Victor Charlie
Member
Yeah I had a PzIV bog and immobilize on a road as well!
"Cost of Glory" Rd THREE CMAK Tourney
- Thread starter Palantir
- Start date
both games are over now.
the game with Tripps ended with an Allied OV because he chose to capitulate on T17.
and the game with RangerBooBoo ended at 40 turns with an Allied minor victory as my last ditch attempt to capture the big flag above Petra simply ran out of time (darn, thought i had em!!!)
here are some thoughts about the scenario that i e-mailed to Kerry earlier...
"Fun game, although a LOT of work in the early turns. I think it would have more playable for tourney if it was about half the size."
"Looks like the Allies have the advantage in this one. Don’t know the full historical context, but if the NZ'ers didn't have a lot of time to dig in, then you might want to eliminate or limit the trenches, and the cement MG pillboxes (maybe wood instead?) Maybe reduce the force levels too, as line after line of dug-in infantry make for some SLOW going.
You can also make an argument that heavy weapons like AT guns wouldn't have been able to set up in the steeper sections of terrain. I know some of the ones I placed in my game as Allies had to have been helicopter'd in! ;-)"
all in all though, an intense gaming experience especially toward the end with the frantic rush for flags, and some fun breakthroughs with some of my Pz II's.
the game with Tripps ended with an Allied OV because he chose to capitulate on T17.
and the game with RangerBooBoo ended at 40 turns with an Allied minor victory as my last ditch attempt to capture the big flag above Petra simply ran out of time (darn, thought i had em!!!)
here are some thoughts about the scenario that i e-mailed to Kerry earlier...
"Fun game, although a LOT of work in the early turns. I think it would have more playable for tourney if it was about half the size."
"Looks like the Allies have the advantage in this one. Don’t know the full historical context, but if the NZ'ers didn't have a lot of time to dig in, then you might want to eliminate or limit the trenches, and the cement MG pillboxes (maybe wood instead?) Maybe reduce the force levels too, as line after line of dug-in infantry make for some SLOW going.
You can also make an argument that heavy weapons like AT guns wouldn't have been able to set up in the steeper sections of terrain. I know some of the ones I placed in my game as Allies had to have been helicopter'd in! ;-)"all in all though, an intense gaming experience especially toward the end with the frantic rush for flags, and some fun breakthroughs with some of my Pz II's.
Palantir
Member #86
The historical context is accurate, the ONLY thing that didn't happen was: the Germans attacked. It was called off at the last minute.
For tourney play (as explained in the briefing) the setups areas were changed to allow players freedom so everyone did not have exactly the same setups (units, dispositions etc). The NZ'ers were dug-in (in detail with time to do it right) so that had to be modified for the tourney.
The terrain was modified for game play but the "overall" flow is correct. And with the terrain as rugged as it is I suspect some unique locations were found for those NZ ATG's! (But they did have the time to lug them around piecemeal & put them back together).
As far as "half the size:" as I noted the map is already 1/2 the actual size I designed for the battle. But the weather & LOS determined the final map size. (But man, I love the original full MONSTER map!!!)
The scenario could have been (could be) 2 seperate scenarios however: there was absolutely no feeling what-so-ever of the HUGE undertaking the NZ'ers were asked to handle when taken seperately. The few units on-hand to defend that entire stretch & the desperation they felt I determined required that it be played as one long undertaking. Historically the Germans would have had about 4 hours of daylight left to take the ridges so the pressure they are under to take them is heightened via turn limitations.
And- there is always a trade-off with tourneys & how long players will stay around to complete them.
For tourney play (as explained in the briefing) the setups areas were changed to allow players freedom so everyone did not have exactly the same setups (units, dispositions etc). The NZ'ers were dug-in (in detail with time to do it right) so that had to be modified for the tourney.
The terrain was modified for game play but the "overall" flow is correct. And with the terrain as rugged as it is I suspect some unique locations were found for those NZ ATG's! (But they did have the time to lug them around piecemeal & put them back together).
As far as "half the size:" as I noted the map is already 1/2 the actual size I designed for the battle. But the weather & LOS determined the final map size. (But man, I love the original full MONSTER map!!!)
The scenario could have been (could be) 2 seperate scenarios however: there was absolutely no feeling what-so-ever of the HUGE undertaking the NZ'ers were asked to handle when taken seperately. The few units on-hand to defend that entire stretch & the desperation they felt I determined required that it be played as one long undertaking. Historically the Germans would have had about 4 hours of daylight left to take the ridges so the pressure they are under to take them is heightened via turn limitations.
And- there is always a trade-off with tourneys & how long players will stay around to complete them.
Last edited:
Palantir
Member #86
Safely tucked away on my PC, for now.
I need to update it to match the smaller scenario I sent out for the tourney.
I need to update it to match the smaller scenario I sent out for the tourney.
mangus2000
Member
Will get back to you on this, send me a msg with who you were playing with and i'll contact them.
Snafu in round 3 points?
I suspect there's been a foul up somewhere in the points awarded in round 3. Looking at some of them they add up to more than 100% which is a clear no-no. Have ladder points been entered rather than the final % split?
I suspect there's been a foul up somewhere in the points awarded in round 3. Looking at some of them they add up to more than 100% which is a clear no-no. Have ladder points been entered rather than the final % split?
KG_Jag
KG Vice Kommandir
Dave is correct--ladder points and tournament points are apples and oranges. The ladder has a handicapping system built in. That should have nothing to do with points awarded in head-to-head tournament play.
mangus2000
Member
There is a small problem with the points.
Thats why I sent out an email a few weeks ago asking for the % points of all who had finished rnd3.
As far as i can tell it's the Boff V Fullmonty and Magoo V Triaxe that i need.
Thats why I sent out an email a few weeks ago asking for the % points of all who had finished rnd3.
As far as i can tell it's the Boff V Fullmonty and Magoo V Triaxe that i need.
I still have the file but can't for the life of me remember the password, I did send the full result to Palantir at the time..
I have exactly the same problem. If Kerry can remind me of the password I'm in business.
KG_Jag
KG Vice Kommandir
Dave, a couple weeks ago I sent Dan the results of our games .
Good work. Don't suppose I could persuade you to lend me a few percent governor? Family and tournament to support.
KG_Jag
KG Vice Kommandir
Guess you haven't heard about the drought down here in central Texas.
Palantir
Member #86
If someone needs the passwords for their game please email me as I still have them.
Good Hunting!
Good Hunting!
Palantir
Member #86
What's the status of the games still underway?
The fourth round scenario is still on the books to be played.
The fourth round scenario is still on the books to be played.