Unsupported tanks behind enemy lines

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Usupported tanks?behind enemy lines?got a single word to this, suicide, tank with no inf support gets assaulted, hit by inf-at, atgm, atg, whatever you can find in the enemy's rear area, i'd mount cheap grunts on tanks and have a few ACs or HTs(esp if more infantry in there) with them, even though it may wreak havoc on the enemy's defensive line, it can be costly, yes, i love infantry, nothing else can eat so many shells, just keep moving fast and have arty(mortars?) falling around your tanks and you'll get through it

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

Allow me to elaborate more on the most common of my problems in the event that it raises any more discussion. The situation - midway through the battle after my forces have clashed and meshed witht the enemy, the majority of the enemy is pinned or running. I send my tanks after those retreating while my infantry slogs through the sea of dead or dying humanity picking off the half squads, scouts, snipers, and AT teams that are lost in the fog of war. My tanks, in pursuit of the retreating elements blunder into a nest of ATGs/AAA/AT teams that are hiding in the rear area. Or I send my tanks after a plume of smoke less not far from their position and blunder into a nest etc.

I know that patience is the key, but at the same time I don't want the fleeing units to get into a calm stretch of map and rally back. I'd just as soon wipe them off the face of the earth while their running than have to do it when they're charging me, firing. Any additional thoughts, or do I just need to learn the dreaded patience?

If we're talking about chasing down fleeing units, then it sounds like you've already know what you're doing wrong, and are getting a bit carried away in the moment.

It may help to remind yourself of your objectives, which likely isn't to anihilate every last man.

Damaged units may rally, but if you've beaten them back once, chances are you'll do it even better the second time.

I find fighting campaigns encourages me to play more conservatively, as I'm not as willing to risk good crews in a foolhardy 'charge of the light brigade'.

If you do see a good opportunity to use armour against fleeing infantry, try to drop smoke beyond the fleeing units, in front of likely ATG sites. Artillery is often down to smoke rounds by this stage of the battle anyway.


Another thought on map size

I first learned to play against an opponent who loved huge maps. So it was normal, and doesn't bother me, to have gaps in the line and vulnerable flanks. Any disadvantage is the same for your opponent; it's just another style of play.

On a large map with limited forces, it's the objectives which dictate company positions, and where you put what. This encourages a much more strategic rather than just tactical battle. Of course, it helps to have a decent amount of mobility in this sort of fight.

[hoplitis]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

...
Any additional thoughts, or do I just need to learn the dreaded patience?

Yeap!!!
( Patience grasshopper
It's not just a game. It's a character builder! !!!
The proper thing to do is plan your advance/assault with the "constraint" that 1/3 or 1/4 of your force will be in "reserve mode" either to exploit gaps in the frontline, flanking etc OR reinforce an attack that has gotten bogged down OR dealing with an aggressive counter attack.
This practically means that a sizeable chunk of your forces must not be commited until midgame! And that takes alot of character indeed!

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Lt. Ketch

RERomine, I am hesitant of mounted units, but more because I need to work on my tactics with them than any ineffeciency on their part. I don't expect loses when I send in unsupported tanks - it's a given. I don't like losing any units, but I can definatly see the advantage of a support HT being sacrificed for the "greater good." Thanks.

Just for sake of clarity, I typically don't raid into the enemy rear area. I move my whole core into their rear. Support units punch a hole and core elements exploit the gap, leaving nothing in my own rear area. The enemy is welcome to take it and search for something to engage. I've seen the AI with units cruising along my back edge and finding nothing. This is only works if I'm advancing or assaulting and I would never try it against a person.

[gila]

Originally Posted by RERomine

Just for sake of clarity, I typically don't raid into the enemy rear area. I move my whole core into their rear. Support units punch a hole and core elements exploit the gap, leaving nothing in my own rear area. The enemy is welcome to take it and search for something to engage. I've seen the AI with units cruising along my back edge and finding nothing. This is only works if I'm advancing or assaulting and I would never try it against a person.

Should try it sometime RER,Strategy! Rommel always used his army and panzer's for the "go for broke" flanking maneuver and it worked! until Hitler bleeded him dry for his Russian campaign.

[gila]

Lastly,why fight in a small battle box anyway?.
Realistically would you have map constraints on a real battlefield?

[Cross]

Originally Posted by gila

Lastly,why fight in a small battle box anyway?.
Realistically would you have map constraints on a real battlefield?

I guess in many real life WWII situations you would have a battalion to your left and right, which would be your operational constraint.

So smaller 'boxes' could represent a more densely defended front, with larger boxes simulating the more spacious battlefields.

For example, when fighting in say North Africa 1941 you may want to fight on a huge map to make it more realistic (unless you were replicating a battle over a specific airfield or feature); and in Normandy 44 a smaller map to force size ratio may keep your battalion in realistic proximity.

But this is one of the great things about SP, and why I never get bored with it. There's an unlimited number of things we can adjust and change. Map and force size can certainly have a large impact on the style of battle that develops.

cheers,
Cross

[Imp]

Re map size its been discussed elsewhere but I agree with Cross in most cases your map size should correspond to the size of your force. You are tasked with this bit of front & other units are on either side of you dealing with theres.
Vs a human changing the size adds variety as you both adapt.
Vs the AI once you start getting to big real estate vs units involved the advantage goes very much to the human. You are spread out but so is the AI but the big diffrence is you hopefully exploit this well by getting localised force superiority while the AI does not react well to this keeping pretty much to the plan.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by RERomine

My best suggestion is to dedicate some sort of mounted recon and support to your flanking elements. The AI will always have some sort of AT or AA guns in the rear and infantry if it's a delay or defend. Odds are, you won't spot those units until they fire so lead out with mounted recon and support. Better to lose an inexpensive half-track or armored car than a tank with an experienced crew. If you send in unsupported tanks, expect to lose some.

Well over 3 years ago, I allowed the AI to pick ATG in the advance and attack (the pick had not done it when "going forwards" before) but at a reduced chance from the defence.

That was deliberate, to let it protect its rear areas from any unsupported armoured attacks.

Cheers
Andy

[Lt. Ketch]

Thank you all! I've known that there has been a lot that I needed to learn about strategy and tactics and this helps put me on a good track. There is much that I don't think of and miss (as is evedent in this thread, I'm sure), so thank you again. I'd love to keep this discussion going.

Additional thoughts:

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

just keep moving fast and have arty(mortars?) falling around your tanks and you'll get through it

I like the mortar idea and have used it before which is one reason why I don't use it much anymore. I imobilized one of my own tanks with a mortar shell. It probablly didn't help that it was a 100mm mortar. I studied in the school that when it comes to artillary, the bigger the better. However, I've identified the uses and needs for smaller caliber ART. What is a good size for mortaring your own tanks?

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

i love infantry, nothing else can eat so many shells

I also agree about the infantry, but have found that unsupported infantry get chewed up by ART and AFV in the open. I'm trying to work on my combined arms as I tend to swing to extremes.

Originally Posted by Cross

It may help to remind yourself of your objectives, which likely isn't to anihilate every last man.

I think one of my problems (in addition to the ones previously mentioned) is that I make "anihilating every last man" one of my objectives. I'll work on that. Thanks for the reminder.

Originally Posted by RERomine

I typically don't raid into the enemy rear area. I move my whole core into their rear.

Not a bad idea. What organization do you normaly have when you hit the rear area? For example, your set up your forces: recon up front, tanks and infantry main body, mobile reserve in rearish area of main body and then just press forward maintaining the spacing between the recon and body.
Or, after you hit the enemy do you fold around his flanks and penitrate his line at weak spots letting the units that penitrate in force ravage the rear? Let me put it another way, do you advance like a bulldozer or like water?

The reason I ask is because I'm curious how you keep from losing too many units to the rear forces. As I've related, I'm always losing the units that penitrate the line. I understand that good recon can help with this, but how do you set it up? A basic thought for me is to regroup my forces after sending the enemy packing and reestablish the scouts (which ever ones are left) and basicly begin another advance against the rear units. Any thoughts or personal experiences?

(Crap this has gotten long! Sorry about that. Kudos if you make it down this far.)