Questions for Martin (Allied) #3

[Simon Fox]

Firstly Steve you should know by now that I am very serious in all my posts (not an ounce of humour) and your flippant sarcasm has hurt me deeply boo hoo ;(

Secondly I don't doubt that it was realistic, I just think it was mean, nasty and not conducive to maintaining the confidence of the men in their commander. No doubt he hurt Fionn but if his forest ambushes had been a bit stronger he could possibly have caused the same or more damage but had an opportunity to save the units to fight again and again etc. For example in the north the HQ/bazooka team combination was effective but were lost in close infantry combat (for which neither are suited) an additional squad and maybe a MG would have been beneficial. Conversely in the south Martin was very lucky (IMO) because his bazooka team and arty did well but the infantry could really have benefitted from a HQ unit. I know that he had to juggle the conflicting priorities and the restrictions of the setup rules. I am not saying that these would have worked better as I don't know the game but I am wondering what either of you think in retrospect. It appears that the basic principals emerging here are the importance of C & C and that team weapons are best employed with infantry support/protection.

[Simon Fox]

Sorry that should be principles- which I have occasionally been accused of lacking!

Given the effectiveness of the mortar barrage (unobserved? or preregistered?) in the south would Martin have been better served by employing some 105mm in the forest in closer coordination with his ambushes ie ambush the lead units and plaster the traffic jam. Would it have made much difference if he had used 80mm in the town instead of the heavy stuff. Given all those reinforcments he has got it he really ended up with more than enough to assault the town-hindsight is a wonderful thing

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sorry Simon, I couldn't resist Really, no offense intended. Your posts are always good to read, especially when you are talking Oz stuff

But you are correct. A commander that fritters away his troops in little pockets here and there isn't going to win the respect of his men anytime soon. Unfortunately, this is VERY hard to bring into the simulation. However, notice what happent to Martin's forces...

He had roughly 2 platoons of troops, about 5 MGs, 6 bazookas, an FO, and at least one extra HQ unit. How much of this stuff surrendered? Almost 1/2. Heck, his first contact with the enemy lead to 12 men surrendering with hardly a shot fired! What happened to the rest? Wiped out.

Now, what does this mean for Martin? Well, some of his troops gave up without doing nothing more than making Fionn dismount (which he was likely to do in any case). And now he is short those troops for future use.

More importantly, Martin's Global Morale just took a BIG hit for losing all these guys. That means that other units are more likely to break or surrender. In generally, this all shows a distinct lack of confidence in either Martin and/or the terrible positions that were forced upon them (remember, Fionn's attack was not expected until the last minute).

So I guess the answer is that we HAVE, to some degree, simulated Martin's troops being none too pleased with his decisions, even though I actually think they were good combat ones to make from a realistic tactical standpoint. Certainly not kind, but as many a commander has said "command is not a popularity contest".

Steve

P.S. Martin. You might want to scoot Fionn's prisoners off the map. You get double the points for a surviving POW that you get for a casualty (of any sort). So leaving them on map only leaves them to be either killed or recaptured by Fionn.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-03-99).]

[Doug Beman]

Oh, that's RIGHT. Global Morale! That's something else that isn't in most other tac-level games. That's one of the mechanisms in place that will create a player-silicon soldier bond, methinks. That the guys waiting in the center of town will get sullen and panicky when they hear how the Old Man set the 1st platoon up unsupported in the MLR and they got wiped out; that's AWESOME!

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease can I have my copy now? This is my last block of lazy-days; I start a brand-new job next Tuesday, and it's all 8-5 from there.

DjB

[Moon]

Oh yeah, I'm gone for a day and people start chatting about me behind my back

Here are the answers (I have the feeling this might be a longer post):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hindsight is always 20/20 and right now, Fionn is busy right now beating himself up for his defense of the town.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HAHA! Good to hear...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you had to do it over again, would you deploy your tanks like you did or would you concentrate them so they could support each other? Or maybe you could have hidden them in full defilade to pop up when the enemy was closer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. This, I guess, was one of the biggest mistakes I made. If I would replay the scenario again, I'd make sure that the Shermans are well hidden from German LOS and would let my hidden infantry identify German armore concentrations first. I have a blue mark on my forehead where I was hitting it against the wall for the last week or so for this one However, I have something to say in self-defence - I seriously didn't expect to lose the Shermans as fast as they went. I was hoping to get off a few shots at the Germans to scare them, THEN retreat back into full cover. OK, OK... stoopid...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why did you allow units of your delaying force to be overrun rather than withdrawing them under control. Would you deploy any differently in the east with the benefit of experience. I think that the men in your delaying force (any that survive that is) would be justified in thinking you had a little concern for them. I think that they might not fight so hard for you again!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Steve gave a good answer to this. From my point of view, I had to do SOMETHING to delay the German advance. If I had anybody from the east retreat, then the Germans would have entered the town by now. I would have LOVED to set up proper ambushes in the forest, but unfortunately the setup zones didn't allow me to do this. In the north, the only unit I wouold have been able to add to the Platoon HQ/bazooka team mix was the MG team that surrenderd north of town on turn 2. And in those woods, the LOS is limited to 25 meters... I didn't feel like an MG could do much there to cover those guys.

In the southern woods, looking back, I maybe should have left the full platoon of infantry to cover the others. They certainly would have fared better and fought longer. But by that time I didn't know that I would have so many forces available to take the town. I felt that moving a half platoon over to support the attack on the city was a better use of resources. Anyway, look at it now - the artillery did the job in the southern clearing, and the half platoon is still well and alive (ahm... well, sort of, I think it's at 50% strength)...

Bottom line is that - had I known when I would get the reinforcements, I would have chosen to retreat most of the time. As it was, without more tanks, I was trading lives for time... Yep, it sounds terrible and this is the reason why I am doing this on a computer screen and not in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Given the effectiveness of the mortar barrage (unobserved? or preregistered?) in the south would Martin have been better served by employing some 105mm in the forest in closer coordination with his ambushes ie ambush the lead units and plaster the traffic jam. Would it have made much difference if he had used 80mm in the town instead of the heavy stuff. Given all those reinforcments he has got it he really ended up with more than enough to assault the town-hindsight is a wonderful thing<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were two reasons why I chose to use the 81mm in the clearing -

1) to save the 105mm for later

2) because I have TWO 81mm mortar teams with much more ammo than the 105mm. The 105mm is overkill for the halftracks (and I wasn't expecting to knock out the tank there at all) and the 81mm can put down many many more rounds to hit SOMETHING. As is, the 81's did their job very nicely, IMO. OK, they used 70 rounds or so, but that only proves the point - the 105mm has only 18 rounds, and hence the chance to hit something is, I think, much lower.

On the other side - I believe that the 105mm is much more capable of knocking down a farmhouse than a 81mm is. So the 81mm would certainly have knocked a few birds off the roofs, but maybe not more than that - no matter for how long they fired.

And last but not least - yes: I had no idea that there would be so many reinforcements to bolster my assault on the town. Had I known this, it might have resulted in a different decision.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You might want to scoot Fionn's prisoners off the map. You get double the points for a surviving POW that you get for a casualty (of any sort). So leaving them on map only leaves them to be either killed or recaptured by Fionn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh... I didn't know this! I'll form them into a nice marching column and move them back to HQ ASAP! Maybe I can make them sing a little song, something about "Schwarzwald" maybe...

Global morale:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's one of the mechanisms in place that will create a player-silicon soldier bond, methinks. That the guys waiting in the center of town will get sullen and panicky when they hear how the Old Man set the 1st platoon up unsupported in the MLR and they got wiped out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, yeah - rub it in! 1st platoon, unsupported as it was, still had to be dealt with - and prevented the Krauts to simply storm down the road and race to the bridge. That's the last time I explain my decisions, Private! And now, back to digging that foxhole!

(just kidding )

[fatherof4]

Welcome back Martin!

As I understand it, your Shermans will have to maneuver to get a flank shot on the Panther. Do you have a plan for doing this or do you just have to hope to surprise him?

I suppose a lot of your stategy will depend on where those reinforcements come in.

[Moon]

Oh boy - this question is tougher than you think, because we're currently around turn 19.

Anyway, I don't want to give anything away, so let's assume I would be back at turn 15. Yep - I would have to hope for a flank shot. But since I don't know where the reinforcements are going to come in, there is little I can do to prepare it. I do hope that I get something like a whole platoon of Shermans and at least one Jumbo 76mm to deal with Fionns armor. If that is indeed the case, then I am sure I could get them quickly arranged so that at least ONE gets a flank shot.

[Doug Beman]

Hey Martin! As of Turn 16, what was your "global morale" figure? I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, and am wondering if you see a measurable effect on your troops. In the early part of the fight, you were doing well, but lately (Turn16) some of your guys have been getting shellacked. Is there a noticeable drop in global morale? Also, do you have any idear of how it is calculated?

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 09-03-99).]

[Larry Marks]

Moon, this would be a perfect situation to blow the bridge since the ice can't support the German armor or halftracks. Obviously, you can't blow it up by demolition, but can you destroy it with Artillery fire or tank fire?

If not, I wonder if your Sherman can make it to the bridge. It would make a nice road block after it was brewed up. Might buy you some time.

Larry

[Moon]

Doug -

Global Morale starts off with 100% at the beginning of the game. After losing the three Shermans, the morale dropped down to around 80% or so. Now, with my infantry being annihilated, it's around 70%. (I'm going from memory here, so it might be a little inaccurate).

I am not sure how it is calculated exactly, though.

Larry -

the bridge is from stone and would take something like a few direct hits from some heavy stuff (155mm arty or worse I guess) to go down. I don't have heavy stuff like that and even if I had I would have thought long about trying to knock it down, since it would be a terrible waste of ammo. And as far as blocking that bridge with one of my vehicles - unfortunately this is a risky thing, because vehicles can fall off the bridge! I'd hate to sacrifice a tank just to find out that it flipped over and landed in the river...

[Moon]

Steve - one question. What effect would it have if I would move the unarmed MG team that had been captured before off map? Would I lose any points? Can I re-arm it? And - does it matter over which map edge I move them?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Good question. Move 'em off the map. You own the West, North, and South sides, Fionn the East. The way the casualties are calcualted it looks at men surviving. If you move your guy off the map, they will count 100% towards your victory score. Other factors keep you from winning by retreating. So if you have a unit that is certain to die on map, get it outta there!

You might want to keep this in mind for your Sherman behind the woods. If you think it is going to get flanked, you can move it off map. You will never get it back for this game (though you would for a campaign), but then again, you won't lose it.

Steve

[Moon]

I have read several remarks about the "defender made mistakes" in other threads, and thought I'd try to give a little explanation to what I did and why.

But first of all, yes, I made mistakes. Some which are bugging me all night and day (the playcement of the first platoon of Shermans in particular), some others which appeared to be mistakes in hindsight although I still think that my decisions, given what I knew at that time, had been sound.

I have seen several people mention that I should have used a "hit and run" defense, retreating earlier to save my men. Well, good thinking, but there are two points which I'd like to mention.

First, moving across that snow is REALLY slow. My guys on foot would have been followed by German halftracks with easy and once they started running, they would have to keep running until they fall off the map. They HAD to stand and fight at one point. Unfortunately, what adds to the misery, is that the area accessible to my defenders (the setup zones) offers very little cover. I would have had to start retreating into alternative positions WAY before the Germans would have come close enough to my defensive positions. The result, IMO, would have been that the Germans by now would be standing in the town with hardly a scratch.

But there is something else. My orders were to take the town and hold it. At the beginning of the game, I had NO idea, if, when and how many tanks and other reinforcements were available. Yes, my mission orders were pretty precise about that, but I didn't know until turn 15 or so. For my part, the tanks might have appeared in turn 30 or later or not at all.

Therefore, my initial strategy was to make the Germans pay for every meter of ground they come closer to the town. I wanted to keep them engaged all the way, distract them (the Panther going for my MG team and a few panicked units in the northern woods was exactly what I was hoping for) and gain time for my reinforcements to arrive. I never had any hope, actually, to be able to repulse the German attack with my initial forces, and I am sure that Steve didn't design the scenario with this intention.

AFTER my tanks arrived, however, the initial tactic (although absolutely right IMO at that time) has shown a few disadvantages, as my defenders didn't have time anymore in the snow to retreat before being overrun. In the next few turns (19 and on), you will see how I am trying to withdraw some guys several times, but they get pinned down in the open and return to the original positions.

My point - I value the life of my men a lot and every one of them is a pain to see getting wiped out. But in order to follow my orders, I feel that I had to sacrifice men for time. Yes, knowing now that it was only 15 turns into the game before my armor appeared I would play a little different, but I still think that my decisions were generally right. Aided by a little luck - fighter-bomber, the 81mm barrage (and hampered by agood deal of bad luck - the Jumbo) I think that the Germans have paid dearly so far. They are far from being defeated, but seem a lot weaker now than before.

Anyway, that's just what I think. I am open for discussions

[Guest Big Time Software]

Those of you hanging out in the Steve thread know that I agree with Martin here. Not perfectly executed (I have pointed out some things here and there), but Fionn is not a happy camper right now No forward defense would have meant taking the FULL force of Fionn's assault all at one time at close quarters. I can tell you, Fionn would have kicked Martin's butt all the way to Normandy if that had happened

Steve

[dano6]

Moon, from a post by steve in another thread, I see that you are again down to 2 shermans somewhere in the near future. Was the loss of the other 75 sherman bad luck or just a mistake in deployment. I felt that you should have kept the 76 sherman out to duel with the pz4s before it was killed, it could have killed both of them. Do you feel that your defenses are strong enough to repulse the attack across the river?

Also how do you see your chances of survival of the artillery attack that is bound to come before the assualt on the town. Or maybe you already know. Steve mentioned that you were down to 5 platoons, that is alot of death. How is it looking for the US?

dano6

[Moon]

I originally intended to hide ALL of my tanks behind houses and see what happens, then pop them out when "I" felt it was time to engage the enemy tanks (e.g. when they were vulnerable and/or engaging my Sherman near the northern woods). However, with one of the Shermans bogged down, I had no choice but to move the 76er out into the fight. It got one PzIV, but the other one nailed it.

What would have happened if I had the 76er out in the open? Dunno, but it was facing THREE enemy tanks!

Am I strong to repulse the attack? Hmm.. it will depend largely if I can destroy all of Fionns armor. If yes, then I see good chances. Fionn doesn't seem to have too much intact infantry left anymore.

I never expeted the artillery on the town to be too much of a danger. Other than Fionn who was just moving out in the open when I shelled the town (simply bad luck), I intend to stay put behind several feet of stone masonry However, let me tell you, I NEVER expected to face such heavy stuff... 8-/ I won't say more, don't want to spoil the fun.

[Kent Pfeiffer]

Moon,

Could you have retreated your delaying force guys off the north/south edges of the battlefield? As I understand it, this would have taken them out of the battle, but at least they wouldn't be dead or POWs Or is this too "gamey" of a solution.

[Moon]

Yep, could have done it - at least the ones that were initially relatively close to the map edge from the beginning (because of that freakin' snow). Problem is - I didn't know that I could (Steve didn't tell me - it's all his fault! ).

I also don't feel that this is too "gamey". In real life, the Germans would have most likely be assigned a specific sector to attack within. Since I assume their orders to be to get to the town, they would have not followed any beaten up US units into US controlled territory in real life either. One could argue that the fact that they simply disappear from the map and cannot be shot at anymore, although the pursuers might only have been a few meters behind them. It's hard to say anything against that besides that the map has to end somewhere...

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think we beat the map edge thing to death a while back on this BBS, so let me just tell you the pros and cons of retreating:

Owner of Retreated units:

PRO - They survive and count for your total

CON - They aren't playing any role in saving other units and/or causing enemy casualties.

CON - Once out of play, they are gone for the rest of the battle.

Pursuer of Retreated units:

PRO - You don't have them shotting at you any more

PRO - You don't have to waste time and ammo wiping the guys out.

CON - You can be dennied "putting them in the bag". in some circumstances.

Overall, I think it is a really good mix of pros and cons for both sides. This means that it is a fair feature because even if one side benefits from it, so does the other. People will have to think long and hard about retreating units, and that is good. But also, you won't get units wiped out simply because their backs ar against an invisible boundary.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

Gee Martin, no-one wants to talk to you anymore is that because they think your victory is assured or because they think you are a lost cause?

Anyway though I am sure the gameplay is way ahead of the AARs but I have one thing to say to you: if your troops are hiding and not spotted for goodness sake wait until they are sitting in your lap before you open up on them! Good WWII fire discipline was to open up at 50-100m. Its no good wasting ammo (which you are short of) by harrassing/attriting them at longer ranges.

[Moon]

I was sobbing all of last night quietly into my pillow because it seems that nobody wants to talk to me

Unfortunately, I have no control over when my guys open fire. The only thing I can do is order them to hide and hope that they don't give away their locations too early, but it's really up to the TacAI. Charles mentioned that in a new build he is preparing, he is going to restrict opening up at such distant targets as it is happening now occasionally.

And I am so low on ammo right now, that I will have to start throwing furniture out of the windows at the attacker soon...

[Simon Fox]

I wonder if perhaps it could be related to unit experience/quality, ie as a general rule the greener the unit the further out they engage at. Simulating the superior fire discipline of experienced/well-trained units. Steve?

[Moon]

I happen to know that this indeed is simulated, i.e. green units will open fire earlier than veteran units. This is also true for ambushes, where a green unit might shoot too early and even ruin the ambush.

[dano6]

It seems as if your confidence in your troops is fading. How is your ammo supply for the rifle companies that are defending the outskirts of the town. I think this is where your defense should be located. Because if you let the germans take the outer buildings of the town it will be at least a draw if not an axis victory.

Also how do you plan on stopping fionn's tank and halftracks. With their unlimited MG ammo they can sit off at a distance and put MG fire into your positions all day long. At least you can kill the halftrack gunners but the tank has to be seriously dealt with. Just curious how much anti-tank defense you have left. Also wondering how you plan to stop it if it doesn't enter the town and just fires from a distance.

dano6

[Moon]

Good questions. I am planning on putting ammo a force overview, including ammo levels, for turn 30, and I think Fionn will do the same.

Ammo is pretty low in general, yes, although the rifle comapanies around the town still have much more left than the rest of my force since they were engaged only for a few minutes in the city fight. I have 6 bazooka teams in the town if I recall correctly.

Everything you say is true - I can only stop Fionns armor if I lure it into town. And that's why I will not defend forward. I intend to let the Germans close in, then withdraw further into town to deny his armor the privilege of shooting up my defenses from far away. What I want to do is to force him to close in and enter the town. Yes, I will probably have to give up a couple of victory locations, but it will make defenses much stronger when he has to either move in his armor (with the risk of it being knocked out) or move in with his infantry (which is probably in a not too good shape either).

In fact, what I intend to do is to center my defenses around the immobilized Sherman in the town. A mix of that Sherman and some infantry around it should prove difficult for him to crack.