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

[womble]

Yes, but since you didn't have arty, wouldn't it be difficult to put them out of action if Gaj used enough infantry as a protective screen?

Or do you think your tanks would have had a reasonable chance to engage any (theoretical) AT-guns?

Once ATG are spotted by infantry, they're often easy meat for area-firing shoot'n'scoot attacks from tanks, especially a couple of tanks in concert, if they can get at the gun from different bearings. A keyhole narrow enough to prevent such an approach looks like it might be difficult to find on that map. You could surprise an incautious opponent round corners, but Bil isn't an incautious opponent.

Anyway, assuming that your opponent doesn't have any indirect fire assets at all would be the height of folly. Also, I have no feel for how the increased punch of MGs would shape up against ATG. I reckon, from what I've read on here, and what I've seen MGs do before they got their mojo handed back to them, that sneaking a couple of HMGs into a position to suppress an ATG would probably be enough to drive off the crew.

On top of that, if the ATGs are well enough keyholed to prevent them being taken out by tag-team shoot'n'scoots, they probably won't be very effective at keeping the armour from shooting at the broad screen of infantry that are supposed to be protecting them. Driving all over them, yes, but keyholing works for both sides and is a double-edged sword for both too.

[Seedorf81]

Once ATG are spotted by infantry, they're often easy meat for area-firing shoot'n'scoot attacks from tanks, especially a couple of tanks in concert, if they can get at the gun from different bearings. A keyhole narrow enough to prevent such an approach looks like it might be difficult to find on that map. You could surprise an incautious opponent round corners, but Bil isn't an incautious opponent.

Anyway, assuming that your opponent doesn't have any indirect fire assets at all would be the height of folly. Also, I have no feel for how the increased punch of MGs would shape up against ATG. I reckon, from what I've read on here, and what I've seen MGs do before they got their mojo handed back to them, that sneaking a couple of HMGs into a position to suppress an ATG would probably be enough to drive off the crew.

On top of that, if the ATGs are well enough keyholed to prevent them being taken out by tag-team shoot'n'scoots, they probably won't be very effective at keeping the armour from shooting at the broad screen of infantry that are supposed to be protecting them. Driving all over them, yes, but keyholing works for both sides and is a double-edged sword for both too.

Yes, ok. I can see your point(s).

In the game I very rarely have any success with AT-guns, which seems understandable. But, since BF is representing combat as realistically as possible, I wonder why in WW2 anyone would still use AT-guns if they were as useless/vulnerable as in the game.

Or doesn't the game portray the use of AT-guns realistically?

[Michael Emrys]

Aw shucks Sly. Next you'll be asking for my phone number

The time to be careful is when the flowers and chocolates start arriving.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

I think that ATGs come into play in scenarios, not QBs, where the TO&E is configured by the scenario designer to be more realistic & representative of what was available. Also, they have their role in defence, not in mobile engagements such as this one.

Thus, it's not "unrealistic portrayal of AT guns" that means you don't see them in QB's, its the fact that in QBs the players have more choices, and they are often MEs.

I think.

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

IMO he should have left a defending force (platoon) on his right and then attacked and seized the center when his right flank assault ran into difficulties. The center was the key to this battle.

Yep. I agree. This game was a lot like chess in that dominating the center of the board proved to be the key to success/failure.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

No I don't think so... I think he needed to stay mobile.. AT guns once spotted would have been sitting ducks and very hard to re-deploy.

Again, I agree (it sure is easy to agree with the winner, isn't it? ). Buying man-portable weapons like Shrecks would make more sense. They are both more mobile and more stealthy.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I'm wondering how many others really had no idea the intricacies of that map. While Bil and GAJ did a nice job with the screenies and descriptions I found it difficult to visualize. What I wanted to do was zoom in and pan around the screenshots (I almost always try to do that when I watch CM videos too) so as to really understand how Bil could advance uncontested up the center and GAJ couldn't put his tanks in a long range overwatch position to move Bil's Sherman off the mountain GAJ was trying to get behind. Bil's initial map with key terrain features and avenues of approach was somewhat helpful in this regard but difficult to keep track of.

Yeah, I had the same problem. A lot of it was my fault because I was too lazy to memorize the layout at the start, but a lack of clearly distinguishable features on the map made it that much harder to orient myself. A compass in every screenshot, as was often the case in GaJ's pics, would have helped. At times, I felt a strong urge to move the camera around to get a better look at the geographical context of certain shots, something not possible. But it shows how caught up in the battle I generally was.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On top of that, if the ATGs are well enough keyholed to prevent them being taken out by tag-team shoot'n'scoots, they probably won't be very effective at keeping the armour from shooting at the broad screen of infantry that are supposed to be protecting them. Driving all over them, yes, but keyholing works for both sides and is a double-edged sword for both too.

If the player managed to effectively keyhole his ATGs, he'd need a lot of them to effectively cover the map and all the likely places a tank might appear. ATGs seem to work best when the enemy's armor can be channeled into limited avenues of advance, either by terrain, mines, or some other means. I don't really see that being the case on this map and with these forces.

Michael

[slysniper]

The time to be careful is when the flowers and chocolates start arriving.

Michael

Now, how did you know I sent him that???

You are pretty smart !!

[Michael Emrys]

Now, how did you know I sent him that???

I have this pocket calculator that does some pretty amazing things...

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think the reason they can become stalemates waiting for an opening is mainly because of many of the maps, and placement/size of victory locations. Many of the maps are symmetric balanced mirror images with one VL right in the middle.

As far as QB maps go I enjoyed Cmx1 better with the random map generator. It made more natural looking non-mirrored maps. Not to say that there are no good QB maps in CMx2, but many are very cookie cutter IMO. This maps that GaJ, and Bil played didn’t look too bad. Both had hills and valley’s, but not perfectly mirrored. The VL wasn’t jut a single one in the middle too.

When it comes to VL’s having one single VL right in the middle invites a battle that can become very slow, and stalemate feeling waiting for an opening. Another mistake designers make is making VL location too big, which makes it too easy to get a single unit on it when the other player may have most of it dominated. A map with many smaller VL’s spread out makes for much more interesting battles that can offer more approaches than just a rush to single VL in the middle.

Good points. I am presently playing 2 mirrored attack/defend PBEM QBs on the map from the Breaking the Panzers scenario. I much prefer converting scenario maps for QBs than using the provided QB maps.

Although I'm not a fan of the terrain on the AAR map, I do like that the VLs were spread out, forcing the players to make choices.

[womble]

Yes, ok. I can see your point(s).

In the game I very rarely have any success with AT-guns, which seems understandable. But, since BF is representing combat as realistically as possible, I wonder why in WW2 anyone would still use AT-guns if they were as useless/vulnerable as in the game.

I get fair use out of ATGs. I've successfully used them offensively, in Bocage country, though that was slow and fraught. When you're sitting still with decent cover, so they get the starting setup concealment bonus, and they have a good long sight line, they're sometimes almost as effective as a tank. Certainly they're "value for money".

Or doesn't the game portray the use of AT-guns realistically?

Well, using ATG in a mobile engagement, on open terrain like the map we've been looking at wouldn't really be portraying the use of ATG realistically. I'm personally satisfied with the way the base mechanics of the game portray how ATGs functioned. Generally, if anything is at fault with how ATGs show in the game, it's the situation. Either it's a ME where you're liable to have to move, or there's an inadequate combination of conecalment and range, and the potential sites for properly hidden ATG are too few, so the Monty Python sketch applies. It may be an issue with the maps, or an issue with player expectation of how the elements interact.

[MikeyD]

I recall in (real world) Normandy the U.S. deployed towed AT guns by the battalion yet I don't believe they managed to score tank kills above the single digits. Another report put out by the British in North Africa, I vaguely recall, said a 2 pdr anti-tank gun would be able to squeeze off six rounds, on average, before being knocked out. Germany had the advantage with its AT guns. They could emplace them, camou them, then sit and wait for a target with a big white star painted on the bow to show up. Still, I wonder what a gun's life expectancy was after being discovered.

[JonS]

The British had some fairly spectacular successes with emplaced AT guns in North Africa - Pt.175, SNIPE, and Medenine, for example.

[womble]

I recall in (real world) Normandy the U.S. deployed towed AT guns by the battalion yet I don't believe they managed to score tank kills above the single digits.

That may have something to do with the way the Germans didn't counterattack into the teeth of the pakfront... The ATGs told the Germans "don't try and attack with armour here", perhaps. Or they simply couldn't keep up with the developing situations...

[sleepercell]

First need to say I'm a fan of these AAR's and especially Bil's methodical critique, examination, and execution of his tactical skills. Nonetheless, I just feel that it has to be addressed or called into question that this engagement is incredibly weighted to Bil's advantage simply because he made the map. I've made a few and I know I know every inch of territory on those suckers; just seems rather counter balanced to me; especially since Bil is clearly the dominant combatant. Just noise for the peanut gallery...

[c3k]

^^^

Whereas your criticism may have merit, it would more appropriately be brought up in the CORRECT THREAD:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109405

This thread should be considered closed.

Ken

[John Kettler]

It would appear the pundits have decamped to the main threads for the battle.

I'm very confused over the events depicted by the two combatants. GreenAsJade claims, in essence, he's bagged another Panzer IV. No pics, though, and he's made two posts recently. Bil says nothing about losing a second Panzer IV, but he did admit that GreenAsJade M-Killed one earlier as a result on a bloody Ranger close assault. Presumably, the close assault finished what I believe the bazooka began, but the issues may be completely unrelated. Despite the M-Kill, the Panzer IV crew chose to stay inside and now fights from a heavily armed turreted pillbox, a pillbox very much a thorn in the side!

And Bil's returned to his favorite sport: gleefully clubbing GreenAsJade's practically helpless "baby seals" (M6 ATGs), while pounding him with everything that'll bear.

I look forward to the participants' reportage catching up with what's really happened in this fight. It's becoming a bit surreal.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LukeFF]

What part of "This thread should be considered closed." do you not understand, JK?

[John Kettler]

LukeFF,

The part I didn't read. I mistakenly posted to the wrong Peanut Gallery thread, but shall have to read this one at some point.

Regards,

John Kettler