More fluid warfare in CM?

[Tigrii]

It seems to me (of course, I may be wrong) that most CM battles that most people (including myself) play go like this: Setup: Attacker concentrates at one point. Defender does some tricky thing with reverse slopes, MGs, TRPs, etc. Game: Attacker attacks at the chosen point. Defender springs traps, battle fought out linearly (sp?) head to head. What I think is much more interesting, and effective, are battles where it's more fluid, characterized by mechanized penetrations deep into the defenders rear by attacking tanks and halftracks, and an active defender. An example of an active defender is me (occasionaly). I just played a defensive QB where I had 1 platoon in SPW 251/1s, which zoomed around the attackers' flank, at a point other than their schwerpunkt, and "landed" in a large patch of woods. They ran to the front of the woods, which overlooked my MLR and was in use by the enemy as a firebase and jumping-off point. My 1 platoon reached the MLR, chock full of unsuspecting support weaponry, and massacred 4 MGs and 2 Mortars, the same platoon then wiped out 2 companies from the rear, as they were attacking away from the woods. Not that I'm trying to boast, but I think this type of manuever makes battles a lot funner, as opposed to classic firefights.

[Michael Emrys]

I agree about more fluid actions being more interesting, but such pretty much lie outside the scope of CM, which depicts the moment when the forces actually come to grips, after all the maneuvering has been done. What you are asking for more properly belongs to an operational scale game, where the units instead of being squads/vehicles are battalions and regiments and the time scale is hours/turn rather than a minute.

You can kind of simulate some of what you are talking about in CM by designing a scenario on a very large map and having reinforcements enter on a flank. But this approach is apt to be too rigid to really satisfy.

Michael

[ December 22, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[xerxes]

Some of the larger ops have more of a manuever component. "Surprise at Paslinis" [at the depot] encourages mobility on both sides. (shameless self promotion naturally).

[Fionn]

Tigrii,

What you point out is simply the end result of unimaginative tactics. E.g. "Picking a spot and attacking it" before conducting in-depth reconnaissance is highly unimaginative and will almost certainly end up with 2nd generation warfare as opposed to the more fluid 3rd generation.

I do see one thing you fail to point out though. A stolid battle need only be fought by MUTUAL agreement. E.g. If the attacker is gonna advance along the road in a predictable manner then YOU as the defender have several choices about how to counter this. Will you set up a linear defence, fight a withdrawing action through multiple positions or launch multiple off-axis spoiling attack or even a full-blooded counter-attack into the teeth or flank of the enemy advance.

The player with the greater temporal urgency will generally dictate the PACE of the battle ( even if he is less mechanised) and once you determine the pace of the battle you can achieve decisive OODA cycle advantages which will lead to a much more fluid battle ( even if your opponent didn't initially plan to fight such a battle).

You give an illustration of this but I get the feeling you don't actually understand the exact principles underlying what you did and why it worked the way it did

The cool thing is that I often see players "discovering" these things in CMBB via trial and error and only later discovering that real-world historical counterparts evolved the same tactical innovations in response to real-life battles. It is very cool to see tactical development recapitulating itself in the virtual world amongst those still seeking to learn and improve their tactical repertoire.

Mike,

Tutt, tutt, tutt :cool:

The indirect approach is just as valid at the tactical level as it is at the operational and strategic level Takes a bit of doing but it can usually work out extremely well.