Fionn's latest AAR at MODs & MODers:

[ThomasZ]

Two Quick questions if I may. The first is just a general request. The second a question for Fionn as he offered to answer general questions earlier.

1. Can the owner of the AAR sight please post here when the AAR is finished, I'm just dieing to know what is next.

2. Fionn, having watched 4 or 5 of your AARs (mostly on Combat HQ) and tried very hard to emulate some of your tactics (for obvious reasons) I notice your belief in aggressive recon. However when I try to emulate your tactics (split squads, 2 to 3 platoons worth) I run into a repeated problem. You managed to repeatedly get your recon units with few losses into the combat area where I tend to make contact with them and they get cut up pretty badly as they are split and spread out (and moving from clump of cover to clump so not necessarily in the best position to fight). I imagine what I'm not doing is keeping my follow on forces close enough and not leaving enough of my units that are on recon on overlook. In any event, could you give some thoughts on how you approach recon, rules of thumb for how much of your strength to dedicate to it, common problems other runs into etc. Any thoughts would help. And above all thanks, I have found some of my most interesting CM experiences have been reading your AARs (can't wait till CMBB and movie playback, now if we could just get annotations and text in the playback it could REALLY be good).

[PawBroon]

Originally posted by ThomasZ:

Can the owner of the AAR sight please post here when the AAR is finished, I'm just dieing to know what is next.

I can do that.

But it will give you a serious pointer as to the length of said game.

Both Fionn and Warren have some aces up their sleeves and if I am to say somethink like:

Surrender File turn 16, it might possibly spoil the effect a wee bit.

Now if you're all for it, no probs.

[ThomasZ]

I can live with the loss of suspence to some extent..Fionn's AAR's are always a blast to read even if I know the outcome.

[Fionn]

Thomas,

Want a game? If you post to the challenges thread I can give you a CM:BB game and you can experience it first hand ( the best way to learn IMO).

I'll give a text answer here too of course:

Well, first things first.. I follow a mishmash of Soviet doctrines so much of what I say is going to be somewhat antithetical to the Western military mind.

Recon is THE most important phase of the battle. Win it and you are 90% certain to win the entire battle. Lose it or don't contest it and you are 90% certain to lose the battle IMO.

I would dedicate up to 75% of my force to recon if I felt it necessary (really, really close terrain, e.g. advancing through woods). Generally the more limited the LOS of terrain the more you have to commit to the recon fight BUT, conversely, the smaller the front of your initial break-in has to be.

What this, in effect, means is that in really bad LOS you might only have to commit your main body on a front of 50 metres in order to achieve a clean breakthrough. If you are playing with really large LOS ( rural, light trees, no hill) enemy units 1 km away might be able to fire and disrupt your break-in so while you need less recon when there is less cover your main body is also more vulnerable and less likely to completely over-run enemy defences in the first rush.

If you can commit enough force on a narrow enough frontage you don't actually have to be a good player to break in.. E.g. If you commit two companies on a 200 metre frontage and support them with 4 x 120mm FOs you don't have to be good to break in.

I don't believe in moving my main force up closely behind my recon. I believe it is more important to keep the main body hidden than for it to follow closely. I also don't believe in having my tanks up on the front line. IF something fires at my troops I will rely on my FOs to deal with it. ANYTHING less than a tank which opens up can be easily dealt with by artillery ( whether that be HE arty vs ATGs and infantry or smoke vs pillboxes etc).

If a tank pops up I'll move my armour reserve up and take it out. The second they kill the enemy tank they drop back out of view to minimise their vulnerability.

Honestly though I think the best thing to say to you would be to tell you to play a lot recon or infantry-only games against good players. I formulated those games to :

a) provide some fast-paced fun where vehicles were relatively cheap and people felt free to throw them around and have fun and

to give people an environment where massive arty and tanks didn't completely stop infantry attacks cold.

Play a lot of infantry only games ( including city fights as they are a good learning ground IMO) and then move on to a couple of recon games. By the time you've played 8 to 12 PBEMs using those rules I think you'll find you can handle your infantry a lot better.

The difference between you and I is probably that I judge things a bit better ( i have more experience) and thus know when I can risk being clumped up or spread out with the end result that I'm more likely to be in good shape when I hit the enemy FSE than you are ( since you're more likely to stumble into an ambush than I am). If you play a lot of infantry games your infantry sense will improve markedly IMO. Feel free to ask more questions as they arise during your "course". I'm only too happy to answer them.

P.s. Thanks for the kind words.

P.p.s. I don't think it is too much of an understatement to say that when I met Warren's MLR things got very bloody, very vicious, rather ruthless and very, very quick.

[ThomasZ]

Fionn,

First off thanks for the response, and I'd love to get taken a part in a PBEM game with you. I find I learn a lot more in defeat then in victory, even more so with an opponent willing to share his turn files afterwards. Sadly I mostly play one opponent and I beat him fairly frequently so the learning has slowed. I travel a lot for my work but I'm back in town at end of June, mind if I drop you a mail then for a game? I'll remind ya who I am as I'm sure you get a bunch of game requests. I look forward to it.

A few other questions:

I'm curious, you say your doctrine differs greatly from western, in what way did you mean here?

up to 75%...hmmm..ok then clearly I need to focus on not losing so many of my recon troops. I have noticed that you tend to suffer minimal recon losses but I always assumed you found thoes troops somewhat expendable. I take it this is not the case? In otherwords you do depend on having your recon forces in good strength and order by the time you reach the enemy MLR (in your open field tactics AAR on CM-HQ they actually form the spearhead of your attack on the left). So if you had a company at your command and a map with say.."average" cover (moderate trees say) you would expect to dedicate at least a platoon to the job. I guess what you really mean to say is to dedicate whatever forces are necessary to making sure you touch each piece of cover (I notice you touch each one quite religiously, my opponent I play usually doesn't which often creates great ambushes for me…though he's learning *grin*).

Ironically your tactic of protecting armor is something that I used to do but recently have been trying to use them in more of a support role. Then again what I think I really need to do is think of it as you did in your last AAR, support vehicles for recon, anti armor forces and direct fire forces to use on enemy MLR. The fact that I play somewhat smaller battles (a bad habit I should probably break) and let the computer buy forces probably limits me here. I'll try some battles against the computer this way and see what happens (any scenarios you want to recommend are welcome).

I've also noticed you use your FO's well forward..and you do tend to gain LOS very effectively, I am not as good about guessing where good LOS will be (always have trouble deciding how tall trees are!) but I'm working at it. Your statements about using them over armor explain this well. Thanks.

By recon games you mean using your recon rules I take it, I'll certainly try some QB's against the computer while on trip (ahh love that laptop) and some PBEM's when I get back..even a city fight or two (though it's odd you say that for recon, I wouldn't have thought recon was as important in town…but then again I fight mostly the computer.

On a separate note, do you have a single place where you have saved your AAR's? I'd love to read more of them. Your sunken lane AAR is probably the most influential thing I've read, I tend to advance quickly to surprise enemy by how forward I am..and then doggedly defend the ground. Taking the ground usually costs lives but I do make it up later as I turn a meeting engagement into a defense.

Also, if you ever take requests, I'd love a good AAR of either the following…

Defense of maneuver

City fight.

-Thomas

[Fionn]

Thomas,

NP. I think the best thing to do would be to add you to the Challenges list. There are about 30 people waiting there. I'll be taking on between 3 and 5 at a time so by the time we get to play CM:BB will be out and since there are sufficient differences between CM:BO and CM:BB any "lessons learned" will be best learned under CM:BB IMO.

Well I would classify my doctrine as being mostly 1936 Soviet doctrine ( under Tukhachevsky) with a few bits and pieces from WW2 Soviet doctrine and post-war doctrine. The Soviet doctrine differed markedly from American or British doctrine in that it was aimed at being much more efficient insofar as a lot of attention was paid to applying the maximum force at the weakest enemy point to the detriment of attacks elsewhere. It really is the stuff of a volume of books unfortunately but suffice it to say that a lot of emphasis is placed on recon and hitting the enemy with a lot of arty and infantry at their weakest spot.

Recon troops: They aren't expendable. I will spend them to gain intel but I certainly don't find them expendable. Often they ( 1 recon company) find the enemy main force, halt in place and I move my 2 2nd echelon companies up. 1 of the 2nd echelon companies holds 75% to 80% of the enemy line in place by means of a pinning action/minor attacks whilst the other 2nd echelon company concentrates on a very narrow portion of the enemy front ( maybe 10%) and concentrates on putting in a massive, overwhelming assault there.

Meanwhile the recon company ( which has been passed through by the 2nd echelon companies) is consolidating its various half-squads and surviving HQ elements and shaking itself out into combat-capable platoons. It is now my reserve force ready to repel counter-attacks or reinforce the main or subsidiary efforts should they require it.

Also, as you noted... the job of the recon elements quite Soviet. They are to continue advancing until they run into something that stops them cold. Usually this is the enemy MLR BUT if they find a weak area of the enemy MLR than I don't hesitate to use my nominally recon troops to assault into the weak spot. Why give the enemy time to reinforce? Better to attack now with what I have, destabilise the front and let my 2nd echelon forces attack into a fluid break-through situation instead of having to expend combat power on carving out the initial break-in also.

" I guess what you really mean to say is to dedicate whatever forces are necessary to making sure you touch each piece of cover "

Yes. I don't always touch every bit of terrain since sometimes you just can tell someone isn't going to occupy certain terrain. OTOH the AARs aren't there for me to show off. They are there for me to show good tactical play ( and so I try to show off good habits in the AARs... you'e one of the first people to ever mention the terrain touching issue. You must have read them carefully.)

If I were you I'd get away from letting the computer pick your forces. It is good to be able to deal with computer-chosen forces BUT when you are trying to consolidate your doctrine you want to be using roughly the same force every time so that you amass a body of experience with it and can concentrate on implementing doctrine in each game and NOT have to worry about trying to use completely unsuitable vehicles/troops. Later on you can figure out how to utilise all the different vehicles.

I play Bn on Bn battles for a reason... They are large enough that realistic doctrine can be used and small enough that they don't take forever to compute. I also find Bn on Bn battles feature enough terrain and forces to be interesting and to not be determined by a single ambush not to mention the fact that many doctrinal manuals discuss how to command a Bn in a specific situation and therefore from a learning perspective Bn on Bn battles are as close to the book as you can get. Of course, others are free to play whatever size etc they prefer.

FOs well forward. Absolutely. I believe FOs should be forward with or just behind the very forward line of recon troops. If you're afraid to lose them then they lose half of their combat potential right there. Better to use them aggressively IMO. Usually this ends up in lower losses than would otherwise be the case IMO.

Again a lot of this focus on aggression and getting inside the enemy's OODA loop is very Soviet. Hell, there are people on this forum who seem to deny the existence of and CERTAINLY deny the importance of the OODA loop. Others prefer to crunch numbers to figure out how much arty to fire at a specific location. I am much more into the "crush the enemy CO's mind" viewpoint espoused by much of Soviet doctrine. Some here completely deny the importance of such psychological factors.

I would have thought that my win rate would have proven that there was something to the doctrine I follow but others seem to differ . I'm fine with that but I still find it curious that so few people seem interested in finding out exactly WHAT I do and WHY I do it so that they could replicate it for themselves and see if it works . Still, different strokes for different folks and my days of trying to change the world are well and truly over .

Yes I meant recon rules games... As to playing recon rules in a town... Here's the rationale behind it... Recon rules features very little DF HE capability ( maybe some 7.5cm L24 HE guns on HTs or 37mm guns on Stuarts) and only 81mm mortars. What this means is that you have to rely on either infantry or flame HTs to do the majority of the damage.

To use infantry or flame HTs in a city you have to be pretty damned good at getting close to the enemy, suppressing anything which could fire at you and timing your assaults to perfection.

If you make a mistake in MOUT ( Military operations Urban Terrain) you are going to get absolutely massacred VERY quickly. As such it is a set of game parameters which are very unforgiving of infantry sloppiness AND which don't give you the other tools necessary to compensate for poor infantry command ( lots of big tanks and 105mm STuH or Shermans and large-calibre arty ( 150mm+) ).

The combination of the above factors helps improve infantry play very quickly. Add in a few other factors unique to cityfights but of value to other terrains and you get a very good learning environment ( at least IMO). I regularly play city fights to keep fresh and would expect to get a 3:1 exchange rate when attacking through a village under infantry only rules so it is definitely possible to get very good with infantry if you practice MOUT.

Could you either drop me an email or give me ur email address here?

I have a cityfight PBEM ( from the point of view of an opponent) AAR. The movies etc aren't really all that important for understanding it although I'm sure I have them around here somewhere. I think that the most important thing is realising ( from reading it) that maneuvre warfare is absolutely applicable to city fighting.

Defence of Maneuvre.... Do you mean manoeuvrist defence? Hmm, that might actually be interesting to do.

I've deliberately covered several different types of action in my AARs ( defence in close terrain/aggressive defence, attack in open terrain, a couple of demo games, this game ( manoeuvrist attack vs attritionist defence) and I have a couple which I've not published ( infantry vs massive German tank/infantry force... done during a period of discussion on the forum when people were banging on about how German tanks were unstoppable. I set out to show that their superiority was irrelevant if the Allied infantry were well handled... and the cityfight PBEM). A manoeuvrist defence might be an interesting thing to illustrate. It could be quite fun actually.

Anyways, drop me an email and I'll send you some stuff you may find interesting.

P.s. As re: a single place to save AARs etc. Drizzt has been trying to convince me to do something along those lines... a sort of tactics site or something but it may be more hassle than it is worth so I haven't decided yet.

[PawBroon]

Latest 5 turns have been updated at MODs & MODers.

Things are heating up!

[ThomasZ]

Fionn,

Please do add me to the challenge list. I'll gladly give you the Soviets you so love and I'll take the much maligned Germans (being of Italian decent the axis makes more sense…then again..considering the behavior of the nation of my ancestors maybe either side works *grin*). If for some reason CMBB isn't out by then we'll do CMBO or put on hold. Hopefully after my beating you can look over my decisions and suggest where I went wrong, and let me see your turns so I can see where you went right *grin*. Don't mean to be defeatist but..let's say I know when a battle is lost. Yet, there can be honor in defeat.

Thanks for the clarification, I had thought that Soviet WW2 doctrine was somewhat different then what you did so the explanation that it's prewar mostly was useful. Most of my military history comes well before WW1 even..but I know some things of WW2. Judging from this I'd say your not one who believes in large feints..come to think of it I've not seen you do one yet so I guess that is self explanatory. You seem more interested in keeping your main attack hidden then trying to feint and get your opponent to react and then attacking somewhere else.

Check, recon units need to be saved. Well that is useful to know to be sure! I am always loath to use large numbers for recon for fear of there loss. Splitting so units and flinging them so far afield is so unlike me (I tend to want a spearhead) but you've repeatedly shown it not only works but provides critical intel. I'll keep at it.

I've read the AAR's several times and noted very carefully the thoroughness with which you explore terrain. Even better then that is that I've learned the hard way what can happen if you don't, and best of all what you can do if your enemy doesn't. On a side note, when I place forward elements to recon on defense these so often get overrun or they do ambush but so rapidly succumb to masses of enemy fire I sometimes wonder if it isn't better to spend far less on recon in defense. This is, however, against the computer so that does taint my experience somewhat.

I'll get into the habit of buying, by "Bn" battles I assume you mean aprox a Battalion against a Battalion? Correct me if I'm wrong but your AAR's usually are bigger then that no? You say Bn to Bn, care to share a rough point value for such exchanges?

You lost me there on OODA loop. Forgive the ignorance but can you explain?

I actually do pretty well in city fights most, I have learned that you need to get a mass of forces pretty close, surpess the hell out of the target and then rush in some men for close assault. It's interesting because it can be such a one sided affair, if I go to early I get cut up BADLY, if I go at the right time, they get cut up *grin*.

Email is: ThomasZ@microsoft.com Please do send the city AAR. Movies are great if possible but if not the AAR is useful without. I'd welcome any others you had as well.

Yes, as you say a, "manicurist defense". I for one would find it very interesting to see. I tend to really enjoy active defense (aggressive forward movements etc or just big shifts in troops when I can't cover a whole line) as interesting challenges, would love to see a good AAR of one.

I figured there wasn't one place to get the AARs but..hopefully with the movie feature in CMBB it will be easier to do for sure.

-Thomas

[PawBroon]

Originally posted by ThomasZ:

You lost me there on OODA loop. Forgive the ignorance but can you explain?

There are many resources on the Web about Boyd's OODA Loop.

If you want to learn about the intricacies of that tool, take that simulation and see how it works.

http://www.teleologic.net/samples/OODA_index.htm

The OODA Loop (cycle of Observation, Orientation, Decision and then Action).

An outcome between CM Players can be decided by which player could size up the situation and read opportunities in each encounter and then decide and act before the opponent. By preempting an adversary's move, the winner throws the loser into confusion and into a reactive cycle.

Eventhough it is easier said than done, denying key infos to Fionn by fending off his recon screen might just throw him out off his beloved OODA Loop.

And just as he stated in his AAR, knowing the enemy and playing Mind Games is just as important.

Fionn believes in Deception and Recon.

If you can have him think that he is fighting your MLR or that you're not where you are, you've won something...

After all, when someone play with Rules and follow a system, he tips you about his Modus Operandi.

And once you know a system, you can learn to thwart it.

That's why game with Poolers are so weird with their Uncanny Randomness.

Once you've stumbled into an Assault Boat used as a Recon Element smack in the middle of the woods, you know you're far off the OODA Loop...

[ThomasZ]

looking at AAR now..seems movie 19 is missing.

[PawBroon]

Not only is Gmovie19 missing but it seems that rogue files like turns 11 and 13 were in.

You couldn't trust them Frogs.

It's being fixed just now.

Thanks for the catch Thomas!

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Fionn, most of your doctrine seem to be based on lots of artillery. Have you ever played under the Scipio artillery rule?

[Fionn]

Puff,

No, but I do regularly play "infantry only, no arty" which means you buy nothing but infantry squads. No arty, no vehicles, just infantry and the weapons they carry. I like that variant quite a lot actually.

Also, in CM you have to buy a lot of FOs since each FO is limited in the number of rounds he can bring to the battle. In real life you'd simply have 8 tubes but have ****loads of mortar rounds stacked ready for them to fire ( far more than the 12 rounds per tube a 120mm battery supposedly has).

Also I'll point out that I buy a lot of small to medium calibre stuff whereas others who buy only 2 large-calibre FOs will spend the exact same arty points as I do whilst appearing to rely on it less. 5 x 120mm FOs can come to the same price as 2 x 155mm FOs IIRC.

And just as a personal opinion... I would disagree that it comes down to me using a lot of artillery. Sure arty is a component I can use if I get it BUT to believe that it is dominant is to invite underestimation.

Of course being underestimated is good so feel free to believe what you want

[ThomasZ]

I'd offer this, the excellent use of your arty has certainly been a real factor in the AAR's I've read. But then again the scouting is clearly more critical and dominant.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Puff,

No, but I do regularly play "infantry only, no arty" which means you buy nothing but infantry squads. No arty, no vehicles, just infantry and the weapons they carry. I like that variant quite a lot actually.

Also, in CM you have to buy a lot of FOs since each FO is limited in the number of rounds he can bring to the battle. In real life you'd simply have 8 tubes but have ****loads of mortar rounds stacked ready for them to fire ( far more than the 12 rounds per tube a 120mm battery supposedly has).

Also I'll point out that I buy a lot of small to medium calibre stuff whereas others who buy only 2 large-calibre FOs will spend the exact same arty points as I do whilst appearing to rely on it less. 5 x 120mm FOs can come to the same price as 2 x 155mm FOs IIRC.

And just as a personal opinion... I would disagree that it comes down to me using a lot of artillery. Sure arty is a component I can use if I get it BUT to believe that it is dominant is to invite underestimation.

Of course being underestimated is good so feel free to believe what you want

Fionn, you should see the idea behind my rule. I see a QB as some kind of 'typical daily action'.

- CM is played on battalions level, so I think artillery support can be given by the Battalion, Regiment or Division. The usual maximum caliber is 150mm (or the allied counterpart) on divisional level. I think the bigger calibers should be used in (historical) scenarios only. I assume you follow a similiar idea in your rules.

- It is correct that an artillery position has more shells available than in CM. But we are talking about only (maximum) one hour of action, and our battle is not necessarily the only or even most important spot of the frontline. It's just daily action, otherwise again -> SCENARIO! So for our part of the front is only a specific limit of support available during the battle.

- A lot of the ammo was used for widespreaded preparation barrage, not for the support on demand.

- CM allows us to use artillery very exact, we can fire on enemy positions with nearly surgical precision. So I think we have with less shells as much success as it was common in reality with much higher ammo usage, and I think also we can guide the fire with a much better timing then it was ussual (or possible?).

-Another point is that 5x120 spotters can cover a bigger area, instead on two, deliver more shells at the same time or on more targets because they have more shells. 120mm and 155mm don't fight in the same army , but the cost are not important anyway. You can get 2 reg 150mmm for 384 or 4 120mm for 408. The two 150mm delivers a blast total of (mathematic) 13860, the four 120mm of 16000. That's a difference of +12% at the cost vs a difference of +15% for the blast.

[ June 12, 2002, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Fionn]

Scipio,

I take all your points. OTOH I follow Soviet doctrine and under that doctrine the one thing a Bn CO CAN rely on is support from mortars (82mm and 120mm).

I almost always buy nothing but 81mm and 120mm mortars. I don't bother with heavy guns, I don't bother with 105mm etc etc. I just buy mortars because that fits my "eastern front soviet" mindset.

I amn't going to argue about what is realistic for Western Armies in WW2 since you seem to be largely correct ( i think you over-estimate the availability of 150 to 155mm though) but, then again, I amn't bothering with Western force ratios etc. I have an entirely different context in mind.

Anyway, each to their own... I use Soviet doctrine (I'm about the only one around who does) and I'm comfortable with my force purchases within that context. Others may not be but one thing I've learned is that there's no point trying to please everyone.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Scipio,

I take all your points. OTOH I follow Soviet doctrine and under that doctrine the one thing a Bn CO CAN rely on is support from mortars (82mm and 120mm).

I almost always buy nothing but 81mm and 120mm mortars. I don't bother with heavy guns, I don't bother with 105mm etc etc. I just buy mortars because that fits my "eastern front soviet" mindset.

I amn't going to argue about what is realistic for Western Armies in WW2 since you seem to be largely correct ( i think you over-estimate the availability of 150 to 155mm though) but, then again, I amn't bothering with Western force ratios etc. I have an entirely different context in mind.

Anyway, each to their own... I use Soviet doctrine (I'm about the only one around who does) and I'm comfortable with my force purchases within that context. Others may not be but one thing I've learned is that there's no point trying to please everyone.

I usually prefer also mortars only. Not because of any doctrine, they simply deliver the shells with shorter delay then 'normal' artillery.

I challenged you in your 'Challenge' threat. If you should ever consider to play with me, we should do a pure Infantry + Artillery battle. With or without Artillery purchase limit, whatever you want .

[PawBroon]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I've learned that there's no point in trying to please everyone...

Oh goodie!

I must have that one tatooed all over me.

[Redwolf]

I'm not so sure about the Mortars over gun/showitzer FOs.

For my own use, no question, I have to use mortars. I'm too stupid to drop the slow stuff in time and the expensive spotters in the frontline make me too nervous. However, some of my worst losses had been caused by powerful artillery, either VT or 150mm up stuff. I didn't do something as obviously as bunching up too much.

What happend is that the opponents used the heavy artillery to break the neck of some strongpoint (often with vehicles), from a distance, without having sufficient troops near that point to follow up, like you would have to do after a lighter barrage. Usually, these opponents had very infantry-heavy forces, often SMG squads who can't do anything from a distance, sometimes no vehicles except for gun towing.

[Fionn]

Pawbroon,

Yeah, you just concentrate on pleasing YK2 ;~). (And shouldn't that be Y2K in any case? )

Scipio,

Well I'm cool with that. Sounds like infantry only rules would suit that sort of game to a tee ( infantry and 81mm mortars + guns... NO vehicles). Also you might want to think about Solely Infantry... In this you buy nothing but rifle squads, HMGs, sharpshooters and FTs. No mortars, no guns, no vehicles .

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Pawbroon,

Yeah, you just concentrate on pleasing YK2 ;~). (And shouldn't that be Y2K in any case? )

Scipio,

Well I'm cool with that. Sounds like infantry only rules would suit that sort of game to a tee ( infantry and 81mm mortars + guns... NO vehicles). Also you might want to think about Solely Infantry... In this you buy nothing but rifle squads, HMGs, sharpshooters and FTs. No mortars, no guns, no vehicles .

Okay, I guess we clarify the details when you you are ready to start.

[**YK2**]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Pawbroon,

Yeah, you just concentrate on pleasing YK2 ;~). (And shouldn't that be Y2K in any case? )

YK2/Y2K surprising how many people ask me that. Simple really I was drunk....

BTW Paul this is not a bump, just a reply to Fionn

Posted by a Pleased Y2K

I mean YK2

[**YK2**]

Wot!!!!

Who me?????

Nahhhhhhh never.....

[Donan]

Good stuff as usual. Fionn's been a great

'teacher' of SOP's for many year's, and

in many arena's. Good reading and has me

wanting to fire up CM (I was just about to

return to OFP again:)--Thanks!

[crivaroc66]

Hi Fionn,

I find your discussion with ThomasZ very interesting. My gaming experience is very similar to his. My PBEM experience is zero. I play hotseat against only one opponent and win quite frequently. The TacAI is also quite predictable.

I am in the process of “training” in infantry only battles, but only at the company level. I see your point that learning to maneuver at battalion level is more appropriate and will promote myself from Co. CO to Battalion CO.

A few questions if I may. Please pardon any redundant questions that may have already been addressed in this thread.

Is this a correct assessment of a soviet battalion sized infantry only attack?

-First Co. (Recon Co.) moves to contact, collapses the FSE, locates the MLR (consolidates and moves to reserve)

-Second Co. fixes the enemy, provides a base of fire.

-Third Co. maneuvers and assaults the weakest point in the MLR on a narrow front supported by artillery.

After the initial breakthrough, is one of the non-assaulting platoons expected to exploit the bottleneck? Is it a commander’s call or prescribed by doctrine?

What roll does the Heavy Weapons Co. / Plt. play in your doctrine? Your attack tempo seems to indicate that they would be too slow to keep up.

What would be the appropriate arty support (# of 81mm FOs) for one Inf. Bn. in CM terms?

I also would be interested in your point values for purchasing. Do you max out your purchase points? Or do you say “this is what I need”, purchase, and then forfeit the rest of your points? I find that most of the time I purchase what I need, and then max my points buying more irrelevant units (which usually distract me from my mission, and are probably potential victory points for the opponent)

One last question.

ThomasZ , if you would care to pass on some of that “useful stuff” Fionn sends you I would appreciate it. The information in this thread is a goldmine. My address is crivaroc@gmx.de

Cheers

Chris

PS: Good Luck in your baptism by fire with Fionn