Guest aaronb Posted December 18, 2000 Share Posted December 18, 2000 I truly enjoyed this one ... well, winning helps. The briefing describes a meeting engagement, and yet the Axis, which I played, is deployed in a strong defensive position on top of the VL's. My opponent, given the briefing, rushed the objectives, leading to some 'gamey recon' and a bunch of lost armour. This initial rush, the losses and the tactical stance that came from it, may have cost him the game. Why was it a 'meeting engagement' in the briefing? BTW, it was still nail-biting right up until the end - and the sudden appearance of an effective FB did somewhat even things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 18, 2000 Share Posted December 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aaronb: My opponent, given the briefing, rushed the objectives, leading to some 'gamey recon' and a bunch of lost armour. This initial rush, the losses and the tactical stance that came from it, may have cost him the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say that my overall stupidity and inability to handle tanks cost me the game, but the confusion at the beginning contributed a bit to it. I have already hashed this one out with WBW, and I believe he has now changed the briefing. To atone for the unintended gamey recon, I sent two Shermans trundling into an ambush that I knew existed. These would have been invaluable towards the end (if they had made it) and would have prevented me from surrendering (I would still have lost, just not as badly). This game certainly made the importance of the briefing very clear to me. Just for the record - I did not 'rush' the objectives with all I had, I consider that gamey. What I did was use my recon assets (two Stuarts and a Greyhound) to push on towards the bridges with the aim to reconnoiter, engage and delay the enemy who I thought after the briefing would be approaching (and not be dug in a long way ahead) of the bridges. All other armour (except one Sherman who I tried to get across teh wooden bridge before it was blown up) and the infantry was following the recon units slowly and more methodically. The effects of this have been discussed in another thread. I finally surrendered while I was still left with at least the amount of infantry Aaron had, but only two Jumbos to meet his four or five Stugs, one Panther, and one or two Panzer IV. And I would have surrendered a lot earlier if the FB had not done the extreme amount of damage it did. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 It was indeed an error on my part and you have my apologies. Sorry if it was costly for you...WB =============== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder: It was indeed an error on my part and you have my apologies. Sorry if it was costly for you...WB ===============<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WBW - we talked about it before, and believe me, I would have lost this one anyway. It is tough for the Allies, but was fun to play once we had it figured out. A real see-saw battle. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted December 19, 2000 Share Posted December 19, 2000 Thanks, German Boy. Happy Holiday season to you and yours!...Wild Bill ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts