Will Defense Dominate in CMBB?

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Frunze:

I don't really understand how this prep barrage function could be used effectively. Before the battle starts, how can you know where the defenders' positions are? Do you just blast the whole map indiscriminately, or areas where the defender seems likely to set up?

IRL, of course, there'd be surveillance and scouting before the battle, but is that modeled in CM?

Well, somehow the veteran players of CM just know where you are most likely to be; mostly because that's where they would be if they were you. The will be both the pre-bombardment which bombards the entire map, and the pre sighted barrage which can be fired with great accuracy at any time with no delay, as long as its not moved from its original position.

[gredeker]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

I've also read that the assault command is VERY fatiguing to troops. I suspect it'll only be used for the last 50m or so of any given infantry attack.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by redeker:

I've also read that the assault command is VERY fatiguing to troops. I suspect it'll only be used for the last 50m or so of any given infantry attack.

Well, for the record the crawl command does have a FEW uses. It's one way of getting flamethrowers and MGs up close to the enemy in woods (since they don't have sneak: move until just out of LOS, then crawl in the rest of the way). And you can crawl infantry short distances behind a wall with zero exposure to fire.

The assault command will certainly be interesting to try, in part because there really ARE many situations where you're within 50+ yards of the enemy and need to close for the final attack.

BTW, I hope flamethrowers can sneak in CMBB. That might help them be more useful. In the meantime, I've recently had good luck with crawl, on a couple of occasions getting in close on the attack in woods and routing a whole (previously suppressed) enemy platoon w/o loss to the FT.

[ August 31, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Frunze:

I don't really understand how this prep barrage function could be used effectively. Before the battle starts, how can you know where the defenders' positions are? Do you just blast the whole map indiscriminately, or areas where the defender seems likely to set up?

IRL, of course, there'd be surveillance and scouting before the battle, but is that modeled in CM?

Imagine your battle plan: "I'm going to make a tank-heavy thrust on the left flank, doing a right hook after I pass that large hill." Now you can plan a nasty arty barrage that will immolate the hill (and possibly AT defenses and such) on a specific mid-game turn (or turn one), which is a whole new beast.

[JasonC]

1. The changes in CMBB will definitely strengthen defense and by large amounts. The result will be more realistic, but defenders definitely gain.

2. Tanks will also be stronger relative to other arms than in CMBO, and an edge in squad infantry numbers less critical. Winning the armor war will matter more, winning the infantry-HE war somewhat less.

3. Artillery will be somewhat less effective, not more, due to long delays. Prep fire is a low payoff workaround for a new problem, not an added capability.

The workable CMBO tactic that will suffer the most is an attacker just massing superior numbers of squad infantry and trying to run a defender off his feet by weight of numbers. This was done away with precisely because it would be so easy for many historical Russian forces to pull it off, if changes were not made. The changes are pro defense, they are also pro German. But more realistic, yes.

Will attackers need better odds ratios than in CMBO? I expect so, yes. More articulated combined arms tactics will also help, and in some respects be required where they weren't before. Just marginally higher odds will not suffice, either, to redress the new problems attackers will face.

My own playtest experience at the Chicago CMBB fest showcased strong defenses. I ran an infantry-only open ground test that in CMBO would have resulted in a walkover, with complete destruction of the defenders for ~1/5 to 1/3 attacker losses. In CMBB, it resulted in a bloody repulse with 70% attacker casualties, without harming the defenders at all (like, 4 wounded).

I also played one particular armor scenario in fairly open steppe terrain, with outnumbered but capable defenders in the critical armor war. It was a shooting gallery; the defenders won easily. Their infantry was never seriously engaged, as a result of winning the armor war at range.

In another, I ambushed a vehicle column with infantry forces. The early stages of the ambush went fine, bagging a number of vehicles. Infantry dismounting to clear the ambush site did poorly. But vehicles remained a serious threat. I had to pay particular attention to AT assets and whether they would live long enough to keep enemy vehicles at bay.

In CMBO, the vehicles feel more vunerable, the infantry AT weapons are capable late war ones. The infantry feels more robust. In CMBB, the enemy infantry seemed less robust, it could be pinned in particular much more successfully. While having enough to beat the vehicles was harder, and mattered more. Mattered more because even the MGs off light armor could mess up infantry.

I had one highly successful attack, commanded for the most part by another fellow. I just took over the second half of his game, really. It was tank-infantry teams against a village at night, with plenty of T-34s the main attacking force. They were quite capable. The accompanying infantry did its job, but did get hurt here and there. The tanks felt robust, the infantry vunerable, compared to CMBO. The combination "leaned" more heavily on the tanks, relying on their suppression - but worked well enough when that was done.

I saw another fellow command conscript Russians, again working with tanks. Everyone was joking about how brittle they would be, because infantry is already harder to handle, he had to attack, and they were only conscripts. But he managed to win with them. Impressed, I asked him how much of it was the tanks. A lot was the tanks, he said. But he did get fine work out of even conscript infantry by not asking too much of them, not pushing them too hard too fast etc.

I saw another guy attacking in urban terrain, and it was clear to me using uncareful tactics. Rushing places he thought would be easy, treating just having a fair number of squads in the same area as protection enough. He was getting shot to pieces. Several small disasters, failures to cross a single road, failure to wipe out one rubbled building position held by remnants but also supported by some ranged fire. He was obviously having trouble adjusting to CMBB infantry brittleness combined with very built up urban terrain. He had tanks too, though only a few. He was not meshing their actions with the infantry closely enough, or being cautious enough with the infantry alone. In CMBO, he would probably have gotten away with that. In CMBB, he didn't.

For a while at least, I expect running attacks in CMBB will be reasonably challenging, even against the AI. As players get used to the limits of the various arms, I expect that will change and the AI will be mastered again, even defending. AI attacks will probably be easy to handle unless the AI has good armor. Even then, it will need AFVs that many defending AT weapons can't kill from range to do well, as my steppe armor war defense showed.

In human on human games, once people learn the ins and outs of CMBB, I expect that attackers will depend far more on armor superiority (from force type, odds, or the tech era) and winning the armor war to succeed. Other specialties may be found, of course (urban and SMGs are an obvious "curve ball" to the above, e.g.). And there will be more advance planning based on ranged interations, as in "I can't get infantry across area A until there are no MGs left firing in areas B and C".

As for prep fires, I do not expect them to be very effective, especially the middling to low calibers. Those tend to suppress more than kill, especially men in good cover, which defenders at the start typically have. And suppression effects still clear up quickly. 5 minutes into the game, the effect of a medium to low caliber prep barrage will often be small, unless massive numbers of modules are available.

What I do expect may prove a powerful new item is high caliber HE vehicles in direct fire. There are a lot of those specialty critters. The Russians get some pretty huge assault guns. They may shoot relatively slowly and have low ammo loads, but the blast ratings are large. Attackers will rely on big HE vehicles to dig infantry out of cover.

All armor will deal with moving infantry better, because MGs pin - but that doesn't mean they can dig whole companies out of stone buildings or trenches. True tanks will also be valued relatively highly compared to vanilla SP guns, because MG ammo, flexible covered arcs, and depth of ammo loads, will all matter more than in CMBO. You will care about 5 times the MG ammo and the ability to point the gun this way while moving that way, so there will be reasons for a Pz IV long over a StuG.

In CMBO, people have gotten into routines of infantry dominance, attacking by mere bunching up, and cheap TDs for armor. Those habits won't survive the transition to CMBB, is my prediction.

For what it is worth.

[KNac]

Frunze, it will be usefull in custom scenarios & maps.

In the case of QB you depend in several things: the size of the map, the quantity of arty.

However I thing that in CMBB we will have more realitic artillery. What means that it will be:

-cheaper, wider barrages, in more quanity

You will have to guest where your enemy will position his troops. With custom maps (in QBs) it will be easier.

You can make somekind of fireplans too, so if you are good enought in the defense it can be quite usefull (if you guess routes of atack and times). An other thing you must realize is that it can be usefull to close routes of advance/atack, and force your enemy to move his units to other way. The possibilities are infinite

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Frunze:

I don't really understand how this prep barrage function could be used effectively. Before the battle starts, how can you know where the defenders' positions are? Do you just blast the whole map indiscriminately, or areas where the defender seems likely to set up?

Don't think of it as in "I hit troops".

Think of it as in "the best defensive positions are pre-barraged, so the defender must either use second best positions or take his chances to survive the artillery".

This is another thing where CMBO was unrealistically precise, the artillery would be always available, never screw up and never delay substancially. Other wargames throw in a few random factors, and I think that is the right thing to do.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

CMBB: splitting squads - 16 foxholes (or 11 foxholes, depends on how BTS did it)

26