Gustav Line QB AAR - Peanut Gallery: No GaJ, No Bil

[Sublime]

and the trp's are useful of course for GaJ's 81s, but were they really necessary? those extra points could have gotten trucks, or some other goodies and 81's dont take too long anyways...

Dont forget TRPs allow targetting 'leeway' too - about 60-100m on any side of it.

[Broadsword56]

I'd say current situation is neutral, but Bil has the edge because he's got a more mobile and centrally positioned force and great OPs with fields of fire on likely approaches. GAJ seems to have bet the farm on throwing everything around Bil's left flank -- if that striking force makes it to an attack position undetected, then the advantage swings to GAJ, I think. But if Bil spots it first (and he's got a lot of recon going) watch out.

[Sublime]

I didnt note whether the FJ's have fausts or schrecks with them? That could become important because GaJ's panzers can get taken out by flank shots from the stuarts. The Shermans are a big enough problem for him as it is. If he loses the armor war and GaJ's infantry dont have organic AT like fausts and schrecks they're screwed I think. edit: And I looked. They have them, but it'll be tough because the map is relatively open. Still, if you have to fall back on infantry AT weapons, the schreck is the best thing you can have...

[sfhand]

It looks to me like GaJ is looking for Bil where he is (infantry on reverse slope "stronghold") while Bil is looking for GaJ where he isn't (interior valleys)... as Ken predicts > potential advantage goes GaJ in the opening fight should this trend continue.

The armor disparity isn't as bad as it seems because I don't think the Stuarts pose a big risk to the Pz4's (just my hunch). GaJ will no doubt try to use terrain to keep armor engagements 1:1 (as may Bil until he understands he has more tanks).

Do the FJ's come with schrecks?

[JonS]

The armor disparity isn't as bad as it seems because I don't think the Stuarts pose a big risk to the Pz4's (just my hunch).

No, not a big risk, but they are a definate threat.

Even if Bil loses three Shermans and one Stuart taking out the two PzIVs, then the remaining Stuart will pose a considerable problem for GaJ's infantry.

[sfhand]

No, not a big risk, but they are a definate threat.

Even if Bil loses three Shermans and one Stuart taking out the two PzIVs, then the remaining Stuart will pose a considerable problem for GaJ's infantry.

I didn't write what I was getting at very eloquently... what I was trying to say is even though it is 5 vs 2, not all the tanks are of similar ability. And then there is the question of whether GaJ's infantry have any 'at' capabilities (something you have quite a reputation for, so I'm surprised you didn't answer the question about schrecks )

edit: not that I think 3 Shermans vs 2 Pz4's is a position I'd like to be in... but one doesn't go to war with the army one wants... oh, wait

[JonS]

I didn't write what I was getting at very eloquently... what I was trying to say is even though it is 5 vs 2, not all the tanks are of similar ability.

No, of course, but the Stuarts cannot be ignored - they will kill a PzIV given moderately favourable conditions.

To put that another way: GaJ will have to use his armour brilliantly. Bil only has to use his tanks adequately. IMO.

[Michael Emrys]

It looks to me like GaJ is looking for Bil where he is (infantry on reverse slope "stronghold") while Bil is looking for GaJ where he isn't (interior valleys)... as Ken predicts > potential advantage goes GaJ in the opening fight should this trend continue.

That advantage might be more apparent than real. At first contact GaJ's troops are likely going to be tiring as well as suffering casualties from Bil's tanks, whereas Bil's infantry, even it slightly outnumbered or oriented in the wrong direction, is going to be in pretty good shape. We'll just have to wait and see how this all shakes out. I think Bil's tanks are likely to give his infantry time to reorient themselves, but that depends on whether GaJ's tanks can distract Bil's armor from pounding his infantry.

Michael

[sburke]

My money is on Bil. Firepower and mobility. I suspect the arty isn't going to play anything more than a nuisance role. Right now I feel as if GAJ's infantry is leading his Panzers by the nose and when Bil's armor starts chewing up those FJ, the Panzers are going to have to expose themselve to save FJ bacon. Also by following the map edge I think GAJ is setting up the possibility of his units getting hammered without a line of retreat and having to face a possible crossfire to try and move laterally.

How much smoke has he got with those mortars? My experience with Pz IVs is they have precious little to contribute in the way of smoke. Has either mentioned what the environmentals are? If the wind is coming from the south GAJ could be truly screwed. It will blow any smoke he fires to cover his force right off the map edge.

[ForwardObserver]

My money is on Bil. Firepower and mobility. I suspect the arty isn't going to play anything more than a nuisance role.

I tend to agree.

Yet GaJ's TRP's might allow him to deny the heights to Bil. Not only because he'll be able to call in mortar fire with little lag and increased accuracy, but also because those TRP's will be affecting the accuracy of his tanks (Bil's is moving half his armor into a ridge with TRP's in either side) and other long range weapons (such as machine guns).

[Wodin]

This thread proves what an awesome tactical game CMx2 is. I can't think of another tactical game in recent years where this sort of conversation about tactics over an AAR could go on.

[Splinty]

Though I tend to agree with sburke on Bil's mobility advantage, I can see GaJ having a pretty fair shot if he's stealthy enough and has some luck with his MK IVs.

[c3k]

Bil's latest screenshot shows his Allied dispositions. He's more centered (balanced?) than I thought after reading an ealier description he'd posted. He's keeping ~3/4's of his force back, in that central bowl.

GaJ needs to get some eyeballs on Bil's infantry and start leveraging that mortar support he spent points on.

[Chops]

It seems to me that GAJ is SOL so to speak. His force selection is just not going to work out well given the extremely rough and steep terrain as well as the hot weather.

His troops will be tired or exhausted before he knows it, especially since he started most of them out with a Quick command, and he will not be able to maneuver effectively.

Additionally, he has few options to counter Bil's armour. Placing his TRP's to screen his main axis of approach may have been a better option as well. At this point it looks like he should try to secure the Monte Garabinesa and Hill 523 objectives and then set up fields of fire to cover the other three objectives, fire into Bil's flank, and prevent Bil from taking them.

[sburke]

Assuming any of us are right and GaJ is the "underdog" of the moment, then we gotta cheer for him. At least the wind won't be ruining his day if he needs to use smoke.

[Sublime]

I gotta agree, my moneys on Bill too. To answer sfhand, I thought you saw me mention I saw GaJ does have Schrecks. I could see the AT team icon in a screenie. This helps him somewhat, though in an open map like this it's gonna still be tough on GaJ.

In response to earlier too - yes even a single stuart would be a problem, with those nasty canister rounds.

[slysniper]

Well, even though I picked Bil as mentioned before, the whole point of playing is that things dont always go as planned do they.

GAJ needs just one break to have the advantage shift his way.That is get the shermans out first, engaged in combat and then jump them with his panzers and get the first shots in on the tank battle. All it takes is taking out two shermans and the battle changes force strength.

But as far as battle planning goes. bill has it hands down. I see this developing into a main battle on Bils left flank, with him holding off Gaj and Bil aggressively attacking the right flank and after breaking through there continueing to roll around the right side until he own a large portion of the map and victory areas. Gaj will be where he wants to be and it will be all he will get and he will have no ability to take or hold any other points.

But we will find out with time wont we.

But it is possible, for Gaj, I just did it in a meeting engagement I am playing now. I invested in plenty of Arty, My opponent in Armor. But I have nailed three of his tanks and lost none, now I have the Armor advantage and plenty of 105, and 81 to rain on his infantry. So, firepower advantages can shift quickly when you are dealing with just a few main units.

[Michael Emrys]

So, firepower advantages can shift quickly when you are dealing with just a few main units.

That's one thing that kind of bugs me about small battles. A single unfortunate incident can throw the whole thing to one side or the other. Chance plays a larger part as there is less available to a player to make up for a bad roll of the die.

Of course, for some players, that's where the fun is: watching the tide of battle swing back and forth with no warning, and I can see that too. Again, it comes down to a matter of taste and what gets your jollies all frothed up.

Michael

[slysniper]

That's one thing that kind of bugs me about small battles. A single unfortunate incident can throw the whole thing to one side or the other. Chance plays a larger part as there is less available to a player to make up for a bad roll of the die.

Of course, for some players, that's where the fun is: watching the tide of battle swing back and forth with no warning, and I can see that too. Again, it comes down to a matter of taste and what gets your jollies all frothed up.

Michael

You have that correct. I on the other hand, somewhat find larger battles boring, because if given the advantage, its easy to craft a victory. If given a disadvantage, then not only do you need to design a major victory in an area of the battle to really swing the tide, but you must also need to hope for the game to be designed to give you the time and renewed assets to make something like that provide you the ability to enjoy the impact that it has on the situation.

So there is a balence, as to what matters to the players. For me, I like it when both sides have a decent chance to produce a victory. So in that sence, generally there is a size of battle that produces that and once past that it is not as good.

I played a guy from the Middle east that had this figured out very well. He had set up a huge battle and had more time than anyone would ever need to use for the map. I set up my British defences and just crushed his attacking forces for about the first hour of play. In losses I had him at least 4-1 and had to that point retreated twice to defencive lines I had preplanned to pulled back too. But this was a battle with Battalions from the game selected menu's and I found that at this point in the game I had basically no more ammo for my AT Guns, my armor piercing rounds were used up in my Armor, my infantry had many units almost out of ammo and he still had tons of units to push the map. So I commented on his poor scenario design and pointed out that no matter how the british were to play the game, they had no chance because of how he had created the battle. And to make it fair, time should be cut to force the offence to at least make the objectives in a decent time and provide a cut off point to where the game ammo supplies made sence. Needless to say, he did not like me pointing out his flaw, and to this day I figure it was not by accident. he had designed a battle that he could not lose

[Vanir Ausf B]

GAJ needs just one break to have the advantage shift his way.That is get the shermans out first, engaged in combat and then jump them with his panzers and get the first shots in on the tank battle. All it takes is taking out two shermans and the battle changes force strength.

I agree. He needs to take advantage of Bill showing his armor first. I don't see any opportunities for flanking Bill's tanks, so I think GAJ should use his 2 tanks together to engage each one of Bill's in isolation. I didn't see if his tanks are attached to his infantry battalion or not. If they are there should be no problem getting spotting information to them to increase their chances of getting the first shot. He could drop smoke on one of the Shermans and move his panzers up into hull down positions while it clears.

[sburke]

I played a guy from the Middle east that had this figured out very well. He had set up a huge battle and had more time than anyone would ever need to use for the map. I set up my British defences and just crushed his attacking forces for about the first hour of play. In losses I had him at least 4-1 and had to that point retreated twice to defencive lines I had preplanned to pulled back too. But this was a battle with Battalions from the game selected menu's and I found that at this point in the game I had basically no more ammo for my AT Guns, my armor piercing rounds were used up in my Armor, my infantry had many units almost out of ammo and he still had tons of units to push the map. So I commented on his poor scenario design and pointed out that no matter how the british were to play the game, they had no chance because of how he had created the battle. And to make it fair, time should be cut to force the offence to at least make the objectives in a decent time and provide a cut off point to where the game ammo supplies made sence. Needless to say, he did not like me pointing out his flaw, and to this day I figure it was not by accident. he had designed a battle that he could not lose

Well it depends on how you define lose. Being the last guy standing isn't always the decision maker. You could design that same scenario you'd mentioned and have the unit costs be such that yeah the overwhelming force will always be the last man standing, however if losses are too high- he loses. Broadsword and I in our campaign didn't define victory by "winning" the scenario, but rather the relative capability and effectiveness of units. Being a campaign we had a threshold where you would have to decide to call off an attack. You can do the same with a scenario by just making the unit losses count so much that you couldn't win by accepting incredible losses to drive your opponent from the field.

Now if you are saying this person only put point values on terrain, well yeah I'd have to agree - it would sound like they just wanted to win. That may be okay playing the AI, but few humans want to be playing just to massage someone else's ego.

[slysniper]

Well it depends on how you define lose. Being the last guy standing isn't always the decision maker. You could design that same scenario you'd mentioned and have the unit costs be such that yeah the overwhelming force will always be the last man standing, however if losses are too high- he loses. Broadsword and I in our campaign didn't define victory by "winning" the scenario, but rather the relative capability and effectiveness of units. Being a campaign we had a threshold where you would have to decide to call off an attack. You can do the same with a scenario by just making the unit losses count so much that you couldn't win by accepting incredible losses to drive your opponent from the field.

Now if you are saying this person only put point values on terrain, well yeah I'd have to agree - it would sound like they just wanted to win. That may be okay playing the AI, but few humans want to be playing just to massage someone else's ego.

You are correct in saying that the same scenario can be designed to be competative by how you base the point structure, so yes the style of scenario was fine. It was the fact that I beleive he knew what he was doing and did it for the wrong reasons. The funny thing was after I had pointed out the fact that he had been handed a battlefield defeat in every sence of the word and that i would now not be able to defend because of the shear lack of forces that could never last the time frame he had set up. I never heard from him again or saw another move. I think the point was clearly understood and he went on his way. I really did just try to suggest ways to balence the scenario. So no reply I think showed his intentions. I had a great time playing that scenario by the way.

[c3k]

I agree. He needs to take advantage of Bill showing his armor first. I don't see any opportunities for flanking Bill's tanks, so I think GAJ should use his 2 tanks together to engage each one of Bill's in isolation. I didn't see if his tanks are attached to his infantry battalion or not. If they are there should be no problem getting spotting information to them to increase their chances of getting the first shot. He could drop smoke on one of the Shermans and move his panzers up into hull down positions while it clears.

Agreed.

GaJ needs to keyhole his PzIV's, together, and try to win the armor battle 2v1, repeatedly. Pick off a rightmost (GaJ's perspective) Sherman, then reposition and get the Stuart. Or just creep a wee bit more for the next Sherman. Definitely needs to finesse the tank battle, though, to have a good chance.

Ken

[TheVulture]

It's beginning to look ominous. The German forces seem to be marching towards three Shermans with no actual hard cover for protection...

[Broadsword56]

...and those British MGs look beautifully positioned to sweep GaJ's approach routes.

This is a great-looking map, but it makes me wish CMx2 had real 3D boulders. IRL, mountains like this would have been full of outcrops and nooks/crannies that would provide both concealment and hard cover. Does anyone know whether the "large rocks" terrain tile and/or the rocks flavor object offers any extra cover benefit -- some kind of abstracted value -- representing boulders -- even though we can't see it? If not, troops fighting in the Italian mountains will be a lot more exposed in CMFI than they really were, and infantry will have an even tougher time of it.