The MG is in the default position - he didn't do it, so he's simply lying about using any kind of thought process of how that MG got there. The scenario designer put it there, not him.
You're right, the LMG is placed there by the scenario designer.
Michael Dorosh said:
The scenario is Fredrocker's "Hold Until Relieved".
I believe it features elements of three (count 'em) German companies both holding a bridgehead and attacking attacking elements of five or six American companies. Over two bisecting canals. With two assault guns for support. In two different directions.
I don't generally complain about playing unbalanced scenarios, because I play for fun. Beating long odds is part of the challenge. Even if one accepts this as balanced (manpower ratios were close - 403 vs 423), I think it is beside the main point.
When I accept games for fun, I don't expect them to be subjected to public AARs after the fact. This one was to see what some of the units could do and make some noise. Wasn't intended to be a tactics clinic.
An excellent scenario I must say. On a headcount basis, however, the force ratio looks to me more like 1:1 (6 Parachute Platoons + 1 Eng Platoons, at start, 4 Parachute Platoons and 1 Eng Platoon as reinforcement vs. 1 full Grenadier Battalion, with 9 Rifle Platoons).
Besides that I see the Germans have much more quality, many of their platoons are Crack with Extreme motivation. Those are truly oberste pixeltruppen, to say the least, Mike. The paras would have a very tough time to overcome those die hard bastards.
Regarding the initial dispositions for both sides, hahaha, Fred is a devious and evil scenario designer. The word that best describes the situation is "utter chaos". I also see both sides to have substantial fortifications (the Germans have three MG bunkers, 2 TRP's, wire and fox holes). No idea what was your plan like, but having your forces to regroup - and baiting the US troops to attack - probably would have meant a good victory to you. Last, but not least, I see the VL to have been carefully designed so that if neither side decided to go on a full out assault on the other side, it would end as a draw.
A extremely interesting scenario, which can certainly be played out in many different ways.
Michael Dorosh said:
You see now why dalem, myself and others treat Elvis with hostility. He makes forums he belongs to unpleasant places to be.
I think Elvis has answered to your Black Friday thread in kind
You accused him of being a "poor player" and he now shoots back at you. You're right there's here some degree of manipulation or astroturfing - by both sides. I didn't like you used my observations on Elvis strategy on our DAR'ed game as proof to back your argument. I didn't like it because it was misconstruing - or could be perceived so - the reasons that lead me to make those observations. I had promised to Nutter that I'd take a critical look at Elvis' DAR. That certainly enriched the experience, as I pointed in my answer to your thread.
However I doubt this was part of some deliberate scheme to make you look bad, I don't think of Elvis as some sort of "evil mastermind" in the same league as Ming or Dr. Fu Manchu. If anything this is a bit of your own doing, by putting on the table player abilities as a valid topic for discussion in a most ungentlemanly way (in my opinion).
If this is going to become a weird session of live action tactical meta-wargaming, I can offer to you some advice. Muster your reserves and counterattack! If anything, we'll get to some discussion about what works and what doesn't on CM:BN, won't we? I'll turn a blind eye to the personal attacks
Michael Dorosh said:
The spin on the "pile of bodies" is also amusing, but again, as I stated earlier in the thread, you're going to see things that Elvis wants you to see - not necessarily what happened in the game.
Now, what's your side in this story? I'm sincerely interested in hearing about that. I'm not asking for a professional write-up, more about a quick sketch of how the action developed and which were your perceptions. I would be thankful for that. Really.