Scout's Operational Campaign is about to cross the LD!

[ScoutPL]

Go to my website, www.geocities.com/fpd131 , and click on "Operational Campaign". Check out the files and let me know if you're interested in joining in the fray.

This is not a tournament. Its more like a campaign in which a referee handles all the behind the scenes stuff. Check it out!

[Pzman]

sounds like fun

[ScoutPL]

If anyone is interested in trying this out, get together with an opponent and drop me an email. I'll send you the materials you'll need to get started.

[JasonC]

Looks big, but many might like that I suppose. I have some comments or suggestions about the set up, though it may be late in the day to use them. They are offered for what they are worth.

1. Some of the German infantry forces are obviously meant to be mounted, but don't have enough vehicles to carry their HQs. E.g. the armored Pz Gdr platoons are supposed to have 3 HTs - enough for the squads, but not the HQ.

2. There are no schrecks in the German TOE, while the US gets 2 zooks per platoon. Probably it was an oversight to leave them out, but how many?

3. The Germans have 3 times as many 81mm mortars as the US. The US has 18 57mm ATGs though, so maybe this difference is intentional. Also the US 105 batteries are 6 guns to the Germans 4, so they get some arty edge there.

4. It is unclear how the 81mm mortars will be used. In the TOE they are all mortar carriers. Can they fire as FO batteries? Dismounted teams on the map? Either? With what ammo? The FO rules cover the 105 and 155/150 batteries, but not the mortars.

5. Some US units are listed as having "dismounts" from Jeeps, but it is not specified what that means in CM game terms.

6. US TD platoons are 5 vehicles each in the TOE. Historically, US TD platoons used a 4 vehicle platoon size - 36 to a battalion in 3 companies of 12, each 3 platoons of 4. Similarly, the cavalry is presented as 2/3rds M-8 and the rest halftracked, when they actually had only 1/3rd M-8s and the rest were in scout cars or jeeps.

7. The TOE includes US M16 AA halftracks, but no explanation is given how they will be represented in CM terms, since they aren't in CM. I'd suggest M3A1 HTs carrying 2xM1917 HMG (more ammo than 50 cal ones). Also, historically US AAA batteries also had 40mm in the same units as the 50 cal HTs; none are in the TOE, but this may be intentional.

8. The GS or DS rules for FOs seem to reward DS so strongly I can't imagine anyone using GS. Basically you get double the ammo overall with both FOs for one battery in a single spot. Or am I reading the rules wrong?

9. Most things being otherwise balanced, but the Germans having all Panthers against mixed US Shermans, it would see the Germans should have an edge. Why don't the Germans have 1/2 Panthers and 1/2 Panzer IVs, e.g. 2 companies of each? It is true that difference was above the battalion level in the TOE of the German panzer division, but it is also true that they only rarely and briefly were near TOE in operational tanks for each battalion.

10. On the flip side, 12 jumbo, 24 76mm, 6 105mm with only 15 75mm Shermans seems a bit on the high side for the Sherman mix. Also, wouldn't either Jacksons or Hellcats be a bit more realistic than a few of each?

11. What month is the fight, for purposes of Panzerfaust type, US infantry type 44 or 45, tungsten availability, etc? From the equipment present it would seem to be later 44 at the earliest, but I didn't find anything that said for sure. Ground state or weather rules are also not mentioned.

12. There is a noticable lack of towed weapons on both sides, except for large caliber AT guns. All the light AA is SP for example, when only about 1/10th was historically. All the medium mortars are mortar carriers, except for 2x81mm in the German engineer company.

13. The whole TOE is extremely mechanized. It has the feel of a TacOps modern brigade level TOE translated into WW II era equipment, more than an actual WW II force. Of course the intention may have been to show a clash of such armored forces, however rare that was.

14. A "stacking limit" of 5 infantry company equivalents is mentioned, but not what is "equivalent" to an infantry company. Is a tank company, or a tank platoon, equivalent to one, for instance? Since all the infantry are in vehicles I'd suspect a tank company. That does mean, however, that all the heavy armor in either side's force could be present on one map, if other arms weren't. This seems to encourage giant spearheads on one CM map.

15. I assume from the small time scale there is no intention to show vehicle recovery as in operations. But what about casualties to teams and reconstitution of forces after partial losses? Are there any general rules about that?

One man's questions and suggestions, for whatever they may be worth at this date...

[ScoutPL]

Thanks for the input.

Not to sound contrite or like a real smarta##, but I'm not trying for an exact match to the units and circumstances that occurred 10 klicks east of Metz on October 23, 1944 at precisely 1400 hours. If I did that I'd spend way too much time buried in books trying to determine how many tanks were actually operating, what the average squad strength was, how everybody was feeling that day, etc, etc. I'm just trying to get a game going in which players can exercise a little operational talent, while maintaining as must realism in the TO&E as possible for a regimental task force. I've always said in the past that I disliked QB's because they attempted to make forces equal and no commander in his right mind is going to attack when his forces are equal to his opponent. But I didnt think that many would be interested in playing the campaign unless the decks were evenly stacked. That said let me take it by the numbers.

1. & 2. - Clear oversights on my part. I'll have to add more HT when I add the schrecks too.

3. This issue (as most of the rest are) is resource dependant. I'm limited to a couple books and wargames for resource material on TO&E's. I got most of my info from the Osprey Order of Battle series for the Ardennes campaign and from Talonsofts Campaign Series Order of Battle program. According to those resources the germans had a number of mortars in each PZGR company and the US had up to three AT guns in each Armored Rifle Company. There probably exists other resources that have entirely different OOB's listed. But alot can be said for the fact that the 21 PZR and 4th AD had been in combat for months so any official OOB you get out of a FM or other primary source was probably thrown out the window about a week after the units entered the theater. The US mortar imbalance is offset by their abundance of 60mm mortars. Not my fault the US adopted their popular light infantry mortar for their mechanized forces as well. The US preponderance of light AT guns is by TO&E as far as I can tell and helps offset the German armor advantage you accurately point out later.

4. I'll have to go back and amend the Rulebook, but I thought I had included it. Use of the mortars depends on the player. Company level mortars will always be on the map, but battalion level mortars can be either on map or represented by MTR spotters.

5. Scout dismounts will be represented by sharpshooters.

6. Another resource issue on the AC. I used the Tank platoon TO&E for the TD platoons and will take your word for it that they're four instead of five. Which makes sense since the US looked at the TD platoons as mobile AT guns (with four guns per AT platoon) doctrinally but used them as tank platoons in the field.

7. I'll have to follow your suggestion on the M16's I didnt realize CM didnt have them in the game. Plenty of german motorized AA though, whats that all about? The 40's? Another resource issue.

8. The thing with the GS/DS doesnt really seem to make sense until you look at the campaign. A player will probably only have one battalion sized task force to maneuver with. The rest of the regiment will be divided into 5 or 6 company teams doing security, movement to contact, and reserve missions. So with every battery in DS to a particular battalion or team some TF's will be without any Arty support at all. It'll be up to the player to come up with a good balance of GS and DS missions for his artillery to make sure everyone is covered. I'll go back and make sure the arty rules reflect this.

9. & 10. I took some liberty with 10 in order to cover some of the disparity of 9. From what I can tell the Germans didnt mix tanks at the battalion level, proabbaly due to logistical reasons. Something the Americans could do rather easily since all of their variants were based on the same weapon system.

11. Fight will take place mid October, 1944, west of Metz, III Corps, Third Army. 21st PZR wasnt in that area at the time but I wanted a formation similiar to 4th AD. Campaign will simulate the battles leading up to the november stall at the Siegfired line, just prior to the Ardennes campaign. Once again this is just a historical backdrop. I am not looking for historical accuracy in the actual battles around Metz. Just in the TO&E (this in an attempt to quail complaints or issues with gamey unit purchases).

12. & 13. Both are the prima donna mech regiments for their respective armies. And its mostly for balance. "Of course the intention may have been to show a clash of such armored forces, however rare that was."

The intent is to add some operational flavor to the CM environment. Not show one particualr aspect of WWII combat. I suppose I could have went with two totally infantry forces, but I thought alot of players would have found that rather boring or too slow moving.

14. I wanted a player to be able to commit one battalion sized task force to one battle. If he wishes to attack a Sector with his tank battalion and leave his other sectors without tank support then I suppose thats a gamble he could take right? Just as a commander in 1944 could have done?

15. I do need to address the replacement issue. Though I'm not sure they would be that significant in a 48 hour period. As far as reinforcements go, the player will have set up his own reserves from within his TO&E. Just another added challenge.

Hope that satisfies your questions. I realize this is kinda hodgepodge but this is really why I posted it so soon after creating it. I knew this would be the best forum for getting the kinks out. Thanks again.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: ScoutPL ]

[JasonC]

All sounds reasonable. A few suggestions on the remaining issues -

On schrecks and room, the platoon leader's HT can carry one. Also, you can actually fit 1 1-2 man small team in the same 'track as any full squad.

On the mortars, I'd suggest allowing 1 FO for 3 mortars, to mirror the 1 FO per 2 tubes you have for the bigger guns (since 6 mortars is really a firing battery). I'd also allow the on-map ones to start dismounted with max ammo, at the player's option. The reason for that is CM doesn't provide any means to shoot them indirect when on the 'track, since vehicles don't have HQs. Also, I'd let players use them FO style pretty much at will, because it is by far the most effective use of them.

And a minor point just as a matter of history - the Germans used 2x81mm per company at the company level, with another 2-6x81mm at the battalion level. Sometimes they did things like have the 2 from a "back" company fire with the battalion ones, while the "up" companies kept theirs. But they normally didn't use them in threes. Also, the armored Panzergrenadiers only had the company level 6 (2 each) (they had other stuff at the regimental level, though). It might be better to ignore the second point here, though, if you want the Germans to have more mortars to offset the extra US ATGs.

On replacements, the issue I am thinking of is that infantry units in CM don't just die or live, unlike vehicles. They take intermediate losses, and the issue arises how to re-organize them for the next fight. E.g. a platoon may end with a 3 man HQ, and squads with 8, 6, and 3 guys remaining, out of an initial 10 per squad. What units do these 20 men become for their next fight? There is also the related issue of what happens to dead zook teams or MGs, abandoned AT guns, etc. Can they be recrewed or not? If lost? If only reduced? If the ground is held?

I'd suggest the following as a first pass at such issues. Any multiple man team with 2 or more men remaining can be re-crewed to full for the next fight. Teams with single men or wiped out can only be reconstituted 1/2 of the time (or 1/3 if you prefer). If wiped out or "abandoned" status for guns, they only get the chance for the side that retains the map (alternately, "abandoned" or wiped out they are gone for good, field held or not). You might give "abandoned" vehicles a 1/6 chance of being re-crewed if the field is held, or not. Single men left from 2-man teams can also be reconstituted (zooks, etc).

After any fight, up to 10% of the casualties taken can "return" (stragglers, very light wounds, and understrength units not reflected in units lost), to "round up" the casualties to whole units. Recrewing needs for teams are subtracted from the total. Leftover "gaps" are consolidated by reducing platoons to 2 squads, -1 squad to each platoon until all are only 2 squads. After that, remove a whole platoon instead. Then move to reducing the remaining ones.

You get the idea. You will have to do some fiddling for it, as I found running my Normandy campaign earlier this year. It can be some work, because you haven't seen the whole fight but have to come up with the proper reduced forces for the next one. For vehicles that is easy - they are just working or busted. But for the "step loss" infantry, guns, and teams it is a bit more complicated. I also recommend you ask your players to send you the info from their AAR screen for each fight, to help in doing this.

One last item - I'd allow players to "re-task" elements of their force, if they prefer to re-organize the items they get in their TOE. Some are obvious like cross attachments, and I am sure you expect those. But another issue involves things like the composition of Sherman platoons (which have jumbos, 76, etc), or whether to group the 6 Sherman 105s into an assault gun platoon or leave them split among companies, whether to form a battalion reserve group of leftovers, etc.

I hope this helps.

[Dirtweasle]

Looking for a partner anyone?

EDIT: One thing about the Flakwagons in CM is they are quite hard to kill. To make a long story short: There have been many posts pointing out they are too hard to KO for a truck with a gun mount on it. Having learned my lesson in some PBEM games I now limit their use to a very small number.

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Dirtweasle ]

[JasonC]

Scout PL, have you gotten any more takers? I'd take part myself, but the scale is big for my taste. I ask, though, because your idea inspired one I thought I'd run, down a level in terms of unit size to make for smaller scenarios. And I haven't heard a single response, on the forum or in email, to my post about that. Are people really that down on the idea of campaign CM? There was tons of interest in the subject ~6 months ago. Or have you received lots of applications to play in email, and dried the current pool as it were?

[ScoutPL]

Well, perhaps my headline was a little too optimistic since we cant even seem to get out of the assembly area due to lack of interest!

Come on guys, I know you've all got to be tired of the same campaigns and scenarios all the time. And QB's will only go so far before they turn into squibbles over gamey force selection.

So why not become a part of something bigger? I have a couple guys who would be willing to play the part of regimental commanders (and thus take the brunt of the operational work) but what we need is more players interested in the battalion/company level fights. THis is your opportunity to get a real feel for what happens when you successsfully seize your objective but the sister battalion next door fails miserably. So drop me a line and lets get this thing rolling!

[JasonC]

I agree and I encourage people to take ScoutPL up on his offer. I did get people for my smaller CM Campaign idea so there is general interest in the subject. Perhaps some are daunted by the scale of the forces? I know I am, but large CM scenarios were never my cup of tea and I know some others enjoy them. I encourage anybody who would take part if the conditions were somewhat different to say so, and tell ScoutPL what aspects you'd like to see different.

Running one of these things is a significant amount of work, and as players you get it for free. The result of longer term consequences from battle results is to make the fights more interesting and more realistic, with less rushing for flags and more attention to the militarily relevant aspects of the overall situation. You won't get that level of realism without somebody doing this level of work for you.

[Pzman]

I agree with Jason on this.

[Doug Beman]

I am interested, but have several reservations/reasons I haven't joined:

1)real-time considerations. You haven't given any guidelines on how much real-time players are allowed for. My normal work-day (7am to 4pm) involves a 1-hour commute each way, and I am constantly being hauled into hour+ mandatory company meetings at 4pm w/ no warning whatsoever. Together with standing commitments for leisure-time activities (1/week this, 1/week that) I am simply unable to guarantee X hours/week (or day) to devote to this.

2)I personally dislike playing really big battles, because a) as above, I might only have 15 or 30 minutes in a day to work on this, and I personally know that my performance in CM degrades as battle size increases. I just can't co-ordinate multiple companies across maps that span several kms.

3)I echo some aspects of what others have said re: the TOE. Giving the Germans pure Panthers, and esp the Ausf-G version, is quite an advantage (there are, by my math, 58 Panthers vs. 51 various Shermans and 17 Stuarts). I left my copy of George Forty's "German Tanks of WW2" at the office (gotta have something to read during my lunch 1/2 hour) but my memory tells me that Germans often mixed tanks, esp Panthers and PzIV, on an ad-hoc basis. If you don't want to violate the German practice of "one tank type per batallion" then perhaps have a couple companies from the "heavy" (Panther) BN together with a couple companies from the "medium" (PzIV) BN, rather than the entire Panther BN. Also, the JPzIV wasn't the most common TD the Germans fielded in NWE, was it? I thought either the StuGIII/IV or Hetzer would be more commonly seen.

What of air resources? Are you setting the weather so that it completely forbids any airpower playing a role? Also, just from my general perception of the state of affairs in Oct 1944, did the Germans actually have that much artillery left? Maybe I've always read the wrong sources, but it seems to me that the German ground forces, at this time, were in a state of serious decay esp in artillery and other support resources.

DjB

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[Doug Beman]

What are you doing for CM maps? Are you creating them yourself? Have you a good historical reference? If you'd like help making maps, I could do a couple, given either good maps or good guidelines for what each should be.

Let me know

DjB

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Doug Beman ]

[ScoutPL]

OK good argumants on the Panther issue. I'll change it to 2 Panther companies and 2 PZIV companies with the understanding that they cant be mixed below the platoon level. I.E. no 2 x Panther 2 x PZIV platoons.

I think the conception that these will all be huge battles is a misnomer. A regiment in the attack has to do alot more then attack, particularly with the size AO that we're talking about here. I purposely set it so that each player will only really be able to muster up one good sized battalion task force for an attack, unless they're willing to take some serious risks.

For example. Each player will be responsible for their own reserves. This includes reinforcments, counterattack forces and follow on (exploitation) forces. All of these missions would take at least a battalion to support effectively (1 IN company and tank platoon as reinforcements, 2 IN companies and a tank company as regimantal counterattack/exploitation). The map is big enough that another battalion will be required to cover the AOA's not used in the main attack (2 companies and 2 tank platoons forward, with a company and tank platoon as battalion reserve). This only leaves 1 IN BN and a reduced tank compnay as the main attack force.

I'm sure we could put enough players on a team together that those who like company sized battles can handle those and the ones who like the bigger ones can handle those.

Now I suppose a player could put three battalion sized combined arms task forces together and send all three forward. but this ignores most tenets and principles of the operational art and just wouldnt work out. A flexible opponent could defeat one or two of the battalion sized task forces with a defending reinforces company and still have a enough forces in reserve to smash the third and launch a counterattack that would end up seizing all of their opponents map since he had blown his entire wad in the first few rounds of combat.

I'll make the changes to the TO&E. But I'm beginning to think we just dont have that much interest because we dont have that many players that are really knowledgable or interested in operational problems.

No prob I'll just go back to TOAW and TAlonsoft's Campaign Series for my operational challenges. Unless of course their are a few of you out there who want to prove me wrong...

[Paco QNS]

Well, considering your last notices, enlist me as a german company "hauptmann". (Since I only play IP battles, not tried yet PBEM, assume can´t enter bigger battles).

Sending you an e-mail.

Thank you.

[JasonC]

Jadgpanzers are correct for the German TDs. Yes StuG were more common, but went to independent battalions/brigades, to infantry, also to SS divisions (where they used to be a seperate assault gun battalion, later merged with the anti-tank battalion). But Heer panzer divisions used jadgpanzer. Hetzers were not all that common at this period, as most were used in the east and toward the end; also, they went to the infantry formations not the panzer divisions.

On the operational size considerations, though, I think ScoutPL doesn't realize the likely size of the battles with the set up he has got. The map is only 3 sectors wide, and each side as on the order of 60 tanks. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that putting 30+ tanks in one sector - all of them up front and attacking, though with only about their share of infantry and artillery support - is the likely winning move. ATG, TDs, modest amounts of infantry and artillery FOs can delay in the other sectors.

This sort of fight is very likely to be won by a single knockout blow by massed armor. The reason is that most of the winner's armor would survive a successful use of this idea, and be ready to fight another enemy in sequence. There is no need for the most powerful KG or TF to cover everything -at once-. It can cover everything -in sequence- The map is only 3 sectors wide, after all. And what is going to defeat such a "heavy armor-heavy front" KG or TF, besides an opposite number of similar capability?

But if this is sound, then the decisive battle of the campaign - and there is likely to be one - will probably be fought on a 2km by 2km map with forces present up to 30 tanks on a side, supported by a couple of companies of infantry and 4-6 FOs. Which is a huge battle for the CM game system. If one side brings such a force to a single party, and the other is dispersed front to back and side to side, then the thinner side will get run over - without the attacking KG/TF being diminished in ability to make mischief on the next operational move.

When I made up my revised campaign, I tried to address these concerns by several expedients. (1) I widdened the map to 5x5 sectors instead of 3x3. (2) I reduced the overall forces nearly 1 level of organization chart. Reinforced battalions rather than regiments. (3) I allowed for fights in the same location to split into 2 fights if the forces present exceed 1500 points per side. (4) I made an absolute "stacking limit" of 1500 points per battle per side, with additional forces either side by side through splitting, or deployed "back" in the same op-square but not present at any one battle. (5) I set terrain restrictions on forces, like some locations inaccessible to vehicles entirely, and others only 1 sector of combat allowed, only 750 points of vehicles allowed (~a tank platoon) - representing limited road space through difficult terrain. (6) I allowed for indirect fire against an entire op-square outside of CM games, with greater effectiveness vs. more bunched up targets. Since fire support was one of the real factors forcing units to spread out.

Some might object to these sort of rules because they seem to artificially restrict what players can do with their forces. They might want to try heavy-up "shock" ideas. But they are meant to result in smaller fights that work in CM, and to allow the forces available to deal with the total frontage. Without unlimited gains from greater concentration at one point on the front line. This also makes "depth tactics" more important, since not everyone is "needed" on the front line right away.

Now, obviously ScoutPL is after something a bit different with his full sized regiments - a higher level of command and its problems is part of the idea. His last comments, though, with the idea that 1 infantry battalion with less than a company of tanks is a likely main body for the forces listed, strikes me as unlikely. I just don't see things in the current set up limiting "gains from concentration", and of the armor in particular.

[ScoutPL]

We'll have to wait and see I guess. Since Jason is doing such a good job running courses of action, I'm sure what we'll end up with is infantry forces forward with tanks in reserve since both sides will be deathly afraid of massed armor attacks now.

So lets look at it from this perspective. I know I am facing an opponent of roughly equal size, with limited AOA's. SO I decide to go for broke and mass as much armor as I can in one sector attack. My max is five companies, since this is the max a bn headquarters can effectively control as well as time and space factors. So I throw in all four tank companies with a infantry company in support. That leaves me with 5 infantry companies to defend two other AOA's and provide a reserve. thin but doable. Now lets suppose my opponent gets a good intel die roll at the start of the game or sets up a good screen forward one sector from his MLR. He identifies my armor thrust before I can close with him and reacts accordingly sending in extra AT units and tanks. Meanwhile, he sends a combined arms task force (say a inf bn and a tank company) against my thin infantry line on another AOA. WHile we are slugging it out in our Kursk like tank battle, he's wheeling around my flank, going for my rear. In another round or two I may have been able to punch a gap in his line with my tank heavy force but all I've really done is put myself in a pocket of his making. Hence, a lesson in operational art has been taught. Hey it could happen.

Or I could totally miss the armor buildup and he could cut through me like butter and put my entire unit into chaos. But damn it'd be a grand fight! And teach a lesson about intel and contingency planning at the operational level.

I didnt want to bring this stuff up but since Jason brought it over here, I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents. I dont want to start a flame war, lord knows there have been enough of those in the past. BUt I think what JAson has created is a management monster. As you go up in organizational level the less control you have of what happens out at the pointy end. What I see happening is one of Jason's battalion commanders coimng up with the best plan since swartzkopf's "Hail Mary" and then watching it fall apart as the companies involved (all fighting very different fights on different maps) go their own ways. It will be up to JAson to determine what effect these seperate, consecutive fights have on one another. A bigger map may help but it sounds like he's just going to set up a lot of company fights that will have little to do with one another. The smallest self contained combat unit is the battalion. Its the smallest element in operational warfare. To break a battalion task and purpose down into 3 or 4 seperate parts just doesnt work. All the companies in a battalion have to fight together as a cohesive element, all striving for the same goal. I'm not sure you can do that by seperating out the battles into company sized packets. As an infantry leader in the army i participated in countless battalion attacks. 1 company clears the route and makes a breach, one company establishes a SBF position, 1 company isolates the objective area. All of that so another company can move in and seize the first row of buildings in a town so that another BATTALION can come in and start actually seizing the town. How are you going to break that up into individual battles on a small map?

I'm not trying to say Jason's approach wont work. And I dont think he's trying to say mine wont but if we're just wanting to set up a string of little battles to fight then lets call it that.

[JasonC]

"it'd be a grand fight...The smallest self contained combat unit is the battalion...All the companies in a battalion have to fight together as a cohesive element"

As long as that is what you want, fine. It seems to me it applies to the armor as well as the infantry, pretty nearly. But an armor battalion - or even half of one, supported - is a large animal in CM. Earlier you said -

"This only leaves 1 Inf Bn and a reduced tank company as the main attack force."

That would be half the infantry and around 1/6th of the tanks. Infantry thinking, tanks as mere supports to an infantry main body, that is how that reads to me. The tanks are spread nearly evenly front to back and left to right. The infantry is somewhat concentrated for the main body. I for one would take most of a tank battalion with modest infantry escort as a main body instead, reversing the branch I chose to concentrate. You also said -

"While we are slugging it out in our Kursk like tank battle, he's wheeling around my flank".

But I'll bet the winner of the Kursk like tank battle can clean house afterward, no matter where the other guy is. Because the other guy won't have a united force left anywhere that can stop so many tanks. Whether at that point the enemy is in front, to the side, behind, all of the above - the spearhead just moves about vigorously and defeats in detail.

Perhaps that is exactly the sort of question you want to give people an opportunity to play with - fine by me. I'm just telling you why I didn't sign up myself. An operation strung together out of battalion sized fights, some of them probably armor heavy, on 2km maps, simply involves fights too big for my (CM) taste, as I thought I said at the get-go.

I'd play a scenario like this with the "West Front" system instead (vastly inferior as a game, but the right scale IMO). Or the set up would work for moderns in TacOps - same idea, platoon units with individual vehicle step losses.

In a mostly infantry battle, I suppose the force size might be manageable for me in CM - infantry battalions I can commanded in CM fights. But with 60 AFVs on a map 3 sectors wide, I don't see any reason to expect the tanks on one map to be limited to 1/6 to 1/4 of the total. And 30 AFVs in one fight is too much for me.

Maybe for others "it'd be a grand fight"; I assumed people who think so are the targeted players. But I revisited the subject, because apparently I found a dozen people willing to command companies and you hadn't received enough interest in commanding battalions. Suggesting ways to match targeted players in the abstract, with breathing ones ready to sign up, was sort of the point.

Maybe the folks who fight big battles want tactical control of everything relevant, and that is why they like 'em big, while players who like smaller fights are used to thinking of them as pieces of a bigger operation. I don't know.

I have heard some express a preference for large CM battles, and certainly some scenario designers like 'em huge, if I am to judge by the number I see that I couldn't begin to play. When a dozen of them beat a path to your door, tell me about it. Until then, you might consider tweaking the set up in ways meant to attract players, one of which just might be limitations of likely battle sizes. Up to you.

[JasonC]

Round two, trying again.

In case it is not already clear, ScoutPL, I am trying to be helpful here. I don't need to compete for players, I already have a dozen signed up. This was your idea, and it was a fine one, but you didn't get so many takers right away. I'm trying to help you see why.

I took part of your own idea as being a reduction in scale of previous division-sized attempts - that apparently hadn't happened - down to regimental size and fewer sectors, to try to make it more playable. Right idea; the question is, was it carried far enough in that direction?

I thought I personally couldn't handled the large scale of fights I expected to be left over in your set-up. Which is why instead of jumping at the chance to play in yours, I instead started a smaller one. Meant to involve clashing companies rather than battalions.

And I got a large response - within three days I had a more than a dozen takers. The first op-move has occurred and the first scenario has been sent to the commanders, who are wrestling with TCP-IP scheduling at the moment. I expect them to fight out the first battle this afternoon -which is a week after I ran with your idea on my smaller scale.

I don't think this difference was due to my oh-so appealing, oh-so patient, so obviously humble, so flexible personality LOL. It was due to the scale being preferred by at least a subset of the players interested in operational campaigns. It may be there is an equally large subset interested in a larger scale. We don't know. We do know there were players for a smaller scale.

I'd like to see you get your own campaign off the ground, because it was a fine idea and one that interests me. I wouldn't be running my campaign if it didn't. I'd like to see more such attempts, and play in somebody else's sometime.

So I tell you where I think the problem is - scale. Especially for the armor portion of the force, and for the map size, and not in terms of operational command but tactical. The size of game a tactical commander within the campaign is expected to run.

Perhaps you should shoot for an expect force size of around 2 infantry companies plus 1-2 platoons of armor, as a main body, instead of a battalion of infantry or up to two companies of armor, if the players concentrate armor somewhat. That is bigger than what I'm getting, but smaller than what you've got now.

You might get it, with something like your own set up, if you used 1 km maps instead of 2 km (I know that means some complications for ranged "pinning" fire e.g. for longer range AT weapons) and divided each sector's fight into 2 CM battles. This effectively reduces the command size and also the player's ability to concentrate at will, at the lowest level. That is, to overload a sector you have to overload two side by side fights, not just one, so the "overload" ability is not doubled. But the command size for one CM game is cut in half.

For what it is worth.

[Echo]

I'm interested in gettinf in on this. I can't get your website to come up though Scout.

If anyone needs a partner E-mail me.

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

But I'll bet the winner of the Kursk like tank battle can clean house afterward, no matter where the other guy is. Because the other guy won't have a united force left anywhere that can stop so many tanks. Whether at that point the enemy is in front, to the side, behind, all of the above - the spearhead just moves about vigorously and defeats in detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that depends on what Scout does with logistics and lines of communication. If a counterattack successfully puts the tank force in a pocket, maybe he restricts their ability to move until lines are restored. Maybe vehicular units in a "cut-off" sector can't leave their sector (or are dramatically limited in movement ability) until supply lines are restored. How often did tanks have to gas up? Or perhaps orders to the unit can't get through until lines are restored, so they'll sit there until someone outside the pocket breaks through to them. While they're stuck there, I'd imagine they'd be on the receiving end of the lion's share of the enemy heavy artillery.

Other ways to discourage this sort of behavior: implement an "operational scoring" system. Depending on the notional campaign objectives, assign a point value for control of each sector every turn. Award additional points for achieving certain goals, like displacing the enemy HQ. Take away points for not having contiguous lines. With a system like this you can impose some risk-reward calculation into the decision to just throw everything into one big thrust.

[Echo]

I disagree. There are enough organic AT platoons and heavy arty to delay, and seriously damage an armored column. If the attacker doesnt have the required infantry to support the armor, he is certainly going to pay a price.

That'd make for some damned interesting fighting anyway.

[windstarz]

It is an interesting idea and something will be learned from the effort. We will just have to wait and see how it goes.

[ScoutPL3]

Ok I'm at my parents for the night but cant stay out of this any longer so I had to set up another ID since I didnt know the password to my original one.

Jason, I appreciate the concern but really, I'll be OK.

I too have managed to find enough players to get started, 8 now, with more coming in, so if there are more of you out there interested drop me a line and we'll get a second round going.

If a commander wants to throw all of his eggs in one basket that will totally be his perogative. I think a massed tank attack would be very risky, particularly for a fight with an enemy who may expect just sort of a thing. Tanks arent invincible. And once you start stripping them away they're impossible to replace. The entry rules will also make it difficult for a commander to really mass three or four companies of tanks at once. All forces entering a map will enter piecemeal, as if they were coming into the battle in march order (as they would in real life). If a commander wants too pause before attacking to concentrate his forces then the enemy commander will have time to react accordingly.

But the way to handle this is to plan ahead. Like I explained above, each company coming into the AO has a specific task and purpose that supports the overall task, i.e. Breach, Suppress, secure, seize, etc. all support the TF task of Seize. So plan it that each element that enters (there will be three, regardless of overall size of TF) will have a specific task that will build on each other. In a perfect world your synchronization (Ft. Benning word for coordination) will result in your last element coming on board and being able to march right into their attack on the main objective, their path cleared and secured by the preceding elements. If you want to charge across the map with a butt load of tanks then you are taking serious risks having them picked apart by defending Tanks, TD's, AT guns and AA guns, not to mention infantry AT weapons in restrictive terrain and possibly mines and obstacles. If not on the first map then certainly by the second. It IS October. What if your Tanks all bog down in the wet ground waiting to concentrate? Your panzer blitzkrieg could fizzle out in the drizzling rain pretty fast. Then where does that leave you? Attacking or defending with a reduced infantry force against a combined arms force? Not good odds.

Tanks also suck at seizing towns, heavily wooded areas and bridges, something that a commander will have to do a lot of in this game. I dont know if anyone has noticed yet but the map is one that forces infantry dominated combined arms (as did practically all of western europe), even the relatively "open areas" are dominated by towns that will require infantry to secure. So if a commander wants to "hail mary" it then let him. It will make for a very interesting discussion when the smoke clears.

If you dont like playing with alot of units, then thats ok. Dont play that way. To be honest, I dont particularly like playing that way either. But then I'm not PLAYING, I'm refereeing, so it really doesnt matter does it? (Anyway catch the underlying inference here?)

Now back to the more important matters at hand. I am considering setting those battles that will have a reserve unit a sector away as operations rather then regular battles. That way I can set up the reserve units as reinforcements in the operation. When either side begins to get its butt kicked the CM Program will automatically bring up the reinforcements, making them more relevant and immediate. Any pros or cons to this issue? These operation reserves will have to be limited to a max of roughly 2 companies (or 1/2 of a battalion TF, which is all that can arrive at once in a sector map).

Also, Lloyd, you need to add 2 Shrecks and another Halftruck/Truck to each PZGR Rifle Company. The 105mm Batteries have only four guns so you will get only two spotters per battery rather then three.

Both commanders, only one battery per operational turn can be designated as Direct Support, the rest have to stay in General Support.

There will be a die role at the beginning of each day for weather. If it is favorable then the american may receive some air power. Specific amount to also be determined randomly.

Any thoughts or questions? Let'em rip!!

Oh by the way, that LT Winters on Band of Brothers? Needs to let his NCO's do more of the work, and do more leading! He was running around shooting way too much.

[JasonC]

Glad you got players, and I hope for updates on how it goes.

For the record, I am not convinced on the armor point. And no, that doesn't mean I ever suggested some sort of straight ahead charge with tanks sans infantry to spot for them, or anything of the kind. There are distinctly different ways tanks and infantry cooperate at the tank-heavy mix (1:1 in organization size), compared to the infantry-heavy (1:3) mix - and I assume everyone is well aware of how to use either.