Play styles with different Armies

[Nemesis Lead]

An interesting question to provoke some debate:

Do you have a standard play style or does your play style depend upon the army you are using?

For example, I have noticed that some guys use one play style. Regardless of whether or not they use the American, British, Russians, or Germans they prefer to "close with and destroy the enemy in close combat" or "stand off and destroy from afar." Nationality and other factors may cause some minor tweaking, but they have a "personal doctrine" that they use in CM.

Other guys will vary their play style depending on the Army they are using. For example, with the Russians they prefer to "close with and destroy" while with the Americans they prefer to "stand off and destroy from afar." The Army drives the doctrine.

What do you do? Why do you do this?

Obviously, there is no right answer to the question. I am just curious as to how people view things.

[Poor Old Spike]

I play Meetings mostly and my style never varies, my aim is to get my infantry to the flags before my opponent, then defend them with tanks.
The infantry therefore usually never need to fire, their job is to sit quietly holding the flags til the end of the game.
That strategy works for me most of the time..

[gangofmao]

...when using the Russians,i will always try to get close and bloody,
when playing as Partisans,it's hide and ambush,same when playing as Finns.
Axis minors,i play as a cross between Russian and Partisan.
I usually don't play the Germans that often,
but try for that stand off and shoot when i do...

[BRO Sapper]

NL, I'd say neither drives my style of play. Instead it's the tactical situation. Of course, the weapon mix of the forces you have does drive how they'll be effective, a Russian SMG squad is hardly an effective tool as a base of fire on an assault against dug in infantry a 100 meters away. But as the assaulting element:freak: !

[TacCovert4]

As I prefer desert operations, my force mix is typically a triumvirate of combined arms focusing on the three following units:

Med/Heavy Tanks, to kill enemy tanks (you can sneer now)

Light tanks/IFVs (HTs, carriers, etc.) provide mobility and heavy firepower for infantry. Provide transport for infantry, especially necessary in QB desert maps when you cannot be certain that your 'legs' will have sufficient time to reach a sheltered fighting position before they come under enemy fire.

Infantry: Typically riflemen (basic infantry with good punch at range, saves money on desert maps where engineers/pioneers may never get danger close with the enemy), with a heavy leavening of LMGs (cheap, easy to transport, and heavy firepower to cost ratio). Depending on which side and portion of the war, I may include integral mortars and arty spotters, or I may rely on my light tanks main guns and heavy mgs to suppress the enemy infantry.

Although this very basic doctrine influences my decision making, it does not determine my strategy for the battle, or all my purchase options. To spice things up and be unpredictable I have been known to purchase the following:

AT guns on offense, hordes of infantry mounted AT weapons (look out it's the panzershreck battalion from HELL!!!), lots of artillery support. platoons of fast tanks and armored cars, pretty much anything that I think will throw my enemy off balance without affecting my own abilities to accomplish the mission.

[Nemesis Lead]

TacCovert4......I like your doctrine. A moderately fast moving, moderately hard hitting, combined arms approach. Enough firepower to do real damage but mobile enough to win via manuever.

The guys who spend all their cash on a few heavy tank/high caliber artillery units or (the reverse) use light forces consisting of hordes of halftracks, armored cars, light tanks, light artillery, and mobile infantry.....almost invariably wind up dead.

Moderation and combined arms are the keys. Tailor it for the nationality you are using, the terrain and climatic conditions and you are all set.

[Lurker]

It depends on the side I'm playing because each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

[TacCovert4]

TacCovert4......I like your doctrine. A moderately fast moving, moderately hard hitting, combined arms approach. Enough firepower to do real damage but mobile enough to win via manuever.

The guys who spend all their cash on a few heavy tank/high caliber artillery units or (the reverse) use light forces consisting of hordes of halftracks, armored cars, light tanks, light artillery, and mobile infantry.....almost invariably wind up dead.

Moderation and combined arms are the keys. Tailor it for the nationality you are using, the terrain and climatic conditions and you are all set.


What always drives me up the wall about the computer is that their purchasing ability in QBs (my breaks from reality) are rigidly set to do exactly what you just described. The computer also doesn't think very well in the purchase sector about cost/survivability/effectiveness ratio.

As a general note, how fast does your average offensive by a mechanized infantry force go? About 15 to 20 mph total, with some areas reaching 30mph if there is a weak point. Knowing that, I almost never waste money in a small/med QB on Radio cars and the like. A PzIIC costs as much as a 20mm armed AC, and has heavier armor, MGs, and the fear factor of a tank. I cannot remember how many times a IIC platoon, covering my infantry, has been able to completely rape enemy halftracks and ACs. If you're sacrificing survivability and firepower for speed, you must make sure that your vehicles will never have to fight a pitched battle.

As another note, when fighting in the desert, use Light Tanks for your HMG support. MGs garner a horrendous amout of fire from the enemy, and in desert terrain they very often lack cover. If your light tanks and halftracks are providing your HMG coverage however, they are immune to most ranged foot weapons, and can be kept out of range of the other ones. In this, you get a continuous advance of heavy firepower to support your infantry.

[TacCovert4]

It depends on the side I'm playing because each has it's strengths and weaknesses.


I agree. Allies typically have the advantage in quality and quantity of APCs (Stuart Kangaroo comes to mind) and Medium tanks.

Germany early war has a decided advantage in Light tanks, and a balanced selection of Med tanks and infantry. As the war wears on however, The Germans advantage goes to their excellent heavies and AT weapons.


The upside: Late war germans can capitalize on their better tanks and AT, and be able to purchase higher quantities of infantry and light vehicles

The Downside: As the war goes on, Allies must purchase increasingly larger numbers of AT and Medium tanks to counter the Germans increase in Quality.

[Taktik]

My methodology for playing different armies is thus:

When playing Allies, I take allied tanks.

When playing Axis, I take axis tanks.

I sometimes mix my big tanks with little tanks. And, I have been known to sprinkle real big tanks in with medium tanks. Occasionally, however, I will only have one size for my tanks. This eliminates any feelings of inferiority among the little tanks.

For combined arms with either Axis or Allies, I believe in combining lots of tanks with a little bit of infantry. This is called the “Heavy/Light” approach. Or, the “Armor Rules” law of combined arms thinking.

It is also useful to have small, light, fast things that can go out to find the enemy for the tanks. In fact, infantry can do the same job, being small and light, but not so fast.

But, remember. In the end, it is not about which side you play, but understanding beauty can be found in all tanks.

[Lurker]

So does this mean you like tanks? :hmmm:

[Palantir]

So does this mean you like tanks? :hmmm:
I don't see how you came to the conclusion that he likes tanks...:rolleyes:
:laugh:

[Lurker]

I agree. Allies typically have the advantage in quality and quantity of APCs (Stuart Kangaroo comes to mind) and Medium tanks.

Germany early war has a decided advantage in Light tanks, and a balanced selection of Med tanks and infantry. As the war wears on however, The Germans advantage goes to their excellent heavies and AT weapons.

The upside: Late war germans can capitalize on their better tanks and AT, and be able to purchase higher quantities of infantry and light vehicles

The Downside: As the war goes on, Allies must purchase increasingly larger numbers of AT and Medium tanks to counter the Germans increase in Quality.It also depends on the game system.
Cmbo has super infantry so you can't go wrong with infantry.

BB has wimpy infantry so if you take hordes of it you may end up with hordes of cowering wimps. The popovs have loads of cheap ATRs which make life hell for light German armor so they may be a questionable choice at times, though recon vehicles do come in handy. The Russians also have loads of available dirt cheap SMG units which can out-gun most German inf by 200 to 300 FP per squad. So if it's a dense cover map the Axis may have their work cut out for them. Vet Russian tanks have little to fear from the German tanks if the target is killable, meaning they are at least on equal footing. The vaunted German superiority in gunnery and optics is no where to be found in cmbb, so take Russian vet tanks and not regs.
The Germans at least have abundant 150 HE support which will ruin an infantryman's day pretty quickly. The Russians do also but the ammo loads are quite sparse.

AK gives the allies a usually substantial edge in ammo loads in all categories except the on-board 81mm mortar. The 3" mortar is great with it's big ammo load and larger blast radius than the 81.
The M10 doesn't have much to fear and often out-shoots the better optic'd German tanks. A panther, JPiv or Brumbar at long range may be a different story though; but for those the Brit 17 puonder serves well. I also like the US and Brit light ATGs; not too expensive and quite deadly on most German armor.
I like playing the German side in cmbo, but in AK...the infantry ammo is usually too light for a big battle, the tank armor has been watered down while the allies AT penetration ability has been upped considerably, and the TDs rotation speeds are pathetic. The HMG42s are still nice and as mentioned the 150s as well, but aside from that I can't say all that much for the Axis in AK. :rolleyes:

[KGPanzerschrecK]

US and Brit light ATGs; not too expensive and quite deadly on most German armor

In CMAK, The American 57mm is IMHO the most underrated and over looked ATG in the whole CM series. Whats more it can be speedily towed around the map by a very nimble and cheap Jeep. :smoke:

[Geordie]

I prefer realism in CM. So I tailor my tactics and forces to the actual units I'm playing. Soviets have more units, so I mass them and use their doctrine. US have some great Inf units and specialised weapons, the Brits have to be handled very carefully, the germans are the masters of al trades with their very powerfull infantry and armour and of course the Italians are to be avoided!