More MC Tactics and Strategies!

[Kool Kat]

Gents: 

I've added the following information to my "Modern Campaigns - Tactics and Strategies" article! 


More MC Tactics and Strategies!

• Bypass and flank enemy positions. The threat of being surrounded / isolated will cause the enemy to abandon positions.
  

• Moving units in Travel (T)-mode. Move T-mode units in increments of one hex instead of traveling the entire desired distance in T-mode. This will greatly reduce air interdiction. For example; moving a T-mode unit three hexes, you would move the T-mode unit one hex. Stop./ Then one hex. Stop. / Then one hex. Stop.
  

• Engineers. Keep these units near your offensive axis to clear mines and obstacles.
  

• HQ's. Don't stack other units (except AA) with HQ's. These units may be detected each turn (radio interceptions) and then can be targeted by enemy airstrikes and/or artillery.
  

• Heavy armor (M1's and Leopard II's). When this armor is entrenched in urban / forest hexes, it is nearly impossible (short of using WMD) to extract or destroy. Enemy must bypass and flank.
  

• Entrenching. I believe entrenching has a nearly 100% success rate per turn. This reflects armor and mech infantry units having specialized mechanized entrenching equipment that travels with the units. I believe non-mech infantry does it the "old fashioned way" and uses a manual entrenching shovel - one per man!
  

   

• Mech Infantry: WP fields several carrier models. The BMP-2 are the most lethal. These carriers have a hard attack range of 2 and can knock out armor effectively. Also, all WP mech infantry are amphibious and can cross major rivers without using bridges.
  

• Quality versus Quantity. NATO has Morale A and B units that have superior attack range and sometimes thermal imaging sights (TIS). In night combat, a non-TIS units that fires on a unit that has TIS, the fire value is halved. When a unit that has TIS fires at a non-TIS unit, the fire value is doubled.  WP has Morale C units and LOTs of troops per unit. WP armor units usually have 20-25 tanks and WP mech infantry units have 500 men!
  

You can view my "Modern Campaigns - Tactics and Strategies" article HERE

[Mr Grumpy]

Thanks for adding more tips to that excellent article Mike. 

[ComradeP]

Moving units in Travel (T)-mode. Move T-mode units in increments of one hex instead of traveling the entire desired distance in T-mode. This will greatly reduce air interdiction. For example; moving a T-mode unit three hexes, you would move the T-mode unit one hex. Stop./ Then one hex. Stop. / Then one hex. Stop.

Unless it works differently in MC compared to PzC, distance travelled has no effect on interdiction chance per hex, it's always the value mentioned in the parameter data dialog per hex regardless of whether you move 1 or 20 hexes in T-mode.

What can help, is not moving stacks of units in T-mode if the enemy has carpet bombing capable units or if losses are adjusted by stack size.

[WargameGeneral]

Thanks for the update, Mike.

Excellent article! 

[Kool Kat]

Moving units in Travel (T)-mode. Move T-mode units in increments of one hex instead of traveling the entire desired distance in T-mode. This will greatly reduce air interdiction. For example; moving a T-mode unit three hexes, you would move the T-mode unit one hex. Stop./ Then one hex. Stop. / Then one hex. Stop.

Unless it works differently in MC compared to PzC, distance travelled has no effect on interdiction chance per hex, it's always the value mentioned in the parameter data dialog per hex regardless of whether you move 1 or 20 hexes in T-mode.

What can help, is not moving stacks of units in T-mode if the enemy has carpet bombing capable units or if losses are adjusted by stack size.

Gent:

Thank you for correcting me. The air interdiction value set in the parameter data is applied to each hex traveled.

 However, You should NOT move stacks of units in T-mode! 

The probability of air interdiction in a hex is based on the following:  

• Number of units in T-mode moving into hex.
  
• Modified by any terrain.
  
• Probability is halved at dawn and dusk.
  

[Ricky B]

Excellent stuff Mike, thanks.

I would take exception to one item only, and that really depends on player preference:

HQ's. Don't stack other units (except AA) with HQ's. These units may be detected each turn (radio interceptions) and then can be targeted by enemy airstrikes and/or artillery

I generally tried to stack armor with HQs for exactly this reason, if out of enemy LOS anyway. It reduces the damage caused to the HQ on average, and the armor normally holds up well since most weapons are more deadly to soft than hard targets. Unless my opponent figured it out and used high HA air attacks, but even then it reduced the impact on the HQ although at the risk of losing important armor strength. So I would usually use my poorer armor, if Warsaw Pact at least.

Rick

[Mowgli]

• Entrenching. I believe entrenching has a nearly 100% success rate per turn. This reflects armor and mech infantry units having specialized mechanized entrenching equipment that travels with the units. I believe non-mech infantry does it the "old fashioned way" and uses a manual entrenching shovel - one per man! 
  

Entrenching: 

The base chance per round is found in the parameter data (Miscellaneous/"Digging-In"). This base chance is very high in the modern titles (about 25%, depending also on the scenario at hand). The base chance is modified thus: 

• engineer unit *3
  
• trying to build level 1 fortifications ("improved positions") *4
  
• size of the unit in company-equivalents (1 company = *1, 2 companies = *2, 3 companies/1btn = *3)
  

Note that having several individual units trying to dig-in does not increase the chance. Every unit needs to conduct its own test.

So, as NATO (which uses single company units), creating improved positions is not a problem. If you go for level 2 (trenches) though, your chances get rather slim (25%) unless you use an engineer company or combine several companies into a single unit (which is a luxury you usually can't affort). Digging-in is absolutely crucial for NATO gameplay.

For the Warsaw Pact, digging should almost always work, as your units come in battalion size. But if you do a lot of digging-in, you're probably playing WP wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: Take a look at my mod for Modern Campaigns mod (which includes new unit pics - wip - and a modified version of Jisu's awesome mapmod (http://www.mapmod.se/) - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1djdocrg56uar...n54_a?dl=0

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

There really should be no difference digging in except with or without an engineer. A Bn digs in, each Co digging in and Bn HQ has spare people to do so, mostly a slit trench, maybe, if they choose to do it. I've never seen it done. It's more important to get the essentials running and rely on camouflage to hide. Anyway, a Co digging is no different than a Bn. The Co is still digging for the Co, not the Bn. They are still digging the same area, the change being casualties suffered or not.

[Mowgli]

Their really should be no difference digging in except with or without an engineer.  A Bn digs in, each Co digging in and Bn HQ has spare people to do so, mostly a slit trench, maybe, if they choose to do it.  I've never seen it done.  It's more important to get the essentials running and rely on camouflage to hide.  Anyway, a Co digging is no different than a Bn.  The Co is still digging for the Co, not the Bn.  They are still digging the same area, the change being casualties suffered or not.

Well the problem is that the improved position that has been dug by a company can be taken over and used for full effect by a btn. So a company digs in for a batalion (or for several batalions, in fact, depending on the max. stacking limit).

Also, I guess players would start using recon units (which are typically company-sized only) primarily for preparing positions. Not sure if this would be ideal.

And as it is listed above, a single company of non-engineers has a very high chance (75%) to create improved positions per turn. These would be the type of measures you describe (basic slit trenches, camouflage). Engineers/btn level units start to become more important when it comes to trenches (level 2 fortifications), which is realistic as these represent more sophisticated field works. I suppose that batalions (Warsaw Pact) would have some kind of organic engineer sections with them, so it makes sense that these are capable of creating those more sophisticated fortifications. And if the battalions are split up into companies, as in NATO's case, these engineer units are represented by separate engineer companies. So I don't have a big problem with the "size" of the unit being a factor for dig-in chances. For me, size does not represent actual unit size, but rather the question whether the engineer support can act independently of the btns. For WP (btn-sized units), it is always implicit in the units; for NATO, it's explicit, respresented by separate engineer companies.

Btw. Are you the youtube "Combat Mission" Josey Wales? :)

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Negative on the "Combat Mission" Josey Wales. I've been Outlaw Josey Wales ever since the internet began and I started flying in Air Warrior. Anybody else is just an imposter. :)

I didn't think about a larger unit using it as well. Then again, it digs in and a stack of units take advantage of it. A Co would not dig in another unit. They spent the last 4 to 8 hours digging themselves in. They sure don't want to dig in for another unit. When moving, the foxholes would be filled in. That is what Inf practiced, at least the units I was in. Engineers dig a lot of people in. We were fortunate a couple of times to be near a unit that had a couple of backhoes. The rest of the time was all backbreaking digging with the E-tool. A lot of things have to be abstracted or we would never have a game.