A poll of sorts....

[nevermind]

Here is the situation,i will try to be as accurate as possible,please tell me if this is an unfair or gamey advantage.This game did take place in CMBO,but i wanted to hit a larger audience,and this is still CM related,as well as potentially "gamey" related.

The defender choose not to defend any of the forward VLs out of a total of maybe 8 or so(maybe more,im not sure) VLs.This leaves atleast around 5 undefended.The defender chooses to place TRPs on all these VLs and have lots of arty ready to drop on them.The defender has infantry hidden away out of LOS,and away from the VLs.

The attacker also has alot of arty,and begins to hit strategic areas including some of the VLs.The attacker proceeds to the outer VLs and finds that there are sharpshooters as forward scouts,but the VLs are undefended.The attacker suspects that this exact situation is a possibilty,but before he can really do anything the arty starts to fall.All this takes place toward the end of the game with around 10 fixed turns to go.

Now,all this pertains to a specific game,but to get a more generalized opinion,the details about the specific game in question will stop here.All other details about points;forcetype;etc,is irrelevant for this question.So,based on this is this a significant advantage for the defender?

The attacker may be able to target all the VLs but doesnt know if there is anything there.The attacker may waste alot of points on arty to no avail.

The defender knows the attacker has to come to the the VLs and with even poor use of scouts can know exactly when and where the attacker is,coupled with the fast and deadly ability of TRPS.

Within the scope and style of play in CM,is this a legit tactic,or is it "gamey"?

[Michael Dorosh]

The Germans routinely pre-registered their own positions with their mortars - BUT, they didn't have "victory flags", and AFAIK usually only shelled their own positions once their infantry had been forced to retreat (generally after making a gallant fight of it first).

[kenfedoroff]

The above tactic is mentioned repeatedly in many of my books on WW2, both East and west fronts.

Ken

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

The above tactic is mentioned repeatedly in many of my books on WW2, both East and west fronts.

Ken

Yes I'm sure. Along with a lot of other things that can't be properly recreated in a game with limited context and a duration of around 30 minutes.

Gamey.

[Lady Roxanne]

The defender chose to abandon important locations (VLs) in exchange for a good chance of inflicting massive casualties with his arty. Beware VLs, especially empty ones near the end of the game.

A VL by it's very nature, regardless of placement, is valuable ground in CM. If the flags are well placed (truly valuable locations), then it's not gamey to do what you describe, IMO. If the flags are placed illogically or randomly(QB), the scenario is gamey from the gate.

[Captain Pies]

I'd second CrankyKris on this.

If the VL's are in indefensible terrain your opponent is not going to sit all his forces on them. The game then becomes more about finding and killing your opponent than grabbing the VL's (he hasn't got them so why should you bother with them).

If they are on the valueable /defensible ground which would generally be hills, then what you just described would be a classic reverse slope defense.

[Engel]

Wouldn't the standard CM-sized maps be enough to define "objective areas" without victory flags? As I understand it, the flags are stand-ins of sort for tactical objectives (secure that village/crossroads, etc.), but if you are dominant on the map and have annihilated the enemy force, doesn't that already imply that you have met the objective?

Rather round-about of saying that I think VLs are unnecessary and only add an unrequired artificial element to the game, where you could base the victory conditions on casualty numbers alone.

On larger maps this might not be appropriate though, but on the smaller ones it seems a bit odd that the enemy or you can gain a total victory by hanging on to a few hundred square metres of ground when the enemy dominates over the rest (and if the game would indeed continue for a few turns more, the enemy could oust you from those positions).

As for the actual subject, it's been my understanding that all sides pre-registered their own positions, so that they could use artillery to inflict casualties on an enemy that had taken the positions, and to help launch a counter-attack to gain them back. But at least in QB's the VL's are often so illogically placed that you can't defend that sort of tactic by it making sense in an actual comparable situation (and not in the game, where it obviously makes sense).

[ May 15, 2003, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[_Axe_]

I have a poll of sorts of my own. Where do people think Nevermind lives and what does he do/not do for a living?

[Slappy]

I think that this is a perfectly legit tactic.

[SFJaykey]

I'm a little surprised that I'm the only one who feels this defense is outright gamey. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation. I still have limited experience vs human opponents (12 games?) so I hope the community will help clarify what's considered "fair."

My impression from nevermind's post was that the defender had spent the lion's share of his point allocation on large-bore artillery, for the purpose of either splattering the attacker when he attempts to occupy the VLs, or else deterring him from occupying them at all. Being familiar only with the point values of units in CMBB, I figured that the defender would not be able to afford a substantial counterattacking force along with all that arty. If he does have a counterattacking force and his plan is to eventually offer battle for a majority of VLs, then I could see this tactic as a "legitimate" reverse-slope defense.

But upon first reading I concluded, perhaps improperly, that the defender's plan was simply to hunker down on a few rearward VLs, and either A) deny the attacker the points from the forward VLs by deterring him from placing units on them, or splatter the VLs with artillery and win the game by casualty points. In case A, by game's end the attacker might have swarmed all around the forward VLs and be pressing against the defender's map edge, but not be awarded points for the VLs he had passed by. This defensive tactic would seem to exploit the limitations of the game engine and scoring system, and amount to an effort to win the game on points without ever attempting to accomplish the assigned "mission" of holding the flags. Isn't that the definition, more or less, of "gamey?"

Where am I mistaken: in my understanding of the tactical situation, or in my notions of what's "fair?"

[ May 15, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[Marlow]

The tactic is fine. If a defender chooses to give ground without a fight, and spend many points on arty, it does shift some advantage to the attacker, provided that the attacker does not oblige the defender and place large amounts of his units on uncontested VLs.

[nevermind]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

I'm a little surprised that I'm the only one who feels this defense is outright gamey. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation. I still have limited experience vs human opponents (12 games?) so I hope the community will help clarify what's considered "fair."

My impression from nevermind's post was that the defender had spent the lion's share of his point allocation on large-bore artillery, for the purpose of either splattering the attacker when he attempts to occupy the VLs, or else deterring him from occupying them at all. Being familiar only with the point values of units in CMBB, I figured that the defender would not be able to afford a substantial counterattacking force along with all that arty. If he does have a counterattacking force and his plan is to eventually offer battle for a majority of VLs, then I could see this tactic as a "legitimate" reverse-slope defense.

But upon first reading I concluded, perhaps improperly, that the defender's plan was simply to hunker down on a few rearward VLs, and either A) deny the attacker the points from the forward VLs by deterring him from placing units on them, or splatter the VLs with artillery and win the game by casualty points. In case A, by game's end the attacker might have swarmed all around the forward VLs and be pressing against the defender's map edge, but not be awarded points for the VLs he had passed by. This defensive tactic would seem to exploit the limitations of the game engine and scoring system, and amount to an effort to win the game on points without ever attempting to accomplish the assigned "mission" of holding the flags. Isn't that the definition, more or less, of "gamey?"

Where am I mistaken: in my understanding of the tactical situation, or in my notions of what's "fair?"

Actually,your pretty well right on in your understanding of the situation.However,the term "reverse slope defense" has some how crept into this poll,and i dont know how.The Defender had some or most likely all his infantry at the back edge of the map(ie:a few hundred meters away from the rear VLs,or many hundred meters away from the forward VLs),with no way to get LOS to them.In CMBO,you can not use forward TRPs.The defender essentially had no forward defense or really a MLR,no ATGs,no IGs,etc.

From what i assume,the plan was to wait and let the attacker get to,or occupy the VLs(which if the attacker approached cautiously would be near the end of the game)then let loose with the arty,to:

A)Kill all his infantry

B)Inflict some casualties,while denying the VLs.Considering that the VLs were in somewhat of a semi-circle within a village,the was no way to get around the VLs and the wall of steel.Then the defender would rush all his infantry out to occupy the VLs at the end.

I too am amazed that more people do not find it gamey,perhaps they need to have it done to them.In real life(as some have used for reference,even though this is a question of what is legit within the game of CM)the attacker could have surrounded the village,laid seige to it for weeks,amassed a very large force to over-run it.Again,it may be somewhat legit in real life,but within CM it is very gamey(IMO).Especially since you cant use forward TRPs,and in real life there wouldnt be a "map edge",and etc..

[moneymaxx]

I use this tactic sometimes (I’m playing only CMBO at the moment) so I think it's time to bring some arguments forward, some of course only apply to CMBO and not to CMBB but this is a general discussion:

First I want to focus on the “but in real life......” argument. Of course in real life the attacker has more options but the defender even more and more important ones! (IRL= in real life)

- IRL the defender would choose the location where he wants to defend and wouldn’t have to deal with a randomly generated map, which only in very rare cases would resemble a perfect location for a real life defence.

- IRL there would be no VLs placed in totally useless locations, which give the attacker points. One should look at the scoring system here. A big flag is 300pts worth. That means if the defender is forced to leave it undefended he must destroy 300pts of the attackers forces to level the loss. That’s 2 whole infantry companies + some support weapons!

- IRL the defender wouldn’t have to “buy” TRPs or at least not so many of them. 2 or 3 TRPs should cover quite some area. Because IRL the FO could just direct the fire at some distance from the TRP like 300 south, so the defender wouldn’t have to place it directly on the VL, that’s why it’s called a reference point. In CM you can’t walk arty from a TRP, totally unrealistic.

CMBO arguments:

- IRL MGs have a devastating effect, so that infantry swarming isn’t possible, attackers in CMBO always use that tactic because of the low lethality of MGs. I would rather buy some cheap CMBB MGs then a clumsy expensive arty module.

- IRL there are trenches and dugouts, so that you can defend a location against some limited arty attacks, in CMBO arty attacks by the attacker are very effective.

And now some tactical arguments:

- If it was not allowed to place TRPs on VLs, it would create a safe haven for attacking troops.

- I don’t only place TRPs on VLs but on possible jump of points for the attackers infantry too and I’d rather use my arty there.

- That leads to another very important argument. Arty is scarce unless someone chooses to play with an “unrestricted” setting. To take out as many forces as to compensate for a lost VL is almost impossible unless the attacker really concentrated a lot of forces on a VL. But why should he do that unless he wants to use that VL a) as a jump off point or tried the unrealistic infantry swarm mentioned above. If it’s a) then that’s what a TRP is about and if it’s then it’s the only effective defence against that tactic in CMBO.

To conclude this, I’d say it’s a perfectly valid tactic IMO, and a very desperate one, the defender comes out loosing most of the times because he can’t regain the lost points.

And yes, if I have a lot of arty left 5 turns before the end of the battle I of course will use it on likely jump off points, even move the target line a little every turn so that the shells fall some more time, because IRL I could just tell my arty to lower the firing rate and I can't in CMBO.

And I will move my infantry up to previously undefended VLs 5 turns before the end of the game, if the attacker hasn't taken them by now. I can't see why the defender isn't allowed to do what the attacker is planning to do. Retaking a occupied VL is almost impossible for the defender, since he can either spend his money on arty or infantry but not on both, so you either pound VLs or you try to retake them (which is quite unrealistic in most of the cases).

[Andrew H.]

Perfectly valid (and even historical) tactic - the defender has done nothing more than register artillery on a location where he feels the attacker is likely to go. Easy solution: don't concentrate on the VLs, concentrate on the enemy units. Remember that by abandoning the VLs, the defender has also deprived himself of whatever points they are worth, since he isn't occupying them either.

[CombinedArms]

I think the tactic is valid as well--though understandably frustrating. There are some ways to counter it.

First of all, with your own arty, you might follow the rule--don't fire arty except a known targets. That's my rule and following that, you'd still have arty left for the rear positions into which the enemy forces are crowded.

Second, use aggressive scouting to determine if the VLs are occupied. If you don't get return fire, you can keep moving forward, occupy them early, and still have time to attack the enemy's rear positions.

Use the withdraw command (esp. effective in CMBO) to pull your infantry out from under the arty. Let it run its course, then reoccupy the positions.

If you can minimize your casualites, you hold 5 out of eight flags, so you'll win at least a minor victory. The casualties you lost to arty may be no more than what you would have lost in taking the flags. If you still have your own arty intact, then pummel his rear positions on a small part of the board.

[Captain Pies]

Actually,your pretty well right on in your understanding of the situation.However,the term "reverse slope defense" has some how crept into this poll,and i dont know how

I mentioned the term. A reverse slope defense doesn't physically have to be on the reverse slope of a hill. It just describes a situation where the defender can bring all his support weapons (including arty) to bear on the attackers infantry whilst the attackers support weapons cannot fire on the defenders. which is pretty much what you describe.

The extra details you give help a little in visualizing the situation but without looking at the map in question it's hard to say if this was a gamey tactic or not.

[nevermind]

Originally posted by Captain Pies:

Yes,i know.I dont have the ability to post screens,and the effort i have already put into my failed explanation of the situation is a waste of my time.The vast majority of the problem is that i was playing CMBO.Most if not all the issues at hand are addressed in CMBB.I fought it for a long time,but CMBO is offically dead to me now

I'll just have to put up with the eastern front for a little longer.CMAK will grant me the ability to play as the americans in a "realistic" game for a change.

Thanks to all for the responses,the poll is offically closed,well it is too me anyhow.I should have been adult enough to not even post this.To me however,it is and always will be a "gamey" tactic within the scope of CMBO.

[ May 16, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: nevermind ]

[V]

The tactic is fine to me.

When I play, I am usually more concerned with finding the enemy and defeating him. I rarely play QB's, but if I do, I make sure there is plenty of time to find the enemy and bring him to battle, not just grab the VL's.

[mike_the_wino]

I see no problem with this. I don't see how it would really be effective. Who were you playing? MasterGoodale? That's the only maggot I have seen with that much of a hard-on for arty. :mad:

[SFJaykey]

Nevermind: Sounds like we have similar attitudes toward the game. If you'd like to PBEM in CMBB sometime drop me a line, I can usually play 3-5 turns/week and would like to try some scenarios double-blind; QBs on human-made maps are ok too.

Email via the profile.

[ May 16, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[nevermind]

mail sent

[ May 17, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: nevermind ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not gamey. And really, it's a tactic that should never work as there is no reason to concentrate forces on a VL unless, as moneymaxx said, there is some strategic value to it other than just having a VL there. If your opponent is able to kill more of your units with just artillery than what the VLs are worth, you've screwed up.

EDITED to add: If this particular map is a premade map that forced you to concentrate on the VLs, then it could be gamey. That is why I prefer to play random map QBs so this type of map specific force cherry picking is avoided. It's unfortunate that the CMBB random map generator is inferior to the one in CMBO.

[ May 17, 2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]