Has cmbb killed maneuver?

[Juardis]

I'm talking about ME's mostly, but this could apply to other QB types as well.

First off, I hate ME's. I don't understand the historical context of them and therefore have a hard time visualizing what exactly I'm supposed to accomplish. Kill more of them than I lose, yes, that's part of it, but there is also objectives to be had. No sir, I just don't get them.

Having said that, I realize to play a "balanced" PBEM game you need to play ME's. So I've learned to choke down my distaste for them in pursuit of playing quality opponents. In CMBO, you could avoid the all too frequent flag rush by at least maneuvering all over the battlefield. The absence of AFVs, while a hindrance, certainly is NOT a game killer in CMBO. In fact, since I suck at armor, I rarely purchase it. Now however, in CMBB it seems that maneuver is dead. No longer can your infantry outflank the enemy if there is even so much as ONE MG unit defending it. If there are AFVs then you can forget about it. Even taking AFVs out of the picture, maneuvering your men around the battlefield is a certain recipe for a loss. It has been my experience that he who gets to the flags first wins is even MORE true now than before. Battles typically devolve into standoffs where both sides occupy their piece of the battlefield. To root them out requires way more ammo than you're supplied with, or way more men than you have at your disposal, or AFVs that can turn the tide. This means that to even have a chance, you have to bring armor to the field, no way around it that I can see. And then one lucky shot that takes your your Pz-IV will skew the battle in your opponents favor.

So, in your experience, do MEs typically devolve into standoffs or are you able to maneuver around the battlefield? There are exceptions of course, but I'm asking about the majority of your ME battles.

[Tigrii]

Now I'm sure that Jason C. and/or Fionn will pounce on the thread and write five-page essays on why you're wrong, but here's my opinion. MEs actually encourage manuever in that you have a big advantage in getting there first, so you move fast. On the other hand, like you said, once one side gets there first it is kind of a firefight/standoff. Sometimes. Often a good player will let you grab the VLs and flank you, destroy your units at the VLs, and take them. This is entirely possible using either AFV-covered infantry leapfrogging from cover to cover or the same thing with halfrack-mounted troops. If MGs interfere, hit the dirt and wait for your covering AFVs to feed them HE. works fairly well, especially with halftracks, but you need a covered route. And NEVER try to directly land troops from HTs on troops that are anything less than 50% dead and panicked. You will be mowed down as you disembark. As long as you have APC mounted infantry used wisely and carefully, even just 1 platoon, they can skip the MG-drenched open areas and pave the way for the walking troops, in much the same way as paratroops do in larger-scale ops. But you must take GREAT CARE. ANYTHING can kill a halftrack, even an MG if you let get 4-5 bursts in. OK, that's my speech.

[flamingknives]

As for the situation for an ME occuring, imagine that a Soviet force has penetrated the German front line, and the Germans are moving what troops they have in reserve to secure a vital location to prevent their frontline troops being cut off, or two manuever forces coming into contact as they come up to a strategically important location (a hill covering a road, a road junction, a good artillery OP, a river crossing etc.)

[Juardis]

It's easy to turn a ME into a probe. Get to the flags first then wait. There's a reason probes give you more men to probe with. In CMBB, it's even more difficult to probe but you can prepare for that by buying smoke and lots of it. In MEs you may not have smoke.

And yes, if I play more MEs I will definitely have to get the halftracks and small tanks. To me those are now the king of the ME battlefield. Lots of small AFVs plus some way to hurt a medium or large battle tank. But my point is unless you have AFVs, maneuver is dead. So if everyone knows this, then every ME will also have the same forces every time. No longer can you field a army of infantry and have a chance to win against combined arms. Maybe that's realistic, I don't know. But it sure was challenging, fun, and even satisfying to win in CMBO with mostly infantry against combined arms.

[Edward Windsor]

I don't know if this has any relevance to what you're saying, but I'm finding it tough getting to grips with what I perceive as the Russian infantry's poor AT capabilities and also think a lot of the terrain can be less than inspiring.

So far these have combined to ensure most of the meeting engagements I've played have been decided by the armour battle - which has lead to increasingly outlandish purchases (and an abandoned game).

I'm sure CMBB is more historically accurate than its predecessor, but I don't generally find it as balanced or fun (I know, I know, what's that got to do with anything...).

The obvious exception is battles against the AI, which are a huge improvement over those in the first game.

Maybe I'll improve, but it's hard to see how because at the moment I'm still spending the majority of my PBEM time with the "inferior" CMBO.

Teddy

[nevermind]

This might be a simple or ineffective idea,but when playing ME's make the VFL's unknown.Meaning that in the set up phase,you dont know where the flags are,or can only see half the map(like real fog of war).Maybe there is a road junction or a town/village in the middle and you think that is where the VFL is,or its at the side of the map where the road exits the map.Might put the manuever back into it.If nothing else it might eliminate the "rush" to the flag.

[V]

Originally posted by Juardis:

No longer can you field a army of infantry and have a chance to win against combined arms. Maybe that's realistic, I don't know.

You hit the nail on the head. It is realistic.

Give me a platoon of T-34's and a platoon on infantry and some arty and I will take on an all infantry force.

Let the infantry protect the tanks, the tanks will pin the enemy and the artillery will cut them up, then the infantry hops on the tank and ride in for mop up duty.

But it sure was challenging, fun, and even satisfying to win in CMBO with mostly infantry against combined arms. [/QB]

It can be done. It's just harder now, and I thnk that is more realistic. I don't think you can beat anyone who knows what they are doing in CMBB if you only field infantry against his combined arms.

So play the newbies!

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Having said that, I realize to play a "balanced" PBEM game you need to play ME's. So I've learned to choke down my distaste for them in pursuit of playing quality opponents.

I'm curious who these "quality opponents" are? Every "quality opponent" I have ever played refuses to play MEs for the exact opposite reason you suggest one plays MEs, because they are so lacking in reasonable, historical balance.

CMBB attempts (succeeds) to achieve, with relative historical accuracy, tactical level WWII battles. From '42 on, Russian armor is hopelessly outmatched by the quality of German armor, whereas German armor is hopelessly outmatched by the quantity of Russian armor.

So, most "quality opponents" will not want to play MEs. In fact, from late '43 on, I will only "assualt" as the Russians to simulate the more accurate "hordes" of russian t-34s against that lone panther or tiger.

You are right that whoever wins the armor battle wins the ME, and unless it is '41 that will always be the germans in an *even* tank for tank battle. It is wholly unrealistic.

Not to mention that battles we could call MEs did not exist in WWII. Even at Prohorovka, where forces were close to even, the axis were the attackers, pushing into defending russian positions.

[YankeeDog]

I don't play many QBs (I find there's plenty of well-made scenarios out there to keep me busy), but here's a couple of things I have observed that may make your infantry MEs more interesting:

1) If you're worried about flag rushing, try setting the turn limit to 45 turns rather than 30. This gives a player who decides to advance more cautiously and outmaneuver his opponent rather than simply grab-and-hold the VLs more time. It takes much longer develop an infantry attack against a well set-up position in CMBB. For reference, read some of JasonC's posts on how to 'lean' on a defensive position so as to expend its ammunition and eventually overwhelm it. You need time (turns) to make this tactic work. If you do it right, though, it is quite possible to turn the 'flag-rusher' into the one who finds his defensive positions around the flags running out of ammo in the face of persistent pressure, rather than your attackers running out of ammo before they can covert local superiority into fire ascendancy.

2) Part of the problem you are probably facing is that much of the terrain in CMBB is pretty open and naturally favors forces combined arms forces with AFVs and Artillery. If you're looking for a more infantry friendly battle, try setting Region to "North", where the terrain is more forested, or fighting under lower visibility conditions (Dusk/Dawn, Rain, etc.) that also tend to favor infantry. Especially if you play under EFOW, even the lightest of cover (brush, etc.) will mask infantry movement very nicely with a little help from rain or low light.

Cheers,

YD

[BFCElvis]

I am playing my first QB which happens to be a ME. I have played TONS of CMBB scenarios...this is just my first QB. It is exactly as you describe with the added pain of me having green and conscript troops only. Talk about not being able to move. These guys hear shots and they panic. It has just been a standoff for the last 6 turns.

[Juardis]

When I say quality opponents, I mean relative to the AI. So if I want to play a human, most humans I know prefer a "balanced" fight, hence an ME. I'm not talking ladder sharks here that have optimized forces.

Perhaps the time is my problem then. Because I have only played MEs that are 25 turns and less.

[Nippy]

From '42 on, Russian armor is hopelessly outmatched by the quality of German armor, whereas German armor is hopelessly outmatched by the quantity of Russian armor.

Eh? T-34/85 vs (Long Barrel) Pz-IVs is a pretty fare match up.

[Snorri]

as dead end of and old topic my note will be well placed..

you like maneuvers, and complain that usuall battlefields are way too small to maneuver?!

[what was the blitz in the krieg about?]

i complained too, and what have i done,..

made n operation with a 15-SQUAREKILOMETRES-MAP!!

(battle size is 3200*2000)

although i placed it as "playtest-phase", its ready enough to have ALOT of fun.

send me a mail: digutschH@aol.com

all SUNZIs will be pleased.....

[Snorri]

as dead end of and old topic my note will be well placed..

you like maneuvers, and complain that usuall battlefields are way too small to maneuver?!

[what was the blitz in the krieg about?]

i complained too, and what have i done,..

made n operation with a 15-SQUAREKILOMETRES-MAP!!

(battle size is 3200*2000)

although i placed it as "playtest-phase", its ready enough to have ALOT of fun.

send me a mail: digutschH@aol.com

all SUNZIs will be pleased.....

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Nippy:

From '42 on, Russian armor is hopelessly outmatched by the quality of German armor, whereas German armor is hopelessly outmatched by the quantity of Russian armor.

Eh? T-34/85 vs (Long Barrel) Pz-IVs is a pretty fare match up.

What I said about German armor from '42 on is so far beyond accepted common knowledge that responding to this is silly. But I will.

You are comparing the lowest grade German tank to the highest grade russian tank available in the later war years. German armor was of such quality that even those lowest quality Pz-IVs had a damn good chance of beating the t-34/85.

Come on!

[JasonC]

It is a fine question. I think the even odds of meeting engagements strongly favor tactical defense - the phenomenon you mention of grabbing some decent piece of terrain and then living there in a stand off. There are effective tactics to get defenders out of terrain in CMBB, including ones to do so with mostly infantry. But they are much harder than the ones that worked in CMBO, and they are much easier to achieve with odds.

Step back a second from the QB experiences and think about it. Would a defense with building to woods cover, in position, be assaulted without odds or preparation? An attacker needs something going for him. At even odds, what is it supposed to be?

Sure, if you win the armor war - then the remaining odds aren't even, you've transformed the fight into a positive odds one with superior armor support on one side. Like attacks. So, an attack can and does reasonably follow.

If you get an opponent very seriously out of position, or cut up a significant portion of his force early (by arty e.g.), you might get the same effects. But those things are going to be more likely in favor of the guy who grabs the terrain first, than the other way. He catches people still in the open e.g.

The one place where I can see it going the other way is with good use of arty, particularly with forested flag locations. Because there is a certain greater vunerability to those spots. You might catch the racer too bunched up there, with high caliber stuff, and seriously reduce his numbers. Then you can try the plus odds attacker tactics (including the patient, "leaning", ammo-depleting ones) to beat the remaining men.

But you are going to need something going for you. 1:1 odds attacks with CMBB infantry will fail. In CMBO, it was possible for skilled small tactics to make them work. You got differential LOS, fire ascendency at one squad then another, rolled up a platoon, etc. Those things are much harder to do in CMBB, because your infantry pins when trying to move into position to accomplish it.

Patience can still help here, especially against some infantry types (2 LMG varieties, e.g.). The idea being to absorb their limited ammo while still in decent cover, take time to rally, and maneuver the CMBO way only after they can't afford shots into cover or at medium range anymore.

Is light armor the maneuver arms of choice? In the sense of forces able to make broad flanking movements and such, I think the answer is yes, provided the armor is enough to deal with the cheapest, common, effective light armor stoppers. Which means ATRs for Russians, 20mm autocannons for Germans. That rules out halftracks on the one hand, and the early war Russian lights on the other - but Pz IIs and T-70s work. The small MG only cars can be KOed by mere HMGs, which is not robust enough.

The armor war matters more in CMBB. At even odds, it throws in the most variance. That variance can then make for odds that allow other tactics besides grab and hold.

One man's opinion...

[Stacheldraht]

No longer can your infantry outflank the enemy if there is even so much as ONE MG unit defending it.

Try an ME with green/conscript troops, or worse, and attack/assault. You have to be incredibly--and tediously--meticulous if you want any chance of success in even moderately open terrain. It's just a constant battle to get your troops moving and not breaking, never mind actually battling the opponent. Fast, dramatic, bold maneuver is generally out of the question, period, in CMBB, from everything I've seen, particularly with so many maps featuring relatively open terrain (steppe, etc.).

The real key, imo, is the armor. Winning the armor battle first and foremost has always been the key--or at least a major one--to winning in the CM games, at least in my experience. You need to deprive the enemy of his anti-armor assets (tanks, AT guns, etc.) first, and then use your armor as close infantry support with their DF HE and MG's. Unlike arty, you can bring their firepower to bear directly and relatively quickly and move to new hotspots rapidly.

Without the serious direct firepower from armor, forget trying to move your men forward--let alone on some valiant flanking maneuver--if there's even a modicum of enemy resistance, and particularly if your troops are green/conscript. Bounding overwatch, the "advance" command, suppression from nearby friendly MG's and mortars--those are only so effective. You need the tanks to roll up and blast the hell out of the enemy.

All in all, CMBB strikes me as being a much more slow moving, management intensive game for those reasons. I love the game overall, but that can kind of wear thin.

[Stacheldraht]

You are right that whoever wins the armor battle wins the ME, and unless it is '41 that will always be the germans in an *even* tank for tank battle.

The key to tactics is to make things uneven I'd be hesitant to say any side's armor in CMBB will always win because a good tactician will use terrain, maneuver, supporting infantry, smoke artillery, etc. to shift things to his advantage, to create force multipliers that enhance his units' inherent strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. At the same time, he'll take advantage of an opponent's carelessness, overzealousness, etc.

Plus, it seems to me that in relatively realistic CMBB battles, you're never going to encounter an equal number of "even" tanks on each side just sitting in an open field and blasting at each other.

[Tigrii]

Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are right that whoever wins the armor battle wins the ME, and unless it is '41 that will always be the germans in an *even* tank for tank battle.

The key to tactics is to make things uneven I'd be hesitant to say any side's armor in CMBB will always win because a good tactician will use terrain, maneuver, supporting infantry, smoke artillery, etc. to shift things to his advantage, to create force multipliers that enhance his units' inherent strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. At the same time, he'll take advantage of an opponent's carelessness, overzealousness, etc.

Plus, it seems to me that in relatively realistic CMBB battles, you're never going to encounter an equal number of "even" tanks on each side just sitting in an open field and blasting at each other. </font>

[Juardis]

I ran a test. All troops regular quality and fit. I put 3 Maxims, 2 squads, and an HQ unit in some cover. I put a company of Jeager 42's across some open space (about 300m away), in cover. I included 6 HMG 42's and 3 50mm mortars for the Germans. I wanted to see if the Germans could get one platoon across 100m of open ground to some cover in the middle of the open space.

So on turn 1 I gave the order to one Jaegers plt to RUN to some cover in between the 2 setup zones. I also targetted every place the Russians were with my 50mm mortars and HMG42s. I left the other 2 platoons in cover, but gave them no orders so as they might provide cover fire once the enemy reveals themselves. They did have LOS to the area where I put the Russians.

So after turn 1, one squad made it to cover, one squad was routed, and 2 squads/one HQ unit hit the ground about 1/4-1/3 of the way to their objective and were sneaking back to their starting position. While all kinds of Russian sound contacts were identified, my platoons in overwatch never drew a clear target and therefore never fired a shot.

Watching the same thing from the Russian side I noticed that the suppressive fire the Germans laid down was somewhat effective and probably resulted in the one German squad making it to its objective. If I had not laid down the cover fire, then perhaps 3 of the 5 squads would have broke.

Turn 2, I opened up with all my German platoons to provide cover fire with the objective of getting the 3 squads that were sneaking a chance to get across the open ground. As you might expect, it was a much better suppression fire and very impressive to see once I hit go . But nevertheless, the 3 squads that were sneaking only made it a little further before they once again hit the ground.

Watching turn 2 from the Russian side, pretty much all the Russians were suppressed for most of the turn and I never did positively ID where all the cover fire was coming from. However, the maxims were able to get off a burst here and there in between bouts of suppression. One lone burst is sufficient to make the Germans hit the ground.

I continued for 10 turns trying different things. I tried advancing across open ground (better than running but too tiring to do for more than 50m). I tried assaulting (same results as advancing). I never got another squad even half way across the open space and I consumed half of all my ammo. I never positively ID'd any of the Russians except for one squad that I managed to rout.

Some things I learned. 50mm mortars are NOT good for this type of suppression (too inaccurate and slow). A single MG burst is sufficient to make running troops hit the ground, several bursts will make advancing troops hit the ground. Providing cover fire consumes a lot of valuable ammo, but is useful for a turn or two.

What's this test prove? Nothing really except that manuever without AFVs, smoke and/or cover is pointless. With that in mind, guard all covered approaches and make sure you have your own AFVs. That way you too can turn a ME into a standoff. Smoke appears to be the only sure thing to bring to the fight (provided the damn arty lands where you tell your FO to put that is, but that's another discussion altogether )

[Stacheldraht]

Sure, player skill matters, but a rookie with common sense and StuGs can beat a vet with T-34/76s and advanced tactics any day. Seen it happen lots of times.

Rookies and "common sense" rarely go together As for StuG's, I'd be among the first to sing their praises, but they're easy to flank if not properly guarded by other AT assets. Depends what type of StuG you're talking about, too. The early short-barreled models aren't too hot. And remember that the Soviets have plenty of other tank types besides just garden-variety T-34's.

[ February 17, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Stacheldraht]

What's this test prove? Nothing really except that manuever without AFVs, smoke and/or cover is pointless.

Exactly. One lone MG can bring an enemy advance to a halt, and if you're going to do something about it, you need to bring massive firepower to bear on it, and fast. Just figuring out where the MG is firing from can be very hard when you play with extreme fog of war on. If it turns out that the MG is in a heavy building or a trench, you'll really need to blast the heck out of it to supress it, let alone kill it (except if it's green or conscript, in which case you can call it bad names and make it run home crying).

Of course, the problem with trying to bring massive firepower to bear is that it often requires massing your infantry in one location (because of otherwise intervening terrain and/or the limited effective range of small arms). That makes them sitting ducks for artillery. Hence, it comes back to bringing up the armor to gain the local firepower advantage. But, then a smart enemy will have an AT gun hidden nearby do deal with that very eventuality. CMBB is tough

[MrSpkr]

Juardis, my delinquent squire, you have been absent from the One True Thread for far too long. Your mind is not thinking deviously enough.

If you are concerned about manuever, buy lots of artillery.

Then set up a turn 25 (of 30) barrage for all but one or two batteries dead on top of the victory locations or flags.

Set up a smoke barrage for Turn 27 (of 30) between the best assault positions for your guys and the flag.

Once the main bombardment is over and you have good smoke cover, CHARGE the VL. You should be able to at least neutralize it (if not take it), and win on points for destroyed units.

Steve

[ February 17, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Tigrii]

Originally posted by Stacheldraht:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sure, player skill matters, but a rookie with common sense and StuGs can beat a vet with T-34/76s and advanced tactics any day. Seen it happen lots of times.

Rookies and "common sense" rarely go together As for StuG's, I'd be among the first to sing their praises, but they're easy to flank if not properly guarded by other AT assets. Depends what type of StuG you're talking about, too. The early short-barreled models aren't too hot. And remember that the Soviets have plenty of other tank types besides just garden-variety T-34's. </font>

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Ares_the_Great:

This might be a simple or ineffective idea,but when playing ME's make the VFL's unknown......If nothing else it might eliminate the "rush" to the flag.

What you are describing is dynamic flags. Problem is, dynamic flags are not an option in a QB. And yes, if it was an option, then perhaps it would eliminate the flag rush.

Here's my problem with MEs. You know you're going to meet the enemy and you know the approximate size of that enemy. The most logical place to find the enemy is near the flag(s). There is nothing that I can find that a ME is supposed to replicate. It has it's purposes I know, but I personally don't like them.

Best idea I've heard yet is to play on a huge map. I'll have to test that. If that works, I think perhaps that could put the maneuver back into MEs and I can live with that.

And MrSpkr sir, thank you for acknowledging us outerworldians (smiley squashed in deference to Peng).