Tactics.
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gifHow do you, the other players, use various units in game? What would you say is the best strategy for say Mechanised units or for infantry assaults, for that matter how would you set up a unit of tanks in a scenario?

BTW:I started a similar post in the AAR forum regarding Mechanised infantry and airmobile units

Re: Tactics.
 

No "strategies" whatsoever - this game is tactical http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif!

Cheers
Andy

Re: Tactics.
 

My tactics are simple. If you attack, you die.

In meeting engagements I get as far forward as I can without contacting the enemy significantly, or them contacting me the following turn when I can be easily spotted as 'moving' and my ATGMs won't fire. I get into good ambush or firing positions and wait. I'm usually infantry heavy for this reason. The result is like watching an enemy fall on my sword. I follow up with a counter attack, now that the enemy is reduced and much of its location known. My only wish is to find an opponent that doesn't play ball.

If I have to attack I will move through the most covered terrain, as I only have to expose my units to a smaller portion of the enemy. I move a skirmish line of foot infantry first with much arty support. Behind are better, maybe mobile troops that can rush up and attack found units that have expended shots or suppression dealing with the skirmish line. I move slowly so that often opponents get impatient and attack and then they die as above.

The above are for European style close terrain.

I believe no-one sensible should advance in a meeting engagement unless the objective hexes have very high value, higher that the game will allow in modern, high point games.

Re: Tactics.
 

Interesting, so you prefer to let the enemy fall on your sword. What if you were more dependant on the Mechanised units? Would you let the troops out a distance away from the enemy or would you let them out on top of the enemy?

Re: Tactics.
 

The only problem with staying still is that most of the times the enemy will deliver a rain of artillery fire on your position. Sometimes waiting for the enemy won�t do no good.

Re: Tactics.
 

Just check this link out

http://www.wargame.ch/iwc/scen/sp.htm

Re: Tactics.
 

Some REALLY old stuff there - and any guide I did way back then was for the old SSI game, and is therefore not that relevant to our current games.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Tactics.
 

It's ideal to have mech units as they can do the defensive ambush stuff as dismounted inf. They can creep forward as dismounted, but they can rush supressed, shot expended units to close quarters for the kill in their APCs.

In ambush mode once they've found you there is no point in staying still so set up another ambush elsewhere or start the counter attack. When creeping forward, hopefully behind a walking barrage, you are vulnerable, but then feint attacks can be used to draw arty fire.


Most of the above requires play with no air, otherwise everything gets spotted quickly and the game becomes less interesting.

I think tanks are much too vulnerable for their cost, and prefer to buy hardly any. I don't know if this fact reflects the game or (maybe more likely) real life. An interesting rule to apply during purchases is not to allow players to buy more infantry carried ATGMs (vehicular ones are almost useless) than they buy MBTs.

Re: Tactics.
 

No tanks?, what do you like to use instead to kill enemy ones? just infantry carried ATGMs?

Re: Tactics.
 

In real life infantry carried ATGMs are quite useful and very deadly. They aren't represented well at ALL in SP. Which is unfortunate. The game designers seem to be in the Pro-American camp.. and didn't take a nonpartisan view on Russian equimpent at all.
Fortunatly mods have come out to reduce some of these shortcomings.

Re: Tactics.
 

The number of times I have been "bushwhacked" by Russian built ATGMs (of assorted flavours and ages) leads me to believe this is not the case.

Re: Tactics.
 

useful links for US field Manuals:

top page:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../fm/index.html

esp:
TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES FOR COMBINED ARMS HEAVY FORCES: ARMORED BRIGADE, BATTALION TASK FORCE, AND COMPANY TEAM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...rmy/fm/71-123/

FM 90-10-1
AN INFANTRYMAN'S GUIDE TO COMBAT IN BUILT-UP AREAS

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0-1/index.html

FM 90-10
Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT)
(The American Acronym for "Fighting in Built-Up Areas" (FIBA))

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-10/index.html

And for tactics as a general topic:
FM 3-90
TACTICS

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-90/index.html


Plenty of reading to keep everone busy at that site!


Cheers
Andy

(UK field manuals are not available on line, as even the basic ones are classified "restricted" and so are covered by the Official Secrtets Act)

Re: Tactics.
 

That page was useful enough that I have copied the message into a new "sticky" thread.

(I already had a few of these from the original DOD (FAS?) site, but the global security one is much easier to get at, and you can read online, instead off having to download 8Mb chunks of PDF files! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Cheers
Andy

Re: Tactics.
 

Unfortunately FAS if old and out of date.
Russian equipment has actually FAR surpassed US equipment in technical quality...

Re: Tactics.
 

Hmm - now that's entirely new concept to me!!.

What particular hard data are you using to base this opinion on?. I'd be really interested in the facts and figures, and perhaps some sort of supporting argument.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Tactics.
 

I dont know if JJAVN is refering to it, but the Russian OOB seems quite outated at least when it comes to infantry AT weapons. For example the RPG-26 and RPG-29 are missing and RPG-18 & RPG-22 are also missing from the inf AT secs. Also theres the case of RPG-16. This weapon was actualy developped in 1970 and it was the paratrooper version of the RPG-7. However ingame it is depicted as a replacement for the RPG-7 and whit availability of 2000 onwards? I dont think the Russian army is using many RPG-7's anymore they have all been replaced by RPG 18, 22, 26 and 29's. Shouldn't the Russian OOB have all the RPG models and ATGM's after all they were made in Russia?

Re: Tactics.
 

Yes, this certainly seems to be the case. It would be nice if you could add a few missing Russian RPG's and ATGM's in the next patch so to preserve realism.

Of course I'm not surprised when I play this game and find that the American and western OOB's are more detailed and updated than other nations. It's all very natural as this game is somewhat an American product and not (for example) a Russian one. However, to achieve the ultimate goal of the game - which to my understanding is to simulate the reality of modern tactical combat around the globe as closely as possible - you have to look outside your backyard. A lot.

Re: Tactics.
 

Of course I'm not surprised when I play this game and find that the American and western OOB's are more detailed and updated than other nations. It's all very natural as this game is somewhat an American product and not (for example) a Russian one. However, to achieve the ultimate goal of the game - which to my understanding is to simulate the reality of modern tactical combat around the globe as closely as possible - you have to look outside your backyard. A lot.

[/quote]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Tactics.
 

Quote:

JJAVN said:
"Russian equipment has actually FAR surpassed US equipment in technical quality..."

Hah! I would like some evidence to support that too.

Re: Tactics.
 

I think the SPMBT are quite balanced and detailed. I can remember back then the original SP2 with WarPac countries armed like "worse Russia", for example T-62's and BTR-70's in Czechoslovakian and Polish OOB etc...

But now I'm more or less satisfied. That doesn't prevent me from making my mods using mobhack, though;o)

Re: Tactics.
 

ATGMs are worthless if you know what you're doing. Usually, the enemy will have too many dug-in MGs for you to try a pure infantry assault, but mortars are good here. ATGMs, once they've been fired, are easy to spot, and it a turn or two you'll have a batallion of artillery supressing them to hell. If you can't do that, any kind of MG or rifle fire will do just fine, and if there's no other choice just put up smoke (few ATGM carriers have thermal).

As for my tactics, it depends on the battle. In an infantry engagement, I use a lot of MGs and snipers except in close terrain or on the defense. I also buy tons of mortars and use LOTS of smoke. Mortars are excellent because they're so cheap and almost as good for supression as field artillery. Even if you don't have any enemy infantry to shoot at, they're great for a quick smoke barrage. Smoking off part of the enemy force will allow you to engage the rest piecemeal.

But I agree with Kesh's idea of staying on the defensive in meeting engagments. Ideally, you should be able to rush for the center objectives and secure them, but if you can't, just dig in and launch a few pinprick attacks every once and a while to build up your score to compensate for the fact that you don't control the center objectives. If the enemy digs in too, your only choices are to attack or retreat, though.

Re: Tactics.
 

I am also not surprised when American OOBs seem more detailed, but I don't assume thats because this is an American game (in fact, I don't think MobHack or DRG are American, are they?), but rather because of American openness and the availability of detailed information on their weapons systems. Most other countries simply don't have such detailed information available.

Re: Tactics.
 

I am British, Don is Canadian.

US organisations, tactics manuals etc are freely available in the public domain. This contrasts with other govermments where such things are usually covered by the Official Secrets Act or similar classifications.

Even the WW2 based manuals for the my high school's Combined Cadet force were marked "Restricted". UK Govt defence related pubs are not subject to any "freedom of information" acts.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Tactics.
 

I have 3 different tactics depending on if I defend, assaulting or advancing in to enemy territory.

Assaulting tactic:
I going forward with scoot teams and trying to find where my enemy has the weakest point. When I have found it I put my artillery on that point, and starting to move forward with my main force and trying to breakthrough that weak point, after my artillery have pulverized everything.
After my breakthrough I spreading my units behind my enemy and take the victory locations and going in to my defence tactic.

Advancing tactic:
I moving fast forward with 2 main forces on my both sides and 1 defend force lagging behind in the centre.
Trying to taking my victory locations by speed and mobility, and going in to my defence strategy.
It is very usually that I circling the enemy force with this tactic.

Defending tactic:
My force is concentrated in two 3 main forces, 2 mechanic (with at least 1 tank platoon and 2 APC-inf platoons in each), and 1 infantry force.
The infantry is the one force which has the most losses. This force is the one who is going to take the stand and not move out from there poisonings what so weaver.
The nearest tank platoon is the one who is going up to support my inf. force when the enemy is attacking it. My APC-inf stays in place and does not move if there not been attacked.
My mechanical forces starts to going in to a delay defence tactic if the been attacked.
I choose my defence positioning with lots of care. The best position is when every unit in one of my defence force can open fire at the same time at the same target.

cheers/
niklas

Re: Tactics.
 

Niklas, we have pretty much the same attacking strategy. I don't really have a plan before the battle- I deploy my forces and take whatever opportunities present themselves. It sounds ridiculous but actually works well, against the computer at least.

As for defence, I usually buy a lot of artillery because the enemy is going to advance through a lot of open ground. I also buy a lot of infantry because they're hard to dig out and can buy you a lot of time.

Re: Tactics.
 

Mustang, i agree with you tactic, but disagree when you saying ATGM's are worthless as if i take example Swedish RBS-56 Bill your MG's and Snipers arent going to save your MBT's if terrain is good, just need couple hills and you can fire RBS from very long range and very accurate, usually takes just one shot to destroy target. Also i must say it's hard to spot because long range so you can shoot it with arty all you want, maybe you get lucky, maybe not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif