You got strategy in my tactics!

[gambler]

To take the old "You got peanut butter in my chocolate!" commercials and shamelessly pervert for purposes of a Topic Header...

While there are a lot of articles on 'tactics' there are very few on the broader brushstrokes required to formulate an effective overall plan. As such, I thought I would throw out the way I'm beginning to approach each new scenario I see. So what follows is a list of items I do to create a plan:

1. Read the briefing: No wait! Come back! It gets better, I promise. Well, I hope... Seriously, I've been guilty many times of just skimming the briefing and missing important points.

2. Focus on the Victory Conditions: Ok, most battles will be straightforward. He who captures the most Flags wins. The next common denominator in all games is casualties. If you capture most of the flags by the end of the game, but have taken horrendous losses, you probably won't have as good a victory level as you expect. Perhaps victory points are gained for exiting troops. Pay careful attention to those troops if they're yours, especially in how you plan to use them in the battle. If you know that the enemy gets points for escaping his troops, prepare a plan around preventing easy escapes off the map. Maybe you'll even run into a devious designer which requires the destruction of the enemy army rather than just taking the victory flags (after all, the destruction of the enemy as a coherent fighting force is the primary goal of most operations, with things like objectives following from this goal).

3. Focus on what forces you have available: Spend some time looking at your forces. Check for things like experience level, morale and ammunition levels. Don't get surprised because you didn't notice that your tanks have half the ammunition they usually do. This information should be at least alluded to in the briefing, but it's still important to check and know which units have the best morale, or might be the most likely to run out of ammo or simply run away. Start thinking about how to use any units that you might not normally utilize. Maybe the scenario gives you a flamethrower. Ok, so you would have rather had an ATG. You've got a flamethrower. Plan how best to use him.

4. Keep in mind what the enemy has: Or at least, keep in mind what the briefing says the enemy has. Combined with #3 this should give you an idea which areas you're stronger than the opposing force, and what areas you might have weaknesses in. Maybe you have a ton of infantry, a few machine guns and almost no armor, while the enemy has armor but little in the way of infantry. Yeah, maybe you'd rather have a few tanks or anti-tank guns, but maybe one of your victory flags is located in terrain the tanks can't reach. Focus on getting some infantry there, and covering the location with your machine guns. Do lots of hiding. Trust your edge in infantry to be able to hold onto the flag.

5. Ask yourself what the goal is: This isn't exactly the same thing as knowing the victory conditions. Maybe the victory conditions are to escape some units off the map. Reword this as "Those units have to get to this covered area across an open field with woods on both sides in order to get off the map."

6. Using your goal, ask yourself what needs to happen to achieve this goal: In the above case, a player without a plan might simply start the units a-sneaking or a-running across the field, only to be opened up on by a stronger enemy force in the cover. The answer to the question posed might be, "To get to the covered area, any forces in the woods on either side must be eliminated as a threat, and the cover itself must be checked for threats."

7. Assign goals to "task forces" based on the answers to your questions: If the goal is to clear the forests that could turn that open plain into a killing zone, then you might assign your quicker units as a recon element to check out those areas. Once threats have been identified, your remaining force can be split as necessary into task forces to take care of the threats. Try to stick with the plan. For one thing, changing plans leads to order delays, and for another it can lead to confusion for the most important person in the battle... you.

8. Don't get distracted: If your goal is to get units off the map, don't worry about chasing running units down if they're taking themselves out of an area where they could catch vulnerable units in the crossfire. Move on to the next 'strong' group.

9. Identify Key Terrain: Oftentimes victory flags will be placed on key terrain. Other times key terrain might be a ridge that lets you see well across the map, or a forest line that has a good vantage point on a victory location, or buildings that provide great ambush spots for that flamethrower of yours. Those are the places you should make priorities for controlling if you have the time and resources to do so.

10. Ask yourself what the worst thing for your plan would be: Be a bit realistic here. Answering with "10 Tigers and a flight of Stukas" is of no use (unless for some reason this is mentioned as a possibility in the briefing). Instead, focus on more likely scenarios like "There could be a panzerfaust loaded platoon in those woods right before the key road junction that I absolutely have to have control of so my tanks can have free access to the town." Don't ask this question for every little aspect of your plan, but just the critical elements.

11. Ask yourself if there's anything you can do about the 'worst thing': There usually is. You might be able to set up a machine gun to cover the woods while a unit moves up to try to get some intelligence. If your worst fear comes true, you can send a force that can handle the threat (or drop mortars on it). You might be able to route around the threat if you aren't pressed for time. If however there's nothing you can do about it other than being careful, well, then don't worry about it.

12. When a plan is going badly, regroup and come up with a new plan: Sometimes you won't have time for this. But let's say you've got plenty of time and plan a beautiful attack on a village with your tanks, and infantry following up in support. Suddenly, while you're halfway to the village, BOOM! Two of your lead tanks go up in smoke from a previously hidden pair of antitank guns up on a ridge. Then the machine guns up there open up on the infantry. You could just press on and hope enough gets through to have a successful assault. But you have time.. so you fall back to a hidden spot, and then use cover to get the infantry into positions to suppress the enemy while the tanks get close to take them out. Then your assault on the village can continue.

Anyhow.. Those are some basics... It's easy to get bogged down in the details of a Combat Mission scenario, especially the larger ones, but if you continually ask yourself if you're furthering the goals you set for yourself and focus on what needs to be done to achieve the goals, you'll be well ahead of those who don't.

[Some_God]

Will you have my child?

[Slappy]

One Addition: Determine BY WHEN you will achieve your objectives. More CMBB/AK attacks fail due to running out of time (or due to casualties caused by rushing) than any other single factor. Set a timetable for recon and progress and start to hurry up early (while you can still do something about it) if you're behind schedule. Remember, your front line will move far slower than your infantry can walk in most cases.

[dieseltaylor]

Good stuff Gambler - deserves pinning. Ditto Slappy - absolutely correct.

The only thing I would add - which is nothing to do with scenarios - is keep a note of points spotted, and killed as a rough guesstimate might warn you there are nasty surprises still. Or possibly where your opponent must be weak.

[JasonC]

A quite useful post. My own typical rundown -

I don't put much stock in the briefing, because most of them are misleading or far too general. I pay little attention to flags, though exit VCs demand attention. I generally plan to win by defeating the enemy force without losing my own, with terrain a secondary consideration and VPs a distant third.

I find that most fights are decided by mid game or not long after, by the defeat and collapse of one side. Occasionally a failure to defeat the defender in that period is enough to amount to a decision. The flags and the VPs then follow the obvious outcome of the force on force battle.

In other words, murder all the enemy soldiers and break all the enemy toys, and both ground and victory will take care of themselves. Fights are rarely so balanced or so indecisive that this can't happen. And all of the other stuff can amount just to overly predictable distractions between you and the main event - the destruction of the enemy main body. Which will be achieved by firepower.

The first thing I do seriously is assess my own force, its strengths and weaknesses, and its "natural tasking" - the way the force itself "wants" to divide up its tasks or coordinate its capabilities. E.g. do I have enough big HE to plow Belgium? Or hordes of fraidy cat infantry spearheaded by a few decent tanks? In the set up, I am moving forces around while in a large top view (7 or 8), grouping them, arranging them, fiddling with formations, stepping through the units using "plus".

Then I look at the terrain. And here I can get arbitrarily involved about it. I use the LOS tool from a unit I transfer around to all sorts of points within the set up zone. I zoom around at level 2 to see the lay of the ground. I am looking for LOS blocks, areas of connected infantry cover, dead ground that looks open but is actually quite safe as long as there is nobody in house D, etc.

I want to know where the enemy is likely to be, where I want to be, where engagements are likely, possible routes. Not to flags but to the enemy. Ways of getting integrated firepower to bear on various spots - a company of infantry would fit here, guns could keyhole through there and see the same ridge, tanks could set up over here and cover the infantry, etc.

Then I pick my basic plan of maneuver. This is a single overall shape to deploy my forces and have them move. For example I might pick a wing attack on my left, meant to destroy any enemy on the left half of the map while screening the remainder with next to nothing. Or I might decide it will be most of my infantry over the wooded hill on the right, while tanks support them from the center. Any pre-planned uses of arty are decided at this time, too, since movements will conform to them (e.g. infantry hits those woods right after a turn 8-11 barrage by the 122s).

The key thing here is to avoid division of effort. I want half to three quarters of my force doing one thing, and doing it violently. My formation may have to adapt when I discover more about the enemy, but I start with a definite plan that I want to make him dance to, rather than the other way around.

Then I actual set up, first using the existing groupings and large scale movements to fit the basic scheme set at the previous step. Then fine tuning cross attachments - deciding where each company HQ will go, which force has which weapons teams, which platoon HQ leads and which remains in reserve, etc. Last I fine tune the set up by locating each individual unit where the overall group was assigned.

This takes a bit of time. But once it is done, the first turn's orders become the overall plan for the fight, and as long as things go according to plan I can practically just hit "go" repeatedly. Or I only have to micromanage some units doing particular "drills", like short advance and hides across an open area, or top hatting tanks.

During execution, I want to react to information about the enemy once and dramatically, rather than little by little every turn. I will put off anything more than minor changes until something becomes clear. Then I am prepared to throw the whole plan out the window and do something completely different. But usually something that is a "natural evolution" from the existing formation or plan E.g. a column head halts, the rest goes half-left and attacks around my left side of the initial blockage. Or everyone pulls back and the old feint becomes the new main effort after 5 minutes for the reserve to reposition behind it.

What is characteristic of the above process is my focus on my own force and its formation and immediate mission or direction of movement, rather than on any flags or VP considerations. And directing that force with the intention of murdering the enemy, in whole or in part. I want a plan simple enough that it can adapt, painfully simple, not a taut rope that will break if anything goes wrong. But that also promises real decision, real destruction of a majority of the enemy force, if he doesn't stop me.

I expect to lose up to a third of my force in a typical fight. I try to keep my force in being and let it apply its firepower, but I care much more about living long enough to expend ammo than about where I get to by minute n. The idea is if most of my guys are alive and shooting for most of the fight, under half way reasonable fighting conditions, then the enemy will get seriously messed up by my accumulated firepower. I want to melt him. I don't much care where he melts, or how far I've gone before he does.

Terrain matters because it effects those "half way reasonable fighting conditions". I think in terms of cover differentials - scattered trees as three times better than the open (because only 23% exposed rather than 70%), twice as good as wheat or brush. And in terms of LOS "differentials" - when most of my force can see and fire, and only part of his can - or vice versa. By massing on one side of a map, or engaging only his foremost units, or hitting them piecemeal as they crest a ridge. I want a plan that promises some significant advantage in those terms.

The rest is tactics - the right weapon for the target, driving tanks well, minutae of infantry placement and order sequences, picking heavy weapon locations, etc.

I hope this helps.

[ April 07, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by JasonC:

A quite useful post. My own typical rundown -

I don't put much stock in the briefing, because most of them are misleading or far too general.

That this is true can't be denied, but it is a damn shame.

I pay little attention to flags, though exit VCs demand attention. I generally plan to win by defeating the enemy force without losing my own, with terrain a secondary consideration and VPs a distant third.

This is really only because scenario designers invariably don't put enough value on the flags. If there were more flags worth more, you would surely have to care. And so, you at least have to count, right?

[Ron]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

This is really only because scenario designers invariably don't put enough value on the flags. If there were more flags worth more, you would surely have to care. And so, you at least have to count, right?

That may be true, though like you I have never played a scenario with that many VFs. I think the intent of the statement is that by concentrating on destroying the enemy forces you will have the VFs by default, no matter how many or what their value is. It's a "philosophy" that works obviously.

Ron

[George MC]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I don't put much stock in the briefing, because most of them are misleading or far too general.

I agree - which leads to the next question - "What basic info should a briefing contain?" (I've a copy of a post that appeared on a thread here a while ago and use that as a template for covering the 'need to know' info.

My own view is I am looking for a briefing that:-

1/ 'sounds' realistic and sets the scene for the scenario (I’m a sucker for ‘historical’ sounding briefings.

2/ Contains a reasonably accurate amount of info about the battlefield and enemy positions appropriate to the scenario/historical situation

e.g. an advancing unit might have less idea of what immediately faces them but may still have an overall picture of roughly the type of unit(s) facing them. There are some historical exceptions to this of course! Whereas a unit that has been in position for a period of time may have more detailed intelligence (I understand that capturing 'tongues' was/is a common practice for gaining intel on your opponent).

3/ I’m still mulling over the level of unit detail but at the moment I am happy with basic unit descriptions e.g. company of infantry etc, but I do like to know what ‘funnies’ I may have e.g. air support, specialist units/weapons etc.

4/ I do like to know if I can expect air attacks. Given air action is not all that common in scenarios (for balance play reasons) it does come as a surprise to suddenly have your armour chased by these funny smoke trails from the sky. Nae fun man! I know historically that air attacks were a very real and a major hindrance, for the Axis particularly, but it would be good to know that in the briefing e.g. “the weather looks to be fine for the attack so we can expect increased enemy air activity” lets me know ‘heads up’ for airborne nastiness! I don’t need to know the fine detail e.g. a Sturmovoik will arrive to blow your nice Tigers to hell on turn 5 :eek:

Although if my Tigers are going to be blown to hell by my own airforce on turn 5 I would like to know the detail on that (There is a family fear of air attacks here – My Grandad serving with the 51st Highland Div was attacked by both the RAF and the USAF on several occasions).

Related to the above on reviewing scenarios at the Scenario Depot. Looking at loads of reviews we all seem to mark down the designer’s scenario on the quality of the briefing. This drags down the overall score. So is there any chance we can reach a consensus on what constitutes an excellent briefing (writing this I realise the futility of that happening but hey debate is great)

Originally posted by JasonC:

I pay little attention to flags, though exit VCs demand attention. I generally plan to win by defeating the enemy force without losing my own, with terrain a secondary consideration and VPs a distant third..

I agree. I’m currently setting up a historical operation where I want the German player to advance. I’m trying to encourage this by loads of flags where the German player is rewarded for gaining ground. But it appears there are only twenty slots. If they do advance they are going to suffer casualties, which are not going to be offset by the measly number of points they will gain for capturing flags (nor destroying the Soviet infantry and a/t guns!) I’ve thought about dynamic flags where you can allocate a huge number of points but it appears you can only activate the one flag. If anyone else has some ideas on this I’d appreciate your comments.

Ach weel back tae work

I've taken this topic on briefings to the Tips and Tricks forum where a thread on briefings has just started. Apologies to the original poster - the stuff on Strategy and Tactics is excellent guys - lots of food for thought.

[ April 08, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: George Mc ]

[JasonC]

"This is really only because scenario designers invariably don't put enough value on the flags. If there were more flags worth more, you would surely have to care"

No, it is not because of the ratio of knock-out points to flag points. It is because the destruction of the enemy force gives me both. They can't hold the terrain after they are dead. I don't worry about which order the events happen, and I don't worry about barely eeking out a win by getting just enough.

I just want to smash the enemy force. The debris left over can't hold the flags in the remaining minutes - nor can that debris protect the remaining bits of the force. Only living effective fighting power protects both flags and force. That is the real prop holding up every victory point the enemy has, and blocking every victory point I might gain.

Win, and victory calculations take care of themselves. Kill the enemy without losing everyone, and winning takes care of itself. Keep the bulk of your force alive and firing - at appropriate targets, under decent conditions - and even killing the enemy takes care of itself. Rarely can the enemy afford to absorb your full firepower.

Keep your eye on the real ball - moving the balance of forces in your direction, by applying your full firepower, in the most lopsided circumstances you can arrange. Don't sweat the detailed scoring of the results. If you've won the battle, all of that just sorts itself out.

[ April 08, 2004, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[GreenAsJade]

As usual, JC, your comments are well thought out and hold water well.

I remain to be convinced that "kill all the enemy" would be a winning strategy in scenarios where the objective was designed otherwise, but since there are precious few of those, your advice wins the day. Maybe this becomes a challenge to me (or someone more qualified) to develop such a scenario!

[gambler]

Ironically, I agree with JasonC (as I think my original post implied) even though the first scenario I created gives the player (if played from the German side as intended against the AI) pretty much no chance to 'destroy the enemy'. In fact, the goal is merely to escape a trapped platoon off the map. Nevertheless, the scenario still uses the concept to some extent. The terrain is still key, and the goal is to eliminate the enemy in a critical area for a short time to achieve your overall goal.

Nevertheless, I absolutely adore (is it permissible for a wargamer to use the word adore?) the victory conditions of a boardgame called Summer Storm, which recreates Gettysburg. Basically victory conditions come from wrecking enemy units (and maybe moving units off the map as the Confederates). Little Round Top won't be fought over because it's worth victory points. Little Round Top will be fought over because controlling the hill will give a better view of the enemy and allow you to destroy him better. Utterly brilliant in its simplicity. I got it immediately. Other wargamers seemed befuddled how to proceed without a clear cut map goal.

[HarryInk]

All good stuff, sirs.

To spice my restatement of much above, I must add that I often find the flags extremely useful:

In my early CM days, I'd run like a greyhound for them. Oh yes, my precious flaggie... oh how beautiful you are... I'm the king of the castle.. etc. etc. and other bathetic drivel. However, after a few old hands were nice enough to utterly remove the occupying company or so with some well placed heavy artillery, I learnt to 'ceed the flags to my enemy and use them as fire sacks. : ) Surely it is typical of the next tatical stage after 'newbie'?

You're over tanks and start to love infantry and HEAVY artillery.

Thereafter, a nice New Zealander with a talent for mathematics informed me of the place of casualties in relation to flags within CM victory calculations. Freed of the flag fetish, I have been a convert to the kind of attitude detailed by JasonC above. Dead men don't hold ground and a force with a global morale beaten down to 22% won't resist my reserve.

Flags are the fruit of the destruction of the enemy forces and not vice versa. Isn't that the point that Hitler missed when he drove South in 1942?

Oh.. and JC's point about the simplicity of the plan: yup. And the shift from main effort to reinforced feint is older than Sun Tzu who IIRC called them Chi and Chen. Just as Yin and Yang transform into each other, when your main effort is eclipsed it becomes the feint and the feint grows into the main effort. It's a principle that encourages one to use the enemy's acts as opportunities rather than suffer them as flat negations of your own. When you're faced with 56 tons of Tiger, it's important to see it as an opportunity!! *L*

One last note on terrain. Height, on land as in the air, rules. I can't help but factor it into plans of how to spray the enemy.

[ April 13, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: HarryInk ]

[Tom Murphy]

On the subject of briefings. I agree they are all over the map, and vary much author to author, but they should not be discounted. I do historical scenarios so I usually try to set the historical tone in the briefing. I also try to imagine what information was avaiable to the commanders in the field. In some scenarios the briefing can be critical if the battle has elements other than those involved in your typical attack or meeting engagement battle. It is also important if the author points out any limitations related to the scenario or if there are any suggested "rules" to improve gameplay.

[dieseltaylor]

Harry

But then what better than to realise that the your enemy knows you are too smart to put forces onto the flag and therefore buys more tanks etc to defeat you.

You promptly grab the flags and defend knowing he is say 300 - 500 points down and perforce must get this back to gain equality. Or he has to crush your force which is now on defence!

Not to say I do not pass up flag grabs when terrain is far more important. But a few infantry on the flags is a great way to put the onus on your opponent to equalise the score.

I will call this the "Advanced noobie" strategy.! : )

[JasonC]

d.t. - I think you missed the bit about the heavy artillery. Some things just don't work. Now, in AK, where arty is so expensive and hard to use, maybe. But then in AK, at least in Africa, the terrain is typically so open the guy who wins the overall firefight gets flags and everything else at the end. Maybe in AK in Italy, then.

[HarryInk]

Hmmm... well, I haven't got to AK yet, so my comments are limited to BO and BB. And I'm not a number cruncher, so take JasonC's advice about cost vs. value (or Beta-tester number crunchers extraordonnaire (sic) like Faustus).

I think the 'advanced noobie strategy' is a fair-enough counter proposal, DieselT : ), but doesn't it distract you from (a) drawing your enemy into a tight fire sack; ( the overriding mission of destroying his forces: your flag holders will end up blasted or bullet riddled fairly soon, no? Indeed, are they not candidates for HIS fire sack (pray he has only bought 81mm mortars)? They are unavailable for the main effort while defending the flag and continue to be unavailable as they stream to the rear with 50% casualties.

If I invest say two platoons of infantry to hold the main flag, that's 240 odd points subtracted from my main drive. If he pulverises them, I lose a 300pt flag and the best part of 240pts of troops. If I start committing other assets to defend the flag-holders I escalate that situation and probably loose the initiative of maneuver: I'm sucked into to the vortex. Support has to rush to fire-positions ad hoc. I'd rather he was in that situation and I keep the freedom to break his troops elsewhere (weakened by his flag-grabbing).

Have you played games without flags? There are a few byte battles where the mission is just to 'take that village', and all operation put you in that situation. I must admit, it's quite a disorientating experience. My god... all too real! No one from 'above' (be they the Major or the scenario designer or the whims of the computer) is telling me which particular woods/building/crossroad to seize. I just have to use the logic of the terrain, my forces, and the likely enemy presence. It's a good tonic to Noobie Strategies A, B, and C which are all a bit hypnotised by the flags, no?

Three further points:

1. Task forces. I'm always a little hazy about tasking my troops. I'm think I kinda do it, but never in the neat formal way I see in many AARs (you know...with the circled troops and the arrows and the convincing commentary. *G*). How about you guys?

2. At the end of one of Fionn Kelly's AARs on CMHQ -- I think it's the one where he 'punches some poor saps face in'? -- he has a nifty process for doing analysis on your battle. What did you buy? Did it pay for itself or was it a waste? etc. etc. In this post we've yakked over the planning forward for the battle, but what place does analysis of your last battle have in this? As this is a game, we often get to buy our troops to order (ie. we know it's a village fight... yes please, I'll have two WASPs and a Churchill 95mm thank you very much). What place does this deserve in our planning?

3. I usually assess the CO's of each of my platoons and use them in the Roman manner of noobies in front, followed by the seasoned greens, followed by the veterans. CO's with command stars are, I think, especially good in the third 'rank' as they're fast to insert in that key position that flanks the flagging enemy troops and takes the ground. I don't have to wait 20 or 33 seconds while a situation changes before my reserve is moving. It's there and positioned before the enemy's is moving.

[ April 13, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: HarryInk ]

[dieseltaylor]

Advanced noobie

Harry Ink

" (a) drawing your enemy into a tight fire sack; ( the overriding mission of destroying his forces: your flag holders will end up blasted or bullet riddled fairly soon, no? Indeed, are they not candidates for HIS fire sack (pray he has only bought 81mm mortars)? "

Firstly when I say grab the flags we are talking very minimal forces, depending on the terrain we could talk a squad - if it is very bad then you simply do not do it. If it is a massive wood then more can be - but not necessarily be added - as covering the approaches to flags and likely buil-up points are even more interesting propositions.

As I tend to play with big points 3000 -2000 I can afford to waste a few squads if necessary.

If your opponent does buy large artillery and uses it all on a couple of squads I am probably up in the cost stakes anyway.

The other point is if you are both avoiding the flags to bounce the opposition they can become free! I have seen big games with some flags with nobody within hundreds of metres. Sometimes people just get too cute.

I always view it like chess sometimes you have to sacrifice pawns to achieve a better position overall.

[Grim.]

I forget who this is a quote of, but my guiding strategic principle is: "the purpose of infantry is to approach the enemy infantry, and kill them".

This may sould trivial, but it's amazing how often people waste time and ammo on other things. IMHO if you can do this bit, the rest takes care of itself (assuming you are not completely inept at dealing with his armour threats).

[yunfat]

13. Delivering a coordinated attack using a combination of forces against an enemy position is the hardest thing to do in the game, and your enemy will do everything possible to prevent it.

[Rokossovski]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I want a plan simple enough that it can adapt, painfully simple, not a taut rope that will break if anything goes wrong.

Jason C's comment on creating flexible plans reminded me of a remark by Wellington about his opponent in Spain -- at that time Marshal Massena. Messena, according to Wellington, constructed his campaigns like a fine set of harness which answered very well until something broke. "Now I," said the Duke, "made my campaigns of rope: when anything broke I tied a knot; and went on."

British doctrine, if I understand correctly, contain Ten Principles of War that I have attempted to put into practice in my years as a wargamer, to the extent practical. Although these are somewhat more theoretical than the more practical (and perhaps more useful) advice given by Jason C and others, they have been of use to me and so I will offer them now. These are:

1. Selection and Maintenance of the Aim.

2. Surprise.

3. Offensive Action.

4. Concentration of Force.

5. Economy of Effort.

6. Mobility.

7. Flexibility.

8. Cooperation.

9. Administration.

10. Maintenance of Morale.

[Rokossovski]

Allow me say a few words in defense of the approach advocated by dieseltaylor. (Although the preponderance of contrary opinion from veteran players makes me a bit hesitant to stick my neck out.)

I like to seize victory flags. (I feel like I am in a 12-step program. "Uh, hello. My name is Rokossovski, and I am a victory flagoholic. It has been three weeks since my last victory flag."

Seriously, the lovely thing about holding victory flags is that it forces the enemy to come to you. As Sun Tzu pointed out, the greatest victory is the battle won but never fought. There is no real reason to go looking for a fight if you can win without one. Naturally in a CM battle the opponent is unlikely concede before a shot has been fired, but it you occupy the victory flags then he is going to have to carry the burden of attack. If this is a meeting engagment, he is going to have to carry that burden without the advantage of superior forces.

"But Rokossovski" you say sternly, "you court disaster! Parking all your troops on victory flags will only get them killed! The enemy will pound the victory locations with artillery! They will defeat you in detail as they sweep your divided forces from their flimsy lodgements!"

To which I respond, "Stop shouting!" (Just kidding.)

Here is how I tend to approach a meeting engagement: I look at the victory locations. I estimate whether I can seize all or most of them before my opponent can. Then, I determine what my defensive plan will be once they have been taken. The idea is to take the flags, and then switch to the defensive, and so various other bits of terrain and the general lay of the land become critical to how my defensive line(s) is structured. To summarize: (1) Take the flags. (2) Set up defenses (generally elsewhere) to cover them. (3) Wait. This converts a meeting engagment to an attack/defend battle.

The terrain does not alway suit this type of strategy, and if it does not, I do not attempt it.

IMPORTANT NOTE: "Taking the flags" should not be taken to mean "clustering all of your units on top of the victory locations with a big red banner saying 'shell me.'" The actual occupation of the victory area may be only notional, say a maxim gun or a half squad. Just enough to let me know if I still own it.

The real firepower is deployed to cover the approaches to the victory locations. (Or maybe even the approaches to the approaches.) Concentration of force is my favorite priciple of war, but concentration shouldn't mean the geographical concentratation of one's own force, but rather their ability to concentrate firepower on some unlucky spot in the enemy line.

Having the flags requires the enemy to attack. Probably not with the explicit goal of taking the flags, but still he must attack. The flagholder may plot ambushes as he pleases.

CAVEAT: In "attack" scenarios (if I am the attacker) I do not concern myself much with flags. Setting up defenses and waiting for the enemy is not a practical strategy there. The above was written in relation to meeting engagments.

[HarryInk]

Thanks for the reply. : )

Seriously, the lovely thing about holding victory flags is that it forces the enemy to come to you.

You repeat this again later. The only immediate thing taking a flag does is make the victory % jump in your favour. I admit that that is a nifty little hook... it's information your enemy gets without having to actually spot your troops. But, it doesn't force your enemy to race over to you at all. It's a flag, not a traction beam! Most likely your enemy will attempt to take the flag if you have troops there, but that might be on turn 28 when the bulk of your troops are overrun or pushed well back from supporting the brave squad zealously clutching to the digital flag pole.

2. The Sun Tzu quote is appreciated but misplaced. After all, you are already in a battle.

3. You don't seem to mind the loss of initiative encumbent on seizing flags and setting up defensive positions? Your "real firepower is deployed to cover the approaches to the victory locations." This poses the question of what happens if I fail to try to take the flag and instead attack a section of those supporting troops. Can the other firepower also be deployed to support the attacked non-flag troops as well as the flag-holders/approaches?

Cheers

[MadGav]

While I agree with Jason Cs approach, and would work along those lines when/if I ever decide to play human opponents taking flags is useful to goad the AI. The AI will launch a counterattack when a flag is taken and with a little forethought this can be used to great advantage.

Martin

[dieseltaylor]

Harry Ink

Re point 3.

I think there is a certain point at which you say am I better of keeping my force together to attack en masse when he attempts an attack or do I defend seriously. This can depend on your force make-up and Nationality and what period.

I am a great believer in sharpshooters for early intelligence. Especially nice if you can infiltrate to kill the art. spotters!!!. Regardless of that getting troops or A/c's forward does make eventual attacks evaluation quicker.

If you play as Russians a lot you tend to find your infantry cheap and tough to dislodge, cheap mortars and machine guns. This certainly colours my thinking when playing them.

In an attack defense QB I deliberately underspent as the defender so I could afford 5 Valentine IX and with the 6pdr gun they put paid to most of the opponents armour so I fully appreciate the fun/point of being able to have an active defence.

[HarryInk]

Cool points, and I especially take the point about the AI. I rarely play against it. Humans don't try and charge me with mortar crews, which is an humanitarian relief! But this means I overlook the 'goading' potential of a flag grab when vs the AI.

DT, I agree that recon is the key. You've got to fill the 'empty battlefield' with information. Even my enthusiasm for Guderianist "punch 'em don't slap 'em" principles follows as good a recon effort as I can muster. Fionn Kelly's old AARs on CMHQ often consist of a recon screen and sledge hammer reserves. And, as you point out, every now and then you get to take out the support troops. FOs are the complete cherrie, eh! I'm usually happy with annoying a mortar crew.

[ April 19, 2004, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: HarryInk ]