Unsupported tanks behind enemy lines

[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.