View Full Version : Obsidian vs. Goliath
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7194/t1my9.jpg
This is the situation following my turn #1:
I had fun bashing him with my artillery for the first 40% of my turn, suffering minimal loses.
I then opened up with my Canadians, who served their Queen well, capturing Saltara and nearing S. Angelo.
The British 128th Brigade, competing for my attention, quickly occupied Fossombrone and raced upwards capturing Petriano.
The rest of the 8th Army was sitting back enjoying tea and crumpets, between throwing the occasional chicken at the enemy via catapults.
My plan is to send the First and Fifth Canadian divisions and the British Forty-sixth up the middle to cross at Montecchio. With Montecchio taking, they will advance north to the coast, cutting off any Germans in the Fogglia area.
Meanwhile, the Fourth Indian Division will go up the left to cross at Montecalvo. Once they have achieved their crossing they will stay west advancing through San Marino eventually coming at Rimini from the west.
Further divisions will be added to the brilliant plan as they arrive. :salute:
Having those two weak AGRA HQs sitting alone on river hexes at the end of the turn might prove a liability. Granted, they'll benefit from a massive artillery support, but if severely beaten, you run the risk of finding your key artillery formations in reorg at the beginning of next turn.
The chicken-throwing thing has a definite Monty Python-like appeal to it :D
Having those two weak AGRA HQs sitting alone on river hexes at the end of the turn might prove a liability. Granted, they'll benefit from a massive artillery support, but if severely beaten, you run the risk of finding your key artillery formations in reorg at the beginning of next turn.
The chicken-throwing thing has a definite Monty Python-like appeal to it :D
The arty is in tac res, so it shouldn't matter if the HQs get beaten. As well, I figure that the German player will pay a massive price from the arty support, so the HQs should be fine. :nervous:
.....at least that's what Wyatt told me.... :laugh:
Dun dun dun, love Monty.
They have no command groups attached, so it doesn't have much effect if the germans attacks them. Besides that the germans would anyway cause a Retreat before Combat (RBC) and thus expose their own units.
They have no command groups attached, so it doesn't have much effect wether the germans attacks them. Besides that the germans would anyway cause a Retreat before Combat (RBC) and thus expose their own units.
And there you have it!! :D
And there you have it!! :D
Though it's a bit gamey i think. Forward observers don't take the entire HQ with them.
Or it could be regarded as a display of confidence and trust in their gunners ability from the respective AGRA commanders..:clown:
Though it's a bit gamey i think. Forward observers don't take the entire HQ with them.
Or it could be regarded as a display of confidence and trust in their gunners ability from the respective AGRA commanders..:clown:
Gamey in what way?
The idea was that since neither Frances, nor I, had taken a good look at the scenario neither of us knew what the German line looked like. I encouraged her to push the HQs out ahead as scouts. Wit the lack of 'recon squads' to asses the German positions with, sedning out a whole Battalion or company to run into the enemy line to discover where it is seems, to me, unrealistic, as I would expect the starting positions of the Germans would be well known (or at least their layout in as clear as it is to know that the Germans are in a hex) to the Allies before they started Op Olive. Eh? :D
I often use my HQs as recon parties that are much smaller than the standard unit, in game, so that I am not 'wasting' whole units on recon dutiees that would have been carried out by only a few men. I, certainly, welcome comments/discussion on that thought, as always. :D
Another way to look at it would be that you cannot just send forward the forward observes, you have to send forward the whole HQ.
Gamey in what way?
The idea was that since neither Frances, nor I, had taken a good look at the scenario neither of us knew what the German line looked like. I encouraged her to push the HQs out ahead as scouts. Wit the lack of 'recon squads' to asses the German positions with, sedning out a whole Battalion or company to run into the enemy line to discover where it is seems, to me, unrealistic, as I would expect the starting positions of the Germans would be well known (or at least their layout in as clear as it is to know that the Germans are in a hex) to the Allies before they started Op Olive. Eh? :D
Gamey may not be the right word. It just feels wrong and has very little to do with reality except that recon platoons or forward observer might be directly attached to a Hq. You can always split up a combat unit and send sub-units to recon the front or certain areas.
I often use my HQs as recon parties that are much smaller than the standard unit, in game, so that I am not 'wasting' whole units on recon dutiees that would have been carried out by only a few men. I, certainly, welcome comments/discussion on that thought, as always. :D
HQs are small, but they are HQs. Losing them usually means formation reorg and drops formation prof. down to 40% (? something around this or maybe half the original prof.) - quite a high price for some tactical reconaissance. Apart from the missing relation with reality.
As stated above you need not 'waste' whole units - you can always split up.
Another way to look at it would be that you cannot just send forward the forward observes, you have to send forward the whole HQ.
Sure. Shortcomings of the engine or the design vs. a Forward Observers Ant Army.
Everyone al gusto. I won't do it. If you do it - can't do anything about it.:nuts:
Now let's not hijack Frances' thread - let's lean back and watch her brutality unfold..:clown:
EDIT: Patrols recon the enemy front and/or unobserved areas, no mans land etc. Forward observers sit in a relatively safe position and adjust firing coordinates, observe efficiency etc. I'm no expert on this but i doubt that forward observers might get that amount of information about enemy dispositions as patrols. Sending out a sub unit as a patrol or recon could anyway be called excessive/massive patrolling.
Maybe read some more about FOs and artillery procedures here (great site, very detailed, accurate, technical, probably the most informative site about WWII artillery): http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/directory.htm
Maybe read some more about FOs and artillery procedures here (great site, very detailed, accurate, technical, probably the most informative site about WWII artillery): http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/directory.htm (http://members.tripod.com/%7Enigelef/directory.htm)
Viele Danke for the link Stefan - it's a site I'd lost track of years ago (I remember seeing it mentioned over at TDG) without being able to get my hands on it ever since. There it goes in del.icio.us :smoke:
Avec plaisir, i discovered it recently during a web search session for Anzio. It's great.
Heldenkaiser
18 Oct 07, 06:47
I think Stefan is right ... also, I seem to remember there are plenty of recon units with the British forces in this scenario. I believe had soooo many I hardly knew what to do with them. :surprise:
I think Stefan is right ... also, I seem to remember there are plenty of recon units with the British forces in this scenario. I believe had soooo many I hardly knew what to do with them. :surprise:
All that is avail off the bat are mucho artillery, three brigades of infantry, and four HQs.
Heldenkaiser
18 Oct 07, 17:13
Right. I believe the recon was with the units that release on turn 2.
I was surprised anyway to see how far Obsidian had advanced in turn 1. I ran smack into German lines on the forward edge of the hill country that were impossible to penetrate and couldn't get before turn 3 to where she already ended up after turn 1. It doesn't quite look like the same scenario ... :surprise:
Right. I believe the recon was with the units that release on turn 2.
I was surprised anyway to see how far Obsidian had advanced in turn 1. I ran smack into German lines on the forward edge of the hill country that were impossible to penetrate and couldn't get before turn 3 to where she already ended up after turn 1. It doesn't quite look like the same scenario ... :surprise:
I secretly modifued the scenario, dropping all the German units' proficiencies. :devious:
I secretly modifued the scenario, dropping all the German units' proficiencies. :devious:
There you go. Cherchez la femme! :D
There you go. Cherchez la femme! :D
I'll take that as a compliment. :p
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2913/t2gb1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
My second turn against Goliath I think is going rather well.
My western thrust is meeting resistance and isn't moving as fast as I would like it, but it is progressing through mountains and such so I guess I'll forgive them.
My central two thrusts are doing quite well. As you can see I have managed to surround a regiment of something or others and some other grey guys containing some of his armoured units. Though my Northern most Canadian unit is the weakest link and he will probably break through there.
My eastern coastal thrust has been perried and is now attempting to go around Fano and will then crush it! :devious:
I have put all my artillery on tactical reserve so that they will support all my random attacks as well as I left my aircraft on interdiction. Mostly because I have no clue how to use them, but I won't tell you that.
Over and out Gentlemen! :salute:
Heldenkaiser
20 Oct 07, 10:35
I have put all my artillery on tactical reserve so that they will support all my random attacks as well as I left my aircraft on interdiction. Mostly because I have no clue how to use them, but I won't tell you that.
I usually leave my fighters on air superiority most of the time. Bombers (light and heavy) go on combat support during my turn, and revert to interdiction before my last combat round. (Because I don't actually know what will be the least round before it is over, I adjust for probabilities, i.e. in each combat round some more air units go from combat support to interdiction, to allow for the increasingly higher chance that the turn will end. You don't want no interdiction to happen at all during your opponent's turn.)
BTW I always thought that this is a major problem with TOAW's air combat model. Since I don't need no interdiction during my own turn, as the enemy doesn't move, I can shamelessly put all my bombers on combat support. I think it might be better if the air power settings were done at the start of a turn for the entire turn (both sides). That way, one really had to give the split between combat support and interdiction some thought ... :surprise:
murphstein
20 Oct 07, 12:53
... I think it might be better if the air power settings were done at the start of a turn for the entire turn (both sides). That way, one really had to give the split between combat support and interdiction some thought ... :surprise:
I agree; it would be better (particularly where air power is asymmetrical) to not allow the stronger side to have its cake and eat it, too (interdiction or combat support, but not both). Historically, I believe the communications networks in WWII just couldn't react fast enough; you had planes on standby for CS, and planes roaming sectors on I, without "fast" reassignment from one to another.
Which opens the question of "turn-long" assignment vs "one-shot" missions: CS or I on one hand, bridge or airfield attacks on the other.
And finally, when air units finish reorganizing or are taken off a "one-shot" mission, it would be nice if they came back with their previous orders.
I agree; it would be better (particularly where air power is asymmetrical) to not allow the stronger side to have its cake and eat it, too (interdiction or combat support, but not both). Historically, I believe the communications networks in WWII just couldn't react fast enough; you had planes on standby for CS, and planes roaming sectors on I, without "fast" reassignment from one to another.
Which opens the question of "turn-long" assignment vs "one-shot" missions: CS or I on one hand, bridge or airfield attacks on the other.
And finally, when air units finish reorganizing or are taken off a "one-shot" mission, it would be nice if they came back with their previous orders.
The only problem here is when you get into the longer turns you could be assigning a unit to interdiction for a whole week, when, historically this unit could have had a different mission each of those days (or at least more than one mission all week).
BTW I always thought that this is a major problem with TOAW's air combat model. Since I don't need no interdiction during my own turn, as the enemy doesn't move, I can shamelessly put all my bombers on combat support. I think it might be better if the air power settings were done at the start of a turn for the entire turn (both sides). That way, one really had to give the split between combat support and interdiction some thought ... :surprise:
Very nice idea. Maybe you want to post it in the unofficial wishlist thread here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287
The only problem here is when you get into the longer turns you could be assigning a unit to interdiction for a whole week, when, historically this unit could have had a different mission each of those days (or at least more than one mission all week).
Indeed - then the current system seems to model it better.
A workaround could be 1 day = 1 mission, so that in a half week scenario three (and a half err..) switches between different missions are allowed. But what about 6 hours and 12 hours turns? (i think i will add this as a house rule to Anzio, one mission per unit and turn)
Historically, I believe the communications networks in WWII just couldn't react fast enough; you had planes on standby for CS, and planes roaming sectors on I, without "fast" reassignment from one to another.
TOAW also models post WWII combat - what about modern scenarios? Considering Wyatt's statement about higher turn scales and the raised 'modern scenarios' issue i think it would be best to have some kind of value ("air mission variable" (missions/per turn)) that could be set in the editor. Or make it dependent on time scale and electronic support and/or force communiation. I'd prefer the first.
A bit confusing post, but thoughts and ideas evolved while typing...
Very nice idea. Maybe you want to post it in the unofficial wishlist thread here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1540287
Indeed - then the current system seems to model it better.
A workaround could be 1 day = 1 mission, so that in a half week scenario three (and a half err..) switches between different missions are allowed. But what about 6 hours and 12 hours turns? (i think i will add this as a house rule to Anzio, one mission per unit and turn)
TOAW also models post WWII combat - what about modern scenarios? Considering Wyatt's statement about higher turn scales and the raised 'modern scenarios' issue i think it would be best to have some kind of value ("air mission variable" (missions/per turn)) that could be set in the editor. Or make it dependent on time scale and electronic support and/or force communiation. I'd prefer the first.
A bit confusing post, but thoughts and ideas evolved while typing...
I like your air missions/turn variable idea.
Heldenkaiser
21 Oct 07, 07:23
Making it variable to adjust for time scale would obviously be best. But more complicated.
Keeping it simple (one rule covers all) I think there are a lot more situations where being able to change missions only once a turn seems more appropriate, history- and time-scale-wise, than being able to change them every combat round.
But, it's not a major problem anyway. Just something that occurred to me while talking about air unit mission assignments. :)
:http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1363/francest3ye5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
For some reason, I'm not entirely sure why, I only managed to receive two rounds before my turn cut me off from my world domination trip.
I managed to resurround some of his units, as well as partially surround some other units. I also managed to capture Fano. But as you can see, I didn't put any of my units on ignore losses, so I'm sure that they'll be pushovers. Oh well, better luck next time I suppose. I guess thats what happens when you're too tired to actually pay attention to your surroundings, but I'm sure that Goliath doesn't mind. :p
Over and out Gentlemen!
:hurray::salute:
murphstein
28 Oct 07, 12:10
As I understand it, something we newbies forget is that the "cost" for a given attack the sum of 3 things:
1) MPs expended before the attack (time spent getting in position)
2) effort expended during the attack (time spent actually fighting)
3) MPs expended after the attack (time spent moving into the hex)
When you're attacking in rough terrain, each of these "costs" goes up, and the last one isn't easily determined in advance and is something I often overlook.
I believe that if any of your attacking units moves into the hex after combat, burning the the rest of its MPs in the process, your turn ends right there.
Can one of the experts confirm?
As I understand it, something we newbies forget is that the "cost" for a given attack the sum of 3 things:
1) MPs expended before the attack (time spent getting in position)
This matters. However, as I have taught her to be careful of the 'stars', this, she says, is not what messed her up.
2) effort expended during the attack (time spent actually fighting)
This looks to be what messed her up. I failed to properly edjucate (or she forgot) her regarding atacking pure armoured units, and she had that Polish Armoured Battalion attack that fortified German Stugg battalion. This, I surmise it what ate up her turn.
3) MPs expended after the attack (time spent moving into the hex)
When you're attacking in rough terrain, each of these "costs" goes up, and the last one isn't easily determined in advance and is something I often overlook.
I believe that if any of your attacking units moves into the hex after combat, burning the the rest of its MPs in the process, your turn ends right there.
Can one of the experts confirm?
Seaking of newbie mistakes, :laugh: this is one.The cost of MPs used to enter a hex after (during) the combat does not, I repeat does not, have anything to do with how much of your turn is 'burned'. So, feel free to attack without having to worry about this last thing, however, as you stated, the first two certainly apply.
Heldenkaiser
30 Oct 07, 09:34
For some reason, I'm not entirely sure why, I only managed to receive two rounds before my turn cut me off from my world domination trip.
Actually two rounds is not too bad ... unless in games where there are no hard enemy targets or when benefiting from a large shock bonus, three combat rounds is beginning to seem normal to me, more is a wonderful surprise, one less is not half bad.
To guard against an early turn end, I usually start making preparations from the first turn. Any unit that is down to 1 MP after moving DIGS. Any unit that is very likely not to move further, even though it has more than 1 MP left, DIGS. A unit that is supposed to hold a line goes to IL and DIGS. In a deep penetration in every hex that I have to hold at the end of the turn to prevent my spearheads from being cut off at least one unit DIGS. In each hex from which I am attacking with some units, if it has to be held, at least one other unit DIGS. (Digging in is really important to me. :D)
The more the turn advances, the more units have to behave as if the turn would end after the next round. Sort of adjusting for the chance. It would be foolish to forego further offensive action with most units to prepare for a turn end with say 80% left, but equally it would be foolish to gamble for more action with only 30% left. Over 50%, I may keep a good deal of units in tactical reserve near the frontlines to exploit. Under 50%, only those that absolutely have a positive task to perform in the remaining time are left mobile or on "T". If the turns ends btw I prefer them on "T" rather than mobile, so they will at least help defend their vicinity rather than just sit there.
Just occurred to me because I see the bulk of your units on ML and mobile in the screenshot. :)
I also notice you have yellow and even red stacks near the frontlines. Any competent opponent will reduce those to mincemeat with a few artillery rounds triggered by supporting a LA/ML attack within a couple of combat rounds. I try to avoid them. Bright green is about OK, beyond that the benefits in my opinion no longer outweigh the penalty in combat.
Just my tuppence. :shy:
Heldenkaiser
30 Oct 07, 09:39
that fortified German Stugg battalion
Yikes. AG's are the absolutely killer. Never attack them if you care for how long the attack lasts. They seem even worse than AC's.
Something Stefan (Telumar) does, I find to my peril, is putting them on tactical reserve behind the frontline. You think you are attacking a weak orange infantry battalion and the combat won't last long, and OOOPS, suddenly when you already thinks it's over, this dark green assault gun enters the battlefield from behind and the combat goes on ... and on ... and on ... and you see your turn burnt for rounds and rounds and rounds with a awkward feeling of complete helplessness. :nervous:
Here's Johnny! I mean turn four. I managed to surround some guys, and mucked up some other guys. Progress is good. My men are now enjoying some quality time with each other, sipping tea and having crumpets. Honestly it reminded me of an amoeba engulfing its prey.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.