Tactical Decision Game

[ScoutPL]

OK here we go. The first game is posted on my webite. www.geocities.com/fpd131 Enjoy!

[Dirtweasle]

Very cool of you to do this, thanks!

[ScoutPL]

Thanks for the contribution Dirtweasle! I only see one problem with your plan. Maybe some of the other guys will go to the site and see it too, thats what we're here for right? I'll let you know what I think may be presenting a problem for you after we get some other responses.

No problem with the map change Dirt W. Just for FYI though, a military map only has five colors on it (there wasnt any water on the CM map so I didnt get to use any blue). I'm no artist so you kinda have to use your imagination a little. I thought about not even including the scenario file, requiring you to do your planning off of a bad, possibly inaccurate, map, just like a real field commander. But figured most guys wouldn't quite go for that.

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-18-2001).]

[ScoutPL]

Another contribution, this one from Mr. Tankersley. Be sure to check it out, this guy does a great job!

I do have one criticism though but we'll see if anybody else chimes in first.

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-18-2001).]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Thanks for the contribution Dirtweasle! I only see one problem with your plan. Maybe some of the other guys will go to the site and see it too, thats what we're here for right? I'll let you know what I think may be presenting a problem for you after we get some other responses.

No problem with the map change Dirt W. Just for FYI though, a military map only has five colors on it (there wasnt any water on the CM map so I didnt get to use any blue). I'm no artist so you kinda have to use your imagination a little. I thought about not even including the scenario file, requiring you to do your planning off of a bad, possibly inaccurate, map, just like a real field commander. But figured most guys wouldn't quite go for that.

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-18-2001).]

Great, yes I'm very interested to hear comments.

After going back the the CM scenario map in the editor and looking at the LOS solutions I would need for instance with the mortars to lay smoke, I agree there might be a problem or two... not to mention an ammo problem if they only have 2 smoke shells a piece. Had I just used the more realistic for the experience map you made I think now I actually might have done things a little differently to tell the truth.

[ScoutPL]

Well since I'm not getting swamped with solutions and no one's burning up the forum with comments about the solutions posted so far, I'm going to go ahead and make my comments so we can move on to the next game.

Keep in mind guys, that there is no such thing as the perfect solution to a tactical problem. Friction on the battlefield will make every situation have a different outcome, no matter how many times you do it over.

I dont want to sound like I'm picking the "best" solution or ridiculing anyone's work. That is the furtherest thing from my true intentions. What I want to do is offer some observations and advice that will hopefully refine each contributors game play and in turn increase their playing proficiency and enjoyment. All of my observations will be based on what I have learned are the rules, principles and tenets of land warfare, rather then my own biases or opinions. But then no one's perfect, so if I fail to meet the intent here, allow me to apologize before hand.

That said lets look at the solutions.

First up, Leland's. Mr. Tankersly's solution was alot like the one I had. (I play all of the scenario's before posting them in order to hopefully avoid any huge Gameplay errors.) With a plan similiar to his I was able to force a german surrender within 15 turns with only 5 friendly KIA. But then it was against the AI and IMHO playing against the AI (even at +3) is like playing against a freshman ROTC student who just wants the army to pay for his college (in other words ridiculously simple).

But back to Leland's solution. The only comment I have deals with his supporting attack by his SBF element.

http://www.geocities.com/fpd131/scraps.html

I think by keeping his support and assault elements so far apart (the image only shows his support element and their supporting attack to seize a SBF position, the assault element is a few hundreds meters to the north of the road) I think Tankersley is violating the principles of security, mass and simplicity.

Security: by keeping his elements so far apart they cant support one another if one runs into trouble, mainly the support element, since it will conduct its attack first so that it can support the assault element's attack. If it were to run into serious trouble the assault element would be too far away to help. Also route 1 exposes the support element to unnecessary danger from objective zeppo.

Mass: for pretty much the same reason. Mass doesnt mean you have to keep all of your forces crammed together but they should be able to achieve mass by their ability to be mutually supporting.

Simplicity: The red lines I drew in the image above show my plan for the supporting element. As you can see its pretty simple and keeps them within easy supporting distance of the assault element. By going straight for Objective Zeppo you seize the key terrain right away and immediately gain the initiative. In my opinion seizing Objective Harpo is a waste of valuable time and assets and throws away the element of surprise.

Lets move on to Chris's solution.

Basically Chris went the other way with his plan, he kept the entire company together, planning to use bounding overwatch all the way to the objective. Though a plan that would surely work I'm afraid it would lead to unneccesary casualties for a number of reasons.

1. Too much mass. Keeping his entire company together makes it too susceptible to arty fires and a lucky tank or AC attack.

2. Limited support. Each time a SBF element halts and setups it will be limited in the amount of time it can suppress the objective and its "fan" or area it can suppress. Since the main body will be moving so close to the SBF position they will quickly become susceptible to friendly fire, forcin gthe SBF position to cease fire or shift their fires off portions of the objective if not the entire objective. SBF positions should always be placed at a 45* to 90* angle from the assault element's route. This way they can suppress the objective throughout the assault elements movement (this becomes very important during breaches and the seizing of footholds) plus once the attack begins they should be able to shift fires very slowly, keeping their fires just ahead of the assault element as they advance across the objective.

3. Lack of flexibility. By committing his entire company to one route and course of action, Chris severly restricts his options.

Last of all Dirtweasles plan. Dirt goes the other way in SBF positions. Take a look att this cutout.

http://www.geocities.com/fpd131/scraps.html

Weasles fist SBF position on the left (Objective I) is a good one except that the rest of his attack puts it in serious danger of sustaining more then a few casualties from friendly fire. This is an easy mistake to make when you're not used to seeing the effects of real bullets. They dont stop for much except concrete, solid earth, or gravity. And with the volume of fire that will be pouring out of his other SBF position and from his assaults on Objectives IV and V, friendly fire casualties on Objective I or III are a distinct possibility. Great maneuver plan, it just takes a little experience to see the little things. CM doesnt do a very good job of modeling friendly fire, probably because they didnt want to lose the arcade crowd. If it were properly modeled alot of guys would be paying more attention to these tutorials then whining about how much the grognards hate gamey players. But I digress.

Hope you guys enjoyed this one. I'll have another one (bigger and better) posted in a few days.

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-20-2001).]

[L.Tankersley]

Thanks again for doing this. A few comments on your critique:

First, your link to the "scraps" document gives me a permission violation so I can't see your picture.

When I was developing my plan, I was troubled by the separation of the elements also. Early versions only had 2 squads and the Platoon HQ with the SBF element, leaving the third squad in the assault element under the Company HQ. But as the routes took shape I decided I might need that extra squad with the support element, particularly for attacking ZEPPO.

HARPO came about as an intermediate step on the way to ZEPPO. I didn't like the idea of crossing the wall and wheatfields immediately in front of the southern setup area, because I was afraid of MG or other fire coming from the tall buildings pinning the support element down before they got anywhere. I was also shying away from the east-west road, possibly more than necessary. Route 1 is pretty well covered from the crossroads until you get to HARPO, and once there the mortars could use HE or smoke against enemy forces at the crossroads as well as supporting the attack on ZEPPO.

I can't see your red routes, but I'm guessing that your solution has the support element doing more of a direct assault on ZEPPO moving along the side of the road, possibly with the assault element moving a bit further south in the early going so as to be able to assist if necessary?

My solution is admittedly "gamey" in that I know that playing this scenario out in CM I won't run into serious coordination or control problems that would make this scheme difficult to implement in Real Life . I will try to be more honest in future games.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Simon Fox]

Scout,

I just thought I'd let you know that I thought it was an interesting exercise. Though you only had a few responses I am sure there were plenty of others who, like myself, just didn't have the time to spell out their thoughts in the detail of those who responded.

------------------

"Stand to your glasses steady,

This world is a world of lies,

Here's a toast to the dead already,

And here's to the next man to die."

-hymn of the "Double Reds"

[Dirtweasle]

Thanks again Scout. You are right, I never gave one thought at all to the cross fire problem you saw. Only friendly fire I've seen in this game has been very rare, and certainly not over shots from automatic weapons going into troops across from each other.

[chrisl]

I also didn't think much about crossfire, since CM doesn't model it. That might be a good case for trying to get it modeled into a future version, as massed fires work just fine in CM, even when there are friendlies very nearby. I did recognize the arty problem, but figured the defenders would be unlikely to bring it down fast enough (though they could possibly predict where it should fall). A bunker or pillbox could certainly hang up my plan, especially parked at the gap in the bocage. I actually tried another version, where I sent troops to set up a fire base in the houses at the beginning of the town, but they got chewed up trying to go through the bocage, and I decided to try a plan through the woods.

And it was certainly fun to do. It's the first time I've enjoyed playing against the AI since I played my first PBEM (when the Gold Demo came out). It's nice to think of it as a small tactical problem rather than trying to beat the AI.

------------------

"I HATE THIS GAME, YOU AND THIS SCENARIO" -jd

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Dirtweasle]

Just thinking to myself that this is related to the "grazing fire" issue for MGs. MG fire now seems to be simply a point fire weapon instead for firing streams of fire across a given area.

In this scenario, if the defender had the ability to have his MG staked out fields of fire it would be very tough to get across the wheatfields for instance. Wouldn't matter that they can really only "see" 45 meters or whatever into the wheatfields. If you put a MG in either corner you'd seriously mess up the advance of the LGOPs. Those MGs would have their shots carry quite away across. Ouch!

[This message has been edited by Dirtweasle (edited 03-21-2001).]

[ScoutPL]

Hey guys!

TDG number 2 is posted. www.geocities.com/fpd131

Check it out, dont be afraid. This one is bigger and better. Should be a real challenge.

[L.Tankersley]

Great! Only problem is, the zip archive doesn't include the .cmb scenario (map) file.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[ScoutPL]

Ouch, you're right I knew I was forgetting something! I'll get it in there as soon as I can.

Ok its taken care of. Zip file is now complete. Thanks, Leland

[This message has been edited by ScoutPL (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Guest ciks]

One suggestion: please make .doc files as .rtf so Mac users can open them withot trouble.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Hey guys!

TDG number 2 is posted. www.geocities.com/fpd131

Check it out, dont be afraid. This one is bigger and better. Should be a real challenge.

Got it, it's going to be a while b/4 I get it back to you this time though.

[chrisl]

Like Dirtweasel said-- this will take some time to set up.

------------------

"I HATE THIS GAME, YOU AND THIS SCENARIO" -jd

[ScoutPL]

Tankersley's TDG #2 solution is posted! Check it out!

Awefully risky Leland! Think you might be leaving your back door open, particularly if the Germs arrive before you think they will!

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Awefully risky Leland! Think you might be leaving your back door open, particularly if the Germs arrive before you think they will!

Mmmm, could be. But I don't want to surrender the crossing to the German reinforcements and let them defend in the town. If we arrive at about the same time, we'll have a meeting engagement east of the village which I still prefer to assaulting the Germans in prepared defensive positions. If our reconnaissance is really off or we're delayed in our advance so the Germans are already across the river and possibly in a hasty defense at HUCK, then we might have a tough row to hoe. But I think I'd still prefer this to a frontal attack across the obstacles in the face of German infantry, AT guns and tanks.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[ScoutPL]

Good thing to keep in mind may be that the majority of the german defenses in the town will still be oriented to the west... That is the direction from which the germans originally expected the attack and with only a understrength company, that german commander may be relying on the obstacle belt more then bullets for his flank security.

Just playing devils advocate... just think of me as that pissed company commander who figures the BC just sent you down to babysit.

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Good thing to keep in mind may be that the majority of the german defenses in the town will still be oriented to the west... That is the direction from which the germans originally expected the attack and with only a understrength company, that german commander may be relying on the obstacle belt more then bullets for his flank security.

Well, if they're oriented to the west and not covering the obstacles with fire, then the engineers should be able to breach and enter the village unopposed. Plus the main effort will be coming in behind their defenses. If the reinforcements are early, then they're early, but I have to fight them either way. With a platoon of hull-down tanks on one side, and a couple 76mm AT guns pretty much guaranteed to get flank shots on units crossing the bridge, plus a battery of 105s on-call, if I _do_ get to the bridge first I think I can keep the bad guys bottled up on the other side.

Just playing devils advocate... just think of me as that pissed company commander who figures the BC just sent you down to babysit.

Shut up and eat your mushy peas. Lights out in ten minutes.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[This message has been edited by L.Tankersley (edited 03-26-2001).]

[L.Tankersley]

A few more solutions are up now, I see.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[ScoutPL]

I've added the enemy setup for TDG 1 and a couple more solutions for TDG 2, including my own.

A few comments on the solutions received so far. The enemy's obstacle plan seems to have fullfilled its mission of turning the allied attack. Two of the three solutions submitted decided to avoid attacking the town from the south and instead went with a long hail mary around the town's eastern flank. While this is, of course, a maneuverist's wet dream, I'm afraid it is too risky. For starters, the enemy armor counterattack could arrive at any minute. What German panzer commander wouldnt love to top a ridge to see a river valley full of halftracks and tanks, all of them with their flanks or rear exposed? The intel brief offered no hard intel on when the enemy would arrive or in what strength, so basing your entire plan on the assumption that they wont arrive for at least 10-15 turns is very risky. Also, any attack out of the wooded ridge line east of the town will probably incur relatively high casualties since the ground between the edge of the woods and the first buildings is actually pretty open and at least 300-400 meters wide. Quite a dash under fire. It would be much easier to get infantry to seize a foothold in the SE corner of the village.

Fox decided to go through a breach in the MWO but he chose a route next to the river (SW corner of town), which will put him attacking into the enemy's strength since they were originally oriented to the west, looking across the river.

I dont think any of you really put enough combat power into your AT defenses at bridge B. This is the best place to stop the counterattack (or at least hurt it real bad) but it gets minimal coverage in most of the plans.

I have more comments but since my Pizza is ready I gotta go. Please let me know what you think about my comments and the scenario as a whole. I would also be interested in letting someone else submit a scenario for our enjoyment, though I am already formulating TDG #3.

[Simon Fox]

Fox decided to go through a breach in the MWO but he chose a route next to the river (SW corner of town), which will put him attacking into the enemy's strength since they were originally oriented to the west, looking across the river.

Surely the salient point is "originally". The obstacle belt itself is unlikely to be heavier, nor are any defenses covering it since it is recent. Any fixed defenses facing the river will have been stripped to provide a larger perimeter so I don't think there is all that much difference between our two plans.

I would be concerned that the approach to the obstacles by your engineer platoon is very exposed and also your SBF position is basically firing over their heads. Also your SBF postion can't support by fire the entry of your infantry platoons through the woods and into the town.

All in all if your assessment of the forces in the town is correct (and you should know ) then either plan should work.

I dont think any of you really put enough combat power into your AT defenses at bridge B. This is the best place to stop the counterattack (or at least hurt it real bad) but it gets minimal coverage in most of the plans.

I fink I sent the same forces there that you did. I would have liked to send some of the other tank platoon there but figured it would help me take the town quicker.

[ScoutPL]

Obviously I should have spent more time explaining my concept, but man, that pizza was calling my name. I'll attempt to do a better job now, though the wife is screaming for some attention so I might have to make this a two parter.

Basically this is the way I see it. There are three avenues of approach into the town. These AOA's all had to meet the following criteria: 1. provide a good SBF position that could cover the majority of the objective. 2. Offer a cover and concealed route for the dismounts. 3. offer a stable route for the supporting armor and other vehicles.

AOA 1, the eastern side of town. This is the one most contributors chose and I've already laid out the reasons why I ruled it out.

AOA 2, the southwest corner. This one meets two of the criteria right off the bat, cover and concealed route for dismounts and stable route for vehicles (the road and fields). But in my enemy analysis I decided any fixed positions (obstacles, MG bunkers, AT Pillboxes) that the enemy possessed would have to have an LOS to the river's west bank. Meaning, regardless of how far back they were, they would be oriented to the west. Therefore the best way to attack would be from the east, negating the combat power of these powerful assets. Its a given that the enemy's unfixed assets would shift once it became clear we would approach from the south but any permanent fortifications would still be oriented to the west. This made me question whether the risk of running into the snout of a MG bunker or a pillbox was worth using AOA 2. Also, AOA 2 lacks a good SBF position. In order to properly support an attack on AOA2, you would have to establish a SBF in the buildings on AOA3 (the SE approach). This SBF position would be isolated and within easy reach of a counterattack out of the town, which means you would have to committ a couple squads to securing the SBF, taking units away from the assault force to do so.

Which leaves us with AOA3. It also meets the criteria for dismounts/vehicles. It has a relatively good SBF position (the two story barn) but with limited sectors of fire. The SBF would only be effective until friendly units were into the obstacle belt and the foothold buildings. Then it would have to shift or perhaps even lift fires.

Looking at each of the AOA's I decided AOA3 offered the best chance of success. My plan was to unfold like this. My order of march out of the assembly area was to be scout section, tank section, inf platoon, weapons platoon, engineer platoon, and then the last inf platoon. The scouts and tanks rolled forward looking for enemy positions. The inf platoon came next, ready to seize the SBF position if it turned out to be held by the enemy. It was not, so the platoon pulled off the road and the infantry dismounted near the assault position. The weapons platoon pulled into the SBF position, dismounted, set up their weapon systems, and began hammering any German who happened to stick up his head. This fire, coupled with the tank MG and main gun fire did a great job suppressing the enemy in the town. As the engineer platoon rolled forward, the mortars and tanks popped smoke on the northern side of the wire and the SBF shifted its fire to the western side of the town. The engineers moved forward (concealed by the smoke and covered by their halftracks until the last possible moment), breached the MWO and moved into the first set of buildings. While this was happening the last infantry platoon rolled forward into the assault position and dismounted. Once organized the two inf platoons moved around the flank of the MWO and attacked the town from the east. Supported by tanks moving through the breach, the engineer platoon, and what fires could still come from the main SBF, the infantry quickly routed the German infantry defending the town and seized the bridge.

I realize that in the analysis of TDG 1 I stated that a SBF position should try to maintain a 45 to 90 degree angle to the troops they are supporting. Keeping this "rule" in mind, my main SBF was only effective for a short period of time. But it got me in close enough to make the breach. This allowed my tanks to take over the role of SBF and they maintained a decent angle to the assault element as it attacked from the east.

I hope my negligence in not going into this sort of detail in my posted concept won't cause any sore feelings. The comments I posted above probably sounded like criticisms since I hadnt really illustrated my own way of thinking. For that I aplogize. I dont want this to turn into a "who's right" fight. That just takes the fun right out of it. All of the plans would have probably worked, to varying degrees of success. But sending your file to me for posting means you open yourself up to FAIR, CONSTRUCTIVE comments and not just by me. I hope everyone finds that my comments meet that difficult standard. I post my own solutions just for that very reason. I am not trying to sell this as a "scout knows best" type of post. I encourage everyone to do as Fox has done and evaluate my comments and solutions with the same critical eye I level at your submissions. Thats the only way WE will learn.