Festung Budapest Strategy

[jrv]

Is this still based on the fantasy scenario or has there been an actual playing?

See this AAR: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?106016-Festung-Budapest-CG2-AAR

(edit 20170811: this is the link after the Great Upgrade: http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/festung-budapest-cg2-aar.106016/)

Gary's analysis in this thread proved pretty much spot on in the actual playing.

JR

 

[Tater]

I think thats his actual playing. If Gary feels the CG needs to be fixed thats his call, no need for the usual fanboys to pile on him for his decision but you guys will anyway. Strange, if CH had put out this same exact module, you guys would be screaming for blood but as usual, the official source of ASL is once more given a free pass.

Why aren't you busy generating more false gamesquad ID's?

Honestly I cant really blame people for not saying anything, who wants to get bullied and harassed by MMP supporters? Not I nor most people, so we just shut up and play.

Lord if we could be so lucky!!!

 

[Tater]

See this AAR: http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?106016-Festung-Budapest-CG2-AAR

Gary's analysis in this thread proved pretty much spot on in the actual playing.

JR

That is day one...what about the whole CG...has he played the whole CG to see how it goes or is he falling into the RB trap as the Ruski and just giving up after one bad day?

 

[jrv]

That is day one...what about the whole CG...has he played the whole CG to see how it goes or is he falling into the RB trap as the Ruski and just giving up after one bad day?

They started to play the second day, the Hungarian night counter-attack. After one turn, Gary and Paul Sidhu agreed that there was little hope for the Soviets, and that it was likely that they would be pushed back off the map. Beginning the third day the Axis can buy OBA, and given the limited entry area for the Soviets if they are pushed back into the corner, Gary feels that the Axis can keep the Soviets pinched back in the corner of the map for at least a couple of days. With all that time lost, he believes the Soviets will never be able to clear the area needed to achieve the VC.

We have taken as a given that if the Soviets get pushed off the map and the Germans are able to keep them there for several CG Days, the Soviets will not be able to recover. If you feel that the Soviets can recover even given Gary's analysis and test, I'd like to hear how, because I'd be disappointed if the CG is indeed broken.

JR

 

[Tater]

They started to play the second day, the Hungarian night counter-attack. After one turn, Gary and Paul Sidhu agreed that there was little hope for the Soviets, and that it was likely that they would be pushed back off the map. Beginning the third day the Axis can buy OBA, and given the limited entry area for the Soviets if they are pushed back into the corner, Gary feels that the Axis can keep the Soviets pinched back in the corner of the map for at least a couple of days. With all that time lost, he believes the Soviets will never be able to clear the area needed to achieve the VC.

We have taken as a given that if the Soviets get pushed off the map and the Germans are able to keep them there for several CG Days, the Soviets will not be able to recover. If you feel that the Soviets can recover even given Gary's analysis and test, I'd like to hear how, because I'd be disappointed if the CG is indeed broken.

I have some ideas but I guess I lack the hubris to claim they are infallible until I have a chance to play the CG myself.

I do recall how "broken" the RB CGIII has been for these many years...at least according to some.

Although I am not surprised to find that Gary's "playing" turned out exactly as he predicted...:whist:

 

[Jeffrey D Myers]

ch! = 4th edition is the charm

ftfy ;-)

 

[koffee77]

How many playings have there been prior to announcing it possibly being broken? I am reading this is based on one playing of two campaign days followed with alot of predicting on how it will play out. While the analysis might very well be correct, I would rather see it based on several, more lengthy playings.

 

[jrv]

How many playings have there been prior to announcing it possibly being broken? I am reading this is based on one playing of two campaign days followed with alot of predicting on how it will play out. While the analysis might very well be correct, I would rather see it based on several, more lengthy playings.

If you read the thread, you will find that this is based off Gary's analysis and playing for the most part. I have to say that it's not an obvious strategy, and I'm not sure everyone could carry it off with quite the same panache as Gary. By all means, try the strategy and see if your results match his.

JR

 

[jrv]

Although I am not surprised to find that Gary's "playing" turned out exactly as he predicted...:whist:

I agree. When a player of Gary's skill says something like this, you hope it isn't true, even though it probably is.

JR

 

[Tater]

I agree. When a player of Gary's skill says something like this, you hope it isn't true, even though it probably is.

Not...

Gary is a biased, interested party due to his reputation being on the line. I am sure there was a lot of discussion about what "should" happen between Gary and his opponent before they played. Thus it should be no surprise at all that the results are absolutely identical to his predictions...which said "identical" result is itself an indicator that the playing is "contaminated". An approximate result would have been more believable...but totally identical...naaaaa. Seems way to scripted to me. IOW, Gary's playing is very obviously prejudiced.

To get a true test of the CG you need a "blind" playing. Two players, of relatively equal capability, that have not been exposed to any of the discussion here and who have no point of pride to protect...regardless of the results. I would assume that the original playtesting falls well within such "blind" playing (excludig any envolving Wild Bill as a player). That being the case, the original, independent, playtests are going to be far more reliable than anything Gary attempts.

 

[Gunner Scott]

Hi-

you know tater, if the CG ever comes out for VASL I be more then happy to knock you down a few notch's boy.


Scott

Not...

Gary is a biased, interested party due to his reputation being on the line. I am sure there was a lot of discussion about what "should" happen between Gary and his opponent before they played. Thus it should be no surprise at all that the results are absolutely identical to his predictions...which said "identical" result is itself an indicator that the playing is "contaminated". An approximate result would have been more believable...but totally identical...naaaaa. Seems way to scripted to me. IOW, Gary's playing is very obviously prejudiced.

To get a true test of the CG you need a "blind" playing. Two players, of relatively equal capability, that have not been exposed to any of the discussion here and who have no point of pride to protect...regardless of the results. I would assume that the original playtesting falls well within such "blind" playing (excludig any envolving Wild Bill as a player). That being the case, the original, independent, playtests are going to be far more reliable than anything Gary attempts.

 

[jrv]

Not...

Gary is a biased, interested party due to his reputation being on the line. I am sure there was a lot of discussion about what "should" happen between Gary and his opponent before they played. Thus it should be no surprise at all that the results are absolutely identical to his predictions...which said "identical" result is itself an indicator that the playing is "contaminated". An approximate result would have been more believable...but totally identical...naaaaa. Seems way to scripted to me. IOW, Gary's playing is very obviously prejudiced.

To get a true test of the CG you need a "blind" playing. Two players, of relatively equal capability, that have not been exposed to any of the discussion here and who have no point of pride to protect...regardless of the results. I would assume that the original playtesting falls well within such "blind" playing (excludig any envolving Wild Bill as a player). That being the case, the original, independent, playtests are going to be far more reliable than anything Gary attempts.

First, the fact that the predicted result actually happened does not indicate that a test is flawed. If I predict that a flipped coin will land on heads on average once after two flips, and that happens in a particular test (which it should roughly in 50% of the tests), you don't discard the test saying it is flawed.

Second, in order to test Gary's hypothesis without informing players, you would have to run multiple tests, then identify and filter out those that have involved a strategy similar to Gary's, and see if they have an unusual win rate. The hypothesis is not that the Soviets can't win, it's that the Soviets can't win if the Axis chooses a particular stratagem. I don't think that we could find enough uninformed yet talented players to perform that test. And in fact it is not clear to me why you wouldn't want a fully-informed Soviet player. That way the Soviet player, having more knowledge about Axis intentions, would do everything in his power to thwart that stratagem, Gary's apparently awesome ability to hoodwink and mesmerize his opponents notwithstanding.

JR

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

Divergent result...

 

[Paul S NJ]

Folks,
Here's my thoughts on CG2.

First of all kudos to the design team for great maps (I like the numbered levels on the map sides, great for us color blind), I like that the infantry is a little more expensive so that combined arms is more attractive, I like a tough russian force facing a brittle german-hungarian mix. I love the Vajda (mom's maiden name) counter (studly 6+1) and seeing the nemeth counter (another family name) and learning the history that he's the dude I can curse for ammo shortage.

Here's my concerns about CG2 and suggestions. Of course it's based on one playing.

Entry- Practically speaking they can buy one 150 pre-reg OBA or another infantry company. Russians have to enter two companies turn 1 on 8 open ground hexes and 3 stone buildings. The given Vannay company and six Axis GPP can mean an onboard Vannay company, or 3 PzIV+3 75L guns+ four FB. With either of these purchases, the Axis can set up front and stuff the entry completely.

If Tater wants to try it at ASLOK, I'll see you there dude. I'd bet any amount of money that (assuming you enter all reinforcements turn 2) I can kill every single Russian infantry unit before the end of the scenario.

Even if the Russian gets on board in the B32 and B35 blocks, he'll have a tough time taking A30 (limited LOS, A31 vulnerable to fire from across the board, anyone who breaks dies for FTR if the axis keep a unit in N39). Similarly the I39 block can be a ***** also since anyone who breaks in H39 also FTR's to a unit in level 3 in A26.

In my game with the 150 leading the way, I took the G31 to F34 area and E29 bdg. Then Gary declared a night attack, gain an extra 5 GPP and with 16 total purchase points, surrounded me on 3 sides and pounded the snot out of my troops. It's just not a fair fight.

Clearly I can't speak to staying offboard for 8 scenarios until the whole entry area is available, I don't know what that would look like.

Here's my suggestions (take it for one man's opinion);
1- let the russian set up on board/enter from A30, B32, B35 to the I39 blocks. This forces the Axis player to disperse a bit for turn one and let's the russian be concealed and ready to prep. I know you lose the historical flavor of the initial attack, but perhaps uncles and pups scenario can provide that.

2- have the kis-svabhegy hill (everything south of K39 to EE27 road) out of play until the russians can enter from the full western edge. Otherwise the russians will always be taking fire from their rear. The axis still have a tough line from L35, G31, E30, A26. It's not going to be easy to move forward as the russians, but at least they have a shot.

I think with these two simple changes the russians have a chance to build can fight on an even field. I'd be happy to play either side to test it. Again thanks to Bill and the design and playtest team, I just think it's tough start.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[jrv]

Divergent result...

It's not a useful result. It's a different Axis strategy. The hypothesis is that if the Axis purchase nothing but tanks, guns and/or aircraft the first CG day, they win. Here it looks like the Axis purchase was Vannay Coy (on-board) and an Alarm Coy in reserve (plus others stuff?). The Soviets purchase was a Guards Rifle Co. and I don't know what else.

Even so, the Soviets did not capture much ground. The severe Axis casualties (12.5 squads, 2 guns) relative to the Soviet's (6.5 squads) make an Axis night attack seem unprofitable, but even so it looks just possible that such a move would leave the Soviets pinned back in their corner, with the Axis OBA making its presence known starting the third CG day. It looks like less a given than with Gary's purchases, but it still looks possible here.

JR

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

It's not a useful result....

I disagree; if history shows us one thing it's that nothing is perpetually a slam dunk. Now Gary has opened up a differing option than the one Brian and Jim are employing, but now that it's out there, I strongly suspect that the eggheads amongst us will start to consider the Gary Option and ways to overcome it. ASL is not the mythical 3 to 1 attack on Tobruk; it is a vastly more complex monster. I have every confidence someone will find a way to blow through Gary's Option and then the conversation will be drafting different wind.

Personally, I'd have liked to see the guys play this one out a bit longer, but it is, after all, their play time. That being said, given the notoriety of the claims (going from "No Russian Chance" to "No Axis Chance" now back to "No Russian Chance"), I'd have liked to see them play it out for everyone's benefit and discussion, as well as for the veracity of the claims being made. I still find it somewhat difficult to draw any ironclad conclusions on an aborted CGS and a half (+/-).

Too, as Brian and Jim have shown, other alternatives between other players can and will exist; their playing was end-of-scenario-dr'ed as the Russians were poised to breakout, if you read that far along. This certainly has provoked alot of thought, I'm sure plenty will follow.

 

[Fort]

The results from Gary and Paul's game was not an aberrant instance...and both of them are top level players of the game, any player could learn much from listening to their counsel.

I know of 4 games played that had the identical result...and the 4 players involved in those games are also very good players; Guy Chaney, Neil Stanhagen, Jeff Coyle, and Matt Noah.
I've now played it as well, with a slightly different purchase and setup than Gary's, and the results were gross carnage. The Communists were completely eliminated from the map...nothing survived. That was on the first date. There was no need of a Night attack.

The problems are:
-The entry area is too small with almost no cover, and there is no place for the Soviets to hide; once a unit is broken it never loses DM.
-Axis guns are just waiting for the smoke to clear to massacre all the AFVs.
-Soviet infantry range is woefully lacking, they simply can't put (effective) firepower back on their tormentors.


Buying anything in reserve for the Germans is not the best purchase if you want to win early....that having been said, I think a possible fix might be:

For CG date 1 make it so that, for the Axis; any "IG' RG purchased MUST be purchased in Reserve...but is released on Turn 4 if not released prior...AND make it so that only one 'AG' RG may be purchased.

-AND

Change SSR II.1 to

"1. EC are Wet, with a Mild Breeze from the west at start, Weather is Overcast."

 

[Gary Mei]

Not...

Gary is a biased, interested party due to his reputation being on the line. I am sure there was a lot of discussion about what "should" happen between Gary and his opponent before they played. Thus it should be no surprise at all that the results are absolutely identical to his predictions...which said "identical" result is itself an indicator that the playing is "contaminated". An approximate result would have been more believable...but totally identical...naaaaa. Seems way to scripted to me. IOW, Gary's playing is very obviously prejudiced.

To get a true test of the CG you need a "blind" playing. Two players, of relatively equal capability, that have not been exposed to any of the discussion here and who have no point of pride to protect...regardless of the results. I would assume that the original playtesting falls well within such "blind" playing (excludig any envolving Wild Bill as a player). That being the case, the original, independent, playtests are going to be far more reliable than anything Gary attempts.

Let me see if I get this straight. You think that I spent this much time on a CG and then lied about the results and then got Paul Sidhu, one of the most respected names in ASL and a person with more integrity than anyone I know, to lie and collude with me just to win a cheap internet debating point? Are you also accusing Guy Cheney, Jeff Coyle, Neil Stanhagen, and Matt Noah of lying and doctoring their results, or just Fort for reporting them?

I can't tell if you're just retarded or just a sad, pathetic, paranoid waste of human excrement.

 

[jrv]

I disagree; if history shows us one thing it's that nothing is perpetually a slam dunk. Now Gary has opened up a differing option than the one Brian and Jim are employing, but now that it's out there, I strongly suspect that the eggheads amongst us will start to consider the Gary Option and ways to overcome it. ASL is not the mythical 3 to 1 attack on Tobruk; it is a vastly more complex monster. I have every confidence someone will find a way to blow through Gary's Option and then the conversation will be drafting different wind.

That is true, but neither me, you nor anyone else has even suggested a way to overcome it. I have some ideas, but the ball is in our court, not Gary's. Do you have a play?

Personally, I'd have liked to see the guys play this one out a bit longer, but it is, after all, their play time. That being said, given the notoriety of the claims (going from "No Russian Chance" to "No Axis Chance" now back to "No Russian Chance"), I'd have liked to see them play it out for everyone's benefit and discussion, as well as for the veracity of the claims being made. I still find it somewhat difficult to draw any ironclad conclusions on an aborted CGS and a half (+/-).

I am not sure why you think we have dismissed CG II. Gary's is still just a theory. I'd love to hear why you think it is wrong. What purchases should the Soviet player make? How do those particular purchases change the premises that Gary makes? Or is the solution a more extreme change of strategy? Should the Soviet player wait for eight days until the entry area opens up, as some have suggested?

JR

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

The results from Gary and Paul's game was not an aberrant instance...and both of them are top level players of the game, any player could learn much from listening to their counsel....

As I am fully aware, having had the pleasure of sitting across from both of them several times each. Lest anyone believe I am saying otherwise...