• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Tactics Attacking the Attacker

oldsoldier173

Grizzled Veteran
Sep 19, 2012
284
0
Ceresco, NE
When in a campaign mode game I see this far too often. You are on the defense, you deploy in game with already less tickets than the enemy, and for some reason instead of 'digging in' and playing 'defense' the troops disregarding 'suggestions' from the commander get up and 'run' at the enemy, essentially 'attacking the attacker' and then wonder why they lost.


Every map here can be defended if it actually is, even Apartments. People complain about Bridges but Apartments is far more unbalanced and no one cares for it 'meets' their need. Sit in the right and left doorways and defend the hallways and basement doorways, LMG's crossing the center alley gap from the flanks, and the enemy has to come to you. If you give them no way to enter the left and right buildings, or go through center how can you not win and defend Apartments for example. Sill do not understand why the fixed machinegun on the 2nd floor of left building is never manned, and a troop or two guarding the stairwell up to him, the MMG can hold the front better than any asset available to the defense, but is readily ignored. But every game the defender throws himself at the attackers and again wonder how they lost. Offense is not always the best defense.


Setting up crossfires behind cover, not taking the enemy on 'nose on nose' and effective deployment of weapons systems and every map is defendable.


Now reverse the scenario. If I am attacking there is the 'break' point where you can not win. In the campaign mode it is more advantageous to now go into a defensive posture and 'bleed out' the defenders as they will almost on cue 'attack the attacker'. Bleed them down to zero and preserve my troops, as the attacker even though I did not 'win' the map I won the combat power aspect of the game, and the enemy has to deal with lower numbers the next map played.


In the campaign mode territories as well as combat power is how you 'win' the campaign, the individual battles are secondary. Your bleeding out the combat power of the enemy while preserving yours you will win the campaign.
 
Last edited:
In the campaign mode territories as well as combat power is how you 'win' the campaign, the individual battles are secondary. Your bleeding out the combat power of the enemy while preserving yours you will win the campaign.

On this sentence I disagree. Attrition is not victory.
Combat power is for campaign what is reinforcement is for a round.
Win the combat power is look like wining the reinforcement.
You can lost with high reinforcement.

Attrition of reinforcement or attrition of combat power is good.
But victory is not given mainly by this practice.

Attrition just help to win a team. But a team need to take victory first.
A good commander will make attrition works for victory. But it's team who takes victory - helped or not by attrition of combat power and reinforcement of enemy troop.

Attrition is not victory. Attrition can give victory, sometime, if attrition is well used by headquarter.


example :

-In game:
in apparts you can have
germans with no reinforcement against russians with a lot of reinforcement
and german win because they kill all russians in the tactic sectors during last minutes of round

-In campaign :
"the campaign, the individual battles are secondary"
No. Because when you lost your last sector of map you lost.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You missed the point, you can own less territories than the enemy but you get his combat power to below '0' you win regardless of how many territories you own.


Attrition of the enemy reflects on his combat power the next round. The 75/25 attack/defend win as well as casualities inflicted on the enemy and how many of your troops are left alive all combine to provide the 'combat power' available for the next round of the campaign. Individual games this does not apply, only in campaign mode.


There are times you are stalled as an attacker, with time available to 'waste', I order a sit back and defend, and the defender 'attacks', we bleed them out some, and then resume the advance, with the enemy now concerned that his tickets are far below ours, giving the attacker more options.


You have to play this game like 'chess' rather than charge at each other and hope you are luckier than the enemy in what you do.
 
Upvote 0
You missed the point, you can own less territories than the enemy but you get his combat power to below '0' you win regardless of how many territories you own.

Oldsoldier,
You will surely recognize : Win by attrition does not come really often.
Attrition is not a victory. Attrition help to bring victory in your side.

Lost a sector has not "no importance". No. Each sector is important.

Reinforcement are importants. Sectors are importants.
You are more easily by defeat by loses of sector than loses of reinforcement. (even if it's possible it's right)

Attrition is an instrument to make more easy the victory.
Attrition has a impact more and more visible inside the round.

Individual games this does not apply, only in campaign mode.

I am talking about combat power for a campaign and reinforcement for a round.
Attrition work inside campaign look like attrition works inside a round.

Attrition of the enemy reflects on his combat power the next round. The 75/25 attack/defend win as well as casualities inflicted on the enemy and how many of your troops are left alive all combine to provide the 'combat power' available for the next round of the campaign. Individual games this does not apply, only in campaign mode.


There are times you are stalled as an attacker, with time available to 'waste', I order a sit back and defend, and the defender 'attacks', we bleed them out some, and then resume the advance, with the enemy now concerned that his tickets are far below ours, giving the attacker more options.


You have to play this game like 'chess' rather than charge at each other and hope you are luckier than the enemy in what you do.


You can win a map by attrition of reinforcement sometime. Apparts, Commissars, Fallen

You have to play this game like 'chess' rather than charge at each other and hope you are luckier than the enemy in what you do.

Commander should ban luck from his vocabulary I think...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Now sit back and look what you wrote. How do you 'win' except by attriting the enemy and inflicting more casualities on him than he does to you. The way the points system is set up, killing more of them than he does of you increases the points you are awarded in combat power for that round.


You need to look at the Big picture in these games, not just the immediate round. If I continue to throw my troops in a unwinnable round, and end up with excessive casualities or total elimination of troops, how does that affect me next round or the round after.


There are times I will let an enemy win a round and territory to preserve my combat power for later in the round. It is part of the 'chess' game, sacrifice a 'pawn' to take his rook.
 
Upvote 0
Now sit back and look what you wrote. How do you 'win' except by attriting the enemy and inflicting more casualities on him than he does to you. The way the points system is set up, killing more of them than he does of you increases the points you are awarded in combat power for that round.

If you take all the maps of Stalingrad you win. Even with big loses.
You win before attrition for you or your enemy come.

More quickly you capture all the sector, more you will win without BIG ATTRITION in campaign. More you wait, bigger will be your attrition.

Victory by attrition is a slow victory.

There are times I will let an enemy win a round and territory to preserve my combat power for later in the round. It is part of the 'chess' game, sacrifice a 'pawn' to take his rook.

A territory ? but if attacking this territory will bring you heavy loses ??
It's better in this case to defend.
You will not suffer havy lose as the attack for this bloody sector will risk to cost to your army.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
A good team will at times elect to defend rather than attack in order to conserve his combat power, and lower the opponents. It is not a case of territory, but how many casualities you can inflict on the attacker and minimalize yours.


You can as stated win the game without taking all the territories, simply by reducing the enemies combat power to below '0' and it is not hard to do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You can as stated win the game without taking all the territories, simply by reducing the enemies combat power to below '0' and it is not hard to do.

Not hard but slow. It make the game more slow. You meet more often death by capture than death by attrition in campaign.

It's possible but not often realised. More often territory count more than combat power. (each territory should be see as number of combat power...)
 
Upvote 0
In my experience, it's usually best just to keep attacking until you've captured every territory. I've literally never ever seen a Combat Power campaign victory or loss, only conquest.

Jank,

Idea of Oldsoldier works only if team is blocked with low combat power
Heavy loses pinned the team in defense.
Attrition works in the long run.

Wanted to win volontary the game in defense by attrition is possible but comes not often. Attrition doesn't mean victory necessary. Attrition help to take victory. it's an instrument.

A exceptional case :
We can see a good team pinned in defense by attrition inside the last sector of the campaign and who defeat attacking enemy team because they killed all its combat power ticket ! In the end defending team had more combat power tickets than enemy team and finished them by an victorious attack.

I really don't see it often.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
'We' bleed out the Germans of Combat power and won last nights 'campaign' on a 'pub' server last night with 3 territories still in German hands.


It can be done if done right, finally the 'troops' began to listen last night and 'defended' when it was time, and 'attack' when it was time. A lot of this depends on the people on the server. If they are playing for themselves, issues, if they play as a team pretty easy to do.


At 'Station' for example, 100& full server, formed a defensive perimeter along the 'A' line and the Germans never even 'capped' 'A' and lock-downed out with massive casualities we only had moderate loses. Troops stayed defensive, in cover, not moving and the Germans just walked into the fires, a fantastic job by the Russian troops.


As the Commander I played 'chess' on the radio, watched our blue dots, organized the defense, shifted forces as needed based on the red enemy counters, you know things real commanders do, kept troops informed, recon up and mortars firing, never fired my personal weapon and 'kill' count still in high 40's through mortar fire alone. SL's did their jobs and acted as my forward 'spawn' points, troops were spawning on SL's forward instead of long dashing from rear area spawns. The whole night on every map played a real pleasant Command 'exercise' and the troops learned something as I kept explaining what I was doing and why, and once they saw it worked, easy night.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
At 'Station' for example, 100& full server, formed a defensive perimeter along the 'A' line and the Germans never even 'capped' 'A' and lock-downed out with massive casualities we only had moderate loses. Troops stayed defensive, in cover, not moving and the Germans just walked into the fires, a fantastic job by the Russian troops.

Map Station is often more hard to attack than to defend.
On this forum I have heard, it's one most difficult map.

I think : each map is difficult. A part of problem is :
- quality of troop
- quality of commandship.

It's possible to win in Station. Victory is still possible. On each map.
 
Upvote 0
We did the same with Apartments twice, defended and won, as we 'defended' by choice and the attacker picked the 'easy' map Apartments. Defend both the right and left building enterences, troops in C but back in the building defending the windows, troops defending basement doorways and LMG's to right and left flanks of center alley crossfiring from cover. We let them take A and B, and then the crossfires just decimated them, they never got to cap 'C' either time.


We 'won' Bridges by taking J and K and then let them 'attack' us to take them back which they could not but for some reason kept trying and again inflicted massive casualities on them, then resumed advance. Won with over 10min left, they has '0' tickets left, we had over 200. (and no smoke thrown till we got to second bridge and final assault)


The game is akin to 'chess' as I explained before, sometimes you sacrifice a 'pawn' to get the enemy to go for something you 'show' him, and then he walks his 'rook' into an ambush he never saw coming.


Now think troops, are you the 'attack the attacker' type as well, until you meet a true defense you think it actually works.
 
Upvote 0
We did the same with Apartments twice, defended and won, as we 'defended' by choice and the attacker picked the 'easy' map Apartments. Defend both the right and left building enterences, troops in C but back in the building defending the windows, troops defending basement doorways and LMG's to right and left flanks of center alley crossfiring from cover. We let them take A and B, and then the crossfires just decimated them, they never got to cap 'C' either time.


We 'won' Bridges by taking J and K and then let them 'attack' us to take them back which they could not but for some reason kept trying and again inflicted massive casualities on them, then resumed advance. Won with over 10min left, they has '0' tickets left, we had over 200. (and no smoke thrown till we got to second bridge and final assault)


The game is akin to 'chess' as I explained before, sometimes you sacrifice a 'pawn' to get the enemy to go for something you 'show' him, and then he walks his 'rook' into an ambush he never saw coming.


Now think troops, are you the 'attack the attacker' type as well, until you meet a true defense you think it actually works.

Oldsoldier,
If enemy commander play in attrition way : fight for quick victory.
If enemy commander play for quick victory : fight for attrition victory.

It's dilemma of use of combat power inside campaign and use of reinforcement inside round. HOW you will use it ? (also mixed with territory and sector of campaign map) Few sectors are more easy to capture than antohers...

It's look like battle between Alcyoneus and Hercules. Alcyoneus was invincible when he was on ground. Fight your enemy in the ground where he is weak ...look like Hercules fought Alcyoneus not on his own ground !

Use nature of the enemy commandship against himself !
...and not only in attrition scale.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
not sure what i have read here but how is the "tactic goal" not necessary :confused:

Soulfly,
No sorry I mean : destruction of army is not necessary. Tactic goal is often (ever) defeat. Defeat is not necessary destruction of army.

In one round : Often you see end of round by capture of a territory. (tactical sectors)
in a campaign : often you see a end of campaign by capture of a territory. (campaign map)

Do you wait to kill ALL reinforcement of enemy army to win in each round you play ??
I don't think.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Many things done in game and in real combat are situational conditional. It is so easy to bleed out a side in game as you can almost 'bank' on an attack the attacker mindset. And you can use that to your advantage.


I don't know how many times on maps as the attacking TL the suggestion (can't say command anymore, offends some) is to hold up and let the enemy throw themselves at us. On Bridges for example do a halt at D and E, and let the defender attack us across the open terrain from the F/G ridge down to D and E. Knock down a lot of tickets, and then resume the attack.


Yes there are times to attack the attacker has a purpose, but two minutes after the enemy has capped a point and 'dug in' is not the time. And the blind as usual 'hey diddle, diddle, charge down the middle' counter attack is absolutely useless in the face of human opponents who have even a little game skill, not to mention skilled players.
 
Upvote 0