Scenario 12, ASL Scenario P The Road to Wiltz: compare and contrast, thoughts, AARs

[Actionjick]

Started as a post in the What Have You Bought thread where atago44 said he got The General, vol. 26, no. 1 for Scenario P. Scenario 12 was a favorite bitd so I took an interest in his post and we started a conversation about the original and the updated versions. Not wanting to hijack the thread but wishing to continue the discussion I decided to start this thread. Normally I would have just continued in the Shanghaid thread but I felt this old classic deserved it's own.

My initial thought was disappointment that P only had two boards. Part of the uniqueness of 12 was that long road. Attago44 mentioned that on Roar that P was very pro-American with 35 wins and 18 losses. Frankly this amazed me as the Germans have plenty of time and assets.

Attago44 pointed out the Ground Snow as a factor which is certainly a good point. It just doesn't seem as if should be that bad especially with the reduction in the distance to be covered.

I have to check out some of the other differences between the two. I'm especially curious about the counter limitation SSR in P and how it pertains to Concealment.

I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments concerning this oldie but goodie. Thanks!!

 

[buser333]

Started as a post in the What Have You Bought thread where atago44 said he got The General, vol. 26, no. 1 for Scenario P. Scenario 12 was a favorite bitd so I took an interest in his post and we started a conversation about the original and the updated versions. Not wanting to hijack the thread but wishing to continue the discussion I decided to start this thread. Normally I would have just continued in the Shanghaid thread but I felt this old classic deserved it's own.

My initial thought was disappointment that P only had two boards. Part of the uniqueness of 12 was that long road. Attago44 mentioned that on Roar that P was very pro-American with 35 wins and 18 losses. Frankly this amazed me as the Germans have plenty of time and assets.

Attago44 pointed out the Ground Snow as a factor which is certainly a good point. It just doesn't seem as if should be that bad especially with the reduction in the distance to be covered.

I have to check out some of the other differences between the two. I'm especially curious about the counter limitation SSR in P and how it pertains to Concealment.

I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments concerning this oldie but goodie. Thanks!!

I just got done playing this not too long ago. I too am very surprised at the imbalance in favor of the Americans. As you say, the Germans do have a lot of time to get things done. The Board 2 setup limitation for the Americans is a big drawback. And, while snow will make going up into the hills more difficult, all the roads are plowed and treated like normal roads for movement. This is probably the biggest advantage the Germans have, especially since the Americans just have the one roadblock. It didn't help that my opponent was able to find it and clear it within a turn. His muscle knocked me off the hill, and his numbers simply overwhelmed me. It was still fun to play.

 

[Actionjick]

I just got done playing this not too long ago. I too am very surprised at the imbalance in favor of the Americans. As you say, the Germans do have a lot of time to get things done. The Board 2 setup limitation for the Americans is a big drawback. And, while snow will make going up into the hills more difficult, all the roads are plowed and treated like normal roads for movement. This is probably the biggest advantage the Germans have, especially since the Americans just have the one roadblock. It didn't help that my opponent was able to find it and clear it within a turn. His muscle knocked me off the hill, and his numbers simply overwhelmed me. It was still fun to play.

Thanks for the input! Greatly appreciated. In 12 by SSR the 8-4-7s could build roadblocks which certainly seems would help the Americans. Damn I missed those 8-4-7s.

How did you find P's SSR about Concealment and American setup limits?

 

[buser333]

Thanks for the input! Greatly appreciated. In 12 by SSR the 8-4-7s could build roadblocks which certainly seems would help the Americans. Damn I missed those 8-4-7s.

How did you find P's SSR about Concealment and American setup limits?

I remember it being confusing and my opponent and I talked it over at length, as well as sought input from other players. It was a mixed bag response, with most people feeling quite strongly one way or the other. In the end we decided that HIP counters did not count, since they were not setup onboard. Whether or not this was the intent I don't know. Concealment counters and Fortifications (other than mines) very explicitly counted, so I was not able to conceal any of my infantry. As it was I pushed my setup limit to the hilt and still found myself wanting many more Americans on Board 2.

 

[The Purist]

I want to play this scenario soooo badly. I haven't played since the 80s and never had the opportunity to try the ASL version.

 

[Actionjick]

I want to play this scenario soooo badly. I haven't played since the 80s and never had the opportunity to try the ASL version.

What is your interpretation of the American setup limits and Concealment?

Briefly considering it I would say placing Concealment on units out of LOS would count against the American. As would HIP units although that's an interesting question. Guess I'll have to check the rules.

Hope you get a chance to play it. What side would you choose? Be sure to post when you do get a chance to play.

 

[STAVKA]

Played it a 6 times, my balance note tucked into the scenario plastic holder reads:
Balance POW worth no EVP, delete one Game Turn (14 decreased to 13 Turns).

As Germans be reckless and be prepared to die for the fatherland, consider your troops have been given double doses of amfetamin [EXC: trippel dose for the 10-3 Ldr], play accordingly.

 

[Actionjick]

Played it a 6 times, my balance note tucked into the scenario plastic holder reads:
Balance POW worth no EVP, delete one Game Turn (14 decreased to 13 Turns).

As Germans be reckless and be prepared to die for the fatherland, consider your troops have been given double doses of amfetamin [EXC: trippel dose for the 10-3 Ldr], play accordingly.

Lol Sir! Very sound advice. If you played it six times can it be safely assumed that you enjoyed playing this classic?

 

[Actionjick]

I remember it being confusing and my opponent and I talked it over at length, as well as sought input from other players. It was a mixed bag response, with most people feeling quite strongly one way or the other. In the end we decided that HIP counters did not count, since they were not setup onboard. Whether or not this was the intent I don't know. Concealment counters and Fortifications (other than mines) very explicitly counted, so I was not able to conceal any of my infantry. As it was I pushed my setup limit to the hilt and still found myself wanting many more Americans on Board 2.

I have to disagree with you on the interpretation of HIP units not counting against counter limits. HIP is just considered another form of Concealment so even though they are not placed on the board I believe they are considered to be there. Would you agree that they are considered there for stacking limits? Quite interested to hear other viewpoints about this especially as it isn't a very common setup restriction. At least as far as I recall.

 

[buser333]

I have to disagree with you on the interpretation of HIP units not counting against counter limits. HIP is just considered another form of Concealment so even though they are not placed on the board I believe they are considered to be there. Would you agree that they are considered there for stacking limits? Quite interested to hear other viewpoints about this especially as it isn't a very common setup restriction. At least as far as I recall.

I believe I was leaning this way myself as, IIRC, HIP is just as you say - notating units that are on the map on a side record.
My opponent felt pretty confident the other way though so I deferred to him. Of course it didn't hurt that it was to my benefit. Not that it helped any...

 

[STAVKA]

Lol Sir! Very sound advice. If you played it six times can it be safely assumed that you enjoyed playing this classic?

Lack of good scenarios during the first 20 years without third part scenarios around.

When you found gold you started diggin.

 

[The Purist]

What is your interpretation of the American setup limits and Concealment?

Briefly considering it I would say placing Concealment on units out of LOS would count against the American. As would HIP units although that's an interesting question. Guess I'll have to check the rules.

Hope you get a chance to play it. What side would you choose? Be sure to post when you do get a chance to play.

Posted this in error on the purchases thread:



I'm not surprised the Brummbars are missing. Sturmpz Bn 217 only entered the Ardennes on 21 Dec and then it was far to the north behind 6th Pz Army. The Volkgrenadiers are fine as they come from 26th VG Div, a good quality but rebuilt division from the eastern front that absorbed a lot of inexperienced troops. Not sure about JgPz IVs but the 26th may have had them, they certainly had Hetzer's in KG Kunkel

I'm also surprised at the reduction to just two boards but not having played it's hard to say. The Germans need to cover 66 hexes to exit, so,..... At the same time the German infantry looks expendable and they have a trainload of PFs - 35 EVP may not be that hard if the German goes for broke.

Not sure why 21 AP mines factors when they need to be deployed in groups of 6, 8 or 12, unless it is expected that some/all will be exchanged for AT mines).

I would count HIP'ster as units on board 2.

I'd play both sides once at a minimum.

Edit: Because the terrain is 'backwards' and with more research available there is gris here for a redesign of the scenario,... maybe from the ground up. Go for the same feel but 'update' the terrain and OoBs to reflect a better grasp of what was present.

 

[Actionjick]

Posted this in error on the purchases thread:



I'm not surprised the Brummbars are missing. Sturmpz Bn 217 only entered the Ardennes on 21 Dec and then it was far to the north behind 6th Pz Army. The Volkgrenadiers are fine as they come from 26th VG Div, a good quality but rebuilt division from the eastern front that absorbed a lot of inexperienced troops. Not sure about JgPz IVs but the 26th may have had them, they certainly had Hetzer's in KG Kunkel

I'm also surprised at the reduction to just two boards but not having played it's hard to say. The Germans need to cover 66 hexes to exit, so,..... At the same time the German infantry looks expendable and they have a trainload of PFs - 35 EVP may not be that hard if the German goes for broke.

Not sure why 21 AP mines factors when they need to be deployed in groups of 6, 8 or 12, unless it is expected that some/all will be exchanged for AT mines).

I would count HIP'ster as units on board 2.

I'd play both sides once at a minimum.

Edit: Because the terrain is 'backwards' and with more research available there is gris here for a redesign of the scenario,... maybe from the ground up. Go for the same feel but 'update' the terrain and OoBs to reflect a better grasp of what was present.

Let us know when you are finished redoing it! I'd be interested in seeing your take on it.

 

[The Purist]

That's a bit of a problem as the actual historical situation did not see Pz Lehr actually close on the town. A short probe was carried out late on the 18th before it was recalled and the panzers proceeded west (already two days behind schedule). The fighting for Wiltz was conducted by what turned out to be an impromptu pincer move by part of 26th VG div (left hand of 5th Pz Army) and 5th FJ Div (right hand of 7th Army).

It was almost an accidental battle along the boundary between the two German armies.

Still,....

 

[Actionjick]

Did a quick search through my notebooks but couldn't find where we played Scenario P. I did find some notes from wbitd where we were converting Scenario 12 to G.I. From a brief reading it appears that I was having trouble as the Germans. I noted that I really needed to pick up the pace.

 

[The Purist]

Dear Mr Jick,

I dug into various sources to confirm more details on the German troops that attacked (or rather didn't attack) the northern approaches to Wiltz. The battle for Wiltz was somewhat confused but what is known is the the attack from the north didn't turn out to be much of an event. The fall of Wiltz was actually precipitated by attacks on the 19th of December by the 5th FJ div belonging to the German 7th Army. The events that took place north of the town on the afternoon of the 18th were a small prelude to the main fighting on the 19th.

So what did happen?

On the morning of the 18th of December, after being delayed for more than two days in crossing the Clerf River, the Panzer Lehr division finally got moving west towards Bastogne via the bridge at Drauffelt about 5 miles south of Clervaux. The 902nd Pz Gren Regiment led and headed west to Eschweiler and beyond while parts Panzer Lehr's reconnaissance battalion supported by a few AGs turned south towards Wiltz that afternoon. They drove back the engineers to the bridge over the Wiltz River at Weidingen, just north of lower Wiltz and it appeared they would break into the town. Suddenly the pressure ceased as the Panzer Lehr troops were recalled to join the advance on Bastogne. Two Sherman tanks were lost in fighting with the remaining four breaking down or running out of gas. These were towed into position to cover the bridge and would fight on until their ammunition was exhausted. Late on the 18th the lead troops from 26th VG Div that had arrived north of Wiltz were there to screen the town, not continue the attack. When the 26th VG arrived in force on the 19th they didn't do much to press the attack once the Americans destroyed the bridge.

On the American side Wiltz was held by the conglomeration of units:

• the now depleted 44th Engineer Combat Battalion (it lost a company at Eschweiler a few miles north of Wiltz)
• a provisional battalion formed from the 28th Division's headquarter troops (cooks, clerks, bottle washers, MPs, drivers, etc.)
• the remains of the 3rd Battalion, 110th Infantry Regiment, 28th Div (200-250 men)
• six Sherman tanks and five Sherman 105 AGs from the 707th Tank Battalion that had supported the 110ths Infantry Regiment east of the Clerf (one company was still south of the battle with the 109th Inf Reg't, 28th Div and would survive the battle).
• The remains of the 28th Div's cavalry troop (company) with three M8 ACs and a few jeeps
• six towed 76L AT guns of the 630th TD Battalion (two would be lost on the 18th)
• 3 AA HT of the 447th AA Bn
• the remains of the 667th Artillery Battalion.

Wiltz was effectively isolated and no reinforcements were available nor were any retreat routes secured if withdrawal became necessary. The attack on Wiltz on the 19th that struck the upper town from the southeast came primarily from the 14th FJ Reg't supported by a few of the division's small issue of assault guns and some of the division's engineers (no, not 'assault engineers'). The gunners of the 667th Arty Bn, using direct fire, managed to knock out the German assault guns but in so doing exhausted their remaining ammunition and were forced to withdraw. With the roads swarming with Germans only three guns managed to make it back to American lines. As the Germans pressed the attack the defenders began to fall apart and by the afternoon the defenders began to retreat in three columns.

One by one each column ran into numerous roadblocks in the growing darkness that broke up what little unit cohesion remained. In the end the remnants of the garrison had to break up into groups and make their way back to US lines either at Bastogne or south towards the southern boundary of German penetration. Most of the surviving vehicles were lost but a few broke through by simply bulling their way passed the roadblocks in the confused night fighting.

It appears our wonderful little scenario is mainly imagination and not based on actual events.

 

[Eagle4ty]

One should remember that the scenario was initially designed as a Squad Leader one and that game system paid very marginal attention to Ammo-Shortage or Gas-Shortage and was very heavy on design for effect over historical accuracy. The intention was to offer a playable scenario and perhaps scant historical information was available at the time or to the designer. Indeed the same may be attributed to several of the early ASL scenarios where a general understanding of the engagement was represented but inaccurate or marginal attention was given to the actual type of units involved. For example "ROCKET'S RED GLARE", a great scenario in its own right, includes a FlaKPz IV which certainly wasn't there as all reviews of the engagement clearly make note the type of FlaK vehicles employed in the fight were FlaK-wagons (halftracks). I can somewhat attest to that as one of my best friends father, Bill "Knobby" Walsh was leading Co G 3/504 PIR in that attack and would be awarded the DSC for his actions during the fight. When the scenario came out I had asked him if the scenario was relatively correct and he had said they never encountered or saw anything but FlaK-wagons. Also LTC Julian Cook, Cdr 3/504, in All American, All The Way states there were halftrack AA platforms at Cheneux and a few tanks. It's quite probable given the dearth of actual information available at the time or perhaps because of using single source information the designers went with a best guess approach and design for effect.

 

[The Purist]

I have no doubts the 'original' Wiltz scenario was a best guess abstraction of the action. The original design may been based on a secondary source (not necessarily a bad thing) that over emphasized the nature of the fight or it may have simply been the designer's understanding of events and he filled in the blanks for game purposes. This might fall under the same umbrella as 'every tank was a Tiger' syndrome that many eye witness accounts noted. Only later, when archives began to open up in the 90s (+50 years after events) where we able to start comparing first hand accounts against unit records and the view from the other side were we to begin to set the record straight.

 

[Actionjick]

I have no doubts the 'original' Wiltz scenario was a best guess abstraction of the action. The original design may been based on a secondary source (not necessarily a bad thing) that over emphasized the nature of the fight or it may have simply been the designer's 'understanding of events and he fiklled in the blanks for game purposes. This might fall under the same umbrella as 'every tank was a Tiger' syndrome that many eye witness accounts noted. Only later, when archives began to open up in the 90s (+50 years after events) were we able to start comparing first hand accounts against unit records and the view from the other side were we to begin to set the record straight.

For all the playtesting we did I don't think historical accuracy was something we paid much attention to. I know for sure we never researched it. If I ever even gave it consideration probably would have decided that the designer knew more about it than I cared to know. Always cared more about flavor of the scenario. Was it fun to play?

 

[The Purist]

I'm of the opinion that proper research is necessary in order to ensure the action is properly represented by the scenario. You will definitely have to fudge a few items to balance the scenario (small unit actions are seldom even odds affairs) but if the history is not accurate then it's all make believe. Fiction.

In Scenario P, for example, if there was an attempt to represent the actual battle against the 5th FJ Div on the 19th of Dec there would be no armour or FTs on the US side (except perhaps a few HTs) but they would probably have a few more 666 and 546 2nd line units and maybe an M8 or M16 MGMC. On the German side the Jgpz IV/70s, Pz IVH, Pz IIIM, HTs, the 467s and 468s would be replaced by a host of 447s, a few sapper 548s and StuG IIIs who were intent on taking the town.

Or,... it could be done as a a night scenario where a mixed bag of US troops and vehicles need to exit # CVP off a map edge in the attempt to retreat the night of 19/20 Dec.