I NEED few advices

[Lt. Wecker]

Damn, I always thought that I knov pretty much about strategies, they are my favorite genre.

BUt than, I started to play combat mission.

'God dammit', I can't even finish the tutorial mission!!!!

My tanks are destroyed in notime, enemy infantry kils mine from 300m away, bu my men doesen't even shoot back (OK, I am overreacting, they respond, naturaly, but they don't do ANY damage, maybe they kills one enemy soldier, but my forces are pinned by that).

So, tell me, where to strart, HOW to start, whats the key to success?

Tnx for all the answers.

P.S.: My English is quite poor, i hope you understand me.

[YankeeDog]

I sounds like you have a lot of experience with other computer strategy games, but not as much experience with real military tactics.

I was in a similar position when I started playing CM about a year ago.

In general, you are going to find that real-world military tactics are going work much better in CM than things you have learned from other computer games. There are some good articles on military tactics and how they apply to CM on the web. I would start at Combat Mission Headquarters (CMHQ). They have a number of good articles and also a good page of links to other CM websites.

Here's the link to CMHQ:

Combat Mission Headquarters

There is also an excellent compilation of Tips and Tricks from this forum compiled by Markshot. This is more useful once you have a basic idea of what you're doing in CM, and you have questions about how to use a specific unit, or deal with a certain situation. Here is a link to this thread:

Anthology of Useful Posts

I imagine some of this stuff will be difficult for you to follow if you are not fluent in English. If you can find any military tactics books in your native language (especially WWII - related), these might also be helpful.

Welcome to the game. As a word of encouragement, I found CM quite difficult the first time I played it. I still find it difficult, but now that I have a basic idea of what I'm doing, it's my favorite game.

Cheers,

YD

[MrSpkr]

What Yankeedog said, but doubled. Here are some things to work with in the meantime.

First, tanks in CMBO are much more fragile than you might imagine, particularly Allied tanks such as the Sherman and its variants. You must scout with infantry to expose and/or kill any enemy anti-tank assets. If you lead with your armor, your armor will die.

Second, infantry is also a bit fragile. Use covered approaches whenever possible. If you have to cross a large open area, drop some off-board artillery smoke on the far side of the open area to cover the move. Get used to working infantry in platoons - a squad performs much better if it is within the command radius of it's HQ unit (red line from HQ unit to squad).

Third, don't engage the enemy piecemeal. By this I mean try to coordinate your attacks so that the defending enemy has to deal with several situations at once, stretching his reserves.

Finally, keep a reserve handy. The ability to commit a fresh platoon or tank or a few more rounds of artillery in the last six turns of the game can make all the difference.

Oh yes, to develope these tactics, try scenarios like "Grafenwohr" (playing as the English) or "Meeting Engagement" (playing as either side).

Good luck, and welcome to the addiction.

Steve

[Redwolf]

As for the tutorial mission, realize that your Axis Rifle 44 squads are much less powerful than the American squads.

On the other hand, tank combat in this 2 on 2 situation is basically random.

In combination, you want your tanks to shoot up the US infantry and avoid the Shermans for pretty far into the game. Use your infantry, especially Panzerfaust-carrying squads and Panzerschrecks to sneak through the woods, trying to get cheap shots at the Shermans.

When the Shermans tangle with your infantry and/or are seperated from each other, then push your tanks (together!) into LOS and shoot at them while they are detracted.

[Lt. Wecker]

Well, actualy I am not so unfamiliar with military tactics. What really bothers me is delay beetwen giving an order and executing it. I know it's the same way for the enemy, but you need time to get used of it.

And when we are talking about military tactics during ww2-I bellive you all know blitzkrieg.

In that kind of assault, tanks were leading the assault, arty, and luftwaffe were just support, but the main goal of infantry was to sorround the enemy.

Tanks were there just to break through the enemy defensive perimeters, their main objective was to make caos beetwen enemy soldiers. They concentrated on one single spot, in many cases wide only as one road -where the defense was weakest.

But in CM, the tanks should stay back. Well, I rather won't say anything more, it's wery possible that I'm wrong, maybe blitzkrieg became useless after normandy.

Thanks for the replys, I'll check upper links too.

[Webs]

Blitzkrieg worked more because the French were uncoordinated at all military scales than for any tactical reason. Also, in 1940, there were no personal AT weapons - you had to kill a tank with a gun.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Lt. Wecker:

And when we are talking about military tactics during ww2-I bellive you all know blitzkrieg.

In that kind of assault, tanks were leading the assault, arty, and luftwaffe were just support, but the main goal of infantry was to sorround the enemy.

Sorry, that is completely backwards. Early in the war (the blitzkrieg phase) the tanks had a lot more freedom than in the CMBO timeframe, but even then the breakthoughs were created by the infantry and the tanks tried to drive through where the defensive line would not resist anymore.

CMBO is fully realistic for its timeframe, and it wasn't much different early in the war.

[Mud]

Blitzkrieg was more of a strategic concept regarding concentration and coordination of force aided by mobility, not a tactical one -- at least, that's my impression. They also supported their armor with Panzergrenadier (mechanized infantry), so it's not like they neglected that arm...

At the CMBO timeframe and front, the Germans have lost air superiority (very much so, which naturally affected their ability to concentrate forces), and are hurting with regards to, well, basically everything. In a CMBO battle, you're unlikely to get a truly massive force ratio unless you specifically ask for an assault /plus/ additional handicapping in your favor. Given that, you need to be much more cautious.

Tanks -- are NOT invulnerable. Infantry AT weapons are fairly common, and depending on type, range, angle of shot... can be very effective. Plus, AT guns can be quite deadly at the short ranges typical of a CMBO battle... Keep them _back_ from non-scouted positions. Do not commit them early before you know what you're dealing with; and when you do, commit in force. 4 tank duels that are 4-on-1 each are far more likely to end in your favor than 4 1-on-1. Armor should be kept mobile once committed; it's not like you have to worry about running out of fuel in CMBO, and sitting in place gives a defender time to set up ambushes or otherwise adjust his dispositions.

Infantry -- your main force usually. Use them to scout, to assault, and to hold. Losing a half or full squad to an ambush is preferable to losing a Sherman. Ideally, this would not be committed in force until a recon screen determines the enemy dispositions. Of course, ideally (from an attacker's POV), you'd have a few hundred turns (hours...) for a battle instead of half an hour to an hour or so.

Artillery -- reach out and touch some one. Should possibly have more shells and/or better fire control than shown in CMBO, but this is somewhat balanced by the combination of borg spotting plus ability to call down fire unseen. (If you want to play a ridiculous battle, go with unrestricted forces, lots of points, and no fog of war. Rockets + TRP = possibly nasty first-turn.) Light arty goes for suppression, heavier for killing. A good arty player will time it such that his arty will be suppressing/killing shortly before his assault force makes contact so as to minimize recovery time available.

[CombinedArms]

To put the same points made above slightly differently, the key to successfuly tactics in CM is a "Combined Arms" approach (hence my nickname.) That means highly coordinated use of the various tactical capabilities of infantry, heavy weapons (MGs, onboard mortars, bazookas, etc.), off-board artillery, tanks, sometimes fighter bombers, and even specialized tools like demo charges and assault boats. It takes time to learn to use these in a synchronized way, and to learn the unique strengths and weaknesses of each specific unit and weapon. Expect to lose a lot before you begin to master these elements. The baseline element of a combined arms battle, though, is certainly infantry (as in real life). And mutually supportive tank-infantry cooperation is one of the keys to success.

Blitzkreig was really the exploitation phase (tanks charging through the enemy rear) of penetrations initially won by infantry or by tank-infantry teams (of course supported by artillery.) This is perhaps easier to see when you think of the Normandy campaign and its followup. For there the slug-it-out-for-small gains infantry (with tank) battles--followed only after three months of hard fighting by a blitzkreig exploitation phase--is clearer to see. The French wilted so fast in 1940 that the first phase of the attack became almost invisible.

Anyway, you're rarely going to get to fight a purely exploitation battle in CM, so it's important to learn to slug your way through a well prepared defensive position . For that task, I'd recommend playing several times the scenario "Valley of Trouble," an original demo of CM that is not on the CD but can be downloaded from this site or from the excellent CM Scenario Depot:

http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/fraMenuItems.htm

Expect that it will take some time to learn to play this game. I've been at it for a year and a half now and am still learning. This game has incredible depth and historical realism, so stick with it and see what it has to teach you.

[ July 09, 2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[YankeeDog]

[Edit: Much of this has already been covered by Combined Arms and Mud (they beat me to the post!), so part of what is below is redundant]

Lt Wecker:

I think the source of your confusion lies in the difference between military doctrine on the tactical level and military doctrine on the operational level. CM largely depicts tactical level conflicts. Operational concerns are largely out of is scope (if you want to try a great operational level game, check out Airborne Assault!!).

As you mentioned and Redwolf briefly alluded to, German "Blitzkreig" doctrine certainly did call for the use of armored columns independent of conventional infantry formations to cut deep into the enemy's rear areas, while the infantry followed up these armored formations to solidify the gains made.

Especially early in the war, these armored columns could operate successfully with little or no infantry support. Once into the enemy rear areas, there would presumably be very little in the way of prepared defenses, so AT Guns were less of a problem. Later in the war, new technologies such as lightweight, man-portable infantry anti-tank weapons, and the use of more sophisticated defensive doctrine (examples: the "defense in depth" concepts and the mobile reserve) made it more necessary for armored columns to have at least some infantry support in the form of motorized, or even better armored, infantry.

There are very good examples of this need for infantry support during the German counterattack attempts in the Normandy Campaign - the allies used artillery and other assets to 'strip' the attacking armored columns of their infantry support. As a result, German Panzers find themselves behind Allied lines in close terrain with no infantry support. While the German Panthers and Tigers were superior in both armor and armament to the allied Shermans and M10s that opposed them, the German Tanks have to stay buttoned up for fear of small arms and artillery fire. As a result, the Allied tanks are able to outmaneuver them, and the Panzer columns are destroyed or forced to retreat.

In basic terms, German tactical 'blitzkreig' doctrine called for (1) the probing and exploration of an enemy defensive line in order to discover a undefended, or at least a weakly defended point, (2) the exertion of maximum pressure on this point (known as the Schwerpunkt, or literally "Heavy Point"), (3) once enemy resistance at the Schwerpunkt had been largely defeated, the infantry was to 'roll up' the enemy line on either side of the breakthrough to widen and secure it while armored columns pressed forward into the enemy rear areas, seeking to destroy support assets (artillery batteries, supply dumps, command posts, etc.), and also to prevent the enemy from establishing a second defensive line just behind the first.

To succeed, the Bliztkreig attack absolutely relies on speed to keep the enemy off balance and prevent him from reestablishing a solid defensive line. This is why the tank columns have to press foward during the exploitation phase of the attack - 'straight-leg' infantry (i.e., infantry without motorized transport) would slow down the tanks and give the enemy time to react and contain the breakthrough. Straight leg infantry is used to gain the initial breakthrough at the Schwerpunkt, and then to solidify control of areas after the armored columns have passed through.

So in one sense, you are absolutely right - Blitzkreig doctrine does call for the depolyment of armored columns far ahead of the main infanty advance. Improvements in defensive tactics and weapons in the late war mean that these tanks need at least some infantry support that can keep up with them to effectively exploit without undue losses, but the basic concept remains the same.

This is all operational level doctrine, though. As mentioned before, CM does not really depict tactics at this level. Most CM scenarios depict what happens during part of the attack phase of an operation. In other words, in CM you're usually looking at the assault on the Schwerpunkt, not the exploitation phase of the operation. Even in the early war, the Germans did not generally send tanks foward into a known area of enemy resistance without infantry support to scout and help deal with AT threats.

It's all a question of the scale. At the operational level, armored columns comprised of mostly armor and perhaps some motorized/armored infantry can (and doctrinally speaking should) exploit ahead of the main infantry body. At the tactical, tank-on-tank level (what CM depicts), it is generally unwise to send tanks into areas of possible resistance without infantry ahead of them to scout things out.

CM can depict situations other than simple Attack/Defend scenarios, and there are many scenarios out there that do this. Meeting Engagements, for example, could represent battles between an attacking force that has broken through the intial enemy defensive line, and is in the process of exploting the breakthough, and a defensive force sent to counterattack and contain the breakthrough.

If you want to see what tanks are like in the 'exploitation' phase of an operation, give yourself a company of Tanks. Give your opponent mostly unarmored vehicles (trucks and such) representing a rear-area installation, and a light defensive force - maybe a couple of platoons of infantry and perhaps a couple of AA guns or armored vehicles that just happened to be in the area. In general, you'll find that your tanks do quite well at smashing this kind of light resistance. You might lose a tank or two to bazooka (or Panzershreck/Faust) fire, but you'll cause a lot more damage than that. If you give the Tanks a bit of motorized/armored infantry support, you'll find that you can do even better.

I hope this makes things more clear. I'm sure some grog will be along soon to correct my gross oversimplification of military doctrine; As a pre-emptive defence I state that I was only attempting to give a very basic picture if the difference between operational and tactical doctrine. There are, of course, exceptions to all of the above, and there are also differences between the doctrines of the various combatants.

Cheers,

YD

[ July 09, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Lt. Wecker]

Huh......looks like things are/were very different than I thought.....thank for the explanations.

Oh....I am progresing with tutorial mission too, I would beat the enemy (with germans or Americans)if there would be only 3 more turns more. My tanks are now staying behind, while my bazookas or panzerschrenk teams are triing to sneak as close as possible to enemy tanks, one on the left flank, the other on the right, others squads are distracting enemy infantry meanawhile.

When enemy tanks are burning, primary goal of my troops is to eliminate emnemy AT infantry, and after that-my tanks rushes in. I keep all platoons near the platoon HQ, of course, it seems that they really are more effective.

Only 3 more turns!

[CMplayer]

A guaranteed win in the tutorial against the AI is to send your tanks around behind the other guy, through the town. It's gamey, but it works.

[zukkov]

sounds like you're getting the hang of it wrecker. die and learn, that's my motto! lol.. just one thing i'd like to add. on the attack, use the terrain to help mask your advance. try to isolate points of attack with artillery and other assets to keep your opponent from reinforcing the area you are assaulting. keeping your opponent pinned while you have freedom of movement is a very important part of any tactical mission. anyway, good luck, and good hunting!

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

A guaranteed win in the tutorial against the AI is to send your tanks around behind the other guy, through the town. It's gamey, but it works.

Gamey- ha! I thought doctrine was "one tank in the enemy rear is worth 10 to his front." Besides, there would be plenty of risk in doing such a move, esp. getting your Panzers caught on the move by the fast-turret Shermans.

Lt.Wecker: don't forget that there's really no benefit in closing in towards enemy infantry within the 200m danger zone (the max.range of Bazooka/PIAT/Panzerschreck (schreck is actually 220m). The tank's power lies in being able to stand-off and blast away w/ immunity to small arms. Getting in too close also increases the risk of the Tank Commander being killed (if you are unbuttoned).

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by zukkov:

sounds like you're getting the hang of it wrecker. die and learn, that's my motto! lol.. just one thing i'd like to add. on the attack, use the terrain to help mask your advance. try to isolate points of attack with artillery and other assets to keep your opponent from reinforcing the area you are assaulting. keeping your opponent pinned while you have freedom of movement is a very important part of any tactical mission. anyway, good luck, and good hunting!

It's worth noting that this principleof "keeping your opponent pinned while you have freedom of movement" also applies to defense. On defense, if you can hold and delay your opponent by defending a tough terrain feature, it gives you time to shift your forces (behind cover) to the point of attack, where you can then gain local superiority and stomp him. Anyway, that's how it works when all goes well. Victory often goes to the side that either achieves the greatest mobility or succeeds in thwarting the opponent's mobility. This requires great tactical skill, since the opponent is trying to achieve the same goals and because every situation is slightly different.

Now, if you've managed to win playing the Axis, try it again from the Allied side.

[ July 10, 2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Psyched]

Ditto to everything that's been said, but I'd add one other thing.

The biggest lesson I've learned in this game is that being really aggressive in assaults rarely pays off. It might be alright against the AI, but against any half-decent human player, it's usually a mistake. Patience is critical. Temper your urge to strike too quickly. Focus instead on coordination of forces, then strike only when the time is right.

Moving any valued unit into an area that has not been adequately scouted, smoked, or bombarded first usually results in a lot of dead soldiers and scurrying crews fleeing from their abandoned hardware.

Just my 2 cents

[Silvio Manuel]

I agree, being cautious usually pays off, unless the scenario specifies that the mission is time-intensive. You really need to use half-squads as scouts to trigger ambushes that would otherwise wipe out a whole platoon...also you can find bazookas, AT guns etc, or at least have Infantry close enough to suppress such targets when they attack you tanks (approx. less then 250m).

Being utterly paranoid about possible AT gun locations is a good skill (the Fire & Manuever scenario that comes on the CD is good training of tanks vs. AT guns). Also...the same goes for infantry...when you assault, you need lots of suppression (maybe near the area you want to occupy) and either more suppression or smoke to block the LOS of shooters on your flanks.

[Lt. Wecker]

I finally finished tutorial mission, I was playing as allied-total victory, only 11 casualties. That's quite good, isn't it?

I was very close to finishing another mission-I dont't remember it's name right now-the goal is to push through the forest, filled with enemy soldiers.

And in that mission, you can't do much without smoke and artilery fire, and you have only 10 turns, so you must be quite fast.

Those bastards kicked my ass out there becouse only one stupid move, I moved one platoon too fast into enemy LOS and BOOOOOOOOOOM.

Great game, can't wait the russian front.

[OG_Gleep]

Many people brought up really interesting points about the Blitzkrieg. Every so often established military battlefield tactics become obsolete due to technology, and every so often an Army demonstrates better combat theories in combat. Such was the case with the Blitzkrieg. Unfortunately the "bad guys" were the ones who came up with this one. The Allies came to the table ready to fight WWI again, and were basically caught flat-footed. This is why the results were so dramatic. If the Allies had developed their '44 tactics in '34, there might not be a Combat Mission, or any WW2 game for that matter. With their technology and military ideals being equal to their enemy in '16's, Germany couldn't do in 4 years what its '40's

There are some doctrines that are applicable in every conflict. I think the Blitzkrieg (the broad underlying concept of combined arms) is our modern day Sun-Tzu lessons.

I wonder what the next evolution in Warfare will be. I don't think, and would even go so far to say as: I know, that we haven't seen an evolution since WW2. I believe we have seen several revolutions. Taking Nuclear Stigmata out of the equation (I don't think the end of the world is a viable military tactic), I can't imagine what the next WW1-WW2 level evolution in warfare will be. What do you guys think? I am leaning toward something that would come out of a Sci-Fi book, or a bad Star Wars Episode.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by OG_Gleep:

The Allies came to the table ready to fight WWI again, and were basically caught flat-footed. This is why the results were so dramatic.

In my opinion this a often stated sentiment that needs to be somewhat "conditioned" by a closer look at the state of the British and French armies in 1940. The British regulars (in the BEF, home, and abroad in "The Empire") were to my understanding completely motorized, unlike the bulk of the German army. The French 7th Army on the extreme left flank, adjacent to the BEF, was indended for a war of manuever, and the armored divisions kept in reserve possessed tanks like the Somua and Char B1 that outclassed every panzer available at the time. Unfortuantely, the supreme commander holed himself up in a chataeu near Paris to be close to his political supporters (as Raynaud was trying to have him dismissed) that lacked radio communication to the front! Many opportunities to react against the breakouts were lost by poor communications between the supreme command and the various armies, by shear bad luck (Biot dying in a car crash), and by outdated and bad generalship (Huntzinger's withdrawl widening Guderian's breach and his dismantling of a armored division to disperse amongst his infantry).

The Allies were looking to fight a "modern" mechanized war in northern France, Belgium, and (on a contigency basis) Holland, but in their doctrine, training, and coordination they were outclassed. Ironically, a key here may have been Hitler's political support of Guderian and the panzer arm against some conservatism in the OKH. And then his chance happening upon Manstein at a field excerise, after his "sickle stroke" met with little favor from Brauchitsch. Many little historical accidents come together in an interesting (but tragic) fashion in 1939 and 1940.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

... , the supreme commander holed himself up in a chataeu near Paris ... Many opportunities to react against the breakouts were lost by poor communications ...

I read some statement about this.

Before the German attack that French commander was asked; -"How long will it take an order from you to reach the front line?"

-"Not long, usually it will get there within 48 hrs..."

About assault agressiveness in CM;

The lesson I learned was to not be overcautious, sitting back and try to exchance rifle fire at 200m, but to really move close (in superior number).

The first games I played my infantry ran out of ammo without being able to dislocate the defenders, because i was slugging it out at longer range.

Now I assault as soon as I can suppress the defenders while the assaulters move in.

Cheers

Olle

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

The lesson I learned was to not be overcautious, sitting back and try to exchance rifle fire at 200m, but to really move close (in superior number).

The first games I played my infantry ran out of ammo without being able to dislocate the defenders, because i was slugging it out at longer range.

Now I assault as soon as I can suppress the defenders while the assaulters move in.

Unfortunately that is CMBO tactics only. the ability to fire from run is overemphasized, long-range rifle fire is laughably weak for the ammo spent, compared to what the SMGs spend at closer range.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by redwolf:

... the ability to fire from run is overemphasized, long-range rifle fire is laughably weak for the ammo spent, ...

Just to make it clear;

I have stationary units do the suppression while a few squads assault.

I wholeheartedly agree on the FP vs ammo issue.

Squads use up ammo points at the same rate at all distances, no matter if it's only a single repeater rifle/LMG or the entire squad that shoot...

Cheers

Olle

[Fieldmarshall]

Hey are you the same Olle Peterson who is on the Cafe Tropico forums?