CMPC Normandy 44 H2H Operation Turn 2 Buron Battle Axis DAR

[noob]

The images below show the map, OOB and set up zones for the battle for Buron.

The battle starts at 10:00am, and will last no longer than 60 turns, the temperature is cool, and the weather is clear, with a gentle wind coming from the West.

I have three companies of SS Panzer Grenadiers, one company of Panzer IV H's, one Pak 40 gun section, an array of artillery and 100 foxholes.

Because the Buron hex is classed as an Improved position i can purchase two foxholes per squad, and one foxhole per HQ, mortar, MG, and Gun section.

All units are Green with Fanatical motivation.

Any artillery i use in this battle may not be used in any CM battles generated during the Axis Turn 2 movement / assault phase.

The CM Battle map for Buron is 1500 x 1500m, which is bigger than the PzC hex for Buron, which represents 1000 x 1000m.

The reason for this is to facilitate long range weapons like the 17 pdr gun of the Firefly, and the 75mm gun of the Pak 40 and PzIV.

In the PzC game, each side has the opportunity to assault an enemy hex after each movement turn, so to facilitate this, Kuderian and i decided to remove the option of an operational withdrawal, this means a defending unit has to set up in a CM battle if one is generated by the side that has moved that operational turn.

To avoid the potential loophole of the defender deploying next to their exit zone and exiting within the first turn, the defender is not allowed to use the exit zone until turn 11, thus allowing the attacker to perform a fast aggressive manouver if faced with a much weaker force, with a view to bringing enemy exiting units under fire, or trapping them on the map, thus forcing a weak defender to fight a delaying action.

[noob]

I'm wanting to keep the actual DAR quite formal, so i will use this post to say....Wow, look at all the artillery i have, i've never had so much, and on top of that this will be the very first time i have fought a CM battle in an operational context, so to say i'm a little excited would be a massive understatement

One thing i have to consider now, is pulling units out of the fight that look like their morale is going to break, as once i lose my troops Fanatical motivation i won't get it back, in fact if they end the battle, or exit it broken or panicking, their motivation will go down to Poor , and Low if they end the battle, or exit it shaken or rattled.

To recover motivation, they will have to avoid combat for one operational turn to go from Low to Normal, and two turns to go from Poor to Normal.

To increase motivation from Normal to High, which is the limit once they lose Fanatical, they have to force the enemy to exit the CM map in one 60 turn battle, or rough up the enemy units so much that they withdraw at the operational level.

If they end the battle, or exit it Exhausted, their Fitness will go down to Unfit, and if they end the battle, or exit it Tired, their Fitness will go down to Weakened, with recovery to Fit only if they do not move for two operational turns in the case of Exhausted, or one operational turn in the case of Weakened.

So it's obvious from the information above that i am going to have to look after them a damn site better than i usually do if i want to use them within the next two operational turns.

Now comes the task of the setting up the most interesting CM battle i have ever played, so watch this space

[sburke]

I recognize that map. Had a helluva fight there, Pete's Shadow of the hill series - Maltot I believe or something like that.. Nice map and I think you will find it very good terrain for your AT gun.

[noob]

I recognize that map. Had a helluva fight there, Pete's Shadow of the hill series - Maltot I believe or something like that.. Nice map and I think you will find it very good terrain for your AT gun.

Three of the five operational victory objective CM maps are from Pete Wernam's ISOH series, and yes, there are some nice long LOS which i intend to exploit to the full as you will see

[noob]

The Allied OOB for the battle at Buron consists of:

Four companies of Infantry, two companies of Engineers, two platoons of Stuarts, eight platoons of Sherman III's, and two platoons of Sherman Firefly's.

I am currently still setting up my defences for this one so watch this space.

[Baneman]

Looking very tasty, 2 large forces about to smash into each other.

Thanks for taking the time to write it all up. Watching with interest

[eltorrente]

This should be an entertaining battle - looking forward to it.

[Paper Tiger]

I wonder who crafted that map?

[noob]

I like people making comments, but no pictures please.

[Fizou]

I understand your excitment. Really looking forward to this unfolding

[noob]

Here are the artillery rules that will be applied in the forthcoming battle:

Only the attacker can call in a pre planned strike from an off map fire unit.

All off map fire unit targeting must be Area fire, where one gun has a shell dispersal area of 35 metres per gun, therefore a 4 gun battery would have a shell dispersal area of 4 x 35 = 140 metres, which translates to an area fire circle of 140 metres.

All on map indirect fire unit targeting must be point targeting.

[JonS]

The Allied OOB for the battle at Buron consists of:

Four companies of Infantry, two companies of Engineers, two platoons of Stuarts, eight platoons of Sherman III's, and two platoons of Sherman Firefly's.

That's ... a very strange OoB. Is this historical or fantasy?

[noob]

That's ... a very strange OoB. Is this historical or fantasy?

I don't know exactly what forces were committed to attacking Buron during the 7th of June 1944, but i imagine that this particular OOB is a fantasy one created from the larger historical Allied OOB in this particular historical PzC scenario, as that's the beauty of operational play, you are given a historical OOB, but you are not forced to use it historically as you are the overall CO, and can choose to commit whatever forces you like, wherever you like, in the amounts you like.

[JonS]

It doesn't even seem the CO started with an historical OoB though.

Two companies of engrs? There are only three in the whole division. British tanks come in Troops, not Platoons. Fireflies were integrated with the regular 75mm Shermans, not off in their own troops (usually ... there are a few exceptions)*. There doesn't seem to be any C2 elements for either the infantry or armour. To get two platoons (troops) of Stuarts you'd need two armoured regiments, but there's only enough Shermans for about 2/3rds of one regiment.

It appears that the Allied commander (or the GM?) just grabbed units willy nilly to fling in to the fight. Which is ok, I guess, but I always thought that operational layers were meant to that encourage some sort of coherent chain of command and C2 structure (amongst the other reasons for having an operational layer).

Neat system you've got going though - great work

Jon

* My guess is that's a limitation of the PzC game used to run the operational layer. Which is ok-ish, but shouldn't that be corrected during the conversion from one game system to the other, not just carried over?

[noob]

It doesn't even seem the CO started with an historical OoB though.

Tell that to John Tiller then, the amount of work involved in just getting to a playable system made checking the accuracy of the OOB that the scenario came with the least of my priorities, in fact it wasn't a priority at all, as i assumed the OOB was correct.

[JonS]

Tell that to John Tiller then, ... I assumed the OOB was correct.

Never a very sound assumption when it comes to PzC. (also: He's not interested)

maybe I can get you to check the Tiller OOB

Depending on the campaign, I'd be happy to

My goal for the operation was simply to allow me and other players to play CM battles with consequences

Yeah, I think that's the basic goal of all operational layers. In my view (worth little, since I'm not the one coming up with a viable system ), though, C2 contraints should be part of the operational level contraints.

What a sublime punchline

It wan't a joke - I was being serious. What you've done here is neat

p.s. I'm serious about getting you on board for my next one, it involves the HG Divisions counter attack at Gela, if you want

Sure but *purses lips* Sicily isn't really my strong point, TOE/OoB-wise.

p.p.s. Actually you did help me if i remember correctly, with the artillery rules i think.

Yeah, and I think about a year ago I may have sent you a redonkulously detailed PzC:N'44 Grand Campaign OoB I created.

[noob]

My punchline comment was my little joke, when i first read your post about the OOB, i was a touch overwhelmed by the flaws you were pointing out, however when i got to the bit about you liking the system it was quite funny how you shifted gears so abruptly, so structurally, it felt like a joke was being told, even though i knew you were being sincere

As for C2 constraints, i like the sound of that, how would you implement those, do you have any specific rules ?

I can't remember the OOB you sent, but what i can remember is that you pointed out how the artillery targeting in CM was too precise, you advised me to drop linear targeting altogether for off map indirect fire units, and adopt area fire as the only targeting method, with a 35m per gun radius rule, also added to that, you suggested on map mortars should only use point targeting, those rules are now being implemented in this operation, do you remember ?

As for the TOE for Gela, it's more important that you have the time to research it rather than what you know now, as this operation progresses, my workload does too, especially creating the individual DAR's for the battles, so if i sent you a PzC OOB for Gela, and you could find the time to research it, and recommend corrections, that would help, and one thing that i find PzC does not do is indicate experience levels for troops, that is what threw me with Buron, the Axis units were classed as A for quality which led me to assume they were Elite, when in fact they were Green IRL, this is because the quality level is also the morale level, so what the A really meant was fanatical, which they were.

[JonS]

As for C2 constraints, i like the sound of that, how would you implement those, do you have any specific rules ?

No rules, but some suggestions. Stuff like:

* Units of a bn can only stack with units of their own bde or regt.

* all units of a bn have to be in adjacent hexes, and cannot be 'interleaved' with units of a different bn.

* armd regts of an indep armd bde can only work with one inf bde at a time. By which I mean, A, B, and C Sqns of each Armd Regt all have to be working with units of the same bde. At a higher level, the Armd Bde has to be working to a division (rather than having a couple of regts working with one div, adn the other one off somewhere else)

* Commanders should have to set Areas of Operation for each Division and Bde during one of the night turns for the following day. Units are not allowed to move out of their AO (This, alone, would probably have a massive impact)

* have some max stacking limit (which PzC has, although I think the default level of 1200? is much too high)

Some side specific stuff, like:

* the Germans have to allocate their artillery to support a particular Regt each day, for the whole day, while the British - with their much better systems - can chop and change during the day.

* the British have to allocate their indep armour to support a particular bn each day, for the whole day, while the Germans - with their KG doctrine - can chop and change during the day.

That's all a bit vague, but it gives an idea. The main point comes down to giving units at all levels specific AOs and responsibilities, and making them stick to it.

I can't remember the OOB you sent

Check you private messages for April last year

what I can remember is that you pointed out how the artillery targeting ... do you remember?

Yep.

one thing that I find PzC does not do is indicate experience levels for troops, that is what threw me with Buron, the Axis units were classed as A for quality which led me to assume they were Elite, when in fact they were Green IRL, this is because the quality level is also the morale level, so what the A really meant was fanatical, which they were.

My sense was that PzC used a single value where CM uses two values for the same thing. So the PzC value is sort of a combination of Experience AND Morale, although it's not quite a direct linear relationship, because it seems that PzC also alters weapons chareacteristic stats based on perceived troop quality (an obvious example being the mongs who give Wittmann an A quality, AND also massively beef up his firepower and armour rating)

You could, however, create your own heuristic in which A quality in PzC translates to an average of Vet-High in CM, etc.

[noob]

I always clean out my PM's so your post is gone, but i believe you, because i have been working on this project with N44 for over a year now, and i know i have had lots of discussions and information going to and fro, so what you say sounds about right.

As for the C2 suggestions i really like those, and will definitely implement them in my next project with PzC, being able to manouver and mix and match large units at will is definitely unrealistic now i come to think of it, and as you mention, both sides had different restrictions placed on them, which, as you point out, would impact on the game play considerably.

As for using PzC to determine CM experience levels, i think am going to stick to researching that aspect until i am satisfied that i have a good enough understanding of the quality of the relevant forces in the real life operation.

So for now, the ongoing operation, although not historical in the strict sense of the word, will suffice to test the basic rules, and allow a finished version of the system to be written up at the end of the project, obviously the C2 rules will always be specific to the are of operations so that aspect will have to be implemented based on whichever historical scenario is being played.

Thanks for the input Jon, the C2 information will go a long way to improving the system when i come to run another operation, in fact i was reading about the Gela counter attack, and the source mentions the specific areas of operations for the Axis forces involved, so i can get that right when i come to run it

[JonS]

One specific thing about the way PzC organises its OoBs just occurred to me.

In a PzC N'44 UK-style infantry bn you will typically have four (4) rifle battalions, probably an anti-tank platoon, and probably a mortar platoon. Which is fine. For N'44.

But a CM UK-style inf bn also has a carrier platoon, a pioneer platoon, a support company HQ, and Bn HQ. Those things are all missing from N'44 ... or, rather, I think they're assumed to be pro-rated amongst the rifle companies. Other nationalities have a similar blurring and smudging of elements that aren't strictly combat elements.

I suspect that the same applies to armoured regiments, although to a lesser degree. In particular, I think the regimental Tac HQ in N'44 is usually divided amongst the sabre squadrons.

Do you have a way of accounting for those elements that aren't directly shown in N'44?

I'm almost thinking that rather than trying to re-purpose an existing N'44 OoB, you might be better off building a custom OoB file for N'44 that includes ALL the discrete elements you intend to include, at the level you intend to allow them to maneuvre operationally. So if you're going to treat infantry battalions as organic elements, then in N'44 each bn should just be a single unit, which is assumed to include four rifle companies, a battalion HQ, and a support company with pioneer, mortar, carrier, and AT platoons. Or, have the companys modelled, and assume that each one includes one-quarter of the battalion level assets from Support Company. Or something.

You could refelct national differences by - for example - having the Germans modelled at a level lower than the Allies - so if the Brits are wheeling battalions around, the Germans get companys. If the US gets companys, the Germans gets platoons. You could also reflect differences in the arms by modelling British infantry and divisional armour as battalions, but armour from the indep bdes as squadrons, and the Royal Engineers as, er, troops(?).

Or sumfink.

Jon

[noob]

I noticed that when i came to create the Canadian forces, i was deleting the Pioneer and Carrier platoons because there wasn't a specific PzC icon to represent them, which in retrospect seems odd given that they were probably in the RL operation if that's what a typical CW Battalion OOB consisted of, so in future, as you point out, i should use the full CM OOB's of any of the PzC battalions / companies present.

[Broadsword56]

@JonS: If you're interested at all in looking ahead to Market-Garden, the issue of rating unit motivation, experience, and leadership for operational formations will be extremely important (and even more complicated) there. The mix of German units, in particular, is so wonderfully hodgepodge, from crack SS to garrison troops to FJ to convalescents, etc. It would be great if we could list -- actually I think I will do this -- on a separate thread all the KG and other formations and open it up to our resident scholars to suggest how these should be rated in CM terms. I'm perusing "It Never Snows in September" again to glean tidbits on what specific formations were like.

[mjkerner]

BS, that's a great idea for our campaign. I've been taking notes from INSiS too, and researching a few other sources. INSiS seems the best so far, though, because Kershaw covers the origin/background of every ad hoc kampfgruppe at the battalion and sometimes the company level. For what it's worth, I've been comparing our chosen op-level game's take on morale and strength with Decision Games' Highway to the Reich numbers, because judging by their respective designer notes, both games seem to have done a fair amount of research.