go get em tiger!? OR patience daniel son!?

[Chad Harrison]

this forum seems pretty quiet (its 1/38 the size of the main CM forum!), so ill give us something new to talk about!

in recent PBEM/TCP games i have noticed something unique to certain players. there seems to be two major techniques that i have seen.

-GO GET EM TIGER! you overlook the battlefield, load up every man they can on a vehicle and the run like mad heck towards the most important locations! there is no such thing as sneak/move, all that exists is RUN/MOVE FAST baby!

-PATIENCE DANIEL SON. vehicle start hidden and remain hidden FOREVER! (more than half the battle sometimes). one platoon may move forward to a overlook position, but the rest are never seen until the last 1/2 or even (1/4!) of the game. if both player are like this it becomes a game of sneaking around woods/hills and shooting the heck out of each other in the last 10 turns!

now heres my question: which are you? and why? obviously certain situation/terrain/weather will warrant different tactics. yet, what tactic do you find yourself using? and how do you counter them?

i find myself becoming more of a patience person. this is especially when there is lots of cover/or bad visibility. i like to keep my assest hidden, ESPECIALLY my armor. i use my armor like a hidden chess queen which cant be seen during the game until she strikes and then disappears (atleast, when it works! ). so WHICH ONE ARE YOU?!?

[tenfive2]

I started out rushing to positions, but I was always getting pounded by arty and AFV's.

Now I try to sneak more and wait to show armor. That's a try, mind you...

[Sergeant Saunders]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

now heres my question: which are you? and why?

i find myself becoming more of a patience person. this is especially when there is lots of cover/or bad visibility. i like to keep my assest hidden, ESPECIALLY my armor. i use my armor like a hidden chess queen which cant be seen during the game until she strikes and then disappears (atleast, when it works! ). so WHICH ONE ARE YOU?!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chad - This may help in one of my current PBEM games. I am still learning, so am trying diffrent things. I have discovered that AFV don't live long when discovered, so do tend to keep them hidden, also.

[Chad Harrison]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders:

Chad - This may help in one of my current PBEM games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dang tim, you neet to stop reading all of my posts! or ill never beat ya!

[**Gen**TomGun]

:eek: i would say i am kinda in between..some parts of the battle i rush ahead then stop for a turn or 2 see what has sprung up out of the bush,lol, etc then back to charge again if nothing has be spotted that warrants a sneak aproach etc.....just my 3 cents worth......... :cool:

[Sergeant Saunders]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

dang tim, you neet to stop reading all of my posts! or ill never beat ya! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only time I ever allow myself to be beaten, it involves leather & latex. OOPS! Wrong Forum! :eek:

[olandt]

Personally, I favor fast moving attacks. I feel it's more important to seize the initiative and put pressure on the enemy. If my enemy is going to give me the objective, then fine, I'll sieze it and keep moving until I elimnate his forces.

There is no difference between an ambush at the objective, and an ambush elswere. The trick comes from massing firepower and not troops. You can take the objective with a small number of troops if you are able to support them with a large amount of firepower. If he wishes to waste a lot of his artillery or reveal other assets just to move a squad or platoon of the objective, then let him.

The idea is not really to grab the objective quickly, but to quickly grab the terrain that will allow you to control the objective. If the objective is not easily defensible (an open road junction) then don't take it. But if there is a hill that commands all the approaches to the VL, then take that.

Sneaking is fine when you have the time as you don't want your enemy to have more information on you than neccessary. However, if your sneaking means your enemy gets to a critical location before you do, then sneaking wasn't worth it.

Usually there aren't that many viable routs to a VL. If you can move quickly to deny your enemy those routes, then you've won.

Blindly rushing the objective en masse is stupid and will get you slaughtered. Aggresive movements to seize KEY terrain will usually help you win. We all make mistakes of course.

[elalamein]

The points above are good.

Personally I always move slowly...sometimes too slowly. I get paranoid about houses, hills, woods, anything that can hide the enemy and give them an advantage.

I do get guilty feelings when a platoon or other gets a good paggering due to my negligence.

Guess I would never make a captain!

[BloodyBucket]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elalamein:

I do get guilty feelings when a platoon or other gets a good paggering due to my negligence.

Guess I would never make a captain!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an enlisted man, I think you would make a fine captain!

[elalamein]

yes...maybe we could find some important files to put away!

Now lets have a cup of tea before we act hastily!

[Captain Wacky]

Well, there are usually too many variables to use any hard and steady rules right of the bat. The most important I feel is to analyze the terrian and your forces. What are you capable of? Does rushing out gain you any great advantages?

Here's an example: I played on a map with little cover and a town stuck straight in the middle. I immediately rushed for the buildings and secured them. From their I pounded my more patient but helpless opponent with arty from observers.

[Brujay]

One of the unrealistic things about CM is that every man, in effect, has a radio. What any man can see, you at your rear CP can see. Therefore, I like to be very quick and aggressive--with scouts. German sharpshooters make good point men (they're not much good for anything else). With Allied units, split squads do the trick. But don't expect to see these boys come back.

[BloodyBucket]

Flag rush against the AI, caution against human opponents.

I bet the "What I can see you all can see" situation gets attention in the engine rewrite, at least on a multiplayer level. Much better as it is than the old boardgames, but I can't see a way around it in a two player game. Franko's rules, anyone?

[Chad Harrison]

all the above posts point out some important tactics. something i do not like about rushing into the city is that once you get there you are commited, esp. with armour. if you change your mind about moving the armour in, you have to get them out, and you never know what is hiding between those buildings!

with infantry you have a little bit more ability to sneak around and remain undected, but for the most part, he knows where you are and you may not know where he is. its a chance that you take, sometimes it works, sometimes you get hammered.

in my first PBEM game i got hammered because we both rushed the city and he had three shermans that came in and pounded my infantry. i took out one with a StuG, but the game was over in the first two rounds. i learned my lesson, and will never rush ahead like that again!

[Chad Harrison]

also, over the past week, in two TCP games i had snuck up some forward infantry and flanking infrantry very slowly and carefully. in the last ten minutes, they wreaked havoc with ambushes as the other player assumed that no one was there. i got lucky, and it was just two games, but that made me a believer in not showing your opponet all your cards in the first five rounds.

[kburns24]

Chad... I see it worked with some else also.

I don't think we made contact till turn 20 of the 30 turn QB.

Patience is key when you don't know the disposition of the forces your up against. Skulking around in the tall pines can be a bit nerve racking, especially when you don't know if your walking in empty stands of trees or in the midst of an enemy platoon. :eek:

[Silvio Manuel]

I like to do a little of both.

If your opponent thinks you like to play aggressive, s/he can be caught off guard when you switch to stealth.

[CombinedArms]

I tend to be more of the slow type, but I like to think of it as a methodical advance toward objectives--skulking around behind cover merely to avoid contact isn't going to get you very far. So I'd advocate advancing methodically toward contact, trying to exploit and acquire key terrain features and manuever so as to bring superior firepower to bear on whatever resistance you uncover. On defense, stay hidden until the enemy reaches a position where you can inflict disproportionate damage on him.

In a human designed scenario, if you're the attacker, you're usually going against prepared defenses of some kind, so even against the AI a certain thoughtfulness of approach, feeling things out, seems appropriate. On the other hand, in a QB meeting engagement against the AI, a prompt flag-rush-and-hold often works. But it all depends on the terrain. Against human or AI, if the VLs look highly defensible, rush toward them in an ME. If they look tough to hold, let the other side have them and pound away from superior cover.

It also all depends on what kind of armor you've got. If you're the Axis with Panthers or Tigers, you might want to push that armor more aggressively (though avoiding flank shots). With most Allied tanks short of the Jumbo or heavy Churchills, you've got to be more cagey unless enemy AT assets are very limited.

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Redwolf]

Another point to consider is the relative strength you estimate for you and the opponent.

If you assume your opponent to be equal or less capable than yourself, you cannot rush in, since a bit of bad luck will ruin your game, i.e. lower the win chance by a wide margin.

If you assume your opponent to be stronger, you need some mean to get him off-balance. Of course, if you rush in, you still need good luck. However, if you *have* good luck, a rush will allow you to explore it. A slow approach will statistically level out the "luck" to your initial weaker chances.

There are other things to consider if you assume your opponent to be stronger, especially unit choices.

[Oldman731]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

[QB]now heres my question: which are you? and why?

I personally like to rush with all my forces to the objective but then spread out and hide. I find in enables me to rack up a whole lotta points!

-Dan Weston

THE TRUTH!!! YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :mad:

[Kiltie Lad]

One of the key aspects of fighting any QB or Scenario is understanding that a "game" of however ong duration has a Begining, Middle and End phase. This is important in realizing what your opponent is up to and how to allocate your resources. It's always best to get an arty spotter or HQ safely ensconced in an elevated position from which he can observe the avenues of approach of the enemy, or most likely places for defensive positions. Recon is key. Seeking the enemy's shwerpunkt is vital in shifting defensive resources to the right areas instead of trying to cover the entire map. Your observer can also direct long range fire on the enemy and disrupt his advance or soften him up for your blow.

When advancing use split squads (crack and elite best) with a long command HQ to figure out where he is. Plan on one third of the game as "Approach" one third as "Main Fight" and then the last third as "the End Game" which will find you hanging onto the objectives, or trying to wrest them away. Timining is, indeed, everything. Knowing where you enemy is and anticipating how he will be spending his time in each phase of the game, will give you some means by which you can anticipate him and seize the initiative without having to rush headlong at him. Cheers!

[steelmtn]

I think my style is more of a sneak than a mad dash. I like to maneuver into position, see as much as I can, and then attack hard. The “secondary” objectives (MG nests, pillboxes) present themselves along the way.

If I am playing as the attacker or in a meeting engagement, I split my entire force into two squads and moving / attacking the objective from the flanks. I move cautiously through the terrain, but I rarely sneak unless I really am trying to sneak up on something. If the enemy gets to the VL first then I fake with one flank for a few turns and then hit hard with the other flank. By that time the arty is shaking things up and a lot of enemy units seem to break when my forces are attacking their backs. Maneuvering is the key to this game. Keep the squads moving, even backwards if necessary, to keep them from being shelled. I try not to let the machine guns fall too far behind the rest of the squad. Use machine guns, mortars, and arty to keep the enemy heads down while rifle units move in to flush the enemy out of foxholes or buildings. Armor stays in the back unless needed.

I’m still trying to work out a style I like. My casualties are very high and I usually only win with a 51-55% victory. My global moral drops pretty fast once the attacks are happening and if I get stopped too often then I find myself mounting some pretty interesting attacks made up of HQ units and any vehicle crews that I can trick into advancing on enemy positions. I would have been a crummy officer!

[LC-]

Im kind of both. I try to wait with my infantry but usually end up sending them forward a little sooner than I should. But with my AFV I have always taken the advice of "he who shows AFVs first....is the first one to lose them" to heart. Now if only I could learn to be more patient with the grunts.