CFNA

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III is the next game in the award-winning Operational Art of War game series. TOAW3 is updated and enhanced version of the TOAW: Century of Warfare game series. TOAW3 is a turn based game covering operational warfare from 1850-2015. Game scale is from 2.5km to 50km and half day to full week turns. TOAW3 scenarios have been designed by over 70 designers and included over 130 scenarios. TOAW3 comes complete with a full game editor.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

CFNA

Post by Michael T »

I am about to start a game of CFNA with Marquo (Sep 1940 Start). This scenario looks superb.

However is there anything about this scenario either the Axis or Allied player should be extra wary of?

We are aware of the early game end rules, ceasefires etc.

I read some posts about RN lethality. Has this been addressed?

Bob, this is the best looking NA game I have ever seen [:)]
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Be sure and check out my analysis article:

tm.asp?m=2231162
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Sensei.Tokugawa
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Wieluñ, Poland

RE: CFNA

Post by Sensei.Tokugawa »

Do not deploy your motorized battalions with their backs against the dunes and don't retreat towards Alexandria as CW to defend on the river Nile - it won't work. Do not put your hopes in the LRDG stay behind tactics to disrupt the Axis supply lines - it's a myth they don't get enough supplies to cross the Nile in force.
"-What if one doesn't make it?
-Then we know he was no good for SpetsNaz. ..."
V. Suvorov, "Spetsnaz;the Story behind the Soviet SAS"

...No escape from Passchendaele .../ God Dethroned, "Passiondale"

User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: CFNA

Post by mmarquo »

Curtis -the article and analysis is great, thanks. Is there a list of which CW units return after being withdrawn?

Burroughs - what is LRDG?


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

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Curtis -the article and analysis is great, thanks. Is there a list of which CW units return after being withdrawn?

Burroughs - what is LRDG?


Thanks

LRDG = Long Range Desert Group. Small commando units that can snipe on Axis rear areas.

I did make a list of reinforcement types in the scenario's associated document. Of course, the withdrawals and arrivals are listed in the Expected Reinforcement dialog.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: CFNA

Post by mmarquo »

The issue is that many withdrawing units do not return so disbanding doomed units to spawn as you suggest needs more Intel. Is there away to check this out in the editor or otherwise? Scrolling the list is a chore[:)]
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The issue is that many withdrawing units do not return so disbanding doomed units to spawn as you suggest needs more Intel. Is there away to check this out in the editor or otherwise? Scrolling the list is a chore[:)]

No withdrawn units return - TOAW doesn't have that capability. What appear to "return" in some cases are duplicate units.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: CFNA

Post by Michael T »

Bob, AFAIK the RN had no where near the influence on ground operations as it does in CFNA. I am curious why you have it in the scenario without some serious HR restrictions. It seems to be a rather large factor both players must take in to account. Yet historically the RN had very little co-operation with the ground forces in NA. I have read many books on naval warfare in the Med, and it would appear that the RN jealously guarded their independent command and there is just no way the RN commanders would have risked the loss of capital ships running bombardment missions up and down the coast on a regular basis.

They were terrified of possible U-Boat Attack and Air Attack anywhere near the coast where Axis observers (land, sea and air) may have detected them. The use of the RN in this scenario seems completely a-historical.

And if it turns out that the use of the RN in such a manner is deemed necessary for play balance I would argue would not it be better to find some other solution?
User avatar
Grognard
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:38 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

RE: CFNA

Post by Grognard »

They were terrified of possible U-Boat Attack and Air Attack anywhere near the coast

Justify that terror and base Luftwaffe AS as forward as reasonable so the Stukas don't get bounced as they make short work of the RN. RN units will reconstitute and tediously reappear to be sunk again.... It is very ahistorical but if you're Axis vs Commonwealth PO - Elmer could use the handicap. Cairo by turn 70 (2nd Scenario beginning with Rommel's arrival) is very doable.
Find 'em, Fix 'em, & Kill 'em
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: CFNA

Post by Michael T »

I would think, if the RN made a habit of running up and down the North African coast bombarding pretty soon the area would have a few U-Boats loitering...
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: CFNA

Post by mmarquo »

Curtis,

I scrolled the entire list of reinforcements and withdrawals; there are many units marked as "+" for which there is no apparent unit withdrawn. In your AAR analysis you suggest disbanding the 22 gds because it will only get annihilated; but is scheduled to return with "+" and it does. But what happens if it does get destroyed? Will the "+" clone return no matter if it is disbanded or vaporized? I mean a scheduled reinforcement cannot blocked can it; unless withdrawal is needed to trigger the return? Please explain because I cannot seem to grasp this,

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

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Bob, AFAIK the RN had no where near the influence on ground operations as it does in CFNA. I am curious why you have it in the scenario without some serious HR restrictions. It seems to be a rather large factor both players must take in to account. Yet historically the RN had very little co-operation with the ground forces in NA. I have read many books on naval warfare in the Med, and it would appear that the RN jealously guarded their independent command and there is just no way the RN commanders would have risked the loss of capital ships running bombardment missions up and down the coast on a regular basis.

They were terrified of possible U-Boat Attack and Air Attack anywhere near the coast where Axis observers (land, sea and air) may have detected them. The use of the RN in this scenario seems completely a-historical.

And if it turns out that the use of the RN in such a manner is deemed necessary for play balance I would argue would not it be better to find some other solution?

Remember that there was no Axis attempt at the pyramids until after Gazala. By then, all the Capitol ships had been knocked out of action (and will have been withdrawn in the game). So, we don't really know what would have happened if such attempts had been made prior to that. Graziani stopped at Sidi Barrani. Rommel was stuck at Tobruk. But had they really made the attempt at those points it would have put Egypt in serious danger. The CW would have had to use all available means to stop it - including the RN.

Now, I would recommend that the CW player be judicious in his use of the RN and save it for just such an emergency. But, of course, some CW players use it more - IMO - recklessly. They tend to soon find it at the bottom of the Med. But, that's wargaming. The ships were there. The CW player is the supreme commander in the Med. He can do as he wishes.
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: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Curtis,

I scrolled the entire list of reinforcements and withdrawals; there are many units marked as "+" for which there is no apparent unit withdrawn. In your AAR analysis you suggest disbanding the 22 gds because it will only get annihilated; but is scheduled to return with "+" and it does. But what happens if it does get destroyed? Will the "+" clone return no matter if it is disbanded or vaporized? I mean a scheduled reinforcement cannot blocked can it; unless withdrawal is needed to trigger the return? Please explain because I cannot seem to grasp this,

Thanks

The 22 Gds that begins on the map will rebuild if it is disbanded. Later, it will be withdrawn (I forget just when). The second 22 Gds that arrives is a completely different unit and will arrive regardless of what was done with the first incarnation. Historically, it was the same unit returning. But, again, TOAW does not have a "Return Unit" event (I wish it did, but it doesn't). So, to try to account for the unit's historical return, I have a duplicate unit arriving as a new reinforcement.
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: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I would think, if the RN made a habit of running up and down the North African coast bombarding pretty soon the area would have a few U-Boats loitering...

The HMS Barham was indeed sunk by a U-boat. (And that's included in the game).
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: CFNA

Post by Michael T »

Thanks for your take on it Bob, however I do disagree. I think a HR is in order. But my first few games of this scenario will be without such a HR to examine the effects.

FWIW I doubt very much that the even the C in C Med could send what would amount to suicide missions by RN capitol ships. The Admiralty simply would not allow it. The RN was not under Army command.

Even during the defence of Tobruk (supply, support, reinforcement, evacuation) nothing larger than a destroyer ever escorted the troops and there was not a single IIRC ever a bombardment mission of serious size carried out by the RN in North Africa.

The ships in the Med were there to counter the Italian Fleet. I would suggest to have the RN used in such a manner is just as improbable as having the Italian Fleet arrive to bombard Tobruk in 1941.

You could use the same argument. As Axis supreme commnader I want my Italian Navy units, but where are they?
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: CFNA

Post by mmarquo »

MT,

As Grognard and Curtis suggest: countermeasures are effective and in order. Use your Luftwaffe to keep my admiralty sheepish...otherwise I will use it to proper effect [:)]


Cheers,

Marquo
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: CFNA

Post by Michael T »

There is nothing in the game that represents the threat of U-Boats and/or mines.

Just throwing some ideas around but perhaps some events that have a random chance of a ship being sunk by U-Boat or mine everytime they sail. Say 5% or something.

But my preference would be simply to remove them (the RN) from the game. As is you have naval power for one side and not the other.

Anyway I have made my point. I will leave it at that.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Thanks for your take on it Bob, however I do disagree. I think a HR is in order. But my first few games of this scenario will be without such a HR to examine the effects.

FWIW I doubt very much that the even the C in C Med could send what would amount to suicide missions by RN capitol ships. The Admiralty simply would not allow it. The RN was not under Army command.

Again, since the Axis never attempted a drive on the Pyramids before the Capitol ships were all out of action, you don't have any basis for that belief. We just don't know. If Tobruk falls in Rommel's first offensive (and it usually does) the CW will face a much more serious threat to its control of Egypt than it did after Gazala. Regardless of the chain-of-command for the RN, they have to answer to Churchill. Even if the RN objected, I think he would overrule them in that circumstance. And bombardment missions conducted at night and not too far from Alexandria would not be suicidal.
Even during the defence of Tobruk (supply, support, reinforcement, evacuation) nothing larger than a destroyer ever escorted the troops and there was not a single IIRC ever a bombardment mission of serious size carried out by the RN in North Africa.

I consider Tobruk to be too far from Alexandria for safe use of the RN, and I think the game will usually confirm that.
The ships in the Med were there to counter the Italian Fleet. I would suggest to have the RN used in such a manner is just as improbable as having the Italian Fleet arrive to bombard Tobruk in 1941.

You could use the same argument. As Axis supreme commnader I want my Italian Navy units, but where are they

The RM is too far away. If the map went all the way to Tripoli I might have included them (with another barrier, like the one that starts at Derna).

Note that the SPI game the scenario is based upon included the RN but not the RM.
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: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is nothing in the game that represents the threat of U-Boats and/or mines.

Just throwing some ideas around but perhaps some events that have a random chance of a ship being sunk by U-Boat or mine everytime they sail. Say 5% or something.

But my preference would be simply to remove them (the RN) from the game. As is you have naval power for one side and not the other.

Anyway I have made my point. I will leave it at that.

Actually, one BB (the HMS Barham) is automatically lost to U-Boat at some point.

Note that TOAW doesn't have submarines modeled in it, so there's really no way to do what you suggest. But, note that the supply model allows the Axis to attempt a drive south of the Qattara Depression - probably not that realistic (but we're working on it for the next version). Perhaps that's some compensation.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: CFNA

Post by Michael T »

And bombardment missions conducted at night and not too far from Alexandria would not be suicidal.


One raid every blue moon sure. But start making a habit of it and pretty soon those waters would have U-Boast lurking.

Another thing, which is beyond the control of the scenario designer (only a HR could sovle this problem) is that in 1940/41 shore bombardment was very much limited (if it were to have any accuracy at all) to firing at targets with a spotter (read along the coast). To suggest a Naval unit could hit a target 30km away at night without a spotter or rader is well, ludicrous.
Post Reply

Return to “Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III”