What must i do to make a decent assault/attack?

[Misereor]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Take the hint already, stop talking about me or worse still yourself, and instead do something useful for the rest of the world.

What, like throwing temper tantrums on the Internet?

But I'll take your advice. I'm off to work.

[JasonC]

Half a dozen calls to say anything constructive to the actual audience, he hasn't a word to say. But he'll post like a metronome some contentless snippet, endlessly. Maybe he thinks that is dominating the battlefield. Maybe that's a euphemism for watering the classroom floor.

Did I mention what a great impression you are making?

[Cuirassier]

Is it just me, or do these tactics threads always degenerate into such arguments lol.

Anyways, thanks for the corrections to my post JasonC. Just one quick question. When do the Pz. IV's get HC ammo?

[PFMM]

A better course of action might be to address Misereor's claim that taking control is necessary to victory. It is not.

What one is trying to do is effect a plan, taking control means reaching out to one's opponent and saying this is what I'm doing and this is what will happen, and that is just what the enemy wants to hear. In effecting a plan you are going to achieve one's aim regardless of wether control is maintained or not, because, as a contigency of any plan there is the consideration of it still working when all hell is breaking loose. You just let it slide.

So, take control and tell all or maintain a plan and keep the enemy in the dark. Your choice.

[PFMM]

Addendum, also note that not having control can also be aprt of the plan. It often works in politics and is just as effective in Combat Mission.

[Axel]

Well, I might aswell continue asking questions. How can you use your halftracks efficiently?

[Misereor]

All I've seen you directing at me Jason, is strawman arguments that can be considered heavily ironic, coming from someone who claims to care about wasting perfectly good typing.

PFMM:

Well, first of all thank you for being civil.

You say that "taking control [of the battlefield] means reaching out to one's opponent and saying this is what Im doing and this is what will happen", which is not quite what I had envisioned. I mean it in a quite geographical sense.

To add a little personal anecdote, when CMBO first came out I quickly stopped playing Advanced Squad Leader and sat in front of my computer instead. I found some forums where a number of military people offered lots and lots of sound advice. I knew some of this stuff was brilliant, and I felt great about aquiring the knowledge of it, but for some reason I wasn't immediately able to apply their advice to my own games.

The problem wasn't them of course. It was me.

There is a lot of sound advice in this thread, but for a new player trying to assimilate it all, it will likely result in information overload. When playing the advance/assault scenario, does one use artillery or MG fire to suppress the wood on the right flank? Or should it be ignored? Where should the smoke be placed? Where does the armor go? Is Move, Sneak or Advance movement orders the best idea when crossing this particular field?

He has this amazing toolbox of tactics, but not the frame of reference to be confident in his ability when to use what.

An easier way for the novice to deal with this, I've found, is to approach it with a control attitude (in a geographical, not moral sense). Most likely when the scenario is underway, only one or two of the tactical lessons he read on the forum last week will be remembered anyway.

It doesn't really matter if the wood on the right flank is controlled by overwatch, smoke, MG, direct- or indirect fire artillery or physical occupation. It has relevance from a resource allocation viewpoint certainly, but for the inexperienced player the main thing to keep in mind is that certain areas must be controlled in order to secure his ability to advance without taking too many casualties.

Once he has some confidence in his ability to do so, integrating the tactical lessons he reads on the Battlefront forums will become much easier too, because he will have a much sounder frame of reference for them.

A pretty "Zen" way of approaching this is by keeping things simple.

As you gain experience and "add spice", you will find that things remain simple, even when utilizing some pretty damn inventive combined arms tactics.

(Or to paraphrase Sun Tzu: "Controlling the many is the same as controlling the few".)

In life a well as games, the best players are those who don't forget the basics because they are staring themselves blind at the advanced forms.

Hope that clarifies my standpoint a bit.

Nota Bene.

"Addendum, also note that not having control can also be part of the plan. It often works in politics and is just as effective in Combat Mission."

Not quite sure what you mean? Could you elaborate?

[Misereor]

Originally posted by Axel:

Well, I might aswell continue asking questions. How can you use your halftracks efficiently?

Depends what you want to use them for.

A halftrack, whether a SdKfz251 or an M3 provides you with with fast, crosscountry transport that can ignore small arms fire but will get chewed up by everything else.

You can use them for a number of things, relocating support weapons, shuttling troops, or the occasional assault movement with heavy infantry, but they should never move across ground that the enemy controls (as in: "can establish dominance of fire"), as they haven't the durability for it.

Decide what role you want them to play, and plan from there, and remember when placing them that if they can see the whole battlefield, the whole battlefield can see them.

(Usually followed by a "Perrkele" or "Satana" )

From a purely gametechnical view, you wanna use fast movement. "Move" orders don't really confer any advantage. Usually it is also quicker to use a "Reverse"/"Fast Move" combination to change facing, as "Rotate" is very slow for halftracks.

[Vark]

Misereor, when you talk about control of the battlefield are you talking about getting into and dominating your opponents decision cycle? The British Army used to talk about the OODA loop (Observe, orientate, decide and act) and how important it was for commanders to dominate their opponents OODA. This would then result in the enemy constantly executing plans that were out of date as they responded to your plans.

[Misereor]

Originally posted by Vark:

Misereor, when you talk about control of the battlefield are you talking about getting into and dominating your opponents decision cycle? The British Army used to talk about the OODA loop (Observe, orientate, decide and act) and how important it was for commanders to dominate their opponents OODA. This would then result in the enemy constantly executing plans that were out of date as they responded to your plans.

No, no, you're giving me far too much credit.

What I'm talking about is extremely basic (which is why I expect Jason is slightly annoyed with me).

It is merely a matter of deciding what you want to do, and then using a very simple process to form a basic plan. "Where do I want to go, and in order to do so, what areas of the map must I control?" Once you have decided this for yourself, determining what exact tactics to use to accomplish it becomes much simpler.

I've been where Axel (the original poster) is, having a bunch of printouts from Internet forums or army manuals which I was unsure how to apply. Sometimes, especially when you're new at something, it is far too easy to become lost in the details.

That said, there is a significant difference between anticipating your opponent and actually being able to manipulate his decision cycle.

Against the AI prediction is easy, but "controlling" it's actions is damn near impossible, as it tends to follow a simple script of it's own. Against human opponents who have infinite time to plan every move (in PBEM at least) and a very good idea what force levels you are fielding, it's even more difficult.

I suspect realtime combat in CMSF may make it easier, as it stresses the player's decision cycle, but there the playing field is even for both sides.

However, as an off-tangent, I do recall one damn near perfect example of what you're speaking about.

The Sunken Lane After Action Report.

A long read, but very useful.

(Also for Axel, even though it's about defense, strictly speaking.)

Regards.

[Axel]

Thanks Misereor, I will whine again when there's something I don't get Ps. Being a swedish speaking finn I would probably go: Aj Saatan! with a long "a" and a stinging "t"

[Kineas]

What Misereor is talking about is the military decision process revolving around a single decisive point. You analyze your mission carefully, then you come up with a decisive point. Then you assign purpose and tasks to each and every unit of yours. You can read more on this in the armchair general, Tactics 101. (Written by army professionals, not fellow wargamers)

Basically, every unit has to serve the Main Goal, no random actions. But they have to attain that via sound tactics, and they should be given the appropriate tasks. Knowing proper tactics advised by JasonC and others is a must.

I think there are other decision methods as well (not decisive point oriented), but probably this one is the easiest. Basically, your units have a job to do, they don't just kill enemies in the field whenever they have the ocassion. IMO this not necessarily means 'controlling' the battlefield or having always the initiative.

[Misereor]

Originally posted by Kineas:

[QB] What Misereor is talking about is the military decision process revolving around a single decisive point.

Not necessarily a single one, but "Schwerpunkts for dummies" may be a good desciption

[JasonC]

It is an interesting psychological exercise, isn't it? What motivates the transparent backpeddle, and does he honestly think anyone will buy it?

Controling the battle, not the battlefield, means doing what you want to do and not letting the enemy do what he wants to do. No mention whatever of ground control, progressive or otherwise. Nor was it presented as a zen like simplicity, but instead was directly related to knowing when to break the rules of tactics or otherwise dismiss "book learning" with contempt.

Meanwhile, what was the evidence advanced in favor of such control? Was it a QB analyzed in terms of ground control, explaining which pieces of terrain were critical, how forces were tasked to clear or keep them, how the ground grabbed at stage one paved the way for the ground grabbed at stage two, and so on the ultimate victory? Well, no.

Instead it is a scenario meant to be played blind, a very long one featuring "Rune-ic" surprises. Played unblind by the simple device of repeating over and over. A scenario featuring quite limited visibility - about 200 meters. And a German force equipped with King Tigers, fully capable of blowing apart anything the Russians have, and vulnerable only to the scenario's scripted surprises. Which do not exist the nth time through.

Far from ground control, the example actually shows that if you can pick the exact enemy within range (due to LOS limits and AI caution), and know beforehand what he has and roughly where (due to repeated play of a surprise-based scenario), and have a "trump card" (in the form of uber-armor that dominates the Russian arsenal) - then you can patiently and laboriously dismantle the opponent without risk. Just never lead with anything vulnerable, etc.

No one could possible take the lesson from the original post that a keep it simple principle of ground control is the way to succeed in CM, or the first thing for newer players to grok.

Notice that no one did, either. Multiple experienced players read his posts and took from it nothing like what he maintains he intended. For a simple reason - what he now maintains is not there, and was not intended.

What he intended was to crow about how soundly he beat the AI once. With King Tigers. In light fog. Knowing everything coming by playing repeatedly. Next he will explain that the way to control the battlefield is to save often and do over any shot that misses.

Now, I've posted AAR screens like that a few times. But always with a moral. Once the moral was that the AI is clueless at attacking and bunches up along preferred routes, which I illustrated by smashing an entire battalion of infantry with one sIG. One the moral was for political extremists to go away, which I illustrated by slaughtering two battalions of late war SS, using rockets, T-34/85s, and SMG infantry. But I never even imagined that anyone would see any skill in either.

And I certainly would not pretend such things teach ground control by the zen method of not mentioning the subject.

The principle of controlling ground might be useful for new players, but it is a distraction from the real issues involved in an attack. The real issue is to destroy the defenders through firepower. Ground is taken by firepower. Focusing an attack on reaching locations is a good way to spend too much of your time trying to solve every problem with a movement order, and not enough of it figuring out how to kill the defenders efficiently. Which, notice, was the actual trick involved in engaging weaker enemies with KTs in sequence. Not ground control.

One who knows can make a useful lesson out of anything.

[Misereor]

<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010417135744/www.geocities.com/thak98/insults.wav" target="_blank">It is an interesting psychological exercise, isn't it? What motivates the transparent backpeddle, and does he honestly think anyone will buy it?

</a>

[dieseltaylor]

Its refreshing in a way to come and see Jason C still being the arse he so often is in reaching to invective as a substitute for discussion.

Given I think that we are playing an imperfectly modelled version of RL warfare I really cannot understand why anyone can be so dogmatic. A little bit of civility is not life threatening or mean your counter argument is weakened.

I don't really expect JC to change - its just a shame he feels it necessary to alienate potential and existing CM players.

With regard to all the comments here I always feel it helps if we actually had a case in point to discuss. I have no idea if Axel plays on maps 880 *560 or 1680*5200 so what applies on one size battlefield will look pretty stupid on another.

Perhaps if people would quote a scenario from the CD it could then form the map for discussing the tactics. And I do mean a map to which the points can be aimed not a re-hash of the battles fought there with the forces provided in the scenario.

[JasonC]

dt - thanks, I aim to please through consistency.

Of course, I wasn't the one who noticed something amiss with the fellow's comments. But then he insisted that disagreement with his point, such as it was, was agreement. (Anyone who didn't see the snarkiness in his original may be forgiven for lacking the required nostrils, nothing more).

[JasonC]

But to substance, Miser - please regale us with the explanation of how the zen like simplicity of ground control was the basis of your KT driving victory over the transcendent AI the nth time through A Royal Opponent. Please clearly stress the fundamental simplicity involved, so we can knit all of your statements together into one coherent whole.

[JasonC]

Oh, and be careful not to "oversimplify" through a "just control the battle and you will win" dictum.

[flamingknives]

Possibly not, Jason, but you were the one being an arse about it.

[Axel]

Misereor, That was a very nicely executed sunken lane scenario, ever heard of the All or Nothing match in CMBO? I have played that map 2 times and if I rember correct won both times because I transported as many men as I could to a hill and did a big charge over a minefield and a bridge with my brits (who handled that perfectly *salutes*), of course I supported them abit. My actual point was that it seems that the british in CM have a better morale than many of the other country's and can handle the pressure better, I just came to think about that.

[Misereor]

Originally posted by JasonC:

But to substance, Miser - please regale us with the explanation of how the zen like simplicity of ground control was the basis of your KT driving victory over the transcendent AI the nth time through A Royal Opponent. Please clearly stress the fundamental simplicity involved, so we can knit all of your statements together into one coherent whole.

Hmm, now that's the first interesting thing you've directed at me so far. For whatever twisted reason, you want me to write up an AAR with Cliff notes?

Don't bother elaborating your answer.

A simple yes or no will suffice. If you answer affirmatively, we can discuss whatever specific details you require.

Of course you must then apply your much touted analytical skills to it. I may not like your attitude much, but I'm quite capable of appreciating you as a major contributor to these forums, when you're not suffering from uncontrollable verbal flatulence.

[Misereor]

Originally posted by Axel:

[QB] ever heard of the All or Nothing match in CMBO?

That is probably my favorite CMBO scenario.

Though when playing against a human opponent it is a bit annoying that the German can't redeploy his 88 in the setup phase.

[JasonC]

FlamingKnives - indeed, well spotted, you have gathered my intention admirably. Alas, you think noticing that I was being 'an arse' is in itself sufficient commentary. A gentlemen is never rude unintentionally, but it is not true that a gentleman is never rude.

Too cryptic. The man was being 'an arse' to a perfectly nice fellow I happen to like, who was very polite to him. Perhaps unintentionally, but nevertheless. So I repaid him in kind.

[JasonC]

Miseor thinks the whole thread is now about him. Or maybe its the world. Or maybe the floor isn't wet enough yet.