Gustav Line Beta AAR Round Two PEANUT GALLERY

[GreenAsJade]

I thought I get would this going, as a way of saying "It's now officially on".

This means that we'll be starting to talk about specifics in the AAR threads, so we need intel not to leak from one to the other. But we love having your company in them!

It's a bit of a grey line with a tough call, because we definitely enjoy banter about what is happening (other than just being goaded to ATTACK ) so please use sensible judgement.

It seems good to ask questions and get us to talk about our thoughts and plans.

But the same question could be good or bad. "How are you planning to defend" is clearly fine. "What are you thinking about that tough-to-defend left flank" sounds OK: but not if Bil has just identified that the left flank is weak and is planning a press there. For example, Steiner's ongoing pressure on me to check out the centre last battle appeared way over the line, given that this is where Bil was massing (though Steiner claims he didn't read Bils threads).

Also, commentary is good, but specifics are bad. "I can say that your plan looks like it will succeed - well done" is once again way over the line. How can you possibly say that... how can it mean anything other than "I am telling you that your guesses about the oppo are good ones"? Don't say stuff like that

And do remember that Bil and I will be back to read this thread after the battle is done - we're fascinated by your observations and opinions. So be a bit nice eh?

GaJ

[akd]

My suggestion would be to control your collective selves and make a choice to either:

1. Participate in one AAR thread and don't view the other or this thread.

2. Participate in neither thread, but follow both and post commentary here.

[Michael Emrys]

Perhaps for most of us AKD's option #2 would be the best choice. I think I will try to go that route with exceptions, those being comments in a player's thread that are not about gameplay or directly relevant to it, but about any technical issue in the game. Let's hope this works out okay.

Michael

[TheVulture]

Has Bil cunningly stolen a march before they have even started? GaJ mentions in his thread that he assumes Bil will do his usual broad front recon before forming a plan, and so is planning to deliberately give out misleading information to try and lure Bil in. Meanwhile Bil says that since he normally does recon-pull, this time he is considering command push of formulating a plan in advance and sticking to it, thus rendering GaJs recon misdirection at best irrelevant.

[Fenris]

I to think peeps should try to avoid being overly helpful in the respective side AAR threads. I found the level of advice in the last AAR a bit OTT to be honest. It's difficult enough second guessing your own strategy without pages of advice from the peanut gallery doing the same thing.

My 2c FWIW.

-F

[Michael Emrys]

I agree with Fenris. ^^^ I thought some of the advice in the last AAR was downright creepy, it was like the poster was trying to take over and run the player's game for him. I know only too well how strong the temptation is to do that, especially when the poster sees the player blundering into a situation that is liable to be very costly.

Of course, if you are C3K that's exactly what you want to happen.

Michael

[Sublime]

Well if he's the poster I'm thinking of he was banned and good riddance.

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, but there were also other incidents, perhaps not quite as flagrant but still not a good idea (including some by yours truly IIRC).

Michael

[c3k]

Of course, if you are C3K that's exactly what you want to happen.

Michael

Ah, yes. In a public AAR, the eyes of the (CM) world are upon you. You have a duty. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "Once, in every man's life, if he is fortunate, the eyes of history will be focused upon him. What a pity if that time comes and finds the man unprepared."

How sad if you have an AAR and start huddled, be-feebled, and frightened, only to end even worse. Short, sharp, and covered with glory. That's how to run a public AAR.

Back on topic: I've participated in both threads, but try very assiduously to restrict my comments to asking what they're thinking, or to make my standard, over the top, attack requests. No feedback at all. A la, "Yes, that looks like a good idea".

It will be cool to see if Bil sticks with his command push idea, or if he changes his approach based on what he sees. (He'll call it flexibility, but it will blur the lines between command push and recon pull.)

GaJ should benefit from an advanced, aggressive defense. The clock will be ticking against Bil, not GaJ. GaJ needs to keep a reserve capable of movement on the battlefield. Troops in trucks need not apply.

IRL, the Sante Infante battle was a bit of a grinder on the attacking US. The Germans were dug in and had mined and wired the front. Tanks were facing difficulty on the road due to AT mines. The left and right tits were machinegun nests which inflicted a lot of casualties. The US attack worked, but they needed the cover of night and a few retries to coordinated troops who'd been disorganized.

This map is two battlefields separated by the ridge road. GaJ needs to ensure his forward flanks stay secure.

Oh, and of course, they both need to attack!

Ken

[Ron]

It will be cool to see if Bil sticks with his command push idea, or if he changes his approach based on what he sees. (He'll call it flexibility, but it will blur the lines between command push and recon pull.)

Oh, and of course, they both need to attack!

Ken

Yep, I think flexibility is Bil's overriding advantage here, whatever he ends up calling it in the end. Based on the previous AAR GAJ not so much, being easily/fairly early thrown off the rails and lost thereafter. Beneficial to GAJ this time though, and likely more suited to his temperment, is being on the defensive. That said, the bisected map favours the attacker and if Bil concentrates on one side to then dislocate the other, I think GAJ will be lost again.

My $.02 Canadian.

[Michael Emrys]

GaJ needs to keep a reserve capable of movement on the battlefield.

I agree. Which is why I suggested that for the first map he should get a platoon of M10s. I still think that would be a good idea except that he might want to get more than one platoon on this map. However many ATGs come with his infantry should be used for his fixed defenses, plus as many extra ones that he thinks he will need to cover his front. But these should be augmented as necessary by mobile AT assets. When he sees where Bil is committing his armor, these should be moved into ambush positions on the flanks if possible but without exposing their own flanks to escorting inf with portable AT weaponry. He should buy as much artillery as he can afford to strip the German inf from the armor.

Michael

[c3k]

GaJ is talking about bazooka troops as mobile. I think that's a mistake. Infantry will get pinned, or take bloody losses in attempts to close to bazooka range. 'Zooks are good to keep tanks "honest": say ~200m distant. Tank hunting with bazookas is not a good plan for a defense meant to kill tanks. (They're needed, but only to preserve your force, not to attrit his.)

Bil's force will be good for direct fire. Lots of tanks, etc. GaJ should invest in fortifications and set them up where they will soak up a lot of fire. (Empty of men...) Make Bil delay and waste ordnance.

As noted, Bil can concentrate on one half of the map and very simply neuter the defense force set up on the "wrong" side of the ridge road. Set up some flank defense to cover the ridge road, so that GaJ cannot shift forces except deep in his backfield, and press on. Artillery on the backfield will slow down GaJ's ability to shift from one flank to the other.

GaJ needs some halftracks to provide a mobile defense reserve; they'll at least protect their passengers from a lot of shrapnel and be more mobile than trucks. Those, and some tanks.

I still say the flanks are key. (If Bil concentrates on one side of the road, the map edge is one flank, the ridge road is the other.)

[Alan8325]

Agreed on the bazookas as a mistake. The map is too open to make them more useful than AT guns. Maybe include a few bazooka teams to hide in well concealed areas and buildings inside VLs.

As for mobile forces, I think it is important to have a significant amount of tanks or self-propelled AT guns in order to take advantage of the side of the bisected map where Bil is weakest. Bil will probably have an AT overwatch on the far end of his "weak" side, AKA the side he chooses NOT to advance on, and this will likely have to be targeted with artillery or air support before GaJ can make use of it to flank Bil's forces. For this purpose GaJ should have at least one battery of 155mm+ and some TRPs on likely overwatch positions. I'm going to guess that Bil will use the Elefant as an overwatch unit due to its strong frontal protection and poor mobility.

[Seedorf81]

Hasn't history proven that fixed defenses and fortifications are useless if you want final victory?

Maginot-line, Brest-Litovsk, Sevastopol, Bir Hakeim, Atlantik-wall, West-wall, all of Hitler's Festungen (Brest, Konigsberg, Channelports, etc.), Singapore, Bataan, Japanese "bunkered up-islands", just to name a few from WW2.

Mobility and flexibility give GAJ a better chance, I think.

[JonS]

Hasn't history proven that fixed defenses and fortifications are useless if you want final victory?

That depends crucially on how you use them, how they're organised, and what's opposing them.

See: Tobruk 1942. Medenine and Kursk 1943. The Admin Box, Kohima, and Imphal, 1944. Dunkirk, La Rochelle, Lorient, Saint Nazaire 1945.

FWIW, I'm not sure that any of your examples, or these ones, have anything useful to say about playing CM.

[Seedorf81]

That depends crucially on how you use them, how they're organised, and what's opposing them.

See: Tobruk 1942. Medenine and Kursk 1943. The Admin Box, Kohima, and Imphal, 1944. Dunkirk, La Rochelle, Lorient, Saint Nazaire 1945.

FWIW, I'm not sure that any of your examples, or these ones, have anything useful to say about playing CM.

Well, we could argue on this for days, I guess, but that would put us way off topic. My point was that I think that GAJ had better invest his points in mobile forces then in fixed defenses and fortifications. As I see it, the latter can slow an enemy down or make him choose another route, but never will win anything. Whether in CM or in WW2.

[Offshoot]

Does anyone think it would be rude to ask both Bil and GaJ to provide directly overhead views of the map for each turn they post? These could then be overlaid in an image editor and posted in this thread to provide a complete overview of the battlefield. I (and from comments I think others) found it a bit difficult to clearly see the movement of both sides relative to each other in the last AAR, especially as terms like left and right flank are not absolute to the map.

[Michael Emrys]

The fortifications represented in CM are mostly field fortifications. These are a vastly different species of bunny from the Maginot Line et al, and in fact are extremely useful and cost effective. At least, they would be if CM represented them properly.

Field fortifications are quick to build at almost no cost to the nation to whom the army belongs (generally they are created by the infantry that is going to occupy them with some help from the engineers that are organic to the same formation). They allow a given piece of ground to be defended by a smaller number of troops, meaning that troops not needed can be formed into a reserve or sent elsewhere. Since they are relatively easy and cheap to build, there is not much disincentive to abandoning them when the army needs to move somewhere else, so they do not represent an impairment to mobility. All these things mark them as different from the kind of fortifications intended to be occupied for extended periods of time, such as the Maginot Line or the West Wall. Those latter were quite expensive to build in terms of money, materials, and time. Consequently, they absorbed a significant portion of defense budgets which then could not be spent on other things. And because of that, armies were reluctant to abandon them, thus tying them to specific locations.

My point was that I think that GAJ had better invest his points in mobile forces then in fixed defenses and fortifications. As I see it, the latter can slow an enemy down or make him choose another route, but never will win anything.

My own opinion is that he should have an armored reserve, but also put some of his ATGs in bunkers to give them a little more longevity. This is not the same as putting his entire defense in bunkers. GaJ really doesn't have to "win" anything here; he just has to keep Bil from winning.

Michael

[c3k]

Does anyone think it would be rude to ask both Bil and GaJ to provide directly overhead views of the map for each turn they post? These could then be overlaid in an image editor and posted in this thread to provide a complete overview of the battlefield. I (and from comments I think others) found it a bit difficult to clearly see the movement of both sides relative to each other in the last AAR, especially as terms like left and right flank are not absolute to the map.

That's an outstanding idea! The key would be to ensure that the game time is identical. This type of image manipulation is not something I know how to do. If you can do it, and don't mind doing so, then by all means ask Bil and GaJ to provide such a screenshot. I'd enjoy seeing it.

Fortifications: GaJ needs 'em. Reverse slope defense, keyhole, TRP's, channelizing obstacles and mines, etc. Fortifications can be spotted, oftentimes before the troops in them can be seen. If GaJ liberally sprinkles them around, then Bil will probably be "spooked" into suppressing them. That'll burn time and ordnance. Fake fortifacations: their time is now!

Ken

[Sublime]

Yeah, but there were also other incidents, perhaps not quite as flagrant but still not a good idea (including some by yours truly IIRC).

Michael

Well... I frequently make an @$$ of myself if thats what you mean Emrys.

I actually just typed a whole paragraph that I realized was in response to something you did not even say.

Dont feel bad, maybe some people made slips last game but it was all in good spirit. Steiner really did seem to almost 'take over' the game or attempt to. Personally, if you want an enjoyable AAR one would think you WOULDN'T give info to the other side so as to see a better match/fight.

[Sublime]

Does anyone think it would be rude to ask both Bil and GaJ to provide directly overhead views of the map for each turn they post? These could then be overlaid in an image editor and posted in this thread to provide a complete overview of the battlefield. I (and from comments I think others) found it a bit difficult to clearly see the movement of both sides relative to each other in the last AAR, especially as terms like left and right flank are not absolute to the map.

I think it's a brilliant idea. Bil was quite comprehensive in his AAR (or DAR actually)

GaJ less so, I like the guy and it wasn't a bad AAR, just Bil's was... over the top quality. Really well written and done. With GaJ's I would have been greatly assisted from either overhead shots or shots taken from the same spot each turn. I often had trouble following exactly what was happening where.

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, an overhead establishing shot of the whole map each turn would be nice. But I want to be sure it's well understood that they should continue doing what they have been doing all along. Close-in shots from angles that best reveal particular pieces of the action are essential in my view.

Michael

[JonS]

Well... I frequently make an @$$ of myself if thats what you mean Emrys.

Dont feel bad, maybe some people made slips last game but it was all in good spirit. Steiner really did seem to almost 'take over' the game or attempt to. Personally, if you want an enjoyable AAR one would think you WOULDN'T give info to the other side so as to see a better match/fight.

Sub, FWIW, I think you're post about air strikes in Bil's thread is sailing too close to the wind.

[sburke]

I think it's a brilliant idea. Bil was quite comprehensive in his AAR (or DAR actually)

GaJ less so, I like the guy and it wasn't a bad AAR, just Bil's was... over the top quality. Really well written and done. With GaJ's I would have been greatly assisted from either overhead shots or shots taken from the same spot each turn. I often had trouble following exactly what was happening where.

I think that is experience showing. Bil has a background in intelligence and he has a few AARs under his belt. I have to say I really respect the cohones GAJ has shown in jumping out there not once, but twice. He is taking your advice in a way c3k- into the breach once more my friends!!

[c3k]

Aye, a doff o'the cap to GaJ. And a nip o'the good stuff, as well.