Jump to content

The "Infantry heavy" Quick Battle....


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by jdsu:

...

Your inf. seems ripe for some incoming.

Actually no, not if the enemy has only off-board artillery. I am not sure what can be done against such a defensive position... except I am sure it is not advancing assault guns because that will only lose you 100s of additional points.

Hmmm... I'd want either a 2:1 or 3:1 infantry advantage (with SMG squads, too) AND organic 50mm-60mm mortars deployed at short ranges AND several 81mm-82mm mortars also not too far away (for accuracy against point targets).

Or well-protected 150mm-152mm SP&assault guns as support. They can do things even to infantry that is behind 30-40 metres of trees.

Even that way it would take a lot of time and more casualties. Thank god my opponents don't play like this smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Thank god my opponents don't play like this"

Your right, the best solution is to stop playing people like David Chapuis ! smile.gif

I think the main point of this topic was the inherent advantages of having infantry heavy forces. In this AAR the opponent spent too many points on non-infantry assets, therefore was unable to achieve even a 2:1 inf advantage. And the terrain definately required the attacker to have more infantry.

I'll vouch for 81mm mortars and above, I haven't had much luck with the 50mm. 60mm is fine, used in pairs.

And yah, the scale + 1 billion, it sure deceivd me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jdsu:

... I haven't had much luck with the 50mm...

They can be used in specific situations like these... you target them from 150m-200m away at single squads you need suppressed until your inf can roll over them. They will not kill, they will not panic the enemy but they will keep them suppressed for the critical 60 seconds.

A single 81mm mortar will not do much better against a single-squad target we have here, and an 81mm is more expensive than a 50mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jdsu:

Your right, the best solution is to stop playing people like David Chapuis ! smile.gif

[/QB]

that is funny coming from someone who has left my little pixel men in bloody heaps more times than I care to remember.

btw, did I ever tell you I am mad about the setup zones in the last scenario we finished. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Anyways, in the game above - it was an ME, and in the end AAR he had 750 men and I had 1150. smile.gif It wasnt fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the comment that STUGS can stop an infantry assault, that has been based on my experience. Usually, however, it is that MY infantry assaults (I always play Axis and my opponent always plays Allies) are smashed to bits at the hands of Soviet direct HE fire from SU 122 tanks at the like smile.gif .

It has generally been my experience that well handled tanks can stop infantry assaults unless the terrain is extremely favorable to the infantry (i.e. the city, or a road through heavy woods). I don't know how else to explain it... this has happened time and time again and it is embedded into my playing style.

I realize that each person will have their own experiences and mine is based on the scenarios that I set up vs. my usual opponent, or playing famous ones like "Our Backs to the Volga". I don't dispute that others would have different results, but my results are based on hundreds of games, as well.

I just created my first CMBB "random" scenario. It features a lot of infantry vs tanks, but not enough to test for this purpose. I will build another scenario and then you can look at it and see how it comes out...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

I just created my first CMBB "random" scenario. It features a lot of infantry vs tanks, but not enough to test for this purpose. I will build another scenario and then you can look at it and see how it comes out...

Are you offering a game? :confused: :confused: If so, I'm always game for a friendly CM battle. smile.gif

[ October 24, 2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - I will build the scenario - it will have to have some sort of "random reinforcement" element, because that is my contribution to the CM ecosystem, so to speak - but I am thinking of 2 scenarios - one with Russians infantry attacking Germans w/armor in mid 1942 and a second with German infantry attacking Russian armor, maybe in 1944 (sounds nuts, but I never claimed historical accuracy).

I need to put this together - have you seen the other scenarios on my site? It will take a little while because the Chicago White Sox are in the world series so my available time is taken up with them this week...

CM Random reinforcement scenarios

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I just added a scenario where infantry attempts to attack Russian tanks over semi-covered terrain. I am playing the Germans in this one so I am essentially torturing myself smile.gif . I will create another one where Russian infantry attacks German armor, as well.

Since these have a "random" component and I can never say if they are really that balanced it is hard to say if it proves or disproves anything in this post but it is fun to play. Try CMBB #2.

Random Reinforcement Scenario Site

Link to post
Share on other sites

More realistically than that,that is for sure.

Simply playing an attack/defend scenario makes it tremendously more realistic than a ME(which,IIRC,didn't even occurr all that much IRL).

A scenario or operation will give you a much more realistic map,and more importantly,will actually have you fighting for something of importance,not just some flags out in the middle of nowhere.

A advance/assualt operation is also more realistic as it requires you to set your own victory locations.It will also make it so that the time alloted is not as much of a determining factor of who wins.

Having to fight with the forces that are given to you is much,much more realistic than being able to buy your forces and cherry pick their every single detail.

And the list goes on...I grow bored.Besides,I was wanting to piss some people off,not participate in a unnecessary debate of the obvious. :D

Ps,

:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by no_one:

More realistically than that,that is for sure.

I agree with this. On a scale of realism between 0 - 10, an ME with human picked forces is probably sitting at about .00002. Your much-more-realistic method is probably double that - but hardly anywhere close to being out of "arcade" status.

Originally posted by no_one:

Besides,I was wanting to piss some people off,not participate in a unnecessary debate of the obvious.

You failed miserably at both.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to hear some experienced players talk shop. Good reading.

I agree about the typical CM ME being ahistorical, at least in the scale and with the all-or-nothing ferocity we see in CM.

Anywho, I'm just here to pimp a scenario. I'm hoping to get some experienced players to playtest this scenario in HtH:

"22nd PZD #3: TrappenJagd"

It's over at the scenario_depot

It's by no means balanced for hth, but shouldn't be totally cockeyed either. The specific location of the battle is inferred from soviet military maps and various german sources. Units present are from offical german unit OOB's and soviet daily tank strength reports/OOB's for that day. As this is a somewhat under-represented area of ww2 ops historically, i've had to piece together the probable action from a wide variety of maps and german/soviet sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I updated my CMBB #2 scenario to give the axis more of a fighting chance. They have 3 companies of infantry against a few heavy tanks and 1 green dug in company of Russian infantry. The tanks just teed off on my guys and sent them packing because the ground has some concealment (grain) but not a lot. I gave the axis some more smoke mortars so that they can smoke the heavy tanks and beefed up their reins a little.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...