Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai

In a delay mission, it is considered a mute point that the delaying units will fight to the death;

If that happened sometimes and if some nations performed that kind of tactic few times, it is still far from being a general rule. For example Finland could have never afforded that "Haig's tactic." It would have made no sense at all.



Ps. If you buy troops with 7500 points, losing 176 men, 1 APC and 11 AFVs won't stop you but only make you little angry.

Pps. I agree that your enemy had that huge forces that it would have been very hard task to stop it with any tactic.

ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai
IBTyrone, you are already looking at Haig tactics being used by a minor nation against a major combatant. Read my first post to see which nation I'm playing as. My morale values are 35 on average with 40 for xp. The 'weaknesses' of a minor nation are minor issues when using powerful Haig strategies.

My bad, TokyoBoy. I thought you were playing the Brits. I don't consider France a minor power, either, but I guess by SPWAW game standards, the French are a second-rate nation.

Refer to my Delay at Brecey. US Army vs German; so both are "major" players. That alone disproves the already disproven theory of Haig "Tactics". With an attitude that I'll accept nothing less than total victory, and smart use of both armor and infantry, I easily stopepd the Germans cold. Two equal forces, using normal settings, with the arty set to 140. I understand the numbers quite well. With Haig Tactics, you took a draw, and only because the game's poor idea of what a draw is. For every German you killed, you lost 4 of your own. For all your stance against armor, you still did not win without utilizing armor of your own, and only destroyed 3 more tanks than what you lost. If you did not have those tanks, the ratio would have been higher, 7 or 8:1

In real life, Haig tactics border on Genocide, they are only barely viable due to automatic regeneration of infantry. Without it, you would have no core within two battles. In your battle, if against a human opponent, you would have lost, period. It's already no argument that you lost; having your force routed is automatic loss in any military book. A delay is not having your force rslaughtered like lambs and driven like cattle. A delay is a coordinated, staged withdrawl, designed to delay enemy troops until others can escape back behind you. In no army would such losses be accepted, you'd be court martialed and likely jailed for such genocidal madness.

In my worst losses in SPWAW and even other war games with the ability to run armies numbered in the several hundreds and thousands, I have never taken that many losses in a single battle. Men are not infinite, save in SPWaW; which is one of this game's weakest points.

With your tank losses, I can assume you had around a company's worth (15 or so) of tanks. That is no more than what I use to back 3 companies of infantry (1 usually special forces type units) with tank destroyers to back them up with mobile AT ability. I rarely use dedicated Infantry AT units, instead making sure my regular forces have AT weapons. I use support points to buy artillery, towed AT/AA weapons, and HMGs depending on mission. I never have losses in that amount, nor at that ratio.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1071380

Going to try this OU capture and copy paste thing to show a delay that I played as the canadians, I will also try and give the core forece screens later when I convert them to Jpegs so bare with me guys.

So Tokyoboytensai, where is the rest of the story. been waiting for ages now. Ithe the above people have put you off writing just ignor them. Write cus you want to. not cus they want you to. so put it up.

I doubt that has stopped him here. It didn't everywhere else. In fact, in other threads he has stepped up. Of course, he has also mostly begun smearing instead of arguing, but that's another point for another day.

Great thread revival, BTW; lets see if the old fire fight creeps up again.