Tebessa - They never saw it coming

Nody

Right, this is something KalleTank inspired along with Bruffio; I only take credits of my l33t MS Paint skills.


Basic tactic; no arty and full out push. The tanks needed are:
3 Base defenders (Maus/T95)
10 IS-7 (Push)
2 Top tier French tanks (Medium T9 or Heavy T10, both got same top speed)

IS-7s split in two groups of 5 going over via river and middle; they park under the ridge and kill anything they see that pushed for our side and then quickly move up. Once the middle is clear the two French tanks (who hang back at our base) push out and go in while the IS-7s push up at both north and south ramps to go into their arty lines and kill 'em.

Now why would this possibly work? Because we're going against all "normal" ways of doing it by completely skipping arty. Any time spent by their arty on counter arty is wasted and as we're betting it all in one go we should also have more tanks brought to bear on their front line in the first 5 min then normal (which should in turn translate towards overcoming their defenses) and more aggressively (no arty to support so no need to play picka boo for spots).

Note base defenders are only there to prevent a cap by shooting tanks on cap; not to defend the base (nothing to defend) or kill their push.

ZZR1100

i like it. if they river rush, we have the numbers. if they push middle , we also have the numbers. if they push north, we will be on their cap before they are on ours.
the only worry really is if they camp at base which is higly unlikely

phil3995

Sounds good if they do camp base the lack of arty will make things interesting but other than that it'll be interesting to try out

Dublin_Gunner

Lets give it a go tomorrow (today lol)

mercenary2

was this tried? how did it go ?? lokks good but when done afew times we should revert to other tactics to mix up our game plans so they dont expect it

Nody

mercenary2 wrote: »

was this tried? how did it go ?? lokks good but when done afew times we should revert to other tactics to mix up our game plans so they dont expect it

This has not been tried; it was something that came out after we lost Tebessa due to them rushing middle (Base 2 has ~15s shorter rush distance start to ramp) faster then us.

Arrawin

I too like it...but 10 IS 7's is a hard thing to mass, what would be the ones to put in the mix come a shortfall....meds ? or T30's for their speed and DPS.... thoughts plz.

Arrawin

While i am on this i remember once upon a time we had a great strat that we worked upon that involved e100's, t30s and a small number of is7's. it was effective and we won a few battles in a row from it but never built on it. it may be time to rethink things lads.

Nody

Arrawin wrote: »

I too like it...but 10 IS 7's is a hard thing to mass, what would be the ones to put in the mix come a shortfall....meds ? or T30's for their speed and DPS.... thoughts plz.

T30, JT or Obj. 704 comes to mind (due to speed + gun + front armor).

Arrawin

Excuses for the punctuation....... just in from the pub...... ciao

Arrawin

Would the TD's lack of manouverabilty not effect their ability to rush Dan ?

Nody

Arrawin wrote: »

Would the TD's lack of manouverabilty not effect their ability to rush Dan ?

Well the idea would be once they are aiming "up slope" it would have minimum impact

Karma

how did it go?

Nody

Karma wrote: »

how did it go?

Not tried it yet :P

BigEejit

Nody wrote: »

T30, JT or Obj. 704 comes to mind (due to speed + gun + front armor).

I dunno about TD's ... in a GWtiger I have many times one shotted JT's and several times one shotted 704's

Nody

All I can say is, we came, we saw, we conquered! We're land owners in Tebessa again, well played for all the people who played in the different games tonight!

phil3995

Tactic worked beautifully, made their arty practically useless. Oh and it was fun

Dublin_Gunner

A show of uncounterable force wins the day.

We must look at deploying similar tactics on other maps that it might suit.

Well done everyone tonight.

Nody

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

A show of uncounterable force wins the day.

We must look at deploying similar tactics on other maps that it might suit.

Well done everyone tonight.

I'm thinking Sand river honestly; 10 IS-7/T30, 2 Bat chat, 3 Maus. Push goes via north dunes (either direction) with the Mauses sitting at the cap. Game will be over in less then 5 min either way.

ZZR1100

Nody wrote: »

I'm thinking Sand river honestly; 10 IS-7/T30, 2 Bat chat, 3 Maus. Push goes via north dunes (either direction) with the Mauses sitting at the cap. Game will be over in less then 5 min either way.

Why north and not the fastest route down the road.
this without the arty.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056554610

Dublin_Gunner

ZZR1100 wrote: »

Why north and not the fastest route down the road.
this without the arty.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056554610

I would wholeheartedly agree that if a rush tactic is to be used, the quickest point between a and b should be the route used.

We actually got caught out badly going the north route the other day when the opposing team rushed pretty much every tank straight down the road.

Nody

ZZR1100 wrote: »

Why north and not the fastest route down the road.
this without the arty.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056554610

Mainly thinking spotting; if they put a Batchat (or similar) at the location Bruffio went to on the ridge overlooking the road they spot us very early; going north they will not as the Batchats are ahead stopping anything being there beyond ridge. This is from base 2; from base 1 I'd go road.

phil3995

Well as we know the tactic failed miserably last night. I've been having a few thoughts over how we could tweak the tactic to provide our rush with a bit of support and make sure that we don't get destroyed by the enemy rush.

Now I know from being in the middle rush our IS-7s got destroyed by both being shot from the ridge by T30s and in the arse by IS-7s. Not sure how the river rush went but I'm sure due to talks last night if we get a team which does the same the they are to hunker down under the ridge so they can shoot their rush form cover. So if that does happen I think the best plan for the middle rush should break off to avoid being shot from two sides, focusing on pushing to their base while the river group is hitting their push in the back. Also keeping the T30s on the ridge at the start might be a good idea then moving them when needed. Also might be worth putting in one arty (Obj 261 - believe this has the quickest reload).

ZZR1100

i was just thinking about it phil and after watching the replay., i dont think we should send anything to the river. even on the sucessfull occasions we played this tactic,. the river is7s always took a beating.
Last night we were hit from the ridge, from the river and they also had an E100 center.
they took us out first and the mopped up the center who were taking fire from their center rush from the start.
the way to avoid this is to send every1 center and take out anything that they send center on the way accross. it will be 10 tanks against 5.(its ok to stop briefly to shoot) any1 they send to the river wont have shots on us and any1 on their left ridge wont either.
when they are dead , half go up the back ramp and half up the center ramps.
Also drop the T30s in favour of IS7s. (sry t30s , but ye will have the T110 vsoon)

phil3995

Sounds good as I've never been in the river when running this tactic never noticed what happened down there. Just little tweaks which will help improve the tactic are always good at least we're going to learn from last night. As was also mentioned last night each tactic does have weaknesses but it's knowing what they are and how you can minimise them.

Nody

Last night we lost in a 13 vs. 13 scenario with 1 - 13. They had 2 arty that added nothing, we had 2 Maus on base defence adding nothing and their only loss was the Batchat that was chased down after it left base. If you want to talk about what failed I'd start there and not with the tactic itself (it failed, no question about it) but how come 11 heavies (9 IS-7s, 2 T30s) in two groups could not manage to kill a single tank between them vs. tanks that were out in the open (rushing over and then under our ramp/at water) in smaller groups over the duration of the rush. The only answer I can think off is lack of coordination of shooting at the same target and no matter what tactic we use if that's not sorted out we'll lose.

ZZR1100

Nody wrote: »

Last night we lost in a 13 vs. 13 scenario with 1 - 13. They had 2 arty that added nothing, we had 2 Maus on base defence adding nothing and their only loss was the Batchat that was chased down after it left base. If you want to talk about what failed I'd start there and not with the tactic itself (it failed, no question about it) but how come 11 heavies (9 IS-7s, 2 T30s) in two groups could not manage to kill a single tank between them vs. tanks that were out in the open (rushing over and then under our ramp/at water) in smaller groups over the duration of the rush. The only answer I can think off is lack of coordination of shooting at the same target and no matter what tactic we use if that's not sorted out we'll lose.

Its called crossfire dan. we were in it , they were not. the tactic was to bypass their tanks and make it to the other ridge. not pick targets and shoot at 1 until we reached the ridge and were out of arty fire. At this stage we were down 3 or 4 tanks and after that when they also had their base defenders coming into the battle, it was just a case of mop up.
i think we shouldn't give up on a tactic just because of a loss (even a bad1) .
that tactic worked something like 5 out 6 times(co ordination or not ). Although i would tweak it a bit as i have suggested above.

Dublin_Gunner

Nody wrote: »

Last night we lost in a 13 vs. 13 scenario with 1 - 13. They had 2 arty that added nothing, we had 2 Maus on base defence adding nothing and their only loss was the Batchat that was chased down after it left base. If you want to talk about what failed I'd start there and not with the tactic itself (it failed, no question about it) but how come 11 heavies (9 IS-7s, 2 T30s) in two groups could not manage to kill a single tank between them vs. tanks that were out in the open (rushing over and then under our ramp/at water) in smaller groups over the duration of the rush. The only answer I can think off is lack of coordination of shooting at the same target and no matter what tactic we use if that's not sorted out we'll lose.

It was utter chaos Dan, and we were caught in a crossfire - that's why we got pummeled so quickly. It was impossible to try co-ordinate shooting a single target for a couple of reasons.

1. There were multiple targets to shoot.

2. We were being shot from at least 2 sides.

3. Our tank groups should have formed up into 2 separate fire groups each (4 in total) each with a fire commander choosing targets.

When we have formed into fire groups, with 1 calling the targets - it worked extremely well before.

The tactic, while can work, needs to be co-ordinated a LOT better than the hap-hazard of rushing everyone and see what happens type of thing like last night.


The group going to the river mouth should have went down to the river, around H9. This would have given this group protection from the ridge, and taken heat off the other group by being able to fire back at the IS7's near our base.

Once their rush was mostly cleared, we could have made our move.

Oh, and against a team like that who supported their rush from the ridge, arty would have been a huge benefit.

But if we are to do a similar tactic again, I'd be enforcing what I stated above, plus ensuring our base defence tanks are supporting our attack from the ridge. They were basically left to do nothing at the start (through no fault of their own).

Nody

Give it ago and try a central rush or go back to base camping; I can predict the results of it right now but at this stage I'm going to give up on doing these tactics and leading because it's a waste of time.

Dublin_Gunner

Nody wrote: »

Give it ago and try a central rush or go back to base camping; I can predict the results of it right now but at this stage I'm going to give up on doing these tactics and leading because it's a waste of time.

Why? Because sometimes it doesn't work out??

We've all been there Dan, and now more than ever we need our experienced guys doing the business for us. This quite obviously includes you.

I haven't been doing much on the tactical front for a little while.

Its a PITA. When it works, you're everyones god, but get it wrong once and an hour of deliberation of why the tactic is crap ensues.

But you just gotta let it be water off a ducks back - its not gonna work every time, but people often can't see past the most recent result. This is what you have to realise.

Nody

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Why? Because sometimes it doesn't work out??

Execution (including me and everyone else) or rather lack of it. It's a waste to keep on thinking up new tactics as our execution is far to poor for the tactics to matter beyond the basic point of were tanks go (and even that still fails on a regular basis after people have been told multiple times were to go and what tactic we're trying to perform).

Dublin_Gunner

Nody wrote: »

Execution (including me and everyone else) or rather lack of it. It's a waste to keep on thinking up new tactics as our execution is far to poor for the tactics to matter beyond the basic point of were tanks go (and even that still fails on a regular basis after people have been told multiple times were to go and what tactic we're trying to perform).

While I cannot disagree, I believe the fundamental of why our execution is so poor at times can be explained very simply by a total and utter lack of training.

We need to train. To teach and learn how to do the small things right. If we practice things over and over, we'll get it right, and get it working like clockwork.


Another thing, on these tactics, we should stop depending on where tanks spawn to decide who goes in each group.We should have the same players performing the same tasks.

If I have 11 players on a football team - I don't get them to play in whatever position they ran onto the pitch near - they all get a set position, which is hopefully the one they're best suited to, and the best at.

We need to start being more organised.

cro_bully

First we need people active on this forum to see and discuss every tactic. Second we need people on TS which will keep their mouth shut when the comander is speaking and follow the damn orders. I mean how hard can it be.

ZZR1100

Nody wrote: »

Execution (including me and everyone else) or rather lack of it. It's a waste to keep on thinking up new tactics as our execution is far to poor for the tactics to matter beyond the basic point of were tanks go (and even that still fails on a regular basis after people have been told multiple times were to go and what tactic we're trying to perform).

I have to agree with you on this point, but there is no point in stating the problem without a possible solution. every clan has these issues i presume and the only way to solve them is to talk about them. Dubs plan for training is probably the best solution, but this has been suggested before (rosko was supposed to be heading up up).
Companys (max tier, low tier are no benifit to CW ) are probably the best way to go, but people get pissed off very fast if we lose. Soo stay at it until we are winning at least 50%. this will make you more credits/XP than any randoms.
i know its asked for some nights after CWs and then some1 says countdown or any platoons going and it all falls appart.

Dublin_Gunner

ZZR1100 wrote: »

I have to agree with you on this point, but there is no point in stating the problem without a possible solution. every clan has these issues i presume and the only way to solve them is to talk about them. Dubs plan for training is probably the best solution, but this has been suggested before (rosko was supposed to be heading up up).
Companys (max tier, low tier are no benifit to CW ) are probably the best way to go, but people get pissed off very fast if we lose. Soo stay at it until we are winning at least 50%. this will make you more credits/XP than any randoms.
i know its asked for some nights after CWs and then some1 says countdown or any platoons going and it all falls appart.

We go through phases of having lots of platoons all playing to barely any. It really just depends.

But training is paramount. No sense having great tactics, if we are using the actual CW battles to practice them.

A few training sessions would have us like a well oiled machine - especially as we are at a fantastic stage now where we can pick the right tanks to suit each tactic.

DesperateCry

I agree that we should do Team Training. Where to cover, where to aim, escape routes, focusing on single target, how far you can see what, there really are lots of subjects keep poping up on my mind.

LostCorkGuy

I know I wasnt in those battles or anything but I noticed that when people tend to rush they end up in single file mostly , that gives the otherside a clear target , I think that if ye could take 10 seconds to get the tanks abrest of each other before starting the push then no single tank will be taking all the hits.

Also there should be a leader for each squad (4tanks ect ) who'll "T" the target which the 4 will attack , because a 10% tank does as much damage as a 100% tank , even more now with rhose new perks coming out . Also it'd be best if the same 4 always worked together no mix match in different battles .

ZZR1100

i have no problem with training and rosko had some ideas before he went afk, but the differance between training and company battles is actual match practice as a team (using comms, following orders etc) when there is something at stake and some1 firing back.. the only way to simulate this in a training room is 15 vs 15 top tier which would also be fine if you can get 30 players willing to do it.

DesperateCry

I agree that 15vs15 will be nice. We can still train with less though, 5-6 is7 (1st group) vs enemy defense, or an attack group vs enemy defense+artillery.

phil3995

Nody wrote: »

Last night we lost in a 13 vs. 13 scenario with 1 - 13. They had 2 arty that added nothing, we had 2 Maus on base defence adding nothing and their only loss was the Batchat that was chased down after it left base. If you want to talk about what failed I'd start there and not with the tactic itself (it failed, no question about it) but how come 11 heavies (9 IS-7s, 2 T30s) in two groups could not manage to kill a single tank between them vs. tanks that were out in the open (rushing over and then under our ramp/at water) in smaller groups over the duration of the rush. The only answer I can think off is lack of coordination of shooting at the same target and no matter what tactic we use if that's not sorted out we'll lose.

The reason has already been stated we were in a crossfire their base defence one side and their IS-7s the other side with nothing shooting them form our base or sometimes spotting them. Our IS-7s got taken too quickly. Their was no real co-ordination either as we were fighting on two sides some ppl were shooting their T30s others shooting back at their IS-7s.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Its a PITA. When it works, you're everyones god, but get it wrong once and an hour of deliberation of why the tactic is crap ensues.

The tactic is not crap it's worked on several occasions. Every tactic has its weakness as I said earlier we now know what that weakness is and we can make small changes to try and counter it while keeping the tactic the same or at least very similar. We just need to work on the execution of it and make ourselves more co-ordinated. Maybe we got to overconfident from the sweep the night before. They may have known what we were going to do and planned accordingly.

When it comes down to it we've only used it a few times therefore it's still new to everyone and it'll take time for to get the perfect co-ordination. All we need to do is practice both the tactic and teamwork. Training is the way to go. If you can't get the 30 players on for a 15vs15 then desperate has a good point you can train certain groups so each group then knows exactly what to do when they get into battle.

Fionn Mc Coule

1 trick pony, this is what we cannot become, simple.

We tried that once, it didn't work, that's another silly attitude.

I don't want to get hit, or i don't want to lose tanks that's also silly as its part of the game, getting shot and losing tanks.

Anyone that has any idea of what the word tactic means should know any sports team, chess player, military leader to name a few examples do not stick to the 1 same tactic, they adapt to suit the given situation. If you want to get something you go with an aggressive tactic likewise if you want to hold on to something you employ a defensive tactic. In tabessa we done the silly, we went against logic and tried to hold on to something with an aggressive tactic and we lost.




We have the basis of 3 separate tactics we have used, in my eyes 2 effective 1 not so.
Below i set out a rough diagram of the 3, red and green being the 2 we used well and yellow being the 1 not so good in my view.
What we need to do is cone up with 2 good defensive tactics and 2 - 3 good attacking tactics from what we already have.



So this is my 1st idea for a defensive tactic to hold land in tabessa.



Ok
1st; we go with 8 IS7s as main push to opposite side to get under ridge and def from there
2nd; our 2 arty hits any base def that they have shooting at our push, If they know we have arty or even just think it then it will make their ridge def more reluctant to come out and def against our push.
3rd; our E100s can give any push they use a 2nd thing to worry about instead of just having to worry about hitting our IS7s in the back.
4th we have a Bat**** in base to go wherever he is needed, eg after any tank that makes it into our base or get to wide left or right roads up.

Karma

50b or bhatchat and cover north with the north e100 and then back to that spot

ZZR1100

Well done fionn. i lke the def tactic. As i said before , if every1 stopped posting tactics , we would enter CW with no plan whatsoever.
Dan is also correct and we need to do something regarding training as playing randoms only gives players bad habits, but that should not stop you posting tactics dan

Fionn Mc Coule

Karma wrote: »

50b or bhatchat and cover north with the north e100 and then back to that spot

Yes definatly, a amx50B instead of the batchat, makes more sense

Spear

Fionn Mc Coule wrote: »

Yes definatly, a amx50B instead of the batchat, makes more sense

How fast is the 50B in comparison?

phil3995

Spear wrote: »

How fast is the 50B in comparison?

Same speed except for the hills where the weight slows it down slightly (or so I've heard )

Fionn Mc Coule

phil3995 wrote: »

Same speed except for the hills where the weight slows it down slightly (or so I've heard )

Yes but it has much better gun

[DF]Lenny

I have a AMX50Bnow if needed for CW

as regards overall tactics i would suggest "fire" teams ,this would not auto go by tank type but initially would , 5 fire teams of 3 DEFINED persons ,eg group alpha is dub & 2 others etc

people post up which nites usually they can play CW - define the fire teams ,they platoon together in randoms even to help their co-ordination on firing tactics (basic example would be cornersniping - spend a few games getting the timing of the 3 guys peeking out for max damage/dpm )

might help knit tighter groups together

for overal tactic BC should always be able to call audibles (1-2 rehearsed alternatives) from the basic tactic based on real situations ,counter rush etc