Ozerkeya Bay Machine Gun insanity

[Honosbinda]

Okay, so enjoying very much the OZ Bay overall, but I don't care for the allocation of machine guns, specifically MMGs and HMGs.

I've done an analysis of the amount of MGs each side can get in a refit purchases, and it's easy to get 2-3 times the number of MMGs or HMGs any DYO game would allow for the Rumanians. Buying these are an excellent value compared to simply buying regular troops in the CG. I would say that purchasing these companies is worth double the amount of an equivalent purchase of HW Platoons in Red Barricades.

In our game, my wily opponent Rumanian opponent has purchased mostly MG and Assault Engineer companies in the first couple of days. He uses the engineers in the forests, who must be approach by adjacent squads, who will get flamed and incidentally he can torch up the forest while doing so.

In the draw between the heights and elsewhere, he's got over half a dozen MGs (the amount of MGs he's got would only be allocated to about 90-110 squads in a DYO scenario, of course he has about 30 or so total). In the previous scenario, I was able to destroy 3 MMGs and 1 HMG, and I've got two others trapped in bunkers that can't get away.

I find the whole situation broadly ahistorical. I've looked at all the Lone Canuck CGs and I see that these refit purchase options are heavily favored for getting scads of MGs.

For example, in this CG [EDIT -- this illustration is from another Lone Canuck module -- DRIVE For ST. LO] it's possible to make the following purchase: combat Engineer platoon for 6, HW platoon for 3, and MG section for 2.

This would be the OB

3 x 667, 1xFT,3xDC, 2xMMG, 2x346, 3x60mm Mortar, 3x346 and 2xHMG, 2 x 346.
That's 7.5 squad equivalents (adjusting for the assault engineers) for 2xMMG 2xHMG 3x Mortar. The DC and FT allocation is okay.


a 1944 allocation from DYO measures would be 1 MMG for 6 squads, 1 HMG for 10 squads, and 1 mortar for 6 squads.
Thus in a DYO game, the Americans would get 1 MMG, 1 Mortar, 1 FT and 3-4 DC. No HMG.

It looks like George has designed these CGs [EDIT, such as Drive for St. Lo and Oz Bay] around buying troops to flesh out support weapon purchases, not buying SW to flesh out troop purchases.

I've played Oz Bay one other time and won as the Rumanians, and indeed the excessive use of Assault engineers in the woods played a part (this was before the errata correcting how forests burn between missions). It's certainly true that assault engineer purchases are abused in other CGs like RB or FB (buy as many as you can as soon as you can to use the FTs and DCs as long as you can). I don't like this ahistorical aspect of CGs either (these assets were in demand by many other formations for use in assaults and so shouldn't be automatically available, imo, even if they are expensive to buy). But in the Lone Cannuck CGs the assault engineer factor is now compounded by the ability to purchase way too many MGs.

I'm not seeing that any others have commented about this, and would welcome any input from those experienced with the module.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I'm not so down about such allocations. The Ch. H stuff is not too bad, but should not be taken as gospel, more as background noise.

Different Armies allocated MMG/HMG, ATR/BAZ/PSK and light MTR differently (eg no MMG/HMG at battalion and below for the British), but many followed the following pattern:
Company: 3 rifle platoons (total 9/12 rifle squads) and a MG/HeavyWeapons platoon with 2 M/HMG. In addition from 1 to 3 lt MTR which could be at company level or 1 per platoon.
Battalion: In addition a MG/HW company with 12 M/HMG and 2-6 or even 9 medium MTR, the md MTR could be part of the battalion HQ, part of the HW company or form their own company.

So for a battalion of 3 infantry companies you could have up to 6 company level M/HMG with another 12 at battalion for a total of 18 M/HMG for 27/36 squads. Add in 3-9 lt (40-60 mm) company level MTR and 2-6 md (76-82 mm) battalion level MTR. That's a M/HMG per 1.5 to 2 squads.

Obviously not all armies or at all times could have that level, sometimes the MG/HW company was at Regiment not battalion level or the Battalion MG/HW unit might be just a platoon (4-6) for a total of 10-12 MG per 27 squads.

 

[Honosbinda]

Paul, thanks for the interesting information. As I recall, SL/ASL was designed with the idea that unit formations in the field were not always given full TO&E assets.

I think that's why the DYO rules provide meager SW for a given purchase. I tend to agree with those who think it's a bit too meager.

If you have any experience playing with the module, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

 

[dlazov]

First I think that there were far more machine guns available to companies/battalions than AH/MMP allocates due to the cardboard limitations of a game and the rules therein.

ASL is essentially a generalized company to reinforced company sized board game, with campaigns expanding this up to battalion levels at times.

I play a computerized game very similar to ASL but it is more accurate in OOBs and has command and control and is best when you have theee or more companies (a battalion, and the smaller scenarios) upwards to a regiment (medium sized to large) in play.

Those OOBs show in general each company formation having 1-2 MG units with small mortars as well.

Anyway here is a neat link.

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dropoff/schilling/mil_org/milorgan_99.html

 

[Paul M. Weir]

I have OB but just toyed with the scenarios not the CG. I'm afraid I'm more a R&D ASL type than a dedicated player.

One thing I omitted was that any M/HMG would have it's own mini-squad, a HS in ASL terms. So for the heaviest case (18 MG for 27/36 squads) the squad equivalents would be 18/2 = 9 + 27/36 = 36/45 for a battalion or 1 MG for each 2 or 2.5 ASL squad equivalents.

As I recall, SL/ASL was designed with the idea that unit formations in the field were not always given full TO&E assets.

Quite true. As an example the Soviets started with 2 Co. level MG, dropped those late '41 but by mid-war had restored 1 MG, 2 if a Guards unit and finally 2 MG whether Guards or not. The battalion MG company had 3 MG platoons, each initially 4 MG, down to 3 and back to 4 by mid war. So battalion totals went from 18 to as low as 9 then 12 and back to 18. All those are ignoring LMG.

The Soviet LMG situation is far more complex. At war start the Soviet Platoon had 4 squads each with a LMG. By mid-late '41 only 2 of 4 squads had a LMG, raised to 3 of 4 by end of '41 and back to 4 per platoon by early '42. Mid-late '42 2 of the squads had 2 LMG for 6 per platoon. By mid '43 due to manpower shortages and like many other armies the platoon was reduced from 4 to 3 squads each with a LMG and that was the pattern until war's end, though some units, especially Guards, might have been able to continue the 4 squad + 6 LMG pattern well beyond the change over.

Having said that, don't forget that the squad LMG is assumed to be part of the squad's inherent firepower and is not represented. The extra Chapter H LMGs can represent anything from a platoon/company spare to an abstraction of extra ammo to a crack LMG gunner. Definitely a strong touch of Design For Effect here.

 

[volgaG68]

For example, in this CG, it's possible to make the following purchase: combat Engineer platoon for 6, HW platoon for 3, and MG section for 2.

This would be the OB

3 x 667, 1xFT,3xDC, 2xMMG, 2x346, 3x60mm Mortar, 3x346 and 2xHMG, 2 x 346.
That's 7.5 squad equivalents (adjusting for the assault engineers) for 2xMMG 2xHMG 3x Mortar. The DC and FT allocation is okay.

I am not qualified to comment on the historical accuracy of the force/SW allocation, however I must ask, was this a Drunk Post? You are usually sharp as a tack in the Rules Folder, quoting the most intricate rules interactions; yet in this post you have SORELY misquoted the nomenclature of the force purchases (intermixing section, platoon, and company), the cost of purchasing them, the SW allocation for them, the quality of the HS that accompany them, etc. In short, there is little you did get right, which is very unlike you.

I spent about 15 minutes attempting to correct your post, and simply gave up. The first thing it reminded me of was another person playing this same CG that just throws out haphazard numbers, rules interpretations, force compositions, etc., that makes the rest of us wonder if he even owns the rules/CG pack. If it was April Fool's Day, I would get the joke. I hope to have not offended you, but something isn't right about your post above. A couple of minor misquotes, sure, but this is like your reliable math professor beginning class with, "Okay, everyone knows 2 plus 2 equals 9..." There would just be an uncomfortable silence as all the students exchanged sideways glances at each other.

Four possibilities as I see it:
1) You were drunk when posting
2) You two are the same person
3) You're just pulling our leg
4) You are as fed up as I am with the "other" player, and you posted this out of desperate, tongue-in-cheek retaliation.

1] Been there, done that.
2] Not feasible, like comparing logic with muddling. Only the highest-grade troll could achieve that.
3] The occasional horseplay post makes its way on here, so not out of the question.
4] I almost did this myself, then blocked him for a while, then unblocked him and now just laugh at his posts in private amusement.

I am going to go with a combination of 1, 3, and 4.

 

[Honosbinda]

Sorry, LOL! I forgot to mention that this hypothetical OOB purchase was from an entirely different Lone Canuck CG. Drive for St. Lo.

I had sent the example to a player I'm playing via email, and copied in the body of the email, without adding the subject of the email to the post. I had sent the info to demonstrate that this MG 'insanity' doesn't just apply to Oz. Bay.

I'm very sorry to have put you to such trouble with my omission, and thanks very much for the compliment!

 

[nebel]

When playing the OzB CG my opponent also maxed out the Romanian MGs. At least 2 of the scenarios he did a fair slaughter of my troops as a result. Those were dark times however, the B11 caught up with him. Also, with tactics leveraging my own fire/smoke generating assets as well as taking advantage of the gully and some timely snow in one scenario date I was able to push him out of the town. There aren't enough Romanians to guard everything and the Germans are extremely expensive. We had a great time and felt like this could have gone either way.

 

[dlazov]

Why OB in title then if thus St. Lo? Or your just axe grinding LC?

 

[Honosbinda]

Why OB in title then if thus St. Lo? Or your just axe grinding LC?

Okay, I've edited my original post to explain the reason for this example and explained it in my post back to Volga. So I'm not going to explain it all again, kindly scroll up.

To answer your other question, I don't really have an axe to grind, but I think George K. likes MGs too much in these CGs and they need to be toned down significantly to match the usual firepower offered in most ASL scenarios and other Historical CGs.

In order to test this idea, I made this post to gather data on OB from other players, because my current opponent is deliberately purchasing as many of these MG COYs /Engineer COYs as soon as he can.

 

[Sully]

I agree there are too many MGs available in OzB. On the other hand, as the Romanians you're going to have a very hard time hanging on to them. More often than not the owning MMC will break and leave them there for the Russians to pick up.

The Russian can also accumulate a butt-load of MGs, including 50 cals. It's very hard for the Romanians to make a stand with 16 -1 IFT shots (before TEM) coming at you at 16 hexes. Mortars and OBA are an absolute must for the Romanians. I made the mistake of not buying OBA on one CG date and that pretty much cost me the game.

 

[Paolo Cariolato]

I've played the CG to its conclusion as Romanians (and lost), and yes, MGs are cheap and you can buy a ton of them. I finished up using hungarians MMG and when those finished i started to punch Festung Budapest ones to have enough.
If you put them up in the hills with some leadership you can enjoy very long shots to the advancing marines in the valley. In my memories mtr were even better and spotters make them safe from harm.

 

[nebel]

I've played the CG to its conclusion as Romanians (and lost), and yes, MGs are cheap and you can buy a ton of them. I finished up using hungarians MMG and when those finished i started to punch Festung Budapest ones to have enough.
If you put them up in the hills with some leadership you can enjoy very long shots to the advancing marines in the valley. In my memories mtr were even better and spotters make them safe from harm.

Agree the Mortars were worse - with MMG B11 they don't last too long and without leaders everywhere they cower as well. On the other hand the mortars pounded me endlessly...

 

[benj]

This is a trend in Lone Canuck publishing products to favor much more MG than in other ASL products. When I played this CG, I was too a bit concerned by the amount of MG that you can buy (and you will since they are a bargain).

On the other hand, OzB also bothered me by the very little leaders available per squad.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Machine gun counters don't just represent physical weapons, but skilled operators able to employ them effectively. Just about every squad in the game could have an LMG if one was going to go by TO&E.

Artillery caused 75% of the casualties on the battlefield in actuality, so its not really worth getting wound up over.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

This is a trend in Lone Canuck publishing products to favor much more MG than in other ASL products. When I played this CG, I was too a bit concerned by the amount of MG that you can buy (and you will since they are a bargain).

On the other hand, OzB also bothered me by the very little leaders available per squad.

You haven't said whether or not these design choices turned out to be mistakes. You were concerned, but was the concern founded? I haven't played one of George's campaigns (yet) other than the mini-campaigns in his scenario packs but as someone who playtested a couple of products, I was frankly astonished at how balanced his scenarios tended to be right out of the gate. It's one thing to think his design approach is unbalanced on the sight of it, but the proof is in how it plays.

So, how did it play?

 

[Yuri0352]

You haven't said whether or not these design choices turned out to be mistakes. You were concerned, but was the concern founded? I haven't played one of George's campaigns (yet) other than the mini-campaigns in his scenario packs but as someone who playtested a couple of products, I was frankly astonished at how balanced his scenarios tended to be right out of the gate. It's one thing to think his design approach is unbalanced on the sight of it, but the proof is in how it plays.

So, how did it play?

I can't specifically comment on Oz Bay, as I do not own it nor have I played it. The only LC campaign which I have played was Hell's Highway, and IMO, it was horrendously unbalanced in favor of the Germans due to the limitless supply of AFV'S available during the reinforcement phases (specifically Panthers and halftracks).

I've been interested in Oz Bay, however I would like to hear a few more player's assessments of the overall CG before I spend any money.

 

[dlazov]

Meant to post this here not elsewhere.

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dropoff/schilling/mil_org/comp_strength_new.html

 

[Vinnie]

Wait until you try Konisberg. Because I could I stacked 6 hmg and a 9-2 in a hex....

Although Mgs are nice and prevalent, buying them will reduce your infantry to such an extent that they will get swarmed and overrun. The Soviets have assets that can easily negate individual points

 

[Craig Benn]

It's a general problem in all campaigns that SW accumulate and the squad: SW ratio declines the longer the campaign lasts. Some sort of SW attrition HMG degrading to MMG or remove MG's/ Light mortars above a certain ration are an option.

Strict TOE SW are a mistake in my opinion - too overpowered. Design for effect.

Do all the Romanian MG's make it balanced - maybe, can't comment having not played it.
But is it fun just moving forward taking pot shots?