Advance to the Sure - defending and.......

[snowflake]

As i recall, combat mission is about Coy sized forces, maybe Bn sized, but i doubt it. While BFTB models a complete Corps. If you think one AT gun can influence a clash between 2 Corps, your mistaken. Maybe play a game like Call of duty is more to your liking, but i doubt this what you think.

ORIGINAL: 260DET

The point is that a motorised unit or two can arrive arrive undetected at a defended location, apparently, simply because it is dark and the LOS which is the sole means provided to the defences to detect approaching enemy forces has adjusted to the darkness and effectively rendered them blind.

What wil happen to the motorised unit, i presume it is the attacker that is clashing into the line of defence by surprise. The possible outcome can be that the motorised unit is destroyed?

That is simply unrealistic nonsense. It makes no difference if a game is operational or not, to have creditability all the elements of a game must play realistically, otherwise what is the point?

What is realistic in your opinion might just be humbug to another persons point of view.

In effect, whether by design or not, this game is biased towards the attacking forces and handicaps and restricts the implementation of defensive choices.

Battles are not won by defence only. Just learn from past mistakes, and act/react in the right manner.

Anyway, here is my take on this game:
defence is easy to try, but difficult to master. But it's not impossible in this game. ANALYSE; discover the errors made in the last game and adjust the strategy and tactics, then try again and learn. Gave me lots of new insights in "command and control" doctrines of armies, aint it cool [8D]

Cheers mate, learn by example.

[Lieste]

As a contrasting opinion - frequently a Corps attack (on limited routes (eg Italy, Ardennes or Holland) has it's timetable (if not success/failure) dictated by the conditions in front of a single strongpoint... for example:

Two StuG, supported by a platoon of Grenadiers could and frequently did stymie a divisional advance for hours if not days. The lead element contacts the first vehicle, and is knocked out, the attack either bogs down immediately, or a flanking approach is tried and falls foul of the second piece. An attempt to rush the position might fail due to support from the MG teams, and supporting armour to close range AT ambushes.

If the local commander is slow identifying the weakness of the supporting position and after being stalled consolidates in front of the strongpoint, then the whole Divisional advance has been halted. Only with the arrival of a superior officer, the recognition that the defensive position is just a blocking position is the position finally flanked effectively, bypassed and eliminated by a more appropriate attack.

Even where the Corps is more dispersed and can advance generally, if many clashes have this 'nature' - then yes, a 'single' AT gun can influence the progress of each element advancing from an entire Corps - it only need be repeated fairly often across the front, and local counterattacks to the flanks of the most successful advances will restore the situation.

That a company position can be 'easily' overrun and not reduced house by house, hedge by hedge, foxhole by foxhole in many ways favours the attacker... Coupled with visibility ranges that almost always exceed the short range weapon ranges for the entire force (eg MP40 and PzFaust/Bazooka, or even Kar98/Garand/LE No4) and this desperate close range fighting is almost entirely absent. A short barrage (often less than 10 minutes) a rush by 'lots' of men and the blocking position is gone... pretty reliably.