RE: Desert Storm 91 revised

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Desert Storm 91 revised

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports >> RE: Desert Storm 91 revised

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Desert Storm 91 revised - 12/16/2013 4:37:42 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum90
Hi Larry..thanks for the AAR...one question...Do you use only minimal losses attacks?? I�m curious about your combat tactics..

Hey there fulcrum90 dude........thanks for posting. And your question. Um.......usually the first attack by my units on an enemy unit
is when the enemy is entrenched to one degree or another ( D, E, F ) and I don't like to do max losses ( three dots ) attacks when
the enemy units are entrenched. High losses you see. So I like to do the first attack w/ min losses ( one dot ) settings just to
get the enemy unit to unentrench not to force them out of the hex. This only works because I usually get more than one combat
round. [ If you only get one round then don't follow my advice w/ this explaination. ] Then on the second combat round what
setting I use depends on the situation. If I need to be able to defend after the attack then I usually don't use the three dot setting
because I need the unit to not only attack *now* but to be able to have enough readiness to defend the hex, both jobs and attacking
eats up supply so sometimes I'll use the one dot setting on the second attack as well. If I don't have to defend afterward, or
not for a turn or two AND the enemy unit is NOT entrenched then by all means go for it and use the three dot setting. And I
really like to get a surround on an enemy unit before I destroy it to deny the enemy side the equipment that is only "damaged" and
not really destroyed. Each combat has two results: destroyed and damaged and damaged is usually a small percentage of the
destroyed number. So to deny even that small percentage is what I'm going for. If the enemy unit doesn't have an LOC to it's
supply source it can't receive reinforcements nor supply and is usually destroyed faster with fewer attacks. What was your question
again? I hope this helps.

(in reply to fulcrum90)

Post #: 121

RE: Desert Storm 91 revised - 12/16/2013 6:06:09 PM

fulcrum90

Posts: 48
Joined: 4/27/2006
From: Madrid, CEE
Status: offline

Thanks...Fine, basically you use minimal losses attack to put in mobile status the defender and then attack with ignore losses, right??

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 122

RE: Desert Storm 91 revised - 12/16/2013 6:11:51 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum90
Thanks...Fine, basically you use minimal losses attack to put in mobile status the defender and then attack with ignore losses, right??

I know I ramble when you can define in one sentence what takes me two paragraphs. You're correct of course. Keep those good
questions coming. I'm willing to learn also, if you have a technique you'd like to share.

(in reply to fulcrum90)

Post #: 123

RE: Desert Storm 91 revised - 12/16/2013 7:17:16 PM

fulcrum90

Posts: 48
Joined: 4/27/2006
From: Madrid, CEE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum90
Thanks...Fine, basically you use minimal losses attack to put in mobile status the defender and then attack with ignore losses, right??

I know I ramble when you can define in one sentence what takes me two paragraphs. You're correct of course. Keep those good
questions coming. I'm willing to learn also, if you have a technique you'd like to share.

Well, it�s my favourite tactic..you can get better results if uses artllery in direct support. The only problem is to attack with ignore looses...units get exhausted soon and need to resupply but if you can manage this, it gives good results

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 124

RE: Desert Storm 91 revised - 12/16/2013 7:29:40 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum90

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum90
Thanks...Fine, basically you use minimal losses attack to put in mobile status the defender and then attack with ignore losses, right??

I know I ramble when you can define in one sentence what takes me two paragraphs. You're correct of course. Keep those good
questions coming. I'm willing to learn also, if you have a technique you'd like to share.

Well, it�s my favourite tactic..you can get better results if uses artllery in direct support. The only problem is to attack with ignore looses...units get exhausted soon and need to resupply but if you can manage this, it gives good results

You're of course correct. Also, I've heard some players use the "dynamic stack" priinciple where one has at least two units in the
stack, one of which is entrenched and doesn't attack. It is used on the defensive side of turns. The other one is the one you attack
with. Until it get's tired enough to just manage to defend when one switches the duty from unit to the other unit. The tired one goes
on the defense and the fresh one attacks. Pretty snazy really.

I've decided what to do now: I'm exploring the Olympic 45 scenario and I've already found things to change. You can find the start here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3498572

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 12/16/2013 8:30:33 PM >

(in reply to fulcrum90)

Post #: 125

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports >> RE: Desert Storm 91 revised