WOT: Concentration in Time and Force

Avatar
Pretty basic stuff, but often ignored.
Avatar
Note, i made a typo in the paragraph explaining combat advantage, the 2 at the end should be super-scripted to represent a exponent. as stated in the text, it's a rule of thumb that the combat advantage is proportional to the square of the ratio of strengths.
Avatar
Sure would like to read some Eve articles.
Avatar
SEA server, pubbie games, 12 of the 15 go left, the other 3 are afk. Welcome to SEA
Avatar
this article should be mandatory WoT pubbie reading material. i would be a lot less angry in pub matches if they followed these simple instructions.~btmedic04 NDP scrub
Avatar
As i can see its a lot to be done for a writer of this article. But it's not like in eve, in wot commander must be also really good player you need at last something about 700exp average per battle I know some guys with 800 per battle. The best FCC training is 3vs3 on esl. If you are good at it you will be good fc. If you are don't well you won't be sorry :)
Avatar
Btw. Clan wars are for noobs. Real man's thing is esl. Hardcore and the hardest version of it is 3vs3
Avatar
Figure 1: 13 blues vs 12 reds, so your team supposedly starts with a numerical advantage of frontline tanks.Figure 1.1: Defenders losing one friendly in exchange for one enemy is a worst case scenario, so OK.Figure 2: Dreaded 13 vs 12 again.Figure 2.1: No worst case scenarios here.Granted, appropriate tiers and size of tanks and their roles are not explained here, but some graphical examples are a bit misleading. Like say, a 'concentration in time' approach could very possibly lead your attacking force to lose most of its tanks, and is heavily reliant on arty support to wear down their defenders, a fact not disclosed here aside from the fact that we have identically inferior red teams, seemingly with 4 arties.
Avatar
Conversely, you could develop some fucking intellectual curiosity. Fantastic article, directly applicable to mwo as well.
Avatar
I am a NA server player, so i cant really participate in ESL :).the general trend in our clan is to stick the FC in an SPG, he would be a great tanks players with good knowledge of tanks and their capabilities, but it's more important for the FC to have map awareness and not worry about the mechanics of driving his tank while commanding.I know a lot of FC's have welped teams because they were more focus on tanking than commanding.
Avatar
I admit to making a mistake on the diagrams, perhaps i should give up FCing since I cant even count to 12 properly.the diagrams are for a ideal competitive environment, where players are assumed to be competent and tanks to be equal, so imagine a CW team made of T10 heavies with some T10 meds.The thing is, concentration in force and concentration in time are not cut and clear tactics in and of them selves, they are fundamental principles that should be used to guide a FC's actions. Yes a 6v3 push can always fail, but more often than not it won't, losing 1 tank out of 6 after killing 3 is not that uncommon, and you can push through much faster than a 9v6 fight will progress.A good strategy does not guarantee victory, after all, no plan survives contact with the enemy, but it will increase your probabilities of winning.
Avatar
The specific example I used in the article deals with world of tanks, but the principles of concentration in time and force applies to most games that require tactics.But from my somewhat limited knowledge of eve sov wars, the 2 principles are moot as.1. when fights happen are dictated by reinforcement timers, not fleets meeting.2. travel time in eve is "trivial" compared to the duration of a major fight, so this means the larger fleet can disengage fairly easily to respond to other situations.3. eve allows players to reship very easily, making most material advantages moot, especially if the fight is happening in a system where the defenders have a station/outpost.Logistics, the physical ability to bring lots warm bodies in proper ships to a Eve fight is a much important aspect than tactics in the traditional sense. not to say eve does not have it's own set of tactics and tricks for the FC to employ.
Avatar
It's no different from clan wars. Controlling 14 other people and winning is allot more difficult than controlling 3 and winning.
Avatar
PLEASE commentate a video of a clan match or two explaining all this.
Avatar
that will come at the conclusion of the series i have planned, also as soon as i find a good CW replay showing a combination of factors.this article itself only explores a couple ways to give your team the advantage, later on there will be a article about using all this to create a CW strat and perhaps a replay of it.
Avatar
from what see, the difference between ESL and CW is like AT and sov warfare, both activities require lots of skill and coordination, but in different ways. individual player skill vs coordination and teamwork.Or another analogy, wow arenas and wow BG's, now i will go commit seppuku for mentioning wow.
Avatar
Yes ! Exacly! Prefectly said. Esl is like AT imagine AT 3 vs 3 and how small margin of error is.. Very small. One miss click and you are over :).
Avatar
I've never understood this game.and this certainly does not help.
Avatar
I'm in a Polish Clan Wars team that also does ESL ;)
Avatar
I regret moving account to SEA. The game is way too fast, many players not talking in universal language and rely heavily on number. It's not rare all 15 going one way and decimating anything in front of them but lose the match because losing cap. The win lose chance pretty much 50-50 because all those reason, no apparent strategy, either follow the others or die alone. As I mainly play as an arty, I cried looking at my minimap.
Avatar
This article pretty much explaining a strategy in WOT by investing in time and number. It's not explaining WOT in general. In nutshell, WOT is an online arcade tank game and it's definitely not simply a fps with tank.
Avatar
It's called Schwerpunkt. Since you mentioned histoire, Heinz Guderian laid it out in Achtung - Panzer, 1936/37. The Bliztkreig(en) in Poland and the Low Countries were applications. Erwin Rommel applied the concepts with a less then optimal supply and force structure mit dem Afrika Korps, albeit in a losing campaign. The same concept can be employed in Eve. The immediate use on the 'battlefield' is made intuitively by good FCs. It's the idea of rifter blob v dreadnaughts. On a broader basis mittens sometimes calls it cascade failure. Devious little mouser that he is. Superior firepower applied at a certain time and point will break an enemy line, causing a breakout, which can lead to Dunkirk. The glitch is logistics and maintaining pressure. Given space and time (English Channel / for Mother Russia - Winter) the initial collapse can be contained and even reversed. Vichy France is an example of cascade failure. Even more so, was Brezhnev's Empire that was contained, challenged on too many fronts, and collapsed on it's own weight. Lest we go there, let it serve as our own note to hubris. But that's far afield from force allocation of 9/3 split v 6/6. Nice article.

A small introduction: I am an aspiring FC for a decently sized clan in WOT, we are currently in the process of carving out some territory for ourselves in Europe. The purpose of this column is to examine the tactics behind organized WOT battles and their applications.

 

The basics

There are 3 basic resources available to a team in World of Tanks: Tanks, Time, and Territory (call them the 3 T’s).

  • Tanks - how many tanks you have at your disposal.
  • Time - how much time you have to achieve your goals, whether this be capture of the enemy base or their destruction.
  • Territory – the amount of space between the enemy and your base, as well as how much room for your tanks to maneuver.

The winner of a battle is the one that has balanced the 3 resources - having tanks doesn’t matter if your base is under attack, being in their base alone means nothing if your team is dead and theirs is returning, and staying alive yourselves is useless if you are not making use of your tank properly.

Concentration in time and concentration in force are two ways of resource management that ultimately achieves one purpose - numerical superiority; the winner of a fight is necessarily determined by who can get more of their guys into a fight, attacking your enemy’s weak points while protecting your own. Whenever you hear FC’s assigning tanks to positions, they are trying to get a numerical advantage on your opponents, or mitigating a numerical disadvantage.

 

The tactics

Concentration in force is quite basic, it's taking the bulk of your forces and attacking the enemy, achieving local superiority and quickly destroying them. The following examples are thought experiments, representing ideal teams and environments, the winner should be determined by who has the better tactics, fights in WOT rarely happen as planned, but the fundamental ideas behind them are still valid.

Assume a standard CW team, 12 tanks and 3 artillery, and a map that has 2 major avenues of engagement (WG has stated their map design philosophy to be 2-3 major path’s with a similar number of minor paths), for example east and west sides of Steppes, north and south of Arctic Region, hill and town of Malinovka (the field is not a viable attack route). You split your tanks into 9 and 3, not unreasonable, and attack with your 9 tanks while defending with 3.

 

 

After your 9 tanks steamroll their 6, it swings around to help the defenders, or capture.

 

 

The success of concentration in force relies on your defenders being able to survive and buy time, while your attackers complete their objectives quickly. The important part is to fight in sequence, delaying the second front to allow your larger force to engage again. Now, how do you counter concentration in force? With concentration in time.

Concentration in time is the 'counter' to concentration in force. While still maintaining an even split of tanks, the FC identifies the enemy’s weak flank and forces simultaneous engagements, tying down the enemy’s main force to prevent them from assisting their weak side.

 

 

 

The important thing to note here is that in a fight, the combat advantage of the more numerous side is proportional to the square of the number of participants (refer to Lanchester’s laws), that is (F1/F2)2. Having more tanks means you can kill the enemy faster, and incur less damage from return fire. The 9v6 engagement on top has the blue team at a (9/6)2 = 2.25 combat advantage, while the 3v6 at the bottom has the red team at a (6/3)2=4 combat advantage. What this means is that the bottom fight can be concluded faster, and at less loss than the top fight. Afterwards, the survivors may swing top to assist their defenders, achieving numerical superiority as well as attacking from the flanks.

 

 

 

The success of concentration in time depends on the FC properly identifying the enemy strengths, and engaging the enemy at the same time on two fronts, maintaining enough strength to engage the larger enemy front at an advantage after the weaker front is destroyed.

These two principles can be applied outside of the battlefield as well, you can gather many chips and allies together to roll through an enemy’s territory, but you could also have your allies attack another front, forcing your enemy to split chips or lose provinces. Go and look at your history books (if you still have them) and realize that every battle won was because the commander was able to concentrate his resources better than his enemy.

Next article in series: Force multipliers, or what allows one tank to fight a dozen.

 

 ** note, there is much more to this topic than i can explain in the article, i would welcome a discussion in the comments section**

Perpetually broke pilot of Goonswarm. Will shill for isk.