The "Infantry heavy" Quick Battle....

[Der Kuenstler]

In a current unrestricted QB I won the usual ME "flag race" but my victory is slipping away in an engagement in which my opponent has huge amounts of infantry. He seems to have bought almost all infantry and mortars and spent only a token on armor. He's gradually surrounding my boys and eating them up. This seems like a sound strategy since infantry can take the most punishment of anything on the battlefield and still recover to fight. What do you experts think? Is extreme reliance on infantry the soundest way to win these quick battles?

[Sergei]

If you're fighting in the desert, then, nope. It also depends on what sort of force you have to counter the infantry force. Some AFV's are better suited for killing footmen while some others are pretty useless for that job. Also, it depends on available technology - late war infantry does a decisively better job against tanks, with their 'zooks and 'fausts.

Personally, I'd prefer a balanced combined arms force rather than a min/maxed out specialist force. Otherwise, you just might run into something that you don't have tools to deal with. But of course, feel free to experiment with different tactics. The game is supposed to be fun.

[Tripps]

Originally posted by Der Kuenstler:

In a current unrestricted QB I won the usual ME "flag race" but my victory is slipping away in an engagement in which my opponent has huge amounts of infantry. He seems to have bought almost all infantry and mortars and spent only a token on armor. He's gradually surrounding my boys and eating them up. This seems like a sound strategy since infantry can take the most punishment of anything on the battlefield and still recover to fight. What do you experts think? Is extreme reliance on infantry the soundest way to win these quick battles?

Can you give some more details? CM BO, BB, AK? Year? Axis or Allied? - that kinda stuff....

[Der Kuenstler]

Yeah it's may of '43 in CMBB. I'm Russian and he's German. 1250 pt QB ME.

[Tripps]

This is how I see it.

I always go for at least a third in infantry.

If the terrain is city or heavy trees, its two thirds infantry.

And a mix of support guns, AFV's, and Arty - your standard combined arms.

I hardly ever go AFV heavy, and the AFV's i take - i look at AFV's that are infantry killers.

I leave the tank killing up to TH squads/AT guns - as a last resort i use my tanks vs his tanks.

What sounds like is happening in your game is he has local dominance in infantry - unless you can use some of those other elements (tanks/guns) to turn the tide - its a war of attrition you cannot win.

In the 1250 point ME I would have had at least a company of infantry, again depending on the terrain.

Then - I wouldnt race to the flag, race to somewhere where you can inflict the most harm on him, then once you have won the battle - you can walk in and take the flag

[Carl Puppchen]

I find that infantry gets completely routed if the enemy has direct fire HE from armored vehicles and a reasonably clear LOS. If the enemy can achieve armor supremacy on the battlefield and has decent HE (75mm plus, 105mm even better) infantry has little chance. Leave a platoon for a couple of turns in reasonable LOS from an HE chucker - they will be routed and running cover with heavy casualties.

This doesn't apply in dense woods or city terrain, hence the LOS disclaimer.

A big chunk of the game in ME is guessing the terrain and picking forces that favor the terrain. If it is pretty open you can also get a good bang for the buck with guns, especially IG's which are cheap and can also rout infantry. Unless infantry has trench cover (no fortifications in ME's) or heavy buildings direct fire HE is murder.

[JasonC]

The way infantry deals with direct HE is it breaks LOS, using cover not by sitting inside it but by putting it between themselves and the shooter.

To take out guns they need their mortars. A heavy weapons group to each company is standard, with an HQ, a couple MGs, and a minimum of one big or two smaller mortars. Plus an FO or sniper if available, and ATR for the Russians, etc.

As for fighting an enemy with armor remaining when you have none, it is terrain dependent, yes. You try to advance in dead ground areas and gradually restrict the area his armor covers. Infantry AT trails the regular infantry. At some point you put one through a piece of cover just cleared, to get a shot. (Russians aren't good at this, since ATRs are weak compared to zooks etc).

Some armor types have limited HE loads, and can be overwhelmed by numbers after they break a platoon or so each. But the types with deep HE loads (50 plus rounds of 75mm plus caliber) or very large calibers (with 150mm, even 1-2 rounds will mess up a platoon) cannot. Also, 2 full tanks with functioning MGs can cut up a move attempt across open ground, even without HE.

Infantry is frequently more powerful late, as tanks get KOed, others run low on ammo or are immobilized in the wrong place or gun damaged, guns have already unmasked and been taken out (or avoided), FOs are out of ammo. Meanwhile infantry rallies if left alone for 5 minutes, and even a seemingly "spent" formation can get back in it. The side with less infantry can then run out of infantry ammo before they can stop the more numerous side. Not because tanks couldn't stop them, but because there aren't enough left.

[Carl Puppchen]

Agreed that infantry can beat direct fire HE from tanks, but it does take a lot of effort and some cover terrain to hide their tracks.

My point was that if you have an infantry heavy force and the opponent has direct fire HE chuckers and isn't very outnumbered, the infantry will have a very difficult (and painful, in terms of casualties) slog to win.

I haven't even taken into account the power of cannister - which I found out first hand in "our backs to the volga" where one T34 whom I just couldn't knock out slaughtered almost a company of my engineers at short range. After that I really treated cannister with more caution, I was clearly being reckless during that scenario, but with MG fire and cannister taken into account it is even rougher to win with infantry vs. tanks.

One other element is that it doesn't take much CM skill to demolish an infantry attack with a tank (just sit there and blow up everything in range, and pull back a bit when they get too close) while it takes a bunch of CM skill to stealthily pull off an infantry assault on tanks. Maybe more skill than I typically have , similar to the fact that I never can seem to do jack squat with Marders and others seem to have good luck.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Der Kuenstler:

Is extreme reliance on infantry the soundest way to win these quick battles?

IMO, you win games with inf.

To take that one step further, I would also say that you should learn how to win games with only inf (and inf support weapons, ie. mortars, mgs, etc), and then you will really be deadly when you have a tank or two.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

Agreed that infantry can beat direct fire HE from tanks, but it does take a lot of effort and some cover terrain to hide their tracks.

Cover is important for inf - no doubt about that. But it isnt HE that kills inf in lack of cover, it is the AFV's mgs. Mgs and mortars are by far the best to keep inf from moving.

My point was that if you have an infantry heavy force and the opponent has direct fire HE chuckers and isn't very outnumbered,

For the price of one AFV, you can get typically a platoon, and sometimes two platoons of inf. So a tank heavy force will be outnumbered.

it doesn't take much CM skill to demolish an infantry attack with a tank (just sit there and blow up everything in range, and pull back a bit when they get too close)

If one tank can stop an inf attack of less than 100m or so, then the attack was ill-conceived to start with. (what would stop inf is not HE - it is the mgs on the AFV). The problem is that HE chuckers (150s, 105s, 75s) cannot target enough positions to keep inf from advancing close enough to KO them.

To use a previous game example of the inf question - I recently finished a allied attack in moderate trees where all i picked was an US eng battalion, 4 priests, and 1 81 mm mortar. My opponent (who is a good player) picked a company plus 1 eng platoon, a tiger, two 150s, 105mm spotter, 2 75mm Paks, and 2 75mm sIGs.

I won that attack basically only using inf and their support weapons. At the end of the game, my 81mm spotter still had all his ammo, and my priests had only helped me dislodge 1 mg, and 2 squads.

We were playing a mirrored game, and when I was on defense, I picked a battalion of green inf (with 6 guns), a 105 mm battery, some TRPS, and ZERO tanks. He had two vet companies, some sort of IND art and 8 AFVs (4 priests - which are really nasty against green inf). The inf heavy force again prevailed - because there were just too many targets for him to be able to remove me from my position

Inf wins games.

[Carl Puppchen]

I appreciate that there are differences in styles but I don't think I would conclude that infantry wins games based on this analysis.

The tanks to pick when you are facing infantry in the open are not the tiger - they are expensive - but I would have picked a platoon (or more) of the STG III variety with 75mm HE and MG's, plus some 105mm STG variants. These are cheap and carry a lot of HE rounds. I would have 3 tanks for the price of one tiger (if you factor in the platoon bonus).

The MG's pin the infantry, agreed, but the HE kills them. Direct fire HE is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to squash a platoon. Unless you have good cover (say, lots of buildings or a big forest) one STG III should be able to hold off a platoon indefinitely, and a platoon (3) should be able to hold off a company.

The other thing is that you could get a green platoon of STG III tanks and hold off a regular or below bunch of infantry just because of the time nature of the scenario - they don't have to kill everyone, just keep them going to ground and then they won't be able to form up for a decent assault.

In an ME a tank platoon is way faster and able to firefight much better than a company of infantry. This is a substantial advantage because they can race to a good vantage point early and choose the location for the battle.

Priests will be very nasty against infantry, but you can only use them when you have total armor superiority because their poor armor and high target size will have them destroyed in no time. The STG III variant is effective because they can be good tank killers (only the jumbo really stands up to them) and they can also stop infantry, while a platoon of STG III tanks would wipe out Priests / Stuarts / Greyhounds (don't forget that 37mm w/cannister can also maul infantry) generally without a scratch.

The benefits of direct fire HE are even bigger if the infantry is on defense in a trench - in which case they are virtually invulnerable to off-map artillery or on-map mortars, and very hard to dislodge with infantry weapons. But a couple turns of direct fire HE from 75mm or higher and they are usually running.

A lot of my tactics were also honed on the Eastern front, where my opponent (he always plays Allies, I always play Axis) used their SU 152 and SU 122 and the JS2 tanks to just pound the crap out of my infantry from distance. We called it "rubbling" where you would just start leveling the buildings that they were likely to hide in from the start. And unlike the relatively puny guns in the west, the SU 152 and of course the JS2 tanks have strong armor and can hold their own on the battlefield against AT, and a 150mm (roughly) caliber gun is WAY more effective than a 75mm gun (it is exponential not linear) so the effects on unprotected infantry are even worse.

What I guess I am saying is that the "infantry heavy" battle was a loser for me against my usual opponent (we have played 100+ games so far) especially in the East where the direct fire HE weapons are awesome. This is how I came up with my "strategy" - I was pummelled time after time after time.

If you have conscript or green SU 152s (platoon) and not a big forest or city (i.e. some cover, decent cover, but not wall to wall cover) they will smash a company of infantry to bits.

[johnstone185]

Back to the original question, it is tough to say whether or not the infantry heavy tactic was better in his particular game. All we know is QB, ME, May '43 and he is Russian. From that we know that his infantry is certainly lower quality than the opponent. But the fact that he has at least some armor gets me to wonderin' what he is doing wrong. If he got to the flag first and is getting surrounded by infantry, just back up and level the joint. There is nothing wrong with retreating to a decent LOS and blasting away for a while. While maybe not as realistic as we would like, it is just a game and you are trying to win, right? The best way to try to solve the riddle would be for the author of the post to put up a screenshot so we can see exactly what forces he has and what terrain he is dealing with. If it is woods and he is sitting at the flag with a bunch of crappy T-26, yes, that is a loss waiting to happen, even vs. green German infantry. On the other hand, even a platoon of T-26 can at least hold off (maybe) the Germans if LOS is good. Certainly if there is decent LOS a platoon of T-34 would be able to dominate by simply backing up and blasting away - but there is just too little info in the original post to go on.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

I appreciate that there are differences in styles

as do I. However, from my experience most people put too large a value on AFVs and too small on inf.

The tanks to pick when you are facing infantry in the open

Any unit will beat inf in the open. Mgs, flak guns, sIGs. But given at least modest cover, inf should rule the field.

Direct fire HE is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to squash a platoon.

Actually, concentrated small arms fire will eliminate a platoon faster than HE. Even faster than 150 HE, because the ROF is so slow. The best inf killing HE is 105s (Priests/StuH). The Russian 122mm/85mm is pretty effective as well.

Unless you have good cover (say, lots of buildings or a big forest) one STG III should be able to hold off a platoon indefinitely, and a platoon (3) should be able to hold off a company.

Even without good cover, this should never happen. Given even light tree cover and regular troops, a Stug can not hold back a platoon of well led troops. Especially against inf with zooks/shreks. Stugs dont have enough MG ammo to keep inf from moving, and their turn rate is just way too slow. A stug alone against inf should be a dead stug.

In an ME a tank platoon is way faster and able to firefight much better than a company of infantry. This is a substantial advantage because they can race to a good vantage point early and choose the location for the battle.

IMO, this is the primary advantage of AFVs- quick maneuver. But I would rather have universal carriers and inf than similar points worth of StuGs if I had to only chose one or the other.

Priests will be very nasty against infantry, but you can only use them when you have total armor superiority because their poor armor and high target size will have them destroyed in no time.

well no. You can use them without armor superiority, you just have to be selective about where you go

The STG III variant is effective because they can be good tank killers (only the jumbo really stands up to them) and they can also stop infantry, while a platoon of STG III tanks would wipe out Priests / Stuarts / Greyhounds (don't forget that 37mm w/cannister can also maul infantry) generally without a scratch.

Well we definitely have a major difference of opinion on the effectiveness of the stug. I consider them highly over-rated. They have horrible turn rates and their lack of turret makes them easy targets. Of course they are excellent long range key-hole killers. But outside that role, I find them not very effective.

If you have conscript or green SU 152s (platoon) and not a big forest or city (i.e. some cover, decent cover, but not wall to wall cover) they will smash a company of infantry to bits.

Again, I just completely disagree. There is no chance that a platoon of slow-firing Russian AFVs should be able to stop a company of german inf in a modest trees map.

[Carl Puppchen]

Thanks for replying. Obviously this is why I continue to play the CM game series, there is a lot of subtle ways that you can keep coming back to the same material and come up with different conclusions.

My experiences are based solely upon playing a human player, and we have gone back and forth in literally hundreds of games (the guy that posted up above, Johnstone185).

Some of the comments that we have differences on are matters of personal opinion; I have used STUGS in almost all of the games (I hate using UBER tanks because what is the fun in that ) so I can say, from my experience, that STUGS are effective against tanks and infantry if used correctly, and are great against humans because they can respond to a wide variety of possible situations. I can clearly say that in my head to head battles stugs have been very effective, against infantry and tanks.

They do have a slow ROF and no turret... that is why they are cheaper than PZ IVG. Plus a platoon is only 3 tanks, so you get a platoon bonus without having to buy 5 tanks like with the PZ IVG.

As far as the Priest being an effective weapon when they don't have total battlefield superiority, of all your comments that is the one I disagree with the most. Against a skilled human player that weapon is dead a ton of ways - it has a high profile so it is easily spotted by "typical" AT weaponry from AT guns to tanks, and the open topped feature means that it is highly vulnerable to mortars and off map arty.

Certainly infantry can kill infantry quickly, that is obvious. However, the TYPICAL situation will not have a close in SMG platoon smashing another infantry position from 40m - the typical situation will have that infantry pinned, strung out, harrassed by fire from tanks and MG's, etc...

However, unless you KILL a tank, that tank is going to maul up an infantry platoon / company pretty quickly, between MG fire and direct HE. In a more typical situation, without strong cover (a city) that tank is going to do pretty well.

I am playing with the weapons at hand as an axis player. I am SUPREMELY jealous at the SU 122 and SU 152 weapons that the Russians fielded and the fact that these were WAY better than my semi-pathetic 75mm gun on STUGS. I have to buy a couple of 105mm STUGS just to try to mimic some of their firepower. I wish that the STUG was upgunned and with better armor but, alas, that wasn't reality so I have to deal with it as is.

The question, is from the force pool perspective, and assuming you don't want to spend all day driving around in (rare) Tigers and Panthers, are you going to do better with infantry, PZ IV G tanks, or STUGS? If on the defense, I will pick STUGS and try to get flank / rear / hulldown positions and use them for a counter attack if my opponent gets too bold. Of course I buy AT guns and fortifications, too. If you play a 1000 point defense and you buy a platoon of STUGS there is room for other forces, but if you buy a platoon of PZ IV G tanks there is a lot less room.

Once again my infantry tactics are colored by the east front; I learned time and time again that unsupported infantry was blasted to bits by direct HE fire, from tanks like the T34/85, SU 122, and SU 152.

There is certainly room for differences of opinion; but I see the words "never" in your post which just flat out is incorrect. I play against a highly skilled human opponent, never the AI, and I have seen these situations many times, and they played out the way I said in my post. However, I don't necessarily think that my tactics are the best, but they (generally) work for me, or seem to be the best that I can use given the force pool at hand in the East.

[dieseltaylor]

All of this debate without discussing the size of battlefield to force size! On 1000pts the size width can be 520 metres to 1100 metres which does raise the whole spectre of movement.

Do infantry crumble quicker if shot at from several quadrants? Does occupying important geographic areas become easier if only one side has armour?

And of course the type of terrain - as in lumpiness as opposed to trees and buildings makes an incredible difference to a forces efficiency. I am going of course with the assumption that the waether is OK : )

July 1943 for those who fight infantry heavy enemy - Flammpanzers : ) If you have the only armour in town ...... 80 bursts, two MGs with 150 rounds, if rarity is off very cheap french tanks as mobile MG boxes.

BTW I have destroyed a T34/85 in a serious match head onish with a Flammpanzer

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

Thanks for replying.

And thanks back to you - I especially appreciate the calm tone of your thread.

I can clearly say that in my head to head battles stugs have been very effective, against infantry and tanks.

And I dont dispute that. My difference of opinion is in their range of effectiveness. A stug has to keep enemies directly in front. To do this against a platoon of inf, it has to withdraw or it will be KO'd.

As far as the Priest being an effective weapon when they don't have total battlefield superiority, of all your comments that is the one I disagree with the most. Against a skilled human player that weapon is dead a ton of ways - it has a high profile so it is easily spotted by "typical" AT weaponry from AT guns to tanks, and the open topped feature means that it is highly vulnerable to mortars and off map arty.

I agree with all the specifics, but not the application. Priests are fragile (as are most ETO allied tanks), so you have to use them at what they are good at. Killing inf. Outside of that role, they dont have much utility. But since, IMO, that is the priority #2 in any game I play (priority #1 being seize "high" ground) - they are my favorite AFVs.

Certainly infantry can kill infantry quickly, that is obvious. However, the TYPICAL situation will not have a close in SMG platoon smashing another infantry position from 40m - the typical situation will have that infantry pinned, strung out, harrassed by fire from tanks and MG's, etc...

Well I am not a big SMG squad fan (ammo counts too low), but irregardless of that, I again find another major difference. AFVs are good at breaking troops, but if you want them actually 'eliminated' inf is the unit of choice.

However, unless you KILL a tank, that tank is going to maul up an infantry platoon / company pretty quickly, between MG fire and direct HE. In a more typical situation, without strong cover (a city) that tank is going to do pretty well.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words here are some screen shots from a 5000 pt CMBB QB that I think show different. I would describe the cover here as light/moderate.

1. We Meet

The action shown was isolated from the rest of the battle because it was in a valley. I have 13 squads (not couting HQs) and 5 MGs. I also had a crack pioneer platoon and 2 81mm (circled in yellow) mortar modules that I was keeping for a counter-attack. I also had 2 more platoons in the direction of the red arrow, that I tried to maneveur on his flank, but he had some Volks squads prevent that.

In the picture he has 18 units, and 2 mortars and 2 mgs in support in the blue. Plus he has 4 hetzers and a KT. I had no AT guns that had LOS here, and only one functioning T34/85 on the map.

The unit I have selected in this pic is a crack pioneer squad that I was sneaking to the edge of woods to try to KO a hetzer. However, he is a good player, and didnt get that close.

2. He advances

We had equal inf and he had tanks, so there was no way I was going to hold that position. But I figured after he beat me back, I could strip off the inf and then KO the tanks. (However, I think it is relevent to this topic to note that without his inf, he would not have even been able to even contend for the flags.)

Also notice, he sent one hetzer to fight my T34/85, but my inf got it before it got to my AFV.

3. The counter attack

My crack pioneers two SMG squads (not platoons) and three 81 mm mortars go on the counter attack. Notice another hetzer already bit the dust.

4. End Result

5 German tanks KO'd and Russians own the field. All done with inf, and inf support weapons. I did bring over my T34-85, but it missed three side shots on a hetzer, and then the hetzer bounced two tungsten rounds from 175m. Then his KT killed my T34, so it had no effect on the scene here.

He gets no flags. If the game hadnt of stopped, I would have had the last one too. This is but one of many examples where inf wins games, not AFVs.

I play against a highly skilled human opponent, never the AI,

And so do I.

[ October 20, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

[Glider]

I find infantry to be so effective that I mostly spend the inf points to the limit (if there is at least some kind of tree/hills cover) and then spend the remainder on artillery/tanks.

My preferred selection would be something like an inf battalion, 2 crack 81/82mm mortars, 8 regular 81/82mm mortars, 1 crack sniper and then I would try to buy a couple of decent AT-capable tanks.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Glider:

My preferred selection would be something like an inf battalion, 2 crack 81/82mm mortars, 8 regular 81/82mm mortars, 1 crack sniper and then I would try to buy a couple of decent AT-capable tanks.

A man after my own heart.

[Carl Puppchen]

I do like the screenshots. A few points...

In this example the terrain seems pretty tough on infantry, not too much cover, so if anything that plays more into your points.

The hetzer is not a STUG when it comes to anti-infantry weaponry. They have relatively poor MG fire and less HE stowage... they are primarily an anti tank weapon, and in this regard they are probably better than a STUG. It would be very tough to beat a lot of infantry with a hetzer due to the MG issue cited above as well as the low stowage.

The King Tiger, on the other hand, is a good anti-infantry weapon with the solid HE performance and good MG fire. However, they are an extremely expensive purchase and if veteran or above you could buy a mob of STUGS for that cost . A single tank can always be overwhelmed with targets, plus the AI tends to "rotate in place" and not shoot at all when you get a lot of targets, which is a bad thing since the KT doesn't traverse that fast (problem is worse for the no-turret STUG, but you have more of them).

Snipers and mortars (smoke) are good against tanks, especially single tanks or tanks with low HE stowage and poor MG firepower. In this battle it seems you used them to good effect.

In this scenario I would have taken, as the German, STUGS (of course) with lots of 75mm IG guns (cheap, too) and MG's and infantry, as well. I believe in combined arms like everyone else, I don't believe in the "tank only" school of business.

It is strange in some ways that I am taking the German side on this discussion because, if the roles are reversed, I am surer of my conclusions as playing the RUSSIAN player. What if, instead of Hetzers, SU 122 tanks were picked instead? Those tanks are much more effective against infantry. I learned (the hard way) about tanks vs infantry when playing the Russians. My usual opponent also has the (brutal) tactic of running in T34's in my face and "cannistering" my infantry and daring me to bring out my anti-tank assets (which he smashes with his direct fire HE in overwatch).

I think what makes the game playable (and replayable) is the variety of tactics that work in different situations. If you take the Germans and play against the Russians, I think that expecting your infantry to stand up to direct fire HE against an opponent that selects many tanks, deploys them well, and has at least adequate combined arms (maybe a bit light on infantry, but not just a bunch of tanks) you will generally be on the losing end of the stick.

This is just my opinion, based on my experience. I have made 20 CMAK scenarios - here is the link

CMAK "Random" scenario page

and maybe I should just create some more and we could fight it out and see whose tactics win...

[Glider]

In my opinion, its madness to advance an assault gun, let alone a Hetzer, closer than 150m from enemy infantry. At shorter ranges they are always buttoned, can hardly acquire moving infantry, take enormous time to rotate so they can engage enemy infantry coming from the sides.

Besides, when you check your kills at the end of a game, even successful tanks rarely show more than 10-20 inf casualties caused. Is that worth risking them, bringing them closer so you can increase that number by perhaps 20%?

Carl Puppchen, that game style sounds very interesting, have you tried using the heavy 28mm AT rifle against his T-34s? It sounds like an early war game and those "rifles" can kill a T-34 at some 500 metres and remain unspotted down to a few hundred even when firing.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Glider:

In my opinion, its madness to advance an assault gun, let alone a Hetzer, closer than 150m from enemy infantry.

Well I agree. But it is also even more madness to allow enemy AFVs to target inf from 150m away, if it is possible to prevent. In the screenshots I posted earlier, my opponent pretty much had to use armor to advance on those flags because of how dispersed my inf was.

I have been learning to put my inf in such positions, that enemy AFV's cannot target from long range and break inf. Also, varying inf that are firing and those that are on covered arcs. So basically without him getting close with his AFVs in order to have LOS angles, he would not even been able to advance his inf.

Here is a screenshot that demostrates both points.

Everybody without a target line has a covered arc that is keeping him from firing until his inf advance. the units with target lines dont have LOS to his AFVs. So when he is trying to push his inf out of cover (he has to because I own the flags), he is getting pinned. Or he has to advance his AFVs to get position - usually it is a bit of both.

So from the pic above, I had been punishing his inf so bad, that he had to push up his hetzers. As seen here:

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

This is just my opinion, based on my experience. [/QB]

Carl, from your posts you seem like an experienced player. But I do have an issue with a "stug can stop a platoon" statement, which I still think should never happen.

Now I dont claim to be any kind of CM Master, but I wonder if you are utilizing your inf in the best way possible. Four things that I dont see most CM players do with inf that really enhance their effectiveness are:

1)Using 'Fast' in open ground

2)Using half-squads

3)Good dispersement in order to fire from angels 4)Not firing when in LOS to enemy HE chuckers.

[jdsu]

Nicely done.

Can't remember and too lazy to reread stuff read prior to the memory failure, did the opp have any morturs or art ?

Your inf. seems ripe for some incoming.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by jdsu:

Your inf. seems ripe for some incoming.

Looks can be deceiving.

He had a couple mortars over there.

[stoat]

It seems that way because he is using scale +1 billion.