Meeting Engagement Tactics

[Gremlin]

One potential problem with that is that you may not have enough information about the position of enemy armor, and armored cars rushed onto the scene ahead of infantry scouts won't last long against an enemy tank that appears "out of nowhere."

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

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Beer_n_Pretzels]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coralsaw:

I find that preempting the occupation of flags with a couple of armor cars works well, as they have good speed and can delay enemy infantry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I Agree with Gremlin on this, armoured cars should be used to scout, not occupy objectives. That's what infantry are for

[coralsaw]

Gremlin,

You are right in principle. More often than not though, people do not scout with armour in MEs, they use infantry instead. It is a typical rock-scissors-paper problem. And I have no problem even sacrificing an armoured car some times, because the benefit exceeds usually the cost.

BeernP,

I am in fact scouting, not occupying territory. As soon as my infantry catches up the cars break contact and are kept in reserve or guard the flanks.

[Guest Pillar]

I think any approach to relegate victory to the simple use of a "unit" or a simple branding statement like "rush the objectives" will inevitably lead to defeat against good opponents.

You have to know the principles of tactics and warfare and apply them to your situation. That situation has many variables. Recon is essential to identifying those variables.

Recon will tell you what the situation is. So if you use it properly, you'll have the best opportunity to make dynamic decisions and use your available forces properly.

There is no absolute method, it's not as easy as "Use a Light Vehicle to occupy the VL's", or "Rush and hold the VL's". If it was, we'd all be experts and war would never take place. Calculations could be done to determine the immenent victory before any causalties need take place, and one side could just surrender right off the bat.

[coralsaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think any approach to relegate victory to the simple use of a "unit" or a simple branding statement like "rush the objectives" will inevitably lead to defeat against good opponents.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good opponents will give one a hard time, this is always the case. However, the two examples you are stating are a bit simplistic, if I might say so. In a more complex form, you are describing a doctrine, i.e. a set of operational and tactical principles that one uses to reduce the complexity of battlefield decision making and present a coherent and tested way of deploying and fighting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You have to know the principles of tactics and warfare and apply them to your situation. That situation has many variables. Recon is essential to identifying those variables.

Recon will tell you what the situation is. So if you use it properly, you'll have the best opportunity to make dynamic decisions and use your available forces properly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree Pillar. I did not state anything contradictory. What I do with the armoured cars is indeed a form of tactical recon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

There is no absolute method, it's not as easy as "Use a Light Vehicle to occupy the VL's", or "Rush and hold the VL's". If it was, we'd all be experts and war would never take place. Calculations could be done to determine the immenent victory before any causalties need take place, and one side could just surrender right off the bat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you are being a bit patronising here, but no problem. If only there wasn't for the infamous luck factor, this is how wars would be conducted in Real Life.

Regards

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

...or somefink.

[This message has been edited by coralsaw (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

Patronising?

Luck certainly. But also the fact that war isn't calculable like that, there are no definite ways to win, and the perseverence of the human will.

But as far as CM is concerned, many newbies make the mistake (probably coming from other wargames) that there is a trick or unit that will win them the fights. Most "strategy" in the average wargames consists in getting the best units and rushing the opponent, or doing some sort of game-based technique -- just look at most online strategy guides for most games

CM is NOT like that at all. When I look at a thread on how to win a Meeting Engagement in CM, it should be full of basics and battlefield principles. Keep to the basics, do them well, and don't sweat the small stuff.

The small stuff is very situational, and doesn't have a place as a general rule of thumb or tactic to winning a given kind of game, don't you agree?

I'll be away for a week, have fun coaching the newbies

EDIT: Coralsaw, the original post was not written simply in response to your posts... Sorry if you felt centered out.

[ April 01, 2002, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Pillar ]

[Gremlin]

(I've learned a lot from Fionn's AAR's, that's for sure.)

I agree with Pillar, after learning hard lessons over time I think it's important not to focus on a particular unit for solving a particular problem (though there's room for that), but rather consider how different broad elements of your overall force can be utilized to carry out fundamental, major goals like recon, diversion, or support by fire. After thinking that out, flexibly use whatever particular units will suit those ends at the time. When I started thinking that way instead of micromanaging (I come from a non-wargame background and initially applied principles picked up in other "strategy" games), my playing improved exponentially, though I still have tons to learn

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

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 12-31-2000).]

[coralsaw]

Pillar,

No problem at all. I enjoy discussions.

I do agree with sticking to the basics, although for people with no professional military training, the basics are difficult to grasp, IMO.

CM is a treasure of a game. It has made my understanding of real war tactics much better, and I am not new to wargames at all.

Have a good week off!

[Red]

Folks

Thanks for the generous level of discussion. It was certainly more than I anticipated. In response to Pillar, Gremlin et al...the reason I initiated the topic was to get an idea of the general tactics. I fall very much into the category of coming from another wargame and after having BnP hand my rear end to me in a Pbem game I thought I better find out how it really works . You folks have given me lots to think about.

Thanks

Red