Jump to content

AXIS : Gustav Line BETA AAR Round Two - Eye of the Elefant


Recommended Posts

The Sixty-First Minute

2nd Platoon

The enemy teams in front of 2nd Platoon are in full flight up the hill towards S. Maria Infante and I am pursuing them the entire way. Meanwhile 2nd platoon infantry advance under the covering fire of halftracks...

9109122268_f1d947c1c1_b.jpg

...and the Pz-IV and Brummbar.

9106894865_00f60f9be2_b.jpg

1st Platoon

1st Platoon also advances on S. Maria Infante under the cover fire from their Platoon leader's 251/10.

Note the infantry team next to the corner of the church (bottom image)... they are trying to surrender... I got them too far ahead of the rest of the Platoon.. even though there are no enemy units in the near vicinity they became too fragile. I am moving as many friendly units as possible close to them so they can begin to recover their senses. But I think this is important as it illustrates how important C2 is in this game. Ignore it at your peril.9109122310_61c422cde7_b.jpg

S. Maria Infante

S. Maria Infante has become the recipient of a steady flow of fleeing enemy infantry (in this case an MMG team) over the past several turns. These are the remnants of the infantry force that was in the valley.

9109122302_0253542ae0_b.jpg

Hill 172

On Hill 172 GaJ's M10 was heard moving back towards the front side and appears to have taken up a hulldown position (or getting ready to move into one) facing my advancing infantry in the valley.

This should leave his flank and rear open to attack... but we'll see. I doubt he will dash the M10 into the open space between Hill 172 and S. Maria Infante, unless he is feeling desperate and suicidal.

9106894925_7839c233e6_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sixty-Second Minute

No turn report this turn.. more of the same, I'm advancing, GaJ is withdrawing.. we both take casualties.. his M10 does not move (from what I could tell).

Continuing the game now to me is pointless.. it is now simply a grind and is not benefiting anyone, not GaJ, not me, and definitely not you guys who are still hanging around to read this.

IMO it should have been ended about 5 or 6 turns ago.

I think I'm going to stop my forward advance (except for one or two teams to rob GaJ of the final objective points) and just sit back and shell the town for the final 8 turns or so. Sounds fun doesn't it?

Bil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it really is over (I would tend to agree), then next turn declare so.

Immediately after that, "Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war".

Rush the town with everything you have, straightest line possible. None of this fancy maneuver and covering fire, or bounding overwatch. A zerg rush of gigantic proportions.

Now that's entertainment.

But don't tell GaJ first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sixty-Second Minute

Continuing the game now to me is pointless.. it is now simply a grind and is not benefiting anyone, not GaJ, not me, and definitely not you guys who are still hanging around to read this.

Bil

Some people have been persuading GAJ to continue. I think for the purpose of what this set out to do, it has reached an end.

It is an interesting debate on when a game should be ended but clearly people have different views.

For me, I am with you on this and if it were me (as GAJ) I would offer surrender and move on to something else. Time is valuable....

Anyway, THANK YOU for all your great posts and screen shots. Both you and GAJ have done a great job of showing the new module off and giving us all some great insights on how to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people have been persuading GAJ to continue. I think for the purpose of what this set out to do, it has reached an end.

It is an interesting debate on when a game should be ended but clearly people have different views.

GaJ also mentioned that he hasn't forgotten that some people were disappointed when he gave up in the last AAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, THANK YOU for all your great posts and screen shots. Both you and GAJ have done a great job of showing the new module off and giving us all some great insights on how to play.

I second that. Thanks to you and GaJ for your efforts. I hope we who have followed this matchup have learned some useful lessons, all without the pain of watching our own forces taken apart.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up an interesting point in scenario design. Not giving someone an exit area and some points to recoup by doing so, leads to a 'die in place' mentality that was, not surprisingly, absent in most (obviously not all) tactical engagements. We should strive to give the defender some 'outs' or (even more interestingly) build maps that allow the attacker to close those 'outs' and pin the defender in place (with the assumption that those left on map eventually surrender). I would think that more defensive engagements - or even meeting engagements - should be crafted this way, even the ones that give the defender a solid chance of stopping the attacker cold. Any guy defending any piece of terrain in this game should have contingency plans in mind, otherwise we are looking at an ahistorical tactical mindset. Although there are plenty of famous instances of units fighting on beyond any hope of escape or withdrawal (WWII was BIG war) these fights were NOT the norm, and most units faced with overwhelming force did their level best to get out of the way. In this fight, LTC GaJ should properly withdraw whatever is left of his task force, and call for the USAAC to do something about these monsterous great armored beasts that are wreaking havoc on his troops. Another cool thing would be artillery built in as "final protective fires" only. Say TRPs fixed in place and off-map support scheduled as late scenario reinforcements, intended specifically to either stop the enemy during his final assault, or cover the withdrawal of defending forces. Many of us are focused, not surprisingly, on the fun of executing a successful attack, but the challenge to 'withdraw in good order, under fire,' is a far greater one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dammit, man, he's BEGGING you to just move that Elefant forward and end his misery! He's even put that M10 in front to enrage the beast. Put him down. It's time. Just roll that big ol' Elefant up, and blast everything you see. Toss a little Brummbar in, as well, just for good measure. You may not enjoy it, but every man needs to face the tasks for which he's responsible, head on. Take it out back, tell it how good it's been and that you love it. Then put it out of its misery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up an interesting point in scenario design. Not giving someone an exit area and some points to recoup by doing so, leads to a 'die in place' mentality that was, not surprisingly, absent in most (obviously not all) tactical engagements. We should strive to give the defender some 'outs' or (even more interestingly) build maps that allow the attacker to close those 'outs' and pin the defender in place (with the assumption that those left on map eventually surrender). I would think that more defensive engagements - or even meeting engagements - should be crafted this way, even the ones that give the defender a solid chance of stopping the attacker cold. Any guy defending any piece of terrain in this game should have contingency plans in mind, otherwise we are looking at an ahistorical tactical mindset. Although there are plenty of famous instances of units fighting on beyond any hope of escape or withdrawal (WWII was BIG war) these fights were NOT the norm, and most units faced with overwhelming force did their level best to get out of the way. In this fight, LTC GaJ should properly withdraw whatever is left of his task force, and call for the USAAC to do something about these monsterous great armored beasts that are wreaking havoc on his troops. Another cool thing would be artillery built in as "final protective fires" only. Say TRPs fixed in place and off-map support scheduled as late scenario reinforcements, intended specifically to either stop the enemy during his final assault, or cover the withdrawal of defending forces. Many of us are focused, not surprisingly, on the fun of executing a successful attack, but the challenge to 'withdraw in good order, under fire,' is a far greater one.

Scott you are right.. I normally hate exit objectives in scenarios, but in some cases, like a withdrawal they make perfect sense. Perhaps non ME scenarios should have an exit for the defending side only and only to be used when the game is out of control.

The die in place mentality is one reason I rarely play non ex or serving military players. A totally different approach and mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up an interesting point in scenario design. Not giving someone an exit area and some points to recoup by doing so, leads to a 'die in place' mentality that was, not surprisingly, absent in most (obviously not all) tactical engagements. We should strive to give the defender some 'outs' or (even more interestingly) build maps that allow the attacker to close those 'outs' and pin the defender in place (with the assumption that those left on map eventually surrender). I would think that more defensive engagements - or even meeting engagements - should be crafted this way, even the ones that give the defender a solid chance of stopping the attacker cold. Any guy defending any piece of terrain in this game should have contingency plans in mind, otherwise we are looking at an ahistorical tactical mindset. Although there are plenty of famous instances of units fighting on beyond any hope of escape or withdrawal (WWII was BIG war) these fights were NOT the norm, and most units faced with overwhelming force did their level best to get out of the way. In this fight, LTC GaJ should properly withdraw whatever is left of his task force, and call for the USAAC to do something about these monsterous great armored beasts that are wreaking havoc on his troops. Another cool thing would be artillery built in as "final protective fires" only. Say TRPs fixed in place and off-map support scheduled as late scenario reinforcements, intended specifically to either stop the enemy during his final assault, or cover the withdrawal of defending forces. Many of us are focused, not surprisingly, on the fun of executing a successful attack, but the challenge to 'withdraw in good order, under fire,' is a far greater one.

Really excellent argument and ideas.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the reason many mourned CM campaigns being axed, it would have forced a player into force protection, but not relinquish the objective too early, lest a breakthrough occurs. By artificially suspending a game in time and space, the Alamo mentality is fixed in many players, who try to salvage the defeat of their egos by shedding pixel blood to try to hurt their victorious opponent. Think the Khan mentality in ST II, hurting your foe, even if he has his boot on your neck salvages honour, a tactic if replicated in reality would lead to a very short war!

This fact is exacerbated by the lack of withdrawal opportunities, highlighted, cogently, by pnzldr, having said this, both Bil and GaJ have provided a mature gaming experience, shorn of this juvenile attitude. I'm still struggling with CM2, sometimes I love it, sometimes its abstractions really p*** me off, but these AAR's have shown the game in its best light. Not only that, the efforts to graphically show the conflict have been excellent and much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a counterpoint to my previous argument, I am currently also engaged against an experienced allied player on the Wittman scenario that Bil is running an AAR on in CMBN. I have lost something like 60% of the total German armor and all of the Tigers, yet am continuing to play, mostly just to learn how to best apply tactics I know well to the CM battlefield. But if this were the real deal, we (the Germans) would have called off the attack after losing the first company or so of Panzers. Neither the Germans nor the Western Allies (after North Africa anyway) were much on the WWI reinforcing defeat and banging their heads against brick walls. If an attack failed or met unbreakable resistance, they USUALLY sought another avenue, additional support or more force. There are exceptions of course, especially in greener units or when contesting truly critical objectives, but again, the routine in the war was to pit overwhelming force against a weak point, crumble initial defenses seize some piece of advantageous terrain, and then watch as the enemy has to reshuffle his lines and withdraw adjacent forces that are now overextended, while attacking with artillery to disrupt these withdrawals and cause casualties. The 'evenly matched' combats that we all relish in CM were in fact somewhat rare. The bottom line is that when we design our scenarios, it would be wise to keep in mind who exactly has the initiative (and the ability to change their minds about something) and what precisely our pixeltruppen commanders (at all levels) would be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill, In fairness to players, I would contend that the unrealistic casualty rates within games - the 'die in place mentality' - is more the fault of attackers. Defenders in WWII would quite often hold their ground quite stubbornly if they could - not just because those positions were important, but because casualties are often even higher during retreat. Attackers are the ones who in real life would tend to be more cautious and casualty averse than CM players.

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...