Chef du Pont CG Discussion

[heliodorus04]

Seems like this is a HASL campaign that could be played in a tournament setting. That's why the turn lengths are so short.
That really puts the onus on knowing your ASL toolkit.

I'm about to start this campaign (as the American side), and I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of saving a 10-2 and a 10-3 leader from date #2.
Why would the designers have created/permitted a mechanism by which these 2 leaders are retained? That is intentional. What is the difference between having those and not having those for the remainder of the campaign. Is there any way for that difference (having 10-2 & 10-3) NOT to have a major impact?

 

[pensatl1962]

The German player absolutely must understand the importance of keeping the Americans on their side of the river on game date 1, and make the 10-3 and 10-2 leaders and troops go away for subsequent dates. I did not - and I paid the price for the remainder of the (truncated) CG. The German troop quality is marginal, and there aren’t that many. Even in stone buildings they’re gonna take a lot of 16 flat (10-3 directed) or 16 up 1 (10-2 directed) shots in prep fire and even advancing fire. You won’t last long in those situations.

 

[ibncalb]

What is the difference between having those and not having those for the remainder of the campaign. Is there any way for that difference (having 10-2 & 10-3) NOT to have a major impact?

The -2 leaders are a big problem. They make bocage disappear. Timmes should be busy rallying troops on hill 30 so he isn't a gamebreaker. But to have the other 10 leaders across the river where sight lines are short and the 747s can get normal range attacks with their modifiers is catastrophic for the Germans.

The German forces are well balanced to contest the hill AND the southern area, but not when overmatched so significantly in the south.

I know about the QA process but is there a way to ask for an errrata or a clarification if this rule is working as intended?

 

[ibncalb]

The German player absolutely must understand the importance of keeping the Americans on their side of the river on game date 1, and make the 10-3 and 10-2 leaders and troops go away for subsequent dates. I did not - and I paid the price for the remainder of the (truncated) CG. The German troop quality is marginal, and there aren’t that many. Even in stone buildings they’re gonna take a lot of 16 flat (10-3 directed) or 16 up 1 (10-2 directed) shots in prep fire and even advancing fire. You won’t last long in those situations.

Maybe I've played and seen the Germans played wrong in all of my games so far. Perhaps the idea is to completely sacrifice the at start Germans to ensure the 10 leaders do not make it across.

That may be a viable strategy and may explain why there doesn't have been much reaction from MMP to this 'issue'. It could be a lack of grokking on my part.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

......is there a way to ask for an errrata or a clarification if this rule is working as intended?

"working as intended" - are you referring to the issue of whether the American units needs to be east of the river as opposed to just not west of ?

That may be a viable strategy and may explain why there doesn't have been much reaction from MMP to this 'issue'. It could be a lack of grokking on my part.

Which "issue" is that? Per above, or something else?

Also, I don't think we can assume MMP frequents this forum (or Discord), so lack of "reaction" might be due to "lack of having heard about amy issue".

 

[ibncalb]

"working as intended" - are you referring to the issue of whether the American units needs to be east of the river as opposed to just not west of ?



Which "issue" is that? Per above, or something else?

Also, I don't think we can assume MMP frequents this forum (or Discord), so lack of "reaction" might be due to "lack of having heard about amy issue".

Thanks for replying.

The issue is indeed 'west of the stream' At the moment it is too easy for the US big leaders to make it across the stream. This dooms the southern German defence to a quick end.

This was raised by me and others just after release. At one stage you mentioned that you thought the US units might need to be West of the stream to survive.

There are a number of other short AARs which support this.

I'm not sure how to raise this with MMP. As I mentioned above it might just be me failing to recognise the correct course of action to avoid this.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

About being "west of the stream" is known by MMP.

Lately, all (at least my) focus has been on Kharkov. Might be more time to look at it now.

So errata saying "west of" instead of "not east of" is likely coming.

 

[ibncalb]

About being "west of the stream" is known by MMP.

Lately, all (at least my) focus has been on Kharkov. Might be more time to look at it now.

So errata saying "west of" instead of "not east of" is likely coming.

You're a good man. Thank you.

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

They are - if not at the end, pretty early in the RePh - that's the intention.

The way it is written could indeed be clearer......I also think the intenton is - but I could be remembering wrong - that the U.S. troops actually have to be west of stream - not just in it (that's not what it says now, so that would require errata of some sorts).

I have asked Q&A on this, would be good to know as lookeing to play Scens 2-7 on first days of ASLOK
with Chuck T (And Scen 1 prior)

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

One though on this, some believe that with bocage after firing one should not be able to voluntaryily give up WA in a player turn, would this dramatically impact balance here or be equal for both sides?

 

[ibncalb]

One though on this, some believe that with bocage after firing one should not be able to voluntaryily give up WA in a player turn, would this dramatically impact balance here or be equal for both sides?

There are very few, if any hexes (from memory) where this is possible on this map.

 

[klasmalmstrom]

There are very few, if any hexes (from memory) where this is possible on this map.

That's my recollection as well....

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

They are - if not at the end, pretty early in the RePh - that's the intention.

The way it is written could indeed be clearer......I also think the intenton is - but I could be remembering wrong - that the U.S. troops actually have to be west of stream - not just in it (that's not what it says now, so that would require errata of some sorts).

I have submitted a Q&A on this, if a Pre ASLOK answer is avaialble it would be wonderful

 

[rdw5150]

I have submitted a Q&A on this, if a Pre ASLOK answer is avaialble it would be wonderful

Hiya!

I am not trying to be a poopy head or sound argumentative, but everyone I talked to about this CG and every post I have seen, West of the stream is clearly the intent. Just play it that way. You're not playing for kidneys or a million dollars (or even for Grofaz for that matter). I agree its not written well, but sometimes you just gotta go with your gut. It is frustrating that this is a known issue and has not be rectified, but still, play it the way its intended (in my opinion anyway).

That's how we played it. Otherwise it seems pretty dang hard on the Germans. One of the American leaders took a bullet to the face early on, the other did not make it across, so much to do about nothing in our game.

Don't get me started on Bocage

Peace

Roger

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

As I will be playing the German I would of course be happy with that, don't like to force same onto an opponent thing (HI Chuck)

 

[Pedro ASL]

I was wondering hoy a German win looks like in this campaign game. We are starting date 4 and the americans seem firmly in control. Date 2 was terrible for the germans, date 3 the americans lost some troops but control most of the strategic locations. Do the germans have to grind down the americans? Go for an early hill conquest?

 

[ctewks]

About being "west of the stream" is known by MMP.

Lately, all (at least my) focus has been on Kharkov. Might be more time to look at it now.

So errata saying "west of" instead of "not east of" is likely coming.

As written however, if you're IN the stream, then you are not "east of" the stream - so those units would not be removed.

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

About being "west of the stream" is known by MMP.

Lately, all (at least my) focus has been on Kharkov. Might be more time to look at it now.

So errata saying "west of" instead of "not east of" is likely coming.

Hope Kharkov now out the door from your POV

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

A follow up question, on CDP Date 2 if the American player exits some Troops of the east edge, are they then retained for
CG Date 3 or removed as per other forces East of the River? It seems like a very cunning plan.

 

[ibncalb]

A follow up question, on CDP Date 2 if the American player exits some Troops of the east edge, are they then retained for
CG Date 3 or removed as per other forces East of the River? It seems like a very cunning plan.

This was raised in a previous post on GS.

Without recalling the detail, no they are not retained if exited or shifted.

If they are not on map across the stream (errata pending) they are gone.