Fionn's latest AAR at MODs & MODers:

[Cooper]

Thanks for the explanation Ligur.

[Fionn]

Cooper,

" So ,as I understand it, you are not using these inf. to engage the MLR. "

I never said that . Troops recover their wind in 2 or 3 turns. After that they're ready to go so just because they are tired now doesn't mean they'll be shattered 15 turns from now when I hit the MLR . This is only the first phase of this battle.

As Warren hinted each phase must be handled differently and so this phase has different requirements and handling than the later phases.

This is why all these tactics threads on the forum are, largely, nonsense. I have yet to see a SINGLE tactics thread in which anyone steps in and gives examples on a per phase basis. Instead people talk about how to use tanks as though the usage doesn't change depending on the phase of the battle.

My plan did not rely on my vehicles, my artillery or my infantry defeating the enemy MLR. To say more would give the game away.

Remember, this game was set up to showcase a manoeuvrist response to an attritionist defence. My solution, therefore, had to be manoeuvrist in order to fulfill the requirements we (Warren and I) had set ourselves.

[skelley]

Hey Capt.! It has been a while. Do you not play at TH anymore. I don't recall our game. I looked it up and we played once so I guess this is the time you refer to. I got a minor victory. It was my 19th game against human opponent. Since then I have added another 405 games to my total games played. I'm sure you did hand me my backside in some areas but as the attacker almost always does, I won. I hope you didn't take offense to my comments. I just think that you should never place guns near your squads. Also that your troops were too close together and that they were way to expensive leaving you too few to defend. Also that in allowing him to enter into buildings then calling arty down on them would be ineffective. You should come back to TH some time and we can get another battle going.

[PawBroon]

This time it doesn't look as if he bunched up any...

Trust me, if he is to hold back Fionn, there must be somefink.

That map was made for reserve, I wouldn't bet on The_Capt having all of those paratroopers stacked in one Hex really.

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by skelley:

Hey Capt.! It has been a while. Do you not play at TH anymore. I don't recall our game. I looked it up and we played once so I guess this is the time you refer to. I got a minor victory. It was my 19th game against human opponent. Since then I have added another 405 games to my total games played. I'm sure you did hand me my backside in some areas but as the attacker almost always does, I won. I hope you didn't take offense to my comments. I just think that you should never place guns near your squads. Also that your troops were too close together and that they were way to expensive leaving you too few to defend. Also that in allowing him to enter into buildings then calling arty down on them would be ineffective. You should come back to TH some time and we can get another battle going.

No offense taken skelley. Ya I still play TH but PBEM mostly..no time for TCP really. 405 games!! Well you are far more experienced than I then so I will have to defer to you.

Ya I think I should have gone with cheaper as well standard troops but I gambled on quality over quantity. As to spacing, well I figure you have to max firpower on most likely corriders of advance but of course you sacrifice frontage. Those 75 guns actually were pretty effective, notice the 75mm line in the rear, that is the AT line. When you play Fionn however, you really have to avoid obvious "good ground" cause he like to drop arty on it..

I will say right off the bat that Fionn and I disagree that his Recce Wave is practical in the real world. In the real world MGs and arty are far to lethal to charge over open ground..again we have agreed to disagree here. In game however it is very effective although it takes a fine hand to be able to handle properly.

What you should be watching is how Fionn handles the MLR and the combination of tactics used. It is really why we decided to put out an AAR (well Fionn did and I said "cool").

[ June 04, 2002, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by skelley:

It was my 19th game against human opponent. Since then I have added another 405 games to my total games played.

Wow ! 424 games... :eek: :eek:

[Fionn]

" When you play Fionn however, you really have to avoid obvious "good ground" cause he like to drop arty on it.. "

Drizzt has a really good saying for that. He says "Anyone can read a map." ( It deals with the fallacy of thinking that just because you've found the "perfect spot" you are going to be safe from enemy pre-cognition etc. Since the enemy can read the map just as well as you can he can be relied upon to locate that same "perfect spot" and blow it to hell. )

Of course some people read maps better than others etc but it is just a little diktum to remember.

[Walker]

I’m not quite sure whether it was a good idea to place 2 full platoons of expensive FSJ in the path of Fionn’s steamroller. All the intel they gained could have been provided by a couple of sharpshooters/HQs/infantry teams, and the delay they caused seems to be negligible considering the 90-turn length of the game. As Fionn remarks, that could be 1/9th of the defender’s force annihilated, with another 1/9th likely to follow.

[Fionn]

Walker,

Your "solution" would ensure that your opponent would reach the MLR in great shape with no possibility of anything other than self-inflicted losses in cohesion.

If you let a good player cosy up to your MLR on HIS terms then you've as good as lost before the MLR battle even begins. IMO you've got to discomfit them during their approach, killing and maiming their troops all the way to the MLR.

The ideal situation is a forward screen battle of such ferocity and costliness that the enemy doesn't even realise the distinction between the FSE and MLR until they're already fully committed to the MLR battle.

As Drizzt says "Sometimes you do everything right and you STILL lose." I'm not going to say Warren did everything right ( I still think he coudl have sprung for a couple of tanks) BUT that MLR is strong and his concept of forward screen ops was good ( this was our 3rd game and the second in which I was attacking... Warren wanted to see my formation and how I'd react to a non-insignificant force in front of my forces. That's pretty good thinking IMO.)

In the end though I don't think his FSE's main aim was to kill me en masse or delay me forever. It was to see what I'd do in killing it. Sure he would have liked it to survive but in war you pay for information with your mens' lives. Warren was prepped to sacrifice them for intel. In a current game I've just sacrificed 2 platoons for the exact same reason in much the same manner. The info they have gained is going to enable me to definitely repulse the enemy at my MLR.

It's all a series of trade-offs. Big MLR but little intel-gathering and damage to enemy cohesion prior to MLR. FSE comprised of platoons = lots of potential to damage the enemy. FSE comprised of sharpshooters - lots of intel but minimal damage to enemy forces. etc etc

[Cooper]

posted by Fionn

In the end though I don't think his FSE's main aim was to kill me en masse or delay me

forever. It was to see what I'd do in killing it. Sure he would have liked it to survive but in

war you pay for information with your mens' lives. Warren was prepped to sacrifice them

for intel. In a current game I've just sacrificed 2 platoons for the exact same reason in

much the same manner. The info they have gained is going to enable me to definitely

repulse the enemy at my MLR.

I am suprised he didn't attach some fast response art. elements to his forward screen. Some 120s in an overwatch position of his FSE's would have damaged you more and allowed that plt. to stay in the fight longer. This not only would cause more casualities but also slow the center of your attack.

These 120s also could harrass your forward elements all the way up to the MLR. It would be hard for these "tired" foward elements to rest before hitting the MLR if they had to stay a step in front of that targeting order.

[Fionn]

Walker,

I think it is a pity he didn't do that either. I would have had fun riding those FOs down with my scout cars as they tried to withdraw.

20/20 hindsight is wonderful but don't forget that for everything you could have done there IS a counter ( and potential risk and loss). If he'd had FOs far forward it is quite probable I'd have ridden them down and eliminated them as they tried to fall back. I truly don't think they'd have done much damage and I think they'd have been lost.

[Walker]

I agree 100% that 20/20 hindsight is wonderful, but that’s what these AAR + Movies threads are all about, basically: watching the battle unfold and asking oneself questions like ‘Now why did he do that?’ or ‘Why would a good player like Xyz put his troops in a position like that? There must be a reason…’ And, speaking for myself, if I can’t find answers, I ask the experts, perhaps as a ‘In that situation I would have…’ statement. Definitely not as a ‘banging my own drum / blowing my own trumpet / listen to me I know what I’m talking about’ response but as a straightforward request for enlightenment…

Anyway, and with all due respect , what exactly did the forward screen achieve for the price of 6 squads, 2 HQs and 2 Schrecks (assuming the 2nd platoon gets hammered as ruthlessly as the first one, of course)? Roughly the equivalent of 1 US squad, a sharpshooter, a scout car and (if I observed correctly) that’s it. I’m not sure whether I could rationalise the sacrifice of 2 platoons for the privilege of 'seeing what my opponent would do in killing them'! And watching the action from the German side, the intel obtained in return seems to be modest – hardly enough to tell the German commander much about the US attack plan. Another point I’m a bit baffled about: why did the first German platoon to be wiped out sponsor its own annihilation by withdrawing from its stronger foxhole position? Surely the German commander realised his opponent would be seeking to envelop any isolated strongpoint to prevent withdrawal? (Fionn – maybe you were a Zulu commander in a previous life - - for some reason the annihilation of the FSJ platoon reminds me of what I’ve read about Zulu tactics.) And I agree with Cooper – a module of 120mm might have made the sacrifice more worthwhile (I know, I know – hindsight is a wonderful thing…).

[russellmz]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Walker,

I think it is a pity he didn't do that either. I would have had fun riding those FOs down with my scout cars as they tried to withdraw.

why does the arty guy have to be in los? just preplot a little before when you guess the action will start. readjust if you guess too early.

after always hearing how fos are bullet magnets often i got them hiding way the hell in back of the map.

[Fionn]

Walker,

Understood. OTOH just because it didn't work doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.

My initial rush into the trees didn't work. Does this mean it was wrong? No. It was the right thing to do, it just didn't work because Warren was ready for it.

Warren's FSE didn't work because I was ready for it. Does this mean it was the wrong thing to do? Nope (IMO).

As to it not being worth the price to see what your opponent would do. I just sacrificed 25% of my infantry in one game for EXACTLY this advantage. I have 600+ PBEMs behind me and I firmly believe it was a price worth paying. Others may differ of course .

re: Intel... The intel he is gaining is modest because a large portion of my entire plan revolves around denying him that intel. If I was sure he had no FSE then my tanks etc would be streaming forward from the first second of the first turn. His FSE has, by its very existence, kept my tanks and main body motionless in the rear. Sometimes the greatest effect of a unit or group of units is not in what it actually DOES but in what it prevents the enemy from even attempting.

re: the 120mmFO though.. Man I would have been happy if he'd done that. My mental attitude is that the more he puts forward the more I get to kill in the first rush . I would have ripped those FOs apart at little cost ( weakening his MLR significantly) IMO. People have tried that on me before and it has always ended badly for them.

Zulus eh? Yeah I like their tactical doctrine. It was pretty good for the time and conditions prevalent. Effective, simple and ruthless. Shaka ( and later Ketshwayo (sic) ) were good guys. What you recognise ( BTW) is an attack along the style Shaka introduced. It's the infamous Bull's Horns attack in which the main body forms the bull's head, charges into the enemy line and then the outer wings ( which extend beyond the enemy line) swing inwards, finally enclosing the enemy in a wall of assegai and annihilating them in detail in as short a period of time as possbile. Simple, effective, ruthless and no escape once the Zulu impi "horns" got behind you.

Russel,

Ooh, unspotted arty. A sure way to waste points (IMO). Your mileage may well vary but I am VERY reluctant to use arty in that way. I feel I may as well not buy the points if I engage in a lot of out-of-LOS firestrikes. Others differ of course but I really try to avoid it if at all possible. Unless you've got massive arty ( 155 VT and above) unspotted fire is a bit of a waste IMO.

[ June 04, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Fionn]

One last thought Russel. When I attack my FOs often travel up with the forward recon screen ( right in the midst of the sharpshooters and split squads).

If you are afraid to lose an asset that asset has lost half of its combat power. Accept loss and just make sure to place the asset where it will do most good. In that way you'll find your overall force effectiveness climbs so much that even though each asset is, theoretically, placed at more risk your overall realised losses decrease markedly.

If you try it you'll find it is true.

[The_Capt]

Well I see everyone is discussing my FSE now,

Well I will say that it was a bit of a mistake. Not the FSE itself but it's composition.

Against Fionn, you have to be able to move fast so that mean HT mounted squads or HMGs/zooks and/or sharpshooters. That way you can outrun the great wave.

OR

cheap and lot of them, a green coy would have told me more and perhaps attrited more efficiently (which was the whole point of the FSE, beyond determining main axis of advance).

What did those two platoons do, well they demonstrated to me what Fionn was all about (really didn't have a good idea up until then. We had played one game before but that was before 1.12 and it crashed about 1/3 of the way thru). So I was really getting a feel for how he was going to meet my forces. I am not going to give all my lessons learned away (as I am playing Fionn right now ) but I encourage you all to take a good look at how the FSE battle comes out and draw your own conclusions.

Fionn is a highly aggressive player and not unique in that. Wreck, Kiwijoe both play in a similar manner.

So if you can walk away with anything from this AAR it is a feel onhow to beat a highly aggressive player.

Keep in mind tactics you may use against them will not nec work against a cautious player..but that is what makes the game so fun.

[**YK2**]

[skelley]

Usually on a 2000pt attack the map is about 1.4-1.6km wide by 1.2- 1.4km deep. So with a 3000 pt game it would be at least 2km wide by 1.7km deep. With a 1km front I don't really think a screen is needed. Having 2 unsupported platoons out there is just asking for them to die. On the wider maps that are made when you play a quickbattle you need more intel about where his main thrust will be. With 1 km it limits the attackers options of hitting the right or left flank.

[Fionn]

Warren's lessons learned were to play me in an ME ( equal points ), let me drive my dismounted infantry into disadvantageous positions and then, while they are in those positions, launch a rapid mounted counter-attack ( HTs and Pumas... we're playing under recon rules) to isolate and crush the over-extended units.

Once those over-extended units are taken out it seems reasonable to assume that the flank will collapse ( since who keeps massive numbers of reserves in an ME.. particularly when Warren can definitely ID 8 or 9 infantry tactical manoeuvre units... adding up to my usual Bn of infantry) and the collapse of the flank can be exploited at very high speed ( because of the mechanisation) with a view to destabilising the entire front and catching my forces en masse in the midst of redeployment. In such a situation his vehicles will have a field day riding down my isolated infantry units.

It is quite a solid little plan actually.

Unfortunately I had ID'ed my left flank ( the flank onto which the attack came) as being the best tank country in the game and had massed most of my vehicles on that flank.

In the initial sparring I lost 2 Stuarts for a Puma and 2 light ATGs. Then Warren's main body appeared ( 3 more Pumas and 8 HTs) just as my infantry began to over-extend themselves. I held back for 2 turns... to make sure they were fully committed... and then moved my vehicles into position to cover the firesack Warren's vehicles had just entered. End result... 2 more Pumas dead, 3 or 4 HTs dead and the attack has been thrown back in disarrary.

Plans within plans within plans. I find that one of the toughest things for most people to understand re: learning tactics is to learn that just because you fail you shouldn't write the idea off. Good plans sometimes fail.

[ June 05, 2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[The_Capt]

Well Fionn I would have to say you are partially on the money but I have fallen into the "Stuart Trap".

I had Vet Pumas x 3 with commanding view of the ground behind my HTs. The HTs were merrily cutting Fionns infantry screen to ribbons with a little 81mm in support. Then three Stuarts crest the hill as the smoke drops. It really came down too a 2 on 2 duel. Vet Puma crews who weren't moving against Reg Stuarts who had to move into position.

It wasn't pretty. Both Pumas died without a single Stuart cas, one puma got off 3 shots. I was scratching my head until I ran a few tests. Reg Stuart crews will always win against Pumas at med ranges. That 37mm gun is just too quick and accurate. Once my overwatch fire was gone Fionn was free to hit my HTs.

My tactics were absolutly solid. Had we switched sides (ie I had Stuarts and Fionn Pumas) I would be merrily running an armoured TF into his rear right now..BUT the devil is in the kit. I am sure Fionn would have played different if he had the Pumas, so you learn something new everyday.

Now the game isn't over by any stretch but the scales are slightly tipped against me so I need luck and a few good moves to come near pulling this off.

Wish me luck.

[Fionn]

Nah Warren,

Pumas ARE better kit than Stuarts. Your assessment of me getting lots of first shot kills is mistaken. You mustn't be seeing the misses but I sure as hell am. Maybe you are mistaking them for more of the 81mm mortar shells dropping ( since I'm targetting near all of your vehicles with 81mm FOs) ?

OTOH when you gang up on 3 Pumas with 7 Stuarts the end-result isn't too much of a surprise. That you don't seem to have seen 4? of the Stuarts ( all of whom are Veteran IIRC) just proves I placed them properly.

Would I have played differently if I had Pumas? No, not at all. Strangely enough I have a few people who had PBEMed me in recon games where I played the Germans who will swear to you that Pumas are far superior to Stuarts . Funny how that works isn't it?

I am a little disappointed that you come down to singling the kit out as the reason for my beginning to edge it. Let me be clear... there is no kit advantage... you are NOT facing 3 Stuarts, you are facing 7 Stuarts plus AT teams ( yes, I have AT teams within range of your vehicles).

Perhaps the fact that you are outnumbered by more than 3 to 1 in the area of conflict has more to do with it than the fact that you have Pumas .

Lastly, there were NO first shot kills. The earliest I've scored a kill is with the 2nd shot and I have numerous vehicles who have missed 4 and 5 shots in a row.

Your leftmost Puma was in a 1 on 1 battle. It survived. The other 2 began the turn targetted by 3 Stuarts each + zook teams. When the first one was hit all 6 Stuarts targetted the 2nd Puma. With those ratios it isn't surprising I quickly wiped them out.

P.s. Did you REALLY not see the Vets? I'm happy if that is the case but surprised that my use of covered routes was so succesful.

[ June 06, 2002, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[The_Capt]

Fionn,

I just reckecked the file and here was the breakdown from my end.

14 sec; Lone Stuart pops up

20 sec; Vet Puma targets and fires..miss

25 sec; 2nd Shot..miss

26 Sec; 2 & 3rd Stuart arrive

30 sec; 4th Stuart enters fray..3rd shot Puma miss. Battle right now is lone Stuart vs HTs, 3 Stuarts on one Puma

and 1 Stuart on 1 Puma

35 sec; 2nd Puma fires first shot..miss

39 sec; 4th Shot by first Puma..miss. 3rd Puma shot..miss

40 Sec..Both Pumas nailed. At this point you had only hit one HT and

never had more than 4 Stuart facing 2 x Puma. One of which showed up in

time to get two rounds at it before any other support arrived.

Now I ran 5 simulations of 3 Reg Stuarts on 2 x Vet Puma and the results

were never better than 1 Stuart to 2 Puma down. Despite the fact that the

Pumas were in location and the Stuarts had to move forward. This spells a

material superiority to me.

I apologize for the earlier post but the 2 x Pumas died so fast at the 40 Sec mark that I missed the other 2 Stuarts.

That exchange should have been even or better, unless those are Vet crews you have and my guys are reading them wring but I didn't think that was possible.

I think Pumas are superior at long range where the gun is more effective but I think the gun is less accurate..I'll run some test and get back to you.

[The_Capt]

OK ran a few tests and what I foundsurprised me a little.

Vet Pumas = Reg Stuarts. With Stuarts coming out slightly on top but costing 6 points more so I am calling them even.

One would think the Vet Pumas being Vet would fair better but this is not the case.

Here is the rundown.

Vet Puma, Rate of Fire; 10 rpm. Stuart; same

Armour; Puma has less than Stuart in front on all but Lower Hull and definitely weaker on the sides

Gun, 50mm, has more punch than but about the same accuracy in the hands of Vets.

The tests (by no means conclusive)

At 950ms, rounds to KO 3 dug in (ie hull down) Stuarts or Pumas depending on who is shooting.

I ran five test to get a feel of course more will just give better accuracy but I really got lazy.

Vet Puma

Average rounds to kill all three: 10.8

Reg Stuart

As above; 10.6!

Same test as above but at 650ms. Here we see the accuracy of the 50mm gets a little better

Vet Puma

6.4 rds

Reg Stuart

9.6

Now the Stuart also has a Fast Turret and Gyrostabalizers which are a bonus.

Pumas are faster and lighter but have a higher profile.

So what is my conclusion. Vet Pumas = Reg Stuarts. I am quite impressed with the boys from BTS they really nailed down those prices.

So what does that mean to the gunfight above. I never should have counted on my Vet Pumas performing better than the Reg Stuarts and watched the force ratios. That and I just got plain unlucky...we traded shots and lost then Fionn quite rightly brought more guns to bear.

You do learn something everyday.

[ June 06, 2002, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[PawBroon]

And ain't that the point?

Damn I love that game!

Latest Turns of the AAR are up.

In case you're wondering, this it NOT the ones with Pumas and Stuarts...

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

OK ran a few tests and what I foundsurprised me a little.

/snip/

Gun, 50mm, has more punch than but about the same accuracy in the hands of Vets.

the Stuart also has a Fast Turret and Gyrostabalizers which are a bonus.

Pumas are faster and lighter but have a higher profile.

The main differences are the ones I left above from your post.

Stuart is better:

884m/s gun vs. Puma's 835m/s.

Fast turret vs. Slow

73 Silhouette vs. 82

Off-road mobility is much better, too.

In a head-to-head battle, it would seem that the Pumas really need to get the jump on the Stuarts...in terms of already being pointed in the right direction so that the Slow turret is not so big a deal, and getting the 1st shot in the duel, which counters your less accurate Puma gun (vet. status helps that). The lower silhouette no doubt helped Fionn's other 4 Stuarts remain unseen...I love that. Unseen doom.

Heh, now how about Crack Hotchkiss vs. Reg. Stuart...!