Monte Casino-Mission 2-Clear the Gorge

[ss11955]

With a 1:1 ratio --- attacker (Polish) vs. defender (Luftwaffe) --- and inability to flank ( mission game stipulation) (deep minefield)-----how in blazes can the ATTACKER win this primarily infantry straight ahead fight ? Would appreciate some insight here > Thanks.

[Nigel Ewels]

Like you I'm having trouble with this one. I've tried lots of smoke and pummeling the Germans with artillery but nothing seems to work. The steep hills make rapid movement up the slopes very difficult not to mention the minefields. The first bursts of automatic fire (way too accurate at long range but that's a general CM gripe along with spotting) has your guys go to ground and before they get going again the mortars zero in and then all you can do is go to ground and try and minimise casualties.

The tanks provide some fire support (and more smoke) but have to be careful of mines and tank hunters.

While this does reflect the very difficult conditions of the Casino campaign, especially the crappy terrain, I would suggest a few tweaks to the campaign (which of course we can't do). While the FJ were well trained, experienced, had high quality leadership and were highly motivated, after five months of combat many units would not be at full strength, which they all seem to be in the three scenarios I've played. While the Poles had problems finding replacements they probably had more veterans in the mix then the scenario allows. Also while training and experience were a mixed bag just about every Brit and NZ source I've read indicates the Poles had very high motivation and a reckless disregard for danger when it came to getting to grips with the enemy. Higher motivation and leadership ratings might help reflect this.

In the meantime, however, take cover and have fun exchanging artillery stonks with the Germans. The hit ceasefire and move to the next scenario.

[ss11955]

Thanks Nigel---at least now I don't feel "stupid" as I play this. Something wrong though with setting up an "unwinnable" scenario by the designer .---- 1:1 force ratio totally unrealistic--the Poles would never (especially under British control ) attack unless there was a 3:1 or 4:1 forces ratio ! The Germans would-- but not the Allies ! (Monty) If I am wrong in this someone tell me how or why I am wrong ?

[Kat Johnston]

I put my attempt at the campaign on hold after playing half an hour or so of this scenario. I'll go back to it but of the four GL campaigns it looks to be the least 'fun' - fair enough, given it's Cassino and all, but a lot of stress keeping the little buggers out of the way of mortars and machinegun fire.

[Markus86]

I gave up on this one, too. After 3 different unsuccessful approaches my maximum frustration level was reached.

[phil stanbridge]

Yep I can't do it either, and I beta tested it

I've tried a number of different approaches, concentrating primarily on the centre - but obviously that's where the FJ are focussing too. The mines are the killer for me - I can't advance my tanks much further than the first row of mines without losing at least one. I have to use lots of smoke to cover the infantry advance but the German mortars are lethal as they are targetting this central channel with great effect. I've tried flanking two platoons left and right but the mines delay and the enemy machine guns mean I take huge losses before I even reach the summit.

I think smoke is going to be key, as well as huge amounts of prep artillery to soften the dug in positions, but either way casualties are going to be extreme. I will keep trying.

[herr_oberst]

Kinda reminds me of the "School of Hard Knocks". A real PITA. Got massacred the first try, and a couple more after that.

And no, haven't beaten this one either (yet).

[MikeyD]

Remember, we are talking Monte Cassino. 55,000 allied casualties, a meatgrinder. Some small unit actions you aren't meant to 'win', some you just 'experience'.

[ropey]

... I would suggest a few tweaks to the campaign (which of course we can't do). While the FJ were well trained, experienced, had high quality leadership and were highly motivated, after five months of combat many units would not be at full strength, which they all seem to be in the three scenarios I've played. While the Poles had problems finding replacements they probably had more veterans in the mix then the scenario allows. Also while training and experience were a mixed bag just about every Brit and NZ source I've read indicates the Poles had very high motivation and a reckless disregard for danger when it came to getting to grips with the enemy. Higher motivation and leadership ratings might help reflect this.

One German source said that immediately after the bombing there were only 80 effectives left in Cassino from the battalion defending it. FJ numbers were probably around 40% overall, but they were dug in and had plenty of ammo.

My reading supports the "reckless disregard for danger" angle - refusing to dig in or take cover.

[Harsmith]

A very unpleasant scenario but probably reasonably representative. And the next two missions aren't much better - you still play whack a mole with your artillery against the enemy. By the way, Monty was long gone from Italy by then ( Alexander was in command, I believe). You don't need to fight the whole German force on the map , but their numbers will prevent any force surrender.

[phil stanbridge]

School of Hard Knocks is tough but beatable. I managed it once. This is incredibly difficult. As MD says, some missions are meant to be 'experienced'. I think what I might try is small platoon action rather than focussing the whole force. I'll keep most back and work one angle at a time. I'll also use a couple of smaller teams as artillery 'bait'. See what happens. By the way, I won't divulge too much but I ceasefired my mission and examined the map. The German force in this mission is immense.

[MG TOW]

Just curious, does anyone know if the enemy is a core force? Maybe the point is to whittle 'em down so they are reduced for the next battle. Just a thought.

[warrenpeace]

After many tries finally figured out how to win this battle. A real problem for me was the AT mines. Marking AT mines does not help vehicles. They still hit them and get immobilized or abandoned. In my victorious game I used the largest Howitzer to target the mine field and that basically destroyed it and made it possible to get my tanks into the gorge. I also moved my TRPs to allow targeting of all of the objective zones. Then it was just a slugfest moving infantry into the gorge and slowly occupying two of the four objectives. I used all my artillery to drive the germans off the objectives. It was only a tactical victory, but at least I finally won. I had very few intact troops at the end.

[Brindlewolf]

School of Hard Knocks is tough but beatable. I managed it once. This is incredibly difficult. As MD says, some missions are meant to be 'experienced'. I think what I might try is small platoon action rather than focussing the whole force. I'll keep most back and work one angle at a time. I'll also use a couple of smaller teams as artillery 'bait'. See what happens. By the way, I won't divulge too much but I ceasefired my mission and examined the map. The German force in this mission is immense.

My only really complaint about this game at times,is some of the Campaigns.

The 'experience' angle of certain scenarios is all well and good.Being given the option of being forced down a set route and virtual annihilation in a set time(which is usually way too short) is another matter.That's not to say the scenarios are bad,indeed a lot are pure masterpieces in creation and map-making.It's just some can feel like a pure chore or a what's the point in playing this.Rather than a 'ok that didn't work,i'll try this.'

I more prefer the 'what if' approach myself allowing you the option of different tactical approaches.Like i say i'm not knocking any of the scenario makers,this game is truly epic because of their efforts.How about BF maybe throw in an option to allow us to maybe alter the times slightly.

At least until my tactics improve.

[nachinus]

I'm not too fond of frustrating campaigns either. And we have a few of them already. A very though scenario in a campaign, one that you don't really need to win to progress, it's ok. But putting too much frustration in a campaign is not a good thing.