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

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: 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.

I don't see why that would be more dangerous than their other function of keeping the RM at bay. They have to go to sea one way or the other. And over the campaign, a total of one BB was sunk by U-boat.
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.

TOAW accounts for that. Ranged units bombarding alone are much weaker than ranged units used in support. (This models the spotting function that the supported units would provide.)
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Grognard
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:38 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

RE: CFNA

Post by Grognard »

TOAW accounts for that. Ranged units bombarding alone are much weaker than ranged units used in support.

The RN bombarding alone has redlined my DAK units near Halfaya often (with MASSED fire - the whole frickin' navy targets one hex). And the BB's have reached out as far as Sidi Omar and put significant hurt on units that far inland. Ludicrous... Of course it is Elmer - but a HR is most definitely called for.
Perhaps also movement restrictions that would limit the naval fire range to only one (maybe two) hex(es) inland.....
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 »

Bob, I can only suggest you read some material on the war at sea in the med. Perhaps then you might see my point. But never the less players can easily devise their own HR here.

It's a fab scenario. This RN aspect is my only gripe really.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Grognard
TOAW accounts for that. Ranged units bombarding alone are much weaker than ranged units used in support.

The RN bombarding alone has redlined my DAK units near Halfaya often (with MASSED fire - the whole frickin' navy targets one hex). And the BB's have reached out as far as Sidi Omar and put significant hurt on units that far inland. Ludicrous... Of course it is Elmer - but a HR is most definitely called for.
Perhaps also movement restrictions that would limit the naval fire range to only one (maybe two) hex(es) inland.....

Why is that ludicrous? If the Axis player massed his level bombers on some hex wouldn't it have much the same effect? Would the defenders of Guadalcanal - who suffered similar BB raids - have considered it ludicrous?

Nevertheless, my point was that the effect would have been much worse if the fleet was supporting a ground attack, because of how TOAW handles bombardment vs. supporting fire.
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

Bob, I can only suggest you read some material on the war at sea in the med. Perhaps then you might see my point.

If you have some source that describes what the RN did during an Axis drive on the Pyramids during Rommel's first offensive I would. Otherwise, no.
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 »

Why do you keep on about a drive to the pyramids? In the game the RN can blast whoever they like from about turn 5 from what I can see anywhere from east of Derna. Hardly anywhere near the pyramids. But again, if you read enough about the RN's mission in the Med during 1940/41, their fears, concerns, jealousies, mindset, bitter experiences, vulnerabilities etc etc, you would realise that what you allow just would not have happened. Churchill was an old Navy man and he knew the RN was stretched thin, no way he would have overruled the RN commanders who would never have placed their precious capitol ships in such peril. Have you heard of the 'fleet in being' strategy? This played no small part in RN thinking before the US entered the war. Lossing a bunch of capitol ships on some bombardment mission that would have provided negligible gains just does not wash. The only time they risked capitol losses was when they could get a go at the Italian Fleet. Period.
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

Why do you keep on about a drive to the pyramids?

Because it never happened, yet almost always does in the game, putting the CW player in great peril. We simply do not know what they would have done in that circumstance. I feel certain that they would have used any means available to hold on to Egypt. And the ships were there.
In the game the RN can blast whoever they like from about turn 5 from what I can see anywhere from east of Derna. Hardly anywhere near the pyramids. But again, if you read enough about the RN's mission in the Med during 1940/41, their fears, concerns, jealousies, mindset, bitter experiences, vulnerabilities etc etc, you would realise that what you allow just would not have happened. Churchill was an old Navy man and he knew the RN was stretched thin, no way he would have overruled the RN commanders who would never have placed their precious capitol ships in such peril. Have you heard of the 'fleet in being' strategy? This played no small part in RN thinking before the US entered the war. Lossing a bunch of capitol ships on some bombardment mission that would have provided negligible gains just does not wash. The only time they risked capitol losses was when they could get a go at the Italian Fleet. Period.

Actually, they can't do anything at all beyond turn 5 if the cease fire is optioned. If it isn't, then the CW player will, again, need all the help he can get to save Egypt. Again, since that didn't happen historically, we don't know what they would have done in that circumstance.

After Rommel arrives, the CW player will, indeed, be putting the fleet in danger if he uses it beyond his air cover - as many CW players have learned the hard way. Using it within a safe air enclave, beyond Axis fighter cover, on the other hand, is not that dangerous.

Regardless, this is wargaming. You get to make different decisions than the historical commanders.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Grognard
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:38 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

RE: CFNA

Post by Grognard »

If the Axis player massed his level bombers on some hex wouldn't it have much the same effect?

Apples and oranges, Bob. Tactical air is/was tasked for just that sort of mission. You cannot remotely say the entire RN had the same mission in the Med/Libya/Egypt (see the post above). When all the DD's, CL's, CA's, Monitors, and BB's gang up on one target - history (and SOP) goes out the window. And I personally have never tasked my entire airforce to bombard just one hex. Also, was there ever a naval FO in theater ?

This is easily my favorite TOAW scenario ever - Thank you Bob. The issue is with Elmer - not your design. Elmer brings out the whole fleet and acts silly with it and doesn't care if Mister Junkers 87 has his way with them. A human (PBEM) player (or historical Admiral - Cunningham - wasn't it ?) would certainly cashier Elmer.

I usually get to the pyramids around turn 60. Maybe turn up the hurt in the Qattara a bit.
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 see your point Bob. But what I don't understand is why you think it's ok to skew the game like this. Those RN units were used for convoy escort, fleet in being and or chasing the Italian Fleet.

But in the game the Allied player is going to use those RN units when ever he can to blast Axis ground/air units, no matter the threat to Egypt or not. There is no other purpose for them in the game. Now if their loss also meant an increase in Axis supply and or a loss of their own supply, you might start to reflect what there loss would really mean for the Med balance of sea power.

Put it this way. If those RN units die the Admiralty is faced with either letting the Eastern Med become an Axis Naval go zone, or taking units away from the Western Med or the Atlantic or Home fleet to maintain the status quo in the Eastern Med, but then what happens to the sea area that you take the replacement units away from?

The RN was stretched so thin in 1940/41. I just think you really don't have the appreciation of this fact.

As for play balance. Honestly if you think that allowing the RN to run bombardment missions is necessary for the Allied player to survive then you need to look at the underlying problem here, if it exists. Tweaking supply would be better than total freedom of action with the RN.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: CFNA

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Grognard
If the Axis player massed his level bombers on some hex wouldn't it have much the same effect?

Apples and oranges, Bob. Tactical air is/was tasked for just that sort of mission. You cannot remotely say the entire RN had the same mission in the Med/Libya/Egypt (see the post above). When all the DD's, CL's, CA's, Monitors, and BB's gang up on one target - history (and SOP) goes out the window. And I personally have never tasked my entire airforce to bombard just one hex. Also, was there ever a naval FO in theater ?

I can say that the RN was capable of such a mission. And that's what wargaming is about. Anyone claiming to "know" what the CW would have done under circumstances that never historically happened is just wrong. It's unknowable.
This is easily my favorite TOAW scenario ever - Thank you Bob. The issue is with Elmer - not your design. Elmer brings out the whole fleet and acts silly with it and doesn't care if Mister Junkers 87 has his way with them. A human (PBEM) player (or historical Admiral - Cunningham - wasn't it ?) would certainly cashier Elmer.

I usually get to the pyramids around turn 60. Maybe turn up the hurt in the Qattara a bit.

When I first designed this scenario I made heroic efforts to try and make the PO work. I've long since given up. It's a hopeless task in most designs, but especially in this one, with its hanging flank and need for frequent retreats, etc.
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 see your point Bob. But what I don't understand is why you think it's ok to skew the game like this. Those RN units were used for convoy escort, fleet in being and or chasing the Italian Fleet.

I don't believe it is skewing the game. The ships were there. What they were capable of is what matters.
But in the game the Allied player is going to use those RN units when ever he can to blast Axis ground/air units, no matter the threat to Egypt or not. There is no other purpose for them in the game. Now if their loss also meant an increase in Axis supply and or a loss of their own supply, you might start to reflect what there loss would really mean for the Med balance of sea power.

Due to the way the RM used their escorts upon interception (they sacrificed them to save the convoy) the result of their loss would mean more RM naval units surviving. I don't think there would have been much of a supply effect. Most of the supplies were getting through in the early period. It was air units that actually interdicted supplies. And when, later in the campaign, the supplies were being seriously interdicted, the Capitol ships were long gone. Note that the RM is not represented in the game, so its strengthening would not be seen.
As for play balance. Honestly if you think that allowing the RN to run bombardment missions is necessary for the Allied player to survive then you need to look at the underlying problem here, if it exists. Tweaking supply would be better than total freedom of action with the RN.

The problem is one of 20:20 hindsight. Would you like a HR that prohibits the Axis from canceling the cease fire or taking Tobruk prior to 1942?
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 »

If Tobruk falls too easy, construct an event that toughens the defence of it. But maybe that is not possible.
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

If Tobruk falls too easy, construct an event that toughens the defence of it. But maybe that is not possible.

I have toughened it quite a bit over the years. But it still can be taken by a determined Axis player. It's an attrition thing. Once cut off, the CW player just can't send in enough stuff by sea to replace his losses - especially armor.

And just how tough was it really? Should I make it so tough that no Axis player could ever take it early? I think that's going too far. Again, I think it was primarily a hindsight issue. Rommel didn't know how short his window of opportunity was and therefore dallied. The Axis player knows better.
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 »

What about falling to the Commonwealth....in my current game the Axis is withdrawing prior to the Raid to defend it with most of the Italian Army....

Cheers
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

What about falling to the Commonwealth....in my current game the Axis is withdrawing prior to the Raid to defend it with most of the Italian Army....

?? I'm confused. If the cease fire took place, the Axis should be mostly in Garrison prior to the raid. If it was canceled, then the Axis has an obligation to continue to hold the three locations in Egypt. In neither case can they cut and run prior to the raid.
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 »

Marquo is falling for my Subterfuge [:D]

Rommel did make some serious attempts to take Tobruk against the Australian 9th, but they held him off with serious losses to his armour. They (the Australians) were well supported by British armour and artillery. You might consider raising the proficiency of this Australian Division. They were all volunteers and had excellent morale and training. Rommel commented about their superiority to his own forces.
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: CFNA

Post by mmarquo »

In 5 turns the Italians can back peddle west to place a massive garrison in Tobruck and Derna; 5 moves to take the 3 objectives can be a long time if the axis refuses the trigger until the last moment [:(]
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

In 5 turns the Italians can back peddle west to place a massive garrison in Tobruck and Derna; 5 moves to take the 3 objectives can be a long time if the axis refuses the trigger until the last moment [:(]

Did the Axis player cancel the cease fire or did the cease fire take place?
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

Marquo is falling for my Subterfuge [:D]

Rommel did make some serious attempts to take Tobruk against the Australian 9th, but they held him off with serious losses to his armour. They (the Australians) were well supported by British armour and artillery. You might consider raising the proficiency of this Australian Division. They were all volunteers and had excellent morale and training. Rommel commented about their superiority to his own forces.

It's already pretty high. But infantry can't stop the Axis. The artillery concentration that the Axis can wield will make short work of any infantry. Only armor can stop them, and Tobruk has too small a port capacity to get much armor (with its high lift weight) reinforcements into it.
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 »

MT is doing what any reasonable Italian commander would do: using your rules/triggers to his advantage - delay taking the 3 objectives until the last moment so the Italians can evacuate the maximum possible west into the hills and turn Tobruk and Derna into fortresses. This seems better than watching the Italian army get slaughtered in the open field. The cost of taking these cities will be much greater and if the Italians do persish before Rommel arrives, the cost will be much greater.

Post Reply

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