Jump to content

"Brits At Anzio" - feedback without spoilers


Recommended Posts

Trying to find out why the British FOOs had that restriction on them, at first I thought maybe ammo restrictions, but was wrong. I found this:

Source: The British Armies in World War Two

An Organizational History

Volume Two

Polish, Australian, Canadian, South African

and Indian Armoured and Cavalry Divisions

British Regular Infantry Divisions

by David Hughes James Broshot and Alan Philson

Page 56

"In addition it required higher authority, often a Brigade Commander to allow a Defensive Fire or DF barrage to be fired, This was because the DF was unusual in the British Army in being fully pre-registered, that the guns could laid on a target without firing any ranging shots. Not being stupid, the German patrols would often probe the lines hoping to trigger a DF and thereby find out what areas an attacking unit should avoid. Hence the unusual restriction placed on the observers."

So I did not choose a trp because of the artillery being too responsive. However if we had one that did not shorten the time lenght, but did allow better aim, I could of used it. However, since it doesn't exist in CMAK, we do with what we got.

Rune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the criticism that the scenario is unbalanced still stands.

In particular, I think your evidence of the ban on DF for the Brits at Aprilia is irrelevant. As the bridgehead as a whole was so precarious, and in particular the position at Aprilia, the fire order would have been given priority. As for pre-registered fire being discovered, you have a single point (Aprilia) around which the FAO would be adjusting his fire continually. The whole map would have been registered in effect (for area fire) as the Brits are defending a single point. The way to model this would be extensive use of pre-registered targets in the game.

If you insist on making it historical, you should give the Allies two more 17lber batteries. This will make the German advance much more cautiously, and will help the balance.

As for the roads, I am pointing out that the ability of the Germans to manoeuver tanks over the terrain upsets the game balance. Just because you suggest the player should stick to the roads changes nothing. The player will try it, find his tanks don't bog and the gameplay will have been unbalanced. The fact that some players have managed to get some result out of playing the Brits does not alter this fact.

It is my understanding that there was mud at Anzio, (it being winter in Italy). Certainly not the sort of terrain (wet farmland) you would try and drive a 60 ton tiger tank over (they were considered secret weapons and it was forbidden to abandon them to the enemy). In fact, to show how prone to bogging the ground was in the area you can see that the town of Aprilia itself is built on a slight rise.

[ July 11, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It is irrelevant that a veteran AT THE BATTLE, said it was in effect at the time? It is irrelevant that a veteran AT THE BATTLE mentions that tanks moving off road?

2. I never said it was balanced. READ will you? I specifically said it isn't balanced for two player.

3. AGAIN for the fourth time, the ground conditions as reported in battles reports is soggy sandy soil. NOT MUD.

4. Last time, TRPs grant almost instant strikes with accuaracy. While accusracy would be wanted, the shortened time for the strikes would be NOT historical. How do we know that? A veteran [everyone together now] AT THE BATTLE, AN ARTILLERY MAN, said it WAS timed delayed as it had to be granted ok. From FIRST call in till strikes is three minutes not the 5 you invented. 3 minutes to go up the chain of command, be granted permission, then fired and hittign target may STILL be too fast.

Am done with this thread. I guess I am being unreasonable when I based a scenario on facts and not what someone thinks happened. Silly me, after action reports, official reports, and veteran accounts HAVE to be wrong.

Rune

[ July 12, 2005, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mentioned earlier that the veteran 'you know' was on one of the 17lb'ers. How would he know about the organisation of the FAO's fire plan?

Yuo still haven't mentioned how well an incredibly valuable 60 ton Tiger tank (millions of Reichsmarks and man hours to build) would be told to drive across a muddy field under direct fire from the enemy, and the officers being confident it would not get bogged?

I think your distinction between 'soggy sandy soil' and 'muddy' is throwing a bit of sophistry in (or muddying the waters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blue,

READ will you? I said you will find him on a 17lber, but in real life he was an ARTILLERY man. I coule have made him a spotter, but put him on the 17lber. His son's quote on a response is posted in an earlier message I posted.

Your second comment, let's see, stuck in mud at Leningrad, stuck in mud trying to relieve the pocket in Russia. Why look, there is a book called Tigers in the Mud. Look here, oh look, a tiger in mud. Modern tanks that cost more risk and get stuck in mud constantly. It is a calculated risk.

Am done with this.

Rune Tiger in mud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those Tigers seem to all be bogged by mud or undergoing repairs to their drivetrain. Which is exactly my point.

So let us recap your point. The terrain was not muddy, allowing tanks to travers, but the Germans rather than bypassing this strong point decided to waste time and resources directly assaulting it. This must rate as one of the greatest mistakes of the war. By your reckoning, the German panzers could make straight for the beachhead, rather than bothering trying to capture road junctions.

What an extraordinary battle!

Funny old world we live in....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that can read, what I had said was:

" During that battle, due to the rain and the sandy terrain [not mud], yes, the tanks tried to stay on the roads. Unfortunately, we do not have a sandy/dirt terrain, so used wet. So, to answer, mainly the tanks stayed on the roads, but also could and did move offroad on occasion. It is in the briefing to stay on the roads, and most players do try to stay their with small exceptions."

Not the made-up comment above. Changing the terrain to deep mud would prevent the times they did move off road. We have a veteran's account mentioning they did move off the road on occasion.

Rune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rune, I hope it resonates with you that what CM calls "MUD" is simply some condition in which vehicles have "x%" chance of bogging. There is no mud graphic. What you need to do is calculate the chance that vehicles in the real deal had of bogging (assisted by AARs) and then pick a terrain type in CM that approximates that same % as close as possible.

Bickering over what the CM game engine happens to call that % chance seems rather pointless. So does telling players to "stay on the roads." At best this is wishful thinking on the part of the briefing author, at worst a player would assume it is deliberate misdirection - ie inviting the player to stay on roads because they are lousy with minefields. Sort of like saying "your opponent is not expected to receive reinforcements" and then having 20 King Tigers show up in the last 10 turns 100 metres from your objective.

If you want a player to be roadbound, you'll need to have the terrain dictate that circumstance - not a briefing by a scenario designer, as everyone knows they can't be trusted. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

My point exactly. Deep mud and mud the chance was too high. This was determined in play testing [oh yeah, forgot that didn't happen] All I can do [remember this scenario was made before the game was even released] is give guidelines. As I stated in an earlier post, had it been read, feel free to change it to mud. I didn't, because 1. I assumed players would be honorable. 2. I didn't want to restrict the tanks from doing something they were historically able to do. If you look at the date I posted that, Jan of 2004, you see I said that. I guess I should of made fighter bombers in the rain, with trps on the roads and restrict the Germans to the roads. You could have sat back and watched the artillery just destroy the Germans. Then the British, in an act of sportsmanship, could let the Germans walk in and take the factory, since it actually did change hands several times. Like I also said earlier, I got people saying they want it more historical and people wanting restrictions that did not exist. [shrugs] Not all for naught, as the idea on a new way of bogging came out of it, and when the time comes, I will push for it in CMX2.

Rune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, more flexibility is definitely needed in CMX2, so that is a good thing.

Some players will be "honourable", others won't. I personally wouldn't institute that kind of honour system in any game; I'd chalk things up to the game system being unable to handle the historical engagement.

I wonder if maybe you could sprinkle impassable (for tanks) terrain over the other tiles - marsh, rough, or similar - to inhibit German mobility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In hindsight, yeah, mix in terrains, altho that would slow infantry down too much. I would have mixed in soft terrain. Remember, this was before game release. Never thought even in testing that being honourable would be an issue. having used the false briefing only occasionally, I went with being honest. We live and learn.

As for CMX2, i have a list of suggestions from scenario designers from threads like this for when the time comes. A lot won't be in, as the engine changes things too much, and old problems just don't exist anymore. However, I still have a list of everyone's suggestions, and the guys will tell you I don't let them forget that. smile.gif i want a lot more options as a scenario designer, from terrain to reinforcement slots and triggers, to different objective flags for each side, to other things I can't mention that will be in. The moer choices we have in the editor, the happier I will be.

In another thread, someone asked if Dan is working on objects. I will leak this...yes he is...and he far surpasses anything he has done earlier. You ain't seen nothing yet...

Rune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rune,

I played this recently with GreenAsJade and enjoyed it immensely. I played the Germans and won, I'm waiting for the rematch as the Allies. GaJ has the opportunity to get his own back...

I think it's a great interpretation of a historical event and I agree, regardless of play vs the AI or 2 player, not all scenarios need to be balanced anyway.

Richie

PS, please send me the scenario you wanted testing recently, I have a little time and I always enjoy your work! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to VP, one or two players achieving a victory on the "disadvantaged" side does not mean that a scenario is not unbalanced. Isn't it just possible that in those cases the better player had the Brits?

Once I get some ROW scenarios moving along properly, I'm looking forward to finding out from Richie how the defense is really supposed to be done.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...