Extremely Gamey Tactics question

[tecumseh]

I am curious if the following would work:

I am playing defence on a map with a fair bit of cover. I spend lots of points on arty (big as I can for the rules being played, plus onboard mortars), trps and mines. Plus a few vet hetzers + ostwind and a few platoons of SMG infantry. The rest on vet sharpshooters.

I place the infantry hidden in a position at the back of the map to rush each flag on turn 29, to contest them. I put a split "b" squad on each flag at the start to give me global moral.

I keep the hetzers and ostwind together in a safe group and try to get any kills I can, but only at minimal risk, popping up and reversing and using slopes to increase the hetzer armour. I use trps to increase my accuracy of first shots. The armour retreats as the enemy advance. I retreat them off the map if things get risky.

I drop all the arty and mortars I can on the approaching infantry. It is risk-free and costs me no victory points. In return his arty is useless. Any kills from mines are a bonus and cost me no victory points. His infantry has nothing to shoot at.

Sharpshooters take potshots and retreat, eventually hiding at the back of the map or exiting off the side. They spot for the arty (using trps).

I contest the flags, using smoke from onboard mortars to cover the dash.

As a result the victory is based on any infantry I lose at the end vs all the kills I get throughout the battle. I win.

Would this work? Probably not. Aside from being pretty repulsive, i'm sure there are major flaws I've overlooked. But I wonder what would you do against someone playing like this?

[ July 17, 2002, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[GenSplatton]

But I wonder what would you do against someone playing like this?

Wonder why someone plays a game in a manner that makes it no fun whatsoever. And probably add them to my "never play again" list. I know that may sound a bit harsh, but that's the answer. Sounds like winning has become more important than fun. Considering CM is a game, it sounds kind of sad really. But, you'd probably get the win and get to log it on some ladder, so it'd probably make you happy. And I wouldn't bitch about it. I congratulate you on your win and move on to a game that was a bit more exciting. And, by the way, if your opponent uses Green troops to try to overwhlem you with numbers, I guarantee what you propose would work, even without moving your infantry way in the back. A 240mm shell will panic any green troops within 50m easy. With well placed TRPs, you could have his whole force panicked within a few turns.

[tecumseh]

Sorry, I should clarify.

I am not interested in another debate on gaminess, nor do I need to be warned against playing like this (I never would - like you say, it would be dull). I am interested in why it hypothetically would/wouldn't work and what you'd do to teach someone who played like this a lesson, on the battlefield.

Also on arty, lets say its panther-76 rules or something similar, so nothing over 150mm.

[GenSplatton]

In that case, the question would be how well you guessed on your TRPs. Obviously, if I manage to go a direction you chose not to account for due to a limited number of TRPs, I may reach the VLs long before turn 29. Your rush to contest the flags therefore would be either a)decimated or called off awarding me the points from the flags. If you chose correctly, I'm still not sure it would work based on the Panther 76 rules. I'm not sure, if a person stayed spread out, how many regular or even vet troops you could truly keep pinned down for 29 turns. I wouldn't think you'd have enough artillery rounds to go around that long if the opponent was moving forward aggressively. They would still prbably be able to reach the VL in fairly good shape. If on the other hand they laid back, you may have enough to hold out. But, like I said before, if the opponent goes Green trying to get a numerical advanatge, it would work big time, even with 150mm artillery. They panic easy and can never be won back.

[tecumseh]

Good points.

Bear in mind I would have trps on the flags waiting for you. I guess what it would come down to would be:

a) could I keep my "rush" platoons hidden in range of the flags ready for turn 28 without you spotting and killing them, as you move beyond the flags hunting for me

whether i could lay enough smoke to dispute the flags before my men became panicked

Both are pretty dubious

[Stalin's Organ]

I'd play using the end-game randomiser

[Priest]

I doubt it would work against a good player. Simply because they are going to take the flags well before turn 20 if you are not opposing them strongly. Hell I would have Stuarts/Greyhounds/ Dailmers/234's/Lynx's at the flags not to mention my first wave of infantry by definition is spread out greatly trying to find you MLR. I would push right to the flags easily as would many many others. And like many others would push right beyond the flags, hell I do not even have the flags turned on in my battles! Still an armoured recce group would easily beat this, and an average to good player would hit your infantry as they continued the push. Just my opinion though but it does not sound like too strong an idea.

[MGONZOM]

Priest I would have to agree with you whole heartly. If there was no contact and I can push to your MLR I would. No experienced player would sit in place unless the position is a solid defense... Besides I would be licking my chops for an ambush and catch his behind running for the flag.

My question back to your qeston is did you kick his butt in the PBEM or did you just sit there and let him run to the flag?

Michael "Gonzo" Gonzalez

[Priest]

Not to hijack the thread, but hey Gonzo what is up?

[CrapGame]

If you retreat units off the map, does it cost you vicory points???

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by CrapGame:

If you retreat units off the map, does it cost you vicory points???

No, b/c they haven't been killed or captured. You just lose Global Morale.

IF you are losing big-time, it pays to retreat off the map, as the doubled-pts. for your surrendered troops is a killer.

[ July 18, 2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[CrapGame]

So, even though it does not cost you victory points, it does cost you global morale. Assuming you are moving as many units as he suggests off the map, your forces will autosurrender, will they not?

[GenSplatton]

Eventually, if you move enough off. A key to such a withdraw, such as when you are losing badly and are just withdrawing troops so as not to lose them, is to time it so they all run off during the same 60 second turn. That way, when the autosurrender comes, hopefully few to none will remain to be captured. This can be a key in trying to keep a loss to a tactical vs a major or total (speaking from experience here!). But, in this case, running a few snipers and FOs off the map won't force it to drop nearly enough to auto surrender, especially if no casualties are being taken.

[Redwolf]

It even works to play for victory points only, killing as much of the attacker as you can, and then retreat (all at once to prevents surrender of leftovers).

It is proper punishment for scenario designers (including the Quickbattle generator) for not placing enough flags on the maps.

[xerxes]

No, it would be a totally gamey, cheap move. Same as blowing all the bridges in scenario where it's easy to do and it automatically wins the game. Same as intentionally destroying offmap units.

Anyone who pulls anything of this nature gets on the "never play before hell freezes over" list.

There's a huge difference between a clever strategist who does something you never considered and someone who's figured out how to "game" the system.

[Dirtweasle]

I have my doubts this system of play would even work, even forgeting for a moment that it would be a red flag gamey tactic and you would not get many repeat player even outside of the ladder play universe.

You are describing an attack / defend senario right? I think against any experienced player you'd have a hard time with this.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by redwolf:

It even works to play for victory points only, killing as much of the attacker as you can, and then retreat (all at once to prevents surrender of leftovers).

It is proper punishment for scenario designers (including the Quickbattle generator) for not placing enough flags on the maps.

Care to expand upon this? How do you come to this conclusion? I suppose it makes a certain sense if all you are doing is playing to gather points at any cost. But why even play a WWII tactical simulation then?

[Redwolf]

Hey, guys I never used this tactics and don't plan to.

But fact is that there are too few flags on maps, both in scenarios and in the Quickbattle generator. The objective is defined as "if you kill enough enemies and have few losses, don't care for ground". That is what the scenario says.

If you want the player to fight for the ground, then just fix the scenario and deal.

[ July 18, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Olle Petersson]

My main problem, generally, when playing, is how to perform a thorough yet swift reconnaissance.

The aforementioned a/c rush would, in my experience, most probably miss most of the forward sharpshooters.

This would allow the defenders artillery to hit with some precision anyway.

Another option for a German defender would be to use lots of rocket artillery. That would cover half of the map and cause hits even if fired totally unobserved.

Cheers

Olle

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by xerxes:

[snips]

There's a huge difference between a clever strategist who does something you never considered and someone who's figured out how to "game" the system.

Only to the extent that the system fails to punish or reward historical tactics. CM:BO is better than most in this respect.

Personally, I cannot see why there are quite so many shrieks of "Gamier than last season's partridges!" from people. Trying to control an area of ground defensively by the use of fire and a few maneouvring units rather than by physical occupation makes me think of "tactics of space and gap".

Where I see the proposed method coming unglued is that mines and sharpshooters are badly over-priced for their effectiveness. If there is really lots of cover on the map, I also expect that an attacking force with a reasonable proportion of aggressively-handled infantry will cause the proposed defence a very great deal of grief. I doubt that such heavy reliance on indirect fire would do the killing job necessary, even with lots of TRPs, unless the attacker massed his men in "sucker cover" -- the AI can be relied upon to do it, but a human might not.

Personally, I'd want to see at least a few MG teams to add solidity to the defence. I also suspect that, given that Wirbelwinds don't strike me as especially survivable, such a defence might suffer considerable trouble from an attacker who had made a reasonable investment in light armour (half-tracks, carriers or scout cars). Fast armour (Cromwells, Stuarts) using smoke boldly might prove a problem, too.

All the best,

John.

[ July 18, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Where I see the proposed method coming unglued is that mines and sharpshooters are badly over-priced for their effectiveness.

Thanks for the reply John. Yeah I agree with you, but I'm sure you can see what i'm getting at by buying mines: no matter what happens they cost me no victory points. If your enemy has used nothing but mines, all your infantry and tanks are nothing but potential losses - they've got nothing to shoot at. Your arty becomes worthless, while your opponents arty becomes gold. That's the idea anyway...

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I doubt that such heavy reliance on indirect fire would do the killing job necessary

Say I lose 60 points on the last turn rushing the 3 flags and my opponent loses 10. That means all my arty, mines, hetzers and sharpshooters only have to do 51 points damage for me to win. That is not much killing at all.

The problem with this gamey idea is that you NEED to dispute the flags. Otherwise you are relying on killing a certain number of enemy to counteract the points you lose by not contesting the flags. That means you need to take risks...that means you need combined arms...then the whole thing goes back to normal tactics.

After reading peoples posts and thinking about it more i think there is no way to dispute the flags reliably with this system. You will be discovered before turn 29, or you will hide so far away that getting to the flags will get your men panicked, no matter how much smoke. So i agree this extreme system is both lame AND flawed

[ July 18, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[GenSplatton]

So i agree this extreme system is both lame AND flawed

Gamey yes, but I still say it would NOT be flawed against green troops. I've seen it work, though the artillery was larger than 150mm. 240mm I think was used against me in a tourney game where I was forced to use green troops. No matter where the artillery hit, no matter if it caused casualties or not, anything within the same area code panicked and would not move the rest of the game. I didn't bitch about the tactic, it was a good one to use given the tourney setup requirements. But it did suck and was not fun in the least. I actually surrendered long before the game was up. Firm believer in the theory "if it ain't fun, why bother?" So, don't necessarily write the tactic off. It can be effective under the right circumstances.

[Frunze]

Even with TRPs, I think you'd need some force that'd stop the enemy at least briefly so you could call artillery down on them. Nobody with sense is going to sit there and get walloped just because there's a flag there.

[CrapGame]

It sounds to me like nothing but a sure way to get put on a list of people that no one will ever play again. There is no element of skill involved, and it sure as hell doesn't even sound like much fun, particularly the guarantee of being nicknamed a "flag rusher".

[tecumseh]

Thanks for that Crap