Attempted AAR: Tactical Criticisms Welcome...

[Tux]

One thing I've often thought would be useful in CM is some sort of option that you could toggle on and off, and that would overlay a translucent 'plan of action' screen over the map. Just occasionally, when a turn takes a week of more to get back to me, I forget all the careful plans I made before I sent it off. It would be extremely useful to be able to plot some generic coloured arrows for axes of attack/ highlight positions on the map with good LOS/ etc. and so forth.

Anyway, that's just my two penneth. I mention it because I'd like to be able to annotate the craters which I believe may be sheltering Steve's HQs since they dived in and defaulted to anonymous lost contact markers.

[Tux]

All but two of Steve's infantry units have become lost contact markers in the orders phase. One of the two I can still target directly is the one I concentrated on last turn and who is crawling towards his own lines. I have left my single green Maxim 'on' him to make sure he doesn't get it together to turn 'round again. I've put the other two MGs with LOS + my mortar on the other visible squad, who is up and advancing towards a nearby crater. Hopefully I can persuade him to turn back before he gets there as well...

Apart from that I've simply called off my two ATRs. Steve seems to have manually buttoned all of his T-34s this turn, so I want to see what his intentions are if I leave them alone for a while.

Sorry for the lack of screenshots this time, but there's honestly nothing to show!

[Lanzfeld]

I do hope those mines pay off for you too! I love the placement.

Really enjoying this AAR Tux...keep em comming!

[John Kettler]

Tux,

To continue the flame tank switchology issue, if you're hull down with a bow mounted flame projector, you won't be able to shoot. If you do, though, you may live to regret it!

I pushed hard for tactical overlays with phase lines, unit boundaries and the liike in what became CMSF, but didn't get them. I haven't given up hope we may yet see some such capability in the first of the WW II CMx2 games, which will be set in Normandy.

Regards,

John Kettler

[costard]

Tux - enjoying the AAR, thanks.

With regard to plans, do a screenshot and save the file in Paint as Turn # plans. With all paths/targets, arcs etc, showing, of course.

[costard]

aargh, dp

[Tux]

Appreciate the comments, folks, thanks.

Lanzfeld, I also am hoping upon hope that my string of minefileds will catch a tank or two if he tries to push them forwards. Annoyingly, during setup I had to make the agonising decision to either create a double layer of minefields, thus making a hit on any tank that tried to cross the layer almost certain, or spreading the fields out to cover a wider 'front'. I chose the latter becaause of the open nature of that point on the map. Also, I'm still hoping that Steve decides to flank the scattered trees in front of his T-34s, rather than drive through them. If he comes through them I fear he'll miss my mines.

JK, it is annoying, yes. In retrospect I don't know why I assumed the FT was in the OT-130's turret - even the Russians' big old OT-34s carry it in the hull...

Costard, thanks for the idea - I may well try that out next time I play a complex attack/ assault.

I should be able to watch Turn 10 later this afternoon, so expect an update presently.

[Tux]

Turn10

Fairly uneventful. My MGs chatter away again at thos infantry who show their face, etc.

Two things happen that are worthy of note:

1) Steve's T-34s and infantry move positively into the trees at D (unfortunately aiming to narrowly miss most of my mines ), and so in 42 seconds' time they can expect an 82mm barrage to arrive with lethal accuracy.

2) The sharper-eyed of you may have spotted this in the first screenshot; on about 52s an eneormous shell landed within twnty metres or so of one of my entrenched MGs at A. I came from the general direction of two 'tank?' contacts on the hilltop behind Steve's lines. By the end of the minute one of them has been more positively identified...

What do you think? Is it worth smoking that hill at the expense of HE mortar rounds, or shall I just carry on with the plan of hitting Steve's men and hope to withstand the heavy fire from his armour?

Actually, I've already decided on the latter course of action, considering that the KVs can simply move through smoke...

Bugger.

[Tux]

Come to think of it, I may consider having a slight go at Steve for this force selection. In 1941 the Finns are clearly going to be entirely unable to harm T-34s or KVs with any conventional weapons. Buying one or two would be fair enough, unusual and payback for the Sturmtiger I bought a few games back. Buying a platoon of each and (as far as I know) no lighter types is a bit much, lol!

[Cuirassier]

He has picked gamey force for the battle, that is for sure. T-34's and KV-2's against T-26's is a bit ridiculous IMO.

[Lanzfeld]

Think of the bragging rights if you win!!!!

[JasonC]

No danger of that...

[Lanzfeld]

Stranger things have happened in CM.

[Tux]

I'm going to give it a good shot anyway, I think. Who knows; if I manage to obliterate his infantry then I may even jam a draw...

I would just like to say, in Steve's defence, that this is the first time either of us has ever selected such a 'gamey' and invincible force. Sod's Law that it happen to be the one I decide to publicise on here!

[Heinrich505]

Tux,

Nice action. It is really neat following the battle. Those flame tank guys must have been swearing in frustration, hull down like that. I would have figured the flame was turret mounted too.

Nice move trying to coax the T-34 boys to unbutton. If Steve forgets to order them back inside, you've got a shot at clipping some of them.

And yeah, figures. KV-II. Fortunately they have a terribly slow rate of fire, and don't carry much ammo. You might be able to slip some especially brave boys alongside, as the tankers can't see out of that monster, and would react slowly. Maybe Steve won't cover them too well....

Keep up the action. I'm enjoying the fight.

Heinrich505

[Tux]

Turn 11

Turn 11 sees things finally start to hot up at my end. Steve has done well enough to gain spots on my MGs at A, and has opened up at them with the T-34s' MGs and a batch of overwatch MGs sited on the hill at his end of the map. The HMGs have already caused a single casualty amongst my Maxim crews.

His T-34s are rushing forwards, *just* ahead of my mortar barrage and *just* wide of my AT minefield, I think.

His KVs have both started to crawl down the hill towards my lines.

This I find encouraging. I would have expected them to have sat back with the HMGs as overwatch and pounded me with HE until the end of the game. I don't see any need for him to bring them forwards, seeing as his T-34s can work me over from close range. As it is he is a) at risk of immobilising one in the rocky terrain between his hill and my lines (which I would love by the way), and potentially subjecting them to the possibility of close assault by my men.

Anyway, my plan during the next orders phase hasn't changed. If I'm going to stand any chance whatsoever of attacking his armour or getting a result I need to remove his infantry as an effective force. The mortar strike on D is therefore going to continue, I think. One of my other FOs might start counting down a strike on the crater mess in my centre, and I might, with my third FO, drop a few smoke rounds near the TRP on the distant hill top to blind an MG or two.

[John Kettler]

Tux,

I had written a nice reply to you last night, only to lose it before posting when I toggled out to check something, rather than opening a new tab. Grrr!

Basically, what I pointed out is that your foe's sunk a lot of points, maybe all he had left, into

a slow, ponderously turret traversing, low rate of fire weapon. The thing may Bog, which could lead to Immobilization if he moves it, so encourage him to do so by hiding whatever he's shooting at while popping up and letting fly from somewhere else. About the time he finally does get pointed at the new target, hide and bring up a unit on the other side. This will vex him, prevent him from firing that monster gun effectively and perhaps cause him to do something foolish. Be sure to keep it buttoned up, for it'll kill you if a TC with binos is allowed up in that high turret.

You didn't mention the weather and ground conditions, but these could really help. Even so, I've had a Jagdpanther first Bog, then Immobilize in Dry conditions.

I would pound the infantry with mortars, especially if you can get treebursts, and hope for luck on those T-34s' opening up in time for same. That said, keep some rounds in reserve. If the KV-2 Bogs, you can then screen a close assault against it using smoke. Also, there's nothing like dropping fire support on someone who turns ago thought you'd exhausted yours. That alone can turn around a game, especially when it's late with time running out. In closing, remember that your foe is likely to be heavily ego identified with that honking KV-2. Use that to your advantage every time you get the chance.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 28, 2008, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Tux]

It has never occurred to me to use smoke to screen an assault on a particular vehicle. How bizarre...

Thank you, JK, I may try and smoke his clan of T-34s if they get close enough to my forward squads at A (they need to advance another 200m or so). The tanks have very long command delays so may not make it out of the smoke in time to escape. The only thing is my squads only have one grenade bundle each. Do you think two squads will be able to take out four closely-packed T-34s safely, given a healthy smoke screen? Unfortunately, my platoon at B is commanded by an HQ with double Stealth and Morale bonuses - perfect for close assault through a smoke screen. The only platoon HQ at A just has a single command and combat bonus, so even if I were to send him out with the squads he'd be of limited use...

Also, yes I'm hoping that Steve gets overconfident with his KVs. The weather is overcast, warm, windy and - wait for it - damp. If he hasn't spotted the rocky patches he could well find his KVs immobile in dead ground.

[ March 28, 2008, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Tux ]

[John Kettler]

Tux,

Close assaulting T-34s is a high risk proposition, but it can be done, preferably with lots of protective terrain to move through and no Russian infantry to mess things up. The T-34s must be buttoned, too. Be very careful of 76.2mm canister (AKA gigantic shotgun) fire, for it can shred a squad with one shot. Demonstrate to the front, then flank attack. BTW, your squads will still have close assault capability after expending their grenade bundles, just not as potent. After all, they still have regular grenades and can put them in interesting places, such as down the hatch, in the gun barrel, on the engine intakes, etc.

As for the weather and ground report, Damp is your friend and may be a huge boon yet.

Good luck!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

If the Russian commander is remotely competent, you are toast.

As soon as he has spots of your Maxims, his HE firepower should make short work of them. At that point, his infantry is free to move. Your squads don't have the ammo depth to stop them at range.

As for the hope that your 82mm FOs are going to shred them all, the module type is too light to have any such effect. He may be too bunched under them and his cover limited to shellholes. But his men rally, and your shell supply will not. The sooner you throw them, the sooner you run out. And five minutes later, his infantry will be fine.

With your MGs silenced by HE, his tanks overwatching with tons of HE, and his infantry intact, it will then be a simple job to advance the infantry by bounds into spotting and effective small arms range. If your squads stay silent, infantry will walk up to SMG range of them and sit down. If they fire, he will go to ground and hit back with HE at each one, as well as waiting out their limited ammo.

The only enemy the Russians actually need fear at this point, is the clock. If they move their infantry too soon and too bunched, they might lose a bit more than they need to, to the mortars, but it won't stop them.

As for why he is moving his armor, you will notice it is now all off crestlines with whole map views. You have no effective AT weapons, but he doesn't know that. He wants LOS to a few trenches, but does not need to see the whole world, and doesn't want a patient heavy PAK at the back of the map endangering his victory.

FWIW. This one was largely decided at the force selection stage in my opinion. The clock is the only thing that can screw it up still (if he dawdles I mean), for the Russians.

[Tux]

I find it hard to argue with any of that. I would actually be exceptionally surprised if Steve messes up from this point. I'm still willing to give it a shot though, if only for practice dealing with such formidable forces.

Unfortunately, as far as time is concerned, you'll notice that he still has over 30 minutes of play left to contest the flags. I don't imagine it'll take that long. We play with 45mins+ as standard on our 1250pt games because we didn't like the occasional instance of being forced into an unrealistic rush for the objective in 30min fights.

[DavidFields]

Well, keep up the fight, Tux. What is great about this game is how the obvious is so much less so with FOW, and a few bogs, mines, or some ammo exhaustion, can change the tide.

Two things particularly interest me so far:

First, I am impressed/interested in your choosing the defensive trenches/mines etc at the beginning. I am often too nervous not to pick more troops. So far, the trenches have seemed to help neutralize the artillery. The mines....always a nerve-wracking gamble to me as whether they will be effective. (Though, on the other hand, I dread running into them when I am on the attack).

Secondly, I seem to recall that your opponent had infantry loaded on his tanks at the beginning of the engagement? I don't like to risk infantry/mgs on my tanks unless there is no chance of contact (rare), or time pressures require it. But is that too conservative an approach?

[Tux]

My decision to buy trenches was for their terrific exposure-reducting qualities, even in open ground. Remember, I didn't know what the map was going to look like until after I'd selected my forces, so while there was a possibility of a totally open map I was reluctant to rely on foxholes to provide my units with sufficient protection against Steve's heavy numerical advantage. I'm very glad that I bought them because they definitely helped minimise my losses to Steve's heavy artillery. They will also be partly responsible for the late stage at which Steve has spotted my MGs - I've had almost ten full minutes firing at him undetected.

More troops would be nice but, if they're easy to detect and suppress, they're not going to last long under assault.

I don't usually spend so heavily on mines, but here's why I chose to spend valuable points on them this time around: I realised that two platoons of infantry, four MGs and a few mortar shells is actually a very light defence. I knew I would need to hit Steve's infantry physically and psychologically as hard as possible, and I thought a few anti-personnel mines on the way in/ out of my chosen mortar kill-spots could seriously demoralise his men. TRPs meant I could ensure accurate mortar strikes on several pre-selected locations, and the mines allowed me to make those areas as unpleasant as possible.

The AT mines were a plain admission to myself that my AT defences were hideously lacking in any real penetrative power. I hoped that a few patches of trees near the forward edge of my setup zone would allow me to mine his AFVs' routes of advance, and hopefully take a few of them out before they could properly engage my forces. Obviously, this plan required a less open map to work properly, so even sticking my neck out to buy 8 of the buggers wasn't enough to avoid leaving some *very* large gaps in the field.

As for my thoughts regarding tank-riders, I often ride my slowest foot units on the back of a tank in order to keep them in touch with their faster comrades, or to rush them to a body of cover from where they can continue on their own. I very rarely mount men on tanks that I expect to come under fire - I've had far too many squads leap off tanks in the middle of nowhere and crawl around until routed because their HQ didn't get shot at, stayed on his tank and is now 200m away. I find the tendency for infantry to automatically disembark when taking incoming fire particularly galling when the incoming fire is in the form of an artillery strike. If they stayed put the tank would have them out of the kill zone in seconds, but no; they'd far rather get off and start crawling and they end up having to withstand the entire barrage.

Occasionally I use tanks to carry ordinary infantry through deep snow or something, to avoid knackering them on the way to the front, but I haven't often played in snow, funnily enough.

[ March 29, 2008, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Tux ]

[JasonC]

Tux - a shield of AP mines - and sometimes wire, with mined gaps or edges - works well against infantry when cover is scarce, by forcing them into the open or helping them pile up under TRPs. But AT mines don't really work in QBs.

The reason is, it is very rare for attacking tanks to have to cross the first line along which they can be legally placed at set up, to achieve LOS of the defenders around the flags. This is just a function of how the QB system slices the field in QBs, especially smaller ones. Even large point totals, the map gets wider rather than significantly deeper, and it is usually quite simple to advance tanks to points where their LOS lines and fire "cut" the back of the map, without crossing the defender's set up line.

Clearly, the risks to tanks increase across that line. From mines, from tank hunters hidden since set up, from other short range AT devices, from showing flanks, etc. Occasionally it can be worth the risk for a single vehicle in a given area, to get closer spots e.g. Or sometimes on a big map, a whole wing will want to advance to the far end and then reorient 90 degrees. But these are exceptions, and the rule is for tanks to move to the edge of the defender's set up zone and shoot away merrily at whatever they please.

The trenches were fine as force selection. The armor wasn't, as you've found. If there are no restrictions on armor types taken, then the only effective AT defense is a heavy PAK, heavy enough to kill enemy tanks at range, or an equally capable AFV. Rocket AT teams or amupulets can also be effective, because they reach out almost as far as spotting distances.

The part of your force selection I found the least defensible, beyond the tanks instead of heavy PAK anyway, was the choice of very light mortar FOs for the artillery portion. Those maximize reaction time, but don't hit very hard. With TRPs, reaction time shouldn't be a serious factor. It is much more important to make sure the stuff hit will be seriously messed up for the balance of the fight - and particularly so if the clock isn't going to save you in delay terms.

Your force selection was effectively geared toward a delay only defense against an mostly infantry attack. Since the clock is nearly unlimited and the attacking force is armor heavy, there is no way it could work, baring gross incompetence by the attacker.

Better to have taken 2 heavy PAK than the tanks, and better to have taken 2 105mm FOs than all the light mortar ones. And the AT mines would have been better spent on either another couple HMGs, or on wire obstacles (placed in the left side crater field, about trench spotting distance from your strongpoints).

[Tux]

Again, I have to agree with you Jason. As I hinted in my first post, I can no longer remember why I thought a platoon of T-26s was worth the cash. I think I probably expected Steve to do what he usually does and pick a fair, realistic force, in which case they'd have been competitive against light armour and could have harried infantry with some confidence.

In previous fights, with more tree cover or with significant hills, I have had some success with AT mines along probably routes of advance. I don't think I'm likely to spend as heavily on them as I did for this game again, though. I definitely wouldn't say no to more HMGs either.

I bought 82mm FOs for flexibility and ammo depth, but the lack of tree cover means they're unlikely to hurt Steve's men much. There's a very slim chance I may still find their smoke capability useful, but I would far prefer some heavy shells to hit his men with now.

As for PaKs, I always find it hard to justify spending big points on them in such a small game on the off chance that my opponent buys heavy armour. I like using them, but I always feel the need to buy 2-3 to make sure I can cover multiple routes of advance, and when serious guns are expensive as they are to the Finns that takes a large chunk out of your budget.