Do we have a team?

[Temujin]

From the looks of it it seems there is only 3 of us participating in this. I dont want to get this thing underway and up pops one of the other 2 in the team and then they are mission to do then we dont hear from them again.

Well ive just checked the roster and it looks like Aristide is of the list, that leaves LordActon to come in and start participating.

[dita]

What is the minimum number of players for a side? Can only the three of us continue if LordActon doesn`t show?

[Double Deuce]

There is no minimum and no maximum.

[LordActon]

Hi,

I checked the forums just before I write this, and realized
that I can in fact see this private forum (I didn't know if
signing up is completely automated or not).

I have played some games with SPWAW mainly against the machine,
and some agains Artur whom you may know from these forums. I have installed SPMBT and played around a bit with it. So I have relatively little experience, that's why I signed up as a reserve
commander...

Istvan

[Temujin]

Hi,

I checked the forums just before I write this, and realized
that I can in fact see this private forum (I didn't know if
signing up is completely automated or not).

I have played some games with SPWAW mainly against the machine,
and some agains Artur whom you may know from these forums. I have installed SPMBT and played around a bit with it. So I have relatively little experience, that's why I signed up as a reserve
commander...

Istvan

OK great, i was expecting an englishman ;) if you want to play a game against me with similar forces to what we are using go ahead and set one up and send it, spmbt is very different than spwaw so you will need a bit of bloodying. PA_Gibb@westnet.com.au

glad to have you aboard

[LordActon]

OK great, i was expecting an englishman ;) if you


Well, I chose Lord Acton's name, because he was someone whom
you would call a libertarian today, and thus his name
seemed suitable for someone in a "rebel" team (fighting against
governmental and UN forces) :)


want to play a game against me with similar forces to what we are using go ahead and set one up and send it, spmbt is very different than spwaw so you will need a bit of bloodying. PA_Gibb@westnet.com.au

glad to have you aboard

Thanks, I will try to set up a game.

[Katusa]

Glad to be here. Certainly, we have one! :love:

[raupenschlepper]

I like your opening dispositions, & it looks as if we have been smiled on. If the intel is correct & there are pro-gov forces a-plenty in Zone N, my suggestion is this:- go for them (rather than the town G) with forces in M & N, moving the support force at C into M - it can then either reinforce if necessary or, if the pro-gov forces are actually lighter than expected, turn & cover M & (possibly) N while they attack town G. In the meantime, force B attacks town A. I'm assuming the UN tells the truth (most of the time?????).

If we're successful, I would then leave town J out of the equation (unless we get Spetsnaz support) & move in to the areas O & R (more cover). Decent-sized holding force at the bridge, move R into X (if we can do it stealthily) to take town T. It's the obvious plan, but I can't see a better one. If pro-gov is situated in the south, & N is their northernmost force, we then have a fight on our hands! BUT, it should be our 2 towns reinforcing to their 1, unless they go for J as well. Question - do we leave our tanks as part of the bridge-holding force? Where's the pro-gov armour likely to be? Intel needed.

Aristide.

[Katusa]

I agree completely with going from M to N and wiping out gov. forces there. However, I do not support C reinforcing M. Instead, I would try to take A and move with the rest to F. This move would threaten both G and later on J through I.

I disagree with the movement to the South yet, first we should consolidate our holdings in the north. This means that I would call on the UN to move south, and I suppose, seeing all the action around G they will be willing to do that.

I do not like the idea of going to R and X, it would distract us from the main theatre of operations. Instead, after taking N I would continue the drive to O. This would take us to T quicker and easier. Since by this time our heavy troops will be threatening the govt around I and J they probably would move from O to there via L. So O might be only lightly defended by turn 2-3 when we get there.

[Temujin]

I like your opening dispositions, & it looks as if we have been smiled on. If the intel is correct & there are pro-gov forces a-plenty in Zone N, my suggestion is this:- go for them (rather than the town G) with forces in M & N, moving the support force at C into M - it can then either reinforce if necessary or, if the pro-gov forces are actually lighter than expected, turn & cover M & (possibly) N while they attack town G. In the meantime, force B attacks town A. I'm assuming the UN tells the truth (most of the time?????).

If we're successful, I would then leave town J out of the equation (unless we get Spetsnaz support) & move in to the areas O & R (more cover). Decent-sized holding force at the bridge, move R into X (if we can do it stealthily) to take town T. It's the obvious plan, but I can't see a better one. If pro-gov is situated in the south, & N is their northernmost force, we then have a fight on our hands! BUT, it should be our 2 towns reinforcing to their 1, unless they go for J as well. Question - do we leave our tanks as part of the bridge-holding force? Where's the pro-gov armour likely to be? Intel needed.

Aristide.


Ok, ill set a couple of things straight here before we go any further. The original deployment is designed to give us a quick control of the northern area by taking A and G in the initial phase, then we have planned to take out all forces north of the river and secure this area, then we have a good defensive line as we build up overwhelming forces to crush the rest of the gov forces, they will have a hard time trying to take the capital and airport which they will need to do to be able to match our buying power in later stages of the campaign. I have already made a deal with the UN however due to some rumours of spies in our midst, i will post this info at a time closer to the Thursday deadline, so that any info gained will be uselss to our enemies.

The government are seriously threatening G at the moment steps are bieng taken to secure it for us, which needs to be done as soon as possible, G cannot fall into enemy hands and we canot afford to send troops on search and destroy missions south of G at this point in time, it is just too risky, after the next turn there will be more even planning an discussion amongst the team, sorry you got here to late to have an effect on the first turn planning stages that the rest of the team has worked on.

In the next planning phase i think we need to keep up the momentum if we can and also send out small recon groups to get a more accurate assesment of the situation, we canot afford to have large deployments moving into areas that we now little of the enemies strength. More detailed plans will take form when we know the situation next turn.

I look forward to a bigger team input in the next phase keep up the good work an eclectic set of ideas will be very helpfull.

PS. Aristide for now could you please sign of in the diplomatic area as propaganda minister or something like that, i like your work there but i don't want the UN to withdraw from our plans becasue they think there is a leadership crisis/doublecross going on, apart from that keep up the good work maybe we should airdrop rum to the gov forces before we do battle! :drink: :kotz: :hurt:

[raupenschlepper]

I agree completely with going from M to N and wiping out gov. forces there. However, I do not support C reinforcing M. Instead, I would try to take A and move with the rest to F. This move would threaten both G and later on J through I.

Instead, after taking N I would continue the drive to O. This would take us to T quicker and easier.

I'm OK with moving the armour to F if we're going to take out J before moving south of the river. However, we need to know more about the disposition of the pro-govs - if they're up there, fine; if they're mostly south of the river, as has been suggested, I reckon we can leave it alone, especially if Temujin can cut a deal with the UN. It will still be 2-1 in our favour when it comes to reinforcements, unless the UN have left the capital & airport lightly defended (unlikely I think).

Temujin, the bridgehead is vital imho. My thought is that, after A & G, it should be our next objective, to stop pro-gov reinforcements. Having said that, I'm arguing against myself, because it means fighting in open country with forces that are better suited to woods. Needs further discussion after the opening move.

[Temujin]

I'm OK with moving the armour to F if we're going to take out J before moving south of the river. However, we need to know more about the disposition of the pro-govs - if they're up there, fine; if they're mostly south of the river, as has been suggested, I reckon we can leave it alone, especially if Temujin can cut a deal with the UN. It will still be 2-1 in our favour when it comes to reinforcements, unless the UN have left the capital & airport lightly defended (unlikely I think).

Temujin, the bridgehead is vital imho. My thought is that, after A & G, it should be our next objective, to stop pro-gov reinforcements. Having said that, I'm arguing against myself, because it means fighting in open country with forces that are better suited to woods. Needs further discussion after the opening move.

Yep after the opening move the two priorities other than defending G is the river crossing and clearing any forces north of the river. theres no point in holding the bridge if we dont control G we will be isolated and destroyed there. once we have the north I think we will see a migration of the government forces to the south and we will push after them then. Remember they already occuppy O so they have access to G plus they have another zone somewhere between G and J.

One good thing about your post in the diplomatic forum, apart from the quality of the penmanship, is that ive been able to spread some disinformation that you have convinced aef027 (our commander an ex marine major and staff officer :D ) to attack the gov units in the first round. this will make them scared and coutious i think/hope.

[raupenschlepper]

Yep after the opening move the two priorities other than defending G is the river crossing and clearing any forces north of the river. theres no point in holding the bridge if we dont control G we will be isolated and destroyed there.

One good thing about your post in the diplomatic forum, apart from the quality of the penmanship, is that ive been able to spread some disinformation that you have convinced aef027 (our commander an ex marine major and staff officer :D ) to attack the gov units in the first round. this will make them scared and coutious i think/hope.

Agreed, we need to control G first.

Flattery will get you everywhere!

[Katusa]

Does it mean we attack the UN there now?