Keeping up the pace when attacking

[ZOR58]

I seem to be having trouble pacing my offensives since I started playing CMBB. Seems like I'm always a couple of turns short of my objectives even though I'm keeping my forces in good order. How do you make sure that your offensives are moving at the right speed?

Thanks.

[Redwolf]

Play scenarios that give you enough turns.

Many CMBB scenarios are still made by CMBO-imprinted people.

Otherwise, you need fire support to supress the defenders, that's pretty much it.

[Slappy]

Try setting timetables and goals. Backtime where you need to be when to get the job done and leave yourself some fluff for reallignment when you don't have what you need in the right place and have to bring it up/over. If you have 30 min, say you need 5 to get from startline to objective A, 10 from A to B, 5 from B to C and 5 to the final objective. You have 5 min left over and can time yourself. Pick up the pace if you fall behind.

Remember, small flags are worth 100pts (a low quality tank) and the large ones are worth 300pts (2 inf platoons and support weapons). Conserving your force and destroying the enemy is usually more valuable than taking the flag.

[ZOR58]

My problem is coming up with an accurate time table. I make a plan and when I find the enemy I use suppression and manuever to eliminate them while conserving my force. But then I always seem to be short of the flags even though my force is arriving in good order. Has any one come up with times for how much distance a squad can cover per turn using the different movement options? I different terrains?

Thanks for the replies.

[markshot]

In most of the scenarios I play, I notice that the pace of my advance tends to be faster and bolder towards the scenario end.

However, I don't think that is the result of the clock running down. I believe that once you have severely disrupted the enemy and in particular exposed anti-tank traps and established fire superiority over open ground, it then becomes possible to pick up the pace at a greatly diminshed risk.

So, in summary, initial speed can result in disaster where later speed can result in a victory. Think about it, if you always seem to come up short at the end of a scenario where the final map shows the objectives lightly defended and ripe for the picking.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by ZOR58:

My problem is coming up with an accurate time table. I make a plan and when I find the enemy I use suppression and manuever to eliminate them while conserving my force. But then I always seem to be short of the flags even though my force is arriving in good order. Has any one come up with times for how much distance a squad can cover per turn using the different movement options? I different terrains?

Thanks for the replies.

Evaluate how many turns you would need to take all flags. Then look at the turns given and reduce your objectives to fit that number of turns. It is often enough to capture a few flags and get a good casualty ratio to win.

If you go for a total victory, you will often loose as you have to take huge risks.

If you go for a draw or better, you will win more often.

Gruß

Joachim

[Slappy]

Look at it this way, it doesn't really matter what the movement speeds of the individual units are. In rear areas, regular infantry can probably make 60m/min over open ground using move. I wouldn't be surprised if they could make 100m/min using run. That would imply that to cover the last 300m to an objective you need 3-5min.

So what? All that matters is how fast you can advance the forward edge of your force, the part that is under fire or at risk of being under fire. This leading edge will only move 10-30m/min. Usually you'll be advancing 10-20m at a clip pausing to overwatch and bringing up mortars, mgs and armor to root out strongpoints. Once in contact, I'm pretty happy if I can make 20m per turn. That means I'll need 15 minutes to cover the last 300m, not 3. Can you move faster under fire? Sure. Will it cost you big points in casualties? Yep.

Work on speeding up the pace in the time to contact through better scouting and slowing down the pace once in contact to conserve your forces. That's my advice on the best way to win an attack.

[Redwolf]

Again, the biggest problem is battles with too few turns. It is realistic that you have to hurry to get your objective. It is not realistic that 5 minutes or less make such a huge difference.

The only way to solve this problem is to give scenario guilty of CMBO-tuned number of turns in a CMBB or CMAK scenario a negative review. That is especially true if you have green T-34 before 1943 that are set up in an assembly area and will take 180 second initial delay to even move down a road with a few curves to contact. If you actually play such a scenario you are doing fantasy action, there is no way that the proper application of realistic tactics can make you win such a scenario. In such a scenario you would have to center your thoughts on minimizing game-only delay factors. If that is what you want to play then fine, but realistic it is not.

As for speeding up an attack in general, besides effective fire support another key is the proper use of reserves and echelons.

The game focuses on you trying to make defenders reveal themself for the smallest possible prey and then disable them one way or another. When you did that it will take some time for the original advancing infantry to advance further. Instead, you should be ready to press fresh troops into the gap.

You will generally be more successful (and faster overall) by first overrunning single objectives with stacked forces and then turn to the next than by attacking all objectives simultaneously.

[Slappy]

I don't at all disagree with the timing on most scenarios. I just played the CMBO demo scenarios ported to CMAK and found that they took at least 1.5x the time in CMAK that they did in CMBO. I agree that designers should build this in to scenarios. At the same time, playtesting should uncover this. I think that most scenario designers don't do sufficinet playtesting and agree that more reviews should reflect this, but that's probably a topic for the scenario forum.

[ZOR58]

I don't think the problem is the number of turns in the scenarios/operations but more my playing of them. It seems that when I try to be aggressive in the early going I end up trading 10 tanks for 5 AT guns and then play the rest of the game trying to get out of the hole I've dug. On the other hand when I'm cautious I end up with my forces in good shape but short of their goals at the end of the game. I liked the suggestion about picking things up at the end game as I hadn't considered the enemy being weakened also. Guess I will keep experimenting with my technique.

Thanks for all the replies.

[Redwolf]

If you have the very specific problem to have too many tanks killed by hidden AT guns then work on that first.

Tanks can be concentrated tightly without too much risk. Make sure that a possible AT gun location never gets LOS to a single tank. Always have multiple tanks ready to fire back at whereever something pops up.

Have infantry around the tanks to help spotting the guns once they fire.

Learn indirect hit techniques like shooting HE near a foxhole without LOS to the foxhole itself and shooting at the upper floor of a building besides an AT gun.

Onboard mortars help a lot.

[Biochem can be fun]

With regard to the orginal post:

I have the same problem with infantry. I think it has most to do with having my supporting MGs and Mortars in the right place. For the initial assault, I can definitly get my support in the right place, however, when the assault starts developing and I need to move my MGs/Mortars, I can never move them to the where I need them in time because they are so slow in moving. In fact, by the time I get them to the next place I'd like them, I already want them somewhere else. Should I anticipate these moves at the beginning of an assault and place MGs/Mortars there or is there a better way of managing my supporting forces? I guess the point is that I generally can't keep my MGs and Mortars in a position to support my forces after the initial assault, which, I believe, causes me to not be able to take the "flags" necessary for victory. The frustrating part of it is that if given enough time, I'd take the flags as my attack is solid, just slower than needed.

Cheers

[Los]

One word: Reserves.

Actually read this article on combatmisison.com:

Grafenwohr Infantry primer

And see an example of how reserves make a difference.

Los

Los

[Redwolf]

Biochem, the point about the wargaming experience is that you conduct a historically effective attack and should be rewarded for it.

If you don't get the time to move your support weapons into support positions and you are sure you didn't do anything wrong (and if you are just moving them in a straight line from beginning on there is few you can blame on yourself) then the battle is either outright too short or the designer thinks it should be played by just running tanks and squads around.

Write down the name of the designer and don't play one of his scenarios again, or even better review the scenario and blame it with your rightful findings, or mail the designer to ask him for his opinion.

[ZOR58]

I think my problem is that I want to win the scenario and have all of my guys alive. I read a thread about sacrificing units for recon which I might try even though it sounds kind of extreme.

I've actually found that my style of play does better in the operations than in the battles.

Back to the experiment. Thanks again for the replies.

[Los]

"If you don't get the time to move your support weapons into support positions and you are sure you didn't do anything wrong ...snip... then the battle is either outright too short or the designer thinks it should be played by just running tanks and squads around."

I agree very much here. I normally dislike scenarios that start you off right in the action without having the ability to work out your own advance. This way you can make your own mistakes.

Los

[dieseltaylor]

Two things I would recommend

Sharpshooters - with their binoculars and ability to move forward without attracting attention are a good way of declaring safe areas - or reducing areas if unknown.

Bren gun carriers or similar to bring your support weapons into action quickly when advancing. I have used a Bren gun carrier to take a HMG behind an enemy formation - very satisfying.[huge map 3000 pts a side]

Most maps should allow a carrier to get about as there are only knee high, also handy for moving forward AT guns.

BUT I do play virtually always humans and have only played a handful of designed CMBB scenarios.

I do have problems with them as the shortage of time, the lack of proper info, and just play balance problems can be a real blight.

However replaying the scenarios can be useful to hone your techniques and experiment for when you play humans - who will be sneakier but the battle experience you gain on time to take out AT's using a variety of methods, the length that smoke survives, and speed over the ground will all help to time your attacks better.

I have always thought the genuis of this game is that there is no substitute for experience , it just cannot be all learnt from a manual.

I had played 30 plus CMBB when I played someone new who really took me apart with sharpshooters and excellent infantry dispositions. [50 50 draw 'cos I whacked his tanks.]

What an education though. Of course if you generally play TCP/IP you get some really bad habits on two minute turns