Matrix Games Forums

Anyone have a favorite scenario? So scenario designers know what's liked.

So far they all seem like attack defend. That's okay for vs the AI combats but being the defender in that situation over and over gets tiring quick playing other gamers.

Are there any Meeting Engagements in the game? The small open maps tend to move away from ME's. It's not nice when you lose units the moment the game starts because you are in LOS.

For me, that's where the larger maps will help out. Not so more units can be used in the battles but more covered terrain can be used to allow for more maneuver.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
So far they all seem like attack defend. That's okay for vs the AI combats but being the defender in that situation over and over gets tiring quick playing other gamers.

The historical campaigns are often based on an attacking force, though the Kharkov historical campaign includes a mix.

Are there any Meeting Engagements in the game? The small open maps tend to move away from ME's. It's not nice when you lose units the moment the game starts because you are in LOS.

Meeting Engagements were not that common historically, but we do have a few. Try "Push for the Bereka" for an armor-heavy meeting engagement and Counterstroke for an infantry-heavy one.

For me, that's where the larger maps will help out. Not so more units can be used in the battles but more covered terrain can be used to allow for more maneuver.

Completely agree.

The Soviet military did a study after the war. They found that more than 70% of actions were what they would term meeting engagements. That is, at least one side not having a set defense and on the move.

A single attack/defend battle could produce dozens of meeting engagements. All breakthrough combats would be termed Meeting Engagements. Any force that is moving and accidently bumps into another is a Meeting Engagement. Any situation where one or both forces is moving is a Meeting Engagement.

For instance the Soviet breakthrough during Destruction of Army Group Center. The initial assaults that broke the German lines produced a fluid situation that lasted for weeks! Almost all of the combat after the initial breakthroughs were Meeting Engagements.

What most wargamers consider a Meeting Engagement is Division or higher. Those were rare but not unheard of. At our level here at the company/battalion level they were the most common form of combat.

The Soviet studies were so influential that the post war doctrine for the Warsaw Pact was based soley on how to attack from movement formations. In other words, how to fight Meeting Engagements.

Most of the scenarios that I'll be doing for PC will be ME's of one form or another. There are more than just two sides blindly colliding....many more forms than that, although it's the most common in tactical wargames.

The US Army, in the 70's at least, followed this same criteria.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The Soviet military did a study after the war. They found that more than 70% of actions were what they would term meeting engagements. That is, at least one side not having a set defense and on the move.

Let me understand the logic of this definition. The "and" would be a logical "and" I assume not a "and/or". Thus to be true one side would be moving and not have a set defense. Which would be true in all cases even it the other side was not moving and had a set defense.
WHich is completely different than saying both sides are moving or both sides are attacking.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The Soviet military did a study after the war. They found that more than 70% of actions were what they would term meeting engagements. That is, at least one side not having a set defense and on the move.

Let me understand the logic of this definition. The "and" would be a logical "and" I assume not a "and/or". Thus to be true one side would be moving and not have a set defense. Which would be true in all cases even it the other side was not moving and had a set defense.
WHich is completely different than saying both sides are moving or both sides are attacking.

That's exactly what I was trying to figure out.

Granted, there were meeting engagements, but by this definition I think almost all engagements would be meeting engagements. I had previously read that a more typical meeting engagement, which has _both_ sides "on the move" and in effect attacking was more like 25% of engagements or less.

Regard,

- Erik

For example, if your tank battalion was moving forward after a breakthrough and you met a small force in a village you would term that an attack/defend?

The US/Soviet military determined that if one side was moving into combat without prior knowledge of enemy positions or intentions it was not a set battle. That would make it a meeting engagement for at least that sides forces.

That only battles where there was no movement were attack/defend.

To clarify this a bit, if the two sides were sitting still for a week, or even hours, and knew where the enemy was for the most part, that is attack/defend. When one of those forces is on the move and doesn't know where the enemy is or has no worthwhile knowledge of enemy positions, as they move forward, that is a meeting engagement.

In military terms, it doesn't have to just be large units that are moving to be termed a meeting engagement. To a large extent they determine a meeting engagement on the amount of information the force that is moving has of the situation. If the force changes from road march formation and deploys that then makes it an attack/defend....even though they will have to move forward to attack...which happens in any kind of an attack. If they "bump" into each other, even if one is deployed, that makes it a meeting engagement for that sides forces.

Obviously, if both sides forces are moving forward that too is a meeting engagement.

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
For example, if your tank battalion was moving forward after a breakthrough and you met a small force in a village you would term that an attack/defend?

I'd define that as an attack, since the oher side is already static in the village. By this definition, we have a lot of meeting engagements, since if one side is not actually entrenched, it pretty much qualifies as a meeting engagement then?

To clarify this a bit, if the two sides were sitting still for a week, or even hours, and knew where the enemy was for the most part, that is attack/defend. When one of those forces is on the move and doesn't know where the enemy is or has no worthwhile knowledge of enemy positions, as they move forward, that is a meeting engagement.

Ok, then we have quite a few meeting engagements. FYI, that has not been my definition of the term, but I'm fine with it as long as we're now talking apples to apples.

Regards,

- Erik

Yeesh, you can't win Erik.

Regards,

Greg

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
To clarify this a bit, if the two sides were sitting still for a week, or even hours, and knew where the enemy was for the most part, that is attack/defend. When one of those forces is on the move and doesn't know where the enemy is or has no worthwhile knowledge of enemy positions, as they move forward, that is a meeting engagement.

So all ambushes are meeting engagements.

Hi All,

Regardless of military history or terminology I find "pure meeting engagements" to be fun. Perhaps not very historical, but for me enjoyable.

The small maps are fine but certainly I would like larger ones with more room for maneuver.

I see there are no neutral flags and so I imagine placing an Axis and Allied flag beside one another will produce the desired effect. I shall have to try it.

Regards John

ORIGINAL: z1812
I see there are no neutral flags and so I imagine placing an Axis and Allied flag beside one another will produce the desired effect. I shall have to try it.

That's correct, for a "pure" meeting engagement in PCK, place the same number of flags for each side along the line that bisects the map between their two deployment areas.

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the reply. Can you tell me roughly how the A.I. might react to the following situations. Also I will try it when time allows.

1. 4 flags alternating and spaced equally along the bisecting line. Is that likely to produce a more balanced advance across a front?

2. One flag of each placed directly next to one another. Will this make the A.I. direct all resources primarily to this location?

regards John

ORIGINAL: z1812
1. 4 flags alternating and spaced equally along the bisecting line. Is that likely to produce a more balanced advance across a front?

Yes, this is the better choice since it will lead to more variability.

2. One flag of each placed directly next to one another. Will this make the A.I. direct all resources primarily to this location?

This will tend to result in a concentration of forces, yes.

ORIGINAL: z1812

Hi All,

Regardless of military history or terminology I find "pure meeting engagements" to be fun. Perhaps not very historical, but for me enjoyable.

The small maps are fine but certainly I would like larger ones with more room for maneuver.

I see there are no neutral flags and so I imagine placing an Axis and Allied flag beside one another will produce the desired effect. I shall have to try it.

Regards John

Yes. From the side that is being ambushed they are.

From a purely military point of view that changes how you begin to look at the term "meeting engagement". From a gamers perspective it's only two sides moving that bump into each other....

Good Hunting.

MR

I'm having good fights using quasi meeting engagements with 5 victory flags.  I put the Germans on defense with posession of 4 flags in two groups of two.  The fifth flag is either owned by Soviets and easy to get to by the Sons of the Rodina.  I place the 4 German flags well to the Nazi side of things, preferably in a village and/or on a road..... or hilltop.  Something that makes sense.
 
The AI advances to defend its flags and will make enough of an attempt at the single Soviet flag that I must be alert to an attempt there.
 
My favorite scenario is Soviet Armored Battalion (-) vs Panzer Grenadiers at about 500 points.  I generate the battle in the RBG and edit it in the scenario editor.  Takes a couple of minutes now that I am well familiar with the process.  I play the Soviets on "Easy" in order to squeak out a Marginal in most cases.  Since I play in 1942 mainly, armor is pretty weak and for some reason the Grenadiers generally field PzIIb and armored cars.  Soviets are normally given T60s, T50s, T26s, BTs, and the like by the random generator.
 
As the Soviet, I really need artillery for HE and smoke in order to advance.  The AI generally gets a lot of my light tanks at the "final standoff" near the game-deciding victory flags.
 
The AI controlled German forces seem somewhat vulnerable to flanking but eventually, the grenadiers still must be attacked at close quarters by the light tanks and weak infantry support.  Good stuff, really.
 
The subleties of this game are really fun to watch play out.
 
 

Speaking of defense, are there foxholes, trenches, or bunkers.  I may have just missed them in reading.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Speaking of defense, are there foxholes, trenches, or bunkers.  I may have just missed them in reading.

Oh yes, there are. [8D]

I just realized they are probably built into the maps correct?  I was looking for them in the scenario editor.

That's correct - foxholes and bunkers are actually fairly easy to add and move in the Scene Editor, but trenches are built into the maps themselves.