ASL 111 Balkan Sideshow

[MadDog_CDN]

Just to clear up a point, may the Yugoslavians enter concealed?

Looks like a great scenario, just starting a game as the Yugoslavians, just want to make sure I entered correctly.

 

[Reepicheep]

Just to clear up a point, may the Yugoslavians enter concealed?

All units entering from offboard in any scenario enter concealed, unless stated otherwise.

 

[MadDog_CDN]

Thanks for pointing out this scenario, playing as the Yugo's and having a blast, will post an AAR.

 

[Chas Argent]

I doubt many folks have RBF3, let alone have read the article.

JR

Yes, my copy hasn't arrived yet...

 

[Chas]

I guess no one else has any opinions on the RBF article's suggestions? Just Tate and me?

Mark,

Probably going to require someone to have played the scenario and read the article.
For example, I have not played it so I really cant back up a position on this.

On this note, we hope to generate a lot of discussion and difference of opinion on things with the SAs. We would gladly publish a counterpoint analysis if you type up and send to me.

Thanks,
Chas

 

[Chas]

Yes, my copy hasn't arrived yet...

CTO,

Sent yours on...... Wed or Thursday (honestly cant remember as things are running together) so it will be there soon.

Chas

 

[Chas Argent]

Thanks, Chas, I ordered late as it was so will be happy to see it whenever it arrives.

 

[MadDog_CDN]

My defense seems to be working very well, so at this time I would say the Yugoslavsians should not race for the bridge but set up a defensive position on the hill.

 

[Barber]

I'm about to start this via PBeM. The VC state:

Hungarians win at game end if there are no Good Order Yugoslavian MMC <= 3 hexes from a bridge hex.

I assumed "bridge hex" meant only the bridge in 40Q2-Q3 created by SSR. There are, however, two other "bridge hexes" on the map in 40C6 and 49F4. How does one account for those two bridges with respect to the VC? If those are indeed "bridge hexes" I might have to agree with Sgt. Holst that this looks to favor the Yugo.

 

[Gunner Scott]

I'm about to start this via PBeM. The VC state:

Hungarians win at game end if there are no Good Order Yugoslavian MMC <= 3 hexes from a bridge hex.

I assumed "bridge hex" meant only the bridge in 40Q2-Q3 created by SSR. There are, however, two other "bridge hexes" on the map in 40C6 and 49F4. How does one account for those two bridges with respect to the VC? If those are indeed "bridge hexes" I might have to agree with Sgt. Holst that this looks to favor the Yugo.

Well, obvoiusly MMP meant 40Q2-Q3. Still, perhaps further clearification should have been noted.

BTW, take the Yugo's, stick our ATG near the bridge, put your AT mines on the bridge, wire on oppisite sides of the bridge and have your retreating Yugo's form hedgehogs near the walls and Hill, especially place your 8-0, LMG and 457 up on one of the hill hexes.

Scott

 

[David Reinking]

Well, obvoiusly MMP meant 40Q2-Q3. Still, perhaps further clearification should have been noted.

BTW, take the Yugo's, stick our ATG near the bridge, put your AT mines on the bridge, wire on oppisite sides of the bridge and have your retreating Yugo's form hedgehogs near the walls and Hill, especially place your 8-0, LMG and 457 up on one of the hill hexes.

Scott

I have looked at doing just this. I have not yet played the scenario (perhaps this coming weekend).

Have you played this scenario with this same defense, Scott?

 

[Tater]

My defense seems to be working very well, so at this time I would say the Yugoslavsians should not race for the bridge but set up a defensive position on the hill.

Yes, but is it working well because the Huns attacked the hill position?

What if the Hun ignores the hill and just moves to seal it off while concentrating everything on the bridge. The range for the Yugo's is not good for covering the bridge. They have the one LMG but that 2FP is only going to do so much. I really wonder if the hill defense only works if the HUn decides to attack it.

 

[Gunner Scott]

I have looked at doing just this. I have not yet played the scenario (perhaps this coming weekend).

Have you played this scenario with this same defense, Scott?

Hi ya David;

Played BS Twice with the same Defense and won. Deploy, deploy and deploy as many of your squads as possible with your intial set-up guys and do the "Meet them on the Beach" Defense. Kinda tough trying to wade the river and getting pelted by 2-2 shots

Also try to to deploy as many of your turn 1 Yugo's entering from off board. Once more the Hungarians gotta deal with pesky 2-2 shots. As I said, good idea but badly exacuted design.


Scott

 

[MadDog_CDN]

Yes, but is it working well because the Huns attacked the hill position?

What if the Hun ignores the hill and just moves to seal it off while concentrating everything on the bridge. The range for the Yugo's is not good for covering the bridge. They have the one LMG but that 2FP is only going to do so much. I really wonder if the hill defense only works if the HUn decides to attack it.

The big advantage to me, so far, is a bunker in 40K7 with a CA of K6\L6. It has been a good rally point, it is hard to attack and has a good LOS to the bridge.

 

[MadDog_CDN]

This scenario is a blast to play and has swung back and forth a few times, I am hoping to play it as the attacker next and see how it goes.

 

[jrv]

Perry Says

Perry mailed this out quite a while ago, but I lost it and just found it again. Briefly, there was an extended discussion about what effect HIP fortifications have on friendly movement. The rule book clearly says that they cost 0 MF, but it does not discuss whether a friendly CX unit can move under HIP wire, which is clearly prohibited if the wire is not HIP. I added questions about every other case I could think of, and the basic answer is that anything other than extra MF expenditure is treated as if the Fortification is not HIP.

http://forums.gamesquad.com/unofficial-perry-sez-collection/66614-restrictions-friendly-units-entering-hip-fortifications.html#post854266

JR