"A Wake Up Call" at Boots & Tracks

[SuperTed]

The latest scenario is from veteran designer Kinch. It is a small, single-player affair and loads of fun. Take it for a spin today.

[Len]

Unfortunately, the download link doesn't seem to work.

Hmm........might be a problem with MY setup - I can't download any of the scenarios.

[ July 27, 2002, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Len ]

[SuperTed]

Len,

The server gets a little touchy on weekends, with all the traffic. I just checked and the only link that is working is the one for "A Wake Up Call." The problem should be resolved in a couple hours. If it isn't, feel free to send me an email ( tedquincey@yahoo.com ).

[uhduck]

Ted: Just letting you know that I am not able to download the "A Wake Up Call" scenario.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by uhduck:

Ted: Just letting you know that I am not able to download the "A Wake Up Call" scenario.

Uhduck,

It's working fine for me, but I'll send it directly to you.

[Jim Harrison]

I got it on my second try (not that it was worth it). This senario is a typical "rush to be ambushed" senario. You are given NO time to make a "proper" approach, all avenues of approach are covered by heavy machine guns, anti-tank guns, and or anti-tank personel. I am sorry but in real life this attack would NEVER take place, it is just a gamey cutesy senario which in NO WAY tipifys the way a real recon would be done.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

I got it on my second try (not that it was worth it). This senario is a typical "rush to be ambushed" senario. You are given NO time to make a "proper" approach, all avenues of approach are covered by heavy machine guns, anti-tank guns, and or anti-tank personel. I am sorry but in real life this attack would NEVER take place, it is just a gamey cutesy senario which in NO WAY tipifys the way a real recon would be done.

Psst. It's a fictional scenario - it even says so in the description.

If you have an issue with it, you can review it when it is released at the Scenario Depot, or point out one of your own scenarios that you think handles the issue better. In the meantime, posting a reply such as yours to this thread is pretty poor form.

Show us how it's done, Jim. I haven't seen many scenarios that do a good job with US Recon forces - the best one I've seen hasn't been released yet. Put your money where your mouth is.

For what it's worth, I think it's an interesting tactical problem, and I played it three times through to get it right.

Scott

[Jim Harrison]

No problem Scott just add arty to this one on about the 5th turn when the "recon" unit discovers it is up against company strength. nothing wrong with my post except maybe your ego, but to give the recon a mission to take out company strength dug in troops is nuts. They have done their job the moment they discover the enemy strength, and deserve a win NOT a loss.

This is nothing more than "puzzle" with no time to figure it out, and my comments are directed to the real life situation REGARDLESS if is fictional or not, I love when you guys justify any stupid situation with the fact that it is a fictional senario. Fictional or not some things in WWII remained fact and to my mind the word fictional simply means the battle never really took place but might have, and therefore PROPER tactics would have been employed (in this case the recon would have called for arty support and dug in or boogied out). They NEVER would have tried to take an objective in that out numbered condition.

[ July 29, 2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

No problem Scott just add arty to this one on about the 5th turn when the "recon" unit discovers it is up against company strength.

Sometimes you'll find that you have to make do with what resources you have available to accomplish a mission. There's no need for artillery here - it's entirely possible to succeed in this scenario without it.

nothing wrong with my post except maybe your ego, but to give the recon a mission to take out company strength dug in troops is nuts. They have done their job the moment they discover the enemy strength, and deserve a win NOT a loss.

First off, this is a single player scenario - it is designed to be difficult and present an interesting tactical challenge to the player. Even so, I can find plenty of historical examples of U.S. recce units being tasked with seizing terrain - in fact I can think of a good example of one such occurrance where a US cavalry force was tasked with seizing a town from SS with armor support. For that matter, there are AARs of typical cavalry missions online at this link that in one case shows a U.S. Cavalry force engaging an enemy where its entire dismount force consisted of one soldier.

This is nothing more than "puzzle" with no time to figure it out, and my comments are directed to the real life situation REGARDLESS if is fictional or not, I love when you guys justify any stupid situation with the fact that it is a fictional senario. Fictional or not some things in WWII remained fact and to my mind the word fictional simply means the battle never really took place but might have, and therefore PROPER tactics would have been employed (in this case the recon would have called for arty support and dug in or boogied out). They NEVER would have tried to take an objective in that out numbered condition.

See above comments. I'm very sorry that you seem unable to wrap your head around the fact that some people like different types of scenarios than you do, but your comments appear very close minded. I myself also prefer historical scenarios to fictional ones, and for that I highly recommend something like Franko's Hello Second Armored. However, I think that both have certain value to people of different tastes.

The problem with your post is that you didn't offer anything constructive. I play and playtest scenarios all the time, and I see lots of things that I don't like. I recognize, however, that it is important to try to take the things you don't like with a grain of salt. Destructive criticism doesn't do anyone any good, and, quite frankly, makes you look worse for saying something when instead you could have offered helpful advice or remained silent.

Seriously, Kevin didn't make this scenario on accident - it is that way because he wanted it to be that way. If you have issues with its style, feel free to make your own scenario that demonstrates the kind of tactical problems you'd like to see handled in a CM battle. If you'd like feedback on it, my e-mail is in my sig; I'd happily take a look at it and show you what I think constructive criticism is supposed to look like, and you can judge for yourself whether you think that is more or less helpful than what you posted above. In the meantime, the community can benefit from your scenario and your own thoughts on what a CM battle should be, and you could benefit from the feedback that any serious scenario designer should crave.

Scott

[WWB]

I would like to add that I playtested the battle in question, and succeeded just fine without arty.

I did offer a fair amount of criticism, in a more constructive manner, and cannot claim the battle is one of my alltime favorites. If you dont like it, fine, say so on the depot review or somesuch. There is no such thing as a one-size fits all battle.

WWB

[Jim Harrison]

Scott your references to "cavalry" being "recon are somewhat distorted. Cavalry in WWII was fast light infantry (usually mechanized) and while it had some relevance and uses as "recon" that was NOT its prime mission.

This senario does have more of a "cav" flavor than a real "recon" team, but with the terrain as it is, the light armor is all but useless in the time alotted. The fact that after numerous attempts you were able to figure out the "puzzle" just doesn't make much headway with me, I want senario's that reward "proper" tactics and NOT puzzles that have to figured out.

I defy you to find me one historical account of a recon mission tasked to take an objective (thats just silly on the face of it and definately not the definition of recon).

As to the fact that you don't like my tone and try to characterize my opinions as that of a moron, is nothing more than not being able to cope with what you KNOW is true. I am sorry that all the senario's attempted are not perfect, it would be nice if they were. I am sure what was attempted here was done with all the right movtives for "game" play, it just doesn't fit with the historical over views of this game.

As to "sometimes we must make do with the equipment we have" statement, I can only deduce that you have never served in the military??? Since any commander worth his salt would never lose his men on purpose in a lopside affair.

Sorry but your arguments just don't wash, I know you want keep your "status" with your friends and thats ok, but don't tell me what happens under fire unless you have been there.

[Scott B]

Well Jim, I'm sorry you didn't like the scenario, and I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye. I disagree with you in substance and in principle, but see no benefit to continuing this discussion further. Thank you for trying one of our scenarios, and I hope you find some of the other scenarios at our website more to your liking.

Scott

[Breakthrough]

It took me four tries but it was worth it. A good tutorial on how to use light armor. You have to scout, assault and defend all in one small scen. Well done! Boots and Tracks makes some of the best scenarios for CMBO. Keep em coming guys and thanks...

[Jim Harrison]

Well Scott you have every right to disagree with me as I you (thats what makes horse races), I have tried several B&T senario's that liked alot, in fact the one you pointed to was nicely done.

Jim "BigJim" Harrison

[Kevin Kinscherf]

Jim -

Thank you for your candid appraisal of "Wake up

Call". I welcome it and will use it to design battles in the future. I knew the battle would

be controversial. That’s because it is different. Without feedback, designer’s can't hone their skills.

The objective was to provide a short battle that folks would want to replay to try different tactics. It is hard for many with limited time to replay larger battles. Battles have to be hard to win or no one would replay it. I in no way wanted to make a “gamey” scenario. Depending on how the play goes, many CM battles end with “rush to the flag”/”rush to the exit”. I see no way around this in a tactical battle where objectives are within running distance on the final turn and important elements in the final score.

Many times in wargames like CM we are presented with a situation that appears impossible to overcome. “This can’t be how it was”. But we often win or draw the battle due to non-real factors like the way the program calculates victory. In almost all CM battles, the casualties are so much larger than any commander would accept before they withdrawal. Is this real?

We try to design for as much realism as possible –then move on.

The unit points are 675 US/ 654 German.

The “firepower” edge goes to the US. They were not outnumbered where it counts. To provide any challenge to the human player the German side has to be beefed up to compensate for the the limitations of the AI. This is a standard practice.

I am not sure what you mean by proper tactics. Use any tactic to win a battle. How many times have the NCOs told the young officers to “throw out the book”.

In “Closing with the Enemy” Michael Doubler writes at the close of his introduction:

“An analysis of combined arms operations in the European Theater dramatically illustrates

how the American army adapted during wartime to meet unexpected challenges and shows

how armies function in battle rather than in peace time maneuvers or terrain board exercises”.

It boils down to maximize your firepower while minimizing the enemies. If you do this in Wake up Call, the US stands a great chance to win.

No time to make a proper approach because the avenues were all cover? I wonder how many times that has occurred in military history. Units are ordered into impossible situations (at least to those who directly involved)all the time. In order for the team to win some have to take it on the chin. The US runs into a hornet’s nest for sure in this one.

Remember many hours went into designing and testing this battle for the enjoyment of

others. I welcome the feedback to stay on

target. Please post again on my battles and others.

Thanks again.

Kevin

[Jim Harrison]

Kevin while I applaud your effort to make a "fun" senario, what I ment by proper tactics, is that any recon commander would approach the situation given his "start" position to use the "bounding" movement utilizing the best cover since two clear "fire lanes" are apparent at the start, these must be avoided until such time as you can determine the enemy position.

Because of the above situation, the player must move his infantry first to determine the enemy positions, unfortunately in this senario he doesn't have the time to do that properly, nor the troops to cover his vehicles at the same time (by design for sure). Therefore the commander is forced to "recon by explosions" ie his half tracks must draw the fire and of course die to find the enemy (as a former military type) I find this "gamey" since in the real life situation it would not have happened.

On my first attempt I do as I was trained to do, I send out my infantry in advance of the vehicles to find potential ambushes (which I did and took out the crack panzershrike at the first bridge), the problem is that with only 20 turns my infantry just comes into contact and the game is over (because I used text book approach).

Frankly the game does not really lend itself to these types of actions, since to balance it you had to add really too many vehicles for a recon unit. What you really have is an under strength cav unit or over strength recon detail.

I am not sure how to accomplish your goals, any other way than you did (given the game constraints) I just found it too unreal for my tastes. I may have been abit crusty in my first post since I was rather insensed over the fact that "book" tactics would nor could not prevail in this senario.

Don't take just my views into account, many supporters here have taken a much different view from mine.

[Kevin Kinscherf]

Jim -

I will take your views into account big time.

Please let those who read this thread understand

what you mean by "book tactics".

There is plenty of opportunity for an US dismounted attack. Sure...timing is critical.

By the way ... there are three bridges to cross.

Ever try ...?

- Kevin

[Jim Harrison]

No Kevin "by the book" there is only one bridge to cross, since the "cover" for the infantry only lends itself to one of the three.

Unless you have "recon" telling you those 2 open fire lanes are not covered you can only "safely" approach the nearest bridge to the start point.

The briefing tells you sounds of equipment have been heard, therefore the commander must believe the worst and figure AT guns at the least cover those fire lanes.

The "book" is the army field manual issued to every officer in the army and I believe now even to some command nco's. I believe the WWII versions of it are available in book stores but I am not sure.

[Kevin Kinscherf]

Hi Jim -

Interesting observations. I will take them

into account. All I know is playtesters cut through the Germans like butter until the

final changes. It is a tactical problem.

However, it has solutions. None of which

are covered by the book per say. I think this

is not a positive nor a negative given the US Army's need to adapt and innovate on the battlefield during the WW2. They often threw

out the book. If you get a chance add Doubler's

book to your library if you dont have it. It

is a classic.

- Kevin

[Buckeye]

In Kevin's defense, I play tested the scenario, and won something like 80-20. I don't want to describe what happened too closely, so as not to spoil things for anyone else, but suffice to say that I believe I used realistic tactics, taking into account the likely fire lanes, dismounting infantry, etc. So, the scenario can be won, and by using legitimate tactics...but bad luck can spoil your day, just as in real life.

[Kevin Kinscherf]

Good point .. luck does play a roll in warfare.

- Kevin