Certain Strategies/Tactics

[NameUsedBefore]

I was trying to think of what strategies you guys typically use. I find myself, right now, using quite a mix in trying to find what works and what doesn't. A lot of hit and miss, generally.

I've tried mobbing my men like the armies in Starship Troopers (movie). The daunting amount of firepower that you can shoot out from one area is fantastic, but I never liked having my flanks so open.

I've tried an even front with troops spread across the line. The problem with this is a lack of reserves and a brittle frontline.

I've tried strengthening one wing over another. This is okay but it doesn't allow for much maneuvering if your strong-wing is caught with some unexpected fire. The best way to make this work, I've found, is to make the left wing appear as either of two things: it's advancing (using smoke to act as if I'm moving out); or acting as if there's more there then there really is whether this is through cycling movement of a squad or two (or a half-track/light tank etc). One thing I don't like about this strategy is that your opponent can easily split up and destroy both wings if he's wily enough.

Generally I find myself using a wave-like line that I put into positions where they can maneuver without too much time taken or with above-average concealment. It's a "bend but don't break" defense and an adaptive offense. It doesn't really have any standout offensive/defensive capabilities, but nor does it have ugly weakenesses.

What do you guys generally find yourself doing?

[juan_gigante]

When attacking, I usually concentrate my forces into two "fists" with a large reserve. Depending on the size of the map, I'll usually send one fist up the middle, and another one on the flank. Then, I can send reserves to either one as they stumble or breakthrough or whatever. What usually ends up happening is I use the center fist to pin the enemy and prevent reinforcement, and the flanker actually takes the ground.

[Moronic Max]

I've tried mobbing my men like the armies in Starship Troopers (movie). The daunting amount of firepower that you can shoot out from one area is fantastic, but I never liked having my flanks so open.

You mean nobody ever dropped large-caliber HE on your infantry while they were doing that?

Generally speaking, I tend to concentrate all my forces on one area of the map, on the theory that everybody working on (generally) the same area allows me to achieve local superiority, destroy a portion of the enemy, and thereby achieve global superiority.

Of course, that's only against the AI so far, and only in a limited amount of games, so I don't know what would happen if I went up against an arty-heavy force. I'd probably get shredded, even though my guys aren't too bunched up.

[dieseltaylor]

Firstly - size of map - are there flanks

effective range of likely opposition

range of LOS on board accounting for terrain[hills and vales] and trees ..... and weather

Are the flags important in the context of total scoring [4000 point game 600 points of flags!]

Then, and only then do I decide on my tactics. It miht be ...the map stinks ... what is the minimum I have to do to get a draw : )

[JasonC]

Scale and forces determine, mostly. Infantry less than company strength has no real attack potential. So if I have only a company of infantry and I am attacking, there will be only one main avenue of advance. If I have a whole battalion, I have my choice among one two and three, and will usually pick two. By "company" I mean 3-5 platoon sized groups, infantry squad or heavy weapon. I will mix and match rather than stick with the standard formations.

Maybe a quarter of the force screens the rest of the frontage. The main body or bodies generally use a column behind a point platoon, which itself is often behind a scout or two. Most platoons use "blob" formation, meaning 2 by 2, occasionally 3 deep with trailing teams. Intervals are typically 26 to 30m. 2 by 2 formations make better use of limited cover and more readily keep everyone in command.

A second line follows behind the first, as a minimum of depth. Sometimes as tight as 50m back in woods or urban, more typically 150 to 200m back. All up front, thin, is lousy by comparison, because men in contact have much lower ability to maneuver than men still out of LOS.

Yes you can occasionally lap around isolated positions with a long line, but it is mostly a stupid AI trick. Vs humans you hit every well laid trap that way, and good defenses can easily hold off a single layer of attackers.

Screening sectors get half squad scouts (sometimes HQ and 2 split squads e.g.), small teams like LMGs and ATRs, and occasionally a single heavy weapons section to cover wider areas with long LOS. (That means HQ, a couple HMGs, a mortar or two, maybe a sniper or light FO). Maybe 1-2 bits of light armor. Their mission is never to advance into enemy occupied areas, just to spot from their own cover, look like platoons, grab open areas between the sides when unopposed, occasionally support by fire elsewhere e.g. along diagonals that cut retreat routes from the main positions (for the heavy weapons), etc.

Real scouting is done by full platoons traveling in formation behind a half squad "point", ready to shoot down any individual unit the blows up the point. Sometimes a company will advance broad front by having more than one of these. Depends on the amount of cover available and the overall plan. Sometimes the whole company will follow a single point, with the third layer back widening out a bit to allow side by side platoons or heavy weapons groups etc.

Company commanders go in the main body, sometimes commanding large platoons drawn from the regular HQs. They provide deployment flexibility, by transfering units from one platoon to themselves or back, passing teams from A to B, etc. Occasionally I will put them with a heavy weapons group, trailing slightly, and deploy them to the infantry part later. But if they have good bonuses, they are far too valuable to waste them spotting for mortars and such. They just take some HQs full compliment and let him handle the weapons teams.

The company size bodies get particular targets and routes. The routes sometimes adapt based on scouting and the way LOS is seen to break in practice. More rarely, a target or the overall plan will change, generally by adapting just once, 5-10 minutes after first contact. Typical adaptations are the feint becoming the main effort, or steering around a particular obstacle, or accelerating one portion while another waits and shoots.

Choices of routes are determined by where I expect defenders, available cover and dead ground, and a large measure of pure arbitrary choice. The last helps avoid being too readily predictable. Larger maps repay unexpected routes.

On smaller ones, the covered way in is often tightly constrained, leaving little choice. In which case I just use depth and firepower ahead, and take my time. When I expect reverse slope defenses, I like to grab my own side rapidly and get infantry living right up against the crest line, then decide on the route in (rather than picking it at set up). Frequently by a turning movement around one end of the LOS obstacle, to unmask the enemy backfield gradually, rather than all at once.

With armor, forces smaller than companies can act offensively. Lone vehicles sometimes stalk enemy armor (especially on defense), or "keyhole" to provide fire support at a narrow area. But those are exceptions, the normal unit of armor maneuver is a pair to a platoon. Infantry scouts for them, to get spots of enemy vehicles. Heavy weapons groups help them against towed guns.

Mostly they are looking for spots with LOS to limited numbers of enemies, blow those up, then make small movements to reveal additional enemies, a few at a time. They "walk their LOS" over the enemy, in other words. Liberal use of area fire if scouts haven't checked everything, and time and ammo permit. Armor uses cover as much as infantry does, it just looks for LOS-block cover rather than woods blocks.

Occasionally I will instead try a gambit based on a particular early maneuver, e.g. repositioning a main body very rapidly and then starting the previous process from a remixed situation. These are rarely about hurting the enemy directly. They take place in ground I expect to be unoccupied at the start and preferably out of LOS, or with only limited LOS likely (a few units etc).

Here is what I never do - set up evenly mixed forces right along the line and advance everywhere with everyone, in equal strength. Advance thin everywhere and just steer the guys who don't hit something soon, farther or more aggressively, until they hit something of their own. Look for lots more enemy when I've already found some to "chew" on who aren't dead yet. Rush as though the enemy were the clock, instead of those guys with guns over there.

You will notice I've not mentioned flags. They help me figure out where the enemy is likely to be. Other than that, I turn them off and ignore them. After I kill the enemy, in the last five minutes people can make sure they have those in areas I've cleared.

[John_d]

Ok, while we're on the subject I have a question.

What is the point of infantry in CMBB???????

I've played CMBO for longer than CMBB and although I realise that the infantry there was totally unrealistic, I can't help but think that CMBB might be too far the other way. I have never really found a use for my infantry in CMBB (with a couple of exceptions- urban combat, scouting and getting chewed up by enemy guns so I can find out where they are). Anything that infantry can do, my armoured units can do better. My infantry frequently disobey orders, fail to return fire, never open fire whilst on overwatch, seem to all be very shortsighted and get spooked at anything. On the other hand, my tanks never spook (well, hardly ever), always do what they're told and generally kick ass. Most combined arms battles I fight, my infantry squads will get a handful of kills between them (not even one per squad member usually) whereas my tanks frequently rack up kills of 20 - 100. What can I do to rectify this? I can use infantry when that's all I've got, but if I have the choice between the two, I always opt for the tanks just cos they can be relied upon to get the job done properly

[Sergei]

Maybe the matter that there were millions of grunts while just thousands of tanks is somehow relevant. Tanks are great, but there never was enough to have them where ever they were needed.

Play a few infantry only battles for a change.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Most platoons use "blob" formation, meaning 2 by 2, occasionally 3 deep with trailing teams. Intervals are typically 26 to 30m.

Jason, may I comment or at least ask a question about this interval recommendation, which you've made a number of times. Although it's a small point, it does matter in situations where you have low quality troops and therefore more of a challenge keeping them in command radius when under fire.

My understanding is that the reason for these intervals is to minimize the problem of neighboring squads being effected by what is essentially area fire when one of them gets hit. Or, it's to protect all the squads from being hit by area fire which is aimed into the middle of the platoon rather than at one of squads. If the first of these is the main one, then I think the intervals are greater than they need to be -- 13-15m would be enough. After all the unit being hit is in the middle of the circle of area fire effects, not on the edge.

If it is the second, then I think one could reasonably consider that this is a much lesser risk. For one thing, the AI never area fires. Also, I think most human players don't area fire into the middle of an advancing platoon (though maybe they should).

There is, of course, another factor, which is the desire to be spread out in case of an artillery attack. However, I don't think there's a universally desirable spacing to protect oneself -- just some "happy medium" between getting some spacing and trying to keep everyone in command at all times.

Is there another consideration that I'm missing?

Anyway, just grist for the mill ...

[Nemesis Lead]

I generally agree with Jason C., but would only further stress a couple of points and add a bit.

1) The importance of using covered routes cannot be stressed enough. When moving in the open your men have up to 75% exposure. When moving through pines / woods they have only 10 to 15% exposure. Also, on hilly/urban maps there are often "dead areas" where the attacker likely cannot be seen and an attacker may utilize these (but be wary of the defender who rushes forward to deny you these opportunties!). Hence, terrain should decide your attacking formation to a very large extent.

2) Heavy weapons overwatch is very important. Armor should not move into areas that are not covered by mortars (you cannot cover all areas, but you should at least be well positioned to quickly manuever into place). Infantry (ideally) should not move into areas that are not covered by HMGs, guns or mortars. The idea is that when you hit resistance, you want to start hitting back ASAP, achieve fire superiority, and manuever for the kill.

3) I agree that company-sized thrusts are the way to go. Often, however, you get away with using just two platoons (especially when using veterans or better) when going for secondary objectives or when you simply don't have an infantry company per objective. Note that a two platoon approach is more risky and you cannot expect them to do much more than take an enemy platoon-sized position. Even then, it is often best to reinforce them with overwatch MGs/mortars or an armored car/tank. NEVER expect a single platoon attack to succeed.

4) The flanking halfsquads that Jason mentions are important. They will give you good intell on what is on your flanks and will uncover the source of flanking fire (instead of just getting sound contacts). Often, they will also find weakness in your opponent's defense and you can change the axis of your main attack. They may also give you intel on how your opponent is moving his reserves and these men can sometimes impede the movement of those reserves. They can also sometimes deceive your opponent about the location of your major thrust (half squads look like full squads from a distance).

5) For a specific-attack formation when cover is only moderately good, I often like to attack with columns of platoons (i.e., one platoon follows another platoon with another platoon behind that, etc.). This allows you to maximise the very best of available cover. When you meet significant resistance, you can bring your forces online and overwhelm. If you take flanking fire, it is easy to deploy to face the threat from a column formation.

The point platoon typically takes some losses from HMGs and ambushes (remember to keep a scout forward and keep heavy weapons overwatch!), but the rest of your force often winds up near the objective in good shape. At that point, your trailing forces can be brought online and you can overwhelm.

Artillery is very dangerous to forces attacking in column (since it falls in columns in CM). Sometimes, artillery targetted on your lead platoon will arrive too late to get that platoon, but will crush a follow on platoon. Hence, keep this is mind as this is a weakness of this approach!

6) When choosing an attack route, look at the last 300 meters to your objectives. These last 300 meters are far more important than the 800 meters that came before them. Often players will select routes that provide great cover for the first 800 meters and then no cover for the last 300. Better to suffer a bit from long range MG fire than to have to cross open terrain within 300 meters of your opponent's MLR.

7) Don't forget to bring smoke (from mortars / artillery FOs / guns / vehicles, etc.)! No route is perfect and you will likely need its LOS blocking benefits at some point.

8) Remember that you don't have to take every flag! You can ignore some objectives in the short term to achieve concentration. Fragmenting your forces into platoon sized attacks on each flag is a recipe for disaster.

9) Overconcentration is also dangerous. While a company or a company + a platoon is a great attacking force, going beyond this makes you very vulernable to HE chuckers of all kinds. Concentration is great--so long as there is enough cover and space to support it.

Best Regards,

Nemesis

[John_d]

I'm ok in infantry only type situations, its just when I have combined forces, I always feel like my infantry isn't really pulling its weight as compared to the tanks. Is this normal?

[JasonC]

To SteveP on intervals -

the 26m rule is to avoid any effect from infantry type fire aimed at a different unit of the formation. It is usually long enough to avoid any serious effect from direct forms of HE, as well (tank guns in the 75mm size or below, on map mortars, light Flak - 150mm stuff and FOs are a different story however).

It is true that intervals in the 14m range are sufficient once in cover, for avoiding more than minor fire effects. You will rarely lose a man or become pinned. When cover is scarce and I am in a firefight, I will let the men bunch up to 14m intervals inside the good cover, sometimes. But I still prefer 26m even then, and for approaching attackers I consider it essential.

Even quite modest fire effects from area fire are detrimental when attacking. A unit that only hits "alerted" is OK in moral terms, sure. But if it happens while in open or steppe, "cover panic" can easily occur. That transforms the movement rate to "sneak", and if hit a bit harder changes the waypoint to some piece of cover nearby. This is almost always a disaster if in significantly open ground.

Sneaking men do not fire back. It takes them forever to get out of the open. They don't spot. The new waypoint is frequently (a) nonsensical and ( overcrowded. When you just zero out the order, they often refuse to go elsewhere or revert to cover panic, unless they have rallied completely in the meantime, with zero incoming.

Units in approach cover - 50% stuff like brush, wheat, and shellholes - can also experience cover panic if hit hard enough. And in my experience, being around 15m from a squad hit repeatedly by MG42s, is "hard enough". So that again is a disaster, and a worse one if they head farther for more substantial cover.

Even alerted results make the men duck, reduce spotting, and reduce return fire. The whole point is to dissipate enemy firepower through the whole formation's rally power. You want fire to affect only one unit at a time. And you want all the units so affected rallying continually, if not "held down" by fresh shooters. He can't "hold down" an appreciably larger formation with a smaller one, or with a few stealthy shooters, if the shooter to suppressed ratio is one to one. If it is one to four, he can easily do so.

The units not directly targeted must make actually progress, increase threat, and draw the fire off the men hit. That means it is not enough for them not to panic or pin. They must move and fire. 26m intervals ensure that. If they succeed in drawing off fire, said fire does not maintain the suppression on the men already pinned. It does not take much to counteract the slow rally power from already pinned. Even diffuse area fire effects are sufficient. When the shooter shifts targets, the old guys must be left completely free by that fire shift, and thereby able to rally immediately.

As for the effect on fire missions, the idea is to have a single platoon formation about the size of a barrage footprint if a close sheaf (not "wide" or rocket) is used, without more than a platoon fitting under one. Even those under the footprint then try to evade, exploiting the fact that the whole barrage can't land instantly and cover the whole space.

The barrage lands 4-6 shells at a time. Fast, only from the lightest rounds, like 81mm, which have limited areas of effect. With the bigger rounds, it takes 20-30 seconds for the next flight or two to land, which is long enough for someone at the edge of the barrage footprint to get out of it, if still willing to move. The effect you want is that only a single large flight, or two flights of 105mm medium caliber stuff, land on the platoon.

Other platoons steer around the barrage area. Anybody already pinned sits, sneaking toward cover if the computer already generated a sneak order. Anybody at the edges and upright - less than pinned - advances out of the previous barrage zone. These SOPs will generally keep the effect of a barrage at about half a platoon hurt, with recovery time of a few minutes. (150 and up stuff is a bit worse but more expensive).

You can't afford to get whole companies broken by individual FOs, but you can readily trade half a platoon for 5 minutes, for half an FO.

The interval also keeps the men in command easily, even in low visibility terrain. Even with command delays, every unit in the platoon can support any other, in a single minute. That is a reason to stay relatively tight, 50m total frontage for a platoon.

26m intervals can be filled to half that, e.g. to maneuver up beside a pinned squad to help it, or temporarily as one squad leapfrogs through. 14m intervals used as a rule would not be nearly as adaptive. Moreover, I find packing additional men in like that does not really help in firefights, except for brief periods in the tightest terrain, and against enemies already sent heads-down. Against up and firing enemies, overpacking the frontage is a recipe for widespread pins, not dominance.

Instead, the minute after contact, move the second line just to the edge of LOS of the foremost enemy, while the front line remains stationary and tries to fire back as best it can. The front pair will often pin. But the back pair will typically piled up on one enemy, many on few fashion, and break it. Without going down themselves as a result. The following minute they can short advance again and repeat the process, often freeing up one of the lead units as a result.

In other words, I don't want to be all up online anyway. The front line is just a shield. The second and following ranks are the sword.

[slysniper]

I'm ok in infantry only type situations, its just when I have combined forces, I always feel like my infantry isn't really pulling its weight as compared to the tanks. Is this normal?

It just means you need to learn how to weigh if you are being sucessful with your infantry. Example: I was playing a battle and had a company of men with one at gun and about 6 tanks with a platoon of light armoured trucks.

What were my goals for the infantry with a enemy with a force about equal. I wanted them to prevent my gun from being overrun and I wanted them to spot enemy coming after one objective flag so I could use my support weapons at a distance and I wanted them to gain and hold the main objective.

The battle was not going well for me with all my light armoured lost, my tanks were out classed and basically the remaining 3 were hiding to stay alive. The enemy had only lost two tanks at this point. It was the infantry that won the day for me. How, a few half squads spotting and allowing my mortors and machine guns to engage the enemy infantry at range and keep them off the objective.

Another couple of half squads that prevented a enemy patrol from overunning my at gun by being the focus of the enemy themselves. Last my main group crawling on their hand and knees to the main objective and hiding there while the tanks were fighting it out. Why, because the enemy felt the battle in his favor, but his infantry was pinned down or held back, so he pushes to the main objective with his armour and maybe a platoon of infantry. The one precious at gun opens up from that unlikely but perfect flanking position and takes out two tanks and a gun being placed, his tanks try to respond and he moves them into good locations to take the gun on frontally but in doing so uses the buildings I am hiding in as los cover to his flanks. Only lost one tank to my infantry but mentally rattles him and he withdrawls fogetting the gun and infantry. Thus leading into allowing me a weak armour shot from one of my hidden tanks. Outcome, I credit 4 tanks, one at gun and about a platoon and a half of infantry to how I played my infantry. But the infantry itself only destroyed one tank and maybe help shoot up a couple of squads, there is more to it than kia's at times. And should I add, lost plenty of them, but they did the job to win the day.

[ December 15, 2005, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[JasonC]

John-d reasonably asks what infantry is supposed to accomplish for a combined arms team. Certainly tanks have much higher firepower at range, while alive. In conditions like open desert, the main suppliment to tanks isn't squad infantry, it is towed guns and their counters the on map mortars. But that is an exception - usually there is more cover, and cover is what gives squad infantry its specific role.

That role has multiple aspects but they all roll together in practice, into a single specific "infantry power" effect. Which is an intel dominance effect, first of all.

Infantry scouts covered areas and looks into open areas first, from cover itself. Infantry can go through areas tanks cannot. It threatens to comb out guns, or if stopped, preserves some areas as havens for guns and short range AT teams, making them "no go" areas for enemy armor. Infantry "skulks" deep into cover, refusing to give the enemy spots. It does not stand in the face of armor and just take its fire, but armor can't get rid of it either. It hides or breaks LOS behind a house or crest or deep enough in woods.

The effect infantry is always looking for is "ownership" of built up areas of the map. Inside this area of woods or buildings, I "own" everything. Not just be presence, but by ability to kill any half squad that ventures in, and any tank that isn't preceded by one. Tanks can indeed stand off with impunity, as far as the infantry itself is concerned.

If armor shows itself, however, the infantry knows exactly where it is, is safe from its own fire by sheer mass and rally power, by depth in cover, and by stealth. Armor sitting off at 200 yards will not take those woods. Meanwhile all defending guns wait for their shots, and defending AFVs stalk individual prey with intel dominance.

On the attack, infantry possesses high resilence through numerical depth and rally power. It is not nearly as brittle as tanks are, not because it does not break (it does) but because it does not stay broken. A tank penetrated once is gone for good. A squad will absorb shot after shot, lose a few men, panic, and still be perfectly capable 3 minutes later.

Infantry also possesses very high firepower at short range, under 100m especially, out to 150m or so for the LMG and rifle types, working by whole platoons. If they don't waste their ammo at long range into cover, or on area fire, their ammo suffices to shoot down their own number of better. A full company of infantry will melt any defending position that isn't itself armored, once in range.

They are the guys who wade into the cover and dig men out of each hole. The only alterative to sending a squad with multiple platoons backing it up, is to send a full minute of serious HE from a tank, at every single location. It can't be kept up, all locations cannot be given that treatment, they can't all even be seen.

It is much more efficient in ammo terms, to let the tanks overwatch and throw their HE at fully IDed targets, and to let the infantry find those targets, and contribute their own melting firepower. Indeed, a platoon of tanks with their MGs can help the infantry melt enemy in any cover, even if their HE has run dry.

Direct HE is needed for trenches and heavy buildings, and helps against woods foxholes (though off map FO HE also works against the last).

There is an armor heavy way of fighting, typically requiring the armor force type to afford enough tanks, which uses only enough infantry to scout for the tanks, and a few mortars and FOs to help deal with guns assymmetrically. But it is a relatively brittle way of fighting. A good AT ambush or a single thick front AFV can wreck it in 2 minutes, irretrievably. Also, it works best in relatively open ground. It is hopeless in a city e.g.

The combined arms way, in contrast, lets infantry companies deliver the basic attacks, with armor dealing with defending armor and helping against the heaviest forms of cover, via direct HE. This works just as well when there is good cover for the infantry, often better in fact, and with less overall risk.

The pure infantry way still needs some direct HE, but gets it from towed guns, from overwatch positions within the start line if the cover is limited and LOS long. When terrain is so built up there is no LOS from the start line, infantry is in its element already. In between, repositioning a few guns is required, and on map mortars and FOs do more of the work.

[NameUsedBefore]

My theory of modern warfare has always been that infantry is there simply to engage the enemy and then call in the support. Whoever has the best (or most) support wins. That's mainly what I do in CMBB, unless all I have is infantry, then their role changes somewhat.

Basically: both side's infantry advances and then engage each other, spotting each others' positions. The support then comes in, whoever has the best or utilizes it the best will win. Infantry itself, I find (in combined arms), will never actually win a battle themselves; but they sure go a long way in helping you win it.

[JasonC]

NUB - you should play my 300 level Russian training scenarios. All about what winning the infantry war can do for you...

[NameUsedBefore]

If you took it that I 'meant' the infantry weren't a big factor, that's not what I meant. But you're scenarios look interesting.

[JasonC]

The 300 series are all about winning with infantry only or nearly so. One of them has a few tanks in a city, but largely relies on Russian pioneers. All the others, the Russians have only infantry, and in the first few very little even in the way of support weapons - and no vehicles or guns. The Germans start with infantry and heavy weapons, then add fortifications, TRP arty, tanks, etc. In every case, the Russians can win (against the AI, easily) without any heavy support, by just using infantry and terrain properly.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To SteveP on intervals -

the 26m rule is to avoid any effect from infantry type fire aimed at a different unit of the formation.

It is true that intervals in the 14m range are sufficient once in cover, for avoiding more than minor fire effects. You will rarely lose a man or become pinned. When cover is scarce and I am in a firefight, I will let the men bunch up to 14m intervals inside the good cover, sometimes. But I still prefer 26m even then, and for approaching attackers I consider it essential.

You are correct (no surprise). I did a test in open terrain against an MG and discovered that I was operating under a misconception about the radius of the circle affected by small arms fire. 25m is the minimum, 26m is obviously better. Glad to have the misconception corrected!