Bob Walters
Senior Member
Not having air support would certainly detract from the feel of the campaign.
Slaughter at Ponri
- Thread starter voyager77
- Start date
Regarding fortifications and air-support in the Ponyri CG..
While the number of CG fortifications used in the original CG have been reduced, it wasn't by very much in the revised version. The main revision having to do with fortifications has more to do with expanding the Germans points of entry on the map which forces the Russians to spread out those fortifications. If you want more, you can add them (Optional Rule), but beware of bogging play down. There are still plenty of Fortifications which characterized the battle.
As far as air-support, while there is no argument that at Kursk there was a lot of air action, it was decided to omit air-power in the CG for good reasons. Those reasons include: 1) complexity of rules and their deciphering delay upon ground play (which in itself requires a lot of time and attention), 2) that the ground commander (us) would historically not have had the ability to make pin-point attacks such as ASL practically allows, due to the absence of ground-air communications in WWII, 3) the fog (or smoke) of war. The battlefield was full of smoke - an air attack in a swirling, smoky battlefield would have been highly risky given the high possibility of hitting your own, 4) from the narratives, the main references to aircraft attacking ground forces was mainly performed to interrupt and destroy reinforcement columns farther away from the battlefield (maybe because of the problems mentioned in 3. above?).
However, if you want air-power and don't agree with the above, by all means add it as an Optional Rule (that would be easy to do). My personal view is that air-power in ASL is something to be avoided.
While the number of CG fortifications used in the original CG have been reduced, it wasn't by very much in the revised version. The main revision having to do with fortifications has more to do with expanding the Germans points of entry on the map which forces the Russians to spread out those fortifications. If you want more, you can add them (Optional Rule), but beware of bogging play down. There are still plenty of Fortifications which characterized the battle.
As far as air-support, while there is no argument that at Kursk there was a lot of air action, it was decided to omit air-power in the CG for good reasons. Those reasons include: 1) complexity of rules and their deciphering delay upon ground play (which in itself requires a lot of time and attention), 2) that the ground commander (us) would historically not have had the ability to make pin-point attacks such as ASL practically allows, due to the absence of ground-air communications in WWII, 3) the fog (or smoke) of war. The battlefield was full of smoke - an air attack in a swirling, smoky battlefield would have been highly risky given the high possibility of hitting your own, 4) from the narratives, the main references to aircraft attacking ground forces was mainly performed to interrupt and destroy reinforcement columns farther away from the battlefield (maybe because of the problems mentioned in 3. above?).
However, if you want air-power and don't agree with the above, by all means add it as an Optional Rule (that would be easy to do). My personal view is that air-power in ASL is something to be avoided.
Last edited:
Perry
Forum Guru
Fortifications on map or fortifications off map?
Air support abstracted or air support detailed (as much as ASL allows?
Those are discussions worth having, issues that the design team has carefully considered, and issues that I feel have been successfully resolved but with which one might legitimately disagree.
Accurate map vs Holst map? That is NOT worth discussing.
Air support abstracted or air support detailed (as much as ASL allows?
Those are discussions worth having, issues that the design team has carefully considered, and issues that I feel have been successfully resolved but with which one might legitimately disagree.
Accurate map vs Holst map? That is NOT worth discussing.
Perry
Forum Guru
Do you want to name HASL names?
Or is this supposed to apply to all 21st Century HASLs?
Eagle4ty
Forum Guru
Have to agree about air power use in ASL. During WW-II very few times was on-call air power used in direct conjunction with an ongoing attack/defense at least akin to its use in Viet-Nam. Most air power was used to interdict rear areas or as a pre-mission strike against front line positions for the reasons brought forward by you (mainly coordination problems). Perhaps in the PTO direct air support was more common, but even then normally the side relying upon the air strike would pull back or hunker down a bit prior to its use, then continue its operation after the airstrike(s) had been resolved (at least if it had been successfully resolved as per plans). Were I the ruler of the ASL universe, the rule would be to employ air power during a game, the side employing it would have to forego any attack actions (especially any indirect fire) or movement actions during the turn(s) the tactical aircraft are on board and limit any aircraft attacks on enemy units to those at least 10 hexes (400m-extremely danger close) from the nearest friendly unit [EXC: in the case of a mistaken air attack]. Additionally, any mistaken air attack would automatically cause any friendly with a LOS to the location of the attack to take a NMC, +1MC if the attack included bombs or rockets, and a +2MC if a friendly unit was KIA/destroyed. As you have stated, the air rules as currently presented in ASL are really a tub of goo and certainly not reflective of common practice {EXC: As probably presented in the scenario JABO]!
Last edited:
Gunner Scott
Forum Guru
No need to be snarky about my map, it is compromise to accommodate playability and be a fun CG.
Justiciar
Elder Member
<No snark voice is on>
Danger close applies to OBA and NOBA neither of which are in the ASL system......the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 rule of thumb, so to speak.....oh and don't forget the foxhole exit fix too.
Not that I think what you you posted about TACAIR is wide of the mark...but it just shows you that ASL is game...
But just to show TACAIR at least in Korea was used that close, have you read "East of Chosin" and the breakout battle as Capt. Stamford (USMC TACP attached to RCT 31) called the exit close air support mission ...the good, the bad and the very ugly of it all in one. If not have a read. +1
We all know ASL has "issues" I can fire a flamethrower at long range over my adjacent own troops...go try that in RL and see how it works...walk into a WP FEE in the movement phase after the FFE1 went down in the Prep Fire...
Eagle4ty
Forum Guru
No snark intimated from this end in either direction.
Actually "danger close" for us pounders was 600m for arty or air-strikes of any type. I simply used my powers of "if I were the ruler of the ASL universe" to make it an easy to remember & implement rule of thumb (I think you meant to state "neither are in the game", but I'm not sure). My intent was to show/state, that there are simply better ways to implement the effects of air support for this CG without resorting to using the current messed up air rules.
BTW, yes a good read. Note that as the war (WW-II) progressed the use of on-call direct support by aircraft became a lot better for the Americans and British as FACs were pushed down to lower levels (Bn at least and sometimes augmented to special lower echelon units as required). By the time of the Korean Conflict (even the Okinawa Campaign for that matter), coordination between air & ground assets had progressed considerably.
Sparky
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 273
- Country
-
no snark here either..
I think you might be a bit wrong on that one. The Germans pioneered the use of close air support and combined arms warfare, I honestly thought that was a well known fact. Perhaps not.
Fliegerverbindungsoffizier (abbreviated "Flivo") were small teams of 3 to 12 Luftwaffe personnel who operated with the forward ground troops of the Heer and the Waffen-SS, especially Panzer spearheads during offensive operations, to coordinate direct air support at the front. These Flivo teams existed right from the beginning of the war and played a vital role in the successful application of combined arms warfare on all fronts.
Justiciar
Elder Member
Thank you for the non-snark reading.
I wanted answer more in my post about your "ruler powers" but I feared <snark> effect, so cut things down. There is I am sure much we would all do as "rulers".
Yes game.
I was actually never trying to comment on the particulars of the CG which I am not privy to.
Agree on progression...so as a "ruler" one would like to see that in the game...off there cuff ...ie NA in X date...only can attack Z away in Y date ...and so on with EXC: for TACP types...but anyways this is a moot point.
Thank you for your time...and "ruler" power ideas.
Sparky
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 273
- Country
-
Hi Perry. They are most certainly valid discussions worth having. So let me put on my Atticus Finch (pre segregationist Finch at least haha) hat and plead to you to see justice in the HASL world done haha.
I think most players would agree that, much like OBA, Air Support is highly abstracted and one could argue is a creation of and for the small geoboard 6 or 7 turn scenarios that ASL has thousands of but translates badly to HASL.
I'll leave OBA alone for I have a dog in that fight and have designed rules for HASL to simulate OBA without the traditional single module (or 2 or 3) that works for scenario play, but could be improved upon or flat out modelled differently for the larger scales, not to mention higher intensities of fighting one often sees in HASL
So I guess what I am asking is. Have you, or any of your designers tried to think outside the box, not to stick the square ASL air support rules into the round hole of HASL play. Instead of throwing out the whole baby with the bathwater, but perhaps either new rules. Better rules, or simply some old fashioned design 'chops' which we HASL fans ADORE and love to see in action. I do think some of the points raised earlier have some validity to it. By excising some elements, simplifying it, the HASL risks become nothing more than pretty map but just the same old old gameplay just with more pieces and a bigger. The name of the game being Ponyri isn't enough, the map accurately being of Ponyri isn't enough, it needs to feel like it. The best HASL take you the player there, and make you feel as if you were there. This was a back and forth slugfest with no grand flanking moves or pretty tactics. I do hope the product will refect that
*Atticus Finch hat off*
Bob Walters
Senior Member
From what I have read the Luftwaffe concentrated on close air support rather than battlefield interdiction. Indeed, that was one of the problems with the performance of the Luftwaffe at Kursk. An interesting paper about this was written by USAF Major William J. Dalecky. He attributed this as one of the factors that prevented the Germans from achieving their goals. That being the case, however, it would seem that German air support should be present in some form. However, The German player should probably have less control over targeting than the rules permit.
Sparky
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 273
- Country
-
the Luftwaffe had bigger problems at Kursk rather than not concentrating on interdiction IMO. First and foremost facing an opponent evolving rapidly from the joke it had been the first two years of the war. Better and more aircraft than they had fielded previously and often the equal of what the Germans had at that time, a growing core of talented and experienced pilots and the maturity to learn and adapt tactically. They weren't there yet, and wouldn't get there for another year until Bagration, but there enough they directly affected the Luftwaffe's performance in comparisons to offensives in the first years of the war.
Jazz
Inactive
Not gonna name names.
We did not playtest all 21st Century HASLs so I cannot talk to that.
Indeed, being ignored as a playtester is not unique to HASLs. It happens on scenario playtesting as well.
It usually happens with the original design team of an HASL/scenario.....the people that are emotionally invested in the topic.
Brad M-V
Senior Member
Fortifications on map or fortifications off map?
A = I like when the trenches are printed right on the map because it looks realistic and is nicer to use. But, I also think the play testers and you are in a better position to decide what's going to be more fun ultimately, so will be happy with whatever you guys choose.
Air support abstracted or air support detailed (as much as ASL allows?
A = I definitely prefer the air support to be abstracted. I don't give a sheet about commanding IL-2 Sturmovik's or Stuka's, those are better off abstracted into the battle. Even OBA can be abstracted if possible, IMO. I just want to command infantry, guns & armor. Save the hard core scenario's & CG's for magazine bait, please. <G>
bprobst
Elder Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,535
- Reaction score
- 1,441
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
- First name
- Bruce
- Country
-
Ha ha. Sure, equate the struggle against racism and injustice with a set of HASL rules you don't like (even though you haven't seen them yet and don't know much about them). Those things are exactly alike.
Because all HASL designers, and by extension everyone at MMP, are not very clever people who typically don't think much about the stuff they're designing, yeah? In addition to being just like racists that we need to demand justice against. Man, this analogy just keeps on giving, doesn't it?
Feel free to suggest some. For my own part, I would suggest that the major impact of air support in a typical ASL scenario is not so much the damage that it directly causes (although certainly that can occur) but the impact on movement. Without enemy air support, units will scamper around in the backfield freely secure in the knowledge that the enemy can't do much about it. With enemy air support, there is usually a great deal less scampering. So one way of abstractly simulating air support would be some mechanism to make scampering in the open a poor choice. Or even more abstractly, make movement more restrictive/difficult.
More generally ... I don't think that there's any real profit in a designer (HASL or regular scenario) going out of his way to explain or justify his decisions in advance of the release of the product. Whatever it is, someone will find a reason to whine about it, and/or in the nicest possible way suggest that they really need to redesign everything because that will guarantee that everyone will like it better. In fact, what the product really needs is someone else to do the design work, because after all, who wants to buy a product made by racist idiots? Heaven knows that there's no point at all in waiting for publication before deciding whether a good job has been done or not!
klasmalmstrom
Forum Guru
The odds of me actually playing this (or any for that matter) CG is pretty low, so I really don't have a strong opinion on whether one can buy Air Support RGs or nor, however....
... I would argue that reason #1 above should not be an issue, as the Air Support rules are not really that complicated - granted (as a lot of things in Chapter E) the rules are not written with 100% clarity. But my guess is that most who play CG and go through (and learn) all the CG rules should not have that much difficulty to use the Air Support rules. As always, ymmv.
Last edited:
Brad M-V
Senior Member
Here's some facts about the Russian IL-2 Sturmovik ground attack aircraft used during the battle of Kursk, and why I feel aircraft in ASL are a little to much like "Hollywood", IMO:
During the Battle of Kursk, VVS Il-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2,000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division.[25] On 1 July, however, the 3rd Panzer Division's 6th Panzer Regiment had just 90 tanks, 180 less than claimed as destroyed.[26] On 11 July (well after the battle), the 3rd Panzer Division still had 41 operational tanks.[27] The 3rd Panzer Division continued fighting throughout July, mostly with 48th Panzer Corps. It did not record any extraordinary losses to air attack throughout this period. As with the other panzer divisions at Kursk, the large majority of the 3rd Panzer Division’s tank losses were due to dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns and tanks.
Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS’s Il-2s is that, over a period of four hours, they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division. On 1 July, the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39), with 67 tanks,[28] 173 less than claimed destroyed by the VVS. The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector, but further south with the 1st Panzer Army's 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year, still intact.
During the Battle of Kursk, VVS Il-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2,000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division.[25] On 1 July, however, the 3rd Panzer Division's 6th Panzer Regiment had just 90 tanks, 180 less than claimed as destroyed.[26] On 11 July (well after the battle), the 3rd Panzer Division still had 41 operational tanks.[27] The 3rd Panzer Division continued fighting throughout July, mostly with 48th Panzer Corps. It did not record any extraordinary losses to air attack throughout this period. As with the other panzer divisions at Kursk, the large majority of the 3rd Panzer Division’s tank losses were due to dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns and tanks.
Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS’s Il-2s is that, over a period of four hours, they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division. On 1 July, the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39), with 67 tanks,[28] 173 less than claimed destroyed by the VVS. The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector, but further south with the 1st Panzer Army's 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year, still intact.
Gunner Scott
Forum Guru
I would not get too wrapped up in this version of Ponyri since it will be a long time before it see's the light of day. IE you have Red Factories, Dinant, manila and alot of other ASL stuff coming out before this module does.
Scott
Scott
von Marwitz
Forum Guru
AFAIK, close-recon aircraft (such as the Fieseler Storch, comparable in some ways to a Piper Cub) had a radio-connection to the Flivo, which was located very close to the front and working together - quasi embedded - with Heer units. In parallel, the observers in the aircraft would jut down notes and take pictures above target. After the first radio transmission, the notes would be dropped out of the aircraft close to the location where the Flivo was stationed. The Flivo would then pinpoint the described target location on previously made aerial photographs and reconfirm with the just landed aerial-observers to eliminate possible misunderstandings. Then, based on this information, either aerial strikes or artillery strikes would be effected.
It is to be noted, that the Fieseler Storch did not require any sort of airfield to operate. Any patch of level ground would do. With a heads-on wind, it needed merely 50 meters (!) of ground to take off and 20 meters to land. Its speed was very slow, too. As such, it was able to do very short range recon and to operate in very close vincinity of the Flivo detachment.
The Flivo was not necessarily fixed in his position. There were standard German halftracks (of the SPW 250 variant I think) which were equipped with the necessary radio equipment. As such, the Flivo was able to keep up with the front and movement of friendly troops (especially panzer spearheads).
I think, that the Flivo did not have a direct radio connection to bomber, fighter, or ground-support aircraft.
Nevertheless, the "reaction time" and relative precision of ground-support attacks (especially Stuka) was very short and good compared to everything else that was around until late during the war.
von Marwitz