|
IIRC, tanks cannot go through woods, and there are only a couple of places where they can cross the wooded areas in the east. I'd place the mines here, not on the bridges. Mines are primarily meant to scare the opponent and slow him down, not necessarily cause casualties. If they encounter mines right away, they'd become pretty paranoid and will advance only slowly. On the contrary, mining the bridges might be too little too late - by the point the enemy tanks start crossing the river, the battle might be already lost. The don't really have many reasons to cross the river with tanks anyway. Not if they can fire from afar. markus_cz fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Aug 19, 2014 |
# ? Aug 19, 2014 15:45 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:03 |
|
markus_cz posted:IIRC, tanks cannot go through woods, and there are only a couple of places where they can cross the wooded areas in the east. I'd place the mines here, not on the bridges. Mines are primarily meant to scare the opponent and slow him down, not necessarily cause casualties. If they encounter mines right away, they'd become pretty paranoid and will advance only slowly. Well, we'd probably not be worrying too much about East Town. It's West Town that we're going to focus on, right? If we can lure them over the river and isolate an enemy group to wipe them out, we'll be able to easily counter attack. And if we force them down to the fords, there is the chance their vehicles will be immobilised by nothing but nature.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 15:48 |
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Well, we'd probably not be worrying too much about East Town. It's West Town that we're going to focus on, right? If we can lure them over the river and isolate an enemy group to wipe them out, we'll be able to easily counter attack. And if we force them down to the fords, there is the chance their vehicles will be immobilised by nothing but nature. I don't know how the scoring works, but if we have two objectives, and we manage to hold only one of them while the Soviets take the other, isn't that a draw, not our victory?
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 15:52 |
|
markus_cz posted:IIRC, tanks cannot go through woods, and there are only a couple of places where they can cross the wooded areas in the east. I'd place the mines here, not on the bridges. Mines are primarily meant to scare the opponent and slow him down, not necessarily cause casualties. If they encounter mines right away, they'd become pretty paranoid and will advance only slowly. I agree with the mines idea - we can use them to channel the Reds into a position we want them to go through, rather than directly through somewhere they will pass through (the bridges), and the threat of the mines would scare them into advancing slowly. Ideally they'll spend so much time clearing out Studienka that they'll have to cross the river in a rush - but that means the big cats can take out the blind armor one by one as they cross the open marsh with no one to recon for them.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 15:52 |
|
markus_cz posted:I don't know how the scoring works, but if we have two objectives, and we manage to hold only one of them while the Soviets take the other, isn't that a draw, not our victory? After slaughtering the enemy, we can retake it, can't we? That should be simple if we can lure them in. The Soviets will go for annihilation, not a draw. If they call for ceasefire, we can always say no. It's surrender or die.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 15:56 |
|
For what it's worth, I think Option 3 offers our best chance for success.markus_cz posted:I don't know how the scoring works, but if we have two objectives, and we manage to hold only one of them while the Soviets take the other, isn't that a draw, not our victory? My incredibly limited understanding is that scoring is based on objectives and casualties inflicted/sustained. So in theory it might be possible to lose an objective but win regardless because we bled them dry (and vice-versa, naturally).
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 16:21 |
|
Armor can move through the forests (just tested it) and there are even trails in the big clump centered on Q-5.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 16:27 |
|
markus_cz posted:I don't know how the scoring works, but if we have two objectives, and we manage to hold only one of them while the Soviets take the other, isn't that a draw, not our victory? As this is an attack mission, objectives are worth more points than kills. But kills are still worth points.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 16:37 |
|
Mines as early as possible. We only have like 6-7 mines to cover 3square miles. That is a small loving minefield. As long as they see mines they will have to consider mines! Dont count on killing tanks with them. Unless incredibly lucky. (Trp on tank hill would be obvious) (also good)
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 16:41 |
|
Ok, so I put together a quick deployment plan. The team largely supports Option 3 (split deployment), so that's what we'll run with. The Russians have four main avenues of approach: The Soviets can use any one of these, so determining their intentions early will be crucial. Herpicle's snipers will be deployed forward. They'll spot Soviet forces and help us determine which approaches the Soviets are taking. We'll put our two Panzergrenadier companies in the East Town and the surrounding forest. Some troops will be in forward ambush positions, others will be in reserve. Once we determine the Soviet's intentions we'll adjust their locations accordingly. The Tiger I and the Panthers will be in the East Town and the immediate area. We'll put some in ambush positions and keep some in reserve to respond to Soviet movements. The King Tiger, the, AT guns, mortars, and the infantry guns will be in the East Town Mines will be used to lock down the fords, the bridge approaches, and chokepoints in the eastern forests. I'll place TRPs once we have a better feel for the ground. Another option is to run with one of Kenzie's plans (or some combination of the two). Tehy're solid plans and I think we could make them work. Kenzie posted:My first thought was that we could mine the bridge and put down a thin skirmish line along the edge of the woods. We could split squads and spread them out over a wide area. The ground along those woods is slightly elevated above the creek, and would be a great position for ambushes all along the line. Our troops could open fire and then easily get up and withdraw through the woods a few seconds later. The only problem is that they could outflank us to the north, but we could could have our tanks and other troops in reserve to deal with that.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 16:57 |
|
I'd like to have the Tiger I pulled back to the East bank, at D8, or at least have it swap with the Panther at L6 if you insist on having it on the West bank. I'm going to have to withdraw the cats eventually, and so I'd rather the faster Panthers be the ones the farthest out.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:07 |
|
Also, do not mine the bridges it we want to withdraw our tanks over them.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:14 |
|
markus_cz posted:Also, do not mine the bridges it we want to withdraw our tanks over them. This is why I suggested we leave the Main Bridge intact. The enemy would suspect it to be a trap, so we shouldn't trap it.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:17 |
|
I like that plan; as a Soviet I'd probably push heavy along Anna but we do need to figure out what they'll actually do. I'm not a big fan of the 'spread out' first line, as it exposes a fairly small force to essentially their whole force at the start. While it would delay them some, I think we'd be taking more casualties that way. I'd be in favor of ambushes in less exposed locations which will require them to keep shifting more forces to respond. One possible problem I see is that they'll likely shell the town, but if we're in defensive positions, we can probably take it.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:22 |
|
Put mines further up. IF de use them too late they will have no effect.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:22 |
|
Kangra posted:I like that plan; as a Soviet I'd probably push heavy along Anna but we do need to figure out what they'll actually do. This is why I think we should keep everything far, far back until my scouts report their plan. Then we can set up ambushes in useful places. Predicting with minimal data results in minimal information. We have plenty of time and space which we can make use of. Lets use it.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:24 |
|
Affi posted:Put mines further up. IF de use them too late they will have no effect. This might be something worth considering. If we can break their momentum early, then it'll make it that much harder for them to recover. Though, of course, that depends on the Soviets playing nice and blundering into our mines. e: quote:This is why I think we should keep everything far, far back until my scouts report their plan. Then we can set up ambushes in useful places. Predicting with minimal data results in minimal information. We have plenty of time and space which we can make use of. Lets use it. But surely by the time we figure out their intentions it might be too late to get into position?
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:25 |
|
Am I free to debate that plan?
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:31 |
|
Soup Inspector posted:But surely by the time we figure out their intentions it might be too late to get into position? If we ignore defending East Town, we'll have plenty of time. Again, East Town is dangerous for us, because of two clear reasons A: We can't retreat over the river effectively without losing a lot of troops. B: The path to East Town is very open, and the enemy can take any angle. If we defend crossing points, not only do we catch the enemy at a choke we also can more easily limit enemy angles of attack on West Town, unlike East Town.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:31 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'd like to have the Tiger I pulled back to the East bank, at D8, or at least have it swap with the Panther at L6 if you insist on having it on the West bank. I'm going to have to withdraw the cats eventually, and so I'd rather the faster Panthers be the ones the farthest out. You're the armored platoon leader, so deployment and employment of the Panzers will be up to you. My intent is to make sure we have enough armored power to engage the Soviets with sudden and massed anti-tank firepower, then melt away so we can ambush them again. I'd like to keep our tanks in positions where they can accomplish this and provide mutual support. Withdrawing anyone is going to be very difficult. The river valley is extremely exposed. Crossing will be very difficult, especially if the Soviets manage to get tanks in overwatch positions on the eastern bank. I've purposefully put the mortars and the infantry guns in positions where they can direct lay smoke into the river valley (I also might put a TRP there), but don't count on having much cover. Affi posted:Put mines further up. IF de use them too late they will have no effect. My current plan allows for mines in the eastern obvious chokepoints. But I would like to mine the fords and crossings in the south. That flank is very vulnerable and it needs some coverage. We'll leave the un-mined so we can retreat across them. If we need to destroy them, the tanks, mortars, infantry guns, and 88mms can accomplish that. Dralun posted:Am I free to debate that plan? By all means, intelligent input is appreciated at this stage. Bacarruda fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 19, 2014 |
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:33 |
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:A: We can't retreat over the river effectively without losing a lot of troops. Bacarruda posted:Withdrawing anyone is going to be very difficult. The river valley is extremely exposed. Crossing will be very difficult, especially if the Soviets manage to get tanks in overwatch positions on the eastern bank. I've purposefully put the mortars and the infantry guns in positions where they can direct lay smoke into the river valley (I also might put a TRP there), but don't count on having much cover. I think it's critical to this plan that we have at least some plan for withdrawal toward the west from the start. At the moment it appears to be over the main bridge using smoke for cover? If that's the case, maybe a few foxholes close to that bridge would help. (Close enough to protect from fire from East Town, but far enough from West Town that the enemy can't use them effectively if they advance.)
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:40 |
|
We need some detailed maps for better planning. The eastern forest. The eastern town. The western town. Also Kenzies plan seems solid. Also exposed is the southern ford. I think if we have 1 at gun that can cover it, + a trp, and the mortars and inf guns ready to direct lay?. Should lock that one down pretty nice. Maybe a hmg or two covering it also. vuk83 fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Aug 19, 2014 |
# ? Aug 19, 2014 17:50 |
|
I would've figured Herp's scouts would be where 1 Company is, and only one Company would be holding Studienka with the other defending the western bank, but otherwise I absolutely agree that we should defend Studienka in force. No sense handing them over half the map and half their objectives even if it lets us know where they're going. What's our time limit on planning, by the way?
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:00 |
|
I think Bacarruda positions 1st Company in a position that can be seen on Kenzie's images so i wonder: Is it viable to place MG42s inside those buildings? Is it possible to see their LoS? The big building to the north seems to watch over the overwatch in the north and the forest to the east, the buildings highlighted on the center appear to offer some decent MG fire while still giving the guns some breathing room in case of an attack down the road. The southern most buildings will get fired on pretty fast but they seem to be a great spot for early fire on incoming troops. Any building outside of those seem to either be too exposed or have few firing lanes due to obstacles. I feel that if we don't occupy that town then the Soviets will soon use it to protect their troops and send fire into East Town with a modicum of security. The less security and confidence they have the better.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:25 |
|
The soviets are going to have 2 to 3 times the stuff we do. With the deployment posted and the size of east town, they can put as many bodies as us on the objective (I assume this would be a draw for the points) and still have at least another company plus to move on to west town, giving us a loss. By deploying in east town, we give up our advantages in the mg42 and the superior optics of our guns while playing into the soviet strengths of short range fire power. While you list 4 likely avenues of approach, they can attack from the north, south and east in numerous combinations or even all at the same time. The terrain offers numerous approaches for them to establish bases of fire before we even see them, allowing them to get local fire superiority and roll us up. We give almost all freedom of maneuver as any fall back route will more than likely be observed and under fire. We can be encircled, with the only hope of withdrawal across a river (that they might very well already be across) and then through fairly open terrain. West town, because of the trees to the east, is mostly protected from direct fire on the east side of the river and given the sighting rules of CM, they can't call for indirect fire on what they can't see either. We can break contact mostly at will and move the armor along the back line to redeploy out of sight of the enemy. There are only 3 crossing points for their armor and through mines and long range anti tank fire, we can influence them to pick the crossing that we want them to, forcing them into a kill zone. If we can separate their armor from their infantry, we should win as it will be a tie on objectives and more kill points for us as we are on the defense. Rough outline (I can't do pictures / in game LOS at the moment) would be one token sacrificial platoon in east town, split into teams and spread out, one platoon to cover north and south ford each, the remaining company in and around west town ridge. ATG and IG guns covering center and south fords, scout platoon pushed well forward with the intent of being eyes/annoying. TRP's on the fords, middle of the cause way and treeline in front of west town. AP mines on south ford, AT mines at north and central fords with intent of influencing soviets to use south ford. Tanks centered on back line waiting for developments.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:30 |
|
My main worry with any of the HMG teams is the open spaces between the West and East Villages. Any withdrawal has to go through them and we leave ourselves open to getting caught in the fields. While I like the idea of deploying forward to disrupt their advance and buy time, what does time actually gain us? I agree with Dralun that deploying further west is to our advantage. Could we get a list and location of fords and bridges along the river? What are all of the possible avenues of attack? I think we should narrow it down to the most exposed, eliminate the most defensible/covered, and start from there, before we choose where to deploy.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:43 |
|
Since i'm a mere buzzsawer i didn't want to interfere too much on general strategy (that and i don't know how to make a decent one on RT ) but to be honest the idea of hitting the Soviets while they're fording seems more enticing than close combat on East Town. Reminder that in the last game a weak artilery barrage and sporadic MG fire tore their fording infantry apart and simply crossing the ford cost them a t-34.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:54 |
|
If they want to get vehicles into west town, fords/bridges are: North: Temp bridge 1 and 2 Center: Main Bridge South: 2 onto pork chop island, one off. Though the two might as well be one as there is only a 20m? or so gap between them.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:56 |
|
Fell Fire posted:My main worry with any of the HMG teams is the open spaces between the West and East Villages. Any withdrawal has to go through them and we leave ourselves open to getting caught in the fields. Dralun posted:There are only 6 vehicle fordable points allowing armor to get to west town by my count. Temp bridge one and two, main bridge and two onto the porkchop shaped island in I12 and one off. I'll double check tomorrow in case I missed one.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:58 |
|
Fell Fire posted:While I like the idea of deploying forward to disrupt their advance and buy time, what does time actually gain us? I agree with Dralun that deploying further west is to our advantage. They only have 1.5 hours to work with - rooting an entrenched enemy out of a town takes time, making an opposed crossing even more so and then they still have a second town to root us out of if they get that far. We want to make a fight out of Studienka because shooting tank riders off their T-34s is going to be costly for them and picking off their tanks as they cross the bridges/fjords one by one only works if they can't organize for it EDIT: What is up with all the people getting IDIOT BAD POST avs? It's making things confusing
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:00 |
|
New Stupid Newbie avatar.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:09 |
|
Fell Fire posted:While I like the idea of deploying forward to disrupt their advance and buy time, what does time actually gain us? Time by itself wouldn't get us anything. However, I feel that the more time we can get, the longer we have to 1. Discern the enemy's intent 2. Devise plans and/or contingencies to deal with unexpected developments 3. Delay any securing of the objectives by the enemy 4. Mass firepower where it's needed and withdraw Though we obviously shouldn't sustain unnecessary casualties, remember that the objectives are the major prize here - if the Soviets get a hold of it, they've effectively already won half the battle. The more costly we can make securing the objectives, the better.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:10 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Any idea on the map yet? I'm reading German Field Fortifications 1939-1945 to try and get some idea of how this stuff should work IRL, and it's describing a 3-layer defense that's at least 6 km deep. I like the idea of a 3-layer defense. This means a forward line to scout, harass, channel the enemy attack and then retreat from, the main defense position We don't have enough men to cover everything and form three lines. However, the first line can become the third line after it retreats. This can be Kenzie's suggested skirmish force. I'm thinking 2 platoons up front and 4 in the main line. I think we have to put up an effort defending the east town. Abandoning it prematurely would mean settling for a draw in the best case and ceding half the map outright. Our main line should defend this town. I now realize we sold our bunkers, but we still have a few trenches to augment the weak points. It is to our disadvantage to fight with a river to our back and few crossing points, but I think we have to do it. With a pre-planned retreat sequence, I think we can salvage most of our forces. Hopefully we won't have to do it. I agree we should not mine the bridge and mine forest passes and south fords instead. The anticipated enemy tactics would be to perform a light recon to identify defenses, roll in with SU assault guns to blast and pin our positions from afar, drop artillery/mortars, then move in close range with infantry to overrun our pinned troops. We should develop tactics to counter and frustrate the enemy at each phase. Getting our troops pinned is the worst thing that can happen. Tl;dr: we should engage the enemy forces ASAP, and then roll with the punches.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:14 |
|
eigenstate posted:Abandoning it prematurely would mean settling for a draw in the best case and ceding half the map outright. No, it just forces us to counterattack. If we can nail the enemy as they cross for West Town, cut them off from the rest of their force and then surround them we can wipe out a majority of the enemy force in exchange for minimal losses, allowing for the weakened hostile force to be attacked. Just because we are defending doesn't mean we can't shift onto the offense.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:18 |
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:No, it just forces us to counterattack. If we can nail the enemy as they cross for West Town, cut them off from the rest of their force and then surround them we can wipe out a majority of the enemy force in exchange for minimal losses, allowing for the weakened hostile force to be attacked. Just because we are defending doesn't mean we can't shift onto the offense. I like the idea on paper but how would we counter-attack over that open space where we've just lured the Soviets to die in?
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:33 |
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:No, it just forces us to counterattack. If we can nail the enemy as they cross for West Town, cut them off from the rest of their force and then surround them we can wipe out a majority of the enemy force in exchange for minimal losses, allowing for the weakened hostile force to be attacked. Just because we are defending doesn't mean we can't shift onto the offense. What, counter-attack across a river with inferior forces into a town teaming with SMGs? Is this before or after they dump all of their artillery on the smaller west town?
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:41 |
|
Don't forget that if they do take the town they might be merrily digging into our former positions, which may make them very difficult to dislodge again.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:43 |
|
There are a couple of different types of objectives in this game. There are TOUCH and OCCUPY objectives. If the objectives on this map are the OCCUPY kind (I'm assuming they are but I dunno) then you will have to have troops inside of the objective when the game ends in order to get the points. If both sides have troops in the objective, then it's contested and neither side gets the points. As long as we have even one squad in the objective, the Soviets still won't get the points. The east town is a large objective, and the Soviets will have to clear it completely. If we hold on to the west town and at least contest the east town by the time the clock runs out, we still win. It's dangerous to split forces in the face of a much larger enemy, but a defense of the east town can be supported by long range tank, mortar and HMG fire from the west town. I think we can afford to spread out a lot of our infantry until we know what's going on, but what are we doing with our tanks? We may be taken by surprise by the sheer number of tanks the enemy has. They're attacking so they should have far more points to spend. We could consider concentrating all of our armor together in one spot. If we have all of our tanks concentrating their fire alongside our 88s, they can put forth a LOT of firepower.
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:54 |
|
Can we hide a few guys on the second floor of an obscure building and deny them points?
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 19:58 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:03 |
|
Jeoh posted:Can we hide a few guys on the second floor of an obscure building and deny them points? I had almost exactly the same thought. It's like whack-a-mole or hide and seek but with more explosions and gunfire!
|
# ? Aug 19, 2014 20:04 |