250m, they will all be eating dirt, 1-2 squads will panic, another will be cut in half.

With incorrect tactics the typical outcome in open ground is the MG alive but getting low on ammo and thus forced to shorten its arcs, while the platoon is down a squad's worth of men, with enough of the rest pinned or worse that the guys willing to continue the mission get outshot in close, if they try.

What is the fundamental cause of this? Pushing too hard. If you try to get a unit to move as long as it is willing to, by hook or by crook, then it will push into the lethal envelope rapidly until the fire gets too hot for it to stand. They don't rest and rally until they "need" to, which is way too late to recover fast.

When one goes to ground that way it does not rapidly come back. When all go to ground that way in succession - which can take as little as 2-3 minutes sometimes - they can't coordinate anymore. Delay times go to 1-2 minutes, to accomplish only a short move. The HQ halts or units drop out of command or the whole approach is as slow as the hardest hit.

[ February 04, 2004, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Mr. Tittles]

I did some quick testing regarding a German HMG, LMG and HQ stopping a 2 platoon assault. My opinion is that something has been tweaked from CMBB. the attacking platoons were US green.

[Robert Olesen]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I also like the AFV camo interface mod....

Is that on CMMODS? What do I search for to find it? I tried, but had no luck in locating it.

[Heinzi]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I also like the AFV camo interface mod....LOS!

Hehe this is the German version of Pakfans Interface mod

I made the screenies for JasonC. I the image would have a higher res you could also see the cool german commands like:

Vorrücken

Sturmangriff etc

[manchildstein (ii)]

i've been battling over a modified borisovka station map (expended axis and allied setup zones)...

this is a good map for moving across open ground... well wheatfield, fence, and open ground...

usually i play a 25 or 30+ turn, 1000-point (1720 attacker) axis assault on it in jul of '41... anyway... you can get that map at der kessel...

it seems like a good example of a map where you have to move over modest amounts of open area... and it's doable in 25 or 30+ turns...

if you use the setup zones 'as is' from the site.. you might want to agree to no allied artillery spoiler attacks at the start...

the modified version i've been trying has the german setup zone all the way across the back of the map... and expands the soviet zone a bit

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

URC - "lose" a full platoon? No. Get one scattered? Sure.

i ment it more like "lose with a platoon".

Try just giving a group select "move" order

to use "move" instead of "advance" is always an error when you are under fire and it is not related to this scenario.

With incorrect tactics the typical outcome in open ground

in your scenario it has nothing to do with the tactics. it only has to do with using "advance" instead of "move".

What is the fundamental cause of this?

the use of "move" instead of "advance".

if you simply advance at the MG, stopping a squad for a breath when it starts to tire, you can not lose or even get serious casulties. if your squads fire at the MG it is very likely to surrender well before you reach the house.

you have a point, but your scenario isn't fit to display it.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Get one scattered? Sure.

i forgot to comment on this.

if you simply use "advance" instead of "move", the platoon will not get scattered. the squads will not get routed or broken.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

actually, after having thought about this half a minute more, i would like to see you put up a scenario that DOES display your point. i think it may be "pretty" hard. as once you get to the company level, which i think is a requirement, it becomes obvious that the key element is the proper use of mortars & such.

EDIT: but if you are able to put up such a scenario i am very glad to welcome it. i agree with your theory in principle, especially in the context in which majority of the players say one should never advance infantry over open terrain. their view is more in error than yours. my personal opinion is that terrain (as cover etc) is generally over rated, both for infantry & armor.

[ February 05, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[JasonC]

That you should use advance rather than move, with pauses to rest and to rally along the way, is definitely part of the point. Which is to show newer players the right way to attack over open ground. The right order, the right pauses, use of cover where there is any, getting close enough for an ID instead of rushing right on top of them, shooting once you have the ID - all are simple enough points once you know to do them. But they are not obvious to everyone. Plenty of players have trouble commanding the more realistic, less resilient infantry in CMAK and CMBB, particularly in open terrain. Yes, if you know and do all of the above, open ground alone should not be a terror, and you should be able to take out an MG with a platoon. Any MG. That was after all the whole point.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Green Jade asks a fine question, why don't I split the squads? For leading scouts in a larger fight against a hiding human player, I often do. But that is because I expect them to be blown to heck at first contact, and would rather lose 5 men than lose 10.

The reason I don't during the approach march, and in cases like the whole example in this thread, is that half squads are more brittle in morale terms than full ones.

Thanks JC ... I learned some more.

And URC... the point is not so much what happens or would happen in the scenario, it's the thinking and principles behind it.

GaJ.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

EDIT: but if you are able to put up such a scenario i am very glad to welcome it. i agree with your theory in principle, especially in the context in which majority of the players say one should never advance infantry over open terrain. their view is more in error than yours. my personal opinion is that terrain (as cover etc) is generally over rated, both for infantry & armor.

Hey, we all know that this is nearly impossible. No matter how you design it - if you actually succeed some would claim that it was just designed to give the demo plt an approach route covered by one MG only...

What JC states is that all other equal "advance" and clever maneuvering of units is better than a plain move. He shows that by accomplishing something with advance that would not work with move. Nothing more, nothing less.

On your idea that cover is overrated: Cover is a force multiplier. Would you rather be with 9 others in a woods or with 29 others in flat featureless open ground?

Would you fight a Tiger with 3 T34s in hilly and wooded terrain? Would you do the same in a flat open rural area?

Use Marders in the open or keyholing from cover?

Cover does not work alone. But if you are able to effectively use it, it is one of the most important factors on the battlefield.

Gruß

Joachim

[walpurgis nacht]

The time constraint issues brought up don't apply considering this isn't a realistic tactical situation. It's simply a "textbook" tactical demonstration. . . . and a good one.

A few other problems here though.

The initial "box" formation is a mistake. The reason is that the 2 squads in the back are moving directly in line with the front 2. If the 1st squad gets pinned, the back squad walks forward into the fire and multiplies the effectiveness of the enemy HMG. Even worse, the defender might decide to open up with some forward HE source. Better would be something more of a staggered, diamond-esk line. So instead of:

O*****O

*******

***O***

*******

O*****O

this is much better:

********O**

O**********

*****O*****

**********O

***O*******

The first formation is also problematic in that the HQ position is obvious. This is like writing "shoot me!" on the HQ's forehead against a decent defender. In the second example, you can toggle the HQ between any of the last 3 positions to keep the defender honest.

Depending on where you choose to place your HQ, you will want to adjust the point squad's position so that his left to right proximity is closest to the HQ. So for example let's pick an HQ position(HQ=X):

******O*****

O***********

********O***

***********O

****X*******

Notice the point squad, who in theory will pick up the HMG fire first, is aligned closest (left to right) of all to the squad's HQ. This is so that, if he becomes pinned he will receive the maximun benefit from the HQ as the HQ catches up and passes him. Notice also the farthest squad from the HQ (left to right), which is most likely to fall out of command range if pinned, is the least likely to take fire.

Just remember to keep your advancing squads as far away from each other left to right as command range permits, leaving a little contingency slack for your squads that get pinned.

Another thing, the “pause” a prepared move for 59 seconds technique, while in the general way described here is a difference that separates the men from the boys, you want to aim for 61 seconds+. The reason is twofold. First, against a skilled human opponent they will look carefully at the last seconds of the turn for any last second movement to see if any “paused”, prepared moves are about to be launched. You want to start from stealth whenever possible to avoid the enemy’s ability to react by shifting cover arcs, etc (this is particularly crucial with armor who’s movement in the very last seconds of a turn are easier to see/hear). But the more important reason to give 61+ is a bug in the game. For whatever reason when infantry with pause delays under 60 seconds start to take any significant fire, (i.e. arty happens to open up or another HMG opens up with LOS to the paused squad) they will sometimes just take off with their movement orders at the beginning or middle of the turn. It happens all the time and can be disastrous.

Trenches in the open are spotted at 200 meters on the button, not 175 meters. This is a super important distinction to know on the attack.

Otherwise good stuff. Nice post JC.

[ February 06, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Walpurgis Night ]

[Dawg Bonz]

Being a "newer player" I speak from experience.

Jason’s infantry crossing open ground drill was an eye opener for me. It is not ‘rocket science’ but it was clear, simple and worked very well in my AI test scenario vs. 2 MG. I am not familiar with CM unit command nuance so the open ground drill is a novice confidence builder and helped me think more clearly about a sound method of attacking.

Joachim’s comment that "Cover is a force multiplier." could not be clearer. I think this bears particular significance to novice players who think they MUST hide behind everything. Now I realize it is possible to thoughtfully advance units across open ground but I will still look for the best cover whenever possible.

Walpurgis Night’s formation and pause suggestions are welcomed as well.

The illustrations are much appreciated. The SchnellerHeinz screen pictures with German commands were interesting.

Maybe CMX2 will allow multilingual screen commands as well as multilingual sounds.

Thanks to you all.

[JasonC]

Walpurgis' "amendments" are basically all "friendly", meaning I agree with them. You do have to watch for a forward pin early in a turn leading to a pile up and multiple units hit by the same small arms burst. Sometimes you are moving through the same limited areas of cover in 30 second to 1 minute intervals, though, so you effectively follow the unit ahead.

This isn't as big a problem when not all the units are moving at once (when only half are e.g.), but it still comes up. Against the AI you don't have to bother with making the HQ position less obvious, but against good humans it helps.

My only quibble is with the point about extending to the limits of command range. Sometimes that is right. But often you want to stay somewhat tighter (still 25m or so between squads), because changes in movement rates, minor course deviations, differences in when units move out etc, all make the command link stretch and shrink like a spring.

Leave some slack, preferably 10-20m of slack. +1 command and better HQs are particularly forgiving this way, while for HQs without any command bonuses Walpurgis' comment needs to be taken literally. This is also a reason to prefer some depth in a platoon formation, rather than all spread along a line. (The other big reason for that is not needing as much cover).

[markl]

Very informative so far.

I have found these tactics have improved my game a bit. But mainly in scenarios between 30 and 40 turns.

I still run out of time if I have to cross open ground in 20 or less turns, especially if I try to use the attrition method.

I am now using Han’s small battles which seem to be good practice scenarios for the methods out lined here.

I hope Jason's strategy guide gets completed, it would help a lot of people.

Nice thread, keep it going.

[kingofthehill]

After reading and study JasonC concepts about infantry against and HMG I try a similar situation, probably for raffinate player this is a small situation but for me is important to understand some concept. Lets see a screenshot for explain

The situation is evoluted a while. My reserves fires is in position, behind the edge, first squad of main effort is near of the point of attack(the building faces where the HMG is) the problem is where is the best place where the second squad of M.E , (they are on the cover death highway behind first squad), and HQ, behind this last squad, meeting fire?. In JasonC case the are many craters good for shellholes, in my case they havent, other buildings are too far as you can see in the second fly bird screenshot.

I put two "?" on a building and on a marsh( in front of this,there is a wood fence) for two probably point. But i think this are two far for last quick assault.

thanks for any suggestion

KotH

[Heinzi]

hey whats written there? Sorry im heavily red-green blind .

[JasonC]

Leave the HQ in the dead ground behind the building. You want its command, its firepower is tiny. Better to have it safe.

The squads at the hedge look a bit close together. Make sure they are 25-30m apart, to prevent fire at one from suppressing both.

There are three possibilities for the rest. An obvious natural use of all squads quickly, a roundabout long way to do it, and a "column thinking" way.

The obvious location for the remaining squad is just behind the right end of the fence. It isn't great cover, but it is close enough to shoot from. I'd first move the forward squad into the building (it can "sneak" the last 6m or so), and have both it and the hedge squads up = not hiding, with covered arcs over the HMG building.

Then "advance" the last squad out of the dead ground to a waypoint just behind the right end of the fence, with an order to rotate toward the HMG building at the end of that "advance". It should also have a covered arc toward the HMG building.

The HMG will almost certainly fire at this moving fence-bound squad. Then the whole platoon lights him up in response. That is the "obvious" way.

The roundabout way would take a long time, and would be more natural with two platoons. You'd got first for the right side distant house, then advance from there to the wheatfield to the right of the HMG.

One squad would be at your "M.E." house, but as a base of fire not as an "M.E." The other three would go. If a squad gets pinned in the course of this right wheel, it could stay in the house to the right and fire from there, even if it is a bit far. (The "M.E." house provides spotting).

From the wheatfield you can approach the dead ground behind the house just to the right rear of the HMG house. And thus get to cover within grenade range of the HMG, by a covered final route.

This has a good final approach but it would be slow. It means two open ground crossings, to the right side house and then again to the wheat. Either could go badly, and each would take several minutes of "advancing in the open" drills. Though suppressing fire from the ME house might make it possible. (If he is heads down those open areas aren't so daunting).

The last way, the "column thinking" way, is the way I'd probably use myself. I'd get the two hedge squads in position, separated by at least 25m, and sneak the first squad into the ME house. The HQ is behind the house in dead ground and stays there. The last squad is also in the dead ground, just behind the house.

Then just open up with 3 squads. Keep firing for 2-3 minutes until you see him go heads down. Once he does, the squads back at the hedge continue to fire. But the squad in the ME house advances to grenade range, slightly right or left of straight ahead. (I'd choose right, incidentally - see below). The 4th squad takes its place in the house, and adds its fire as soon as it gets to the front windows for LOS.

The HQ should be in a spot that keeps the house between it and the HMG, but lets it see the leading squad, to the right or left slightly of a strait line to the HMG (looking "around" the ME house, in other words - to maintain a full length command line).

At decent range, the 3 squads should get you a pin. Once in the open the 4th has high firepower at close range, in addition. Firepower substitutes for cover at that point. Eventually the lead squad, "second rank" ME house squad, and HQ may all be part of the final assault on the HMG house. Which might include one squad heading to the building to the right rear of the HMG, to toss in grenades from cover, without having to enter the same building.

The last is how I'd do it.

[Richie]

JasonC, I really am most impressed by the scope of the technical information you have at hand. Is there any chance you could post a list of your favourite reference material. I tried to look up information I thought I had pertaining to barrel changes and fire rates you posted in another thread, alas I found I was lacking...

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate this.

Cheers, Richie

[kingofthehill]

@SchnellerH. Sorry for red color on green, anyway red says in second screenshot: First Squad Approaching. In the first screenshot red is a simple arrow that indicate the first squad :"move to contact" and "hide" or "sneak" and "hide".

@JasonC. Thanks for you technical support I read it carefully, and soon I will try to do it and if it is not too much annoyance I could posting other some key-screenshots of the evolved situation.