A Taste of War Tournament

[Secret Agent]

Thats true, But Ivan is falling right into my trap :devious:

John Osborne

...Or so he is letting you think.... :devil:

(Man, I wish I had DA now! )

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Thats true, But Ivan is falling right into my trap :devious:

John Osborne

ahh, but I'm not the one with half his forces stuck on the other side of the river

plan, we don;t need no steenkin' plan - my plans been completely blown apart due to the obstacles on turn one comepletely ruining my carefully planned marching order.

plus assuming that "air cav" could actually move troops

 

[nilsderondeau]

I thought one of the Laws of War was "No plan survives contact with the enemy"? (Don't tell me you are above those laws! :devious: )

In the multinational peacekeeping world, we have amended this to "No plan survives contact with an ally"

 

[Dr Zaius]

plus assuming that "air cav" could actually move troops

There are different types of Air Cav units in service with the US Army. In past times the most common unit consisted of three troops of attack or scout aircraft and one troop of transport aircraft. These units are now largely a thing of the past due to the ARI (Aircraft Restructuring Initiative). What ARI did was basically make all aviation units into "pure" organizations. In other words no unit has more than one type of aircraft. An attack unit has only Apaches. An assault unit has only Blackhawks.

Personally, I was against ARI from the beginning and I still think it was a mistake. It was an attempt to simplify things for logistics planners and streamline the supply system, however, in my view it came at too high a cost. Most real missions require a variety of aircraft working closely together for the mission to be a success. This is still the case, only now the aircraft have to come from multiple units, thereby greatly increasing the planning and staff requirements. These crews need to train together on a regular basis to be effective and that isn't happening the way it used to.

In short, the old "Air Cav" days of flying light infantry into combat still exist, but these are now assault units. The 101st and the 82nd use their Blackhawks for this as does 2ID, but most of the rest of the Army now has gotten into the habit of using their Blackhawk assets as VIP transports for generals, command and control aircraft, and other nonsense. That's what happens when you put idiots from one branch in charge of another: they have no idea how to properly employ the asset, so they use it as a taxi service.

The true strength of cavalry units is that they are combined arms organizations. Thus a relatively low-level commander had multiple aircraft available to him (air cav) or the complete range of all weapons systems including aviation (armored cav). The 2nd ACR was gutted and is now only a shadow of its former glory. Many of the other Cav units no longer exist at all.

 

[Secret Agent]

ready to stumble blindly into minefields and other obstacles

Seems appropriate! :laugh: :hush:

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Seems appropriate! :laugh: :hush:

before you laugh my young friend, ask John how his 3rd BDE is going

Don: I'm not sure how similar our game (mine and John's) is to everyone else's but ours is becoming a meat grinder situation focusing on Myskina - the lack of bridges, plus the various attacks on the standing ones have led to basically both sides fighting over one Bridge.

and it's getting messy. :devil:

 

[Secret Agent]

before you laugh my young friend, ask John how his 3rd BDE is going

Well, I'm rooting for you! (And everyone else who fight Mr. Osborne! :devil: )

 

[Dr Zaius]

Considering that the bridges are key for both sides in order to advance where they are going, I had not anticipated that players would intentionally attempt to destroy them. It may block the enemy's advance, but it also blocks your own.

If the players choose to destroy all of the important bridges over these rivers, indeed that is going to make it difficult for either side to effectively manuever. A sticky situation. I suppose I could have included some assets for each side to build a bridge, thus providing another variable in the mix.

Are the units mostly fighting as brigades, or have individual battalions been detached for specific missions?

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Are the units mostly fighting as brigades, or have individual battalions been detached for specific missions?

without giving too much away, my maneuver BDEs move in BN format and come together when in position

 

[Dr Zaius]

In spite of the few minor issues we have encountered, are you finding the scenario and interesting one so far? Were you able to come up with a plan that makes sense?

 

[IntelGuy]

I had developed a plan that looked quite good but had to throw it away as soon as Gary had crossed the river before I was able to reach it. Anyway, the scenario is indeed interesting, I believe basically because both sides start quite near to the river and contact with the ruthless enemy is established very quickly. At least I had not expected contact so soon. I need more TAIs, but who doesn't???
We are currently fighting north of the city and a few miles east of the southern, three-tiled bridge.
I would say both sides are quite even at the moment.

@Gary: Turn 8 will be on its way tomorrow (monday) morning, expect it around 0900 CET.

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

In spite of the few minor issues we have encountered, are you finding the scenario and interesting one so far? Were you able to come up with a plan that makes sense?

Well, my initial plan was blown out of the water due to the incessant air raids on bridges both sides made - it meant that rather than choosing my avenue of advance I was stuck taking whatever route was still standing.

My current plan is succeeding insofar as I control my main objective, but it's a long game, and John ain't stupid

 

[John Osborne]

Well, my initial plan was blown out of the water due to the incessant air raids on bridges both sides made - it meant that rather than choosing my avenue of advance I was stuck taking whatever route was still standing.

My current plan is succeeding insofar as I control my main objective, but it's a long game, and John ain't stupid

My current plan is succeeding as well Jim, :devil: However, my BDE down south may say otherwise :laugh:

theres a slugfest going on down south while in the north both sides are maneuvering to take an advantage of the terrian

Jim, there will be a turn tonight.

Never Surrender, Never Give Up :laugh:

John

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

My current plan is succeeding as well Jim, :devil: However, my BDE down south may say otherwise :laugh:

your BDE down south has decided to go Supernova and take out my entire force

 

[James Sterrett]

Yeah, from what John's saying, it looks the the "Footprint that Ate the Map: bug is present in 2.04d as well as 2.5.

Something sometimes goes wrong with the process of detaching units, especially when detaching big-RCP units from small "bucket" higher echelon units; and the "bucket" unit suddenly acquires several thousand % of its initial RCP.

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

well it's fixed now, much to John's chagrin I might imagine

 

[pmaidhof]

Bringin' Up the Rear

Well Marco and I have finally gotten the scenario on track after all kinds of snafu's on my end - "we can't both be blue PETE!" :cheeky:

 

[Dr Zaius]

Hey, let's have an update on those AARs. We don't need no stinking OPSEC!

 

[Secret Agent]

We don't need no stinking OPSEC!

:surprise: Be careful; someone might quote you in years ahead! :devil:

 

[Rob Carpenter]

Just back from 2 weeks in Europe (work not pleasure ).

Off to another conference on Sunday for a week.

Once thats over hopefully no more travel for a while and my game with Brian can get back underway.

Sorry for the delays.

Cheers

Rob