View Full Version : RD2 BB Top Players Tourney
"Valor in Prussia" (ViP) will be the scenario for RD 2 with a start date @ 1/12/05. :thumup:
It is set in March of '45 and the points are AX @3000 AL @5000, town, AL attack, small map.
(Just wanted to make a few comments before Rd2 begins and I start getting emails about how lopsided or unwinnable a certain side is in ViP. Bothsides HAVE won! :halo: )
This is not a, "slap the units down / charge-in" kind of battle. Little thought = little chance of victory FOR EITHER SIDE.
Just like Round 1 (ALB) "ViP" is a scenario for experienced CM players (like yourselves). If you don't pay attention to what you are doing, understand the terrain / your units & the "little things" you will get your a** kicked by the other side.
A victory even against the AI has not always been successful, it's proven to be a real knock-down brawl to the very end event. :skull:
This again will depend on your own tactical skills. :devil:
I mention this here because Rd1 "ALB" has taken a lot of hits for various "things" that seemed to make it lean heavily to the Axis, but the Russians did & have won in that scenario (Of course opponents experience levels have had the greatest impact). I did however take all your comments into consideration & modified "ALB" to make it more Allied friendly! (Thanks :D )
What will undoubtly hurt the scenarios play-balance (as usual) is the mirrored aspect, but I hope the setup options will help in that area.
Thanks for playing gentlemen, :clap:
Good Hunting :nofear:
KG_AGCent
05 Jan 05, 01:40
I did however take all your comments into consideration & modified "ALB" to make it more Allied friendly!
Tell that to my StuG platoon.
...bastage shooting-through-the-smoke-soft-kill-45mms... ***damn flame tank...where the hell did a M-3HT learned to do that...!?:argh:
Seriously though, kudos to the designers. Well thought out scenario that could go either way. Too bad it went badly both ways for me.
:violin:
Any idea when the new opponent draws will be posted?
"UPDATED"
The match-ups for Rd2 will be based on combined points from Rd1 Highest vs lowest etc.
Current scores.
KG-Koz 122
ER Chaser 120
Victor Charlie 116
Tripps 115
Gonzo 108
rwcanuck 104
KG-Panther 101
Mike69 99
scipio 96
KG- Thorshammer 92
Gaz NZ 85
KG_Cloghaun 85
NiK 84
NiG 80
Arom Dov 78
KG-AGcent 78
Final scores to be posted soon on the Tourney page.
I thought that before anyone got their eyes on ViP I'd take the opportunity to chime in in support of Palantir's statements.
This scenarion is definitely readily winnable from either side. In fact I'd even bet that the side most players find most difficult is the side which has the greatest in-scenario potential.
In any case it all boils down to the usual things of mission, enemy, time constraints and terrain analysis mixed with a smidgeon of friendly and enemy force capability/intention analysis.
My one hint would be that proper terrain analysis is the key to this scenario for both sides.
Round 1 is officially over with 2 more Axis Victories. :)
I'm hoping to get RD2 out to everyone on the 12th, but real-life duties may push that back by a day or so. :(
I'll keep you posted. :salute:
ACCK!
Looks like it will be another day maybe two for me to get Rd2 started.
I apologize for the delay. :halo:
Well, at least here are the match-ups for Rd2
1. KG-Koz vs 16. KG-AGcent
2. ER Chaser vs 15. Arom Dov
3. Victor Charlie vs 14. NiG
4. Tripps vs 13. NiK
5. Gonzo vs 12. KG_Cloghaun
6. rwcanuck vs 11. Gaz NZ
7. KG-Panther vs 10. KG- Thorshammer
8. Mike69 vs 9. scipio
RD 2 should be rolling out to you within hours! :toast:
Good luck gentlemen. :salute:
Exact name as it should be listed on the Tourney page?
How's the battle going gentlemen?
ER_Chaser
22 Jan 05, 13:40
John (A.Dov) was busy but we will start up soon. Do not worry, boss, we are both fast players :)
What's the word from the east gentlemen? Hopw all is going well. Enjoying the scenario?
ER_Chaser
05 Feb 05, 13:26
Not much action, Mike, not much :p
KG_AGCent
07 Feb 05, 13:28
Koz's computer is on the fritz. Things are at a standstill until he gets his new one.
If any of you need anything with regards to this tourney be sure to let me know in Palantir's absence.
Thanks.
KG AGCent and I are now moving. I do not anticipate any problems completing the battles within the alloted time.
How's the round going gentlemen? :hmmm:
Comments, reactions?
Like the sound of P-fausts going off everywhere? :devil:
Or the sound of Russian HE rounds exploding buildings? :devious:
First look probably thought another tough one for the Soviets, but very winnable by either side. :halo:
Tactics are everything- not brute force (although that can work too if done properly).
But I must say, I love those never give a foot Fallschirmjager guys! Tough bunch. :D
UPDATE:
Two games have finished.
Both Axis Minor Victories.
KG_Cloghaun
15 Feb 05, 22:37
I wish the maps were larger to enable more room for manuever. It's a tough go for the Russians. Still, I am enjoying the action.
Well, a larger map here would avoid the point of this particular mission and formation of Soviet units which was to actually seize the town, factories and open up the road network.
Other less worthy Russian commanders had the dull task of encircling the area & cutoff any Axis retreat paths.
Such is your lot in life "Top Players" to get the meaty missions and hot action plus all the glory that goes with them!
Other less worthy Russian commanders had the dull task of encircling the area & cutoff any Axis retreat paths.
Such is your lot in life "Top Players" to get the meaty missions and hot action plus all the glory that goes with them!
:laugh:
Just wanted to let you guys know I have updated the Tourney page but am having some problem uploading it. Something has changed and my server connection is not working properly. I will try to have it up to date soon! :confused:
So, so far we're looking at two minor German victories and no Soviet wins? Interesting, I, personally, thought the Germans were at a disadvantage... and from a manoeuvrist viewpoint they certainly are... OTOH when approached attritionally their strengths are capitalised upon.
One thing Cloghaun... Remember manoeuvre warfare is a misnomer. Manoeuvre warfare, when properly executed, often has little do with on-ground movement and much more to do with dislocation, irrelevasation and indirectness.
Or to put it more bluntly, manoeuvre is eminently possible even when little movement actually occurs.
An extreme example of this is an attacking player refusing to move forward in the attack until, maybe, 10 minutes into the game with the aim of so unnerving his opponent that the defender will move his recon units forward ( effectively dislocating them positionally and temporally, dislocating the defensive forward detachment battleplan and, if properly exploited, creating a decisive gap in observational data which can be used to begin the ever-downward spiral of the defender's OODA loop) before the attacker's force moves. Obviously it is almost anathema for the attacker to so willingly cede the initiative and momentum to his opponent like this but, again, action without purpose ( where said action can be either momentum or initiative-derived) is often not only fruitless but actively detrimental. Or, to put it another way, ceding the initiative so that your opponent moves first and walks into a minefield while violating a minor tactical principle can yield decisive operational advantages. Always be ready to violate minor "rules of war" if they payoff is decisive. If you look at the great captains throughout history the reports of their campaigns are replete with historians' accounts of how their violation of minor rules yielded decisive battle and campaign-winning advantages.
Or to put it even more bluntly, what matters is the velocity with which you progress towards the enemy's critical weakness, not your speed along the ground. Certainly one component of any critical weakness is physical but, in many cases, the far more important components are non-temporal or even psychological.
KG_Cloghaun
19 Feb 05, 09:56
One thing Cloghaun... Remember manoeuvre warfare is a misnomer. Manoeuvre warfare, when properly executed, often has little do with on-ground movement and much more to do with dislocation, irrelevasation and indirectness.
Actually, I'm already aware of the points you've illustrated, which is why I would prefer a larger map. You can theorize as much as you'd like but the bottom line is that this is still a frontal assault. And within that context, an attacker already loses many options.
Like I said, I'm enjoying the games, I just like to ***** sometimes. ;)
You can theorize as much as you'd like but the bottom line is that this is still a frontal assault. And within that context, an attacker already loses many options.
Oh I think that first statement is definitely erroneous. It is only a frontal assault if you choose to assault frontally. You need do neither of those things.
All that can be said about the starting position is that your forces initiate in the outskirts of the village and that the VLs one must, supposedly, take are inside the village/on the entire other side of the map. Now, that is objective reality. Once you begin assessing this objective reality it becomes subjective and, generally, says much more about you and your own subjective biases etc than it does about any objective truth within the tactical situation.
If you wish to subjectively assess the tactical situation as necessitating a frontal assault on the village then that's your own business BUT I think it only fair to point out the following:
1. You don't need a larger map in order to geographically manoeuvre and dislocate. There is quite sufficient space, dead ground and sufficiently covered routes to allow a great deal of speedy movement. The above point is particularly useful if you are going to self-limit to playing this scenario on only the geographical and temporal planes.
2. Frontal assault carries with it an idiom all of its own. I think it perfectly possible to drive through that village without employing the idioms related to frontal assault in the vernacular.
3. To again use the metaphor of language let me say that one always has the ability, regardless of the situation, to draw on one's entire vocabulary ( or in this case tactical skillset) and that confining oneself to the vernacular ( in this case frontal assault) is a CHOICE you have the power not to make. So, look at the situation, know that it favours the choosing of the vernacular but choose to utilise your full vocabulary and not be bound by the constraints with which the multitude freely bind themselves.
You have choice. You can fall to the vernacular or choose to explore your full vocabulary. The vernacular will serve sufficiently well most of the time but its use never signifies insight, understanding and style. Apart from the previous stylistic point it should be noted that the vernacular will not, in my opinion, suffice to furnish a Soviet victory in this scenario ( unless one's opponent is very poor) but the bringing to bear of one's full vocabulary will furnish one with sufficient choice of phrase to unlock even the most tightly crafted conundrum ( or in the terms of the scenario, if you just assault frontally positions designed to hold against and bleed such an assault then you will fail. If, however, you draw on the full breadth of your tactical options you can not only win but win cheaply and break even the most well-laid out defensive line.) .
:blab: :confused: :nuts:
Where did all this deep manuver discussion come from? :surprise:
"Technically" by the parameters ViP is an "Allied Attack" scenario! :laugh:
I guess that in any CM game you could have a "frontal" assualt since the map normally limits any "big" flanking manuvers. Once you attack the defensive line "force on force" you are making a frontal attack. Of course you can swing around to hit a "flank" but on the normal CM scale that would be more use of the tactical terrain to get into an advantagous position from which to attack.
Even in ViP you can attack on the "flanks" by going along the edges as well as making a frontal attack by going down the middle of the map. Since they can be used in combination on the ViP map I designed it as an Allied Attack.
If the defender does not defend strongly right to the map edges in any scenario there will usually be a "flank" to attack.
To me an "assualt" in CM is an attack against a dug in defensive position that stretches continuously across the entire length of a map, behind which are all the VP objectives.
KG_Cloghaun
19 Feb 05, 16:06
I believe all I said was that I would've prefered more room on the map to maneuver. :rolleyes:
Yea, I know! :laugh:
;) :salute:
My point is simply that a manoeuvrist ethos doesn't necessitate geographical "room to manoeuvre" in the same way that bringing fire to bear from the frontal arc of a coherent defensive position only correlates to a "frontal assault" ( with all the context such a term carries with it) IF you wish it to. Manoeuvre warfare does NOT absolutely require a flank or movement or even a high operational tempo. Manoeuvre warfare absolutely requires a certain mindset of the force commander but little else ( certainly it doesn't require room for manoeuvre etc) I was trying to make that point so that players playing this scenario would have the opportunity to reflect on their approach and adopt a more edifying and effective mindset than a rather crude attritionist approach.
I think its fairly clear these words and the attempt to clarify that a manoeuvrist approach ( aka "the indirect approach") may hold the answer to avoiding an extremely costly attritionist slogging match are falling on rocky ground here. I'm a bit surprised, Palantir, that you don't seem to get what I'm saying about the manoeuvrist approach given that u were exposed to it yourself and saw its value in this situation. I believe that you know, experientally, that a manoeuvrist approach to this scenario can yield a very clear Soviet victory in the 80% range.
In any case, I offered my opinion, it seems that the thread members are less than open to it and so I withdraw. Enjoy your gaming gentlemen.
Whoa! Slow down the horses Fionn and lets not rush over the cliff here! :horse:
Everyones opinion is free to be expressed and debated.
Of course I know what you mean by using "the indirect approach" which doesn't necessarily mean a "flank attack" via map movement. :hail:
I just agreeed that I understand everyones point of view on this subject. ;)
One was just a desire to have a bigger map to move on while another pointed out that "manuover" could be done on the map without more area. :halo:
It also may well have been simply a miscommunication on what you were trying to get across. In fact your last post was much "clearer" in explaination in what you were trying to point out then the previous ones. :D
And Fionn did demonstrate in our game the effectivness of his position and the ability to use a manoeuvrist approach to GREAT success (very well done I will admit!). :salute:
So lets not shut down a very interesting topic if there is more to be discussed and passed along to those who are not skilled in the usage of the "indirect approach" (not "flank" attack).
Ah don't mind me. I am post-call ( 28 hrs in the ER with 3 hrs sleep) and I got a bit overly pissy.
Everyone's free to do things their way etc etc... I just think it's a pity that people seem to equate the indirect approach with free space etc etc and once they see closed terrain they go all attritionist.
I just think people are missing out on the most enjoyable aspect of CM. From my point of view winning realyl isn't important. What matters is winning with a bit elan and panache utilising more than a mere application of the Lanchester rules ad infinitum. This scenario is rich in possibility if only people really examine it. Sadly I think that in the whole CM community (not just here) there is precious little real discourse of tactics which would help develop players.
Anyways, back to your regular programming. I would be interested to hear how people are getting on and where they are finding most difficulty as the Soviets, or even Germans.
I think you are more accurate than you know. CM is a great game that most players seem to like to just get in and play and more importantly have fun playing!
As in any game there are tons of little tactics and "rules" that can be discovered and sniffed out to enhance game play. I know at least one player that takes hours to study each possibile movement per turn (not even playing CM) no matter the "action" to get the maximum from each unit.
Other players like to jump in and play as if we have shells falling all around us and need to get our orders out in the "allotted" 60 seconds! :)
Without a doubt there is a wealth of information out there to really get the most out of each units capabilities & combination with other units. What is needed is a simple manner in which to find and read such information.
Maybe someone (hint hint) could start a thread and select one unquie "tactic" that is of interest to discuss, and how to actually use it in a scenario. Saying use "combined arms" is all well & good but to have it shown actually being done in a scenario would be better.
Include some pertinent screenshots as well, open it up for comments and then we will have a great discourse going! :)
Fionn, maybe you could embarrass me and use our last game as an example? Assuming of course it would show your topic or the "indirect approach" being properly executed.
KG_Cloghaun
20 Feb 05, 21:01
@ Fionn
You assume I don't agree with your points on maneuver because of my short statements. Lately my time is at a premium and I don't have the luxury to discuss tactics at the depth you are, but I am in full agreement with many of the points you make and I appreciate them. Maneuver does not equal indirect. It can be accomplished in a different context, ie, using time/space/terrain, etc,..
I apologize for being short or making you think I was giving you the cold shoulder. I actually read your posts with great interest. Thank you for taking the time in providing your ideas.
ps- I still would prefer a bigger map :D
Palantir,
Well, I think that our last game shows the indirect approach but it shows it in a subtle way. E.g. It all looks very " direct" until you really dig deeply.
Also, do you think I should hold off posting it until the Players have finished using the map? Still, if you could arrange it I'd be happy to post an AAR, including pictures and the movie files as well as a discussion of tactical issues raised (if you wish)...
As to discussing unique "tactics"... I really think that discussion of individual tactics when bereft from discussion of the overall philosophy guiding the commander sends players down the wrong avenue. I would very strongly believe that it is eminently possible for players to play poorly tactically and yet win great victories because of their superior "operational" ( or grand tactical) philosophy and coherence.
E.g. I haven't got a clue what the firepowers of various squads at various ranges are, I couldn't tell you what cover a foxhole gives me in open ground or woods or what cover you get in plain scattered trees. I don't know how far troops can run before getting tired and I certainly don't know the details of how morale and firepower interact to create suppression/panic etc. I just stick to heavy buildings in preference to light buildings and buildings and cover in preference to open ground. Hell, I play as the Soviets every chance I can get and I honestly don't have a clue as to the effect of spotting bonuses, optics or even the armour on most of their tanks. That detail is irrelevant once you know whether or not a 75 L/70 can light the tank up beyond 500m or not. That's about the extent of my foray into bean-counting ;). OTOH in true Soviet style ( and as you know I'm an adherent of Soviet doctrine) any lack of tactical subtlety is made up for by a coherent, overwhelmingly focussed grand-tactical/operational plan. As with the Soviets vs the Germans such focus and coherence overcomes almost any amount of tactical brilliance.
So, I think the key is not to focus on "the best place to put your infantry" or "the best ATG" etc etc. It is to focus on the more philosophical aspects "Should you only reinforce success or should you sometimes try to reinforce a failing sector/thrust?", "when should your armour truly enter the fight? In the forging of the breach, when the breach is to be exploited or only once the exploitation has begun apace?" etc, "what is the role of reserves on the defence?", "What, precisely, is the concept of a dynamic reserve and how does this influence the attack or defence?" etc...
E.g. The question of whether or not to split your SMG troops can be handled on the purely tactical level and will yield a definite answer as to the benefits of such an approach in the 1 unsplit platton vs 1 or 2 split platoons fight BUT when you actually look at this question at a higher level you will see that splitting allows you to create more manoeuvre units and thus to not only engage in a straight Lanchester type fight ( with advantage to your side) BUT, more importantly, allows you to create a far greater dynamic reserve, engage in greater reconnaissance, allow you to take more risks and enables your main effort, when it hits, to do so with greater velocity and mass which yields greater momentum, important in terms of tipping your opponent's OODA loop into irrelevancy ( the basic goal of most manoeuvre warfare).
So, that's why I don't think one can talk about great tactics as a great tactical player with poor operational insight will alkmost always be beaten by a mediocre tactician with excellent operational insight.
One last point, teaching players "the best tactics" do nothing to show them when to disregard those tactics in order to maximise the effectiveness of the operational level plan. E.g. in our game "best tactics" would have been to allow tanks to stand back and blast the nearby buildings, instead I purposely brought my tanks to within 20 to 30 metres of many of your anti-tank positions and then failed to use them to engage the positions of greatest threat preferring instead to have these tanks engage the positions farthest away from them and of least threat to them. This is an example of subordinating tactics to the operational needs as my operational plan required the tanks' survival far less than it required the farthest houses to be destroyed.
Manoeuvre warfare teaches us that EVERYTHING ( including "best practice tactics") must be subordinated to the operational needs. The tank thing above is an example of that which a player well versed in "best practice tactics" wouldn't have done. So, that's why I'm loathe to tell people the best tactics... since I think it stifles their operational development. I hope that makes sense, it is a bit of a strange concept to say that learning good tactics is usually harmful to players' development but that has been my experience when coaching many players over the years.
ER_Chaser
21 Feb 05, 12:34
LOL ... at one point when seeing Fion saying something with "ER" and "3 hour sleep" ... I got so nervous and was thinking about with whom recently I slept could be possibly a wargamer ... but soon with great relief, I figured out what he meant indeed :D ... ( just kidding :) )..
Actually, Fionn, you have very nice points on the maneuver thing, esp. that word: "it is the speed of your approaching enemy decisive weakness, not the ground speed of your units" (roughly) .. I appreciate it! :love:
ER_Chaser,
Indeed, a disturbing train of thought for sure ;). :devious:
I was thinking of how to give hints germane to the current game without unduly hobbling the German defenders. Here goes:
From Sun Bin's "Art of War"... "WHen King Wei turned to him and asked "How should one attack fanatics?" General Sun answered "wait until they find a means of escape"... Scipio Africanus called this the "Golden Bridge" which was offered to all opponents who fought from a poor position ( of course the initial German dispositions in this village are strong but even minor tactical movements (which can be performed at little cost) can be sufficient to dislocate individual strongpoints and cause your opponent to think about extricating his forces).
I would also suggest that B.L. Hart had something to offer when he said that "History shows that rather than reisgn himself to a direct approach, a Great Captain will take even the most hazardous indirect approach - if necesary, over mountains, deserts, or swamps, with only a fraction of his force, even cutting himself from his communications. Facing, in fact, every unfavourable condition rather than the risk of stalemate." This was written in 1928.
Furthermore, of particular note to this sort of difficult infantry on infantry fighting ( and bearing in mind that the majority of Soviet squads employed are significantly weaker in terms of firepower than an opposing German Fallschirmjaeger half-squad) I think Tukhachevsky's view that " Strategy must furnish tactics with tasks easy to accomplish... One most not rely (solely) on the heroism of the troops." is most instructive in this scenario.
http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=/combat_mission/cm_tours/bb_invitational2004/bb_invitational_2004.htm
I finally got the tourney page updated sorry for the delay. If I forgot anything I am sure my trusty conscience (Palantir :halo: ) will let me know!
Thanks everyone for your patience.
ER_Chaser
26 Feb 05, 11:39
very nice page, thanks Norad.
Quick question though (maybe a bit too early): what is a "side-bid" game? (as shown in later rounds of this tourney) :rolleyes:
Side-Bid:
Under this condition each player posts his preference for which side he wants to play (Axis/Allied). First come first served and gets their desired side to play in Round 5.
Once the first 8 post who indicate one side, say axis here, they will get that side and will play as Axis. The other 8 will get the Allied side. Opponents will be randomly selected.
When the time comes for Rd5 I will post for "Side-Bid's Now." The First ones to post, in order, will get their desired side.
Rd 5 settings: @3,000 pts Sept '44.
ER_Chaser
26 Feb 05, 12:58
thx, boss :)
Whats the word gentlemen? You've been quiet...
ER_Chaser
06 Mar 05, 15:05
You have the Knight Cross with Oak Leaves ready, my Lord? :devil:
When are we supposed to be done with round 2?
Yesterday,
Err no wait it's May 1st. :)
Yesterday,
Err no wait it's May 1st. :)
Funny, Chief.:') Thanks for the info.
Another pair of games has finished up.
Score is now:
2- Axis Minor
1- Axis Tactical
1- Allied Draw
It's early but the Allies seem to be having a tough go of it, how are some other games playing out? Are the Allies making any breakthroughs?
Two more games has finished up.
With more Axis victories?!! :surprise:
Score is now:
2- Axis Minor
2- Axis Tactical
1- Axis Major
1- Allied Draw
Dang, how's that Hvy Soviet armor being utilized? Are the Russkies just charging into the city for a street brawl? :(
Any finishers have a quick AAR on the results? :hmmm:
ER Chaser has used the heavy Russian Armor well - our games are almost done.
ER_Chaser
17 Mar 05, 19:10
ER Chaser has used the heavy Russian Armor well - our games are almost done.
Not really, John, another two of them were just knocked out by your deadly AT fires :cry: ....
I do not think I could pull out an edge at all... :(
Score is now:
2- Axis Minor
2- Axis Tactical
2- Axis Major
1- Allied Draw
1- 50/50 Draw
Half the games are now completed, maybe the Russian wins are in the second half! :D
The challenge is now out there for the rest of the group to pull out a few Soviet victories.
Surely ALL those Fallschrimjager panzerfaust carrying fanatics aren't that tough? :halo:
(Did you ever "notice" why they have so many P-fausts!) :whist:
Btw- work is going nicely on the maps you'll be using in the following rounds. I'm sure you will find them just as challenging & interesting.
Well, let's not just write off the tactic of bringing tanks into ultra-close range of infantry. It is quite viable and, indeed, occasionally beneficial to bring one's heavy armour into bayonet range of enemy infantry positions. As with all things, it needs to be done only when appropriate with appropriateness being judged within the context of objective assesment of the tactical situation and not being judged purely on the application of old saws.
K, just got home from a trip. Will review that file and give you my thoughts later this evening/tomorrow morning.
ER_Chaser
18 Mar 05, 21:46
Well, let's not just write off the tactic of bringing tanks into ultra-close range of infantry. It is quite viable and, indeed, occasionally beneficial to bring one's heavy armour into bayonet range of enemy infantry positions. As with all things, it needs to be done only when appropriate with appropriateness being judged within the context of objective assesment of the tactical situation and not being judged purely on the application of old saws.
K, just got home from a trip. Will review that file and give you my thoughts later this evening/tomorrow morning.
Interesting comments... I am chewing on it (though still not quite getting it yet, but I feel there is something there... )
Hey All, :)
With half the round finished I've looked over the early endgame files you've sent (thank you) so some quick comments:
(based solely on what I see in the final turn picts)
The Soviets have taken horrendous INF losses at the very first line of buildings- piles of dead INF in fact. This I think set the stage for the rest of the turns with the Soviets advancing very cautiously & VERY slowly. Having supporting fire was critical in this scenario for the Allies.
All Soviet attacks that concentrated at only 1 or 2 spots have ended in big defeats. While those that were on a broader front aross the map did much better.
The German units stood their ground and relatively few units did most of the damage. P-fauts seem not to be that effective per numbers shot, with P-Schrecks doing better.
Extending the game by five more turns so far would have a big effect on the outcome & Soviet advance. Several games were right on the edge with disputed VF's control.
That's it for now, more later. :halo:
How did you see it? :hmmm:
BTW- did ANYONE use sewer movement or consider it? :surprise:
Nothing like crawling a few crack Paratroopers deep behind enemy lines & hiding, then popping up to capture a ligtly guarded VF in the last turns. (Risky yes, but I did it!) :D
Score now after 10 games is:
3- Axis Minor
2- Axis Tactical
2- Axis Major
1- Allied Minor
1- Allied Draw
1- 50/50 Draw
Score now after 10 games is:
3- Axis Minor
2- Axis Tactical
2- Axis Major
1- Allied Minor
1- Allied Draw
1- 50/50 Draw
Will hopefully give you a Allied vicory inna week or so...
*fingers crossed*
Score now after 14 games: the fanatical Fallschirmjager units seems to have ruled the day.
5- Axis Minor
2- Axis Tactical
3- Axis Major
1- Allied Draw
1- Allied Minor
1- Allied Tactical
1- Draw 50/50
1 pair is still going with less than a week to go. :devil:
ER_Chaser
27 Apr 05, 22:01
wow... tripps must lead a lot in total points now ... :p .. . :envy: :)
He's leading you by a massive 6 points!!! :p
ER_Chaser
28 Apr 05, 08:58
He's leading you by a massive 6 points!!! :p
:cry: :dead: :love:
KG_AGCent
30 Apr 05, 23:38
AARs written and posted in the KG private forums. 1st from ME:
Congrats to Koz as he edged me out in our 2nd round mirrored battle.
I am writing this in the hopes that Koz will write his own perspective in this thread as well.
As Russians, Kozinski played a little fast and loose in the opening turns with his infantry and subsequently had his infantry force gutted early on. However he was able to nicely preserve his armored elements from too much exposure to my faust-laden troops giving him a nice destructive punch against defensive points which caused me to displace earlier than I wanted to in many places. Having to fall back to avoid being caught in exploding buildings gave up precious space needed to prevent a flank turning. In the end , he was able to turn my left flank and make an (unsuccessful) rush for a second of three rear-area VL's. This rush was quelled by a rapidly displacing 75mm PaK40.
In retrospect, I held the center of town uncontested after Kozinski's initial boondoggle. I was able to divert the pressure to the flanks and preserve the center of town which allowed freedom of movement to reinforce the flanks basically where needed. After a fierce and bloody fight for the (German) right hand factory complex I was forced to concede the VL but was able to prevent a breakout with another intrepid 75mm PaK40.
My two fatal flaws were that I held forces in the center for entirely too long fearing a feint at the flanks and a renewed attack where I had had success early on. If I had displaced more quickly to the rear are VL's I could had put more of a hurting on his flanking force than I did.
In the end Koz held 2 minor and 2 major VL's with 1 in contest. I held 4 major VL's giving the defender (Germans) a 56-44 minor victory.
As the Germans, Koz had success where I failed. He was able to displace infantry in strength enough to hold 2 rearmost VLs. Also he deployed in much greater depth than I did. I had hope to be able to draw him in and and cut him down in a building fight with flanking fire as he attempted to negotiate my obstacles. Koz seemed to opt for traditional defense-in-depth, stalling rather than trying to stop. I also helped his effort a great deal by allowing too many of my tanks to venture too closely to some buildings and he made me pay dearly for the mistake with 5 dead tanks, 4 of them in the same turn.
I, however, was able to successfully occupy both factory complexes. The factory on the (German) right Koz inexplicably abandoned and the factory on the (German) left was taken after a brutal firefight in which decimated remains of an SMG/Recon company slogged it out with almost 2 platoon of Panzergrenadiers. I was able to overcome his infantry by driving 5 tanks right up to the factory walls, push the snouts of my tanks in and collapsing 2 center sections fo the factory on top of his troops with direct area fire. This victory came too late in the game for me to be able to capitalize on it by sweeping into the center VL behind the (German) left hand factory complex. My men were too exhausted and brutalized themselves.
On offense, where Koz opted to drop buildings on the flanks to make space for the remainder of his troops to move into, I preferred to assault them each at a time. My thinking was that I wanted those same buildings to stack troops in to schwerepunkt the next objective. Also the dust created do nothing to help lines of sight and spotting of displacing or routed troops that can be cut down in the open.
As the Russians I was able to only pull out a minor loss 42-58 giving a 2 point margin of victory overall.
Good games, Koz. Well played.
KG_AGCent
30 Apr 05, 23:40
Then from KOZ:
I hope you enjoy.
I thoroughly enjoyed both games and feel truly fortunate to have eeked out a slight overall advantage.
Comments from Russian perspective:
My initial thoughts were to push hard with the initial recon troops to ascertain if Rob was defending the edge of the setup zone in strength. Since I chose a layered defense, I kinda assumed that Rob would do the same and had a "feeling" that a strong push would overcome the initial opposition. I also planned to waste some the initial recon vehicles attempting to determine the location of Rob's AT gun net. My plan was to identify a weak point (or points) and subsequently smash through to the rear large VL's. My goal was not to capture the small VL's (although I certainly would have been happy to capture them).
The first 3 or 4 turns went fine. I identified approx AT gun locations in the center and on the right side. Then, I got embroiled into what Rob referred to as a boondoggle! After some of my lead elements were cut down advancing toward the large factory, I threw away platoon after platoon trying to get into the buildings on the edge of the factory. When the recon units failed, I decided that smg's would handle the job. Well...they didn't. Rob did a great job in his initial review of the map as he seemed to always be present in force where I didn't expect him and didn't setup in buildings where I did expect him. He kept inf back from the edge of the building where my covering units could not get a bead.
Many of you are aware that I frequently plot movements for troops and add delays so that the movements are immediate in the following turn. Typically I cancel the plots but this gives me a way to quickly exploit an opportunity. This works great until you forget to cancel the plots! Unfortunately, I sent two platoons to their death by forgetting to cancel the plotted movements and marching them straight at buildings where I know Rob was entrenched in strength.
By the time that The T34's and SU's started arriving, most of my initial recon and smg units were all dead. Realizing that I had seriously screwed myself, I started chucking HE at buildings in an attempt to minimize inf casualties and to create smoke/debris that would allow my armor to move forward. Since the center was proven to be strong, I decided to push toward each flank.
Rob's timely relocation of a pak40 caused me to lose lots of needed points and saved one of his large VL's.
As Rob noted, he kept too many units in the center. If I had not been hunting with my armor, I may have been able to get past that bothersome pak40 and take control of an additional large VL.
In the end, I was lucky to take only a minor defeat after such a miserable beginning. Rob definitely played a better game and would have had a stronger victory had he been a tad bit less conservative with his center inf in the last ten turns of the game.
Comments from German perspective:
Here, the game played out much as I originally hoped it would.
As Rob noted, my plan was for a defense in depth where I would be able to retain sufficient inf forces to protect the rear VL's. My AT guns were all setup in rear locations. I hoped to make use of shreck teams and fausts in the first 2/3 of the game, allowing my AT guns to remain hidden. Ultimately, I planned to not defend the rear left VL in favor of the rear center and right VL's.
Hoping that Rob would advance very cautiously after seeing what his entrenched inf did to me, i did decide to abandon the right factory early in the game. Good thing I did, that platoon is the platoon that successfully defended one of the rear VL's later on! My goal was never to retain that VL. I had already begun to abandon the center buildings and since my AT net was so far back I felt that Rob would easily be able to suppress the position with uncontested HE.
On the German left, my orderly retreat didn't go as orderly as I had hoped and Rob caught too many of my units in the open. I ended up retreating an entire co of pzgrs to the center of the large factory. Lucky for me, I pulled one platoon out so when Rob did his tank assault he only KO'd two platoons. The third platoon holed up in a building behind the factory. From that building, I hoped some faust shots could be made and that I could defend the adjacent small VL. It was costly to lose the two platoons in the factory, but worth it as it appeared to tie up lots of units and certainly slowed things down.
Rob and I both had one bad turn as the Russian in which multiple armored units were whacked. Had I not KO'd those four AFV's the game might easily have been very different.
Rob played very well in both games and easily could have had minor or tactical victories in both games had things gone a bit different. They were tough, brutal games with lots of action. Our different approaches to the German defense created an interesting contrast.
KG_AGCent
30 Apr 05, 23:43
If you think this is a little .... obssessive, you ought to have seen the planning that went into KG's games vs. FGM.
Still waiting for a final score from the last games...
In the mean time: what were your impressions of the scenario?
The results show a clear "lean" to the Axis side, what 2 suggestions do you have (or more) for the game that will tilt the balance back to even?
The biggest one I had in the end were the turns- 30 or 35?
30 turns put pressure on the Soviets to keep moving and were a close deal, 35 tended to give the Soviets too much time and easier victories.
The next was the Soviet Armor. Bringing in larger AS Tanks early (which arrived immediately after this scenario setting) just "blew" away the Germans hiding in the buildings.
KG_AGCent
03 May 05, 17:47
A carefully constructed defense using the minefields and barbed wire to not only prevent a player from going to a particular area but also directing the enemy into carefully constructed kill zones is the key to this scenario. I used barbed wire in front of some the buildings near the Stahlnhelm factory. Not because I didn't want him going into those buildings but because I WANTED him to go into the buildings without the barbed wire in front as I had Panzergrenadiers set-up in ambush in the rear of these buildings waiting to cut down his troops that did enter.
I felt that there was almost no method for dealing with the massed Soviet armor toward the later stages of the game, however but in retrospect that feeling was due to the way I played the game to begin with. My opponent showed me the value of a nicely layered defense but at the same time, carefully placed units in the medium ranges can play havoc with advances as well.
Two players whose skills are fairly matched and who take proper care and consideration on both sides of the coin will have the most fun and get the biggest bang for their buck. Playing this scenario in a mirrored fashion did, however, take some of the "surprise" out of the reinforcement schedule, but I suspect that's why the games were so tightly contested. Had I no idea of what was coming at me I could never have made as effective on-going maneuvers on defense as I did for obvious reasons. For this kind of battle, playing it mirrored definitely "upped" the fun factor. I can say that there were definite "breaking points" that if I had had better luck or done just that one little move differently the outcome would have been much different for the good as well as for the bad. With opportunities like those being present for both sides, like they were in my games with Koz, the construction of the scenario cannot be impuned.
Extending the game any further would have been disasterous for both Koz and I on defense. We had to fight like madmen just to keep the minor victory we did get. With the overwhelming numbers of heavy russian armor, adding more infantry to the mix would also have provided another overwhelming factor for the Germans. I was extremely careful with my infantry as Russians and would have pulled out a victory had I not gotten stupid on one particular turn when I lost 5 tanks to fausts because I got too close to a building I hadn't cleared yet.
The results show a clear "lean" to the Axis side, what 2 suggestions do you have (or more) for the game that will tilt the balance back to even?
Even though i had a tactical victory as the Russians, I still thought it was slightly in favour of the Axis, so I think either:
1. 35 Turns.
2. 1 additional Company of Russian Inf.
Probably coming around turn 12 or so, and even if that company
is a simple recon company, does not have to be a SMG/pioneer
Grrrr...
Problems with the last game.
But everything is set for Rd 3 to get under way- just need the matchups, but due to the delay we may go with random pairings instead of #1vs16 2v15 etc.
Can we ask whats the problem?
It WAS turn arounds, looks to be solved and we are ready to rumble into Rd3!!
Can we have the tourney page updated? :)
Thanks to everyone for another great round of battle tactics!
I hope you enjoyed the challenges of the scenario.
:salute:
The final outcomes of Rd 2:
4- Axis Major
2- Axis Tactical
5- Axis Minor
1- 50/50 Draw
2- Allied Draw
1- Allied Minor
1- Allied Tactical
3 Draws & 6 Minors mean that just over half the games were very close battles. And only 4 (Maj) were in the upper victory columns- so the defense is set pretty good I think...
How much do you think the "mirror" aspect tipped the games in the Germans favor? What could the Russians have accomplished with 5 more turns- too much maybe?
Whatever tweeking is done will probably be slight.
Now on to Rd 3. :nofear:
(Updated page coming soon thanks to Double Deuce!) :hail:
Seems we have problems with our tourney pages- updates may take a bit longer- sorry... :o
ER_Chaser
05 May 05, 09:47
Unfortunately, a mirrored game would more or less get rid of the "surprise" factor of a good scenario by default and in a tourney, only a "mirrored" game could eliminate this "balance" bias thing. So I guess that is some sort of compromise that everyone of us should and have to accept as part of life.
But yes, the mirrored game does give the player a whole of information and it actually does not necessarily make the game less interesting. in the sense that you, as well as your opponent, have exactly the same information or extra information, and then it is still a very interesting match between two brains to manage this situation wisely to win. (but of course, it is not exactly what the scenario designer originally wanted. well, again, as probably most of you guys knew that I am always more concerned about the balance/playability issue rather than the "historical" aspects.)
Double Deuce
19 May 05, 09:40
Still waiting for a final score from the last games...I have linked all the Round 1 (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/wfhq-ld-tourney-details.php?id=41#69) and Round 2 (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/wfhq-ld-tourney-details.php?id=41#70) Tournament Battles for this to the EndGame Reports in the WARS Ladder. The only ones missing are the EndGame Reports for Round 2 for NiG vs Victor Charlie (both battles).
If one of these 2 could submit those reports in WARS I can finish linking the Round 2 Battles. Then I will start to work getting your Round 3 data posted.
A big thanks to "DD" for helping me out and getting the Tourney pages squared away! :thumup:
THANKS! :D :toast:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.