c3k Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Bil, Great job. Congratulations on almost taking the objective. Now give us some kill stats on the Elefant and Brummbar! Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Yeah I back Vin on his request! And I would like his enemy to be a seasoned veteran. That would b eepic! All this said Bil, thank you very much for this stellar performance and show. Much appreciated! Now take some rest if you can. BTW, are you still developing that game (forgot it's name but it's about German invasion of France)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizou Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Thanks for taking the time to put this together to show off more new stuff. It was very entertaining, and well put together. To be honest I would have rather liked to see Bil on defense for a change since he attacked too in the AAR against NormalDude. If you do another one in the future Bil please play defense for a change. Id love that too. How about the AAR for the MG module 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Bil on defense vs c3k on offence. My vote is cast 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Bil on defense vs c3k on offence. My vote is cast I'm with that ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Bil on defense vs c3k on offence. My vote is cast Now that I would pay money to watch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 Now that I would pay money to watch. How much? Seriously, if they allow me to do another AAR then I would be proud to face off against c3k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Bil, Were I an AAR judge, I'd have to give you full marks for your, technically, DAR. A model of the breed! Your approach to warfare is meticulous and downright scary. You clearly know what you're doing on the virtual battlefield. While it wouldn't have served your interests, I wish GreenAsJade had gotten the opportunity to really shoot at your heavy armor with his ATGs and M10s. That would've been useful to Allied players potentially up against such threats. You showed the M10 is exceedingly vulnerable to de facto blinding when it buttons up, greatly reducing its actual tactical utility. Further, you showed the M6 ATG, at least under these particular circumstances, is too big to hide effectively. We now, know, too, that the Standard APC round is what's under the hood for those weapons, ather than the Substitute Standard AP. As it was, the only German heavy armor that got so much as scuffed was the Elefant. Didn't you say your optics were degraded or something along those lines? I was also disappointed the M16 accomplished so vanishingly little. Not much of a showcase there. By contrast, the Elefant came off as sprightly (BFC may need to work on that, especially in light of the severe turning limits that were unearthed in several discussions) and impervious, while the Brummbar not only blew up the expected target (buildings and defensive positions), but the unexpected (the hapless M10). Your Panzer Grenadiers and the way you handled them really deserve Die Wochenschau newsreel coverage. Am sure you worked your butt off on the map, and I think when you get the rest of the terrain features in, the nature of any battles fought upon it will be dramatically altered. From the overheads and the period accounts, I think you were able to maneuver in ways that were simply impossible given the actual ground. That, in my view, worked against GreenAsJade, since it both forced him to cover more frontage, on the one hand, and, on the other, allowed you to shift AFVs at will cross country in an area where accounts show armor was essentially roadbound. This made his already tough job that much harder. That said, I have no doubt your core military approach would've been every bit as rigorous, but I think multiple aspects of the fight would've changed considerably. Once again, though, we see what happens when the principle of Mass is ignored and armor is penny-packeted, as the British say! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 Kill Stats As requested by Ken. Elefant : 11 enemy casualties : 1 M10 Jpz IV : 12 enemy casualties : 1 M10 note: this Jpz also killed the first ATG, but did not get credit for it (nobody did actually) Brummbarr (right) : 5 enemy casualties Brummbarr (left) : 5 enemy casualties : 1 M10 Pz-IV HQ : 15 enemy casualties Pz-IV 1 : 9 enemy casualties Pz-IV 3 : 13 enemy casualties : 1 M10 : 1 76mm ATG Pz_IV 4 (knocked out) : 5 enemy casualties : 1 M16 AA Halftrack I won't get into the infantry other than, I had an HMG get credit for one of the bunkers, one ammo bearer team got credit for another (close assault) Looking at this I would say the Brummbarr's under-performed, the Pz-IVs and the Jpz did the majority of the killing. The Elefant did well but not amazingly well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Jpz IV : 12 enemy casualties : 1 M10 note: this Jpz also killed the first ATG, but did not get credit for it (nobody did actually) I can't find it now, but I recall reading a post on the forum to the effect that destroyed AT guns do not count in either the unit kill stats or the end game totals. You also do not get any victory points for killing them (I'm assuming this is in QBs). It's probably a bug, but I've never got around to testing it myself to make sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 I can't find it now, but I recall reading a post on the forum to the effect that destroyed AT guns do not count in either the unit kill stats or the end game totals. You also do not get any victory points for killing them (I'm assuming this is in QBs). It's probably a bug, but I've never got around to testing it myself to make sure. Well I had one counted in the kill stats of one Pz-IV and two mortars each got credit for two others (one each of course). The first that was ganged up on by the Brummbar and Jpz, and killed by the Jpz is the only one unaccounted for in the kill stats. So I think your information might be dated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 It is dated. I just got off my lazy butt and tested it. Carry on 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I enjoyed this AAR very much. Thanks, Bill, for your excellent commentary and tactical tips, and your wonderful screenshots. I hope you do another one soon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Bil on defense vs c3k on offence. My vote is cast Good choice! Do it, guys! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Isn't c3k always on offense, even when he's supposed to be on defense? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Isn't c3k always on offense, even when he's supposed to be on defense? Well, yeah, he can be pretty offensive at times. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 Isn't c3k always on offense, even when he's supposed to be on defense? I suppose it doesn't matter then who would be on the attack of any potential future AAR game eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 5, 2013 Author Share Posted July 5, 2013 Am sure you worked your butt off on the map, and I think when you get the rest of the terrain features in, the nature of any battles fought upon it will be dramatically altered. From the overheads and the period accounts, I think you were able to maneuver in ways that were simply impossible given the actual ground. That, in my view, worked against GreenAsJade, since it both forced him to cover more frontage, on the one hand, and, on the other, allowed you to shift AFVs at will cross country in an area where accounts show armor was essentially roadbound. This made his already tough job that much harder. That said, I have no doubt your core military approach would've been every bit as rigorous, but I think multiple aspects of the fight would've changed considerably. Once again, though, we see what happens when the principle of Mass is ignored and armor is penny-packeted, as the British say! Well John, the map of course should not be compared to the real ground that was fought over in the historic action. As a quick battle map it worked very well, and both sides had the potential to use it effectively. There were little to no reverse slope positions to make the Tits assault costly, or Hill 109 for example. If GaJ had brought a more mobile force he could have made it very uncomfortable for me... fortunately for me he did not. Your last sentence is correct.. his major mistake was the piece meal approach that he used when committing his armor as I stated previously. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Am sure you worked your butt off on the map, and I think when you get the rest of the terrain features in, the nature of any battles fought upon it will be dramatically altered. From the overheads and the period accounts, I think you were able to maneuver in ways that were simply impossible given the actual ground. I wouldn't obsess over that too much if I were you, John. The map is what it is and is perfectly good as a game map. If somebody wants to make a map that is as historically perfect as they can make it, more power to them. But I'm not sure that that map would be more fun to play on. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Sorry I missed it if it's in this thread, but which QB map was used in this battle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuderian Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Thanks Bil for the time and effort you put into this excellent AAR. How about you do an AAR on 'how to make a good AAR'. You are the perfect candidate! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 5, 2013 Author Share Posted July 5, 2013 Thanks Bil for the time and effort you put into this excellent AAR. How about you do an AAR on 'how to make a good AAR'. You are the perfect candidate! Ha! Funny. No thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 5, 2013 Author Share Posted July 5, 2013 Sorry I missed it if it's in this thread, but which QB map was used in this battle? This map was not included in the release. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Bil, I didn't say the map wasn't playable, merely that it offered more and richer tactical options than did the actual terrain historically. Moving to more fun fare... Real War Movie Lighting! StuG IIIs in Rome http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-312-0992-11A%2C_Italien%2C_Rom%2C_Sturmgeschütz_III.jpg?uselang=it Michael Emrys, He did indicate he was going to go back in and put in more ground detail, such as terracing. I maintain that once he's got the ground more tweaked, it's going to change the flow of battles to come. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted July 14, 2013 Author Share Posted July 14, 2013 Bil, I didn't say the map wasn't playable, merely that it offered more and richer tactical options than did the actual terrain historically. Moving to more fun fare... Real War Movie Lighting! StuG IIIs in Rome http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-312-0992-11A%2C_Italien%2C_Rom%2C_Sturmgeschütz_III.jpg?uselang=it John, thanks.. wow that was a bright day, eh? Michael Emrys, He did indicate he was going to go back in and put in more ground detail, such as terracing. I maintain that once he's got the ground more tweaked, it's going to change the flow of battles to come. I have worked on the map some more, lots left to do to make it scenario ready, but its coming along. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.