Had an exciting MP match against didi960 on Urban Warfare. He is an excellent player, with a generally good unit composition (conscripts, SU-100, SU-122) and generally good deployment of units.
For the Americans, I got mostly infantry, recon units, and the Sherman 105 mm artillery backed up with 3 Pershings and a few Jacksons. For the British I started off with a few more recon units/infantry, and will adjust as the situation develops. I always leave a few core slots open so I can adjust depending on the situation. In the end, I got a total of 2 Pershings and 1 Comet in addition to the starting forces, along with 2 Jacksons. The rest of my units were mostly infantry, recon units, and some artillery.
He opened the match with a massive push in the British sector. There were so many Soviet units there that I had no chance of stopping the assault, so I gradually retreated, waging some fierce rearguard action in the process. I lost a lot of infantry, but managed to preserve nearly all of my tanks. Still, I often lost 5-6 units a turn during this time.
In terms of tactics, I successfully used infantry to wipe out tank after tank in close terrain. My opponent rarely actually placed tanks in close terrain, rather I used my armor and artillery to force his tanks to retreat into close terrain followed by an attack by infantry. The mass of Soviet units in the British sector also allowed me to force numerous surrenders, helped by the two armored cars. My opponent would also try to advance several T-34s in front of his main column in the British sector, and I had set up sufficient forces to deal with them.
I was also particularly proud of a trap I sprang on two advancing SU units that tried to cross the river to attack me in the British sector. They advanced blindly and got cut off by my infantry, exhausted of ammo, and destroyed by my tanks. Soviet armor is generally superior to the Allied counterparts, but their main weakness is low ammo count. The SU-100 in particular is vulnerable to being stopped by a flood of infantry.
My opponent focused his efforts on killing my infantry, possibly because I was very careful with my tanks. As the Allies, it’s bad to suffer too many infantry losses, as they become irreplaceable due to their relatively high cost. Not using the 43 infantry variants is generally a bad idea, as I think it is very important to have good infantry to attack armor in close terrain when the opportunity presents itself. If I played as the Soviets, I would also focus on bleeding the Allied infantry and picking off armor where possible.
There was a long, attritional battle at the Police Station, where he usually killed 1-2 infantry a turn and I sent in more to hold the line. I had to retreat slowly, but I was determined to at least hold his forces in this position while I attacked his flanks. The fortification tiles are great for the Allies, as their infantry can take full advantage of their superior ground defense. The higher base entrenchment also helps.
I swept my forces through the northern part of the map, encountering no resistance except for some recon cars. I then advanced upon the Park, where I was shocked to not encounter a flood of conscripts that would’ve delayed me for a long time. I also started advancing recon units deep in the Soviet rear, and nothing stopped my progress.
My opponent was very aggressive, almost always preferring a strong attack and rarely retreating, even tactically. I felt this was a mistake. Perhaps the biggest mistake I see in MP is a player being too aggressive and attacking/advancing when a retreat might be a better idea. It is a good idea to preserve strength on this map when in doubt. He would've lost far fewer units if he weren't so aggressive, and could've used them to shore up his flanks in the middle and prevent the encirclement. I usually fare poorly in a clash of heavy armor on heavy armor, but I do much better in a war of maneuver.
It is a bad idea to let a MP opponent advance deep into your rear. I always try to contain breakthroughs or at least put a few screening units in place until I can assemble a sufficient task force to deal with any advance.
It is also a bad idea to be too aggressive and try to attack all the time. Sometimes it is a good idea to retreat temporarily and to keep some armor and prestige in reserve when you need it.
By turn 10 my opponent had massed a huge number of infantry and artillery in the Police station, but he ran out of armor to protect his flanks. I had my forces in position for a massive encirclement, unless he retreated immediately or if a flood of conscripts materialized in the rear. Perhaps sensing this, and the huge number of armor that he lost, he surrendered at this point.
Tactically my opponent was my equal, but strategically I felt I had the better plan. I will retreat in the face of strength, but not without forcing my opponent to fight his way in slowly. I probe for weaknesses and exploit any openings with a force of tanks/recon units. This often opens up the opportunity for an encirclement, my favorite type of operation. This game was a good demonstration of many of the components of PzC operations that mirrors military strategy, from retreat to holding pattern to blitzkrieg to setting up an encirclement.
