Typical defence

[Poor Old Spike]

(As always my posts are noob-oriented so my apologies to old hands who already know)
The 3-pic sequence below is from a ladder game and shows the sort of defence I always try to achieve.
Note - If you haven't got tanks, use MG's and mortar fire lanes instead, siting them in cover near where the tanks would be, to fire diagonally across the front of your main infantry positions..
Remember,your infantry should sit quietly holding the flags on 20-metre arcs for as long as possible without giving away their position unless they have to.
He can't kill you if he can't see you ;)
Generally speaking, increase the arcs to about 35 metres (grenade-throwing range) if enemy tanks start nosing too close, and/or remove the arcs completely if you suspect an infantry attack is about to come..


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/defence.jpg




http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMscho2.jpg




http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/CMscho3.jpg

[jdsu]

How come I can never convince my opponents to do the suicide rush. :mad:

Well actually that is probably why when I play QB ME's it's usually CMAK, BB tactical options especially given the turn settings, does usually boil down to exactly what you have done for the Russians.

[Nemesis Lead]

Its the Charge of the Light Brigade!

[jdsu]

It is the charge of the light brigade !

Actually I believe I did the same or somehting very similar as a newbie.

Only needed it to happen once (that I will admit to) before I learned my lesson.

A great illustration of what to do and what not to do in any ME with tight time constraints.

[Poor Old Spike]

If you're losing badly and time's running out, why not go out in a blaze of glory and charge the enemy with whatever you've got, I've done it myself, it's fun and you've got nothing to lose ;)

[Doodlebug]

Trying a flag rush on 21 of 20 minutes variable would annoy some opponents. I'd be pretty unimpressed.

[Poor Old Spike]

Nothing bothers me, I say to my opponents "Buy whatever you like, play however you like, bring it on and let's see what you got" ;)
I guess that's why I'm never short of opponents because I won't tie one arm behind their backs with petty restrictions.
Hey there's a debate going on about it in TPG right now between me and the arm-tying school :)
http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/

[Nemesis Lead]

Trying a flag rush on 21 of 20 minutes variable would annoy some opponents. I'd be pretty unimpressed.

This flag rushing stuff has all been debated ad-naseum. To me, the real question is....is the force moving in on the flag able to realistically take it or are they just trying to dispute the flag and score points?

In the above example, that is a big (if totally misguided) infantry/armor attack. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that flag rush on any turn. But if the guy was moving halftracks in there (in the face of T-34s) just to dispute the flag....that is cheap and gamey.

Sometimes you have to attack at the end of the game (in "overtime") because you just haven't arrived at the flag until then. I usually attack at the end of the game ON PURPOSE because I want to use as much time as possible to soften the bad guys up. I want that final push to just bowl him over.

[Taktik]

In a typical defense one must have tanks. That is to say, one must purchase armor in thier force mix. Meaning, AFVs should be taken in quantitude. The gist of which is, do not neglect to bring along an extra MBT or two. Which happens to equate to ensuring you have enough of the "heavy stuff". Too little and you may regret it. Or you might find yourself missing them. Which would be bad, and that is not a feeling one wants to feel when fighting a battle without tanks. Which I said one should never do. So then, my point being, be sure to take tanks. Lots of them.

That is all.

:p

[Poor Old Spike]

Yes tanks were invented to make war more fun ;)
In 1933 Guderian demonstrated the earliest Mark I tanks to Hitler at Kummersdoff and the new Chancellor told him excitedly: 'that's what I need! That's what I want to have!'


http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sztalingrad.jpg

[Lurker]

This flag rushing stuff has all been debated ad-naseum. To me, the real question is....is the force moving in on the flag able to realistically take it or are they just trying to dispute the flag and score points?

In the above example, that is a big (if totally misguided) infantry/armor attack. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that flag rush on any turn. But if the guy was moving halftracks in there (in the face of T-34s) just to dispute the flag....that is cheap and gamey.

Sometimes you have to attack at the end of the game (in "overtime") because you just haven't arrived at the flag until then. I usually attack at the end of the game ON PURPOSE because I want to use as much time as possible to soften the bad guys up. I want that final push to just bowl him over.You're right, this has been debated ad-naseum but resolutions are never arrived at because there is never any fixed agreement. There are those who love end-game flag rushes and those who hate it.
I tend to agree with Doodlebug in that a massive push at games end is not very impressive. Sure there are times where one fights the whole game and is only able to bring it on at the end due to circumstances. But when a player plans on doing that game after game, how is that any different or less gamey then the suicidal HT rush just to neutralize or score points? Both efforts are made with the same goal - neutralize, score points and don't give your opponent time to fight back because the game will end. One method simply looks more obvious. :surprise: :blab:

[Palantir]

I've said it before- if a player had all game to take "the" flag but then flag rushes me on the "last turn" on purpose with no intention of "holding" the flag (because he'd be wiped out in 1 or 2 turns) but only to get close & neutralize it I won't play him again. It's gamey.

But if it took all game to get there then attack the flag that's another story.

[Lurker]

But if it took all game to get there then attack the flag that's another story. Agreed. But what if he intentionally waits to the end and then attacks in force? Is that much different from the suicide rush? Both methods are counting on the game ending. :(

[Poor Old Spike]

Given the choice of having him rush earlier when my defences may not have had time to be set up properly, or having him rush later when I've got everthing ready and waiting to give him a warm welcome, I'd prefer him to rush late anytime :)

[2054172]

Agreed. But what if he intentionally waits to the end and then attacks in force? Is that much different from the suicide rush? Both methods are counting on the game ending. :(

Isn't the variable ending is to elimanate that? or is that all:icon_bs:

[Lurker]

Isn't the variable ending is to elimanate that? or is that all:icon_bs:Variable endings may still be manipulated. If a flag changes control within the last 10 turns (I think it is) then it will go into overtime, but that overtime is not set in minutes. I usually see it going an extra 5, but I've also had it stop with +2 and heard of it going an extra 7. I believe the additional time depends on the number of original turns.
So if one player causes the flag to change from controlled to contested then it will go to OT. Knowing this can allow one to manipulate when he rushes in force and how much time will be left to evict him.

[Lurker]

Given the choice of having him rush earlier when my defences may not have had time to be set up properly, or having him rush later when I've got everthing ready and waiting to give him a warm welcome, I'd prefer him to rush late anytime :) Well if you don't have full controll either in that case then the rush wouldn't be all that gamey. I'm considering when one side has full control and both sides know it and then the rush in mass occurs knowing the game will end in a few minutes. In that situation I'd rather have him rush early so I can evict him before the end.

[Poor Old Spike]

My experience with variable endings is that a 20+ usually runs on average to 23 turns but usually goes a turn or two more (to 25) if flag changed hands late.
I've never, ever seen a 20+ go beyond 25 in any circumstances.
30+ games go to a maximum of about 37 turns, and longer games extend further still.
Incidentally flag control is always very uncertain anyway -

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/flaga.jpg



http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/flagb.jpg

[jdsu]

One key variable that always gets overlooked is the fact that nothing prevents the "holder" of the flag from advancing beyond the contestable flag area.

I am not suggesting that it is advantageous to do so, just that the only reason one doesn't is because they think they have "ownership" of the flag.

If the enemy waits until the end to flag rush, he should be doing so at great cost. If he is allowed to contest the major flag without such great cost then your hold on the flag wasn't that good to begin with, and you were most most definately just "renting" the flag instead of owning it.

The game only cares about ownership at the end. It's not based on time of possession, nor on first to tag.

The major complaint of such end game flag rushing tactics, shouldn't be that it is "gamey" (and generally suicidal and ineffective) but that it leads to a boring game. Especially if the game setting is beyond what POS suggest, 20 variable.

In short, flag renting for the game or rushing the flag at end are both tactics. One works better than the other, but both in combination results in one big waste of time.

[2054172]

[QUOTE=Poor Old Spike]My experience with variable endings is that a 20+ usually runs on average to 23 turns but usually goes a turn or two more (to 25) if flag changed hands late.
I've never, ever seen a 20+ go beyond 25 in any circumstances.
30+ games go to a maximum of about 37 turns, and longer games extend further still.
Incidentally flag control is always very uncertain anyway -
QUOTE]

Thank you for the info , so if the games are longer in time then the variable is greater. I have never had it end in OT one or two turns it usally goes the max. Any reason for that?:( :smoke:

[Poor Old Spike]

Yes in a perfect world we'd be able to advance our boys well beyond the flag to screen it from anybody trying to approach it, but its not always possible. For example in my recent flag shots he's got 2 guns on a ridge (out of frame) which would gleefully shell my boys if I pushed past the flag to the front of the wood.
So I had to settle for safely huddling round the flagpole in the centre of the wood and hope I'd be granted ownership by the fickle computer.
In this case it wasn't in a giving mood, c'est la guerre..
Incidentally it ended in turn 24 of 20, dunno why, it just did..

[Lurker]

Some good points about flag renting. A well timed suicidal rush in OT against a flag that appears to be well protected can still result in a 'contested' flag, even though both sides know that the suicide-ees would have been meat if the game had continued (such as in POS's last case). It's probably a flaw in the system. One may argue that there wasn't proper control if the flag can turn, but in essence the majority control over the area is without question. It just a matter of game mechanics.
Trying to extend well beyond is a good tactic for protecting the VL turf, but a massed push that's timed for game end can often break through the perimeter and still flip the flag to grey. It does get a bit boring if both sides wait to the end to make a move, knowing that the whistle will soon blow ending the battle. :bored:

[Taktik]

Thats why people should use imported maps and sprinkle only a few small flags on the map when playing a QB ME. This way its all about manuevering and killing the enemy not rushing/holding flags.

[Poor Old Spike]

As is well known by now, my CM playing is all about FUN, and if most games ended in flag rushes by one side or the other I'd be bored out of my skull..
But happily only about 1 in 10 games sees a late flag rush and I can live with that!
Anyway,as I touched on earlier, the games flag ownership routine is very unpredictable almost to the point of being a bug. I even had a brief correspondence with Battlefronts MadMatt about it, sending him an endgame file so he could look into it. He seemed quite concerned at first but then never bothered to get back to me..
But I don't care, a bit of randomness in a game is good, even if it means you find you've been robbed of a flag by the computer at the end..
Incidentally flags give an interesting range of tactical permutations that add to the depth of a game because players must decide whether to go for all, some or just one flag, bearing in mind big ones are worth 300 pts each and smalls 100.
And he must decide whether to risk pushing beyond a flag to secure it better, or to just get up to the flagpole and no further, and hope its enough to possess it at the end, or he can decide to stop just short of it hoping to at least keep it neutral.
And of course he must decide what proportions of his force to send towards each flag, one company? Two? three or more etc?
And he must also take into consideration how well a flag can be protected once he has it..
There are so many variable with flags that it all adds to the fun of the game.
PS here's an excerpt from an old CM article I did -

DON'T GO A FLAG TOO FAR--
Right from the start, add up their total victory points (300 large,100 small) and decide which ones you want to have. I just usually aim for taking most flag points, not all,as I don't want to spread my boys too thin. Its far easier to take and hold a high-scoring flag group in just one area of the map. But I do make a token effort by trying to walk a single squad or LMG etc up to minor flags. One more thing, NEVER place too much trust in the flag ownership icons and the score readout, or you could get a nasty surprise when the final result screen comes up!

[jdsu]

I have played against some very tough opponents who state that they their first priority is to destroy the enemy, flag ownership follows as a natural result. Turn off the flag markers if it helps to achieve this.

This means they must have a good grasp of the map, especially the terrain. Always an exciting game, as they actively seek to do damage and usually force the main action away from where one normally expects it to be. This is not to say they are not aware of the flags; they know it has to factored into the equation, they just factor flag ownership into the equation much later. Most players factor in flags and possesion in their pre-game strat.

The flags do add spice and aot of tactical variety as POS notes. Randomness in ownership or the ending of variable turn games is cool (this really means no one has figured out how the game engine "calculates" either, which in turn pevents "gameyness".)

I don't agree on the 20+ turn settings as I believe it is too short for those trying to do the fancy flanks or the seek and destroy strats. I do not believe in excessive time settings either because there has to be the element of speed in obtaining the objectives, no mater where stupidly placed by the AI / generals.

Always a balancing act, the # of turns to set for every game, whether QB, Scenario, ME, atk/defend etc..

Most end game flag rushes that I have encountered or done, have occurred after a fierce battle - a desperate gamble to dispute an objective, by forces as small as a lone ht or half squad, or by marshalling the remnants for a final push. I don't believe any detracted from an exciting game, although one can always feel that they were robbed or were being a thief :OHNO:

[Poor Old Spike]

Jdsu quote - I have played against some very tough opponents who state that they their first priority is to destroy the enemy, flag ownership follows as a natural result........I don't agree on the 20+ turn settings as I believe it is too short for those trying to do the fancy flanks or the seek and destroy strats
----------------------------------------------------------------



Hmm... my own strategy is to take the flags as early as possible by dumping my infantry on them, then kill the enemy with my tank wolfpacks, life's so much simpler that way ;)
As for 20+ turns, I've always found it ample on a medium map as do the majority of my opponents, as it introduces an element of time pressure that adds spice to the game by preventing dawdling around.
Perhaps players who are only used to long games don't realise just how far you can go in 20 turns?
As I've said before, I often think some of my opponents haven't got a "Run" and "Fast" key on their keyboards ;)
Tut tut I don't think "fast Heinz" would have approved as these quotes of his show -
"Ticket to the last station!" - (He shouted this to his panzers as they roared past him,meaning GO GO GO all the way!)
"Once armoured formations are out on the loose they must be given the green light to the very end of the road"
"The engine of a tank is as much a weapon as its gun"

[Lurker]

20+ would be way too short for me - being a lover of huge battles. :love:
I like all the maneuver, feints, regrouping and counter attacking and these take time. The big problem with BB/AK huge battles is the pathetic ammo loads for the Germans who went auto-weapon heavy towards the last half of the war. Because of this the game seems geared toward small 20 to 30 turn battles. How grim!! :upset: :cry:

It will be interesting to see how CMC handles this.

[2054172]

The more time to manover but there is still the 5 to 20 turns of just fighting for flags anyway. :)

I rather play like a game of chess over a long period of time then to get maited in four turns seems boring after awhile.:halo: :smoke:

[BRO Sapper]

Having a short time works well for MEs, in reality they may have been short. But it'd be fairly rare to have to work under the clock routinely for attacks, such that you couldn't take 15 minutes to do some sort of recon. As NL stated earlier in this thread, it takes time to properly get your forces in place for a coordinated combined arms assault. Rushing it just gets you what POS opponent got, an uncoordinated butcher of your elements by a defender. It'd be one thing if you started out with some idea of the opponents dispositions, then a short time period would be appropriate. But you only get this when playing a scenario, and only then if the scenario designer done his job and provided a decent description of the probably enemy dispositions.

But in a QB, you're not going to have enen that, which means you're attacking without a clue to the dispositions of your enemy accept based on your intuition, something that you would rarely do in real life. Before you attacked in that situation, you would at least try to probe the defenses to have some idea what faced you, then you'd commit to an attack unless you did have some reason to rush your attack, in which case you'd accept the higher losses you'd get in your attack in return for the time saved by skipping essential steps in the preparation of the attack. So I'm not a big fan of short games in QB attacks. It gives a larger advantage to the defender than CM already gives them.

[Poor Old Spike]

205etc quote - I rather play like a game of chess over a long period of time then to get maited in four turns seems boring after awhile.

BRO Sapper quote - So I'm not a big fan of short games in QB attacks. It gives a larger advantage to the defender than CM already gives them.
-------------------------------------------------------



If both players are doing their hardest to checkmate each other it makes for one helluva great game, think "arm-wrestling" with neither guy willing to give an inch..
Wait, I feel a couple of stunning quotes coming on -
1 - "Checkmate the other guy before he checkmates you" - POS
2 - "If you don't like attacking, seize the objectives before him and make the other dood attack you" - POS

[Lurker]

Having a short time works well for MEs, in reality they may have been short. MEs have similar issues to A/Ds. A short game means a small battle, but if you like bigger games then short time limits means rushing your moves to beat the clock. Recon plays an important role in both ME and A/D.