Bil Hardenberger Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 4 hours ago, ncc1701e said: Perhaps but final assault would have been hard. Speaking of it, do you guys have general guidelines for interval's distance between elements? For the same platoon, a squad must not be at X meters from another one? For the same squad, a team must not be at X meters from another one? It shouldn't be that complicated, basically keep them within visual distance of each other, and ensure they stay in C2 range of their leader (not always possible or desirable)... if you are interested and don't mind a little reading, I go into this subject in detail on my blog in the Platoon Leader series. Especially in the Approach March and the Platoon Scouts sections. Try not to get too scientific with tactics, it is more of an art than a science and there are exceptions for every rule. Bil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 13 hours ago, ncc1701e said: MY CONCLUSION At the beginning, my goal was to destroy the enemy avoiding a costly direct assault. I was thinking @JoMc67 will do about the same. Thus, my flank moves to 1) counter his possible moves 2) do a double envelopment to destroy the enemy. I have just forgotten three things: 1) The objective. I was looking after the enemy and, for me, the objectives had no values. But, at the end, my panicking team has cost me lots because no other teams were in the vincy of Obj1. Thus, my sudden death... 2) Time. My METT-T was wrong on the time. I had only 15 minutes (not 20) plus 5 minutes extra possible. 3) Concentration of forces. As already pointed out by others, no squad was able to support the others. And, I think I was willing to do too much with too little men. Thus, at the end, thank you and congratulations to @JoMc67. I really enjoy PBEM. Much more entertaining than playing a computer. I think this little fight had an unsatisfactory conclusion... 15 minutes is never enough time to complete a scenario, especially one as small as this... it is a tad artificial. I am in favor of leaving plenty of time for scouting, decision, maneuver, and then execution... 15 minutes barely gives you enough time to scout properly on a map of this size. I wouldn't feel bad about how you handled this action, I think you did a fine job, and you had the opportunity to maul your opponent and roll over him... if only you had given yourselves enough time. Though I think given more time your opponent would have fought this one very differently too. Your self critique is on the mark... so not a lot to offer you other than what I wrote yesterday. I hope to see another AAR from you in the near future as this was quite fun to read. Bil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bil Hardenberger said: I think this little fight had an unsatisfactory conclusion... 15 minutes is never enough time to complete a scenario, especially one as small as this... it is a tad artificial. I am in favor of leaving plenty of time for scouting, decision, maneuver, and then execution... 15 minutes barely gives you enough time to scout properly on a map of this size. I wouldn't feel bad about how you handled this action, I think you did a fine job, and you had the opportunity to maul your opponent and roll over him... if only you had given yourselves enough time. Though I think given more time your opponent would have fought this one very differently too. Your self critique is on the mark... so not a lot to offer you other than what I wrote yesterday. I hope to see another AAR from you in the near future as this was quite fun to read. Bil Yeah, I think a 30 turn for this particular game Scenario & Map would have been better to give ncc1701 a chance to use all the basic Strategy & Tactics (my fault for not leaving it to the default 30 turns). I probably tend to have the assumption (still do) that in order to play a quickie Game (so that both myself & opponent don't have chance to use all Strategy & Tactics available necessary) I tend to make Tiny Platoon Level Games 15+ minutes, Company size 30+, and Battalion size 1 hour (which I don't play often). Edited October 16, 2018 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falaise Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said: I hope to see another AAR from you in the near future as this was quite fun to read. Bil Yes !!! Bonjour it was very interesting because it was easier to follow than the large aar or you ended up getting lost with the number of units and you can feel the fatigue of the man that made the rapport as the battle progress it also allows to see the micro management I personally like this battle format I totally control the action Thank you !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 Interesting AAR @ncc1701e and @JoMc67. Thanks for posting. I'm looking forward to following the next one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) Yeah, this AAR is just meant to be a quick down and dirty test PBEM to give NCC an idea How it is against an Opponent (at least to a small degree). His next one will be a DAR With similar scenario parameters, but with different map... I personally don’t do AARs, and my hats off to him Edited October 16, 2018 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 5 hours ago, Falaise said: Yes !!! Bonjour it was very interesting because it was easier to follow than the large aar or you ended up getting lost with the number of units and you can feel the fatigue of the man that made the rapport as the battle progress it also allows to see the micro management I personally like this battle format I totally control the action Thank you !!! Yeah, but unfortunately it was very anti-climatic due to time restraints. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncc1701e Posted October 16, 2018 Author Share Posted October 16, 2018 9 hours ago, Oliver_88 said: Isn't that part in your house rules sort of broken due to this; Good point but I was unable to see this, in this game, since my 60mm mortar team had seen the enemy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncc1701e Posted October 16, 2018 Author Share Posted October 16, 2018 Thank you all for your comments and advices. The next game with @JoMc67 will start soon. May be we can increase a little bit the duration after all? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 Well done little AAR, thanks @ncc1701e. I liked the way you explained your thinking and approach and how you illustrated it with a lot of screenshots and arrows etc. Some of what you did made good sense, but if I can offer one bit of advice, it would be to think less in terms of flanking and more in terms of key terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 First of all - awesome job guys. AARs are a good thing. The ending was a bit disappointing but hey that's how things go. I think you provided some good examples and created good discussion. Thank you. On 10/15/2018 at 5:03 PM, ncc1701e said: My 60mm mortar team is back still unable to aim correctly. Green guys !!? On the job training On 10/16/2018 at 2:17 AM, JoMc67 said: 6* Vehicle Smoke Dischargers (not Smoke Shells) is controlled by the Computer AI, and not by the Player (this helps prevent the unrealistic over use of Smoke Dischargers by players to mask friendly movement). My bold. Is it unrealistic though? Wouldn't tanks who were assigned to be support for infantry use their smoke dischargers for such things? I am talking about WWII here we know that Russian doctrine with their IFVs they *do* use the vehicle smoke for infantry assaults. Really just a question I have no knowledge on way or another... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, IanL said: My bold. Is it unrealistic though? Wouldn't tanks who were assigned to be support for infantry use their smoke dischargers for such things? I am talking about WWII here we know that Russian doctrine with their IFVs they *do* use the vehicle smoke for infantry assaults. Really just a question I have no knowledge on way or another... I think I get where they are coming from with the vehicle smoke Ian... the vehicle smoke grenades were intended for vehicle defense, not necessarily to provide concealment for infantry. The Soviets actually have (not sure about WW2 Russian armor) built in smoke dischargers on their armored vehicles to provide battlefield tactical smoke... but that is not represented in CM. It would take some fancy infantry-tank coordination to use tank smoke grenades to help provide concealment for infantry... not an easy thing in this period. I also doubt whether a tank would agree to that in battle. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said: It would take some fancy infantry-tank coordination to use tank smoke grenades to help provide concealment for infantry... not an easy thing in this period. I also doubt whether a tank would agree to that in battle. There ya go. I'm a gamey bastard then . Now I know I am being gamey at least. 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.