Gustav Line Beta AAR Round Two PEANUT GALLERY

[slysniper]

@slysniper Bil has a platoon of Inf in reserve all mounted on trucks..

True, I forgot about that.

Is He not already talking about using them possibly here soon.

So, just will have to see how it plays out, the longer he goes without having to commit them, the better.

As for the sighting in the game, there is nothing unusual in the inconsistancy of it, in CMX2, its just inconsistant. Which does not make for fair game play. But does reflect how in real life one side might not be able to spot the enemy which is in the act of attacking them. (That is a common problem that occurred). I have a game right now where a enemy armor car is firing on a 88 AA gun and a Stug tank now for 2 minutes and my units have not been able to spot him, even though he appears to be pretty much in the open at a lower elevation that should give my units pretty clear line of sight.

But I am so use to this type of spotting issues that it does not phase me any more. I just expect and play expecting these type of results.

[womble]

Is He not already talking about using them possibly here soon.

Yeah, but only to keep the attack moving while the spearhead re-ammos. Good use of a reserve. And the spearhead can either bound through wherever the pioneers have gotten to by the time they've caught their breath, or become the reserve itself.

[ForwardObserver]

That doesn't mean much, but what may mean something is how MANY of them he has. Does he have more eyeballs on the space he's interested in than GaJ has staring back? If GaJ is spread out, then maybe only one team is looking across all the terrain that Bil is in. Bil's units are concentrated (putatively) and he may have 6 teams all looking towards GaJ's one team's location. The number of eyeballs REALLY matters for spotting.

This is a good appraisal of the situation. My impression is that GaJ had a quite good hold on Bil's movements while his screening forces were most or less intact. Inevitably, these forward elements have been progressively eroded by casualties and suppression.

As a defender, this is more or less bound to happen. The hard part is to keep it cool and avoid committing your reserve too early.

[dieseltaylor]

I have a game right now where a enemy armor car is firing on a 88 AA gun and a Stug tank now for 2 minutes and my units have not been able to spot him, even though he appears to be pretty much in the open at a lower elevation that should give my units pretty clear line of sight. But I am so use to this type of spotting issues that it does not phase me any more. I just expect and play expecting these type of results.

1. Just out of curiosity is this against the AI?

2. I am left wondering if we are meant to be using our ears to locate likely areas? Do people do this? Does it work?

[Vanir Ausf B]

People do this. It works. I wish it didn't.

[Michael Emrys]

I use it. It works...sort of. Well enough anyway. Doesn't really bother me. It compensates a bit for the AI opponent having an uncanny ability to do terrain analysis and find perfect keyholes.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

I have a game right now where a enemy armor car is firing on a 88 AA gun and a Stug tank now for 2 minutes and my units have not been able to spot him, even though he appears to be pretty much in the open at a lower elevation that should give my units pretty clear line of sight.

But I am so use to this type of spotting issues that it does not phase me any more. I just expect and play expecting these type of results.

That sounds familiar Assuming you are talking about our game: Two comments: what makes you think it is a single AC firing on both targets? I am not really surprised you cannot see the firing unit(s). I spent many minutes maneuvering into that position tweaking positions after looking through the trees to get it just right. *I* was expecting them to die but am happy to see they are getting rounds on target - or at least close.

1. Just out of curiosity is this against the AI?

2. I am left wondering if we are meant to be using our ears to locate likely areas? Do people do this? Does it work?

Nope

Don't give him any ideas

[MikeyD]

Everyone seemed a bit stunned by the loss of the TAME M10, but really, it was up against an Elephant with an 88! I believe the game designs-in 'superior optic' (M10 would only be mediocre). Bills been remarkably conservative with Elephant's use to date. From the first move GaJ's best (only?) hope for victory was the darned beasty would immobilize itself on the wrong side of a hill. It could still happen. What's his next best plan? A 'daring plan' might involve that M16 HT. The thing lays down such a withering volume of fire that it has a (small) chance of scouring the gunner's optics entirely off the elephant, blinding him. Bummer if that doesn't work, though.

[slysniper]

That sounds familiar Assuming you are talking about our game: Two comments: what makes you think it is a single AC firing on both targets? I am not really surprised you cannot see the firing unit(s). I spent many minutes maneuvering into that position tweaking positions after looking through the trees to get it just right. *I* was expecting them to die but am happy to see they are getting rounds on target - or at least close.

Nope

Don't give him any ideas

Yes its this game, no it is not vs AI.

As for seeing it, I can see the unit so I know it is the unit firing. My game pieces cannot see the unit and if I could area fire the 88 I would, but with the way spotting works, I cannot area fire in the hex either. none of this is new for the CMX2 engine. The situation is, learning to play the game expecting such events.

Now Ian, get the next turn posted so I can comment on what finially happens in that situation.:eek:

[dieseltaylor]

Everyone seemed a bit stunned by the loss of the TAME M10, but really, it was up against an Elephant with an 88! I believe the game designs-in 'superior optic' (M10 would only be mediocre). Bills been remarkably conservative with Elephant's use to date....

It is the first shot kill aspect that is interesting. Certainly possible but generally long range first shot kills happen when tanks are already set prepared in position. Here we have a SP drive up into the position that allows a shot and fires and hits.

Now if it jiggered about to get the correct position [and was not spotted despite its bulk] then that would seem more probable. The other alternative is that Bill was firing blind - is that feasible? Tree burst effects?

Or there is infantry in advance spotting the correct position.

PS thanks to ian and slysniper for replying : )

[womble]

It is the first shot kill aspect that is interesting.

I think it's more that the tree foliage gives the impression that it's concealing the M10, when in fact it isn't, for a very narrow-looking keyhole that GaJ was unlucky enough/fidgeted about enough to cross.

Certainly possible...

At that range, for that system, possible enough to be fairly unsurprising.

The other alternative is that Bill was firing blind - is that feasible? Tree burst effects?

Hopefully it's not too much of a spoiler to anyone reading only GaJ's thread...

spoiler space...

he isn't. At least he wasn't for that shot.

[dieseltaylor]

womble - There are a number of threads on gun accuracy and John D Salt's War Office research figures are available. In all the research AFAIK the basis is a fixed gun firing at a fixed target. This is a good shot at 1200 metres.

The nub of the point is the ability for the SP to get into a position and nail first shot. The minimum standard in training for Tiger crews was AFAIR 3 shots to nail a target at 800m -1200m. So certainly training would agree with the feasibility of it with a tank.

I suppose the SP not having to consider elevation/declination may make it functionally a bit more useful than in RL. I am curious if the cross-country speed of 8-10kph is modeled.

[womble]

womble - There are a number of threads on gun accuracy and John D Salt's War Office research figures are available. In all the research AFAIK the basis is a fixed gun firing at a fixed target. This is a good shot at 1200 metres.

The nub of the point is the ability for the SP to get into a position and nail first shot. The minimum standard in training for Tiger crews was AFAIR 3 shots to nail a target at 800m -1200m. So certainly training would agree with the feasibility of it with a tank.

I suppose the SP not having to consider elevation/declination may make it functionally a bit more useful than in RL. I am curious if the cross-country speed of 8-10kph is modeled.

Yeah, it's a good shot, but it's not surprisingly good. I can't remember seeing what level the crew are, but if they're "Regular" and every single shot goes where it's meant to, at the first time of asking, Bil's getting luckier than perhaps he should expect. I think, in this case, that it doesn't make much difference, because the M10 had reached its last waypoint and there could have been more incoming before it reacted and cleared off of the TacAI's own accord.

[MikeyD]

I had to search back into the AAR to see, when the 3 inch AT gun opened up on the Elephant the first shot went high followed by three nicely grouped shots on the gun mantlet. That sounds like standard practice in the game for a decent gun. Judging from CMBN experience the 88/L71 is considered better than just 'decent'. King Tigers and 88 Paks get a remarkably high percentage of first round kills. It takes a really big map and really crappy weather to see first round misses.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

It's been some time, but as I recall, where BFC really differentiated the German optics was at long range and/or under marginal visual conditions (fog, rain, snow) and also the dawn and dusk transitions. Absent those, with a quality crew and so relatively close, I see no fundamental reason to doubt a first round kill's doable from the Elefant with that flat shooting L/71 88. Was Bil explicitly targeting the M10, or did he simply have the beast in position, whereupon the AI took the shot?

Regards,

John Kettler

[hoolaman]

I had to search back into the AAR to see, when the 3 inch AT gun opened up on the Elephant the first shot went high followed by three nicely grouped shots on the gun mantlet. That sounds like standard practice in the game for a decent gun. Judging from CMBN experience the 88/L71 is considered better than just 'decent'. King Tigers and 88 Paks get a remarkably high percentage of first round kills. It takes a really big map and really crappy weather to see first round misses.

That was a stationary gun in a defensive position so it doesn't at all compare to the situation going back the other way.

Although I have no idea if an unmoved gun really gets a ranging accuracy bonus and concealment bonus or if that is just an assumption because CMX1 did.

[Vanir Ausf B]

No accuracy bonus but they do get a concealment bonus. At least the CMBN manual says they do.

[Ron]

A couple observations re the spotting in the AAR - I agree with the earlier comment about the number of 'eyes' being vital, and as Bil is concentrated in his avenue of approach I'm not surprised he is picking things up more readily. Another item I have not seen mentioned is the importance of C2 in CM and the sharing of spotting information. From the available screenshots, several of GAJ's units are/were out of C2. On top of that, it appears GAJ has two higher HQs - the 2nd Battalion and a Tank Destroyer Battalion. I am not an expert on how that interrelates in CM but it may have a huge impact on the dissemination of spotting info.

I am in total disagreement with some of the comments on the difficulty of defense. From my experience, I don't think 'defense' in CM is inherently harder at all or the ratio of QB points puts it at a disadvantage. Referencing this AAR, I'm not getting any impression of integration of the defense, whether combined arms or use of terrain. Individual units are repeatedly being offered up piecemeal only to be then destroyed for little gain. This negates the main overriding advantage of being on the defense and simply fuels a runaway train, doesn't slow it down.

[dieseltaylor]

Ron- I am confused as to the C2 relevance as if GAJ goes through all his units each turn does that not tell him what they have seen?

Regarding defence. In game terms from my experience with CMx1 its not solely the points but the terrain that makes the difference. The idea that the points ratio remains the same though the terrain changes I find illogical. RL shows that some terrain is very defensible whereas others is not. This is is also shows up where some weapon systems excel and others suck.

This particular battle may reveal the map is too large for a reasonable defence rather than any major screw-ups. With hindsight as to how the game engine works and the enemy force mix I am sure GAJ would do it differently - we all would.

In general terms I am not averse to the offering up piecemeal units while in defence. This normally involves calculating disruption value on the attack and the time to get to the objectives. Obviously this is dependent on the battlefield size, timing, weather and force available.

However I am sure most players can envisage a situation where you may hold an outlier not on the main advance where later in the game you may be able to crossfire on the assault and disrupt it. I may also put a unit forward that is an irritant on the advance but has the added value of being a TRP trap.

In CMx2 V2 I simply do not have the knowledge to be confident on tactics that work. Given the time V2 has been out for the public I suspect most are stilling feeling their way.

[A Canadian Cat]

Ron- I am confused as to the C2 relevance as if GAJ goes through all his units each turn does that not tell him what they have seen?

I could be mistaken and @Ron can correct me if I am but I think he means that when a unit spots the enemy if they are in C2 the information percolates up and down the chain of command and makes it easier for other units of yours also spot the enemy. Once the platoon commander has been told there is an enemy fire team approaching from the left he can direct the attention of the other squads in the platoon to also pay more attention to the left flank.

Regarding defence. In game terms from my experience with CMx1 its not solely the points but the terrain that makes the difference. The idea that the points ratio remains the same though the terrain changes I find illogical. RL shows that some terrain is very defensible whereas others is not. This is is also shows up where some weapon systems excel and others suck.

I find defending more difficult than attacking in the game. Your discussion of terrain and map size are of course quite relevant and certainly play a significant part. I have a few regular PBEM partners who are pretty close to evenly matched skill wise. When we play attack / defend in QBs the attacker has invariably won. I have had the experience of defending against a less experienced player and winning the match up. So, it is possible to win on defense but I think it is harder.

[Wicky]

re. potting if GAJ has his units spread out and hiding then their spotting and C2 comms capabilities will be impaired - unless he has relevant (bino equipped) HQ units unhidden.

[slysniper]

For most players, creating a good defence is very hard, It takes more skill which many of us have not developed. i know for myself, at times defensive solutions to certain situations are outside of my grasp.

But I found in scenario designing for the game, the attacker should never have more than a 3 to 2 ratio advantage and in many I would shave that down to even 4 to 3. It generally does not take much of a advantage in the game to keep it and build on it. If you give a 2 to 1 ratio you will find in most situations that is going to make it a cakewalk for the attacker.

So I think one problem with QB's in general is the point ratio's assigned, they favor the attacker pretty well.

I think the best version QB to play is probe, which gives the closest ratio. I dont remember what that is, but it is plenty for how the game plays in my view.

[Andrew H.]

I think the best version QB to play is probe, which gives the closest ratio. I dont remember what that is, but it is plenty for how the game plays in my view.

I'm a big fan of probes, too; I think that ratio gives a pretty well balanced scenario where the attacker can be burned if he is careless.

[Michael Emrys]

This particular battle may reveal the map is too large for a reasonable defence...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, dt. Maybe depends on what you mean by 'reasonable'.

I can't really say until I actually have the map to study in 3D, but looking at the screenshots it doesn't look at all undefendable to me. But as I noted several pages back any defense that isn't going to be leaky as hell is going to take a much larger force, maybe twice as large with more of everything.

Michael

[hoolaman]

No accuracy bonus but they do get a concealment bonus. At least the CMBN manual says they do.

Exactly. I've learned to not put too much stock in BFCs technical document writing.