About Mortars....(newbie!)

[Aponos]

Hello everyone,

I am really happy that i found out about this game, because the game itself is great, and the people that are playing it.

But...(after this newbie intro) i have a question about mortars. What the hell I am suppose to do with them when their ammo is over? I looked over the manual and there is no way of taking ammo from anywhere...except when you play a scenario , and reinforcments have arrived.

If i can't supply them with ammo (which i think that this is the case), what should i do whith them? Put them in front for having a better sight? Or just pull them back, and forget about them?

Thank you in advance....

Take care everyone.....and good gaming!

"I'm out!"

[Swede]

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

i have a question about mortars. What the hell I am suppose to do with them when their ammo is over?<hr></blockquote>

They can't get any more ammo during the battle, so pull them back to a safe place and hide them. They have no more combat value, but if they get killed it's more victory points for your opponent. They could also be used to spot enemy troops if you're desperate, but they're too slow to get out of the way of an enemy advance and unable to defend themselves. If you're playing an operation, you definitely want to save them because they'll get more ammo before the next battle.

[Galatine]

Once a mortar teams ammo runs out they are offensively of limited value and may not resupply in battle

At that point few options remain.

Some players will continue to use them at the front to either draw fire, or feign attack.

Other players will use them as recon units, or position them for terrain observation.

Many would say all the above is a non-realistic use of the units and thus, just plain goofy.

Prevailing wisdom is to pull them back to a safe zone near a map edge to be retreated from the field of battle to avoid elimination if they come under attack.

[Aponos]

Thanks guys!!

[Cathedral]

I have two follow up questions to this.

1) is there any disadvantage to pull your mortar crews with no ammo completely off the board by having them retreat past the end of the map?

2) When mortar crews abandon their mortar (due to a sniper, arty, etc.) Do they have better fighting capability than a AFV crew of the same size? The should, being that they are still infantry.

[offtaskagain]

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

I have two follow up questions to this.

1) is there any disadvantage to pull your mortar crews with no ammo completely off the board by having them retreat past the end of the map?

2) When mortar crews abandon their mortar (due to a sniper, arty, etc.) Do they have better fighting capability than a AFV crew of the same size? The should, being that they are still infantry.<hr></blockquote>

1) I wouldn't do it unless really necessary. Retreating units causes a global morale hit that in a close game could cause you to auto-surrender.

2) Not really. They all die pretty fast.

[Galatine]

1) If I'm not mistaken , in addition to said global morale loss, retreat from the board earns your opponent a few victory points but not as many as if they are casualities or captured.

2) They aren't equiped to with the arms or ammo to act like regular grunts, nor are they likely to be ready for sudden integration into squad level tactics by their unit.

That, and if they just got hit hard enough to ditch their mortar they ain't going to be eager to mix it up in close combat. More like they'll call it a day and head back to base.

[Ben Galanti]

I think your opponent only gets points if you pull them off a non-friendly map edge.

If you pull them off a friendly map edge, they're listed as safe. However, there is the mentioned global moral hit either way...

Ben

[CRSutton]

I once had an opponent rush with with his no ammo mortar crews and bazooka teams late in a close game to draw fire and deplete my ammo. It was very effective and he followed up with his squads and wiped me out. Very effective! Of course, I no longer play the poltroon.

[Galatine]

Some people would say using unarmed units as canon fodder is 'gamey'.

Personally, I'd say it's a sad statement of character.

Games are a kind of metaphor's for life.

(Like "The game of Life" for example.)

Metaphorically: those players send unarmed men on a suicide missions JUST to get shot and use up the opponents ammo, instead of trying... oh, let's say- standard tactics and skill?

Metaphorically speaking, above said (metaphoric) CM commander is a (metaphoric) pychopath.

Machiavelli would be proud but I wouldn't want to ride on a metaphoric (or real!) bus with that player.

Thank goodness the villages are empty! I shutter to think what they'd do to the metaphoric civilians.

[Lopaka]

Now I could be wrong about this, like so many things, but as a commander you have two main jobs: 1) Complete your objective and 2) Get as few of your men/assets killed or wounded in doing so or in failing to do so, as the case may be. Finding the right balance of those two items is probably what makes a commander good or bad.

Now in the case of using unarmed (although they are probably armed in some unmodelled way) soldiers to assist in completing your objective, if they actually help with both #s 1 & 2 then you are doing your job right AND you are saving casualties.

I think by rushing a position with unarmed men (in addition to your armed force) you are oftentimes more likely to get fewer men killed in total because the opposition is more likely to be indecisive in picking targets or will be spending more time in switching from target to target and less time actually firing. The opposition may also be more likely to retreat or surrender due to inferiority of numbers.

Now if you were going to get all or most of your men slaughtered either way, then you shouldn't have been attacking in the first place and adding unarmed men to the mix is just an additional sin.

So I hardly think adding unarmed men to mix is at all times a "sad statement of character." It is only so, if you have little character to begin with.

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Lopaka ]</p>

[Galatine]

You've got some really good points.

In many ways it boils down to:

"Sacrifice the few to save the many."

Or...

"The General who plans a battle to take no casualities, often ends with the opposite."

But ultimately...

"Do the ends justify the means?"

That last one's a duzy and really hard to apply to a simulation who's focus is tactical rather than strategical. Who's to say the importance of any single battle to the overall war effort?

None the less, the issue does beg the question: Is use of cannon fodder really an efficent method of attack to minimize over all battle losses?

Since it's a 'hook and bait' strategy I think it really depends entirely on the defender.

I view it as more of a wild 'roll of the dice', than a genuine tactical manuever. As long as the defender conserves ammo, concentrates on suppression/delay fire until optimum kill range (Ala- hide/target/hide) and maintains a reserve element, it's an all but a worthless gesture. An act of outright desperation. Or at least it should be, since a commander can never know if the gambit will succeed until it's over.

I can only imagine that any leader who would use such tactics arbitrially would soon find himself without an army.