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

[WynnterGreen]

....he thinks that negotiating the terms of the engagement is as much a part of war and gaming as planning is.

Gaming, yes, certainly.

If you think pregame negotiation effects the outcome, then it's just as important as planning and preparation.

In fact I'd argue that it's merely an aspect of good planning and preparation.

in most games, and most wars, the commanders don't negotiate the terms of the battle...

Let's stick to gaming, seeing that's what this is.

You've never negotiated 'house rules', amendments or pregame agreements for a game???

You made a pregame agreement to add an Elephant and AA, even if it was just to 'showcase' the new toys.

You just didn't negotiate anything else.

That's fine, it's your decision, but surely if it effects the outcome it's a poor one.

This isn't a competitive match and was never intended to be.

What makes you think it has to be competitive in order to negotiate terms before beginning????

not everyone plays the game like you do

Correct, and nor should they have to.

Doesn't change the fact that GAJ suspects that QB's are now won or lost in the metagame, but failed to negotiate it.

Which I already said is 'fair enough', if that's what he wants to do.

And;

I agree with Vanir, defending is just about the toughest QB match to succeed in.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You've never negotiated 'house rules', amendments or pregame agreements for a game???

He and Bil did for their first AAR. IIRC they had to spend at least half of their points on infantry and there were no Panthers or Tigers allowed.

[MikeyD]

You gotta admit it wouldn't be much of an AAR if one side had just purchased an artillery spotter and ten batteries of Xylophone artillery rockets.

[Michael Emrys]

Hmmm. I may try that my next battle.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

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.

GAJ comes from WeBoB where friendly gaming is seen as more important than winning at all costs. Another advantage is that if 10 club players played with the original set forces, or even the original set-ups we could still assess who did well.

And the chances for freak results can be seen. In this situation you may see a seven out of ten Axis win but every player will get some fun. This " I win or lose" as a single result does not prove whether the battle is unbalanced or not.

The art of negotiation occurred in CMx1 and really was not very clever if you just wanted to play a game. I suspect I have played over 400+ CMx1 games and have 200+ recorded so feel familiar with all the tweaks for achieving "fairness".

CMx1 also suffered from the proportions chosen by BF were flawed as the ratio of units for purchase did not change during the entire war. The Western allied artillery was very handicapped.

I have no idea as to the costs for purchase in FI and in GL but the strongest Allied ground force was the artillery and if this is too expensive then recreating what happened in RL would be difficult.

ATG's do seem busted but that might be a function of the tree density and not a lesson to translate to other battlefields. I was debating about popping smoke about the battle field to give the impression of screening something - on a large battlefield distraction and wasting his units time and stressing the player seems a good idea.

On the same tack, and given dust is raised, I would be looking for a non-viewed area to run vehicles on dust and then back on grass. An honest commander would perhaps think there is more units in reserve and plan accordingly. All adds to the fun : )

[WynnterGreen]

GAJ comes from WeBoB where friendly gaming is seen as more important than winning at all costs.

Winning at all costs is fielding twelve Fanatical Elite Tigers and Arty.

Negotiating terms before a game simply sets out what's considered 'reasonable' in force allocation or play style.

Agreement on such issues prior to commencement is actually the height of 'friendliness'.

It seems GAJ agreed to a 50% Infantry and no Panthers or Tigers policy when playing as the Germans in his previous DAR.

So he's obviously not as averse to negotiating as he seemed to indicate above.

It's simply my contention that he was out maneuvered pregame by not properly negotiating terms prior to beginning this engagement.

Bil played him well, agreeing in the first game on No Big Cats.

Then in the second encounter, gaining access to the Elephant in exchange for a AAHT, without any other concessions at all.

Well played Bil indeed.

Gaj acknowledges as much in his statement regarding the game being won or lost prior to commencement.

Not that it's truely lost, GAJ is still well in the game.

He's just set himself a difficult task from the outset.

[Thomm]

Hmmm. I may try that my next battle

Michael,

Your content line to signature line ratio is 1:20 in that post.

Did you ever think of doing something about that?

Maybe it is just me, but I find it tiresome having to scroll over your twenty line signature. It also is distracting, which is unfair to the other posters.

Perhaps you could use a smaller font?

Best regards,

Thomm

[GreenAsJade]

The first AAR was not negotiated, FWIW. It was stipulated by BFC as part of the way they wanted it run. For the second one, they said that there had to be an AAHT and an Elefant.

It's quite amusing to see the fantasies that can be dreamed up in the absence of the facts

While setting up each game, the focus was more on "what would be a good demonstration" than "negotiation of a winnable position".

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

Movie 28, 0:43-0:42

Not a lot to report this turn.

Bil ran an HT and some footsoldiers over behind Hill 109.

The HMG bunker that was set up to cover this approach can't see them:

[GreenAsJade]

The AAHT is in this area to block off HT/foot soldier advance. Unfortunately it can't proceed any further forwards due to coming into LOS of the Tits. So I have to wait for Bil to finish making himself comfortable at Hill 109 then hope to give him pause when he tries to come further.

He is bringing up his PzIVH support. They are approaching the area where in theory the remaining un-fired ATG can deal with them. I have unhidden that guy this turn and given it a covered armour arc in that area.

The Elefant and co that took out the Tame M10 has completel command of Tame itself. This is the typical view from anywhere in Tame:

GaJ

[noob]

Bil played him well, agreeing in the first game on No Big Cats.

Then in the second encounter, gaining access to the Elephant in exchange for a AAHT, without any other concessions at all.

Well played Bil indeed..

The implication that Bill has manipulated GaJ to gain an advantage is unfounded IMO.

[GreenAsJade]

As I said, that implication is a fantasy: there was no "exchange" of Elefant for AAHT. Each were simply specified equipment that we had to bring, for demonstration purposes, not for arms balance or advantage seeking.

Actually, Bil was very generous in coming with combined arms in the way that he did. Which is entirely in the spirit of the game: it wouldn't have been much more entertaining than the Xylophone scenario if Bil had come with an army of Elefants ... which he could have done.

Of course ... it was still tough not knowing in advance what the force mix would be

GaJ

[zinzan]

Just to say I am REALLY enjoying this (and the last) AAR and as a wargamer of 35 years experience I really appreciate the work you two are putting in.

More directly relevant to recent comments I have always been in favour of playing for fun and to learn about warfare through history.

To explain I've always preferred to play with v.limited restrictions on force structure, simply ones that prevent really stupid/gamey and ahistoric forces (eg all tanks, swarms of trucks and arty etc). For me the FUN of wargaming has always been the playing and learning about problems posed by enemy forces when you have NO idea what is facing you (just like in real life). If this means I get steamrolled, that's fine as I will try and take satisfaction from causing my oponnent any problems at all

In addition if you have NO restrictions other than vaguely historic/rarity OOB's the FOW and scouting become ABSOLUTELY vital and interesting part of the game. It also allows deception and mind games to come into their own.

Maybe I'm alone here but I find an overwhelming loss against an opponent who had a better force mix, but admits they were bamboozeled by my forces/tactics and uncertain of victory for most of the game much more satisfying than a victory won by winning the pre game negotiation!

I also absolutely refuse to play again against players I believe to be excessively gamey.

[Vark]

Thought the advantage of playing a PC game was to avoid the scourge of rules lawyers who manoeuvre for any advantage so they can win. Now we are talking about pre-nuptial agreements for QB's and making sure we don't get rolled by somebody in the pre-game phase! Can we just play for fun? GAJ and Bill are setting a fantastic example of just playing a game, for its own sake, and giving a lot of people a lot of entertainment.

Personally, I think Bill has the harder task, simply because he is expected to win, GAJ on the other hand has a certain latitude, afforded by being the underdog.

[Lethaface]

This battle (which I'm enjoying from both sides) is far from over, although GaJ indeed has a hard task against Bills strong units and probably more importantly, his very well coordinated tactics. Me thinks a lot of players would still lose to Bill, even with a very favorable 'force mix' ;D

If GaJ manages to maneuver some of his TD's in a favorable position and sees to KO a few of Bills tanks, all could change in a moment.

[Rocky Balboa]

Both parties are playing an excellent game and providing a very enjoyable AAR. GAJ got careless with his TD and kept following the same path into the town even after he knew that Bill had eyes on that area. Bill has also made some careless moves as well early on.

These things happen, that's why I prefer to play small - medium size battles because the more units you have to move around, the greater the likely hood that a mistake will occur. This is also the reason why I prefer CMx2 over CMx1. Less predictability and more randomness in the combat feels more like a war than a chess match.

Skillful play and tactical proficiency still matter but stuff happens ... I like that

[Michael Emrys]

Maybe it is just me, but I find it tiresome having to scroll over your twenty line signature. It also is distracting, which is unfair to the other posters.

Hmmm, sorry about that. That is a point I must admit I hadn't considered. Let me think about it. The whole thing has become a running joke and almost a tradition on the board, so for that reason alone I am loathe to eliminate it, but that does not equate to nothing can be done. I would be interested to hear from other members who have a serious comment to offer...BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD. Start a new thread in the GF or send me a PM.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Me thinks a lot of players would still lose to Bill, even with a very favorable 'force mix'.

Methinks you may be right.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

These things happen, that's why I prefer to play small - medium size battles because the more units you have to move around, the greater the likely hood that a mistake will occur.

True, although I suppose it can be argued that in a smaller battle each mistake counts more heavily. But I tend to gravitate towards medium sized battles simply due to the impossible workload of larger ones. Too bad really, as I would very much like to go back to using reinforced battalion sized forces.

Michael

[sburke]

Hmmm, sorry about that. That is a point I must admit I hadn't considered. Let me think about it. The whole thing has become a running joke and almost a tradition on the board, so for that reason alone I am loathe to eliminate it, but that does not equate to nothing can be done. I would be interested to hear from other members who have a serious comment to offer...BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD. Start a new thread in the GF or send me a PM.

Michael

No way are you putting a link in your sig to a thread about your sig. Ha you think we are total suckers?

[herr_oberst]

No way are you putting a link in your sig to a thread about your sig. Ha you think we are total suckers?

I would vote for "equal representation"... list all those comments where it was stated that "Emrys, you are a complete dolt, and couldn't be more wrong"

then we'll see how long your sig is...

In the interests of full disclosure, yes, I used to wade in the Cesspool, until I decided that it wasn't worth the dirty cuffs on my trousers.

[Michael Emrys]

I would vote for "equal representation"... list all those comments where it was stated that "Emrys, you are a complete dolt, and couldn't be more wrong"

Why would you want to read the ravings of someone who is clearly out of touch with reality? Unless of course they were members of your family...

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

Movie 29, 0:42-0:41

Just a brief report this turn - not a lot _to_ report.

Bil is mopping up behind Hil 109 - I couldn't bug those guys out in time.

He is also committing more HTs to this flank. My last remaining "unspotted" ATG took aim at these (despite having a cover armour arc on: note to self: HT's trigger these!) but didn't get a lock on any before they passed behind trees again. I say "unspotted" in

quotes for a good reason: I discovered it is not unspotted. Mortar fire started falling near it this turn - smoke. I think we're all unanimous at this point that if there was one thing I should have done different, it is not bring ATGs.

On the left flank I started bugging the men out last turn from Sunken Road. They might not make it in time: my Sniper got whacked, so the troops must be really close by, though I can't see or hear them. They've done their watch-and-harras now... it would be best if I can get them back over into the left approach valley, where they can fight with overwatch....

GaJ

[womble]

I think we're all unanimous at this point that if there was one thing I should have done different, it is not bring ATGs.

Some people think that easier-to-hide 57mms might have been more viable (as well as more numerous ).

[Thomm]

Let me think about it.

Thank you for making the change!!

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: By the way, I experimented with a compressed font size 1 version of your reference list, and it looked pretty stylish!