Axis Veteran 9/12/07

[Foggy]

Hello all:laugh: Nothing like a balanced scenario to start with;) Ready to rock and roll - email addys follow:

mattc at datacablenetworks dot com work
mattc2001 at verizon dot net personal
mattc2001 at aol dot com family

This scen can be won - but be careful - it's easy to be steamrolled by all that artillery:OHNO:

[Dicke Bertha]

Not knowing exactly where to post this, I think if at any place, best in the axis side of the battle.

Sorry for interrupting, but unless historically correct, should attacks vs the pitiful Luftwaffe (off-map based?) really be allowed?

For fun I ran some turns vs myself, as a responsible no-soak-off kind of Allied commander utilising his artillery assets freely, vs a German commander determined to do the Kesselring no-give-up-ground-for-free game, the Allies need no extra bonuses. It seems obvious to me that an Allied commander set on maximising rounds will pulverise the defenses. The main problem for the Allies is patience in setting up attacks so that the artillery can work its wonders. The main issue for the German commander is realising how apt the Allied commander is at the destroy-them-in-the-trenches-game. The Germans can easily be caught too far forward. Delay in-depth rather than in width, and hope for Allied traffic problems... In the mid game, a fresh German para battalion with a flak company can easily hold that extra turn astride the main road vs tired Brits, especially if German artillery in the reachable rear has some surviving companies to bolster their firing positions. Your rear is safe for the end game, if you can deny a broad British advance with his terrible artillery at the firing range. Go for assymetrics!

This piece of advice can be discarded, debated, as anyone wishes. Only reason to post is for that player who likes to think that plans and thinking should mean more than brute motoring. Nothing wrong with brute force though, if used responsibly...

[Dicke Bertha]

How many times in one day - the present scenario turn length - does it seem reasonable or realistic to attack any one location? Once or twice, once in the morning, once in the afternoon, and then maybe also a shock in the night? But five, seven or nine times??? It is my grief with the lack of Minimum-Rounds-per-battle feature - set by designer based on scenario scope.

Seven artillery rounds landing on defences - no issue - if only pounding by artillery, and if the game would be built along supply issues also affecting the attacker, i.e 1% meaning 1% of firing effect. It is not. When adding ground forces, the artillery assault - short in time - becomes a soak off of all avalailble units' supply. Defenders suffer a lot more than attackers.

It all becomes trite, and a strong attacker can always destroy a strong defender - if the latter refuses to think engine.

Old issues, hope for supply revision in development. Posting for fear that the workshop will spawn experts at engine. :laugh:

[General Staff]

Old issues, hope for supply revision in development. Posting for fear that the workshop will spawn experts at engine. :laugh:You need to understand engine mechanics. Or the other guy will and beat you.

My tactics of breaking units down into 3 and defending in depth are largely a response to this supply/casualty issue against small direct arty supported attacks. There's some historical support- look at German defenses on the Oder in 1945- forward pickets only which absorbed (or got totally crushed by) the massive Soviet opening bombardment which didn't do a lot of damage to the main German defenses further back.

The answer to these issues is changes to the engine, not the drivers who operate it. Every time the engine gets changed, the drivers will eventually learn how to use it to best advantage.

[Dicke Bertha]

You need to understand engine mechanics. Or the other guy will and beat you.

My tactics of breaking units down into 3 and defending in depth are largely a response to this supply/casualty issue against small direct arty supported attacks. There's some historical support- look at German defenses on the Oder in 1945- forward pickets only which absorbed (or got totally crushed by) the massive Soviet opening bombardment which didn't do a lot of damage to the main German defenses further back.

The answer to these issues is changes to the engine, not the drivers who operate it. Every time the engine gets changed, the drivers will eventually learn how to use it to best advantage.

I understand game mechanics, came close to fanatism, discarded much and chose to use some of it. Beating the other guy isn't the thrill - any more.

Haven't looked at your approach much, but it seems ok. As does the scenario, very nice one.

The enjoyment of the game comes as much through your oppoent as through yourself - maybe that is my point. Holding back in TOAW is unfortunately a requirement - or you lose any realism - maybe with the exception of very short scenarios, possibly such as this one. :smoke:

[General Staff]

I understand game mechanics, came close to fanaticism, discarded much and chose to use some of it. Beating the other guy isn't the thrill - any more.

Haven't looked at your approach much, but it seems ok. As does the scenario, very nice one.

The enjoyment of the game comes as much through your opponent as through yourself - maybe that is my point. Holding back in TOAW is unfortunately a requirement - or you lose any realism - maybe with the exception of very short scenarios, possibly such as this one. :smoke:I know you do, and beating the other guy doesn't work much for me now either. I've issues with the scenario but I'll keep them for later.

Holding back- if you mean a strategic reserve then we're talking monster scenarios and I haven't the time for these unfortunately.

[Dicke Bertha]

You've done a very fine work with this workshop (this one too!). So any input on the scenario as such will be very worthwhile looking forward to.

With holding back I simply mean not utilising all available enigine means to prevail.