I need tactical help

[Mobhack]

As some folks need help on tactics, acronyms etc beyond the basic introduction in the manual (see the "playing the game" link), the following links may prove useful:

useful links for US Army Field Manuals:

top page:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/index.html

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-123/

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10-1/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/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/index.html

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-90/index.html

Cheers
Andy

[Randy]

One of the "Osprey" "Elite Series" books covers squad and platoon infantry tactics for WWII infantry.

[RecruitMonty]

Anybody know of any sites that deal with Germany's tactical methodology?

[RecruitMonty]

I play as the Germans almost exclusively so it would really help if somebody could give me some pointers.

[Mobhack]

RecruitMonty said:
I play as the Germans almost exclusively so it would really help if somebody could give me some pointers.



For the USSR, get a hold of David Isby's "weapons and tactics of the Soviet Union". For NATO, he had a similar volume, whose title I cannot recall (it was less useful as it tried to cover all NATO sides). Both books were released in the early 80's and you will need to track them down in second-hand bookshops. (I did that for weapons and tactics of the SU, but not the NATO one.)

The USA is about the only nation that publishes tactical manuals for all to read. The rest of the world seem to classify such stuff under thier version of the Official Secrets act.


Cheers
Andy

[andy1964]

Just in case anyone is interested in the above book by David Isby, it was Armies of NATO's central Front. Not sure any of the tactical details given are any good as they are based mainly on brigade level battles and are pretty general. As Mobhack states, it covers all the NATO armies on the central front. No Italy Norway etc.

It's helpful if you are into putting together OOB's and looking for weapons data maybe. Or are new to the subject and want to know what an M60A3 is for ex.

Not sure how easy it would be to find either of those volumes.

Q for Mobhack. Did you find that Sov union one recently? I have the NATO one and have been looking for the companion for years. Just wondering if they are still to be found.

TY
Andy

[andy1964]

OOPs no need to reply to that last, Amazon (2nd hand) have the soviet union one for between £40 and £60.

TY
Andy

[Mobhack]

I got hold of the soviet one for £25 or so a year back. Some second hand bookshop on the net.

The NATO Central Front one I did not search for - it was rather generic since it covered several armies in te same book.

Andy

[baggypants]

Post deleted by baggypants

[Smersh]

that gives me a good idea. If I have some time, I'll prepare a "Introductory guide to USSR/Warsaw Pact Tactics", specifally with SP in mind.

[Manchu34]

Just getting back into WinSPMBT and having a problem. I'm currently playing the Cold Steel Campaign. Done well with the first two battles. Came to the third where I have to use heavy helios to airlift my units to an airfield. How can I get the troops and vehicles to load onto the helios.

[Mobhack]

load/unload from a helo is exactly as with any other vehicle, as described in the tutorial, and in the "deployment screen" menu section of the GG.


Method 1 - Select the transport unit then use the "load/Unload" button or the L key, and then select the unit to load, which must be in the same hex as the transport (any hex is allowed in the deployment screen, or alongside for barges).

Method 2 - Select the passenger, then hit the load button or L key and point to the transport. Method 2 is the only way to load multiple passengers.

To load vehicles - ensure the transport has sufficient load capacity, and the vehicle to be loaded has no passengers loaded on it. Proceed as above.

Cheers
Andy

[Stratos]

I have some problems during gameplay, problems that slow my gameplay and enjoyment. I'm sure

is my fault, so I ask help here to improve my tactics:
Here my problems

-During Meeting engegements, the enemy units always kill me before I can found it, I'm using

short movements of 1 hex a time, and still get killed by the enemy.

-In close terrain, forests and cities, I try to use combined arms, using infantry to scout,

also advancing 1 hex a time with tanks in the next hex, anyway the enemy hit me, killing

entire squads or pinning/routing it, If I use AFV is worse with burning hulls around.

-Is not infantry too hard?? It cost ages to kill enemy squads, when I "kill" a soldier, I

count here also the injured or panicked and dispersed soldiers, so a bit more high rate of

infantry kills will be great.

-I play mainly with USSR, and even when the matchs are equaled in terms of FC and

experience, my units fail a lot of shoots and receive a lot more damage.

That's it Thank's in advance

[Stratos]

Another thing I can't understand is the point sistem. Yesterday I play a meeting engagement, India Vs Pak October 2007, me as India, after the 18 turns I managed to kill 222 soldiers, 12 M113, 4 Type 85, 2 jeeps wit the lost of 11 soldiers, a ZSU-23, a Arjun Mk2 and 3 BMP3, I have control of hal the VP, and I get a DRAW with less points than Pakistan!!
Is strange

[DRG]

It sounds like the VP's your opponent still holds are worth more than the ones you have. All VP's are not worth the same.

You need to get 4x the points to get a marginal victory so if you have 4000 points your opponent cannot have more than 1000. If he does the game is classed a draw

Also, the Arjuns and BMP's 3's you lost are worth much more than Type 85's and M113 your opponent lost.


Don

[Stratos]

Make sense. I need to improve, can you give me some tips to my main problems? I will really apreciate it.

[DRG]

Which "Main Problems" exactly ? You say on one hand the AI is killing you too easily but then it's too hard to kill it back. If you really need a bit of help while learning to play the game adjust the "Infantry toughness" for you so it's higher than 100% and lower it for the AI until you find it's getting easier with experience then put them back to 100% for both

Don

[Stratos]

Thank's

[Marek_Tucan]

Also it's possible to adjust "Spotting" and "Hitting" values.

[c_of_red]

http://www.battlefront.com/products/books/nafziger/germanpanzerintro.html

Try that URL. I haven't read it yet, I just did a google on 'panzer training manual' and took that as the best of a poor selection.
There used to be a site called "Panzers Vorward" or maybe 'achtung panzers vorward' That had the scanned pages of the german officers tactics hand book. My German is worse then sucks but I managed to get thru most of it with the help of babbblefish. Some of it was useful, some of it worthlesss for a IGOUGO system. Example; It was considered critical for tank formations to break cover at the same time. One platoon in over watch while the other charges out of the tree line or over the crest. That, of course, is impossible in SP.
The officers training manual was nick named "Aunt Maude" or auntie Maude in german. Auntie is a german word that crossed with the Saxons (Sax was a short sword in old german), it's german spelling is about the same as English and those type words give me fits. So find the proper german spelling for 'auntie' and google it.

[c_of_red]

Stratos, Try using what the US Army calls 'marching fire'. Use the 'z' key to shoot up suspected ambushes with area fire. It won't kill anything ( maybe once in a blue moon, if you get very very lucky) but it will put supression on hidden units. That supression will make it harder for them to see you and easier for you to see them. It will also lower their to hit percentage when they do open fire.
This isn't 'gamey', since Rommel and Patton Both demanded it of their troops while advancing. On defense, it just gives you position away, but it's great when on the offensive.
I have no idea if this was Soviet Doctrine also. The Soviets had a LOT of logistics problem before mid '44 when the US got the supply line thru Iran working and sent the Soviet Union a bunch of trucks.

[pdoktar]

"a bunch of trucks" Oh man, I´m dying here..

"Now it is time to mount the trucks and send the germans reeling back to Berlin, comrade!"

[TheDap]

Moving fire actually works!

Guess it's a bit of a newbie exclamation... just picked up the game and I am not too familiar with tactics yet. This thread has help tremendously already.
I have been playing the "Hell is the Same Zipcode" scenario, and it never occurred to me to walk in to town shooting. hehe
By keeping the units together, using the point element, LAV and M1 to fire before the rest move in, I have been able to move my MGs and flash teams around to the "sides" and use them to great effect.
To make a long story short, I've actually been able to get out of the starting area for a change. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[MezMerrick]

RecruitMonty said:
I play as the Germans almost exclusively so it would really help if somebody could give me some pointers.



Check out theBlitz archives; they have a document released by the U.S Army covering everything there is/was to know about German tactics.

[Gargantou]

That's alot of readnig material, shame I don't have the time to read it all, great resources though!

[c_of_red]

Trucks are important in a real war. Real wars are won by logistics, not who has the bigger, badder tank. The Germans found that out in '44. An Uber panzer stuck at the side of the road out of fuel and ammo isn't a very effective fighting machine. Without those trucks, the Soviets would have been fighting in Poland in '47. Those trucks allowed the Red Army to advance 50 Km's in a day instead of 3 or 4. Those trucks brought up the millions of artillery shells the Soviets used to break open the front. Not to mention, bullets, beans, fuel and the dozens (hundreds in most armies) of other things the Red Army army needed to maneuver.

[pdoktar]

I wonder if any russians in this forum would agree, that actually the american trucks were essential for victory in their great patriotic war against the germans. Of course those trucks help, but considering the size and output of Soviet heavy industry at that time, I think that if the need would come, they´d just manufacture more trucks instead of tanks.. Sure lend-lease trucks helped the soviet advance but still.. Maybe you could present some form of study or will I just have to do some googling myself.

Wll, wiki seems to back you up.

[Marek_Tucan]

It's true Soviets COULD've manufactured enough of (trucks, rails, railroad engines, railroad cars, radios, modern aircrafts...) but it would all be at expense of something - not only number of say tanks built but also time and with time, food. While Stalingrad was pulled off with little help from Lend-Lease, I can see serious problems with later large-scale attacks like Bagration. Without Lend-Lease they'd come later and with more bloodshed on Soviet side.

[KraMax]

Certainly nobody denies and does not belittle role Lend-Lease for the USSR.
All other is guesses and inventions since the history has already come true also it should change nobody.
I have not understood... To what conversation about Lend-Lease?

[c_of_red]

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5275

snipped;
"In addition, the Russians got about 351.700 trucks and 78.000 Jeeps from the USA. With this the Red Army became more movable as mobility increased."

"The vast quantities of American trucks with USA serials provided, were so common in Eastern Europe in 1944/45, that common folk-lore interpreted the stenciled letters as Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa - Kill that Son-of-a-***** Adolf."

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovLendLease.html

Lend lease provided 59% of the Soviet union's aviation fuel and 55% of the aluminum that the Soviets used to build their air force, What was critical were the Machine tools.

War is more then shooting things and blowing stuff up. War is a political act, which means you have economic, moral and cultural considerations also.

[redcoat2]

The 'Armchair General' website has published a series of articles called 'Tactics 101.' They can be found here:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/category/tactics101

[JTullman]

Thank you redcoat2 for suggesting Tactics 101. I have become a serious fan of www.armchairgeneral.com because of this.

After reading through some of the articles I have come to the conclusion that a .PDF printable "checklist" or "worksheet" based upon the first 5 or so articles designed especially for WINSPWII/WINSPMBT would really be a great resource for veteran and new players alike.

Any input would be great.

[user38]

Anybody know of any sites that deal with Germany's tactical methodology?

I just today recieved from Amazon On the German Art of War, Truppenfuhrung: German Army Manual for Unit Command in World War II: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811735524. I have only had it for a few hours but if the back cover is any indication it would seem to be exactly what you are looking for.

If you are looking for something a little less reality based there is an interesting site at the other place: Introduction to Tactics Guide v 1.05 by Larry Holton (Steel Panthers World at War) http://www.spwaw.com/lholttg/spwawtg1.htm

[hawk66]

Is there any special tactical field manual for the Vietnam area available?

[Breakerchase]

A while ago I found some papers written by the then-Soviet Army Studies Officer (now the Foreign Military Studies Office) during the late 1980s. They really provide a view of the late Cold War Soviet Army different from the sterotypical inflexible Red Horde thought of when one thinks of a Soviet offensive and should be applicable for the game.

Soviet Non-Linear Combat (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA231789&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

I asked one former intelligence guy about this paper and he replied that the Soviets were anticipating non-linear combat long before we recognized that they were. In a mid to late '80s conflict like he said the he would expect the better-trained Soviet units to be able to carry out those sort of concepts.

Heavy Opposing Force (OPFOR) Tactical Handbook (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA304332&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

It's a manual for opposing force training published in 1994, but my contact says that the text was taken straight out of an updated draft of a Soviet Army field manual that never got printed due to the end of the Cold War. It contains a better understanding of Soviet tactics over the old manual (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/docrepository/FM100_2_1.pdf) which some people are still using as a valid resource!

[skyray]

Hello all: I have played the Tutorial scenario so I'm familiar with some of the game ops now. I have also been perusing the forums for additional info. One thing that caught my attention was the "After Acton Report" section. I wanted to create a report on my first campaign but I don't know how to post the map images of the current game turn to the forum. How do you do that? :confused:

The first campaign I chose was "Heart of Africa". I was hoping that this would be a good campaign for a beginner and it seems to be so far. I'll point out the reasons if I can learn how to post properly to the AAR section. I'm on T3 and just tried to call for mortar fire. When I go to the bombardment screen, it reads that artillery is unavailable. I checked the mortar tam and they have a radio. The units I would use to spot like A0 and B0 have radios also but the mortar team is showing as 'out of contact'. How is that possible? :mad: I realy need those mortars and I'm sure I'm making some kid of FUNG mistake. Any enlightment will be appreciated.

[DRG]

Read the game guide, units relying on radios CAN and WILL occasionally go out of contact just like in real life.

Don

[Imp]

To add attachments press go advanced (under where you enter the text) & then select the paper clip

[Griefbringer]

For further clarification, for an onboard unit to be able to fire indirectly, it needs to have a contact to it's own platoon HQ first. In the case of the Heart of Africa campaign, the mortars are unit C2 and their platoon HQ is C0.

If one is unwilling to rely on the vagaries of radio communication, then the surer way of establishing contact is having the platoon HQ in close physical proximity to the indirect fire unit - being within 5 hexes or so tends to provide very reliable line of communication to the platoon HQ.

However, in a platoon with mixed units - such as in the case of Heart of Africa campaign - this can cause a conflict of interests, since you want to have your platoon HQ both sitting back (to provide control for the mortars) and further front to provide leadership, fire support, spotting capability etc. to the rest of the platoon closer to the enemy. One way around this would be to attach the mortars to some other platoon that is more likely to be hanging back (such as the HQ A-platoon).

Ideally, the mortars should be organised as their own platoons, so the whole platoon can safely hang back and provide indirect fire.

[Mobhack]

Ideally, the mortars should be organised as their own platoons, so the whole platoon can safely hang back and provide indirect fire.


And then making sure that the individual firing elements are all within 3-5 hexes of the command element, so they then do not continually drop off the radio net. Not the mistake that many newbies make of dotting indirect fire elements 10 or more hexes apart "because they have radios". Radios are not reliable.

A dead/routed leader (usually but not always the 0 element) can also lead to subordinated fire units not being on the arty radio net for a while or more - they may need to close up to the new leader or wait till the guy stops doing a runner and returns from his panic etc.

Off map arty will also occasionally not be available on the bombardment screen (not sure about on map, but I think they are supposed to be more reliably "there for you"). Just because you have bought 2 batteries or planes - does not mean that they are always available. Can be rather annoying if they go "off the net"" while still firing a mission that drifted into your own position or perhaps onto a spot that your troops want to go to this turn (you then cannot shift it or cancel it).

That behaviour is also deliberately coded in by us and is not a "bug".

Andy

[Griefbringer]

Can be rather annoying if they go "off the net"" while still firing a mission that drifted into your own position or perhaps onto a spot that your troops want to go to this turn (you then cannot shift it or cancel it).


Even worse if you have just moved in that position, and then go to the bombardment screen at the end of the turn to find out that the 155 mm battery is going to bombard it again and there is no way you can cancel that fire mission...

Lesson: before moving into a position, check that there are no friendly artillery units still bombarding it.

On-map units tend to be easier, since even if they end up losing contact, you can still manually stop them from firing eg. by moving them (though this might be considered a bit gamey).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

On map arty will also drop comms once in a while as well during AI games I've played. Mostly due to moving them to avoid CB fires that are getting closer to my units. Most of the time comms are reestablished within a couple of turns unless I haven't paid attention to trying to maintain LOS then it takes longer or not until I move them again. This of course for me is against the AI.

Regards,
Pat

[gila]

Can be rather annoying if they go "off the net"" while still firing a mission that drifted into your own position or perhaps onto a spot that your troops want to go to this turn (you then cannot shift it or cancel it).


Even worse if you have just moved in that position, and then go to the bombardment screen at the end of the turn to find out that the 155 mm battery is going to bombard it again and there is no way you can cancel that fire mission...

Lesson: before moving into a position, check that there are no friendly artillery units still bombarding it.

On-map units tend to be easier, since even if they end up losing contact, you can still manually stop them from firing eg. by moving them (though this might be considered a bit gamey).

Yes you can stop a out com arty unit from errent bomard by just direct firing them or moving them, not at all gamey imo.

[gila]

With offboard atry it is impossible to stop rogue arty from firing as Andy points out.

Offboard arty assets are best used as CB fire against other offboard arty.

[Aeraaa]

Since I cant find the thread that was about different types of terrain, I'll ask here:

Can anybody tell me what types of terrain reduce enemy observation, especially against your vehicles? I know for sure that dug in tanks are harder to spot, but what about natural environment factors?

[skyray]

For further clarification, for an onboard unit to be able to fire indirectly, it needs to have a contact to it's own platoon HQ first. In the case of the Heart of Africa campaign, the mortars are unit C2 and their platoon HQ is C0.

If one is unwilling to rely on the vagaries of radio communication, then the surer way of establishing contact is having the platoon HQ in close physical proximity to the indirect fire unit - being within 5 hexes or so tends to provide very reliable line of communication to the platoon HQ.

However, in a platoon with mixed units - such as in the case of Heart of Africa campaign - this can cause a conflict of interests, since you want to have your platoon HQ both sitting back (to provide control for the mortars) and further front to provide leadership, fire support, spotting capability etc. to the rest of the platoon closer to the enemy. One way around this would be to attach the mortars to some other platoon that is more likely to be hanging back (such as the HQ A-platoon).

Ideally, the mortars should be organised as their own platoons, so the whole platoon can safely hang back and provide indirect fire.

I did catch enough of the rally ops particulars to re-assign platoons directly to B0 but I left C platoon under the A0. I didn't think to attach the mortars (C2) directly to A0 which may have prevented the problem. :o I'd actually organized for control exactly as you stated with only 2 squads in reserve and the transport out of the way. Mortars are set up way back to the east near the green victory markers.

Though I had read that units will just drop out of comm from time to time, I guess it just didn't stick the way it should have. Typical noob mistake but we learn by doing. Thanks also for the warning about out of comm arty continuing to fire onto an area I intend to occupy or not being able to check fire that's drifted onto me.

[skyray]

Since I cant find the thread that was about different types of terrain, I'll ask here:

Can anybody tell me what types of terrain reduce enemy observation, especially against your vehicles? I know for sure that dug in tanks are harder to spot, but what about natural environment factors?

I'm brand new to this sim so please take anything I have to say with a grain (no, tablespoon)of salt but A full hex of woods between you and op4 shud block LOS, being closer to the edge of a contour line if you are lower may block the line of sight, smoke and dust trails (which you can often generate) will block LOS, defilade (hull down) positions with the defilade between you and op4 will reduce the range at which you can be spotted and buildings on the LOS shud block the LOS.

I'm going from old knowledge based on board games that operate in a similar fashion and what I've seen so far for myself in MBT.

[Mobhack]

A full hex of trees does block LOS usually, but it depends also on the game visibility setting - at high and very high visibility, LOS penetrates deeper into all covers. Thermal Imagers can also see a bit better into cover versus units with no NV gear at all. It has always been that way - and is perhaps supposed to show the effects of more sunlight? - ask the original designers.

(rant mode - skip if you like!)

The game ( its not a "simulation") does not (like most tabletop wargames rules) have limits on vision for e.g. rifle teams in the open. If something is spotted and in "LOS" then it is instantly visible to anything in visibility distance and LOS.

This is similar to the US-made paper and hex wargames of the 1970s, where it was "LOS" that was the king, and in opposition to normal wargames rules as played in the UK with 1/300 models which may have had e.g a 1000m limit on rifle groups, 3000m on ATG say, even if the theoretical LOS was there, and would have rules to "pass on" contacts within own platoon, to other formations etc along chain of command. Then the unit would still have to individually dice using the spotting rules to aquire the passed-on target. In tabletop wargame rules, LOS was merely a factor.

However - even in tabletop wargame rules, the "Player God" still knows about the unit that B333 spotted and will move all other units accordingly, even if they have not yet had the acquisition passed on yet.

That's why wargames are games and not "simulations". Wargames players have total control of their individual units firing, movement etc with the rule book attempting to try to put some limit on him. But he has too much information and actual control, hence the "Player God".

A simulation really only works when the player is totally limited to one point of view (e.g. an individual tank, plane, sub, or the Turcan Napoleonic/ACW games if you used the "lock view to Napoleons HQ" mode). Subordinate actors in sims will only do their own (AI) thing subject to your orders relayed by radio, rider etc delays, and you cannot "pop into" tank 3 and see that its got 12 HE left and a damaged suspension, or that it can see some Stug that you as Colonel don't yet know about because the report has not made it to your staff officer or the dispatch rider was killed or whatever.

If this was a "simulation" of battalion battle group HQ level, then you would probably be limited to a "Doom" type first-person view of your forward HQ and the various "head shed" tents. You would spend a lot of pre-game time making these "plan" things that wargamers really don't seem to like, having pre-battle orders groups with your AI subordinates etc.

You could have a POV where you jump into your land rover or command tank, wandering randomly round the battle area and subject to being shot of course - but then lose the message flow from most of your subordinates, the big map plot in your Intel tent (which is made up from true and false reports, not an SP type gods eye view! :)) etc..

That sort of "realistic" HQ simulation could be put together as a text-based adventure game format actually. A simple map could be printed off for the player to mark up himself from incoming text reports in standard army format. Something like that may sell to the real military, since it's just a computer version of the "Tactical Exercise Without Troops" training scenario they already do. It would not sell well to the civvy market, who want "boom bang" and Hollywood style eye candy.

(end of rant)

Andy

[Aeraaa]

To counterant Andy, yeah, it is true that a real battalion or regiment or whatever CO doesnt have God's eye view, but then again he has a lot more competent company, platoon and squad leaders that can act on their own initiative and do not stupidly charge across open field as a huge blob waiting to be massacred (well sometimes this happened IRL, but how can you simulate the good officers in an AI?)

[Mobhack]

AIs don't really handle tactics well. Too many variables. They really do best at the divisional or higher levels (operational or strategic) perhaps, where everything is represented by a simplistic block counter with a few factors (attack, movement defence). Or perhaps naval games, where there is no added complication of 97 different terrain types.

But if they are not allowed "cheats" then the only thing they can really do is scripted pre-planned routines (like say the lower level Russian tactics were supposed to be)?.

Most AIs, especially at a tactical level, cheat - e.g. by having knowledge of the enemy (no fog of war for them).

Ours at least does not cheat and also it tries to fight you with the same points value (unless you use the AIAdjustpercent variable to give it a boost).

But that is all off-topic for the thread, so end of off-topic discussions.

Andy

[gila]

But that is all off-topic for the thread, so end of off-topic discussions.

Andy

What is off topic for "i need tactial help" thread?

it's pretty much open to anything correct?:)

[Mobhack]

But that is all off-topic for the thread, so end of off-topic discussions.

Andy

What is off topic for "i need tactial help" thread?

it's pretty much open to anything correct?:)

I was drifting off into AI related topics - and the thread topic is about tactics for end user players, not AI.

Andy

[Aeraaa]

Quick question: does anybody know if ruined buidlings offer better protection than healthy ones? And if so does that apply to buildings that have become holes (meaning completely demolished)?

[Mobhack]

Quick question: does anybody know if ruined buidlings offer better protection than healthy ones? And if so does that apply to buildings that have become holes (meaning completely demolished)?

Rubble is a very good protection - plus since it has already fallen down then it cannot collapse on top of your guys....

Andy

[Paderborn]

I just picked up a book called, TANK TACTICS:From Normandy to [/[U]U]Lorraine " by Roman Jarymowycz that may be helpful though I havn't had a chance to read my copy yet.:)

[Aeraaa]

Anyone knows if vehicles in the same hex as infantry can be used as extra cover? Does this also apply with destroyed vehicles?

[Griefbringer]

Not to my knowledge. Actually, placing infantry in the same hex with a vehicle can end up badly (or at least with some suppression) for the infantry, since vehicles tend to draw hefty amounts of fire from the enemy.

As for destroyed vehicles, burning ones tend to block LoS and after a while they produce smoke in adjacent hex, which also affects LoS. However, being close to destroyed friendly vehicles can be bad for morale, giving units some extra suppression.

Keep in mind the scale of the game: single hex represents an area of ground about 50 meters across, where as even a large tank would measure at best 4 x 8 meters.

[Aeraaa]

Keep in mind the scale of the game: single hex represents an area of ground about 50 meters across, where as even a large tank would measure at best 4 x 8 meters.

Agreed, but it would make sense for an infantry squad to bunch up behind a tank when under fire (remember that they're supposed to search for cover the whole time, hence why they arent massively annihilated when on open ground...)

[Griefbringer]

Modern tactical doctrines tend to discourage bunching up, since it makes for pretty vulnerable targets on a battlefield. Thus infantry is trained to spread out to provide less concentrated targets and to make better use of all available cover.

I have seen some pictures from Vietnam war depicting a whole squad sheltering behind a slowly advancing tank. This may be a viable tactic if you are only facing small arms fire and from a single direction. But what if an enemy combatant manages to outflank the tank and engage the bunched up squad from an exposed angle - single burst from an automatic weapon could cause serious mayhem. Or what about a round from grenade launcher or mortar falling somewhere behind the tank and showering the exposed squad with shrapnel? Or anti-tank round penetrating the tank, brewing up ammo and blowing the turret off? Or well-placed MG in front of the tank shooting between the tracks and hitting the exposed lower legs? Never mind the difficulty of effectively firing back at the enemy from such a position.

Also for destroyed vehicles, sheltering close to a burning tank might be rather uncomfortable in real life. Heat, flames, clouds of suffocating smoke, danger of any remaining munitions catching fire and brewing up, smell of burning flesh and so on.

[Suhiir]

For my part I'd stay as far as possible from one of our tanks on the advance, as others have said they draw a LOT of fire.
As Griefbringer pointed out there may be some advantage if all the fire is coming from one direction, but these days a 'fragmented battlefield' is the norm. Gone are the days of defensive lines, it's all strongpoint or hedgehog defenses, because that way the loss of no single position means a breach in the defensive belt. Thus you're usually catching fire from at least two (or MANY) directions at the same time.

[Aeraaa]

Another one, are sabot rounds more accurate than HEAT/HE ones?

[Mobhack]

Another one, are sabot rounds more accurate than HEAT/HE ones?

Each weapon has one accuracy number only. So, no.

Andy

[Aeraaa]

^So I guess there's no way it can be modified...

[Mobhack]

^So I guess there's no way it can be modified...

Not with the limited data that SSI used.

(e.g. there is no way to tell if an AP shell is actually an APDS for those cases where the sabot round is a newer version of APDS. No way to have early 17 pounder and 6 pounder have loss of accuracy due to uneven APDS petal scatter. One accuracy number to rule all the gun's data. )

Anything else would require a totally new game design with basic database changes. I've thought of that over the years - e.g. the ability to have the shillelagh tube ATGM as a round and not a separate weapon line firing a double shot at a target. Table driven accuracy charts, like normal (Challenger, WRG) 1/300 wargames rules etc.

Any such game would be completely new product of course - not an update of the old engine.

Since this is nothing to to with tactics any other discussion should be in TO&E if needed.

[anlubue]

Soviet non-linear combat, author: Lester W. Grau
From Soviet Studies Army Service 1991