Italian Campaign (Veers-Allies vs Silvanski-Axis) [COMPLETE]

[Veers]

Many Allied units are deep in the red but it seems their commander will be pursuing his plans regardless of the conditions of his troops...

Have to press the initiaive while I have it. :devious:

 

[Silvanski]

Have to press the initiaive while I have it. :devious:

You're a real ironmonger of a general :rifle:

 

[stiener]

Veers........
just started reading the your AAR....very cool start...well written...both of you.
but i have to ask the question....one of the loopholes your talking about in the house rules is the fact that your using the commando's etc to capture a port on the german flank [ and behind his defensive line ] and then reinforcing it with port to port movement with BR and yank troops???
i was under the impression from reading the house rules [ i started this game a while ago and had to stop ] that the intent was that only commando's and special forces could invade anywhere they wanted, and that other troops could only invade if there was an TO?
am i misunderstanding the house rules??
thanks

 

[Veers]

You're a real ironmonger of a general :rifle:

New avatar! Is that you, Silvain?

 

[Veers]

Veers........
just started reading the your AAR....very cool start...well written...both of you.
but i have to ask the question....one of the loopholes your talking about in the house rules is the fact that your using the commando's etc to capture a port on the german flank [ and behind his defensive line ] and then reinforcing it with port to port movement with BR and yank troops???
i was under the impression from reading the house rules [ i started this game a while ago and had to stop ] that the intent was that only commando's and special forces could invade anywhere they wanted, and that other troops could only invade if there was an TO?
am i misunderstanding the house rules??
thanks

Once a Commando takes a major port, the regulars can follow up. Though that is (one of) the House Rule(s) I have a problem with. It can be exploited too easily, I think... I plan to be more restrictive with amphibious operations in our own Italian Campaign.
The other is the utter freedom of the airborne troops to land whenever they want, which is unrealistic, I think.

 

[stiener]

well i agree about the amphibious landings but im not sure i understand your reasoning behind the airbourne units. my understanding historically was they were to be held in reserve for an airbourne landing but had to be put into the line at salerno because of the problems there. i think the allies had the planes and the resources to drop them if the need arose. are you thinking there should be a imit and a time frame on how many times the airbourne troops could be dropped?

 

[Veers]

well i agree about the amphibious landings but im not sure i understand your reasoning behind the airbourne units. my understanding historically was they were to be held in reserve for an airbourne landing but had to be put into the line at salerno because of the problems there. i think the allies had the planes and the resources to drop them if the need arose. are you thinking there should be a imit and a time frame on how many times the airbourne troops could be dropped?

Yes. if you read the AAR, I have dropped each individual unit about three times now. Far more than the Allies could have managed historically. If memory serves they dropped a single Rgt. (of the 82nd AB) in this whole period; for the whole Italian Campaign, actually.

 

[stiener]

veers
so if you were going to modifie the house rules for this game, what would you suggest at this point? your thoughts?

 

[Veers]

veers
so if you were going to modifie the house rules for this game, what would you suggest at this point? your thoughts?

A system of TOs will be implemented. Several Amphibious operation TOs will be available to the Allies, but after the first two the rest will come at a cost of VPs. In addition, I think I will leave in the House Rule that regular troops can follow up Commandoes that take Major Ports, but the German player will be heavily warned about this possible Allied tactic in the breifing. As well, Termoli will have to be garrisoned right off the get-go to avoid the easy capture of it that I attained.
For the Allies, they will have several airborne operation TOs avail, but using any after the first one will cost VPs.

The Italian Campaign was characterized by a slow slog up the boot; because there were no resources avail for amphib/airborne ops. Churchill and company had to use all their weight to even convince the Amis to invade Italy, and Churchill had to kick even harder to get the landing craft to use for Shingle (Anzio)-and even then it was only enough to land two+ divisions. Churchill probably would have had to sell his soul to get landing craft for a third amphibious op. Now, without the threat of an amphibious operation in his rear, Kesserling would have been able to have everythign at the front, and probably would not have been beaten, so amphibious operations must be available, or else the German player could just have everything at the front.

The real trick of it all with be balancing the scenario, of course. But we'll playtest it as much as we can, and I'll always be here to listen to input and tweak.

 

[stiener]

Veers

interesting....
well im not sure i agree with you about leaving the loophole of being able to transport as many follow up troops as you want after the commando's take a major port. if that was the case why didnt the allies do that more than they did? not sure they even landed too many commandos in that role in the campaign? im thinking that the allies had a hard time aquiring ships as well as landing craft. a cap on the amount of sea movement points your allowed to use to do that, may be in order? or a VP penalty again??
i think the intent of the original house rule was to allow commando's a broad range of freedom but not a free rain on moving armies from major port to major port.

the 3rd amphibious option costing you VPs is already in the house rules. i agree there needs to be that threat of amphibious landings to keep the german from committing all his troops to the main battle front. having the threat of the commando's used in a large group is a deterrent too.

the airbourne drops i think should have a bit more leeway....i think the paras are abit fragile. the house rule says that if the paras are evaporated then they come back with no air drop capability. this makes them fragile in the sense you have to be willing to use them and lose there air drop threat. all the german has to do is concentrate on wiping them out. i believe the allies had better access to transport planes then they did to landing craft, so IMHO i think the paras should be given more leeway than commando's and troop transport from port to port.

my 2 cents.......

im starting a new italian campaign game with my wayward opponant.....i will not use troop transport from major port to major port if it is behind german lines. i will use my commando's as the house rules suggest but wont use major port to major port reinforcements in german held territory. i will probably use my commando's and special forces as a block of troops to capture and exploit my objective
my airbourne i will use to help felicitate break thru's if the landing terrain is faverable.........im thinking south of rome or just north of salerno......

ill let you know how it shapes up

your thoughts?

 

[Veers]

Veers

interesting....
well im not sure i agree with you about leaving the loophole of being able to transport as many follow up troops as you want after the commando's take a major port. if that was the case why didnt the allies do that more than they did?

Simple. The Germans defended their ports well. You will see in this campaign that there will be no more use of Commandoes, as Silvain is guarding his major ports much better now. I have to admit that I think I overstated the severity of the problem caused by the Commandoes with regular follow-ups.

not sure they even landed too many commandos in that role in the campaign? im thinking that the allies had a hard time aquiring ships as well as landing craft. a cap on the amount of sea movement points your allowed to use to do that, may be in order? or a VP penalty again??
i think the intent of the original house rule was to allow commando's a broad range of freedom but not a free rain on moving armies from major port to major port.
the 3rd amphibious option costing you VPs is already in the house rules. i agree there needs to be that threat of amphibious landings to keep the german from committing all his troops to the main battle front. having the threat of the commando's used in a large group is a deterrent too.

Yes, the Allies had a difficult time acquiring assault shipping. The problem lies in hindsight and knowing the House Rules. Lets say, for example, that amphib op 3 is avail only 3 months after amphib op 2, and no Commando with regular forces follow up ability exists. Lets say I go ahead and land troops at Anzio. For 24 turns the German player is free evacuate all of northern Italy to come down and fight my troops at Anzio. Instead of a hard fought battle that sees the Germans use 6 divisions and fail to throw the Allies into the sea, you see a hard fought battle that sees 10-12 German divisions throw the Allies into the sea. All because they knew they had nothing to worry about in their rear areas. There needs to be this worry for the Germans. The reason it was so easily exploited in my game against Silvain was only because he was unfamiliar with the scenario. I am positive that if he were to play this one again, his next opponent would not be so lucky.

the airbourne drops i think should have a bit more leeway....i think the paras are abit fragile. the house rule says that if the paras are evaporated then they come back with no air drop capability. this makes them fragile in the sense you have to be willing to use them and lose there air drop threat. all the german has to do is concentrate on wiping them out. i believe the allies had better access to transport planes then they did to landing craft, so IMHO i think the paras should be given more leeway than commando's and troop transport from port to port.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, so far as I know, the only Allied airdrop was the dropping of one rgt of the 82nd into the Salerno beachhead. After that there were no airborne drops. Therefore I suggest we emulate history, as we don't have anything else to go on. Does anyone have any info on Allied airborne abilities in the Med during the Italian Campaign?
As well, after the first few months the airborne forces are withdrawn, anyways, so the airborne issue will be a non-issue.

im starting a new italian campaign game with my wayward opponant.....i will not use troop transport from major port to major port if it is behind german lines. i will use my commando's as the house rules suggest but wont use major port to major port reinforcements in german held territory. i will probably use my commando's and special forces as a block of troops to capture and exploit my objective
my airbourne i will use to help felicitate break thru's if the landing terrain is faverable.........im thinking south of rome or just north of salerno......

ill let you know how it shapes up

Good luck, and I look forward to your reports of the action.

 

[stiener]

you make some good points veers.

Simple. The Germans defended their ports well. You will see in this campaign that there will be no more use of Commandoes, as Silvain is guarding his major ports much better now. I have to admit that I think I overstated the severity of the problem caused by the Commandoes with regular follow-ups.

so you mean you overstated the severity because you were always bringing in br and/or yank reinforcments to help the commando landings?

Yes, the Allies had a difficult time acquiring assault shipping. The problem lies in hindsight and knowing the House Rules. Lets say, for example, that amphib op 3 is avail only 3 months after amphib op 2, and no Commando with regular forces follow up ability exists. Lets say I go ahead and land troops at Anzio. For 24 turns the German player is free evacuate all of northern Italy to come down and fight my troops at Anzio. Instead of a hard fought battle that sees the Germans use 6 divisions and fail to throw the Allies into the sea, you see a hard fought battle that sees 10-12 German divisions throw the Allies into the sea. All because they knew they had nothing to worry about in their rear areas. There needs to be this worry for the Germans. The reason it was so easily exploited in my game against Silvain was only because he was unfamiliar with the scenario. I am positive that if he were to play this one again, his next opponent would not be so lucky.

yes i see your point and i agree. but i think there still needs to be a cost involved in using the major port to major port move to reinforce the commando's or something? you had poor silvain jumping thru hoops trying to get enough troops together to defend each major port. im not 100% sure here, but the game as is, i dont think theres enough german units to go around if he knows up front he has to garrison those major ports or lose the campaign in short order. i dont think the german reinforcements come in fast enough and he can't get them there fast enough to those ports to stop an on the ball allied player. also we would like the see the hard slugging in the south as the campaign is supposed to be, so the german needs to be able to get some reserves south.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, so far as I know, the only Allied airdrop was the dropping of one rgt of the 82nd into the Salerno beachhead. After that there were no airborne drops. Therefore I suggest we emulate history, as we don't have anything else to go on. Does anyone have any info on Allied airborne abilities in the Med during the Italian Campaign?
As well, after the first few months the airborne forces are withdrawn, anyways, so the airborne issue will be a non-issue.

well as you say the airboune units become a mute point after awhile as they leave anyways but i still believe just because the allies didnt drop them doesnt mean they didnt have the resources to drop them if they wanted to and more than once.

are you and silvain still playing or are you going to start a new game and try again?

i see you were defending on ignore losses.........were you attacking on ignore losses too most of the time?

 

[Silvanski]

... The reason it was so easily exploited in my game against Silvain was only because he was unfamiliar with the scenario. I am positive that if he were to play this one again, his next opponent would not be so lucky.

Maybe

I got overwhelmed by the multitude of landings + not familiar with the Italian Campaign (both the campaign and the scenario)aperbag:

 

[Veers]

Will reply to this in more detail tomorrow. For now sorry I missed your last point, Steiner. I attack on ignore losses when there is an MRPB. I attack on minimize/limit losses when there is not. I cannot remember if there is or is not one on this.

 

[Veers]

Maybe

I got overwhelmed by the multitude of landings + not familiar with the Italian Campaign (both the campaign and the scenario)aperbag:

But you've locked it down now. I expect we will see a bit of a slog, however, I still suspect to break this line quickly, as it is too long.
As well, another difference I want ot make with the new scenario will be to have the Germans as player 1. It will make it easier for them to withdraw from a battle line.
In addition, I am thinking of including a seperate company for each division that can be left behind to cover a retreat. Should, again, make it easy for the Germans to withdraw. After all, they were masters of being gone the day an Allied attack came in.

 

[stiener]

veers
what does MRPB mean???

silvanski
hang in there....your right it would be a tough game to play if you havent played it before and your not familiar with the history. also harder as german i think. plus your playing a very experienced player! good hunting!!

 

[Silvanski]

veers
what does MRPB mean???

silvanski
hang in there....your right it would be a tough game to play if you havent played it before and your not familiar with the history. also harder as german i think. plus your playing a very experienced player! good hunting!!

Maximum Rounds Per Battle

I ain't giving up:rifle:

 

[Veers]

you make some good points veers.

Simple. The Germans defended their ports well. You will see in this campaign that there will be no more use of Commandoes, as Silvain is guarding his major ports much better now. I have to admit that I think I overstated the severity of the problem caused by the Commandoes with regular follow-ups.

so you mean you overstated the severity because you were always bringing in br and/or yank reinforcments to help the commando landings?

Maybe...I overstated the severity because I was basing my statement on a game where the German player, Silvain, was not guarding his rear ports well enough. :laugh:
It will be very clearly warned about in the briefing for our new scenario, so that even an unfamiliar player will know to guard his rear ports.

Yes, the Allies had a difficult time acquiring assault shipping. The problem lies in hindsight and knowing the House Rules. Lets say, for example, that amphib op 3 is avail only 3 months after amphib op 2, and no Commando with regular forces follow up ability exists. Lets say I go ahead and land troops at Anzio. For 24 turns the German player is free evacuate all of northern Italy to come down and fight my troops at Anzio. Instead of a hard fought battle that sees the Germans use 6 divisions and fail to throw the Allies into the sea, you see a hard fought battle that sees 10-12 German divisions throw the Allies into the sea. All because they knew they had nothing to worry about in their rear areas. There needs to be this worry for the Germans. The reason it was so easily exploited in my game against Silvain was only because he was unfamiliar with the scenario. I am positive that if he were to play this one again, his next opponent would not be so lucky.

yes i see your point and i agree. but i think there still needs to be a cost involved in using the major port to major port move to reinforce the commando's or something? you had poor silvain jumping thru hoops trying to get enough troops together to defend each major port. im not 100% sure here, but the game as is, i dont think theres enough german units to go around if he knows up front he has to garrison those major ports or lose the campaign in short order. i dont think the german reinforcements come in fast enough and he can't get them there fast enough to those ports to stop an on the ball allied player. also we would like the see the hard slugging in the south as the campaign is supposed to be, so the german needs to be able to get some reserves south.

I'll lay it out.
Termoli needs to be garrisoned on turn 1 to prevent the masterful capture of that city that I pulled off on the first turn.

Above Salerno/Termoli there are only two major Ports that do not already have a garrison division; Venice and Ancona. All a German player has to do is grab 2-4 rgts (one division) to garrison those two locales, and his rear is more or less secure, certainly secure from commandoes. With the forces avail from turn 1, a German player could secure his whole rear area and still have 5 divisions in the south.

The reason I had Silvain jumping through hoops is because of my luck and skill inthe south, not because I landed hordes of troops in the north. Had Silvain dropped a rgt. in Ancona, I never would have been able to land there, and he'd be much better off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, so far as I know, the only Allied airdrop was the dropping of one rgt of the 82nd into the Salerno beachhead. After that there were no airborne drops. Therefore I suggest we emulate history, as we don't have anything else to go on. Does anyone have any info on Allied airborne abilities in the Med during the Italian Campaign?
As well, after the first few months the airborne forces are withdrawn, anyways, so the airborne issue will be a non-issue.

well as you say the airboune units become a mute point after awhile as they leave anyways but i still believe just because the allies didnt drop them doesnt mean they didnt have the resources to drop them if they wanted to and more than once.

Ok, I'm willing to listen. What would you suggest that the airborne abilities of the Allies be?

are you and silvain still playing or are you going to start a new game and try again?

This guy never gives up. :laugh:

 

[Veers]

BTW, a quick look through the AARs would reveal an AAR where the Allies did very well, and an AAR where the Allies got stopped at the Winter (Gustav)Line.

 

[Silvanski]

This guy never gives up. :laugh:

It ain't over till the fat lady sings