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

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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

He's obviously a returned bad boy of the forum. The game now becomes to figure out which one. Or we can all yawn and go watch hockey. Or could do, if we didn't have to wait til Monday.

Sorry, dt, no one comes on, posts 27 times, claims to be a fan of CM:BO AND acknowledge JasonC's analytical skills while also taking swipes at him in addition to stroking their own ego without having a prior history here. So Jason isn't alienating anyone.

Besides, as Steve famously posted before - most players play alone at home and probably don't even visit the forums.

[Misereor]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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

Since you've now proven that you won't put your money where your mouth is, please refrain from adressing comments to me from now on.

[Misereor]

Originally posted by PzKpfwIII:He's obviously a returned bad boy of the forum.

Long time reader, recent member, and that only because of CMSF coming out soon. I was involved in CMMC2 for a while but dropped out before it got started, so I doubt if you know me.

[Broompatrol]

I like your suggestion, DT. I have not played lots of the CMBO scenarios but I think one that may make for good analysis is "Cracking the Egg". In my opinion its a nice big map but not too big. As the attacker you get lots of armor and some infantry, but if you don't play smart you can still get chewed up by the 88's and Tiger reinforcements.

The only weakness as a teaching tool I see is

as the attcker you don't have to think too much about how to use your forces as there isn't much of a mix.

It is one of the first scenarios I ever played. I haven't looked at it in awhile so I think I'll check it out again with my new 'veteran' eyes

-To the second part of your point, DT. I don't think I'm comprehending exactly what you mean by "to a map which the points can be aimed.." Are you saying that we could simply use a scenario map to illustrate our ideas but without discussing scenario itself? Like using the map as a chess board to work out solutions?

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

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.

[Cuirassier]

Misereor,

Instead of continuing your debate with JasonC on what the actual intentions of your original post were, why don't you just step up to the plate and succinctly explain your theory of "controling the battle" and how it separates masters from apprentices, as you have yet to do so.

I am not here to start any personal arguments. But just for the sake of the original poster, if you have helpful advice, by all means share it. If not, you might as well discontinue posting here, as it serves no purpose.

[Misereor]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

Misereor, instead of continuing your debate with JasonC on what the actual intentions of your original post were, why don't you just step up to the plate and succinctly explain your theory of "controling the battle" and how it separates masters from apprentices, as you have yet to do so.

I am not here to start any personal arguments. But just for the sake of the original poster, if you have helpful advice, by all means share it. If not, you might as well discontinue posting here, as it serves no purpose.

There are no arguments, only a series of poorly phrased rants about college professors taking golden showers.

Axel (the original poster) said:

"but when it comes to an attack i have no clue what to do no difference if im playing against the CPU or a friend my attacks always seem to fall short.. does anyone have a good "attack tactic" to share?"

In reply he received a series of tactical doctrines, but in the area of overall planning, only such vagueries as "have a decent strategy" or "just kill the enemy".

I added:

"To win convincingly, you must "control" the battle. That means keeping the enemy from doing what he wants to do, while doing what you want to do. The tactics mentioned above are merely a means to that end."

You then said:

"I think Misereor is oversimplifying things with the whole "just control the battle and you'll win" dictum. There are some basic tactics or rules a player should know if he is going to use armor effectively"

But note that I do not claim that tactical doctrine is unimportant, but that it must be used with some overall purpose in mind to have any meaning. I do believe we were talking past each other on that.

(Any perceived "huffyness" on my part was purely unintentional, but then the flamefest began.)

I later elaborated, after being asked to do so.

It is my opinion that for a novice to attain battle control in an advance/assault scenario, he should focus on where he wants to go and what areas he must control (whether by fire, occupation, or smoke) to do so without taking too many casualties. He must do this in order to decide WHERE he wants to apply the tactical doctrines he has been innundated with if he has been reading this thread.

(I also believe that it is unlikely that a novice player will remember more than a few of them anyway, so until he's had a chance to properly integrate them, he should focus on purpose more than form.)

Furthermore I also believe that when facing a skilled human opponent, being able to control the battle distinguishes the master player.

(Though "battle control" is implicitly not limited to the above idea in such a case. If I may point again to the Sunken Lane AAR posted earlier to make an example.)

I guess a summary is warranted for those who haven't microread the thread, as it contains a lot of junk data. I am of course obliged to correct honest misunderstandings, but I have no intention of being held accountable for things I have not said. I have nothing but ridicule for strawmen arguments made by... well, you know what I mean.

Hope that clarifies things a bit, but certainly no hard feelings on my part.

[Broompatrol]

Regarding Dieseltaylor's earlier suggestion of analyzing a particular map: If we want to discuss a larger map I think the "Once a King" scenario has an interesting map (Although the scenario itself doesn't do much for me) and I would be interested to hear how different folks would approach attacking or defending on it.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

A couple of comments to yet another meaty post from you.

Panzer IIs have another advantage over the named early war Russian light tanks. ROF on that nasty little 2 cm autocannon, an advantage enhanced by the fact that the Russian tanks can't fight unbuttoned, further multiplying their numerous deficiencies. Speedy and a tiny target, too.

My experience in running KV-1s is that they are like having any other uber tank (have a bunch in one scenario I'm playing but won't name for the sake of FOW). Their life span's measured in seconds when they're yours, and they're all but unkillable when your foe has them. ROF and turret traverse rate are glacial on a tank which moves only slightly faster than the noun from which the adjective derives. The Panzers I'm fighting don't seem even slightly impressed, and the exchange ratio is downright shocking. I don't deem swapping a KV-1 for a 38T a fair trade. May just be bad luck on my end and good on his, but my guys seem to have skipped Gunnery altogether while at

armor school, and even hulldown positions don't seem to buy me anything. The Panzer pounding is nothing, though, compared to what the Stukas have done to me. Bombed back into the Stone Age is only slightly off the mark.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John Kettler]

Axel,

I though it should be pointed out that CMBO allows all sorts of behaviors which would result devastating losses in CMBB or CMAK. Not only is infantry more "game" in CMBO, but it's much easier to assess what you are or aren't accomplishing, thanks to no EFOW setting in CMBO. The ability of

defending MGs to pin and disrupt attackers is almost nil, too. There's also the little matter of no final protective fires. Try rushing an MG now, and you'll find that the ROF goes up markedly when you get close, compounding your misery.

Another tweak that changed the complexion of assaults was the reduction of ammo load in SMG-heavy units. In CMBO, these troops have the same ammo loads as rifle armed infantry, translating into not just enormous firepower, but also unrealistic staying power. This permits rushing positions with several MGs in them still firing, yet living to tell about it, especially if the assault formations had two LMGs and a bunch of SMGs per squad. Very exciting to watch in the movies and all that, but military suicide in the last two CM games. See, for example, squatdog's woes while facing one man in a ditch. CMBO's a great game, and I go all the way back to the Beta Demo days with it, but when it comes to simulating battlefield dynamics, it's simply not in the class of the later two CMs.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Axel]

Yes I have had some experiences with what you just pointed out John, CMBO was the first CM game I got so I was surprised (positively) with the things you pointed out, only naming a few.

[dieseltaylor]

Sorry to be absent from the thread so long but in fact I should be away on holiday but circumstances mean I have returned to the computer today.

I am glad that my idea finds some merit : )

It is interesting map and if I briefly divert it does raise two quick points:

1. Bad scenarios can ruin a good map by

A someone who is good at maps but not a good player, inadequate testing

B forcing the player to use a certain plan to win

2. Game engine does not allow RL to work

A borg spotting means ambushes do not work well

B driving along roads is a chore

C precise distances allow gamesmanship in fog/dark

Anyway my first reaction to looking at the map is YUK! We have two ways of looking at the map as in RL or as for playing CMBB on. It is the latter I will be bearing in mind as it is the game that we are discussing.

Without looking at the troops I glance briefly at the map and see plenty of woods, boggy ground and water. I am told in the briefing it is dark and historically based. Immediately two problems as historically based to my mind means sod play balance this is "realism". Darkness means that the idiotic BF decision to give all units laser rangefinders that mean they know to a metre how far they will see throughout the battle and when they will be invisible to the enemy.

Anyway I'll rumble on with my stream of thoughts - remember I have not looked a the scenario forces - the idea was to look at terrain but as this map is tedious ......

OK short ranges means SMG's are king. Mortars are probably useless unless you have good commanders.

Morale tends to be very important at night so getting the really good platoon and company commanders for the important roles is very much worth doing

Major artillery you might think would also be useless . Any hopes of laying fire along roads is likely to suffer from the games decision you can only fire one direction. Also the target road is at an angle which makes beating a path alongside it very much more difficult.

Danger of roads being blocked by too many dead vehicles when running through woods could be embarrassing.

Boggy ground - the game model is a bit sucky but some vehicles are theoretically much more likely to bog. In actual terms this tends to be your most crucial vehicle.

As I have to go pack again - lastly I will say in my 200+ games I have finally come to the realisation that Battlefront did a great job of modelling the tanks but the infantry sucks for a number of reasons so to get the greatest enjoyment try to find battles with plenty of tanks and room to move, and infantry are the supporting cast.

The larger the game the more chance you will have to try different approaches and I can whole- heartedly recommend Tiger Valley and BotrytisII as they give players lots of different strategies and terrain to sneak units about. 45 plus turns need not take long to play.

I am sorry I have to go now as to be honest I have not really been able to discuss the points I wanted to - when I return I will find a map where movement is possible and good weather does not use screwed game mechanics. : )