Why do I suck at this game?

[Lightning War]

I've been playing all kinds of military sim's for the past decade and I'd say I have a pretty good understanding of military tactics. However, I seem to suck at this game.

I just tried the clash of titans scenario on the axis side (Italian armour vs British armour). I raced all my tanks to the central point of the battlefield on the left hand side of the oasis and lined them up behind a ridge and waited until the British tanks were in open ground. I then popped my tanks over the ridge making sure that they were all hull-down in relation to the enemy to thus provide maximum cover.

I knocked-out only 4 British tanks whereas they knocked-out all of mine.

I then replayed the scenario, only this time I used half of my forces (5 tanks) to flank the enemy and deny the British tanks all cover. Again, I made sure all my vehicles were hull-down in relation to the enemy but the result was much the same as the first battle.

What am I doing wrong?

BTW: Hello to the forum!

[Rocket-Man]

I would give you some advice, but every time an enemy even looks at one of my tanks it bursts into flames, so I don't think I could help you out very much.

[Corvidae]

Italian tanks are ****, they are made of soggy paper and are equiped with hamster engines and slingshot guns,

Having never played this scenario, I have no idea which italian tin cans you had, Nor which british kindling boxes you were facing,

[Corvidae]

Ok M13/40 is tall, has weak gun, and cramped turret (2 man)

slow ROF, and low muzzel velocity,

The mk1 A9 has a better gun in a fast 3 man turret, Good muzzel velocity and decent ROF.

Also it sits lower.

Maybe try using the shoot and skoot command, and attack from 2 directions ???

[Lightning War]

Originally posted by Corvidae:

Ok M13/40 is tall, has weak gun, and cramped turret (2 man)

slow ROF, and low muzzel velocity,

The mk1 A9 has a better gun in a fast 3 man turret, Good muzzel velocity and decent ROF.

Also it sits lower.

But the British tanks have **** armour compared to the Italian tanks, right? I clicked on some of the British tanks and most of their armour sectors were red or deep orange compared to the Italian tanks which went from light orange to yellow. Still **** but better...

Anyway, how do you know so much about the tank models?

Maybe try using the shoot and skoot command, and attack from 2 directions ??? [/QB]

I have no idea what shoot and scoot actually does.

I did, however, attack from 2 directions at once! That was in my second attempt.

I engaged the oncoming British tanks frontally with five tanks and flanked them at 90 degrees with another five tanks. All were behind cover (hull-down) and all tanks attacked at roughly the same time.

Ugh... Is there a free strategy guide I can glance at?

[JasonC]

Two main issues - knowing the rival equipment match ups and your stronger suits, and knowing that fire superiority not clever moves wins battles.

The M13/40 has an inferior gun to the 2 pdr on the British cruisers. Its muzzle velocity is almost 20% lower. They also have 2 man turrets vs. fast 3 man turrets. In a stand up duel when both sides can penetrate, the Cruisers are therefore favored.

But only at closer ranges. Because the M13/40 is significantly better protected than the thin early model Cruisers involved here. It has 37mm of turret armor and 30mm of hull armor, vs. only 15mm for the Brits. Because of this, the Italians will readily penetrate the Brits even at extreme range. The reverse is not true. Therefore, the Italians want to engage at extreme range, not to close.

You need to maximize armor effects to get the most out of this, because the 2 pdr still has chances of partial penetrations out to nearly 1500m. A key method there is to get side angle working for you, as well as the native (very limited) slope of the armor. To do that, you want to cant your tank hull about 30 degrees off the line between yourself and the enemy, with the turret slewed over using a vehicle covered arc.

Of course it also helps to be hull down while he isn't - but it is more important to get hull up shots and to pick the targets you can fire at hull up. Because the hit probability at long range through dust etc an easily be only 4-5% vs. a hull down tank, and can rise to 10-20% vs. a hull up one with clear LOS, no dust, several acquisition shots, etc.

It does not take high absolute hit probabilities. The M13/40s carry 40-50 rounds of AP apiece, and may need ~3 penetrations to KO a Cruiser. So they can afford to take 5% shots or 10% shots. Just fire with large numbers of them for minutes on end, and the hits will come.

You need to pay attention to the duel in progress and make small adjustments. E.g. sometimes your tankers will mis-ID one of the Brits as a Valentine or Matilda, and leave it alone thinking they can't hurt it. They can, and you need to override their lethargy with an explicit fire order.

You also need to scan around for the LOS lines that are clear, and the highest hit chances. Dust and smoke from wrecks frequently cuts LOS, and you need to make short movements to re-establish it - on fast, not "hunt" (too much chance of "cowering" on hunt).

Also shift fire away from tanks penetrated several times, to avoid overkill waste on "death clock" tanks. On the other hand, mass fire at the first tank or two into LOS, while you can get them many on few. And on the easiest target to get it in one minute.

You will also occasionally want to make small defensive moves e.g. when a tank is being targeted by 3 enemies, and not too many friends are in LOS - reverse into your own dust to break contact.

In all these small moves, never waste time rotating - the first leg of the move must always be exactly straight ahead or exactly straight back. Add a second leg with a modest turn once already underway, to change direction or facing. You can add a rotate command at the end to "cant" your hull properly, if you have to. The thing to avoid is rotating time while suffering the accuracy penalty from moving, which is high enough you simply will not hit anything at the ranges you should be fighting.

Bringing up the next point. All the above adjustments are small and for a few tanks a turn at most. The battle is won by simply pulling triggers, not by razzle dazzle on the map. Maximize your firing time. The best turn is all 10 tanks in LOS and stationary, already "canted" and blazing away.

Move together as one body until you have established a large numerical superiority through previous dueling. Close only to re-establish LOS, only after that numbers remaining edge exists, to finish off the last few behind wrecks and the gun damaged etc.

Before then, you want to be parked on the very first ridge in front of your start zone, with all 10 tanks far enough forward to see the Brits as soon as they crest, on the way in to the trees. That should make the initial range about 1200 yards. Another 200 (longer, not shorter) would be nice, but is generally not possible on this map.

Using these tactics, I lost 3 M13/40s with 1 crew member from those, and 3 other crew members from partial penetrations or interior armor flaking results. I destroyed all the Cruisers in return. 3 were gun damaged and finished after the main battle. The first was KOed in a 10 on 1 as soon as it crested. The ones between were tough as you please, but many of their hits bounced or were otherwise not lethal, and none of mine did (though some that went in did no significant damage, of course).

[Lightning War]

Excellent. Thanks for such a lengthy an informative reply. However, I still don't understand some things...

1. I don't think I understand why the Italian tanks stand an advantage at extreme range simply by virtue of their superior armour. Is this due entirely to the fact that the projectiles lose energy at extreme range and therefore the British rounds are rendered ineffective against the Italian armour? Or are there other reasons this is so?

2. What kind of spacing should be kept between the tanks? I once received real-life infantry training and a spacing of 3m per soldier was generally considered prudent. Does the same principle apply to armour?

3. Please explain the following statement further: "A key method there is to get side angle working for you, as well as the native (very limited) slope of the armor. To do that, you want to cant your tank hull about 30 degrees off the line between yourself and the enemy, with the turret slewed over using a vehicle covered arc."

What do you mean by vehicle 'covered arc'?

...I probably have millions of other questions that I can't think of right now.

What a great game this is!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lightning War:

2. What kind of spacing should be kept between the tanks? I once received real-life infantry training and a spacing of 3m per soldier was generally considered prudent. Does the same principle apply to armour?

Infantry spread out so that a machine gun can't kill more than 1 person at a time or so that a shellburst doesn't knock out an entire section. If you're talking solely about tanks exchanging solid shot at each other, what difference would it make how far apart your friendly tanks are? If you're worried about artillery, open up the editor and fool around with an FO and watch the shell patterns. Great to have a laboratory at your disposal.

[JasonC]

"1. I don't think I understand why the Italian tanks stand an advantage at extreme range simply by virtue of their superior armour. Is this due entirely to the fact that the projectiles lose energy at extreme range and therefore the British rounds are rendered ineffective against the Italian armour?"

Yes, combined with the fact that the British armor is so thin, that even the weaker Italian gun does not appreciably suffer from the same effect.

Both guns are losing penetrating power with range. To see how much, select either tank and hit return - that brings up the unit data window. The numbers are the approximate thickness of armor in millimeters, that the gun can penetrate at the stated ranges and angles of attack. The longer the range or the higher the angle at which the round strikes the plate, the fewer millimeters the rounds will reliably penetrate.

If you look at the actual figures, you will see the 2 pdr on the British Cruisers is a considerably stronger gun. But at angles around 30 degrees and ranges over 1000 meters, it is getting down into the 30s. The thickness of the M13/40 is 37mm on the turret front and 30mm on the hull front, with some angle as well.

Now look at the M13/40 numbers and you will see the gun is weaker than the 2 pdr. The reason is also clear in the unit window - the muzzle velocity is around 650 meters per second, while the longer 2 pdr (50 calibers long rather than 32) has a higher velocity, slightly below 800 meters per second. That is also why the 2 pdr is more accurate, incidentally.

But other than with HE ammo rather than AP, the Italian numbers never drop as low as the 15mm thin armor on the Cruisers. The Cruisers are just very thin - armored to stop machinegun bullets, and 30 cal ones at that. At close range, even the HE from the Italian tanks would go in. And the AP will remain effective at pretty much any range. When the range is long, hitting will be the problem, not penetrating.

For the Brits on the other hand, they have an advantage in hitting because they have a more accurate gun. If they are close enough - look e.g. at the 500 meter figures - they have nothing to worry about on the penetration front, either (unless the angle is extreme - 60 degree stuff - and when that happens the thinner side armor is also visible). Now, push out to 1000 meters, but assume there is no angle to speak of - look at that first, 0 degree slope line of numbers. All well over 30-37mm. So even at 1000m the 2 pdr is adequate, if the angle is "flat".

But combine a range over 1000 meters with some side angle for the 30mm hull, or the thicker 37mm turret, and 2 pdr shells will start bouncing half the time.

Later model British cruiser tanks - notably the Crusader - remedy this defect. Those have up to 40mm of armor themselves. That thickness is still nothing to write home about, against say a German panzer IIIJ. But it is enough to make the M13/40 tactic of standing well off against the thin early Cruisers, unworkable.

In a M13/40 vs Crusader duel, the Brits have the edge in both gun and armor. But here in this earlier era, the Brits have the better gun but the Italians the better armor, and far enough away the latter is more important.

"2. What kind of spacing should be kept between the tanks?"

The mechanics are that shots close to the last target benefit from some of its "acquisition" - the hit probability will be higher for targets within 25m or so of the last shot taken. If you stay more than that distance apart, you avoid giving the enemy boosted hit chances for the first few rounds after switching targets.

But this is a minor effect in practice, usually outweighed by the importance of having all tanks engaged together. If you string 10 tanks along a line 300m long to avoid acquistion effects, you will also tend to crest at different times, giving only some tanks LOS when others can't see any enemy, etc. That gives the enemy a "many on few" - one of the key tactics in armor engagements. It is better to stick close and avoid many on fews or get them yourself, than to spread so wide you give them to the other guy. Even with some benefit to his accuracy when he switches targets.

There is an exception to this for large artillery, though. Off map guns of 150mm caliber or more are quite effective against tanks, especially thinner models. They readily score immobilizations or gun damage, kill exposed commanders if they hit unbuttoned vehicles, etc. So there is some point in avoiding bunching up so much that one barrage can land on half your tanks- if the enemy is likely to have serious artillery. The same can apply under air attack, if a large bomb hits close (those aren't very accurate though - it tends to be the strafing that hurts with air strikes).

"3. Please explain the following statement further: "A key method there is to get side angle working for you, as well as the native (very limited) slope of the armor. To do that, you want to cant your tank hull about 30 degrees off the line between yourself and the enemy, with the turret slewed over using a vehicle covered arc."

What do you mean by vehicle 'covered arc'?"

OK. Any unit (other than conscripts) can choose a direction, distance, and area in which it will fire at the enemy. The C key starts drawing what is called a covered arc, which you drag between two "waypoint". An orange line is drawn on either side of the area, back to the unit in question. Any enemy unit entering that arc will be engaged, provided your unit thinks it can hurt it.

Covered arcs can be used to create fire zones or overlapped to make "kill sacks", they can be used for "fire discipline" (ordering your guys not to fire until the enemy gets to a specific range, by just drawing an arc only 100m away e.g.), assign sectors etc. Another use is to "train" a gun in a specific direction (which you can also do with the rotate command).

All AT weapons, including tanks and towed guns, and infantry AT teams, have another type of arc as well - the vehicle covered arc. Made the same way but starting with V rather than C, and blue lines instead of orange. That says, "ignore infantry and such, only fire on enemy vehicles in this area". It is important in tank duels to avoid being distracted by unimportant targets.

For turreted tanks, either kind of covered arc also serves as a way to point the turret independent of the hull. The turret will swing to bisect the assigned arc, if no target is yet engaged. The hull has to face the direction of movement. It can be rotated slowly at the end of the move with a rotate command ("O"). But the turret can train any which way, it doesn't have to be left facing forward before a target is seen.

So the technique is to drive toward the enemy "off line", as it were, so the line of your tank's hull intersects the line between target and you, at about a 30 degree angle or so. That avoids showing much side armor - and what is shown is at a 60 degree angle so it is effectively thick anyway.

The front hull armor benefits from 30 degrees of extra "slope" - just "slope" turned 90 degrees! (around the line of sight I mean, and compared to the slope from "vertical" recorded for the vehicle shape). On top of the (from vertical) slope of the armor listed in the unit info pane.

But you don't want the turret faced away from the enemy, because you want to be ready to fire at him as soon as he is seen. So, you "train" the turret where you expect him to be, using a covered arc, centered on the direction you want the turret pointed.

I hope this helps.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Lightning War:

Excellent. Thanks for such a lengthy an informative reply. However, I still don't understand some things...

1. I don't think I understand why the Italian tanks stand an advantage at extreme range simply by virtue of their superior armour. Is this due entirely to the fact that the projectiles lose energy at extreme range and therefore the British rounds are rendered ineffective against the Italian armour?

Yes.

2. What kind of spacing should be kept between the tanks? I once received real-life infantry training and a spacing of 3m per soldier was generally considered prudent. Does the same principle apply to armour?

I tend to run in pairs, just about side-by-side, on the principle that two guns are always better than one in an armor duel.

3. Please explain the following statement further: "A key method there is to get side angle working for you, as well as the native (very limited) slope of the armor. To do that, you want to cant your tank hull about 30 degrees off the line between yourself and the enemy, with the turret slewed over using a vehicle covered arc."

Much as with #1, this is simple physics. Angle yr tank toward the enemy, and his shots are more likely to ricochet, rather than penetrate. This works side-to-side, as well as up / down. The greater the angle of attack of your tank to the on-coming projectile, the less likely it is to put a hole in you.

In other words, if you have an armored vehicle with armor plate of 0 slope, angling the vehicle at 45 degrees (relative to the attacker) will give you the same armor slope (and increased defense to penetration) as a T34.

What do you mean by vehicle 'covered arc'?

Hit the Spacebar: See all the orders? Go to the bottom. "C" is for Covered Arc (all targets), "V" is for Covered Arc (armor targets only). Choose one. A green line will appear. Stretch it out, Left Click to anchor, and sweep it over the area you wish to cover with the tank's main gun, Left Click to anchor the end of the arc. You now have a "Covered Arc" in which the tank will exclusively fire. Use the "J" key to cancel.

[JasonC]

Point of information - slope of the T-34 is 60 degrees, not 45. 60 degree slope more than doubles effective armor thickness. The *thickness* of the T-34 hull armor is 45 *millimeters*, but the slope is 60 degrees from vertical.

[Lightning War]

Thank you all thus far for your considered and helpful responses.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Now, push out to 1000 meters, but assume there is no angle to speak of - look at that first, 0 degree slope line of numbers. All well over 30-37mm. So even at 1000m the 2 pdr is adequate, if the angle is "flat".

But combine a range over 1000 meters with some side angle for the 30mm hull, or the thicker 37mm turret, and 2 pdr shells will start bouncing half the time.

The 2pdr shells are still more effective than the Italian shells at 1000m striking an angle of 0 degrees. At this range/angle the Italians rate at 36 compared to the British 44. Sure, the Italian armour is more effective but the ratio between the effectiveness of the Italian armour and British armour remains the same whether at close or long range. Please forgive me, I still don't fully understand.

Originally posted by JasonC:

For turreted tanks, either kind of covered arc also serves as a way to point the turret independent of the hull. The turret will swing to bisect the assigned arc, if no target is yet engaged. The hull has to face the direction of movement. It can be rotated slowly at the end of the move with a rotate command ("O"). But the turret can train any which way, it doesn't have to be left facing forward before a target is seen.

So, effectively you can assign a fire arc and then, later, rotate the hull of your vehicle and the turret will remain trained on the fire arc whilst the hull gradually rotates to the desired position?

Edit: I have followed the advice of parking all of the M13/40s on the first ridge at over 1km from the enemy and it appears to be working. A cruiser has just crested and is the unfortunate recipient of a 10-1 firepower ratio.

[ December 05, 2006, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Lightning War ]

[Lightning War]

Wow, what a result!

I followed the advice of lining up all tanks along the first ridge and setting fire arcs whilst rotating the directions of all vehicles to approx 30 degrees off-centre. I sustained plenty of hits, possibly more than the Brits at one stage, but they either ricocheted-off or didn't cause any serious damage.

[Dook]

This thread is a very impressive example of what makes this forum great. An inexperienced player posts a question in a calm and polite manner and forum regulars devote considerable effort to providing him with detailed answers.

I learned something too - range for acquisition effect is approx. 25 m. Thanks to all.

[JasonC]

So you see clearly that it works. Now understand how the data tables already suggest it will work. You wrote -

"the ratio between the effectiveness of the Italian armour and British armour remains the same"

Um, no. Yes the 2 pdr is 44 vs the 47/32's 36 penetration ability against 0 angle at 1000m. I said if the engagement takes place at 1000m but the angle is flat, the 2 pdr remains adequate. Over 1000 and angle, not so. Observe -

The 47/32 at 1000 0 or 1000 30 is 2.5 times the thickest plate on the Cruiser tank (14mm).

If you average the 1000 and 2000 lines (to get an approximate 1500 rating), the 47/32 still gets 2 times the thickest plate on the Cruiser even at 30 degrees slope (35+24/2 = 29.5, more than twice 14).

So, even with side angle and even at 1500m, if the 47/32 fires AP and hits, it is going in.

The data table for the 2 pdr on the other hand lists (44, 24), (36, 24) for the 0 degree line and hte 30 degree line at 1000m and at 2000m respectively. Interpolate 1500m lines as approximately 34 at zero and 30 at 30 degrees.

The M13/40 turret is 37mm and the hull is 30mm thickness. At best with zero side angle and 1000m vs. the turret, that is a ratio under 1.2. Vs the hull if 30 degrees and 1000m, again at best 1.2.

1.2 is far below 2. More important, it is getting close to unity. At 1000m, the 2 pdr will be barely adequate at those angles.

As the range lengthens from 1000m to 1500m, the ratio of penetration to armor protection falls from 1.2 to 1.0. Increasing the combined angle beyond 0 for the turret (it has some slope itself, and firing at a different tank than the one firing at you will add a modest amount, etc), or beyond 30 for the hull (from ~30 hull rotation and 10-15 from vertical), and the point at which unity is reached will fall below 1500.

Down at 500m none of this would matter. Every 2 pdr shot would be going in. At 750m and without significant side angle, none of this would matter. Pretty much every 2 pdr shot would go in.

Over 1000 and angles over 30 for the modestly thinner hull, and it emphatically does matter.

A 20-25% better gun is not adequate compensation for 60% thinner armor, at poor enough engagement conditions.

Broader morale - know the unit abilities in detail, your long and short suits and those of the enemy in the current fight, and ways to push your long suits and to stress his weak ones, and you will often find match ups or conditions that will give you a significant edge.

[patboy]

JasonC you are a bible !

Pat

[David I]

Lightening War,

You just got a huge class in this game, by one of it's great contributers and gamers. I would, however, recommend a good sit down with the rules book and find out what moves/actions are available to you. To ask why you are losing in this game and yet to reveal you don't know what "shoot and scoot" and "covered arcs" are, tells the tale. Another recommendation - don't over study a given scenario. Each scenario, time period, terrain layout will have different challenges and solutions, however the basic principles of game mechanics and tactical sense will always stand you in good stead.

Anyway, my two bits.

DavidI

[MikeyD]

...and real-world common sense helps too! Would you crest a hill alone in real life if five enemy tanks were waiting for you on the far side? Sometimes its a disadvantage to have lots of other game titles under your belt. The 'run/shoot' strategy of most games doesn't work well in CM.

Oh yeh. And unlike scripted games CM scenarios don't have a key to getting out in one piece. Some scenarios are infamous for spanking even the best players

[The_Enigma]

As always Jason, simply amazing stuff!

[Redwolf]

I didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but the ambush situation described in the first post doesn't really work in CMx1 due to absolute spotting (Borg mind).

I also think that CM drastically underpunishes moving or recently stopped shooters compared to ambushing non-moving units.

[Lightning War]

What can I say? I'm indeed honoured to have had such a warm and enlightening reception on my first thread.

So far I've played less than 10 scenarios and I can tell this is a truly great game. What it lacks in style is more than compensated by playability and a sense of tactical realism.

JasonC, thank you for your advice and expertise. I now fully understand why a M13/40 beats a mk1 A9 at more extreme ranges. Simply put, the loss of energy of the projectiles at longer ranges is more of a problem for the mk1 A9 due to its tin-foil armour compared to the significantly better Italian armour.

The tactic of skewing the hull of the tank at 30 degrees to the enemy also proves to be an invaluable piece of advice.

Perhaps one of the more important lessons learnt today is the principle of fire-superiority in armoured engagements. I have no doubt this will prove to be invaluable in future battles.

I would imagine this game is better played online.

Edit: Redwolf, what do you mean by 'borg mind'?

[The_Enigma]

edit n/m

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Point of information - slope of the T-34 is 60 degrees, not 45. 60 degree slope more than doubles effective armor thickness. The *thickness* of the T-34 hull armor is 45 *millimeters*, but the slope is 60 degrees from vertical.

Yah, that --- you get the idea.

[MikeyD]

I recently checked that 60 degree thing out graphically while figuring out something for the applique armor thread over on the CMBB board. Drew a 45mm thick bar in Adobe Ilustrator, rotated the bar 60 degrees and measured the resulting thickness along a horizontal line. Yup, doubled. Why bother to work out the brain-teasing math when you can just rotate & measure?!

[Other Means]

In the desert you don't want to rotate in place, as you raise a dust cloud. Even a very small movement order in the direction you want your tank to face gets you out of this and allows you to acquire targets faster as you're not waiting for the dust to settle.

The reverse is also true, you can rotate to raise dust and have a couple of seconds hidden, and of course, there's no command delay.