CMAK effect on German defense

[willbell]

I barely have enough knowledge/experience to even ask this question but I'm intrigued.

Part of the German defensive doctrine, IIRC, was to counter attack furiously if they lost a position. In CMAK, when defensive games are "balanced", this is not practical since on defense you never have an excess of infantry to make the attack. Is this a game designer or CMAK design abstraction? Or were the furious counter attacks executed from a wider scope than CMAK battles encompass, ie. they didn't come imediately, but hours later from resources from other units to the rear?

Did I just ask a totally scrambled and nonsensical question?

[JonS]

Somewhat outside the timescale I believe. Also, since C&C is so much stronger in CMAK than in real life, the temporary confusion that the German doctrine sought to exploit doesn't really exist in the game. Another problem is that I think many players - my self included - tend to put everything 'in the shop window' which means that the local reserves (a section in each platoon, a platoon in each company, etc) necessary to conduct this kind of doctrine simply don't exist in most games.

OTOH, it probably wouldn't be that hard to game out the doctrine, if you so chose.

Regards

Jon

[Bonxa]

The scenario designer has the most influence over this I would say. Sometimes it might be out of the time scope as you suggested but giving the defender some reinforcements 20 turns into the game might be a good way to simulate a counter attack. I've played many interesting scenarios wherin the battle turns into a better form of meeting engagement due to the timely arrival of reinforcements.

[Dandelion]

While I agree entirely with Jon here, that C3I is beyond real conditions and thus erasing any doctrine of utilising confusiuon and doubt to ojnes advantage, I'd have to say it is still possible to perform counterattack in a manner utilising enemy disorganisation. Not primarily confusion of course - there is little - but enemy troops are worn down (suppressed and reduced) as they enter your former positions and in very auspicious circumstance, a flank attack at such a point will indeed have dramatic effect.

Unfortunately, I have not succeeded with this as often as my enemies, but I have seen it on quite a few occasions. A handful of men counter-assaulting a flank and causing damage out of proportion to their numbers, to an assaulting, shattered and disorganised force.

As one is Godlike in ones control of the forces, the significant effect of veteran troops - to act rather than react on a battlefield - is somewhat lost. I don't mind, I want that human control, but a quality is sacrificed no doubt.

Cheers

Dandelion

[Michael Dorosh]

One thing I would suggest, and have done it at least one of my scenarios, is to put German TRPs on their own positions - another favourite tactic was to call down their own mortars on their positions once they were lost. Unfortunately, there is no way to constrain German FOs from firing anything but SOS missions, or missions on their own positions. A neat scenario design tool may be, for CMX2, the ability to designate an FO as only being able to fire at certain preregistered points, and possibly only in certain pre-determined circumstances.

[ January 07, 2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Other Means]

I would agree that the German doctrine was at an operational level & therefore outside the scope of CM. Breakthroughs should be kilometres past the MLR before getting countered. This really isn't possible in CM.

OTOH, in CM I've found as a defender it's better to keep a thin screen to repel and attack with a large countering reserve. The screen causes very high proportionate damage. If the attacker is then hit with large arty & countered it seems to be very successful.

[Brent Pollock]

One approach would be to have FOs show up late with lousy LOS, so that they are only really useful for TRP missions.

[voidhawk]

Try "Counterattack at Petrano" for a scenario where the Axis forces, well, counter attack!

[willbell]

It stikes me that this counter attack doctrine is probably workable in a sizeable meeting engagement.

Michael, neat idea with the TRPs. But I don't get the SOS point you made.

[Alkiviadis]

Actually there is a differentiation in German defensive doctrine between the counter ATTACK - basically an operational response to an attack, well planned , rehearsed & practiced; & the counter ASSAULT - an immediate attack with all on map (as it were)local forces

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by willbell:

It stikes me that this counter attack doctrine is probably workable in a sizeable meeting engagement.

Michael, neat idea with the TRPs. But I don't get the SOS point you made.

I just meant to say that the only way to call down fire is with an 81mm FO (alternately you can use onmap 81s) - and that the 81mm FO is not restricted to pre-registered targets. IOW, he can call down fire beginning on Turn 1 if he chooses, at any target on the map - which may be more flexibility than his real-life counterpart may have had. A battalion commander might, for example, keep his mortars in reserve and use them only in the event of an enemy breakthrough. If your CM map only has one part of the German battalion portrayed, there is obviously no incentive to not use the mortars if the 81mm FO is present on the map.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by willbell:

I barely have enough knowledge/experience to even ask this question but I'm intrigued.

Part of the German defensive doctrine, IIRC, was to counter attack furiously if they lost a position. In CMAK, when defensive games are "balanced", this is not practical since on defense you never have an excess of infantry to make the attack. Is this a game designer or CMAK design abstraction? Or were the furious counter attacks executed from a wider scope than CMAK battles encompass, ie. they didn't come imediately, but hours later from resources from other units to the rear?

Did I just ask a totally scrambled and nonsensical question?

I think the purpose was to prevent the break from being operationally exploited by pushing reserves through the gap. As under the usual SNAFU none of these things happen as fast as one might first assume, it could take an hour or more to get rolling. Problems would be caused by artillery and air attacks on both sides - tank support might not arrive on time, or artillery would not have many grenades left, or half of the infantry was routed by artillery enroute.

An operation can do the job better. Something like: battle 1, Allies assault German positions and capture them; battle 2, a German counter-attack to take those positions back; battle 3, the Allied relief force comes to continue the push if the line is still held by Allies or to renew the assault if the Krauts took them back already.

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

and that the 81mm FO is not restricted to pre-registered targets.

Can be done with 81s.

Put them onboard in locked positions somewhere in the rear.

They can fire at TRPs out of LOS if they haven't moved. It may also be required that they are in command radius, not sure about that.

Of course the dispersion is poor, but you can remedy that by providing lots of TRPs.

[JonS]

can also be done with FOs witha bit of map jiggery-pokery. In one corner of the map, create a LOS 'blind-spot' (somewhere than can be neither seen into or out of) surrounded by impassible terrain. This area need only be one or two tiles in size. Then place all the FOs you want to only fire onto TRPs in there, along with any reinforcements you want similarly restricted.

And example of how to do this can be seen in [shameless plug] my CMBB scenario 'Pt 238' available at The Depot[/shameless plug]

Jon

[willbell]

Ohhh, groan. I can't even understand what you are saying about 81s? Are you saying that an FO for 81s doesn't need an LOS or TRP to hit a target accurately? Or if not, why 81s in Doroshes' example, can't I do the same thing with a 105 FO? I guess I just don't even get the artillery point to a counter attack, where's the troops?

[Brent Pollock]

Okay let's see if I muddy or clarify the waters here:

The SOS mission is the same thing as Danger Close for Canadian units (IIRC); essentially, the idea is that your guys are in cover but the enemy is assaulting and, therefore, not always in cover. Also, your position is on the verge of being overrun. SO, the cold-blooded balance sheet say, "if we mortar our own position, we'll end up losing fewer guys to friendly fire than we would to an unhindered enemy overrun".

The TRPs on your own position are what represent this self-zeroing. 81 mm mortars are mentioned specifically because they are the arty with the fastest response, being directly attached to the battalion. Other calibers would be regimental (105 mm) or divisional on up (150 mm & rockets).

We're all talking about ways to keep the spotters in positions with lousy LOS so they can only really be effective calling fire on TRPs, rather than perching them in the bell tower wherefrom they can spot all enemy movement and burn all the ammo before the overrun occurs. This still does not prevent FOs from doing a mission planned during the Orders phase for Turn 1 (which is why I suggested having them come on as a reinforcement, so they can't do this pre-planned stuff, which do not require TRPs nor LOS).

Another of Michael's points is that one company of the battalion can selfishly use up all of a battalion asset, which might be required by brother companies not represented on the map.

The artillery element of the counter attack is really to induce more chaos in the attackers so you can actually deliver the counter attack; it prevents them from getting settled in to cover your approach.

Hope that helps...

Originally posted by willbell:

Ohhh, groan. I can't even understand what you are saying about 81s? Are you saying that an FO for 81s doesn't need an LOS or TRP to hit a target accurately? Or if not, why 81s in Doroshes' example, can't I do the same thing with a 105 FO? I guess I just don't even get the artillery point to a counter attack, where's the troops?

[willbell]

Brent,

Aha, I get it now! I wasn't even thinking of how quickly you can target 80s.

I just used SOS and the turn one artillery spotting on the game I'm playing now! Go figure.

[kenfedoroff]

Well... One shameless plug deserves another.

I've been attempting to model the counter-attack scheme discussed here, in my scenarios as well... But I need play-testers.

Over at The Proving Grounds web-site, I've put up 3 scenarios I started in CMBO, but then converted (thanks Pyewacket) and finished in CMAK.

Panzer Commander

Steel Inferno

Press On, Regardless

I've also posted some CMBB scenarios as well.

If anyone has time to playtest them, then I would be most grateful.

Cheers,

Ken

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by voidhawk:

Try "Counterattack at Petrano" for a scenario where the Axis forces, well, counter attack!

Speaking of plugs, many thanks to voidhawk for his plug of my scenario "Counterattack at Petrano," which is available at the Scenario Depot and has proved highly popular. The way I managed it (and there are no spoilers here--this is conveyed in the briefings) was to create a situation in which, at the outset, the German position is all but taken. But there are enough defensive assets so the Allies can barely get set before a strong counterattack sets in. There are many, many ways to play the battle once the Axis reinforcements arrive.

I meant to create an edifying tactical exercise and instead (especially as a PBEM) created a wild and wooly, unpredictable see-saw conflict. Which I guess is what the combatants on both sides frequently experienced with German counterattacks.

I'm mentioning all this because I think the principle could work for scenario designers in other counter-attack settings--give the Germans barely enough assets to hold the flag positions for a few turns--positing that the initial fight for the position is all but over--then send in strong Axis reinforcements timed to arrived shortly after the Allies are likely to have taken the position.

[Brent Pollock]

Well - CRAP - I've had it! I'm just going to have to quit my day job so I can playtest full time

[Other Means]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by voidhawk:

Try "Counterattack at Petrano" for a scenario where the Axis forces, well, counter attack!

Speaking of plugs, many thanks to voidhawk for his plug of my scenario "Counterattack at Petrano," which is available at the Scenario Depot and has proved highly popular. The way I managed it (and there are no spoilers here--this is conveyed in the briefings) was to create a situation in which, at the outset, the German position is all but taken. But there are enough defensive assets so the Allies can barely get set before a strong counterattack sets in. There are many, many ways to play the battle once the Axis reinforcements arrive.

I meant to create an edifying tactical exercise and instead (especially as a PBEM) created a wild and wooly, unpredictable see-saw conflict. Which I guess is what the combatants on both sides frequently experienced with German counterattacks.

I'm mentioning all this because I think the principle could work for scenario designers in other counter-attack settings--give the Germans barely enough assets to hold the flag positions for a few turns--positing that the initial fight for the position is all but over--then send in strong Axis reinforcements timed to arrived shortly after the Allies are likely to have taken the position. </font>

[Steiner14]

I think there should be made differences between at least three different 'counter-attacks'.

The first is the pure tactical counter-assault.

It was done in immediate response and strongly dependent on the quality of the leaders and prooved highly effective.

The key was to attack the enemy as long as he was in a bad shape from the attack - either if the attack succeeded or failed.

A good example is a combined attack with heavy tank forces breaking through the main defensive line followed by infantry trying to take the positions, after the tanks decimated the resistance.

In case the armored tank-forces are beaten, forced to withdraw or simply can't develop, an immediate but energetic lead counter-assault against the enemy infantry often had big success, because it hits the attacker in a quite weak condition - being hit by an attack in exactly the moment you recognize the own attack doesn't come through is a big burden for discipline and morale.

Ofcourse this is only possible if leaders and troops are acting as one single part.

IMO the highest level of tactical warfare.

Another kind of counter-attack is the local counterattack, led a few hours later with local reserves, before the enemy can fortify the taken positions.

Here the doctrine said, it's better to counterattack with weaker (or at the extremes even insufficient) forces but have a potential success due to the surprise effect, than to lose definately the positions to the enemy and as result needing much stronger forces to throw him out again.

Again the factor time was seen as critical.

The third kind of a counter-attack is the one, with operational elements and the much better prepared one.

I don't agree, that is is the non existant confusion on the battlefield, why we don't see counter-assaults.

Why we don't see counter-attacks is IMO mostly the extremely restricted timeframe.

CM battles are mostly finished, when the enemy grabs the flag - and everyone usually has to hurry for that. There usually isn't any time for tank-maneuvers and so the battles are solved within a few minutes in a slugfest.

Once you lose the position you usually have so high losses, that a counter-assault isn't possible.

It usually is also better to risk high losses and decide the battling between units within seconds, than to give positions up and prepare for a counter-assault.

Another aspect IMO is, that vehicles don't give any cover. So you need either long, time -consuming approach routes, well prepared smoke screens or lots of suppressive fire and this costs a lot of time and even more units, you maybe don't have anymore after the enemy's assault.

I'm confident, if CMx2 would offer cover behind vehicles and longer battletimes or a solution, that forces the players to knock out the enemy somehow, instead of grabbing flags, we would see more counter-assaults in the game.

[securityguard]

It would be cool if there was a 'reinforce' point set for QB's. Such as, getting 1000 points for reinforcements. You could spent 1000 points on a smaller reinforcement that is gauranteed to come, or spent 1000 points on a larger reinforcement that comes by chance or in parts.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Another aspect IMO is, that vehicles don't give any cover. So you need either long, time -consuming approach routes, well prepared smoke screens or lots of suppressive fire and this costs a lot of time and even more units, you maybe don't have anymore after the enemy's assault.

Lol. This has to be the weakest rationale ever, so I'll assume you were joking, and not serious. Good one

[Steiner14]

Could you be a bit more specific?