Experimental TC Tactics and Other Notes

This thread is to help me keep note of and share the findings of my experimental TCs. Some of these TCs will not be done with SGTA members (as sometimes I do require more experienced players and at other times I require some random players).

You are free to post and/or criticize any tactic you wish, although I will say while all replied will be read, I do not guarantee I will change my tactics accordingly to what some people (or most people) may think. I tend to find strange tactics rather successful.

I wish that anybody aspiring to be a TC commander should read this. Not everything here will be 100% correct, as it is my observations only. But you are free to decide which parts are correct and which are not. This post will be updated with replies continuously. Also, I plan to add any individual player assessment of play-styles here which I observe as I play with SGTA members.

I will engage with mainly 3 areas: Teamwork, Tactics, Techniques, Possible Improvement by SGTA Members.

Starting from a non-SGTA TC I did today.

Medium TC

Teamwork:

- Making the team stick together once again proves to be more efficient. Loses with the team split up were total failures while loses with team sticking together seems to produce slightly better results.
- Do not put arty on front line. Danger of enemy fire and friendly fire.
- Do not place TDs on first wave. Loss of surprise value and risk blocking mobile friendlies when they stop to snipe, making flow of battle less efficient.
- Experimentation with 'micro-management' commanders seems to be unsuccessful.
- Skilled players risk attempting to play solo.
- Skilled players risk attempting to hog ideal spot for better suited friendly.
- Focus fire seems difficult to manage without organization.

Tactics:

- Dragon Ridge Standard: Focused middle village rush works with highly skilled players - Casualty level high, time taken was short, friendly arty redundant.
- Abbey Standard: Splitting team up between base defense for mediums and hill focus for rest seems to be inefficient and inconsistent - Casualty level deeply based on player skills, time taken long, outcome inconsistent.
- Ensk Encounter: Immediate spawn camp with backdoor rush proves highly successful - Casualty level low, time taken was mediocre, does not seem to depend on player skill too much.
- Ensk Standard: Immediate camp at bottom left corner of map proves highly successful - Casualty level high, time taken was long, seems to depend on player skill more than expected, risk of traffic jam and impediments between houses, high risk of arty retaliation, friendly arty redundant.
- Himmelsdorf Encounter: Splitting mediums to attack rear of enemy hill spawn in combination of delaying heavy action at friendly hill spawn proves unsuccessful - time taken for mediums to flank was too long, mediums may meet resistance along the way, heavies may capitulate before mediums arrive, fail tactic even with highly skilled players.
- Karelia Assault Attacking: Splitting forces into 3 groups between left, right and middle evenly between the team proves high unsuccessful - Total massacre in less than 3 minutes of attacking forces.
- Ensk Encounter: Focused shock and awe at very left lane of map proves successful - casualty level high, time taken short, arty support ineffective, seems to be player skill dependent.

Techniques:

- Scout is vital until at least 66% of possible approach routes scouted. Failure to do so increases risk and fail tactic and tank deployment.
- Scout is disposable after vital role is played. If scout survives, target enemy arty for distraction and in best case scenario, elimination of enemy arty.
- Spaced armor tanks should always go in front.
- Heavily armored tanks should go in front.
- Fast tanks should be used as flankers, not support.
- Long-reload tanks should play support role.
- Team setup should be simple and focus on particular qualities (example: KV-1S focused TCs are primarily firepower based, Fast tank TCs are mainly blitzkrieg based, heavily armored TCs are mainly damage absorption/battle-of-attrition based)
- Never send main assault force into vulnerable places without sending a scout first. Sacrifice a portion of assault force if necessary to scout.
- Once discovered, mobile tactics seems to perform better than peek-a-boo battles.

Advice for SGTA Members:

None

Ding760 wrote:
- Scout is vital until at least 66% of possible approach routes scouted. Failure to do so increases risk and fail tactic and tank deployment.

A lot of people I TC with tend to ask me why I hold this line as true, because the remaining avenues are not scouted.

The simple answer is this... 100% - 66% = 33% lol.

Long answer is this... it's really through process of elimination. Best shown via example.

Example: 3 routes available, enemy team comprises of 6 KV-1S, 2 Grille, 2 T-50 and a T-150

My scout spots 1 route and sees a T-150 and a KV-1S but dies before he can see anything else... This is not good enough, as we cannot deduce accurately what tanks the enemy is using with the other 2 routes. 5 KV-1S, 2 Grille and 2 T-50s can be split into many combinations between 2 routes. And depending on how they split this it could ruin whatever tactic the commander has planned.

So lets say my scout somehow survives the first path and scouts a second path, he sees another 2 T-50s on top of what he spotted on first path. So now he has scouted about 66% of the possible 3 routes... this is sufficient, as we can use this information to deduce that the enemy has:

- Path 1: A KV-1S and a T-150
- Path 2: 2 T-50s
- Path 3: 5 KV-1S and 2 Grille (????)

Now we have a much more accurate picture of how things will turn out. But I put (????) beside path 3... and I want to make this very clear...

The remaining tanks cover ALL of the rest of the map. There is no guarantee the enemy will send 5 KV-1S and 2 Grilles to attack on path 3. Indeed, the enemy can only send 1 KV-1S to attack on path 3 and decide to make 4 KV-1S and 2 Grilles camp at base. But this scenario is actually better than 5 KV-1S and 2 Grilles attacking from path 3, so we have already predicted the 'worst-case scenario' and so decision making should be easier from here onwards.

So in short, this prediction...

- Path 1: A KV-1S and a T-150
- Path 2: 2 T-50s
- Path 3: 5 KV-1S and 2 Grille

... is actually a prediction of the worst-case scenario. In reality I usually find it doesn't turn out like this. But once you got the worst-case scenario covered it is unlikely you will lose if your tactic deployment was correct. Alas, if you were given the information but still fail to make a good choice then you cannot blame a lack of information for that failure.

I hope this little note helped in some understanding of that particular line

I would say that an FC needs to have at least an appreciation of the limitations/firing arcs of arty. I've been in several TCs (not Dings) where is it obvious the FC doesn't play arty, and orders you to a spot, where, whilst safe, you can do very little to support friendly tanks. He also forgets to give you orders throughout the battle, meaning you either move on your own initiative (dangerous when you don't know what the Fc intends to do) or you stay static all game.

This is especially important in Med, Champ and Absolute TC as arty can win or lose you the game (and good scouts obv).

Obviously Dings observations for arty not to be in the front line are valid, I just did it in himmlesdorf for shits and giggles (I wasn't playing seriously)

Another good tactic is getting arty to pre-aim at a particular spot right at the start (and then relocating after they have shot). The most success I had recently with this was the destruction of an IS-3 and two GWPanthers by our artillery in the first minute of the game thanks to a superb scouting run and pre-aimed arty. The scout survived too