A little help with 'Advance' and 'Assault' please

[JamesT73J]

I've read the FAQ, and the printed manual, and the definitions seem clear enough, but I'm still not quite sure what is happening when the infantry use these orders.

I tried using 'advance' to get a squad of infantry 50 metres to a house. I knew the path would take them in LOS of an OPFOR unit. Worked well enough, but I couldn't really see the difference between that and 'move'. Perhaps that's a habit from CMBO though.

Edit: Just tried it again. Is it just mathematically modelled, in that they are a less susceptible to panic/shock? Still not 100% on this.

Please help!

[ January 07, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: JamesT73J ]

[Sergei]

In "advance" they take short dashes (three seconds), then leap into cover to fire, then rush again. Half of the unit is running to the next cover while the other half shoots at the enemy. In CM it looks like they're moving slowly, but it's just an approximation. The effect is that they get more cover than with move but also tire as if they were running.

"Assault" gives a moral boost and increases ammo expenditure. I haven't found assault very useful, because it has higher delay and you can't put an assault move to follow any other commands, meanwhile you can't assault long distances. So you'd have to stop near the enemy to give that command. Ain't gonna happen!

[JasonC]

Compared to "move", units using "advance" are dramatically less likely to change their orders if they come under fire. Units on "move" shot at in poor cover routinely experience "cover panic". They change their waypoint for the nearest good cover. They drop flat on their bellies. They sneak sideways. They also panic more easily. Being shot at while using "move" is a bad thing. One you can live with in cover, much worse in the open.

In contrast, units using "advance" persist in their orders. They bull through fire. They do not become invulnerable, and if the fire gets hot enough to pin them any of the above things can happen to them, too. But lighter fire will not stop them from completing their movement. It is particularly useful to cross areas of open ground, or poor cover like steppe, wheat, brush, under long range (thus relatively weak) small arms fire.

Units on "move" are readily pinned or scattered by a few HMGs at long range. Units on "advance" are not. Units on advance are also more likely to fire as they move, particular if there are enemies close - like within 100 yards. It is thus useful when fighting inside the same body of woods or the same large building as enemies - when you want the movement to be finished just as you plot it.

One word of warning about "advance", though. Sometimes it is a bad idea to push so hard to reach the end waypoint. In heavy terrain in particular, they can sometimes keep moving deep into enemy LOS, and wind up taking on more shooters than they can handle at once. It is aggressive, in other words. Short advances are good compromise in close range fighting.

Assault on the other hand is less useful than advance, in my experience. The delay is longer. It boosts morale slightly, and offers the same stiffness in execution as "advance". They are much more likely to fire as they move. You might think these would make it wonderful. But in practice you usually do not want to move right on top of an enemy unless he is already broken. He can hurt you too easily. It is generally better to stop and shoot, which a short advance followed by a command delay or wait until the end of the turn accomplishes. Units that are stationary fire even more, after all.

As for "move", use it when you are out of contact, in dead ground, or inside cover. It saves fatigue. It is also useful in poor conditions, like deep snow or mud, where advance tires the men out too rapidly. Advance also drops skis for ski equipped units, while move is quite fast on skis. Just don't use "move" to cross 200m of open ground covered by an enemy machinegun. That's hopeless.

[Bone_Vulture]

My take on the question:

Do not use the move command when there's a chance your troops will come under fire. Use it to maneuver troops that are well out of combat, and you want them to stay fresh.

Other posters have given good advice about the advance command, but I disagree on their view about the assault command. First of all, take note: assaulting wears down your troops fast, so don't expect them to charge over 30 meters at a time without running out of breath.

Also, I think using assault is a good way to "steamroll" enemy positions: use suppressing crossfire to pin down the enemy troops. In an ideal situation, your supporting teams will pin down the enemy by firing from two directions, and your assault team will charge from the third.

With good timing, the combined barrage of your teams will cause the enemy troops to panic, making short work out of them in close combat. Just be sure that your troops are still relatively refreshed when they reach an arm's length of the enemy, and that your HQ team has a all your assaulting teams under command the whole time. If the assaulting team falls out of command when it reaches the enemy position, there's a serious risk that it will break and become annihilated. So plan these maneuvers carefully.

[Code13]

That is exactly what Assault is for, short rang rushes onto enemy strong points under supporting fire.

[Nicdain]

One example of assault: I was playing Italians vs Russians. I sent an half squad as scout for reconnaissance. As my men crossed a ridge, they came under fire from infantry in fox hole 20 m away on the other slope. The scouts suffered losses but located the enemy. At that point I used a platoon I had positioned a hundred meters behind and MOVED it a little beneath the ridgeline. Then I ASSAULTED the foxhole on the other slope. Enemy infantry was eliminated after a couple of turns of firefight (due to foxhole protection I suppose). My men had some losses, too, but acceptable.

[Code13]

I have also found it useful for getting troops out of halftracks and into the nearby cover, especially if you give the order while the halftrack is heading towards the cover.

[JasonC]

You can find cases where assault makes sense. But they are typically bad cases, situations you don't want to be in if you can help it. Like finding yourself in the open with the only available cover occupied by an enemy that can still shoot, who is within 50m or so. Or the same, just after crossing a crest or getting out of a 'track. Um, sure maybe assault is the right order in those situations - but who wants to be in those situations?

You don't want to deal with enemies who can still shoot by moving right on top of them while firing on the move. Moving right on top of enemies, firing as you come, is fine if those enemies are already chewing dirt or running away. Otherwise, it is not a situation you try to bring about.

The way to deal with an enemy in cover is to grab some cover near him, with LOS, and then use your trigger - not that pointy knife thing on the end of your shooting iron. *After* he has decided the war isn't fun anymore because of your recent liberal use of triggers in his general direction, you can worry about moving to where he was.

So the primary issue with offensive movement is not Banzai-ing on top of up and firing enemies. It is simply getting to the cover you picked out within good shooting range of the enemy you intend to shoot. For that - if any enemy can see any part of your route - "advance" is what you will want, 9 times out of 10.

It is fire dominance that takes ground. Not physical presence.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by JasonC:

So the primary issue with offensive movement is not Banzai-ing on top of up and firing enemies. It is simply getting to the cover you picked out within good shooting range of the enemy you intend to shoot. For that - if any enemy can see any part of your route - "advance" is what you will want, 9 times out of 10.

It is fire dominance that takes ground. Not physical presence.

Ah, you and your sissy non-Finnish tactics.

[PiggDogg]

Boney,

Ah, you and your sissy non-Finnish tactics.

In BB & in AK, if one uses the macho Finnish tactics of assaulting close to unsupressed defending troops, he will have few macho Finnish tactics troops left to fight later in the battle.

Such tactics will most surely give one's opponent a bundle of extra notches on the stocks of their rifles, mgs, & PPSHs.

Cheers, Richard

[JasonC]

My sissy tactics win a total victory in "Yelna" with green to conscript Russians, inflicting over twice the casualties on the defenders that the attackers take. A big "human wave" charging right on top of the defenders with the bayonet, on the other hand...

Fire. It is what does the actual work. Get close enough to see them, get to any kind of terrain besides open ground - "advance" will handle those. Then just shoot them.

[ January 11, 2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Schoerner]

If time is a critical factor, you often simply don't have the time to bring support-weapons or enough firepower into position.

Then assault could even become the only way to solve the problem.

BTW: Jason C, are you interested in a PBEM?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Boney,

In BB & in AK, if one uses the macho Finnish tactics of assaulting close to unsupressed defending troops, he will have few macho Finnish tactics troops left to fight later in the battle.

Ok, let me reiterate the ideal conditions before using the assault command:

1) Distance to target less than 50 meters

2) Assaulting team launches from good cover, is fresh and in command.

3) Target pinned down with supporting fire from the distance.

4) [important addition!] The assaulting team must be under the command of a HQ team with a morale bonus the whole time.

The problem with your fire superiority tactic is that it will drain the ammo supplies of your infantry teams, unless you use machine guns exclusively. If your opponent utilises delaying tactics that drain your ammunition, your troops might be suffering from serious shortage of ammunition once they're supposed to capture and hold the victory flags.

Yes, close combat drains ammunition too, but the point is that even with some additional casualties on your side, the absolute annihilation of enemy teams will prove more cost effective in the long run.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by JasonC:

You can find cases where assault makes sense. But they are typically bad cases, situations you don't want to be in if you can help it. Like finding yourself in the open with the only available cover occupied by an enemy that can still shoot, who is within 50m or so. Or the same, just after crossing a crest or getting out of a 'track. Um, sure maybe assault is the right order in those situations - but who wants to be in those situations?

You don't want to deal with enemies who can still shoot by moving right on top of them while firing on the move. Moving right on top of enemies, firing as you come, is fine if those enemies are already chewing dirt or running away. Otherwise, it is not a situation you try to bring about.

The assault command is not only useful for closing with the enemy - if you are trying to cross 30-50 meters of open space with green or regular troops, and the area is being interdicted by, say MG fire from 300-400 meters away, it's often the case that your troops' morale won't let them cross this area. In this situation, the morale bonus that you get from assault is often just enough to let your cross the interdicted space.

But I agree with your larger point that assaulting onto an enemy position is typically not a good idea.

[Ogiwan]

Well, my expierence with Assault is it's what you click when you want your boys to get in close and dirty.

Usually, if i have SMG squads (or Rifle squads with high enough 40m firepower, although they don't hold a candle to SMG squads), all you need is to have one SMG squad assault an enemy squad, and the enemy squad is toast. Of course, i have the rest of the SMG platoon suppressing any friends the bad guys have, but still, the point is that when i want my boys to mess someone up, i tell them to assault them.

...i think i've gotten a PPSh equipped squad to dish out close to 500 firepower at close range....

[Code13]

Deleivering superior fir is all well and good if you can do it, sometimes you dont.

And sometimes you dont have the time.

Sometimes, no matter haow much fire you pour onto a strongpoint the enemy isnt going to shift.

If you dont have and big guns to raise a building then get the SMG squads in there.

[PiggDogg]

Boney,

You used the magic words "pinned down" as a prerequisite for successful assaults. I used the equivalent magic word "unsuppressed" as a major factor for unsuccessful assaults.

Pinned down and suppressed are equivalent terms. Eliminate my double negative, and my prerequisite for successful assaults is pinned down/suppressed.

In short, as both you and I stated, in BB & in AK, a prerequisite for successful assaults is that the defenders be pinned down/suppressed. If the defenders are not suppressed, the assault probably won't work, or the attacker will suffer disproportionate casualties.

Cheers, Richard

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Boney,

You used the magic words "pinned down" as a prerequisite for successful assaults. I used the equivalent magic word "unsuppressed" as a major factor for unsuccessful assaults.

I never read any of your posts; I just pick several key words to formulate my response.

[JasonC]

Rest of the platoon "suppressing any friends the bad guys have". Trouble is, in the only kind of terrain in which your SMGs won't chew them to heck at 50m already, you won't have LOS to his friends.

Platoons deploy in formations within command distance, trying to stay far enough spread that one shot doesn't suppress them all. That typically means 20-25m apart, sometimes only 10-15m in the tightest terrain. LOS lines inside factories or large woods are typically 25-40m. This means if you move to the exact location of one unit in an enemy platoon, usually most of the rest of that enemy platoon will see you.

Whereas, similarly deployed with the LOS lines just touching (which is common, as contact tends to make movement stop), you usually see only the foremost enemy or two, and sometimes not with all the guys in your own platoon.

You then have two basic options. You can try to move right onto the enemy - in which case you are walking into the only area on the map that all units in his platoon can see. Or instead you can stay out just at the edge of his LOS, and get as many of your units as possible to see just the foremost of his - while keeping spread yourself.

If the entire enemy platoon is already broken - e.g. by a previous heavy bombardment or something - then right into their midst is fine. It will scatter them. Broken men don't hang around - when shot during the approach they get up and run away. Many won't make it and the ones that do will be routed and reduced and out of contact with each other. But "advance" will do the same thing to an already broken platoon.

If they aren't already broken, though, walking one squad into their midst just gives them a many on few on that squad. Assault order of not, it pins, and then doesn't fire much. It is just a target. If instead you "advance" to a "lapping around" firing line, many on few on only the foremost enemy unit (or two), you will chew them to bits. Next turn, short advances establish contact with the next, and fire again reduces them.

Ask Dorosh about our Stalingrad factory fight - a scenario we playtested. It wasn't really a fair fight - my Russians were too strong. But it involved storming an occupied factory with Russian SMGers over a moonscape. I got 100 men into the factory, wiping out twice my losses worth of defenders, fighting at ranges of 20 to 40m much of the time. And I didn't use a single "assault" order the entire game.

One fellow mentioned ammo use. If the ammo used kills defenders and you have the odds to be attacking in the first place, it shouldn't be a problem. But you do have to gauge the range you open fire to the quality of the enemy cover, and in special cases to your weaponry.

The best forms of cover - trenches, stone buildings and factories, full woods and pines - are best dealt with at range by HE. Direct HE in the 75mm size range (on buildings and trenches in particular), or indirect stuff that is as large as possible (on trees in particular). (Or on map mortars for single guns or MGs).

When you must deal with them via small arms, you want to be inside 100m, and before it is over you will often need to get to grenade range. This is also the range to use SMGers, always - 70m 180 arcs work as ammo discipline for them. 2 LMG infantry types with low ammo, despite the range of the LMGs, are also best used with short arc, but can get away with 100-150m range. As a maximum beyond which they do not fire at all, understand.

There is rarely any point in firing with squad infantry beyond 200 yards. Defenders who need to pin attackers in the open a bit farther than that, using high ammo rifle-heavy types, maybe - but that is a job better left to stealthier and higher ammo HMG teams if you have them. Fights in completely open ground (steppe e.g.) can start at 250-300 (for the small arms - MGs and other heavy weapons teams can fire twice that), but usually there is cover and that is too far to fire into cover.

Full ID usually takes care of this. You won't resolve sound contacts into actual spots beyond effective small arms range, if the shooters are in medium cover or better (trees, rough, wood buildings etc).

All infantry is for the short range part of the fight. It all needs to get into cover to live and fight well, and for its own fire to be useful that cover needs to be within 200 yards of the enemy, within 100 yards if he is in the best forms of cover and you don't have HE to do those areas. But the actual move into the enemy positions - let alone right on top of the position of a particular unit - can almost always wait until after he has been broken by fire.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Ask Dorosh about our Stalingrad factory fight - a scenario we playtested. It wasn't really a fair fight - my Russians were too strong. But it involved storming an occupied factory with Russian SMGers over a moonscape. I got 100 men into the factory, wiping out twice my losses worth of defenders, fighting at ranges of 20 to 40m much of the time. And I didn't use a single "assault" order the entire game.

Tell me - were there any open spaces inside the remnants of te factory that offered little cover? Or was it all just a big pile of rubble?

[JasonC]

The approach to the factory was over open ground pocked with shellholes, but in places not very far and approached by a gully (though the immediate way out of the gully into the factory was wired, and some nearby alternative routes were mined).

The factory itself was a continuous building, but with tiles of rubble here and there throughout, breaking up longer interior lines of sight. There were some attached "offices" - two story heavy buildings, separate from the factory but immediately adjacent - at one end, held by the Germans but also overwatched by Russians away from the factory (a few MGs, one gun, a platoon of rifle infantry).

Behind the first factory was another long one, separated by a strip of open ground. Both were initially held by the Germans, with the second where their reserves came from. On the Russian side there were four or five large square stone buildings intact (blocks) and a few more completely rubbled, 150-250 yards from the factory. The upper stories of these held a few more overwatch MGs, a sharpshooter, an FO - you get the idea. These and the gully were the form up points for the assault team, which was one small platoon of pioneers (2 squads), 2 FTs, and lots of SMGers.

A second wave of SMGers reinforced along the gully about half way through the fight. In the event these weren't really needed, but added weight and finality to the Russian occupation of the building. Meaning, the limited German reserves (basically a pioneer platoon, underpowered as I said) weren't going to throw the Russians out with a counterattack, and I could relieve those platoons that shot off all their ammo taking the place, etc.

The basic point was that even in short range, 40m LOS, SMG fighting in urban terrain, I did not need to use "assault". It was quite enough to string together short "advances" just into LOS, then pull triggers until everything ahead of me melted, and repeat.

The only other fancy bits involved were (1) sending in one platoon via the sewers in case the guys outside had problems - as it happened they arrived alongside, and didn't need to make the first "bridgehead"; and (2) advancing the pioneers close enough to "use explosives" to rubble one factory tile (just right of the "offices", the focus of overwatch suppression) chosen as the "breach".

Everything else was short advance many-on-few creeping by the SMGs, which took less than 10 minutes to kill every German in the building - and not a few outside, who tried to reinforce but got caught between buildings by SMGs that beat them to the far wall.

It was not a very challenging scenario. I think the guy who designed it thought it would be harder for the Russians that it was - using the tactics above anyway - and he overcompensated with a generous OOB, unit and leader quality, etc. It was no great accomplishment on my part. But "assault" did not figure in carrying it out.

[Schoerner]

Jason C,

i asked you something!

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Jason C,

i asked you something!

LIES