How do you go to battle?

[RightDeve]

Real life tactics come in use and work at some level but at the end IMHO it´s all about playing a TBSTT game or chess, meaning you have to anticipate moves and know what your units can do thus the necessity for planning, control the center, etc.

The feel of playing chess comes due to the fact that tis a TB hexed game, and each turn covers 3-4 minutes roughly.
Moreover, the graphic and sound are simple too. So you don't have a good deal of "adrenaline pump".
But in terms of real-life tactics and plan, it always works. The only thing most player should care about is, don't move your units the full speed unless it is really safe. Most regular players, including me, tend to "rush" the pieces easily, because it's easy to move em (and it's a good feeling, dunno why, rather than move them hex by hex, one hex at one turn esp. at urban warfare).

For a simple addition to the above tactics, look at Sun Zu's saying:

17. For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.

That means that in a battle (esp. attack), one should not diverge his forces vastly, put one schwerpunkt and concentrate your forces there (this one is true particularly when using tanks, as German doctrine said).
That is why mobile reserve troops are really important.
In meeting engagement, the only way to know exactly your enemy's disposition is by engaging him (using advance guard or so). Once you know his exact weak point, commit your main force (mobile reserve) there. Drive as fast as possible to wreak havoc on his rear and to take him off balance. Then your regular frontal troop will do the mop-up operation.
One thing to consider if you're afraid your enemy might break your weak point (that is, the force that is not doing main offense), set up a rather static defense (don't advance too much ahead on enemy territory) and place ATG. Don't expose your main infantry to direct fire field, keep em hidden as long as possible (say one hex behind a treeline). Then place spotter or scout or any small sized infantry to watch the enemy. The ATG and arty fire can slow down his advance. Once his forces are near you (maybe even one hex in front of you), destroy his forces ASAP. Then take another ground. This one is good for dealing with hordes of AFV when you don't have enough ATG or AFV to counter with. Make him think as if the treeline ahead of him is safe, then wreak your ambush at 50 yards.

[RVPERTVS]

But in terms of real-life tactics and plan, it always works.

Agree, real life tactics work in the game BUT to some extent IMHO, not all RL tactics work in the game and some tactics that work in the game won´t work in RL, at the end it´s all about playing a game which not simulates real life,depicts it, that´s my point.

For example: in depicted battle situations the game´s code can´t simulate accurately 3 tanks advancing at the same time against 3 stationary tanks, which is a common real life maneouver, opfire from the stationary tanks will concentrate fire on one tank advancing each time, making it a 3vs1 skrimish while in real life it would be 3vs3, so at the end you have to plan according to those gamey mechanics which rule the game, not entirely acording to RL tactics which will work in some situations, and just because the game´s mechanics allow for it.

IMHO RL tactics work in the game, but just in certain situations that the code allows. Example: fire and move tactic is effective in real life as it is in the game just because the code punishes accuracy for movement (depicting RL) so stationary game tanks get a better hit chance that moving ones, so they will be more likely to destroy enemy units just as in RL. In those wargames in wich a movement penalty is not provided the tactic would be useless, just as there are useless RL tactics in SP.

Just my $0.02
Keep Cool

EDIT: 3RD PARAGRAPH ADDED

[RVPERTVS]

EDIT, MY MISTAKE, I COULDN´T ERASE IT BY MYSELF.

[RightDeve]

Hahahaha :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Man, that doesn't mean to be unrealistic... It's the game mechanism that is simulating RL tactic, as you know the game is TB.
Long time ago I came to such game-mechanic problem, eventually, after long and hard thinking with help from SP experts, I found out that this WinSpWW2 game's RL mechanic is mind-blowing, even surpassing some Wargame masterpieces...

You'll know that when you've spent a good time thinking it's mechanic... And you'll know that even deeper if you take a tour to some Wargames other than SP. I played some wargames like WinSPWW2, WinSPMBT, Combat Mission 2, Combat Mission 3, Close Combat, Faces of War, and lots of the so called masterpieces in wargame world.
And from those games, Steel Panthers IMHO has one of the most realistic game mechanics. You'll see that if you've a good time playing other wargames too.
But being a wargame, SP doesn't mean to be perfect. It sure has flaws. And remember, tis not a simulation. No wargame is simulation.

Cheers, Zen

[RVPERTVS]

Philosophy? rubbish talking?..... what philosophy problem? Could you please explain that?

Perhaps I didn´t make myself clear enough or you got a wrong idea from my last posts: I love SP, it´s the only PC-wargame I play lately, as a matter of fact it´s one of the very few videogames I play, I enjoy it a lot just the way it is and I do prefer TBS over RTS; the point we were discussing is if RL tactics ALWAYS work in the game, I say they don´t and I think I made a point with examples, you say they do but you just say it has "the most realistic game mechanics" I do respect that statement but I also think there are some much more realistic wargames out there.

Keep Cool!

[RightDeve]

Sure,
Maybe I misunderstood your last post (or both of us misunderstood each other)
I'm not accusing you of "hating" SP. Just want to give a bit of my opinion on wargames, esp. SP.

Say, you want to move three tanks at a time, if you want to get them safely on the destination, you'll have to move each one in alternate-style. Move one tank a hex, then go to next tank, move it one hex, and so on. It is the way to simulate three tanks moving at a time, especially at close quarter combat. Thus eliminating the chance for the enemy to concentrate the whole opfire for one of the tanks, or atleast disributing the opfire evenly on your units.
And for the enemy's opfire, it doesn't always happen to each of your tanks.
Sometimes your tank has a chance of not being opfired.

SP is a very flexible Wargame. Some features which one think as unrealistic can turn out to be a realistic mechanic, just need to take a bit of deep thinking.

Just take it easy Roberto

[RVPERTVS]

Sure,
Say, you want to move three tanks at a time, if you want to get them safely on the destination, you'll have to move each one in alternate-style. Move one tank a hex, then go to next tank, move it one hex, and so on. It is the way to simulate three tanks moving at a time, especially at close quarter combat. Thus eliminating the chance for the enemy to concentrate the whole opfire for one of the tanks, or atleast disributing the opfire evenly on your units.

Misunderstanding indeed, I got confused with the philosophy thing :chin: I´m glad we both like the game and that we can discuss about our shared interest.

In fact from your post I conclude we agree on the point from the example: you have to plan and execute according to gamerules (like the opfire rule in the example) not reality at all!

Always cool man!

[RightDeve]

Yeah,
My point is, the game's mechanic result is able to do realistic planning & tactic. Only the way it's executed makes people thing it's unrealistic.

We'll have to do things on gamerules, because the fact it's TBS. And moreover, the fact that it's TBS makes it realistic for detailed planning and tactic. So, tis somekinda evil-chain, necessary-evil: the game wants to depict something realistic but by doing an unrealistic way. But again, the end result is realistic. And that's the only perfect way of depicting RL tactic.

Let's take an example:
If we want a RL feel of battle, we must take a Real-time tactics game. Sure TB in some way is unrealistic, coz in real life there's no such "stopping-time" and "unlimited-time" of battle. But in terms of Real-time tactic game (RTT), no one can control perfectly, say, a single company. You'll have to rely much on the game's AI. In other words, the RTT can't "realistically" depict a battle where many units are in your control.
On the other hand, TBS wargame (though unrealistic in terms of the flow of time) is really good at simulating a perfect battle like in real-life where each soldier has it's own ingenius way of encountering enemy, unlike in RTS where the AI takes its whole role.

That's roughly what I mean "evil-chain" or "necessary-evil" mechanism on SP, where the game wants something realistic but by doing something unrealistic. That understanding can be expanded to other WinSPWW2's features, anyway.

Thus my clear point is, no wargame is simulation, not a single one. Each has it's own achilles' heel. And in my own view, SP is one of the best at depicting battle.

Cheers, RightDeve

[Narwan]

You're hitting the nail on the head there. SP strives for realistic outcomes. That sometimes means an unrealistic process or game mechanic to get that desired outcome.

Narwan

[klanx171]

Its an age old question that but to paraphrase Clausewitz its easy to know what to do but no easy to do it.

Having a battle plan and knowing your weapons as well as you Opponent and his weapons cannot hurt.

The meachanics of the game engine do not preculude either tactics or strategy but they do require some modifactions form life to make them work.

Having a plan and knowing the terrain dont hurt either but are not a sure road to success.

I tend to make detai8led plans, draw maps and look at the terraina and then as many other players do whats required, but I do try to think what my Opp will do and I do try to stay one step ahead through surprise and deception. My problem is mostly that I need more time in game as I rarely play and have gotten out of the groove and thats what seems to work the best, that swing of things when you are playing a lot and just keep on moving along no matter who you play.

Clausewitz spoke of the need for Genius in battle and the Coop doil or the all encompassing glance which take its all in and leads to that gut feeling which most of the time turns out right, sometimes i follow that gut feeling but often I try to plan better than the gut and loose badly (the last few games i play) but I make the distinction between

a.) plans for battle
b.) Battle itself

I belive that planning for the battle is important, getting the right weapons, knowing the ranges and ammo loadouts of weapons, knowing how much armor it can go through and all the other little variables such as terrain features and dead ground and bottle necks and the like, placment of formations and units is also important and having an idea of what the objectives are is also important. Knowing the enemy is also something that can be guessed at even if Im not right.

But once the battle is on all bets are off and often where units have been placed or deployed can decide many an outcome as once joined in combat its hard to get them out of it, the enemy will surpise and often do unexpected things and its at that point that you will know if you plan is working, sorta working or just plain sucking, I find it pretty easy to know if I have a chance, a fighting chance or I am just plain screwed just by looking at how things are going by about halfway or sometimes earlier.

I find defence easier than attack but attack is more likely to produce a victory unless its a defensive battle. But how you set up can make the difference and my victories have always come from a good setup my losses from a bad one, sadly I learn more from my losses than victories and therefore have to get a loss to see what I should have been doing.