Attacking

[Ratzki]

Everybody has their own play style and preferences to suit fluctuating battle conditions, I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do, I simply present test results and let them draw their own conclusions..:)
Personally I like 'Move to Contact' in many situations because it guarantees your men will instantly stop moving when they're shot at and return fire. It's also good in woods. I mean, if you're ambushed the last thing you want to do is keep walking blindly into it..:)

I agree with POS in that each of us has a playing style that affects how one moves his units around the battlefield. I am not a fan of Move to Contact in general but agree that there are instances when it is a great way to move around. The downside to move to contact is that units stop when contact is made while the rest of the formation may continue to move. This can string out your units and affect command, and actually place your men out of LOS of the enemy if he is moving too. I think that Move to Contact is the way to go if the enemy location is somewhat known or your units will have good cover all through the Move to Contact order. Otherwise I like to move fast or advance to a location and stop there, where "I" want my men, reguardless of who they see. I like to run my armour (and men) like an "on" "off" switch, I move flat out to a location and stop, these jumps are short but I would rather be in a position of my choosing then stopping to fire where I could be in a outnumbered or poor firing position.

[Colonel Talvela]

I would rather be in a position of my choosing then stopping {because of MTC} to fire where I could be in a outnumbered or poor firing position.

Ahh, a man after my own heart. Using MTC in open ground is a bad idea.

[McIvan]

Yeah MTC is almost always a bad idea when you're out of cover.

Two situations come to mind where you might use it:

1. Towards the end of a game where you've broken the enemy and are moving forward clearing out rabble.......ie you think that the only resistance you might encounter would be overwhelmed by your troops stopping and firing.

2. Early in a game with flat terrain where your moving troops are dropping and sneaking under long range machinegun fire. Using MTC with a short cover arc (so that nothing actually trips it) can sometimes get your troops moving again because MTC has a better morale state than simple move.

The situation shown in the test is simply bad tactics.....to have a line of troops approaching a potential enemy position in the open in that manner is not good play, which makes the results of the test (prima facie indicating that MTC is good) misleading.

[RedDevil]

The test shows that MTC caused the LEAST # of casualties, even in open field advancement, therefore it cannot be too misleading. Even under controlled situations.
If you've got proof of a test that shows completely different results using the same setup, it'd be nice to compare the 2 of them, otherwise simply "filling " up the tact thread with personal hearsay, love quotes, or assumptions is meaningless, even if it's always been the weight of most if not all counter-arguments anyways.

We'll be watching this space for some quality testing showing the results of your conclusions then.

[PoorOldSpike]

NIGHT BATTLE

My Germans win a night battle against the AI.
I go fast down the left and sneak in the side door rather than try to go head-on..




It works, I get the win.
I used my standard night-battle tactics which means in night battles (or fog for that matter) your units are surrounded by a small 'circle of visibility', so by concentrating your whole attacking force inside that circle, it flies around the map like a lump of anti-matter obliterating anything that it touches..:)


"Learn to reverence night and to put away the vulgar fear of it.."- Henry Beston

[PoorOldSpike]

This pic is worth putting in the 'Attacking' thread because it shows how cover can be used to get as close as possible to the objectives.
My German infantry tried hooking through the trees down the right and got pretty close to the flag but were pinned by small-arms when they emerged at the tip of the arrow and the Americans retain possession of it, oh well can't win 'em all..
For the record my Tiger on left is bogged and the Wirbelwind in the middle hasn't the oomph to go on alone.

[Ratzki]

I like that POS, move in cover as close to the objective as you can and attack from there. It works if you have an obvious path and one less so. That way the enemy does not know which way that you will come and will have to guard both or take a chance and guard just one of the paths of attack. If you can use a platoon of 1/2 squads along the path that you will not use and make them a little visible, it makes for a good looking fake attack.

I am not into testing too much, so have tried to find a game situation against a human player that shows somewhat how to advance on known enemy positions. No open ground is crossed but, the German side has enough firepower to cause some serious pain if I mess this up. The German side has moved into the trees to try to secure the flag some turns ago, but he comes in one at a time and somewhat in a column probably to limit damage if he runs into my men. I had a platoon across the road that sighted movement and I put them on short covered arcs to limit fire to defence only. I moved up my flanking platoon and reserve and started to move across the road. The german platoon returned fire and showed itself. My reserve platoon that did not move but had LOS opened up and pinned the German platoon. I got most of my men across the road but took about 25% loses across the board on one platoon. This platoon then becomes my fire base and the rerserve crosses the road taking next to no loses. My flanking platoon gets into poistion on the German left. I then advance in short bounds through the trees with one platoon and the reserve overwatches while the flanking platoon gets somewhat behind the enemy. One by one, I eliminate the enemy squads as the string themselves out through the woods. He has several 1/2 tracks for support but they are too close to the action and any time that a target is selected for them, the game's AI picks another squad of mine that is more of a threat and retargets that unit. This does not allow him to concentrate fire and the German side is now in trouble.
Note that I am presenting a wide face and advancing in a line to maximize firepower yet stay in command of my HQs. I am doing this as I know where he is and do not want him to escape.

I keep on eliminating his squads one at a time as they show themselves and am able to advance 60m+ through cover versus a stout German resistance of a German platoon, 3x 1/2 tracks, and a couple of MGs that get all get LOS at various time and at various targets. I have only 1 Flame Thrower as support but do have some armour in the area, but I have not had to use them for anything other then worrying the enemy. I want to move the armour through the trees along the road so I needed to secure this flag and protect my armour from any AT assets that he might have. I take about 25% loses in one platoon and next to none in the rest.

[Colonel Talvela]

The test shows that MTC caused the LEAST # of casualties, even in open field advancement, therefore it cannot be too misleading. Even under controlled situations.

it is potentially very misleading (we are talking about the test in post #32) if a new player looks at POS's test and thinks, "well if POS, the three time ladder leader, will leave an entire company in open ground, then maybe I should too. In fact, it looks like it is better to MTC with my inf through open ground than to run them anywhere."

note to noobs - dont issue the same movement order to an entire company of infantry in open ground unless you KNOW - I mean KNOW without a shadow of a doubt - they wont get fired upon. The tactic that makes the above MTC test mostly irrelevant is called "scouting."

another note to noobs - get in and out of open ground as quickly as possible. that usually means run/advance/assault. Definitely doesnt mean move to contact.

Better note to noobs - dont ever - EVER - have an entire company of infantry grouped together in the open ground after turn 1.

If you've got proof of a test that shows completely different results using the same setup,

The same setup would be silly. How about something slightly different.

[Colonel Talvela]

INFANTRY MOVEMENT ORDERS
These tests were to determine losses while under different orders.

The setup.
I simply put a group of Russians in open ground (which is a really bad idea - dont ever do this) and ordered them towards some woods. On both side of the woods were two MG42 HMG. I clicked play for 10 turns and watched what happened.
Both sides units are elite




THE RESULTS
This screen shot shows the results. I list the below results in order the worst to the best. The worst cases were the orders that had the most casualties. The best cases were the orders that had the fewest casualties. If there was tie, I did a tie-breaker based on which order got more units into the woods. That seemed to make sense because the issued orders were to actually move into the woods. If you wanted to do a different test with a different tie breaker, then you probably want to run a different test.


"Move to Contact" (will stop the instant they're shot at, and return fire)
Russ casualties=59, Russians in woods=1 unit


"Withdraw" (will run fast with a very short command delay but they often break under fire.)
Russ casualties= 59, Russians in woods= 7 units


"Assault" (get a morale boost, however they tire very quickly)
Russ casualties= 49, Russians in woods= 12 units (100%)


[/QUOTE]

[RedDevil]

Ah this is the same test you ran over on GS that you admitted yourself that it was bogus and unworthy of proving a point when questioned about it's validity?
I mean, really if you're going to prove something as bogus, how does using a bogus test give substantial evidence or better yet, discredit the results of others?
All your test did was set up an very unrealistic situation, whereas the other test simulates a good possible situation of a platoon holding a position VS several platoons advancing. Simply setting up rows of HMGs and walking down the corridor between them is not a situation that can be set up in a game.

Edit: removed a recommendation to post this topic in general forum, I think we're okay with it in tactics.