Bud Backer Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 Here is a more overhead view of the map from my starting position. I love the eye-height shots but this gives you a better overview of the situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 Based on the discussions and awesome input of you guys as well as my own ideas, I've got a tentative force purchase: This gives me three Sherman's, two Fireflies, two troops of 4 25Lbr off map, Two FOOs, Two TRPs, CompanY HQ & XO With attached 2 jeeps 2 Sniper teams 2 PIAT teams Two rifle platoons, each with small mortar and 1 squad with a PIAT, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Wow lots of discussion here... I have a couple of thoughts to add. Where to put your Fireflys:I think initially not hull down but out of sight in behind your ridge. Once you scouts and infantry find where his armour is then you will know what to do with them. So keep them out of sight in a central location so they can move left or right. You definitely want to have your tanks engage when you already know they will get a decent opportunity and you also ideally want the tank commanders to have an idea of where the enemy tanks are - ? icons for the tanks after spotting info shared. Purchase: I doubt you will want two 25 pdr batteries (which also means one less FO too). Save the points and get another tank or some HT - see suggestion below. I like the idea of extra PIATs. Actually the commonwealth recon units are pretty good for a fast moving occupy force (yeah, I know gamey but meeting engagements tend to be gamey) Thoughts on a Meeting engagement: Usually the winner of a meeting engagement is the one that gets on the objective first and makes the other guy push him off. One strategy I often use is to create a quick reaction force who's job it is to get out there and take the objective. So a platoon in HTs with a tank or two and they just rush for the objective while the slower guys take longer to get there and or setup to over watch. I think the terrain here might make that difficult - after all to defend the objective there needs to be cover for your infantry. On the other hand this could still work (if you think there is some cover for your infantry) - take one objective and bring stuff to mess with the approach to the other objective and only rush to one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 Wow lots of discussion here... I have a couple of thoughts to add. Where to put your Fireflys:I think initially not hull down but out of sight in behind your ridge. Once you scouts and infantry find where his armour is then you will know what to do with them. So keep them out of sight in a central location so they can move left or right. You definitely want to have your tanks engage when you already know they will get a decent opportunity and you also ideally want the tank commanders to have an idea of where the enemy tanks are - ? icons for the tanks after spotting info shared. Purchase: I doubt you will want two 25 pdr batteries (which also means one less FO too). Save the points and get another tank or some HT - see suggestion below. I like the idea of extra PIATs. Actually the commonwealth recon units are pretty good for a fast moving occupy force (yeah, I know gamey but meeting engagements tend to be gamey) Thoughts on a Meeting engagement: Usually the winner of a meeting engagement is the one that gets on the objective first and makes the other guy push him off. One strategy I often use is to create a quick reaction force who's job it is to get out there and take the objective. So a platoon in HTs with a tank or two and they just rush for the objective while the slower guys take longer to get there and or setup to over watch. I think the terrain here might make that difficult - after all to defend the objective there needs to be cover for your infantry. On the other hand this could still work (if you think there is some cover for your infantry) - take one objective and bring stuff to mess with the approach to the other objective and only rush to one of them. Okay you're the odd man out here, Ian! You're the only one suggesting rushing forward to try to be on the objectives first! I admit that is my usual approach, and as the Germans it's worked well though not in the way one would expect. I would not be first ON the objectives, I would be first in LOS of the objectives, so when my opponent arrived, in a hurry, I'd be sitting calmly and engaging his units. Sadly that is less likely to work well when you can't penetrate the enemy's frontal armour. I am concerned about the cover issue - on the north objective I may be in luck, but the south one has all the cover on his side of the river. Likely intentional as a balancing thing by the map designer...still, the idea of rushing forward with some stuff is inescapably attractive to me, so my Jeeps with PIAT and Sniper teams will be rushing to be first. I'm a bit leery of giving up the second arty troop. I keep thinking that it will be the only thing able to break his hold on the objectives. On the other hand, I think you are right in keeping my armour completely hidden until I know where he is. I have complete freedom of movement behind my ridgeline where I deploy, and can shuffle my tanks to the optimum start position. I'm not sure what you mean about Commonwealth recon units being fast? I sure you don't mean they sprint like Jesse Owens... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Well that's what I thought! Properly used, fireflies should indeed be a game changer. Ask Wittman! Haha Can a firefly penetrate -IN GAME, not theoretically- a panther or tiger's frontal armour? I wonder at what range... The map is only 700m from my end to his end so when we meet, I'd expect to be shooting at sub-400m ranges. I'm still not convinced about the cover, Womble, but I hope you're right! If you have additional thoughts I'd love to hear them on the subject. I think the 17lber can penetrate Panther front glacis at that range. Do the Canadian Fireflies get any special (APDS) rounds? Coz that's what they're for The way the ground slopes means that the trees will provide concealment to stuff on their side of the river that's slightly higher than the bases of their trunks; without loading the map up, it looks like there's a pretty even slope down to the creek, so forces should be "revealed" as you advance. It's certainly worth checking to see what sort of "ground tile" there is under the trees, firstly to make sure there isn't any impassable "Heavy Forest" to impede your tanks, and second to check what sort of cover/concealment being under those trees is going to provide to infantry. It's really worth spotting about from scattered "future waypoints" to see the sort of dead grounds the clumps of woodland produce; you don't get a good idea of how the terrain slopes affect your visibility from just eyeballing at ground level, or at least not as quickly. Lots of CMFI maps are of this character: scattered copses on sloping ground, and it's surprising how concealed your movement can be, and how easy it is to find keyholes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) The 17pdr AT Gun and the 17pdr mounted in the Firefly can easily penetrate a panther or Tiger at 700m. Edited May 12, 2015 by Raptorx7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 The 17pdr AT Gun and the 17pdr mounted in the Firefly can easily penetrate a panther or Tiger at 700m. Frontally? You sure? that would be great news for me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 I think the 17lber can penetrate Panther front glacis at that range. Do the Canadian Fireflies get any special (APDS) rounds? Coz that's what they're for The way the ground slopes means that the trees will provide concealment to stuff on their side of the river that's slightly higher than the bases of their trunks; without loading the map up, it looks like there's a pretty even slope down to the creek, so forces should be "revealed" as you advance. It's certainly worth checking to see what sort of "ground tile" there is under the trees, firstly to make sure there isn't any impassable "Heavy Forest" to impede your tanks, and second to check what sort of cover/concealment being under those trees is going to provide to infantry. It's really worth spotting about from scattered "future waypoints" to see the sort of dead grounds the clumps of woodland produce; you don't get a good idea of how the terrain slopes affect your visibility from just eyeballing at ground level, or at least not as quickly. Lots of CMFI maps are of this character: scattered copses on sloping ground, and it's surprising how concealed your movement can be, and how easy it is to find keyholes. IIRC I have 2 APDS per Firefly. You're right about the slope. As one descends, different LOS' are revealed. This will be an extremely tricky map to maneuver on! I really will need as much smoke as I can drop, to mitigate the long range advantages of his guns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 New Plan: Based on the discussion, I've modified my plan. Im still nervous about my infantry, but I think it's better to move it right away than to make to cross my ridgeline later when the enemy may be closer and better able to see them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Frontally? You sure? that would be great news for me! Absolutely, the 17pdr was designed to be able to do just that, especially with that special APDS ammunition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) Absolutely, the 17pdr was designed to be able to do just that, especially with that special APDS ammunition. You know, this may be not quite as bad as I fear. We shall see! I will formally buy tonight when I'm home from work. Edited May 12, 2015 by Bud_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I know from playing the Germans enough that he can afford 4 Panthers or three Tigers, due to rarity limits. Last game he took the 4 Panthers. I'd prefer 4 Panthers over the 3 Tigers as the former are easier to penetrate from the side. Actually, rarity is no limit. Panthers with "Standard" ( x 0 rarity multiplier) are available. I think you've said it's a medium engagement, so he can fit 7 or so Panthers (though not a lot else ) at "Regular, Normal, 0". The 17lbrs were something I vacillated on...I could afford quite a few, but with a packup and setup time of combined over 11 min, they would at best be a single shot weapon and that is not practical for a maneuver battle. You've confirmed my thinking. ATGs really are best used on the defense, or as "take and hold" units in very large (and I'm meaning the sort of 20k-a-side thing IanL has posted an AAR of here a while back) battles. If you have to move them they don't get the "hasn't moved" concealment bonus. They're also best not used on maps with little actual concealment, and on small maps where sight lines won't often reach a kilometre. I will formally buy tonight when I'm home from work. Have you thought about buying mortars rather than 25lbers? If you get organic mortars with the infantry, the response times are half or less of the 25lbers. You get nugger all smoke, though. 'Pends whether you want to use your indirect fires for obscuration or stripping the kitties of their crunchy little friends. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) Bud - my thoughts for what they are worth. how to deal with the German heavy armour Was the premise for starting this thread, but you then go and introduce two elements that move the problem from needing a real world tactical solution to something that is far more game based. Namely the use of a very open and un-realistic map, and that the battle is a QB meeting engagement. My thoughts are that in this instance the beating of the heavy Cat's will be down to exploiting a full understanding of the game mechanics rather than a understanding of good all arms combat. I may be being a little harsh here and greater understanding of the way the game plays is never going to be a bad thing, but I would suggest a high quality scenario (something by George MC) might provide a better test bed on how skin those kitties. Just my 2p, and I'll follow this with interest regardless. P Edited May 12, 2015 by Pete Wenman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 Actually, rarity is no limit. Panthers with "Standard" ( x 0 rarity multiplier) are available. I think you've said it's a medium engagement, so he can fit 7 or so Panthers (though not a lot else ) at "Regular, Normal, 0". ATGs really are best used on the defense, or as "take and hold" units in very large (and I'm meaning the sort of 20k-a-side thing IanL has posted an AAR of here a while back) battles. If you have to move them they don't get the "hasn't moved" concealment bonus. They're also best not used on maps with little actual concealment, and on small maps where sight lines won't often reach a kilometre. Have you thought about buying mortars rather than 25lbers? If you get organic mortars with the infantry, the response times are half or less of the 25lbers. You get nugger all smoke, though. 'Pends whether you want to use your indirect fires for obscuration or stripping the kitties of their crunchy little friends. You're right, now that I'm home I could not help but indulge my curiosity. He can get 10 PzIVH, 7 Panther-G, or 2 Tiger IE. Of course those are extremes. While he can have a viable force with two tigers with the points left, the others would leave him almost nothing at all. My guess, because of the rarity cost of tigers, he might buy 4 panthers again, but to surprise me he is more likely to mix things up and get 1 tiger and 2 panthers, or 2 panthers and some PzIVs. I'm more concerned if he buys a decent quantity of artillery which could wreak havoc on my scouting and infantry tactics. I agree RE: ATGs. I can't see myself using them except with incredibly good sightlines, or as part of an integrated defence. I have indeed considered mortars and on-map ones at that. Two major considerations made me decide not to: 1) Ammo supply - on map CDN mortars (when I've used them in the past) seem to have really inadequate ammo supplies, so that my intention to use arty to drive my opponent into positions that do not favour him would not be possible 2) I do not want to move the damn things around the map to get direct fire and there is far too much open ground to displace them safely, and if I don't get direct fire out of them they might as well be off map. I do worry about response times. Hence the TRPs and the fact my FOO teams are high leadership and experience. Hopefully that helps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Bud - my thoughts for what they are worth. Was the premise for starting this thread, but you then go and introduce two elements that move the problem from needing a real world tactical solution to something that is far more game based. Namely the use of a very open and un-realistic map, and that the battle is a QB meeting engagement. My thoughts are that in this instance the beating of the heavy Cat's will be down to exploiting a full understanding of the game mechanics rather than a understanding of good all arms combat. I may be being a little harsh here and greater understanding of the way the game plays is never going to be a bad thing, but I would suggest a high quality scenario (something by George MC) might provide a better test bed on how skin those kitties. Just my 2p, and I'll follow this with interest regardless. P Ah, Pete! I always enjoy your posts so your thoughts are worth more than 2p. Perhaps a half crown? Or 3 bob? Good lord, dating myself there! The choice of map was not mine, but I'll admit I don't quite follow your point. Are you saying it is implausible that the Allies would end up fighting the Germans on a somewhat open area? I have seen the discussions about the merits (or lack thereof) of meeting engagements in terms of realistic situations. I do follow that, but it is a rather convenient way for two players to not have to worry terribly about play balance - we're both on equal terms and my friend/opponent has a lot less experience with the game than most members of the forum so I'm trying to ensure I do not favour situations that would work better for me. We will eventually move onto other types of battles. At the same time, I do enjoy meeting engagements as well, despite the more tenuous realism - at least in terms of how often they would occur, which is not often at all. On the other hand your suggestion of scenarios is interesting to me. We will definitely explore those as well. We both want to have a better handle on mechanics, equipment, tactics, before we do scenarios - the thing I feel about scenarios is that once you play them, they are no longer a surprise. Yes, you can revisit them but only the first time is the real experience, and I want to be in a position to make the most of that experience when it happens, if that makes sense. I wonder if you could elaborate why you say that this battle "will be down to exploiting a full understanding of the game mechanics rather than a understanding of good all arms combat"? Do I not have to use decent combination of forces to succeed? Or is that not what you mean? By the way, I'm not arguing, the point of this thread is to learn and part of that process may be to challenge things or to ask for further details. Edited May 13, 2015 by Bud_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 I have sent my purchases to my opponent. He's got a lot of work and will only be taking his turn tomorrow night, then I have to buy and deploy. So we all must wait... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 In the meatime, if anybody wants to play along send me a PM. I will happily take either side. I am generally slow to start but once going can pump out many turns per day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobo Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 How long is the scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Bud - I'll admit I'm not exactly sure what my point is other than my instinctive reaction is that this map and the meeting engagement concept are not a good basis for learning how to deal with the heavier German armour. If you consider the DAR that Ian and MG are running there is a specific task for each side to achieve, with a force mix provided that should allow either to prevail. While luck will come into play, MG must conduct a flexible defence while outnumbered, while Ian must push forward at a pace that is faster than probably comfortable in order to ensure he does not run out of time. To me (and I'm on the purest side of the fence) these are real and tangible objectives that I can relate to. The guy that makes the best decisions during the course of the battle will likely win. The ME objectives on your map are little more than random areas, with no real relationship to the map and I feel that luck will play a large part in the outcome. You both have high powered weapons and so the first to spot has the advantage. On a map this small there is a good chance a kill can be achieved within 1-3 shots, with little cover to move to once spotted. I can see this playing out in one of several ways 1. Rush the flag (in this case the objectives) hope to get there first and then kill the enemy as he tries to get there. 2. Camp and snipe hoping the other player will rush the flag. Neither of these will teach much about how to defeat German armour in a meaningful way to my mind. As for scenarios - Wittmans Demise by George MC is that one that instantly came to mind. A large map, with both open and close terrain, and a real life situation that saw Tigers defeated. Play well as the Germans and you can win, play well as the Allies and you also can win, therefore the tactics used and decisions underlying them are much more relevant to how to beat the opponent. Like you I'm not trying to argue or belittle your experiment, but as somebody that likes to play from a realism point of view, and would rather lose a game than have to resort to gamey tactics #, I do wonder how much you will learn from this. The good news is that the only way to find out is for you to give it a go ! So on with the war. # I know a lot here think there is nothing wrong with gamey tactics and that anything that allows you to win is by default acceptable. I fully understand that, but it's not how i enjoy to play. P Edited May 14, 2015 by Pete Wenman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 Bud - I'll admit I'm not exactly sure what my point is other than my instinctive reaction is that this map and the meeting engagement concept are not a good basis for learning how to deal with the heavier German armour. If you consider the DAR that Ian and MG are running there is a specific task for each side to achieve, with a force mix provided that should allow either to prevail. While luck will come into play, MG must conduct a flexible defence while outnumbered, while Ian must push forward at a pace that is faster than probably comfortable in order to ensure he does not run out of time. To me (and I'm on the purest side of the fence) these are real and tangible objectives that I can relate to. The guy that makes the best decisions during the course of the battle will likely win. The ME objectives on your map are little more than random areas, with no real relationship to the map and I feel that luck will play a large part in the outcome. You both have high powered weapons and so the first to spot has the advantage. On a map this small there is a good chance a kill can be achieved within 1-3 shots, with little cover to move to once spotted. I can this playing out in one of several way 1. Rush the flag (of this case the objectives) hope to get there first and then kill the enemy as he tries to get there. 2. Camp and snipe hoping the other player will rush the flag. Neither of these will teach much about how to defeat German armour in a meaningful way to my mind. As for scenarios - Wittmans Demise by George MC is that one that instantly came to mind. A large map, with both open and close terrain, and a real life situation that saw Tigers defeated. Play well as the Germans and you can win, play well as the Allies and you also can win, therefore the tactics used and decisions underlying them are much more relevant to how to beat the opponent. Like you I'm not trying to argue or belittle your experiment, but as somebody that likes to play from a realism point of view, and would rather lose a game than have to resort to gamey tactics #, I do wonder how much you will learn from this. The good news is that the only way to find out is for you to give it a go ! So on with the war. # I know a lot here think there is nothing wrong with gamey tactics and that anything that allows you to win is by default acceptable. I fully understand that, but it's not how i enjoy to play. P Hi Pete, Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, I appreciate it. You make some interesting points. I disagree with some, but that may be purely because I still feel I lack a lot of experience and am perhaps looking at things with a perspective that is not as well informed. Or maybe I'm right? Who knows? I'll tell you what I disagree with first - best to get the bitter stuff down before we more onto the sweet, eh? You mentioned that you feel the map and meeting engagement in principal are bad for a study on anti-heavy armour tactics. This may be my naiveté but I feel the opposite (within limits - I recognize that whatever I do will not sufficiently in depth to be comprising a full gamut of tactics against the Big Cats). Why do I feel differently? Because, despite it's lack of some aspects of reality, it's almost like a training exercise - take one of the worst case situations: without prepared defences and without control of the objectives to deal with enemy heavy armour. I feel as if I can handle this, I can handle the rest. I'm giving myself what I think is a tough challenge to see if I can out maneuver my enemy and win. Part of this is also a demonstration to my opponent who feels that the allies have a bum rap in the game and that short of overwhelming superiority they cannot really fight the Germans. I want to show him that what he expects is unwinnable is not the case. I hope I can succeed in this - to if nothing else, stop the frequent debates about imbalance. Partly also, to put my money where my mouth is, and show that I wasn't lying when I said that I've had other opponents play the allies and pound my Germans into dust VERY effectively, Big Cats and all. Ok, with that out of the way, onto the agreement bit! You also mentioned that in IanL and MG's game you felt that the way things were set up, the one with the best choices would win, and that in this battle, its more down to luck - who spots first, who shoots first. I have a hard time disputing the former, and I can see the logic of the latter. You have a good point there, but I do hope that either I or my opponent will need to exercise skill, intuition, and planning in setting up that first (and second and third) shot that leads to eventual success. I do see that our battle does rest on the edge of razor, and that it can go from balance to disaster in an instant. I do get your point about the map. Really, a very large map which would require more recon, more maneuver, where we are not in immediate frontal penetration range would be much better. I concede that completely. I played Wittman's Demise - it was my first PBEM game and I was utterly trounced by the German opponent. I felt totally paralyzed and shocked at how I could not deal with the Big Cats. As a learning experience, it wasn't effective, because I found the size (read: numbers of units) of the battle overwhelming. But...it might make an interesting scenario to play now that I have more experience with the game. Gamey tactics is a dicey proposition to discuss because what is gamey to one is not to another. I like my games to feel immersive, to make me feel I'm there, that it's real, and in that regard, I try to avoid stuff that -to me- appears gamey, but I might well be doing stuff that someone else will consider ridiculous. It's not on purpose but that's where agreement on what is gamey becomes so essential. I don't like to win (or lose) by hiding one man somewhere on the objective to force my opponent to search for 10 min for the one guy that keeps him from winning. I do not have a problem, on the other hand, with someone who uses map edges to move about, etc. To me anywhere on the map is fair game. Others feel very differently on both issues. I think anything that allows me to win by default is pointless, as there is no challenge to that. I'm not here to tally a score of wins, I want to have fun feeling like I'm living the battle I play, and win or lose, that it makes me think and struggle to survive. Anything less is not that interesting. So I completely agree with you on that! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You mentioned that you feel the map and meeting engagement in principal are bad for a study on anti-heavy armour tactics. This may be my naiveté but I feel the opposite (within limits - I recognize that whatever I do will not sufficiently in depth to be comprising a full gamut of tactics against the Big Cats). Why do I feel differently? Because, despite it's lack of some aspects of reality, it's almost like a training exercise - take one of the worst case situations: without prepared defences and without control of the objectives to deal with enemy heavy armour. I feel as if I can handle this, I can handle the rest. I'm giving myself what I think is a tough challenge to see if I can out maneuver my enemy and win. Obviously I don't speak for Pete but the way I read his comments was that this kind of meeting engagement game does not reflect the way the Allies really had to deal with the big cats. I think your point about it being like a training exercise is valid but the lessons learned might not be as applicable to a more realistic confrontation. Part of this is also a demonstration to my opponent who feels that the allies have a bum rap in the game and that short of overwhelming superiority they cannot really fight the Germans. I want to show him that what he expects is unwinnable is not the case. I hope I can succeed in this - to if nothing else, stop the frequent debates about imbalance. Partly also, to put my money where my mouth is, and show that I wasn't lying when I said that I've had other opponents play the allies and pound my Germans into dust VERY effectively, Big Cats and all. Oh, now I am rooting for you even more Small story. One of my early games on the Blitz, while I was still finding a cadre of good reliable opponents, I played a guy who rage quite the entire game (not just our game but CM totally - at least H2H at theBlitz anyway) because I KO'ed his Tiger. It was brilliant! I know it makes me sound like a griefer - really I'm not. At the time I was really annoyed because it was a good game and my winning was by no means a foregone conclusion. It was a huge meeting engagement with no restrictions on cats - so I knew what was likely coming. I picked up a mechanized infantry platoon supported by a 105 equipped Sherman (or two I forget) to rush for the objective and give him something to deal with. The rest of my force was companies of infantry supported by Sherman and M10s. It was brilliant. His main force ran into my "rush for the objective" force and his infantry died to my 105 mean while I flanked his attack and even got so far as to attack his main force almost from the rear. I should not make it sound like a romp for me because it was not. The game ended prematurely when I KO'ed his first Tiger with side snots form an M10 and rear shots from a vanilla Sherman. It cost me 7 tanks and tank destroyers to do it. I also took out several Stugs and a PzIV too so not quite 7 to 1 but heavy losses. I had confirmed two more Tigers and I certainly did not have 14 more tanks and tank destroyers left plus the surprise was gone so it really was anyone's game but he rage quite with some comment about Tigers being under modelled in the game. He never logged back into theBlitz and never answered a single email from me after that. Like I said at the time I felt cheated because it was an exciting game. But now I think it was pretty funny. I do get your point about the map. Really, a very large map which would require more recon, more maneuver, where we are not in immediate frontal penetration range would be much better. I concede that completely. I will suggest Huzzar as a fun scenario to play head 2 head. It was one of the first ones I played and still ranks as a favourite. You start off with recon forces before the main attacking force arrives and "small spoiler" its an exercise in how to deal with cats too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Obviously I don't speak for Pete but the way I read his comments was that this kind of meeting engagement game does not reflect the way the Allies really had to deal with the big cats. I think your point about it being like a training exercise is valid but the lessons learned might not be as applicable to a more realistic confrontation. Oh, now I am rooting for you even more Small story. One of my early games on the Blitz, while I was still finding a cadre of good reliable opponents, I played a guy who rage quite the entire game (not just our game but CM totally - at least H2H at theBlitz anyway) because I KO'ed his Tiger. It was brilliant! I know it makes me sound like a griefer - really I'm not. At the time I was really annoyed because it was a good game and my winning was by no means a foregone conclusion. It was a huge meeting engagement with no restrictions on cats - so I knew what was likely coming. I picked up a mechanized infantry platoon supported by a 105 equipped Sherman (or two I forget) to rush for the objective and give him something to deal with. The rest of my force was companies of infantry supported by Sherman and M10s. It was brilliant. His main force ran into my "rush for the objective" force and his infantry died to my 105 mean while I flanked his attack and even got so far as to attack his main force almost from the rear. I should not make it sound like a romp for me because it was not. The game ended prematurely when I KO'ed his first Tiger with side snots form an M10 and rear shots from a vanilla Sherman. It cost me 7 tanks and tank destroyers to do it. I also took out several Stugs and a PzIV too so not quite 7 to 1 but heavy losses. I had confirmed two more Tigers and I certainly did not have 14 more tanks and tank destroyers left plus the surprise was gone so it really was anyone's game but he rage quite with some comment about Tigers being under modelled in the game. He never logged back into theBlitz and never answered a single email from me after that. Like I said at the time I felt cheated because it was an exciting game. But now I think it was pretty funny. I will suggest Huzzar as a fun scenario to play head 2 head. It was one of the first ones I played and still ranks as a favourite. You start off with recon forces before the main attacking force arrives and "small spoiler" its an exercise in how to deal with cats too.Hahaha your story is funny, Ian. I've lost terribly in these games, and while I've improved I'm by no means a great player. But I've never rage quit. That Is just lacking in respect for one's opponent - you spend a lot of time purchasing, deploying and playing and then to not have the play to completion is very frustrating. So I don't do it. Sometimes my opponent and I will mutually agree that the result is now clear and that there is little enjoyment in a tedious mop-up, but that's always by agreement. I don't want to give the wrong impression of my friend, either. He's very smart, and is very methodical in his approach to fighting. However, like me at some point, he has certain assumptions about how things worked in WW2 (we've had extensive debates on air power and his expectation that aircraft should be much more available to the allies, and easily controlled). These assumptions do not always marry up with statistics and history (Bil's PzIV vs Sherman AAR is an example of a surprise for many here - a lot of us assumed that the PzIV was pretty much superior on almost all respects to the Sherman, and his AAR showed that is not quite as clear cut). The point being that I need to have a pretty clear victory in this battle to break the current attitude that the allies cannot meet the Germans on equal terms if the Big Cats are at the table. Several battles with him as allies so far have supported his perception that this is so, and our last battle was with me as U.S. He feels it was easy as Germans (even though I got a draw). It's time to change the tune... I understand the point Pete is making. The trouble is that you've both suggested scenarios to play to see how it was realistically done, but the scenarios still require an understanding of What I Need To Do, and that I lack. Nice to have the tools and the right setting, but I can tell you that the result will be a bad loss for me and I will still not be sure what it is that I'm missing as effective and realistic allied counters. What comes to mind is air power, arty, flanking, but I fail terribly at actually doing it. Maybe I need to do what you are doing with Method Gamer, but specifically for the purpose of instruction in dealing with the Big Cats - a crowd sourced AAR, with a willing partner, on a realistic map/situation. Edited May 14, 2015 by Bud_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Hahaha your story is funny, Ian. I've lost terribly in these games, and while I've improved I'm by no means a great player. But I've never rage quit. That Is just lacking in respect for one's opponent I don't want to give the wrong impression of my friend, either. Right. And I would not want there to be any implication like that towards you or your friend either. Absolutely not my intention. Any time a discussion comes up about big cats, it reminds me of that game and I just wanted to share the story. Now I think it is slightly humorous. I understand the point Pete is making. The trouble is that you've both suggested scenarios to play to see how it was realistically done, but the scenarios still require an understanding of What I Need To Do, and that I lack. Fair enough. Once you get some traction there you have a scenario or two to try it out for real on. I like your idea of an armour based open AAR. I don't have time to start one now but later! Or perhaps there is someone else who would take it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delliejonut Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 It's obvious you cheated Ian, BigCats are invulnerable to all fire from any direction, excluding of course the super rare Deathstar that fires laser beams straight down from orbit but we all know that was a German weapon as well. It's amazing the Allies got anywhere at all in WW2. What I think Pete is talking about IMHO is that Allied tankers and big cats would not want to maneuver that close to each other to engage. The size of the map is very limiting considering they have a max range of, what, like 2 kilometers or so? Besides that the Allies would probably opt for air support first. This seems like the tank version of a story I read somewhere about the Brits in Market Garden. A green German squad was walking down a road to reinforce the front lines, and as they walked they noticed a dirty, beaten down squad of Brits walking the other way with their heads down. They just assumed it was the troops they were relieving. As they came abreast of each other, one of the German troops asked them a question. "Bloody hell, it's the Germans!" they shouted, and the shooting began. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 15, 2015 Author Share Posted May 15, 2015 Right. And I would not want there to be any implication like that towards you or your friend either. Absolutely not my intention. Any time a discussion comes up about big cats, it reminds me of that game and I just wanted to share the story. Now I think it is slightly humorous. Fair enough. Once you get some traction there you have a scenario or two to try it out for real on. I like your idea of an armour based open AAR. I don't have time to start one now but later! Or perhaps there is someone else who would take it up. Not to worry, I didn't think you were implying anything, just telling us a story us all. And if you're truly intrigued by the armour based AAR, we cam do it when you have time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.