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

[GreenAsJade]

Over in Tame, Bil continued shelling nearby my M10 location, putting smoke on the upwind side (in a spot I might well have moved to)

By the end of the turn, the wind has taken the smoke away. I moved the M10 back to give myself choices about where to go next... now I just have to decide

[GreenAsJade]

BTW, the shelling near my rear left M10 continued for a couple more shells, then stopped. At least I know now where Bil's artillery reach is.

Overall...

Having that Brummbar move right to the back is another blow. You won't be able to tell from photos, but the ground actually has a high point, highest point, right where that sound contact is. I noticed this while reassessing the Hill 130 LOS, and just hoped that Bil would move everything forwards and not use that spot. If there's a unit there, it makes backfield on the left for me (Santa Maria Infante) manouever even harder...

GaJ

[pord]

Thanks for sharing some good pics. The long grass is indeed amazing concealment and seems to be realistically portrayed for the most part. I also enjoyed the AAHT action

How do you feel the battle is going so far? Having any second thoughts about your original plans or unit purchases? Do you feel you are on track for a win, loss, or fairly even...perhaps its just too early to tell? I don't want to state my opinion since I could have insider information (even though I don't). Sorry if you don't like too many questions, but your thoughts help my tactical thinking. I want to see if my thoughts line up somewhat with yours.

[GreenAsJade]

Ahem. It's a bad time to be asking me that question right now, I'm afraid ... I just watched a movie where my second anti-tank asset is blown up with out firing a shot.

However, I think that any honest appraisal of the scenario we're playing would have to think that the defender has a pretty tough task, from the outset. This is significantly (IMHO) a facet of the CMx2 QB system, and one that only really struck home to me _after_ I suggested that I defend.

However, I set out to do the best I could with what I had.

I do think that ATGs are pretty much a waste. If you can't set them up concealed and/or fortified, they just don't work the way they should. Another time I'd have just spent the money on tanks. Snipers are also a waste - that small amount of points would have been better spent on tommy-gun-wielding scouts. That's about the only deltas I can think of that I'd have made. When I first looked at the map I had all sorts of thoughts about mines & wire, and interlocking fields of fire from MGs, artillery for kill zones etc etc. But these evaporated when I saw how little points there were to cover the large area.

I'd love to hear about what would have been a different strategy to defend this large highly-visible-to-the-attacker area!

GaJ

[pord]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts so quickly. The map definitely appears very difficult to defend. Without looking at the map in 3d, it is very hard to say what I would have done differently from the get-go. The extreme effectiveness of the tall grass is something that could have been utilized in defense if it had been known beforehand. It seems a few bazooka teams could hide quite well in those weeds. As always, I can't wait to see more.

[noob]

i think you erred opting for a static defence. IMO, the best defence is to counter attack. A mobile combined arms strike force with plenty of scouts to determine a weak spot, then attack.

I would never buy AT guns unless they could operate at maximum ranges, and have transport and a smoke screen to remove them to a fall back position once they had revealed their positions.

[John Kettler]

GreenAsJade,

Cool to see your meatchopper fire, but a shame Bil hasn't cooperated by providing juicy optimal targets! And he really needs to knock off first round kills. Bad enough your points are fewer than his!

Your ATGs would be a much bigger threat if you had HVAP, but it's simply too early in the war. Since your ATGs are big targets, they're easy to spot and don't seem to have much in the way of under the hood camouflage modeling. Bil should be required to provide defense favorable shell craters (in tall grass, say) so your guns a) aren't as high and have some degree of protection. Were they in trenches, I doubt they'd last long, since trenches in CMx2 seem to come complete with "Trench here!" neon signs. How many 57s could you buy? They'd be easier to hide, harder to spot, thus to eliminate. And what if you bought jeeps or weapon carriers to tow them? They're quick into action, right? Used astutely, they'd give your defense some flexibility, particularly if operating on interior lines.

Since I don't have the game myself, I have no direct handle on what things cost, but I think heavier fire support is needed. What do Four Deuces run? Your responsive mortar fires are nice, but I think you need more hitting power, coupled with well-placed TRPs. Of necessity, you have to plan to be attacked on either flank or in the center, maybe two places at once, so you need mobile AT capability. I don't know what mines cost, but there seem to be effectiveness issues. How much would a roadblock cost?

Tanks would be nice, but you need a real gun, and that's on a TD. An eggshell with a hammer against his ordinary armor, but more like a tack hammer frontally against his heavy stuff. When fighting from hull defilade, your TDs should be harder to spot than his tanks, since your gun can depress more, but depression's not modeled, so your entire turret's up and vulnerable. Therefore, I recommend something akin to shoot and scoot. Worked at Kasserine! Shermans would hold much of his force at risk, though, and the volume of fire might tell--if you can keep the tanks in the fight long enough.

I think there's something to be said for speedy galling Stuarts and inflicting the death of a thousand cuts. In theory! Also, you need some-well-sited Ma Deuces, coupled with vanilla infantry. You are very scary up close, so he doesn't want to fight you in that way. But with a Ma Deuce, you can pretty much punish him at any LOS range, hitting and tearing up infantry, softskins and light armor. I think snipers are altogether too easy to spot, at least in this battle, so the points might be better spent elsewhere.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

Ahem. It's a bad time to be asking me that question right now, I'm afraid ... I just watched a movie where my second anti-tank asset is blown up with out firing a shot.

My condolences.

However, I think that any honest appraisal of the scenario we're playing would have to think that the defender has a pretty tough task, from the outset. This is significantly (IMHO) a facet of the CMx2 QB system, and one that only really struck home to me _after_ I suggested that I defend.

I agree that you had a tough task from the outset. I think, in this case, it's more a consequence of the map. It looks very large for the force sizes involved, which is an additional advantage to the attacker, and its topology makes it easier for the attacker to concentrate force and interdict a defender's response. The Allies don't really have a viable response to German heavy armour of the period, either, if they can't force the circus menagerie to close the range.

I do think that ATGs are pretty much a waste. If you can't set them up concealed and/or fortified, they just don't work the way they should.

On this map, the evidence so far suggests you're right.

Another time I'd have just spent the money on tanks.

Personally, I don't think they'd have done you any greater service against the forces you've so far identified. That Elefant is a one-shot death sentence to anything it sees, and it will definitely see tanks.

I'd love to hear about what would have been a different strategy to defend this large highly-visible-to-the-attacker area!

Obviously informed by hindsight, I think more infantry AT hidden in that amazing long grass... Possibly a "stand until relieved" close range reverse slope defense right behind the crests of the Tits would have given more pause for thought and cost Bil more than it cost you. But overall, I don't give the defender much chance on this map. What QB type is it? Probe? Attack?

[GreenAsJade]

Actually, you're right. An all-inf bazooka style defence could have been awesome, and probably quite a surprise. But that's an easy one in hindsight isn't it? I can't say that the idea of "bring no 76mm guns to a battle with Brumbars, Elefants and the like" was high on my list of options!

Anyhow...

Movie 27, 0:44-0:43

As you may already know: my tank in Tame was hit by a first-shot-kill from the Elefant, which crested a ridge leading down from Left Tit...

This turn, I pushed that tank about halfway back towards the bunker, giving it what appeared to be a keyholed view of the approach on Hill 109, well back from where the PzIVhs were getting a view near the bunker.

Boom! As soon as he arrived there, he was dead.

[GreenAsJade]

By way of postmortem analysis (IE WFT????!!) , I selected a different M10 and put a waypoint at this dead guy.

Here is what the view looks like from the turret, looking in the direction of the incoming shell...

If we plot LOS from there, everything is red, blocked, except...

Taking away the trees...

An Elefant at 1.2km.

[womble]

I think that looks terrible unlucky. You managed to park your M10 on the intersection of the ground with a line defined by the Heffalump and a hole in the tree cover. One tank length forward or back and it looks like you wouldn't have been hittable. Fortunes of war...

WRT a Tube Guy Zerg Defense, no it's not a reasonable thing to have seriously considered in advance. 76mm guns and lots of them seems to be the only thing the Amis have going for them at this point. And we do still have to see whether the Tube Guys you do have will make any impact. Could be that they're no more effective than the ATGs (towed and self-propelled) that you chose have so far been.

[GreenAsJade]

In fairness to Bil, he knew I was in the vicinity and started pointing big guns into the area. In retrospect, it would have been wiser to vacate entirely...

[c3k]

That is kinda cool, in a detached, "I'm glad it wasn't MY vehicle which got hit" way. Now shake it off and go attack something. You'll feel better.

[Killkess]

I think that looks terrible unlucky. You managed to park your M10 on the intersection of the ground with a line defined by the Heffalump and a hole in the tree cover.

For LOS/LOF there is no check for treetops. Its just the trunks which intersect with LOS/LOF which is a pitty in many cases.

[Seedorf81]

(..) Now shake it off and go attack something. You'll feel better.

Yeah, just like them boys in that 1914-1918 Western Front-thingy!

They sure must have felt a lot better after going over the top of them trenches..

[womble]

For LOS/LOF there is no check for treetops.

O really? So how come if there's foliage in the way I don't get spots, even if the trunk or branches aren't?

Its just the trunks which intersect with LOS/LOF which is a pitty in many cases.

I believe you're mistaken. Such a model would be so far removed from realism (and the results you get in game) that it would be quite noticeable.

[sburke]

LOS and LOF are two very different things. Whether they both use the same rules regarding trees is beyond my pay grade. As I am not getting paid I think you can extrapolate the degree of my knowledge.

[Michael Emrys]

I agree that you had a tough task from the outset. I think, in this case, it's more a consequence of the map. It looks very large for the force sizes involved...

Indeed. I think the force allowance should have been about twice what it is. Naturally, the attacker's allowance would have needed to be increased as well in order for him to have a fair chance.

Obviously informed by hindsight, I think more infantry AT hidden in that amazing long grass... Possibly a "stand until relieved" close range reverse slope defense right behind the crests of the Tits would have given more pause for thought and cost Bil more than it cost you.

Yes, I think a bit more determined defence of the the tits would have paid dividends as long as you didn't commit anything really expensive to it.

I always thought the purchase of the 76 mm ATGs might have been a mistake. I haven't checked to see what the point match up is, but I think a greater number of 57 mm guns sited where they could get flank shots and mixed with a strategic scattering of tube guys might have been more effective for the cost. During this war, ATGs were pretty much a wasting asset. Over the long haul, if you lost two guns for every tank you killed, you were coming out ahead. So if you are going to purchase them, buy enough that you can afford to lose most of them and still accomplish the mission. And again, most of the time you are better off to get something self-propelled if you can afford it. Played right, the added mobility is a life saver and force multiplier. In CM, once an ATG is in place, you shouldn't count on being able to move it around. By the time you need to move it, it's probably too late.

Good luck on the rest of the game. In addition to the entertainment value, you and Bil are bringing out a lot of good points for our education.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

I don't want to focus too much on the LOS/LOF effects of the Tame M10 loss.

The fact of the matter is that I knew Bill knew it was in that area, so the right thing to do was move it away from that area. The reason it is dead is because I didn't do that.

My postmortem above was really just to share with you why I had a false sense of security about where I had it located: I thought I had a tough-to-crack keyhole ... but no.

Bill and I did talk about increasing the force size. I was put off from that idea by the sheer volume of enormous tanks that this would have afforded Bil if he went all-armour. This is the point I was alluding to earlier about CMx2 QBs. In the absence of enforced force-mix ratios, the defender's job is very tough. In fact, I suspect that many-a-QB is now won or lost in the pre-game negotiation about which map, where the VLs are and what agreements there are about force mix etc....

GaJ

[WynnterGreen]

I suspect that many-a-QB is now won or lost in the pre-game negotiation about which map, where the VLs are and what agreements there are about force mix etc....

Precisely.

I asked you during unit purchase what force allocation restrictions had been set, and you said none, other than adding an Elephant and AA asset.

HUGE mistake.

Among other points of detail, I'll only play with a pregame agreement that a maximum of 33% of points can be allocated to armour.

I find it makes for a better balanced and more interesting game and puts off the (in my opinion ridiculous) type of player that insists on fielding twelve Tigers and a sniper team.

A good pregame agreement is absolutely critical.

[GreenAsJade]

Yes. But I'm not the sort of person who wants to be tied up in pregame negotiation. That's why I miss the old system. Plus, in this instance (AAR game) we just needed to get on with it...

GaJ

[WynnterGreen]

If you don't like/want to get involved in pregame negotiation, that's fair enough I suppose.

But if you acknowledge that a game can be won and lost at that point, you've certainly put yourself at an unnecessary disadvantage.

You might as well choose your force without looking at the map beforehand too, because you don't want to get tied up in pregame planning.

I'd have thought the fact that it's DAR would have been even more reason to have good pregame stipulations.

Anyway, that's hindsight now, I hope you have a chance to give as good as you get as things progress. I'll read on with interest.

[ChrisND]

HUGE mistake.

Among other points of detail, I'll only play with a pregame agreement that a maximum of 33% of points can be allocated to armour.

I find it makes for a better balanced and more interesting game and puts off the (in my opinion ridiculous) type of player that insists on fielding twelve Tigers and a sniper team.

A good pregame agreement is absolutely critical.

I'd have thought the fact that it's DAR would have been even more reason to have good pregame stipulations.

This isn't a competitive match and was never intended to be. The idea here was simply for two mates to have a fun battle to keep everyone entertained while they wait for the game to arrive. I'm sorry if what we set up isn't to your specific tastes, but simply put not everyone plays the game like you do.

[Vanir Ausf B]

IMO the only mistake GaJ made pre-game was choosing to defend. The default points ratio for Attack games is 1.65 to 1 and there is a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that this favors the attacker unless the map is very defender-friendly. Probes are a more even contest. Plus, in the battle of Mandatory New Stuff To Show-Off Elephant > AA vehicle

But I agree that who wins and loses isn't important.

[GreenAsJade]

Interesting, isn't it, that negotiation is now a skill that's needed for CM (at least if you want to play QBs).

The way that WynterGreen phrased his point about planning implies that he thinks that negotiating the terms of the engagement is as much a part of war and gaming as planning is. I don't agree with that. In most games, and most wars, the commanders don't negotiate the terms of the battle...

GaJ