Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?

[Panzer Leader]

O' Brother (where art thou!) When I mentioned the Alanon bit, what I was trying to imply, is that defensive tactics, and their counter, are a wonderful field of debate, where both sides of any argument, in fact where a complete LACK of argument, is still sure to enlighten and entertatin the participants. Why is it that on page two of this discussion we have wonderful ideas about skirmish lines, mobility of units, with even a bit of groggish penetration factors, yet here on page four (five now) we have a huge and boring discussion on the mental attitude of the commander??

I would like to get back to the idea of staging a defense, perhaps with some actual examples from CM or real battle, and how these can be used to win victories. Sure, Fionn has a point -- if you go into a battle fearing the worst, chances are you will lose. Thanks! Point taken!

Now let's move on to other aspects of the battle and discuss various options that the defender has, perhaps SPECIFIC options, and how best to utilize them. Let me see if I can take this bull by the horns. Here are the things I like to see in a QB Assault-Defend:

Under 1500 points for the defender

25 turn limit under normal conditions

Max 30 turn limit if rain, fog, mud or snow

At least SOME hills and woods, preferably more.

Never really considered map size, but I do now see the benefits of a small map.

I think these options go a long way towards helping the defender, by either forcing the attacker to move slowly (bad conditions) or by forcing him to move quickly (short time limit.) It seems to me, not an Uber-Defender, that a few constraints placed on the Assaulter will even the score.

Now, once that is done, and it is time to pick forces, I have recently begun with the traditional units (towed guns, mines, wire, and a basic static force) but to that mix I add a "Shck unit" or "Fire Brigade" and my goal in the game is to keep them hidden and out-of-combat until the crisis point is reached.

We all know the crisis point, it may be different each time, but you know it when it comes. Your men are low on ammo, your line has been breached, a strong point is in full retreat. A new formation has just appeared over the rise. It is the moment when the defender says "Oh ****." and we'e ALL done it.

This, my friends, THIS is the moment when that pair of Stugs, or that platoon of HT mounted troops, or perhaps the concealed priest and M10 pair should burst out of their hidden flank position and reallt open up on the attacker.

I used to loathe spending points on these extravegant units. "Why I could get four more HMGs and two more Paks for that!" I would tell myself. Still I'd lose. Then when I convinced myself to buy them, I'd hold them until I couldn't resist then throw them ino battle before the crisis moment. They would damage the enemy, they would bring the crisis moment to them, but STILL I'd lose.

It was only after I held them for 2-3 turns longer than I thought I could bear, usually slinking them along the rear towards my surprise point, that I could unleash them with a fury that would win me the battle.

In my last game, I had a 250/9 a stug, and a platoon of SMG troops, that I slunk around to the left (behind some woods) as the center of my line began to cave. For two turns I watched as a Pak was overrun and an entire platoon was routed. Two shermans moved up and began pummeling my rear (HMGS and a few other heavy weapons. Then I unleashed the Fire Brigade. The Stug got flanking shots on the shermans, while the 250/9 chewed up the infantry, and my SMG troops, inflitrating through the woods, began firing into the enemy troops who were now taking fire from in fron AND the left flank. Their extended line broke, many enemy were killed or routed, and their thrust into (and THROUGH!) my line was broken. My line sealed and I stalemated thr few remaining turns for a major victory. One flag (the center) was neutral, but I won the battle.

That is the type of thing I think we all agree on as a local counter-attack that is possible in a CM Assault-Defend. A larger attack could not succeed, and a smaller one would probably be ineffective. The difficulty in a defense is spending your points wisely. It is my belief that you must spend ALMOST all your points on static weaponry and troops, but having a small contingent able to "take the battle to the enemy" is well worth spending. That, to me, is a FORCE MULTIPLIER.

Now, I am no god of battle, and I still ose more Defending games than I win, but this tactic, to me, offers me the best hope ofpulling out a victory. I am surprised and fascinated that certain people can claim to win as the defender all the time. Are we playing the same game?? Are my skills that low, or are yours that UNBELIEVABLY high?? It is strange, and I would love to hear more particular details on your successes, all of you "defender-winners."

[Tarquelne]

This, my friends, THIS is the moment when that pair of Stugs, or that platoon of HT mounted troops, or perhaps the concealed priest and M10 pair should burst out of their hidden flank position and reallt open up on the attacker.

Not quite on topic, but:

I've found myself keeping more and more forces in "reserve" lately. Both as the attacker and as the defender. (More as the attacker, I think.)

I had a Tiger in a game recently, and I didn't bring it out until the game was 1/2 over. (At which point it kicked *ss! ) That Tiger was the majority of my armored might.

Whenever I do this I feel like I'm missing many opportunities and wasting resources, but I've generally been glad I did it by the time the scenario ended.

How many of you do this? A standard tactic, or should I get some hustle and put that Tiger on the line when the fighting starts?

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To Fionn - You think that you win more because you are more confident, I think you are merely more confident because you win more - for other reasons. You think your confidence before a game is a superior mental attitude, and I think it is an inferior mental attitude. You think it is a superior attitude because you think belief in victory leads to victories, and I think it is an inferior attitude because I think pride is a weakness, as stupid as plucking your own eyes out. I am not misunderstanding what you are saying, I am disagreeing with it.

Jason, I believe you are very wrong. CM, as any other game including war is very much solved between your (commanders) ears. You can't count out the psychologigal effect of what's happening to your pixel representation of yourself, how much you wan't to hide behind numbers and systems. Your ego, when it's attached to your plans, styles, systems etc. is very vulnerable, and this can be exploited by your opponent. The point is getting the other MIND of balance so it's incapable of coherent and cool thinking. I've lost my cool many times, and the game as well. It seems to me that Fionn says there's a sore spote to be found in his style also, and it can and has been exploited at least occasionally(?).

It is a mind game, and don't fool youself or anyone else believing otherwise. No one is praising foolishness, but pride and trust in ones capabilities do indeed bring victories. Don't confuse pride with foolish pride, which is utterly different thing.

Else, put your money where your mouth is, challenge and give us the AAR of the year .

[ May 31, 2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

[Priest]

Tarq

The answer is as always playing style and situation. I tend to like the battle to play out before me and I flow with it. I have learned to trust my instincts (yes I have instincts for combat, admittedly non-real simulated in my game room not being shot at video game combat instincts, but instincts nonetheless!) If I believe my Tiger can make an immediate impact and scatter my opponents forces thus breaking up an attack I do so, but most of the time I pick and choose my spots. I make the other player react to me and overcompensate. One of the keys to battle is to make your opponent commit his reserves to the wrong area all the while he believes it to be correct. His momentum becomes his enemy as he carries and wastes his strength on nothing.

There is no always.

[JasonC]

Tarqulene said ""you should be willing to attack an opponent's argument where it is strongest." I quite agree. And I do. If you didn't notice, I wrote "But I nevertheless agree with Fionn that aggressiveness matters in a defender" and "On the more realistic distinction between patience or caution vs. a risk taking or aggressiveness", with detailed discussions of every scrap of merit I found for Fionn's stated arguments.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps some people just shut down as soon as they see one "bitchy" comment I suppose, but I addressed the full substance in each case because I was and am interested in the truth. I don't studiously refrain from every "bitchy" comment I happen to think is true or justified, either, and obviously some people don't like that. Tough toenails. Pretending I did not address the substance, however, is simply innaccurate.

I mostly got replies only to tone, however. I was not the one who brought up the relatively empty "commander's state of mind" subject, that another fellow laments, and continued to discuss tactics well beyond that point. But apparently the theatrics of personalities are more riveting that tactics, to some. For instance, Tarqulene's remarks are singularly devoid of comment on my statements about CM defense tactics, which would seem to be an instance of not practicing what he preaches.

Blackhorse asks a perfectly fair question as to where I get the idea that a modern cult of the offensive is preached to officers (by maneuver theorists in particular). I read US army manuals, for starters. I also know a number of young officers and would-be officers, including CM players, who have been exposed to it. In debates over the army transformation process (including e.g. the medium brigade program, the Crusader debate, and others), I have discussed it in many places. There has been a running debate on this board for over a year on the general subject of maneuver warfare ideas, their usefulness and possible limits, under the general rubric of maneuver and attrition.

Yes I know this is not a war college. I was explaining why the subject (not its arising here, as I thought I made clear when I said is was not anything personal) gets my back up. No, I do not think Fionn's musings determine the military theory of the US army. As I thought I made clear, I think those musings reflect them, rather than causing them. They are the kind of thing maneuver warfare gurus teach, and it is reasonably obvious to me that Fionn knows their teachings.

Since others obvious lament the turn to "attitude of commander" stuff, and to "bitchy" comments, I will drop the subject. I would still be interested in anything Tarqulene or Blackhorse have to say on the defense tactics stuff discussed.

Panzer Leader gives a fine example of a CM defense and how it often realistically goes. I would call what he describes as the principle of a reserve. In smaller CM battles, a defender's reserve is typically a single infantry platoon, with an AFV. Rarely more, although sometimes a higher HQ and half a platoon might be added, or a second AFV. That is for more or less linear defenses where the bulk of the force is on the MLR (though perhaps layered, guns behind infantry e.g.).

Sometimes it makes sense to use a bigger reserve, committed earlier - before the crisis but after the main avenue of approach is discovered. That is what I earlier referred to a "man to man" rather than "zone" defense. Yes, a reserve held out beyond that until the crisis is often helpful. If the attack is heavily weighted along a particular avenue, though, it can often make sense to throw in the whole initial reserve to hold that part of the line, and then reconstitute the overall reserve by shifting a force *not* hotly pressed, to the rear.

Because typically you can get away with leaving other areas thin or naked once the main avenue is determined, but can't afford to meet the enemy's main strength only piecemeal. Feeding in only small forces too slow can result in the same sort of many-on-few several times, as just sitting still in tighter terrain. You die piecemeal, and the attacker keeps fire ascendency for too many of the fights. So, a big supporting force for the area of attack right away, without holding any reserve. But then reconstitute the reserve from forces elsewhere, ASAP.

[Wreck]

First of all, I use my defending advantages, meaning foxholes, mines, and TRPs (and other defenses if I am assigned them; I would not buy them). I set up planning for static defenses of certain lines of attack. Typically, covered routes: lines of trees perpendicular to the setup zone; places where there are stone buildings, etc. You certainly don't have to cover all possible lines; generally just the best. If the attacker uses inferior lines then you don't get your fort advantages, but he has worse cover for it.

Setup is the most important time for the defender. You can win or lose in setup. If you accurately predict where the enemy will go, you can be there in good cover, with TRPs set right, ambushing AFVs and AT guns to take out his tanks when he uses them to try to get his attack moving, etc, etc. If you don't accurately predict the enemy's advance, then you will fight without the fortifications. And that is a 3:2 battle; you should still have an edge in intel but that's about it.

Here's a tactic that you won't learn about in WWII or your favorite modern command manual. I don't set up to have any infantry off of the front line. All of my infantry is up, more or less. (Some perhaps slightly further back, but still in positions I expect the enemy to come to.) This is not WWII; it's CMBO. You have borg sighting and full control over all units at all times. The only reason to keep infantry reserves back is for covered movement.

So, the battle starts. Typically, an attacker will not choose to pursue all the routes that are possible. He will focus on several; in a small battle only two usually. Your guys in the path of that, just sit there and wait to statically defend. You might use them to pinch a half-squad scout or two if you can forward of the MLR, but basically their idea is to hold the enemy off when he comes by exploiting their prepared position.

Meanwhile, you have the guys that you set up where the enemy is not coming. These guys are now your infantry reserve. With them, you should be thinking you are Fionn: how I can I get these guys into a flank of the enemy, or to a surprise two-on-one? Sometimes you can do this and really clean up (though beware the enemy artillery). Sometimes you can't; and you can only move the reserves in to plug a hole.

Outside of that, about the only advice I can give is to win the tank war. Keep your tanks moving from spot to spot, using interior protected lines to prevent the enemy from predicting you. It's hard to do right, and tank warfare is always chancy.

All of what I just stated, other than the non-use of reserves, is pretty much there in what Jason posted two pages back. Read him and learn.

Incidentally, on the commander's moral situation. I don't set up a defense knowing I will win. I know it is possible, and perhaps even likely depending on the other guy; that's all. I try to anticipate the sort of attack I would plan, and I set up to stop it. Once the game is going for a while, then I might start to think that I will win. But I try not to let it affect my decision process. I don't understand Fionn when he talks about that stuff.

If I am aggressive (and I am; I know that), it is because I see it as superior to sitting there. If I am passive, which I am at times, it is because I cannot find a way to improve my position by movement. I always try to play to the odds, as cold and rational as I can be.

[JasonC]

To Kalli - Fair enough. I agree there is always a "mind game" going on. What I disagree about is whether pride always helps in mind games. Seems to me it can help or hurt, depending on whether it is enough or too much, and also on how the opponent uses it. Now, I do not doubt that many a CM player could improve their play by being more confident. But I sort of doubt that is Fionn's problem - lol.

I mean, I know for example the Wreck is a very good CM player. I have never detected that sort of thing from that quarter. Fionn is obviously a very good CM player. It is not only detectable in his case, he regards the right amount as "as much as possible". Conceivably Fionn might benefit (I realize some regard that as a metaphysical impossibility) by playing with less - at least against a player who specialize in traps that exploit overconfidence, if there are any such. But that is really just speculation, not really advice. The point is merely that there is probably a right amount of confidence, less than infinity.

[ May 31, 2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Kallimakhos]

To the original topic. I am a top dog, not the best one, but I honestly believe I can make it to the top ten on any ladder if I have the stamina and time. I haven't lost on attack or ME for a long time. But I really do suck on defence. If my opponent is on par, I will lose, and often if he's below me.

The game is problematic in some aspects, playing axis, the usual defence is built on MG which ispretty much broken but I stubbornly choose to play "as it should be". Oh, if the time limit is low, it is easier, you can design your defence to stall, but this is no real challenge. I wan't to beat the attacker with plenty of time.

I don't play very static defence, but still maybe too static. The main problem is I think my tactics aren't as good as my overall grasp of the situation. On attack, you are allowed some mistakes, on defence none. My small scale counterattacks usually end up the troops getting killed or demoralized. After reading these posts, especially Fionn, maybe the problem is being too cautious, not giving the counter/harrassing attacks my full heart. When on defence, also active recon should be paid more attention. Anyway, I bet CMBB is going to change a lot .

[JasonC]

Wreck said it is important to win the armor war, and added "It's hard to do right, and tank warfare is always chancy". I agree with these comments, and I for one know that I am not particularly good at it. With Fionn's W-L record, I suspect he is probably among the best CM tank drivers there is, and I suspect this has a lot to do with his success.

My standing impression is, like Wreck, that the armor war is chancy and much turns on it. That anyone could face such chances hundreds of times and not have them break against him hard enough to prove decisive, practically ever, is to me the standing miracle in Fionn's stated record. If he hasn't gone off, I'd love to hear his advice on that aspect of CM defenses.

I suspect he'd start with "win the recon war - superior intel helps win the armor war". But I am sure he could add more than that.

[ May 31, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Priest]

Jason

I think you confuse confidence with over-confidence. I read Fionn's post like this:

You have to go into a battle feeling as if you can win. Trusting that the way you see the field before you is and the way you interpret it is correct. You cannot second guess yourself. And you have to do this always.

I have fought Fionn and he was not over-confident, he was confident. Regardless the "mental" game is the game. Think about it, you have a decision to make, do I move this platoon or let them sit? If you have confidence you know the answer, you make your decision and commit yourself totally. If you are not then you second guess or half ass it. If you are over confident then you will most likely make the wrong decision without considering all of the factors.

In a game the other day I lost a platoon all at once as I walked into an ambush. I was dismayed that I would allow that to happen. Then I looked at the field, re-adjusted my plan, compensated properly, and lost zero momentum and time. My mindset allowed me to put it behind me and not allow my opponent a moment of initiative as I tried to regroup. I flowed with it and continued my advance (and I was on defense).

And Wreck a cool calm calculated approach only comes from someone with confidence, someone without is simply too busy trying to figure out what he/she is doing wrong.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Wreck said it is important to win the armor war, and added "It's hard to do right, and tank warfare is always chancy". I agree with these comments, and I for one know that I am not particularly good at it. With Fionn's W-L record, I suspect he is probably among the best CM tank drivers there is, and I suspect this has a lot to do with his success.

My standing impression is, like Wreck, that the armor war is chancy and much turns on it. That anyone could face such chances hundreds of times and not have them break against him hard enough to prove decisive, practically ever, is to me the standing miracle in Fionn's stated record. If he hasn't gone off, I'd love to hear his advice on that aspect of CM defenses.

I suspect he'd start with "win the recon war - superior intel helps win the armor war". But I am sure he could add more than that.

Obviously, I can't speak for Fionn, but I think there are just two uses for tanks in CM: intimidate opponents tanks and hail that HE ammo. Infantry IS the king! And usually roookies buy too much of them and loose. It is virtually impossible to win with tanks only against infantry only. Playing combined armes one should remember that tanks are support weapons, like mortars and MG's. They can make a difference but they can't replace infantry. My few successes defending have been infantry only. Don't get me wrong, I love armored battles, there's nothing like a company of Shermans or PZ IV's attacking across a field in formation...

One more thought: wheather on defence or attack, take greens! You can't beat greens!

[Priest]

While I am no Fionn, I usually win the "Armour Battle". Without a doubt recon is important, the location of all units with AT capability is essential. The higher the percentage of known AT assets and their location, the higher the survivability rate of your own AFVs. I actually use a doctrine based on Fionn's own force allocation methods. And while I cannot speak for Fionn I believe his is probably more apt to kill infantry with infantry than me. I use direct HE fire from tanks to kill infantry. I also use tanks and ATG guns (especially on defense) to take out other tanks. Hmm the above statment is not as clear as I would like, let me try another method.

Here is how I like a battle to go, it is basic and applies to both the attack and defense. An aggressive (not stupidly so) recce/picket screen of my forces. Combat groups built around a strong armour force with AT put first (I will explain this in a moment). I will use my main ATG forces to engage the enemy outside of effective infantry range and hope to take out most of the enemies MBTs. Once this is done, and the infantry battle is joined I will assign my main AT forces on overwatch and my infantry will focus on screening my designated HE throwers. My HE throwers will blunt the enemy advance and attrit the enemy. Once any local man portable AT assets are eliminated the infantry can join in the destruction of the enemy with the now "indestructable" HE thrower. The designated AT assets can watch for the possible reserve forces and act as a reserve themselves for me. Before the main infantry battle the "HE throwers" also can act as an AT reserve (I will explain).

Now for the explaination of my earlier statments about my AT assets and HE throwers. Most would assume I believe that I would be talking Hetzers and Jacksons for the AT assets and M8 HMCs and Stuhs for the HE throwers, actually I usually take the same weapons systems for both. An example:

Normal AT group armour layout:

5 Panthers for the Germans or possibly 3 Sherman M4a3s with the 76mm gun and 2 TDs.

Normal HE group armour layout:

5 Panzer IVH for the Germans or 3-5 Shermans (75mm or 76mm guns).

I would happily sub the Panthers for the Panzer IVHs and while I would lose some effectiveness in the 75mmvs76mm gun tradeoff I have few qualms using the 75mm gun in the AT role. I also prefer more MGs on an AFV compared with caliber of main gun. An example would be that I prefer the Panzer IVH over the Stuh42. The Panzer IVH has more MG ammo and more MGs (IIRC) than the Stuh. This will allow my small arms immune tank to fire on infantry with MGs pinning them, allowing my HE, infantry, or artillery to deal the real damage. There is a limit obviously as a Stuart is not as desireable as say a StugIII.

Regardless the armour fight deals with you seeing the enemy, achieving position on that enemy with a locale superiority in main guns, and maintaining the initiative by constricting the operational room the enemy AFV has to manuever.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, can you tell I am at work

[ June 01, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Priest]

Kalli,

I currently have an opponent who has learned otherwise, and I was the teacher. Generally you are correct, but you have to realize that is not automatic, the commander still has to be as good as the one he is fighting.

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Priest:

Jason

I think you confuse confidence with over-confidence. I read Fionn's post like this:

You have to go into a battle feeling as if you can win. Trusting that the way you see the field before you is and the way you interpret it is correct. You cannot second guess yourself. And you have to do this always.

I have fought Fionn and he was not over-confident, he was confident. Regardless the "mental" game is the game. Think about it, you have a decision to make, do I move this platoon or let them sit? If you have confidence you know the answer, you make your decision and commit yourself totally. If you are not then you second guess or half ass it. If you are over confident then you will most likely make the wrong decision without considering all of the factors.

In a game the other day I lost a platoon all at once as I walked into an ambush. I was dismayed that I would allow that to happen. Then I looked at the field, re-adjusted my plan, compensated properly, and lost zero momentum and time. My mindset allowed me to put it behind me and not allow my opponent a moment of initiative as I tried to regroup. I flowed with it and continued my advance (and I was on defense).

And Wreck a cool calm calculated approach only comes from someone with confidence, someone without is simply too busy trying to figure out what he/she is doing wrong.

Good post, and I allmost agree. But I would say: go to battle knowing that you WILL very likely win. Everybody CAN win or loose. Maybe i understand you wrongly, but in "platoon terms" confidence means lot of game experience, calculating the odds and acting accordingly. Which is the basis but not the point. I'd say the totality of the situation is the real point and thats where mind games make a difference. Your ambush story makes a good example of not loosing your cool and resolution, and keeping your mind on the objective and big picture.

Second guessing is where you hit a nerve. I do that. A lot. Are they suppressed enough or should I bomb for one more minute? Or if I don't move now will I lose pace and initiative? Can I risk these platoons getting annihilated if the rush goes bad? Are these just questions of understanding the game mechanics and having lot of experience against superior opponents? Are these just solvable calculations, or is there more to it?

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Priest:

Kalli,

I currently have an opponent who has learned otherwise, and I was the teacher. Generally you are correct, but you have to realize that is not automatic, the commander still has to be as good as the one he is fighting.

I'm not sure what part you are answering, but if this about tanks beating infantry, I would like to hear more. Like allways, there is no rule without exception.

[Priest]

Basically you can make up for the lack of infantry with MG and HE firepower. Due to some restraints I cannot go in depth right now about that specific game. Note that to do this is much easier on the defense. I have successfully defended against large (very large) infantry formations with either little or NO infantry at all and done so very (and I mean very) successfully against multiple players. Although the game situation was shall we say more realistic than your normal QB. Was that cryptic enough for you?? When I can I will divulge all

[NightGaunt]

I am only stepping in to comment that Priest is very good at using tanks without much (any) infantry support. If you are interested in learning, he is someone who I would pay attention to. We have had several very good battles with tanks (his favorite) vs infantry (my favorite).

[Tarquelne]

destruction of the enemy with the now "indestructable" HE thrower.

A question (for everyone): How often do you see a game dominated by the last AFV? (How common was that in RL, anyway?). I'm wondering (for reasons that can be examined if it's true) if this happens most often in games involving those who think defending is significantly more difficult.

I'm also interested in how often those who think defending is harder play armor-heavy games. (And no, I don't have a good definition for "armor-heavy", sorry.)

[JasonC]

"Are they suppressed enough or should I bomb for one more minute? Or if I don't move now will I lose pace and initiative? Can I risk these platoons getting annihilated if the rush goes bad?"

To me that is ordinary analysis. Can't be avoided, it is the meat of CM decision making. You can make every one of those decisions right or wrong, but you have to make them. To me, it is much better to look at them - in something like Wreck's cold-blooded weighing of the odds - than to just "feel confident". If all "feel confident" means is "make the decision, and let it stay made once you make it", then I entirely agree. If "feel confident" is a substitute for cold-blooded weighing of the odds while looking at the decision, going with your first impression and "believing in yourself", then to me it is not helpful. As GKC once noted, people in lunatic asylums believe in themselves, which hardly helps if what you believe is wrong.

On the armor war, I first have to say that Priest's picture of how he wants the battle to go is only recognizably to me when I am fighting the brain-dead AI. Sure, if it were trivial to locate and kill most of the enemy's main battle tanks before the rest of the engagement even gets started, then protected HE chuckers merrily plinking away for you would be just peachy. And the AI - and I suppose some players, but not all that many - might oblige by driving their MBTs right into wide LOS areas in the first 5 minutes, let you run the table, and so give you all of that.

But when the tanks are trailing the infantry and using cover, carefully changing their LOS "sighting picture" only gradually, I find this distinctly harder to do. I fully acknowledge I am not a very good tank driver. But to me the trick is whether I kill his MBTs and am left with the HE chuckers, or he kills my MBTs and is left with his HE chuckers, or just as often, both MBTs and HE chuckers play cat and mouse, having some impact on the intervening infantry and occasionally trading off each other. Later, after one side or the other has whacked the opposing infantry harder.

I understand the importance of infantry, and of big shell HE to intervene against infantry. I usually use infantry and HE intensive strategies myself, since I am not a tank ace. I am reasonably good at using guns for AT work in defense, along with AT mines and teams. But typically I am trying to neutralize the enemy AFV strength - often on a shoestring - to let an infantry-HE advantage "tell".

A big variable from game to game winds up being whose armor wins the duels. I do well when mine does, or even when mine just neutralizes his. When his kill mine, or last long enough to seriously mess up my infantry before dying, I don't do well. It is not that pure armor is any panacea, it is that the armor war is very high variance. It can break hard against me. By comparison, the infantry-HE war is much more "deterministic" or predictable.

[Ligur]

Fionn is Jesus of CM. He helped me achieve a series of small and important wins yesterday. In a big armored game featuring several companies of armor from either side, my recon and leading elements were destroyed with almost no trade-off for my burning hulks. My crews were aiming so bad I have rarely seen such and when I gave them in a platter to boot the situation looked grim.

I read some Fionn posts in between and started a-new with confidence and victory in my mind. True enough, I positioned remaining light armor elements with utter confidence of my devious plan succeeding, and it did. I destroyed the left flank force of 7 PZIV's and few light armor units with three Stuarts and a supporting Sherman4 and two of the brave little buggers lived to tell about it.

Fionn Kelly turns defeat into victory!!!

Seriously, good thread and thanks for the contributors, and there really is quite a lot to gain with your set of mind. I've always been like that in every game.

You can see how huge variety in style there is on various defending/attacking doctrines and most tout their own as a way to win. To each their own!

Priest: I'd be quite interested in hearing more about your armored style of attriting and destroying infantry in the future.

I've been an infantry guy for a long time now, I even had a phase where I usually had a section of armor at most, designated AT assets (TDs, veteran Hetzers or Hellcats) and the rest was arty and inf. Now I've introduced more HE vehicles to the mix. I like to have me a mobile set of guns that can deliver HE where I want to fast. But I still count on my infantry to take the terrain, keep it and to destroy the enemy in the process.

Like Wreck, JasonC, I consider armored combat too fickle for my tastes. With infantry I know where I'm going and what I'm doing and most of all how long my guys are going to be there, with armor there is always the "38% to hit, kill rare" you have to deal with and the binary nature of armored combat will ensure sad surprises over and over again. Also, that might be because I suck. But I just can't put my money on percentages you might lose and losing almost invariaby means the loss of your expensive unit.

[ June 01, 2002, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Ligur]

Originally posted by JasonC:

A big variable from game to game winds up being whose armor wins the duels. I do well when mine does, or even when mine just neutralizes his. When his kill mine, or last long enough to seriously mess up my infantry before dying, I don't do well. It is not that pure armor is any panacea, it is that the armor war is very high variance. It can break hard against me. By comparison, the infantry-HE war is much more "deterministic" or predictable.

My position exactly. JasonC is just able to use more fancy words

[ June 01, 2002, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

How often do you see a game dominated by the last AFV? (How common was that in RL, anyway?). I'm wondering (for reasons that can be examined if it's true) if this happens most often in games involving those who think defending is significantly more difficult.

I'm one of those who consider defending not-that-much-harder but as for a game being dominated by the last AFV, never.

That "might" happen in a 1000 point game (indeed when I was a complete newbie it did), but I usually play 2000pts and up. When I defend I'm ready to deal with an overwhelming force of AFVs and HE shuggers and have a plan to survive it, and it does not feature my own AFVs 80% of the time.

[Priest]

NightGaunt thanks.

Kalli, it is not the last AFV, it is my force of AFVs.

Jason, you numbnut

Of course no plan works perfectly and they never survive contact. You know you are really strange guy Jason. If someone asks a factual question you are great and wonderful. If someone states an opinion you are a very literal and annoying. And for your information I have not played the AI since about the second month of the games release.

Kalli if you like we can discuss this, and Jason if you want to get in a pissing match but I would rather not, you are not that fun to argue with because you cannot seem to delve past the first layer of an idea. Case in point, lets take what you took from Fionn's comment and what I took from Fionn's comment? You thought differently so you shall we say "questioned it vigorously" while I looked at it closely and found it inciteful.

Regardless I can give you a laundry list of opponents I have played and beaten using my "stupid AI" tactics. And I would be careful not to insult them as you have already indirectly done. Many of them are on this forum and would take you to the woodshed over it.

[Tarquelne]

I'm one of those who consider defending not-that-much-harder but as for a game being dominated by the last AFV, never.

That "might" happen in a 1000 point game

Right - sorry. I should have written "last few AFVs. Or really, "How often has a scenario (or QB)outcome been largely determined by AFV exchanges during the first 1/3 of the game?"

Some comments have made me wonder if, for some of those who say that defending is harder than attacking, the issue really revolves around the attacker's AFVs and how they're handled.

That'd match my personal experience. I used to think that successfully defending was harder than attacking. AND I used to have much more trouble handling attacking AFVs. Once I got the hang of that defending didn't seem so daunting. And, going back to the fluid vrs. static thing, I think my AT tactics improved when I started concentrating more on mobile AT assets (or at least using mobile units to lure or drive AFVs into ATG fire) and being more aggressive.

Priest:

Here is how I like a battle to go,

Ok, fanboy , I've got some questions.

How often do your battles go that way? How far toward the attacker do you place your picket line? (Or it might be better to ask: How far back do you like to put your main line?) Finally, what % of MBTs would you need to KO to consider the opening ATG-based phase successfull?

[Priest]

Sorry to post again so soon but Ligur once I can I will. It was kinda forced on me but hey adapt and win.