Hofen Ho-Down-win w/o "Attacking"

[johnasl]

I just completed a rather lengthy scenario and learned a few things, so decide to go back and try scenario #1 Hofen Ho-Down (for approximately 10th time). It's a good scenario to test out the game engine, so I keep going to back to it to see how things work.

This time I was not going to issue any direct "Attack" orders. Instead I only issued "Move" orders with the "Attack" option selected.

The results were good. A Marginal victory for the Germans (me) on a tough scenario. Here is the final situation.

[FredSanford3]

I've always thought attacks were over rated, except in 'set piece' situations where you HAVE to assault a well-defended location.

Sometimes it also works to give a formation a defend order near an objective with the formation depth set to a shallow (300-600m) depth, and let them firefight it out with the enemy. Once in place, you can 'push' the units forward by gradually increasing the depth, or even turn the footprint to face different directions, without orders delays.

[RayWolfe]

...... and move the "move objective" without orders delay.
So all in all it is quite beneficial to not issue attack orders, except, perhaps as Franklin says, for a well defended position.

[GBS]

[&:] Well I for one am not happy with this revelation. You're saying there is an order that isn't needed. If memory serves the defenders of Hofen North and South were infact entrenched....and you took both locations with just a move order? Not fun guys and I would suggest that if this is infact true that some penalties should be applied when attacking from a move order. I hope Arjuna wades in on this .

[RayWolfe]

Nonsense!
In my small contribution to the previous game, MOVE is the only way for XXX Corps to move up the highway from Joe's Bridge. Just as actually happened, there was no FORMAL attack in the real event, it was: drive up the road and see what you find, skirmish as you go.
Attacking from the move was a real common occurrence in WWII. Pound with arty and cross your fingers. [;)]

[hank]

I appreciate it guys.  I did not realize you could move and/or attack via the Move command.
 
I will check this out tonight.   Thanks again.

[simovitch]

I rarely use the "attack" command either, somethimes there's just not enough time.

The attack command is a rather complex maneuver (handeled by the AI) wherein it organizes support units, reorganizes, and assault the objective in a coordinated manner calling in support as needed. Once they complete the assault, they will go on the defensive.

You will loose cohesion and take more casualties when you run into the enemy using the 'move' command, although I will ask Dave to take another look at the penalties involved in stumbling on the enemy that way.

[johnasl]

ORIGINAL: GBS

[&:] Well I for one am not happy with this revelation. You're saying there is an order that isn't needed. If memory serves the defenders of Hofen North and South were infact entrenched....and you took both locations with just a move order? Not fun guys and I would suggest that if this is infact true that some penalties should be applied when attacking from a move order. I hope Arjuna wades in on this .

I didn't look at it that critically. The AI was smart about the move commands, typcially having a lead element make initial contact. Then the order would be switched to Attack and executed quickly. The real advantage is that there is no order delay (that I could tell) when chaning orders. It makes sense because you are letting the local commander make the appropriate call on what's best.

[GBS]

I'm going to experiment with the tutorial following the attack orders exactly as prescribed in the tutorial and then try again using only the move command for the first 24 hours and see how performance compares. I just hope it doesn't turn out that the ATTACK command isn't needed. I think it detracts from the game... but that is just my own opinion and I realise other disagree with me on that.

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

In a "traditional" boardgame or turn based game this would be the equivalent of a prepared assault vs. a mobile assault. You're faster off the mark by moving and firing but pay a higher price, as opposed to losing time by preparing for a set piece attack. Both happened.
Just my 2 cents worth........
Regards,

Rob.[:)]

[FredSanford3]

ORIGINAL: GBS

I'm going to experiment with the tutorial following the attack orders exactly as prescribed in the tutorial and then try again using only the move command for the first 24 hours and see how performance compares. I just hope it doesn't turn out that the ATTACK command isn't needed. I think it detracts from the game... but that is just my own opinion and I realise other disagree with me on that.

But historically speaking, relatively few battles were set piece formal attacks against prepared defenses. Most were battles of movement and encounters. This engine replicates this fact. It's not that the attack command is unneccessary, it's just not ubiquitous, or even the most common form of clash. There are ways to control and manipulate these "chance" encounter battles, though. I think the OP was simply trying to highlight that by somewhat artificially restricting himself. There were probably instances in his battle where an attack would have been the appropriate order, but he was trying to not do that just for the heck of it.

[GBS]

OK...I played the Return to St Vith scn. two ways.
1st) I gave the 51st and the 318 the attack orders with FUP just as prescribed in the tutorial. In this instance I left arty under AI control and did not direct any fire myself. I did move the AA unit and Tank Plt up to the overwatch hillside as suggested. Then I turned the game on and watched. the 51st chose the shortest route after FUP and the 318th chose the quickest. Steinbruck was secured at 8:26. Another try produced the same result at 8:14.
2nd) I only gave Move orders to both BNs and let the AI chose the route. I did move the overwatch group up as before and used AI controled arty. Both units moved out quickly with the 51st moving straight ahead even though it showed avoidance route but the 318 took a route way around to the right and approached from the rear through the woods. It also, showed avoidance. I did notice that BNs milled around for a bit before taking off even though no reorg task was shown on the icons. I just let it run and Steinbruck was secured at the 15:15 mark. I tried this again and this time the 318 took a big swing to the left and approached the objective from the southeast on the far side of the river. The fight for Steinbruck was still taking place when I stoped the battle at 15:00.
I wish I had checked the casualties at certain points in the battle. I may try that later.

[simovitch]

GBS, did you have the "attack" toggle on with the move order? That was the condition for Stryker's analysis. The attacks toggle will provide for individual units/forces to launch assaults at their own discretion.

[GBS]

You know what, I might not have. I'll try ti again.

[GBS]

I ran the attack vs. move test again on Return to St. Vith this time being sure that the "attacks" option was checked when using the move command. Everthing else was same as before.

When using the Attack command with a FUP, Steinbruck was secured at 9:37, only 3 1/2 houres after the start ( I have seen this done by 8:30). When I used the move command with attacks it was secured at 17:20, almost 12 hours after the start. I did run it again using move and this time it took until 12:21.

CCA losses were these for the Attack option followed by the Move option:

Personel - 281 445
AFVs - 29 36
Non AFVs - 39 36
Guns - 2 8

This is crude, I know, but I feel better about it now. Even though it takes slightly longer to begin an assault, using the Attack order with a FUP seems much more effective and because it takes less time creates fewer casualties for the attacker.

[Agema]

Yeah, I noticed a problem with setting Move (with attacks) orders is they can be a little disjointed. The troops get there, start being shot at and continue being shot at whilst the commander has a think, then replans, then reorganises for an assault, and so on. Add in the possibility of the time and life cost of a company trying a failed assault first. At any rate, it wastes vital time and the lives of your men. If you know an enemy is there, issue Assault orders.

My main problem with issuing Assault orders is that the AI absolutely loves dropping artillery fire on assaulting units. I've lost count of the number of battalion-strength attacks I've had single-handedly crushed by shellfire routing the line companies one after the other. The AI has more trouble stopping a whole 3-battalion regiment assault with arty, but it can seriously damage plenty of it.

[FredSanford3]

That's why the dawn assault was favored- the 'ideal' is to form up, and close with the enemy while its dark, so the artillery can't get you, and have dawn break right when your units come face-to-face with the defenders when they are too close for the defending artillery. Also using your artillery on the defenders to suppress them will help some.

ORIGINAL: Agema

Yeah, I noticed a problem with setting Move (with attacks) orders is they can be a little disjointed. The troops get there, start being shot at and continue being shot at whilst the commander has a think, then replans, then reorganises for an assault, and so on. Add in the possibility of the time and life cost of a company trying a failed assault first. At any rate, it wastes vital time and the lives of your men. If you know an enemy is there, issue Assault orders.

My main problem with issuing Assault orders is that the AI absolutely loves dropping artillery fire on assaulting units. I've lost count of the number of battalion-strength attacks I've had single-handedly crushed by shellfire routing the line companies one after the other. The AI has more trouble stopping a whole 3-battalion regiment assault with arty, but it can seriously damage plenty of it.

[hank]

again, more interesting stuff

I was going to ask when the Attack order would be most effective but I can see some others have been experimenting. I've now tried playing the German side in a scenario whose name escapes me now but using the Move/Attack option worked very well but then I did not do the analysis others (GBS) did.

The bottom line for me is that there's another tool I did not know about. Attacking is not the only way to inflict chaos on the enemy. I'll have to formulate in my mind when the best time and place is to Attack or Move with the Attack option.

[&o]

[johnasl]

ORIGINAL: hank

The bottom line for me is that there's another tool I did not know about. Attacking is not the only way to inflict chaos on the enemy. I'll have to formulate in my mind when the best time and place is to Attack or Move with the Attack option.

[&o]

Good assessment. I'm starting to think you *need* to use both command to be consistently successful.

[Chief Rudiger]

I felt that lack of move (w/ attack toggle) really effected COTA badly, especially with recon units. I got into the habit of running the Armd car sqdns ahead seperately, with a move order, right into likely trouble spots on the reasoning that the village/bridge/choke-point might not be held and the losses incurred in stumbling into the enemy in road column were usually out weighed by the benefit of potentially occupying a position unopposed and quickly.

In case the Armd cars met opposition i issued an attack order to the remainder of the Recce Bn so that an attack would already be forming up to bounce any enemy out before they were reinforced. This was obviously a bit of a chore and is vastly improved on by the new engine where the AI Bn HQ now automatically send an advanced guard to find trouble ahead.

Move (with attacks) and timed assaults are two of the most important improvements in the engine in my opinion.