Campaign for North Africa 40-43 Analysis

Post discussions and advice on TOAW scenario design here.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Campaign for North Africa 40-43 Analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Frustrated with the absence of any decent TOAW Article section anywhere since the one at GameSquad went AWOL, I've decided to just post re-prints of them as threads here on this board. This is the original Article except for a single post about the revisions since it was first posted.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Campaign for North Africa 40-43 Analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Campaign for North Africa 40-43 Analysis


By Bob Cross


I recognize that my “Campaign for North Africa 40-43” scenario has a number of features that can make the strategy and tactics necessary to excel at it unfamiliar to even very experienced TOAW players. Those features include huge movement allowances, a low attrition divider setting, vast maneuver spaces with unsecured flanks, multiple shifts in initiative, well differentiated unit types, naval strategy, air strategy, etc.
Therefore, I’ve endeavored to draft an analysis of it, in hopes of easing the learning curve for those unfamiliar with it. Hopefully this will improve the play and enjoyment of all that try it, since there is surprisingly little margin (for a 242-turn scenario) to learn on the fly. The Axis player must complete Graziani’s offensive in the first few turns, and the Commonwealth player must make the most of the initial shock bonus in O’Connor’s offensive. Failure to have all the necessary skills well in hand right at the start can be disastrous for either player.

I’ve attached a zip file containing five spreadsheet analyses of the respective forces in the full 242-turn campaign. They contain separate analyses of Armor, Infantry, Artillery, and Aircraft, plus an analysis of shock, air shock, theater recon, and force supply. These analyses should show the roots of the seesaw nature of the campaign. Readers should download this file and refer to its contents to follow the first part of the discussion.

After that discussion, I’ll then make use of game screen dumps from one completed test and one in-progress test between Jeremy MacDonald and myself. This will illustrate a number of tactical and strategic issues we’ve uncovered in those tests. Note that the zip file also contains a spreadsheet analysis of the loss statistics from that completed game. It will be referred to at the end of the discussion on that completed game.

For an introductory view of the scenario, refer to its rugged defense page:

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... .php?Id=45
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

UPDATES

Post by Curtis Lemay »

[center]UPDATES[/center]

The scenario itself is available in the TOAW III WWII - Mediterranean scenario folder.

Note that the test games were played on ACOW version 1.04 using CFNA version 5. This article was originally written back in October of 2004 – almost five years ago. The scenario is now on version 9, designed for TOAW III version 3.2. This means that the scenario has been extensively revised since these tests (in fact, many of the revisions were due to these test results). Therefore, some of the principles discussed in the article no longer apply.

Graziani’s Offensive has been revised as follows:
1. The Axis choice to cancel the ceasefire must now be made on turn 1 and will be visible to the CW player.
2. The Italian rear-area forces that begin along the coast have been placed in reserve till O’Connor’s Raid begins. They will not be available for Graziani’s Offensive – weakening it.
3. Arrival of the 2nd and 7th RTR tank units have been delayed. This facilitates the Italian capture of the required hexes.
4. The 6th Australian Division is released earlier at a cost of lower unit proficiencies (less training time). This will help stop an Italian juggernaut.
5. The original versions of the 70th Infantry, 6th Australian and 4th Indian Divisions are now motorized.
6. CW units now have some tracked carriers added to their TO&Es – Bren Carriers. Obviously, this toughens them a bit.
7. The CW now begins with some “on hand” equipment sufficient to cancel the expected losses to the frontier CW forces at the start of Graziani’s Offensive.
8. Those CW frontier defenders – most of which began sub-divided – now have their proficiencies lowered so that, if recombined, they will rise to normal CW levels.
9. The CW Theater Option to start O’Connor’s Raid early is now available even if the ceasefire is canceled. It can thus be used as an emergency safety net, if the CW get into real trouble against Graziani.

These changes will somewhat blunt the power of Graziani’s Offensive.

O’Connor’s Raid has been revised as follows:
1. The Arrival of the Ariete, Trento, and Sirte divisions and the 10th Brs. Rgt. have been delayed.
2. The O’Connor’s Raid shock has been increased a bit.
3. The Italian player now has turn deadlines to hold Tobruk & Derna in order to retain the safe harbor inside 20 hexes from the western map edge that the Italians can retreat to. This prevents the Italian player from just cutting and running as soon as O’Connor’s Raid begins.

These change will somewhat ease the execution of O’Connor’s Raid.

Post O’Connor’s Raid has been revised as follows:
1. The Tobruk minefield shock effects have been discarded. They are now replaced by physical minefield units.
2. The RN is no longer removed when El Alamein is captured – it goes into garrison instead. If El Alamein is recaptured, it is restored to mobile mode. It is not removed until Alexandria is captured.
3. The initial Rommel shock effects have been reduced.
4. Supply units now must remain on an Improved Road. This will make the “below Qattara” option less desirable.

These changes will make Rommel’s Offensives somewhat more difficult.

Keep these changes in mind while reading the game result conclusions noted in the article.

Significant changes that nevertheless won’t affect any of the article topics are:
1. MRPB is now set to 3.
2. The scenario now uses a modified equipment database.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Spreadsheet downloads

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached are half the spreadsheets referenced by the Article in a zip file. It is about 161KB total.
Attachments
CFNAAnaly..dsheets1.zip
(160.03 KiB) Downloaded 98 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet downloads

Post by Curtis Lemay »

And here are the rest in another zip file - about 173KB.
Attachments
CFNAAnaly..dsheets2.zip
(172.93 KiB) Downloaded 52 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Readers should now have access to the spreadsheets.

Note that in devising them, I omitted all garrison units. This was because garrisons can’t be used offensively, and can be destroyed under the most favorable attacker circumstances at minimal loss. So, in particular, the large Italian garrisons that start on the map don’t figure into the calculations.

In addition, in most cases I assumed that withdrawn units would have 80% of their TO&E upon withdrawal. This particularly affects the Commonwealth numbers since they have most of the withdrawals. Note that this assumption may prove to be wildly inaccurate, as the owning player will try to minimize it while the enemy player will try to maximize it. Both will have tactics available to employ in that effort, and I can have no way to know in advance who will be more successful. So bear that in mind while viewing the spreadsheet charts.

Also, the analysis is entirely quantitative. In other words, no consideration was made for the quality of equipment or proficiency of units in the analysis. A tank is a tank whether it’s an L3/35 or a PzKpfw IV-F2. This will tend to overestimate Italian strength and underestimate German strength. So bear that in mind as well.

Nor was any consideration made for release dates or method or distance to travel to the front. Units figured into the tables upon arrival on map.

Spreadsheet entries for each particular equipment item consist of unit arrivals and contributions from the replacement tracks. These are then summed to form a total (sometimes subtotals for type or nationality are included as well). Finally a difference of Commonwealth minus Axis totals is formed. Charts of each column are then produced. The rest of this discussion will focus on the final difference chart from each spreadsheet.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached is the Armor difference chart. The blue line shows armored cars; yellow shows tanks; and red shows the total of those. Y-axis Gridlines are every 200 AFVs. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241 by two. The chart implies that the Commonwealth is better supplied with cars than tanks, but that is deceptive since Italian light tanks are no better than cars (but are counted as tanks due to the fact that they have tracks not wheels).

This chart probably illustrates the seesaw nature of the campaign better than any of the others:

Turns 1-5 favor the Axis (Graziani’s Offensive)
Turns 7-45 favor the Commonwealth (O’Connor’s Raid)
Turns 47-77 favor the Axis (Rommel’s First Offensive)
Turns 79-109 slowly shift the initiative back to the Commonwealth (Operations Brevity & Battle-ax)
Turns 111-141 favor the Commonwealth (Operation Crusader)
Turns 143-187 favor the Axis (Rommel’s Second Offensive & Gazala)
Turns 189-241 favor the Commonwealth (El Alamein)

This clearly shows that Rommel’s First Offensive is the most favorable time for the Axis and the Commonwealth player will be tested severely to survive this phase. If he does, the Axis player will probably have another (less favorable) chance to win between turns 143 and 187. If this hasn’t been accomplished by turn 189, the jig is probably up for the Axis after that.

The chart also shows that the Axis player probably would be wise to accept the cease-fire after completing Graziani’s Offensive, since the armor situation will go against him quickly after that.

The Commonwealth advantage in O’Connor’s Raid is probably enough to win before Rommel’s First Offensive if only the rules allowed it, but they don’t. And the Commonwealth advantage during Crusader is probably too short to allow game ending victory during that period (and, as we shall see below, other equipment ratios aren’t so favorable during that period). Therefore, the Commonwealth player will usually have to make it to the El Alamein phase before reaching final victory. That will mean he will have to weather two significant phases favorable to the Axis to survive to that point. He will need the full suite of skills to do so. And therein lies the fun of the scenario.

Image
Attachments
ArmorChart.jpg
ArmorChart.jpg (47.87 KiB) Viewed 795 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached is the Infantry difference chart. Y-axis Gridlines are every 1000 squads. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241.

The first thing one notices is that the Axis side starts with about a 2000 squad superiority. Needless to say, the Commonwealth player must carry out O’Connor’s Raid successfully enough to erase that edge. Failure to do so will leave him in a very vulnerable position when Rommel arrives. Fortunately, a number of built-in advantages will make that more than possible. These will be discussed further down.

Assuming the Commonwealth player successfully achieves the above, the infantry situation is similar to the armor chart, with a few exceptions.

Turns 1-15 favors the Axis (Graziani’s Offensive)
Turns 17-47 favors the Commonwealth (O’Connor’s Raid)
Turns 49-81 favors the Axis (Rommel’s First Offensive)
Turns 83-139 favors neither side (Brevity through Crusader)
Turns 141-161 favors the Axis (Rommel’s Second Offensive)
Turns 163-181 favors neither side (Gazala)
Turns 183-241 favors the Commonwealth (El Alamein)

The above periods mirror the ones for armor. But note that, unlike with armor, the Commonwealth gets little advantage in infantry during Crusader. And the Axis infantry advantage in Rommel’s Second Offensive is shorter than with armor.

This again supports the same conclusions as the armor chart did. Axis should probably accept the cease-fire. Best Axis chance for victory is in Rommel’s First Offensive with a lessor chance in his Second Offensive. The Commonwealth probably must wait for the El Alamein phase for a real chance of victory.

Image
Attachments
InfantryChart.jpg
InfantryChart.jpg (39.96 KiB) Viewed 790 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached is the Artillery difference chart. Y-axis Gridlines are every 200 guns. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241.

Similar to the infantry chart, it is obvious that the Axis side starts with about a 360-gun superiority. As with the infantry, the Commonwealth player needs to carry out O’Connor’s Raid successfully enough to erase that edge. The same built-in advantages will help in that. But artillery may prove more difficult in that regard. That’s because artillery, unlike Italian infantry, is motorized and will tend to be deployed in the rear areas. Those facts will somewhat facilitate their escape. This will prove to be a critical factor in the scenario outcome. Let too much Axis artillery escape O’Connor’s Raid and Rommel’s First Offensive will be very hard to stop.

But assuming that the Commonwealth player is successful at the above, we can see that the artillery chart is not so seesaw as armor or even infantry.

Turns 1-19 favor the Axis
Turns 21-49 slightly favor the Commonwealth
Turns 51-81 slightly favor the Axis
Turns 83-165 favor neither side
Turns 167-241 strongly favor the Commonwealth

There is still some slight advantage one way or the other a few times up to about turn 167. But up to that time the differences are not pronounced. After turn 167 things start to favor the Commonwealth strongly.

Image
Attachments
ArtilleryChart.jpg
ArtilleryChart.jpg (38.54 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached is the Airforce difference chart. Y-axis Gridlines are every 200 planes. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241 by two. The blue line is fighters; yellow is bombers; red is the total of those.

This chart is quite different from the previous ones. The Axis start with a superiority of 180 planes and this more or less steadily grows to a max of 605 on turn 129 (note that this is about the time of Crusader). It then steadily shifts back to the Commonwealth until parity is reached on turn 193. It then rapidly grows until reaching maximum superiority of 966 on the final turn.

Clearly, this is a major reason why the Commonwealth will have difficulty knocking the Axis out during Crusader. In fact, the Commonwealth player will have to rely on good strategic deployment of his air units to survive until the El Alamein phase of the game. How to do this will be discussed later. It also shows, as all the other charts did, that the jig is up for the Axis player by about turn 190.

Image
Attachments
AirforceChart.jpg
AirforceChart.jpg (47.01 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Now we move on to the shock spreadsheet. This covers force parameters rather than equipment numbers. It has charts covering shock, air shock, theater recon, and force supply stockpile.

Attached is the shock chart. Y-axis Gridlines are every 10%. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241 by two. The blue line is Axis shock; red is Commonwealth.

During Graziani’s Offensive, Axis shock starts at zero then drops to -8% from turns 3-23. Upon the start of O’Connor’s raid, it drops to –60% on turn 25, rises to –30% on turn 27, and rises back to –8% from turns 29-47. These shock penalties are part of the reasons why O’Connor’s raid can overcome the Axis initial infantry and artillery superiorities.

When Rommel arrives the Axis side gains a +4% shock bonus until Monty arrives on turn 201. Coupled with the Commonwealth –4% penalty over most of this period, it makes this a dangerous time for the Commonwealth.

At the start of this period there are two deeper shocks representing the shock of Rommel’s arrival (-10%) and the shock of the capture of O’Connor (-20%). It’s critical that the Commonwealth forces be well separated from the Africa Corps during these two periods, especially the latter one. Finally, there is a one time respite from the –4% shock on turn 123 (Crusader) which may help facilitate that offensive.

Note: These values are slightly different under version 9. Refer to the scenario documentation.

Image
Attachments
ShockChart.jpg
ShockChart.jpg (38.24 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached is the air shock chart. Y-axis Gridlines are every 20%. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241 by two. The blue line is Axis air shock; red is Commonwealth.

The Axis air shock penalties on turns 3-47 are similar to the Axis shock penalties on those turns. The Commonwealth air shock penalties on Rommel’s arrival and O’Connor’s capture are also similar to the Commonwealth shock penalties on those turns.

The significant difference in this chart is the Axis air shock bonus on turns 177-181. This represents temporary Axis use of air assets that had been earmarked for the invasion of Malta after that invasion was canceled. Rommel wanted them used for his advance on El Alamein. They basically represent the last gasp of the Axis chances. But if the issue is close, this final boost may push the Axis over the top.

Image
Attachments
AirShockChart.jpg
AirShockChart.jpg (33.02 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached is the theater recon chart. Y-axis Gridlines are every 5%. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241 by two. The blue line is Axis theater recon; red is Commonwealth.

Just note that the Axis operates blind during Graziani’s Offensive and O’Connor’s Raid, while the Commonwealth operates blind from Rommel’s First Offensive to the start of the El Alamein phase.

Image
Attachments
TheaterReconChart.jpg
TheaterReconChart.jpg (36.78 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Spreadsheet analysis

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Attached is the force supply level chart. Y-axis Gridlines are every 10%. The x-axis shows turns from start to 241 by two. The blue line is Axis force supply level; red is Commonwealth.

While the Commonwealth level progressively improves, note that the Axis level trends through good and bad periods. Unfortunately for the Commonwealth player, the period of his greatest danger (Rommel’s First Offensive through Crusader) is one of the good periods.

In addition, note that during the period for Graziani’s Offensive and O’Connor’s raid the Axis have a shorter supply radius and no supply units, in addition to the low force supply level shown. This is one more reason why canceling the cease-fire can be a bad idea for the Axis player.

Image
Attachments
ForceSupplyChart.jpg
ForceSupplyChart.jpg (43.19 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

First Test Game - Axis Turn 4

Post by Curtis Lemay »

I now want to illustrate some points from the completed game between Jeremy Macdonald and myself. Jeremy played the Commonwealth and I played the Axis. The game ended after 104 turns with the Commonwealth wiped off the map. In other words, the Commonwealth failed to survive its most dangerous period in the game – Rommel’s First Offensive. Now that will be a very dangerous time for the Commonwealth player no matter what he does. But I want to illustrate how Jeremy’s unfamiliarity with the scenario’s eccentricities helped bring about that result.

First, we need to set up O’Connor’s Raid. This shot is of the end of the Axis turn 4. Note that the microscreen has been added in the upper left corner for orientation purposes. Sidi Barrani has just been captured. The Commonwealth is in no shape to retake it. Since I didn’t select the TO to cancel the cease-fire, it will begin on turn 5. This, then, shows the end of Graziani’s Offensive.

Note that trying to stop the 10th Army from reaching its required objectives may have been a tempting strategy in earlier versions of CFNA. But it isn’t anymore. In Jeremy’s defense, we had started this game just to test that very question. This left him a bit worse off than if he had just retreated, but it was quickly made good via replacements and reconstitution. Plus, to his advantage, my ending position is far more exposed than it would have been if I had not had to fight for Sidi Barrani. Next turn the cease-fire will start and the Axis formations will be in garrison mode, unable to adjust from these ending locations.

Image
Attachments
Axisturn4endm.jpg
Axisturn4endm.jpg (123.49 KiB) Viewed 790 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

First Test Game - Axis Turn 23

Post by Curtis Lemay »

This is a shot of the start of the Axis turn 23, just prior to the start of O’Connor’s Raid (Jeremy opted to use the TO to start one turn early). Note all the formations in Garrison deployment, due to the cease-fire. It shows the task the Commonwealth faces. Reinforcements that have arrived since the start of the cease-fire have been used to defend in depth on the flanks. I’m most concerned about a pincer drive from the south to the seacoast, pocketing the entire force. That’s why Sofafi and Halfaya Pass are well garrisoned.

In the actual event, though, that wasn’t Jeremy’s strategy. He came from a different direction. Not only did the Commonwealth break though above Sidi Barrani and a few other places from the east, the shock penalty left the most valuable formations in reorganization. Little could be salvaged from the forward areas.

Image
Attachments
Axisturn23start.jpg
Axisturn23start.jpg (138.64 KiB) Viewed 789 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: First Test Game - CW Turn 27

Post by Curtis Lemay »

The attached screen shot shows the start of the Commonwealth turn 27, shortly after the start of O’Connor’s Raid. Note the microscreen in the top left corner. This is where Jeremy starts to have problems.

Some of this will be pretty basic to experienced players, but Jeremy seemed to have been less experienced with battalion-scale scenario tactics. In particular he was sometimes using units as if they were undifferentiated by type.

Jeremy has done a good job penetrating the Axis defenses and pocketing much of 10th Army, as any Commonwealth player must by this point. But note the artillery units I’ve circled in red. This is not the proper use of artillery units in this game. They do not belong in the front lines. In fact, Jeremy was including these artillery units in assaults, resulting in artillery losses he should never have incurred, and failing to benefit from their normal supporting effects. Also note the absence of most of the Commonwealth armor from this view. Most of it was out on the southern flank, serving as a shield. As a result, the pockets had to be reduced with infantry, resulting in more infantry losses than should have been incurred.

The absence of armor is particularly troubling because the pockets contain a lot of Italian armor. Commonwealth armor would have been much better at killing the Italian armor. These are 1940-vintage squads and they don’t have AT weapons. Even AT guns are scarce and small-caliber at first. That will improve over the course of the game for the Commonwealth and Germans as empty slots for progressively larger AT guns are filled from the replacement tracks. But for most of the scenario friendly armor is almost essential to kill enemy armor.

Jeremy did eliminate the pockets, but at too high a cost in squads and guns. Not only did this leave him vulnerable upon Rommel’s arrival, but also he was vulnerable to an immediate counterattack, that delayed and weakened him further. As a result, significant 10th Army artillery escaped and the high tide of O’Connor’s Raid never even reached Benghazi. This allowed a more powerful Africa Korps to get started ahead of schedule, with serious consequences.

This illustrates my point that players need the full suite of skills right off the bat. O’Connor’s Raid will probably be the first offensive moves of the Commonwealth player in this scenario. He needs to know all the tactics immediately.

Image
Attachments
CWturn27startm.jpg
CWturn27startm.jpg (140.46 KiB) Viewed 789 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: First Test Game - CW Turn 27

Post by Curtis Lemay »

It is important to understand that in this battalion-scale scenario, units have very different capabilities and need to be used in their proper function. Artillery should be held in the rear for both offensive and defensive bombardment purposes. Considering that your opponent will also be using artillery in this fashion, you will find that armor (including recon) makes the best shock troops, due to its immunity from artillery. Infantry should be preserved for holding ground, if possible. Of course, since armor can be in short supply, infantry will have to be the second choice for shock troops. But effort should be made, if possible, to mitigate their losses by disentrenching any in-range enemy artillery first (that knocks it out of support mode).

Artillery units should almost never be used in the shock troop role or in any frontline defense role. Think of them as gold. Preserve them at all costs. Destroy enemy artillery at any opportunity. Artillery superiority is virtually a prerequisite for offensive action. Always try to have your artillery in good defensive deployment at the end of your turn, with a defensive barrier of combat units between them and the enemy. Allowing the enemy easy combat access to your artillery is bad form.

This can be a complicated problem due to the random risk of early turn ending. It is usually best not to wait till the end of the turn to dig your artillery in. There is a lot of art in that decision since if you dig in too early, the large movement rates may result in the battle advancing beyond the range of the, now dug-in, artillery. But there is nothing worse than the turn ending early and all your artillery is in mobile mode. You will be defenseless in the coming enemy phase. One strategy is to place your artillery in a reserve mode so that they provide half-strength help to all attacks in range. The advantage is that they still can move if the turn continues, yet they can defensively support in that mode if the turn ends early. But if they have MPs left, they can also move right into the arms of the enemy attackers, getting decimated in the process. It’s a tough problem that requires high skill and luck.

Auxiliary unit-types, such as HQs, AAA, AT, and engineers will make poor shock troops because they incur higher hex conversion costs than infantry and armor. This is because of the high movement rates of this scenario. Each hex costs 10% of a unit’s MP to convert, absent recon bonuses. Auxiliary units have been denied recon assets in this scenario to intentionally ensure that they will be poor hex converting units. Frontline units like armor and infantry, however, have been liberally supplied with recon assets, to make them very good at hex conversion. If in good health, they will never pay more than 1 extra MP to convert a hex. This has a very realistic effect on the play of the scenario. Frontline units tend to fill frontline roles and rear area units like auxiliary units and artillery tend to be unable to fill those roles, except defensively, and therefore tend to stay in the rear where they belong. In some TOAW scenarios you will often see auxiliary units like HQs and AAA units spearheading breakthroughs. They won’t be able to do that in this scenario and that is a good thing. Spearheads will be armor, recon, or motorized infantry.

And don’t forget that HQs and engineers have special functions. HQs have support and command squads, the loss of which affects formation supply rates and formation proficiency levels. Engineers may be needed to repair bridges in the Nile delta. Both should be kept out of combat for those reasons.

The air formation base support units are worthless as combat units. They lack any active equipment. As such, they can be easily overrun by any combat unit, or even by other base support units. They should be held in the rear doing functions like converting hexes in bypassed areas (in fact, I’ve specifically left them in the game so they can perform that function). Occasionally they can be sacrificed to help combat units break contact with enemy units. But note that once destroyed they won’t return.

The supply units are equally worthless in any form of combat regardless of the defense numbers on their counters. They must be kept safely in the rear to preserve them for their critical supply extension function. To that end they must be kept more than 25 hexes apart to all remain functional.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

First Test Game - Axis Turn 32

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Here’s a screen shot of the end of my turn 32. Note the microscreen in the lower right corner. This illustrates the counterattack I mentioned at the last shot. Jeremy has almost finished off the pockets, but has yet to shift all those forces to this flank. I’ve exploited that. But note that it has foundered on the Matilda battalion (circled in blue) that Jeremy has broken up into companies. Other tank battalions on this flank have been destroyed, but the Matildas are too well armored.

As the Axis player, you will learn to hate Matildas. Practically nothing you have can kill them directly and the Commonwealth has lots of them. The one possible exception is the Stukas, but they should be used sparingly to save them for the Royal Navy (we’ll get to that later). But what I eventually learned is that if you attack with enough mass against them, you can get them to move backwards. Then it just becomes a matter of cutting off their retreat path. Unfortunately, excessive mass in attack becomes fodder for the enemy artillery. So you have a choice of paying a high price or waiting till the guns have been knocked out of support.

Also, note the way I’ve dug-in my artillery units in the rear (circled in red), as centrally located as possible. This provides both offensive and defensive bombardment support as well as safety for the artillery units. This is the preferred ending condition of your artillery to strive for.

Finally, at about this time, Jeremy was sending his fleet back to Alexandria under the mistaken rational that doing so would speed up supply recovery for it. Actually, tests showed that naval units receive the same supply level regardless of location. The only factor that affects their supply recovery rate is whether they have moved or provided support in the previous turn. So returning them to Alexandria is actually counterproductive for supply recovery, in addition to denying the Commonwealth player the use of the fleet during the trip. The only reason to return to Alexandria is for safety reasons, which we’ll get to later. But they don’t apply during O’Connor’s Raid.

Image
Attachments
Axisturn32endm.jpg
Axisturn32endm.jpg (161.02 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

First Test Game - CW Turn 38

Post by Curtis Lemay »

This screen shot is of the start of the Commonwealth turn 38. Note that the counteroffensive has been balked, and the Axis forces will soon have to run for it, salvaging what they can. (Ominously for the Commonwealth, they salvaged six artillery regiments totaling 216 guns and 12 other combat battalions of various types). Meanwhile, note that Jeremy is now employing his artillery correctly, as shown circled in red, but he lost a total of 167 guns post cease-fire.

Image
Attachments
CWturn38start.jpg
CWturn38start.jpg (134.8 KiB) Viewed 788 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”