Passive Aggressive AFVs

[Pitman]

When you are using armor in ASL, are you an aggressive or conservative player? Do you seek out enemy AFVs, seeking to kill them, or are you more content to let the enemy come to you and try to kill him as he does so? Do you tend to avoid enemy armor altogether, to concentrate against his infantry?

How willing are you to ESB? To risk bog? To intensive fire? To move into LOS of an enemy AFV? Are you willing to risk a shot at you if it means you can swing around to the rear of a vehicle?

How would you characterize your ASL AFV Commander personality? Rommel-like? Patton-like? Montgomery-like? Graziani-like?

I think my own natural AFV instincts are pretty aggressive (I am a fairly aggressive ASL player overall), and I have to rein them in lest I be too foolhardy with my vehicles. I am constantly thinking of strategems and maneuvers for my vehicles, not always taking into account possible adverse consequences. However, as long as I still have that cautionary voice in my head to restrain me from time to time, my playing style seems to work pretty well, as long as the dice cooperate. I seem to do pretty decently with AFVs.

What about you?

 

[MrP]

Conservative on the defence, I always try to park behind walls with my bow VCA towards the enemy and another safe firing position to go to. I don't go a-hunting.

On the attack, I'm quite aggresive and always try to use my AFV's in such a away as to fulfill the VC's. If I don't need any left at the end then I'm more carefree with them, if there's a CVP cap, I'm more conservative.

I'm not a compulsive ESB'er but I have a weakness for IF shots.......

 

[Earthpig]

It depends on the enemy's AT capabilities ,but I tend to be aggresive, speed and flexibility are armours strong points in ASL. I will use my vehicles mobility in a defensive scenario to help disrupt an opponents attack or to hit and run on a suddenly exposed unit:smoke:

 

[Pitman]

But what about AFV vs. AFV? I guess that's what I'm most interested in here.

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

This might be better placed in the Tactics sub-forum.

 

[Tater]

This might be better placed in the Tactics sub-forum.

Impossible...the Pitman could never be "off-topic" to the forum he is in. :laugh:

 

[DerBlitzer]

Unless they're AP only, I always consider tanks to be infantry killers/suppresors, not tank killers, even if my opponent has tanks. So I'll avoid tank battles unless absolutely necessary, or unless the VC calls for tank destruction. I'd rather throw a lot of HE or smoke around.

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

Impossible...the Pitman could never be "off-topic" to the forum he is in. :laugh:

I wasn't taking a swipe at Mark. It just seems this would be better suited in the tactics folder which has been slow of late.

 

[Tater]

I wasn't taking a swipe at Mark. It just seems this would be better suited in the tactics folder which has been slow of late.

I know...but you should have...:clown:

 

[Pitman]

Bob, I am not so much interested in the precise tactics that people choose, for the purposes of this thread, but more in their general attitudes and approaches. I have seen some people be hyper-aggressive against enemy armor, while other people obviously prefer to let the enemy come to them, so to speak. I'm curious how people here fall on that spectrum.

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

Bob, I am not so much interested in the precise tactics that people choose, for the purposes of this thread, but more in their general attitudes and approaches. I have seen some people be hyper-aggressive against enemy armor, while other people obviously prefer to let the enemy come to them, so to speak. I'm curious how people here fall on that spectrum.

No big deal. I was thinking it might get more responses in the Tactics sub-forum.

 

[Tater]

Aggressive!

:freak:
I tend to the aggressive side...including VBMF.

I see armor as merely an "infantry conservation" tool. Of course the exception would be those scenarios that have VC tied, in some way, to the AFV (EX: EVP, CVP caps, specific # of functional AFV at end, etc.). But in general, I see AFV has expendable resources to preserve the infantry...and in the vast majority of scenarios and pretty much all HASL/CG...it is the infantry that will carry you to victory.

Remember...it is called "ADVANCED SQUAD LEADER"...not..."ADVANCED AFV LEADER"...

 

[dwardzala]

If by aggressive you mean "needlessly gets his tanks blown up," then I would be aggressive.

Seriously, I tended to play very conservative with my tanks with regard to ESB & Bog, until I played opponents who were more apt to take those risks. By seeing them take them I better understood the risks (and lost some scenarios because I figured the risk would be more of a deterant). Now I would say I am a moderate player, meaning I will take a risk when it is worth it or the consequences of failure are not severe.

I also tend to focus too much effort on eliminating opposing armor with my armor even when it does not contribute to satisfying VC (other than eliminating an opposing asset).

 

[Treadhead]

When Armor Faces Armor

Over time I've developed a set of rules that I basically try to follow when handling ASL armor. The following is a pretty high-level summary.

My first general rule is that I try to get the first shot. First shot means first kill.

Because of how ASL plays in phases, I try to ensure that my first shot against him is Defensive Fire. My intention is to make him move into my LOS, so I get the first shot.


My second general rule is that I try to be the first one to use Case N, the Acquired Target DRM. Say I Defensive Fire and miss (or even hit and not kill), placing an Acquired counter on him. Now he fires, most likely with at least +4 DRM for Bounding Fire. If he misses or fails to kill me, he also will now place an Acquired counter (most likely).

But now it is my PFPh. There I sit, with a -1 Acquired counter on my target, and fire at will. If I happen to miss or not kill, it is now -2 Acquired. At this point, I seriously consider using Intensive Fire. (I will not normally use Intensive Fire unless the target is at least Acquired.)


My third general rule is that I try to take more shots than the enemy. But, I find that if I try to follow the first two rules, I will indeed accumulate more shots than my opponent.


Because of this philosophy, the metaphor I think of is that of a hunter stalking his prey. In that regard, it is a defensive posture.

Now having said that, the Victory Conditions must always determine how I handle my tanks. I have gotten myself sidetracked with an armor duel at the expense of the Victory Conditions. (During a playing of "Road to Wiltz", back in SL -- yes, Squad Leader -- days. Crazy fun tank battle on the hills of Board 3!) So, of course one must keep that in mind.

When moving, I try to move from cover to cover, positioning myself in such a way that he cannot currently see me, or have an unhindered shot at me. Again, my intention is to make him come into my LOS. Even if I have to exit tanks to win, I still try to do this, dashing from cover to cover, if cover should even exist.

If the enemy has already fired, or is faced with multiple choices, then I try to be aggressive with Bounding First Fire. Even as I use Bounding First Fire, I try not to end up in a position where he will have a good shot at me in his ensuing PFPh. This means that if I am unable to kill him, then I will usually scoot away if possible.

Teamwork with friendly tanks is imperative. Don't isolate your tanks, you should have LOS to at least one friendly tank, and you should each be able to cover the same area, though perhaps from different angles.


I have said much, and could say more...

Regards,
Bruce Bakken

 

[Glennbo]

No big deal. I was thinking it might get more responses in the Tactics sub-forum.

They stuck my Overrun thread in there and it died. It was no different than this thread. :angry:

I'm a real hard-charger with my tanks. Nothing gets me off more than a Bounding First Fire kill. Move and shoot...it's what tanks are for ya twits! :yummy:

 

[jwb3]

They stuck my Overrun thread in there and it died. It was no different than this thread. :angry:

What I said elsewhere. The way this forum is set up, this area looks like the most important one (and therefore most worth paying attention to), not like the "miscellaneous" one (and therefore, arguably and YMMV, the least).

I'm a real hard-charger with my tanks. Nothing gets me off more than a Bounding First Fire kill. Move and shoot...it's what tanks are for ya twits! :yummy:

I'm like Bruce; I never let the other guy shoot first, so I manuever to stay out of his LOS until he's forced to come to me. This has gotten my clock cleaned by more aggressive opponents on multiple occasions.

That assumes the tanks are relatively equal, and that the TKs are relatively high. Early war pea-shooters I have little experience with, but when I played 'Witch's Cauldron' I was much more in-your-face, due to the low TKs.

And in the current game of 'It's About Time', which we're playing with the original Churchill version, it has been standard practice to roll right up in front of the enemy and dare him to stand and shoot (TK = 3).

Seems to be working, too; this opponent seems to have forgotten all about the concept of Motion attempts, and both of us forgot all about vehicular smoke grenades. OTOH, the first time I did it the result was two shocked Churchills side by side (one = the TK, one failed his P. Shock roll). Fortunately one of them recovered.

I kept forgetting all about the possibility of APCR, but fortunately his crews haven't been able to dig up any of said ammo.


John

 

[Bob Holmstrom]

They stuck my Overrun thread in there and it died. It was no different than this thread. :angry:

Glennbo, that's because your thread sucked. :surprise:

 

[rdw5150]

I tend to be conservative. Every time I Really need to make an ESB, I do not, same thing with Bog.:angry:

I am a little more aggressive if I have a numerical advantage, but if I only have, say, one Panther I tend to wimp out. :freak:

I also an still learning the nuances of AFV warfare and can sometimes make stupid mistakes. When I make too many, I go back and read Panzer Gegen Panzer from Annual 93A. One of the best tactical articles I have read.

Peace

Roger

 

[alanp]

Over time I've developed a set of rules that I basically try to follow when handling ASL armor.

My first general rule is that I try to get the first shot. First shot means first kill.

Because of how ASL plays in phases, I try to ensure that my first shot against him is Defensive Fire. My intention is to make him move into my LOS, so I get the first shot.


My second general rule is that I try to be the first one to use Case N, the Acquired Target DRM.

But now it is my PFPh. There I sit, with a -1 Acquired counter on my target, and fire at will. If I happen to miss or not kill, it is now -2 Acquired. At this point, I seriously consider using Intensive Fire.

My third general rule is that I try to take more shots than the enemy.

When moving, I try to move from cover to cover, positioning myself in such a way that he cannot currently see me, or have an unhindered shot at me.

If the enemy has already fired, or is faced with multiple choices, then I try to be aggressive with Bounding First Fire.

Teamwork with friendly tanks is imperative. Don't isolate your tanks, you should have LOS to at least one friendly tank, and you should each be able to cover the same area, though perhaps from different angles.

There--no need to read Panzer gegen panzer this month.

Pitman, I think a bogged AFV is worse than one with a malf'd MA. I "never" risk ESB nor attempt trail-breaks. I will Intensively Fire. AFV with malf'd MAs can still move--get out of sight, cut rout paths (if they've got mgs)--so I do some aggressive things and never do others. The risk is well worth it, or not, depending what aggressive use you're discussing. Don't know where that puts me on the passive-aggressive continuum.

If the scenario allows, it's always better to be passive-aggressive with your AFV (ie. follow Bruce's advice and let the enemy come to you) in order to be aggressive--destroy the opponent's AFVs.

Edit: finally, if you can't play against Bruce, try Tom Weniger with AFVs. He's fun to get beat by, too.

 

[Bryan Holtby]

Im very situational dependant on this. For instance, in Red Barricades as the German I will constantly use VBMF and consider tanks to be very expendable. So expendable that if I havent lost most of the tanks I bought for that CG date I probably didnt push them hard enough. I would rather loose a tank than a squad any day in RB. In RB I will drive though factories, debris etc with little consideration towards bog.

I tend to use my tanks in a group, no matter if on attack or defence, rather than spread them out across the board.

Generally speaking, the more tanks I have the less cautious I am regarding ESB, Bog, IF or VBMF. Im certainly far more cautious if a scenario only gives me one tank. Often trying to save it to deny VC's near the end of the game.