Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?

[Tarquelne]

Regardless I can give you a laundry list of opponents I have played and beaten using my "stupid AI" tactics.

Oh dear, I think that may actually be a worse interpretation of JasonC's argument than the job he did on yours. A catty smilie:

I'd consider JasonC's post a long implicit-request for more information. (Alternatively, you could ignore it and respond to my short-explicit request for information. )

[Priest]

Tarq

First off I was writing (and playing CM) the last post while your was posted. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

And the answer that your are going to get is, it depends on the situation. Okay that was a lame but true answer.

Lets take for the granted that the enemy is not going to trot out his MBT's for you to kill. That is a given. Fine but you can force a confrontation, especially on the defense. You can bait your opponent out with which works with weaker opponents. Or against a better opponent you can make him take notice. Your opponent doesn't want to show his armour, SUPER, then start killing his infantry in droves. Again this is great as a defender because the attacker has to come at you. You can set the range most of the time also. Eventually he will have to react. That is when he runs into your overwatch tanks from the positions he sacrificed because he "hid" his armour. Hiding your armour gives the other commander certain prime positions and tons of latitude. An interesting note, if a waits to commit his armour then normally he faces my "HE" tanks and my "AT" tanks when he finally is forced to come out. Remember that my "HE" tanks usually can double as "AT" tanks (especially as the Germans) and you basically end up facing more fire that way. Leaving the tanks on overwatch after the initial armour duel then will protect from a second wave of armoured reserves.

Now lets take this over to the attack. In a battle I had with my friend Stix (time to be an example Stixxy ) (DISCLAIMER: STIX AND I PLAY HUGE BATTLES!) I used this tactic for the attack. I built two forces, on was comprised of a company of Panzer IVH's and a company of grenadiers. There was some quick medium and light artillery included. They would attack up the left flank with the infantry screening the PIVs. When Stix's tanks showed themselves they recieved serious firepower, as stated in an earlier post, I had local superiority in guns so I won the duels. Knowing that I am a mobile warefare kinda guy and that means I can quickly come from anywhere hence I force my opponents to cover a lot of ground. When an AT gun ambushed a formation it either a.) hit with it's first shot costing me a tank, or b.) missed, was suppressed by infantry, and then taken out by a huge volume of HE fire. They normally lasted less than the turn they opened up. Of course if it was too dangerous I would reverse out and let my artillery take care of it. I walked right up that flank. I think i lost two of 15 tanks and maybe a squads worth of men throughout my company while I had traveled 1.5 km (we also play on big maps) of a 2 km map. I decimated his forces and caused him to commit his reserves. That was really not good for him because as soon as I saw him shifting I attacked the other flank with a platoon of Tigers, a platoon of Panthers and 2 companies of infantry (like I said we play big games). The problem was my "diversionary force" already was ending this battle. I cannot remember how big this battle was (7000 vs 8500???) but regardless with my 2000 in tanks and maybe 700 in assorted assets I defeated a 7000 point defensive force. The "Main Attack" group barely made it half way across the map. And Stix had a good plan, with good coverage. But he invested a lot in artillery, my advance was too rapid to fire artillery at. He also used a layered defense with a mobile armoured reserve, but I attacked on a very narrow front and sliced through a lot of strong points by the time his armour got to me. By then I had position and more guns to put on target. I had the initiative and I set the pace of the battle. Most of this due to my tanks. Oh and just so you see I was following my own doctrine. Two platoons of the PIVs were my AT tanks, one was my HE tanks. Of course since his tanks were not initially out to play I used them all to bait him, and then all to destroy his armour. My PIVs were out of HE by the end of the game, which I believe was 27 turns.

It is 5 in the morning here and I am going to go to bed, sorry if this kind of meandered but I wanted to give some example before I went to sleep. Just an FYI, since I know Stix will come in here and thwap me about something for using this example, when we replayed the map with me as the defender I showed him the power of the TRP and rocket. That barrage got what 27 assorted vehicles. Needless to say that game only lasted about 15 turns Of course he beat the last game out so don't discount this Aussie!

[Stixx]

27 AFV's? I think it was more like 37 AFV's! In 1 bloody rocket attack!!! I had tanks spread out for miles but every bloody round hit something!!! Bastard!!!

I must say thouugh, Priest has the best armored Tactics i've ever seen!. When i first started playing him i used primarily Infantry and i just got stomped!. I started using armor a LOT more, i was buying over 5,000 pts of Armor and still gettin beaten!

It took me 7-8 of these "HUGE" (20,000 combined points on maps over 2 X 2 km) battles to start getting used to Priests armor tactics...

I still take out more of his tanks with AT guns then i ever do with armor. The bastard must train his gun crews himself!

Anyway what was the point of this post?

Hmmm, Dunno, must be time to leave then.

Hooroo

[Tarquelne]

First off I was writing (and playing CM)

Commanding a large CM battle while sleep deprived? I'm sure BTS would find your dedication to realism laudible. I hear CM:BB will come with some "starvation" pills (enzyme blockers or something) and a double handfull of uppers to help foster realistic Eastern Front game play.

I am sorry if I offended anyone.

Only be sorry if you offended unintentionally. (That's a joke, btw - not trying to add fuel to the fire.)

And the answer that your are going to get is, it depends on the situation. Okay that was a lame but true answer.

I'm not really fishing for numbers, but descriptions of your decision making proccess, and some of the most important variables.

It is 5 in the morning here and I am going to go to bed, sorry if this kind of meandered but I wanted to give some example before I went to sleep.

I understand. Hopefully after you've gotten some R&R, and have some free time (and the inclination) you can FULLY COMPLY WITH MY DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION!

And it's 8:30 in the morning here. Before I babble in response to the rest of your message, I think I'll go rest my eyes.... for a few days.

[ June 01, 2002, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Kallimakhos]

Originally posted by Priest:

Now lets take this over to the attack. In a battle I had with my friend Stix (time to be an example Stixxy ) (DISCLAIMER: STIX AND I PLAY HUGE BATTLES!)

I think your excellent post makes one very good point: tank battles start to get really interesting only on the BIG scale, with at least a company of them and a huge map. This is where sound tank tactics, thinking platoons, using speed for manouvre etc., start to make a difference. On smaller, platoon scale, too much is left to sheer luck for my taste.

Others might and do disagree.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

Additionally, since the defender has the advantages of terrain and surprise, at the point of contact it certainly does not necessarily follow that he will be the "morally and/or physically" inferior of the combatants at all.

:eek:

That he has physically and/or morally inferior forces is what makes him the defender, by definition. Otherwise he would/should be the attacker, according to Clausewitz.

You may understand some of Clausewitz`practical concepts, but I have a really grave suspicion you don´t quite get the underlying philosophy (Book I !!, the most important of them all).

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

You're suggesting, then, that effective defenses were impossible in North Africa? It's sort of down and to the left of my area of interest, so I'm certainly interested in hearing about that. Elaborate.

Was, say, the whole of the Western Soviet Union too large an area to effectively defend?

Yes, and yes. Seesaw battles in WWII were always a symptom of fronts too broad to be efficiently defendable.

Manstein tried to combat this problem with his famous backhand blows -a measure as ingenious as it was desperate. In the final analysis, the backhand blows came at a cost, increasing attrition, which the Germans simply couldn´t afford. But it was still the best try -nothing else would have worked either.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Scott B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Of course, a static defense doesn´t work on a large map with no time limit -because this is not a balanced scenario. Such a map can, quite simply, not be defended.

While this was not my intent, you have generated an additional point. We're not interested in defending a map; we're interested in defending an objective. Several of the inherent advantages of the defense-- such as surprise and terrain-- still go to the defender in this situation. I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable? </font>

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by JasonC:

..."most CM players err on the side of caution". That is somewhat plausible, as it is noticable e.g. that all double-blind wargames induce relatively more cautious play than full intel ones. So somewhat more aggressive players are acting more like their full-info counterparts.

But this is hardly a matter of extremes or maximizing anything. Overconfidence is just as deadly as despondency, if your opponent expects and exploits it. Rashness can lose battles as easily as caution. For every wavering position not rushed when it might have been, there is a kill sack blundered into. The balance between them may not be even *empirically*, meaning the average player might improve by more aggressive or by more cautious play. But they are perfectly symmetrical relations theoretically, in the sense that too much of either can hang you.

Very sound analysis. I usually tend to agree with most of your points. Though I also notice that you have some of a liking to bash in the heads of people who disagree with you even by 10%. If you could work at this a little, your posts would be even better, and still more enjoyable than they already are.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

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.

Am on neither side of the fence here. I believe the best mindset in a strategy game is the imperturbability of the Borg. If Star Trek TNG were real, I wouldn´t bet a cent on the Federation.

[Blackhorse]

We can use the Principles of War to analyze whether the attacker or defender has the advantage.

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

Objective

Direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive, and attainable objective.

At the operational and tactical levels, objective means ensuring all actions contribute to the goals of the higher headquarters. The principle of objective drives all military activity. When under-taking any mission, commanders should have a clear understanding of the expected

outcome and its impact.

COMMENT: No clear advantage exists for either the attack or defense. The mission statement and clarity of the commander determine objective.

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

Offensive

Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.

Offensive action is key to achieving decisive results. It is the essence of successful operations. Offensive actions are those taken to dictate the nature, scope, and tempo of an operation. They force the enemy to react. Commanders use offensive actions to impose their will on an enemy, adversary, or situation. Offensive operations are essential to maintain the freedom of action necessary for success, exploit vulnerabilities, and react to rapidly changing situations and unexpected developments.

COMMENT: The advantage here lies with the attacker. The attacker determines where and when to attack. He sets the conditions for battle. The defender will have to work harder to seize the initiative away from the attacker.

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

Mass

Concentrate the effects of combat power at the decisive place and time.

Commanders mass the effects of combat power to overwhelm enemies or gain control of the situation. They mass combat power in time and space to achieve both destructive and constructive results.

COMMENT: Advantage to the attacker because he chooses the time and place of attack. Defender must work harder to achieve similar results

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

Economy of Force

Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts.

Economy of force is the reciprocal of mass. It requires accepting prudent risk in selected areas to achieve superiority—overwhelming effects—in the decisive operation. Economy of force involves the discriminating employment and distribution of forces. Commanders never leave any element with-out a purpose. When the time comes to execute, all elements should have tasks to perform.

COMMENT: Basically a wash. Both sides equally affected.

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

Maneuver

Place the enemy in a disadvantageous position through the flexible application of combat power.

As both an element of combat power and a principle of war, maneuver concentrates and disperses combat power to place and keep the enemy at a disadvantage. It achieves results that would otherwise be more costly. Effective maneuver keeps enemies off balance by making them confront new problems and new dangers faster than they can deal with them. Army forces gain and preserve freedom of action, reduce vulnerability, and exploit success

through maneuver. Maneuver is more than just fire and movement. It includes the dynamic, flexible application of leadership, firepower, information, and protection as well. It requires flexibility in thought, plans, and operations and the skillful application of mass, surprise, and economy of force.

COMMENT:Advantage to the Attacker. Defender again must work hard to gain advantage over attacker.

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

Unity of Command

For every objective, ensure unity of effort under one responsible commander.

Developing the full combat power of a force requires unity of command. Unity of command means that a single commander directs and coordinates the actions of all forces toward a common objective. Cooperation may produce coordination, but giving a single commander the required authority unifies action.

COMMENT:No distinct advantage to either attack or defense.

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

Security

Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage.

Security protects and preserves combat power. It does not involve excessive caution. Calculated risk is inherent in conflict. Security results from measures taken by a command to protect itself from surprise, interference, sabotage, annoyance, and threat ISR. Military deception greatly enhances security. The threat of asymmetric action requires emphasis on security, even in low-threat environments.

COMMENT:Advantage to the defense.

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

Surprise

Strike the enemy at a time or place or in a manner for which he is unprepared.

Surprise is the reciprocal of security. Surprise results from taking actions for which an enemy or adversary is unprepared. It is a powerful but temporary combat multiplier. It is not essential to take the adversary or enemy completely unaware; it is only necessary that he become aware too late to react effectively.

COMMENT:Advantage to the attacker.

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

Simplicity

Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and clear, concise orders to ensure thorough understanding.

Plans and orders should be simple and direct. Simple plans and clear, concise orders reduce misunderstanding and confusion. The factors of METT-TC determine the degree of simplicity required. Simple plans executed on time are better than detailed plans executed late. Commanders at all levels weigh the apparent benefits of a complex concept of operations against the risk that subordinates will not be able to understand or follow it.

COMMENT:No clear advantage.

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

Conclusion

Overall, the attacker has an easier time than the defender. Attackers choose the time and place of the attack and strive to choose conditions that favor them. The attacker plans to attack at ratios that benefit him and disadvantage the defender. Thus, the Defender is at a disadvantage in that the battle is not fought on his terms but rather his enemy's terms.

Defenders that successfully defeat their attacker know how to take the Principles of War and use them to their advantage.

Caveats

Attacking does not guarantee victory/success.

Defending does not guarantee defeat.

Purpose of the Defense (FM3-0) Operations

Army forces defend until they gain sufficient strength to attack. Defensive operations defeat an enemy attack, buy time, economize forces, or develop conditions favorable for offensive operations. Alone, defensive operations normally can-not achieve a decision. Their purpose is to create conditions for a counter-offensive that allows Army forces to regain the initiative.

Although offensive operations are usually required to achieve decisive results, it is often

necessary, even advisable at times, to defend. Commanders defend to buy time, hold terrain,

facilitate other operations, preoccupy the enemy, or erode enemy resources.

Purpose of the Offense (FM3-0)Operations

The offense is the decisive form of war. Offensive operations aim to de-stroy

or defeat an enemy. Their purpose is to impose US will on the enemy

and achieve decisive victory. While immediate considerations often require

defending, decisive results require shifting to the offense as soon as possible.

In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense

depends on the war-like souls of those conducting it.

General George S. Patton Jr.

War as I Knew It

[Priest]

Uggh sorta back awake. 5 hours later I am up and why, because I have a CM game scheduled. I am sick.

posted June 01, 2002 07:25 AM

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

quote:

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

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:

quote:

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

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?

My battles often go that way, I win the great majority of my battles. You question on the picket line is soley based on the terrain, there is no other honest way to state that. And there is no set percentage, it is what the enemy commander gives you. As long as I have the local superiority of guns then I consider it successful.

Folks the key to armour duels is space and who controls that space. If you can move and have area while restricting the area of your opponent they you have won half of the battle. Making your opponents tanks useless is as good as killing them. Currently in a battle I have a guy with a bunch of AFVs stuck. Not bogged, but stuck. He moves them they die. I pinned them with my tanks and the moved up ATG assets. Now I can move my tanks away. The ATG assets maintain the local gun superiority and my opponent loses a platoon of armour.

There is more that goes into it, I will get more in depth tonight.

[Tarquelne]

That he has physically and/or morally inferior forces is what makes him the defender, by definition. Otherwise he would/should be the attacker, according to Clausewitz.

Given that, shouldn't we think of a such an "inferior" force advancing against the enemy as force practicing a mobile/fluid defense, and a "superior" force which more or less sits still as a force practicing an "seige like" attack? (One assumes that the "superior" force's very presence is in some way hurting or threatening the enemy.)

Or, we could admit that not all RL WWII commanders applied Clwtz. perfectly, and did, indeed, sometimes attack without the requistie "moral" superiority.

But rather than misunderstanding Clwtz, I think Scott B. was merely using "attacker" in the way it's commonly used - to refer to the advancing force. Not a misunderstanding, just a departure from Clwtz's terms.

I very much look forward to more exchanges between you and Scott. Very interesting!

[Tarquelne]

SB:

I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable?

AS:

You joking? What I am saying is, on a large map, no turn limit, attacker wins by default.

With a broad front, no time constraints, the 50%pts advantage of the attacker will always win, period. [/QB]

Which sort of defense do you think would "hold out" longer, given those unfavorable conditions?

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

SB:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable?

AS:

You joking? What I am saying is, on a large map, no turn limit, attacker wins by default.

With a broad front, no time constraints, the 50%pts advantage of the attacker will always win, period.

Which sort of defense do you think would "hold out" longer, given those unfavorable conditions?[/QB]</font>

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:

As the subject says...

Just curious: What were you wondering about - Harder in RL, or harder in CM? (Or both?)

[Tarquelne]

Dispersing Forces and Playing Hide and Seek would probably deliver the best result in game turns.

Another interesting parrellel between argumentative style and message content.

[Stixx]

Originally posted by Priest:

There is more that goes into it, I will get more in depth tonight.

Like hell ya well!!!

Your fightin me tonight!

[JasonC]

To Priest - I am sure you meant to say "insightful". I found it "inciteful" - lol. My comment on your description of how a battle should go was "Priest's picture of how he wants the battle to go is only recognizably to me when I am fighting the brain-dead AI." Notice the pronouns. Recognizable "to me", "when I".

Your description of killing the enemy MBTs before the main engagement is something I (I, me, not you) can pull off regularly only against the AI, or equally inexperienced opponents. Better players keep their tanks back and I don't manage to kill them. Indeed, I have to worry about theirs killing mine. As I said repeatedly, I am not a very good tank driver.

If there is some magical wand you wave that makes enemy armor blunder forward into LOS of your AT shooters early, please share it with us. I do not doubt that scads of your battles have gone that way. But it just leaves me with two options - I can finger my noodle and look all confused and ask you "how in God's name...", expecting an actual answer with content, or I can give up and put it down to your being a lucky sod. They don't blunder into LOS of *my* (notice, a pronoun) AT shooters. Although I catch more with hiding guns I place pretty well, than with big sore thumb tanks I don't drive very well.

Presumably your AT shooters are in better places, or moving more intelligently, or you are leading his MBTs about thus or so. But until you tell us something about how to do that, I for one am just stuck with the two rather empty choices above. The trick is beating his MBTs. I "grok" all the stuff after that. The question is how you (notice, a pronoun) beat the MBTs (while defending, of course, sans odds) without losing your own.

[ June 02, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Ron]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To Priest - I am sure you meant to say "insightful". I found it "inciteful" - lol. My comment on your description of how a battle should go was "Priest's picture of how he wants the battle to go is only recognizably to me when I am fighting the brain-dead AI."

Your description of killing the enemy MBTs before the main engagement is something I (I, me, not you) can pull off regularly only against the AI, or equally inexperienced opponents.

If there is some magical wand you wave that makes enemy armor blunder forward into LOS of your AT shooters early, please share it with us.

The question is how you (notice, a pronoun) beat the MBTs (while defending, of course, sans odds) without losing your own.

Lol - you aren't alone in thinking that. Snippets of what Priest wrote: "achieving local gun superiority", "AFV MG/HE defeating the enemy infantry", "enemy AT gun suppressed by infantry", "restricting enemy AFV maneuver" and my favourite "reversing out and let the arty take care of it"! which would be the norm in most cases I think To me speaks of a Subatai-like playing level, weak opponents and/or a lot of luck.

I don't think there is any 'magic-wand' except maybe sacrifice a little more to Lady Luck and there is a lot more latitude for *bad* luck when you are playing huge games, and from what he says he plays big ones, so bringing more toys to the party at the time of your choosing will reward you. To counter that you have to do the same thing, integrating all your possible AT assets at the time and place. No, revealing lone AT guns or letting enemy infantry within range to suppress them won't work lol.

Yeah you need to know the *CM system* and the usual basic stuff like advantageous positions for your assets, fully identifying the enemy, time and place and the like, but once you have committed to it and engage, it does come down to luck, no question about it, and bringing enough to matter.

Ron

[NightGaunt]

[Austrian Strategist]

Nightgaunt,

Absolutely. I didn´t know these were expert methods. Glad to hear that, since I am using them, which means my play must be improving.

[Priest]

Ron - I do not always play HUGE games, scaled down the overall idea still works the same.

Jason - If you do not know how to bait someone and exert some your "will" onto the battlefield to cause things to occur then you have problems far greater than tank use.

Nightgaunt - thanks

While luck is a factor it does not explain why some folks do far better consistently than others. There is a definitive skill to this, I will soon start a thread on Armour tactics. After I get some sleep under my belt. Four days of heavy CMBO has taken a lot out of me. Jason even you can join in and do you JasonC thing. It is mildly amusing from time to time. Thanks to Kalli and others who showed interest, I will go into more depth.

Lastly, Jason and Ron, for your information I play a very high level group of CMBO players. A very high level! Some of the oldest members of this board (some even in this thread) are my opponents. Most if not all of them would hand you your heads in a game. Do not speak on something you know ZERO about.

[Fionn]

Ken,

They're not worth it. You know what you say makes sense. I know it. Those you play know it. Professional military know it. Explaining it all again isn't gonna achieve anything since some aren't interested in actually understanding what you are saying. They're just interested in disagreeing with whatever it is that you say

As Colonel James Dewar once said "Minds are like parachutes, they only function when open".

NightGaunt.

Same message.

[JasonC]

Thanks for some substance Night Gaunt. Most of it is well known to me, but hardly impliments itself. Two items I can recognize I don't do as well as I should - waiting, and overwatch fields of fire. My problem with overwatch FOF, particularly on defense, is that usually if I have any decent area coverage that way, the tanks providing it are easily spotted and stalked.

Live, hidden, and not having much LOS tend to cluster together. Just being hull down does not handle this. It is slightly easier with thick fronted German AFVs, to be sure. But I tend to keep AFVs back until they hunt something, and that means they are not denying a lot of area until they pop up.

As for waiting, I try to wait in back positions, yes. But that hardly results in Priest's description of wiping out the enemy MBTs before the main engagement even starts. And I probably don't wait long enough. I typically play smaller fights, with 20-30 turns not 50. But I very rarely keep an AFV out until turn 15-20. On the attack, an HE chucker, maybe. On defense, I don't manage to afford it. I also don't quite see how this is supposed to fit with keeping the initiative while on defense and outnumbered to start with.

As for Priest's comments on bait, yes I am aware of the metaphysical existence of the category "bait". But try as I might with my limited powers of telekinesis to "impose my will", I can't make decent players take bait just by wanting them to. They tend to walk forward the LOS picture of their AFVs very carefully, as they scout places with infantry. Undoubtedly he can dangle bait that they regularly take. Perhaps in his armor tactics thread he will tell us how, instead of just insisting over and over that he can, which is doubtless the case but hardly helps those he thus continually mocks, rather than helps.