Infantry advance illustrated (was infantry advances over open ground)

[Heinzi]

ahh thx king

Post the screenies when you are ready

I would love to post some situations from my game, but my opponent is surely lurking around here

[kingofthehill]

ahahah ok , I still am unfortunately not engaged in PBEM or TCP/IP battle

[Heinzi]

I dont know where you come from, but in Germany we have a combatmission league (rank 26 or so). I play there.

But you can always send me a setup

But still waiting for several turns.

Its fun to use parts of Jasons illustrations in Pbem. But the key in most Pbem ist to be fast. I use my trusty "move&fast" doctrine.

[kingofthehill]

Good, final results: I try two way of Jason support.

The obvius "squad-quickly", and "column thinking".

All is proceeded well. I adore the plans that working well.(Cit. Hannibal Smith of A-team).

Only one surprise see below.

Some scrennie.

The first is Squad-Quickly in position and ready to fire.

The second is the same with care eye of hedge squads 25m separated.

The third is the end of skirmish.

The Fourth is the surprise: I have taken the same surprise in the same tactics.

Jason previewed and also I think as him that HMG fires on my second squad that leave to the rear of the building(dead ground)from the right end of the fence(open ground).

Instead unexpectedly the HMG open fire vs. my third rear squad behind the edge when they sneak towards the point, before the second squad leave the dead ground . The thing that it has to me made curious is the revealed sound contact point.cool.

Now the "column thinking".

First in position and ready to assault.

Second the end final victory

Judice for me, the first is more cold-conservative-tactic, the second is more aggressive-emotionally-tactic.

The casualties that i have got are the same, in the first tatic i'm take one casualty to the second squad in the fence, in the second tatic im take one casualty to the first squad assault.

And this is all. (Thanks Jason)

p.s nearly I forgot : in the "column thinking" probably i haven't understand well where the HQ must be placed, because in the final First Squad Assault a while meter before the HMG buildings, they looses the "in command". (I've place the HQ more close possible behind the M.E. fire house).

@Schnell

Is only two weeks that I play with combat-missionII and III, and I must still pay attention on as the PBEM works.

[ February 13, 2004, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: kingofthehill ]

[JasonC]

"I haven't understand well where the HQ must be placed"

The key is to keep LOS from the HQ to the forward squad. Distance counts but so does being able to see each other. When they can't, the command line is much shorter.

So the trick then is to pick a spot where the HQ can see the forward squad, but the HMG can't see the HQ.

If they are all on one line that won't happen. In a straight line, if the house blocks the LOS from the HMG to the HQ, then it also blocks the line from the lead squad to the HQ, once the lead squad leaves the house to advance.

So you don't put them all on one line.

00M000000

000000000

000000000

000000S00

000000000

0000X0000

000000000

00000H000

M = HMG

S = Squad

X = House

H = HQ

X blocks the line M to H. X does not block the line S to H.

[kingofthehill]

ahhhh ok I have understood.

what you say me on purpose of the fact that the HMG see third squad behind the hedge?, the skill of the squad it counts in stay cover ability?

I.E A "regular" team that sneak behind of hedge have more probability of being seen, respect to one veteran??

Still thanks

KotH

[JasonC]

Skill makes little difference in spotting, in my experience. The big things are movement - makes it much easier to see them - and exposure - the good forms of cover work and the poor ones don't. Skill and HQ bonuses and how many spotters there are and such, may matter at the margins. But not more than that.

Generally, at long range they will lose you if you are stationary and hiding and have any kind of cover at all. They will see you even at long range when you move, unless you have excellent cover. In excellent cover (like woods or pines) they while see you moving if you are close - 100-150m. Stationary in poor cover they will also see you once they get that close, though hiding can reduce the range some. Stationary and hiding in good cover, it is very hard to see things until you walk right on top of them. Shooting is about like moving - it creates sound contacts only until you are close. Once you are close enough to fully locate a shooter, he will generally see you, too, if you move.

It is not at all surprising that he saw you behind the hedge. A hedge is very limited cover, about 60% exposure vs. 70-75% in the open. And the range was close. Stationary and hiding behind the hedge, you become a "flag" to him - he knows your last location but can't still see you. Move or fire and he will see you.

To see how these things typically go, play through a short test scenario "hotseat", playing both sides. Then you know the exact behavior that generated exactly what spotting result.

[kingofthehill]

Ok great, thanks a lot for another tip! :cool:

[Shosties]

Jason, could you e-mail these files to me? Thanks.

[Tigrii]

Useful post overall, a few differences between this situation and the average battle:

1. You made a lot of use of house shadows, where in reality the crossfire would deny them to you.

2. You rarely get to assualt MGs in this manner in a real game unless it's a slaughter. They are well behind the enemy MLR in houses, trenches, etc. and you must live with the sound contact firing at you while you penetrate the enemy MLR.

[JasonC]

Tigri, see my second example, company command. It introduces many more realistic factors in a typical QB. But importantly, one of those new factors is serious overwatch to support the attack. Which can make the larger echelon version of this drill easier rather than harder (though of course there is also more to do, orders wise).

Two MGs with crossfire, behind a full platoon MLR, is obviously harder to advance one platoon onto. That is a simple function of odds. Attackers bring supported companies to fights like that, not single platoons. And a single platoon can and routinely does need to KO an isolated MG position e.g. holding one flank. Defenders aren't strong everywhere, and where they are attackers are also strong. (If they aren't, they have no business attacking).

To Shosties - sent...

[CMFDR]

Another very instructive thread Jason, thank you very much.

Here again, would anyone still have the pictures stored somewhere or, alternatively, Jason, do you have committed an article or a thread that would include the above concepts since 2004?

Regards

[CMFDR]

Found on Heinzi's website:

http://www.panzer.shamino.net/tutorial/tut1.htm

[Silvio Manuel]

JasonC - do you also post at BGG.com - if so I believe I have seen your (very well detailed and useful!) posts on the AVL forum.

Cheers,

SM

[JasonC]

Yes, I like "Board Game Geek". I've posted extensively on "A Victory Lost", which is a favorite operational level east front game for me. I like the simplicity, and the strategy, tension, and pacing created by the HQ chit system.

My other gaming interests these days (besides CMBB, which I still play and make scenarios for) and AVL, include Civilization and "German" games (Setters of Catan, Puerto Rico e.g), and some card driven GMT games (Paths of Glory, Napoleonic Wars, Barbarossa to Berlin e.g.)

[Silvio Manuel]

Hey Jason,

Very cool - yeah I enjoy that site quite a bit as well. I post there as "5th_Para_Bde"

Mostly I play Breakout : Normandy, and Monty's Gamble : Market-Garden (via cyberboard).

but I just bought a whole slew of games that I either haven't played yet or just got this month (just became a BG addict, ha ha...)

Storm Over Arnhem

We the People

Warplan Dropshot

Paths of Glory

The Third World War

Bloody Kasserine

AVL

Monty's D-Day

I'm only fully up-to-speed on BKN, MGMG, and SOA, but I would be eager for a game in any of these should you be interested.

[JasonC]

Silvio - sure, let's play a game of Paths of Glory. One of the original and best of the card driven strategy games. It is available for VASSAL play - the mod file can be found here -

http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php?option=com_vassal_modules&task=display&module_id=151&page=Files

--- or we can just conventionally PBEM if you prefer (I have the physical game, np - you can track with your own or use a cyberbox, whatever you prefer).

I prefer the optional eastern corps variant (to prevent early surround moves), and will take either side.

[Silvio Manuel]

Great - I will send a message to you through BGG

[undead reindeer cavalry]

one BG system i find interesting is the Tactical Combat Series. the difference to most other BGs is that you write down your plans before the game. it's a bit of a hack but creates some fun situations when plans no longer make sense but you still have to push on. the combat system itself is a bit too simplistic though. TCS is one of those things you either hate or love.

[~Viajero]

Hi there,

I have retaken CM as of late, only played for a short while a few years ago but back now, therefore I still am a veeery poor player and JasonC threads, among others, seem enourmosuly rich for learners!

Any idea where could I find the files or pics that illustrate the beginning of the post?

Thanks!

Viajero

[John Kettler]

JasonC is the man on the ins and outs of how the game works, but I suggest those of you who don't know him or his rep pay careful attention to walpurgis nacht. He has triumphed, you see, in that most grueling crucible of CM combat known as ROW (Rumblings Of War), a tournament which has been known to practically drive men mad.

Here's an example of the kind of acumen he brings to the fight. You might recognize his principal interlocutor.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/archive/index.php/t-4040.html

Here are the Nabla (NOT NAMBLA) scores from ROW V (First Round). Note well the margin between him and even his nearest competitor.

G4 Walpurgis Nacht = 9.34

G12 Londoner = 7.11

G5 Jon L = 4.56

G11 Platehead = 3.86

G7 Dawg Bonz = 3.51

G9 SteveS = 3.46

G3 Flenser = 3.25

G8 Malakovski = 3.21

G6 StoneAge = 2.41

G1 JPS = 2.36

G2 GreenHornet = 2.23

G10 CombinedArms =1.32

And in the ROW V Finals, he proved, beyond a doubt to be the master of the game.

The Twelve Finalists' Scores/Ranking

1) Walpurgis_Nacht..........1.09

2) Steve_S..................0.58

3) Victor_Charlie...........0.39

4) Malakovski...............0.06

5) Green_Hornet............-0.05

6) Londoner................-0.08

7) Flenser_Holien..........-0.18

8) Steve_McClaire..........-0.30

9) Panzertwat..............-0.30

10) Sivodsi................-0.48

11) Stoneage...............-0.49

12) Tlkillerich_Platehead..-0.75

I suggest, therefore, that you pay close attention to what he says.

~Viajero,

Welcome aboard!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Der Alte Fritz]

Hi Viajero

You want to look here for the tutorial:

http://www.panzer.shamino.net/

and here for the training series of scenarios:

http://www.blowtorchscenarios.com/Jason%20Soviet%20Training%20Scenarios/Jason%20C%20Russian%20Training%20Exercises%20Details.html

cheers

[John Kettler]

Der Alte Fritz,

Interesting, but odd site, that first, starting with the captured late model T-34/76 facing off with a Tiger 1! Is this the tutorial you wanted ~Viajero to see?

http://www.panzer.shamino.net/tutorial/tut1.htm

http://www.panzer.shamino.net/tutorial/tut2.htm

Frankly, some of what Heinz has up makes no sense to me whatsoever. See, for example, the Sapper Guide in the section Tutorials.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Der Kuenstler]

Why can't I view the pics that go with this thread? They all have a little white box with a red "x" in it. My view pics option is already checked in mu user cp.

[knalla]

Why can't I view the pics that go with this thread? They all have a little white box with a red "x" in it. My view pics option is already checked in mu user cp.

Link provided by Der Alte Fritz above:

http://www.panzer.shamino.net/

go to Tutorials>Infantry advance over open ground P1 & p2