First Impressions and Observations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Conquest of the Aegean



Message

dinsdale -> First Impressions and Observations (8/8/2006 6:41:25 AM)

First of all: Dave, Golf, and everyone else associated with the game, congratulations and thanks for producing another stunning game. Not only does it build on the excellent HTTR, but the game plays very differently; a completely new feel to the operations.

There are noticeable improvements to the tactical AI, the user interface and a host of little things which make the game a worthy successor to the last one. It's such a joy to spend most game time thinking instead of clicking. These two are a truly unique experience.

I've had the game since release, but only got time to play over the weekend. I thought I'd write up an AAR for another forum to show off the game's features and mechanics, so I jumped into the Malta scenario as Germany on realistic delay and favouring neither side settings. I have a number of observations;

1) Stragglers. In HTTR, stragglers could be mostly ignored as the scenario carried on. However, with supply routes modeled, leaving 2-3 shattered companies alive can play havoc with transport assets. There are a number of issues here: The first is that there are no orders to "destroy" an enemy formation. Launching attack after attack and adjusting it slightly to overlap the latest sighting of retreating forces is a bit clunky. Secondly, it's exceedingly hard to get units to surrender. After a Regimental sized attack on the Safi and Hal Far airfields area (SE Malta) there are still a number of stragglers following 48 hours of fighting. I even brought a couple of independent pioneers to mop up, but they simply pass through an enemy company causing it to rout and run slightly further away. Of course the problem of stray units shouldn't be a simple one to deal with, but rather than a handful, I'm finding the brunt of a destroyed enemy formation remains intact and wanders the battlefield in perpetuity, often hitting convoys or wandering into victory locations.

IMHO, ideally there would be an "evapouration" type mechanism, where stray companies are removed from the board and reappear as replacements at the nearest base sometime later, but under the current game, is it possible to look at the settings for surrender and consider tweaking them?

2) Flak Batteries
I've found these units to be nearly indestructable.Currently, I have two battalions surrounding one and hardly denting it. My troops appear incapable of overwhelming the defenders and instead dig-in and defend around a flak battery for 10's of hours before they are neutralized.

3) Large Scale Maneuvers
I rarely used full regimental-sized movement or assault orders in the previous game, but I found several situations calling for either a 2-battalion or 3 battalion order to be issued to a regimental HQ. I don't know if this is new, or I never noticed it before, but relatively few enemy units can disrupt a large formation for hours at a time. I've had mixed fortunes in maneuver and assault: those without much enemy fire along the march go quickly, but a couple of companies and some artillery can bring about a complete shutdown as the regiment continually reasseses the situation and suffers orders delay upon orders delay (at least that's how it appears.) I've also been able to do the same to the AI; I blocked an augmented Regiment-sized formation preparing a counter attack with a half battalion of glider troops who happened to get in the way at the right time. The AI made adjustments and continued it's movement, but it lost >12 hours in doing so and the opportunity was lost.

Obviously there's a balancing act between allowing such maneuvers free rein, and blocking them for every mortar platoon which manages to land a couple of shells in the right place, and I was wondering if my experience is common place and intentional, or something else is going on.

4) AI passivity
I know I was fighting the British, but they seemed a bit timid and conservative even for them :) The AI appeared more concerned with stacking defensive forces around objectives, than building a larges scale counter-attack and knocking me off balance. In this particular scenario, I overextended myself early and was ripe for an attack in numerous areas, but the AI was content to watch and defend instead of kicking me in the rear end. While defense is important, a situation where the numbers will eventually be overwhelming requires intelligent use of disruptive attacks.

Later, when the AI did counter-attack, it did so on low casualty setting and quickly retreated when not istantly gaining a breach. Again, this added to the timid/passivity factor.

To repeat, the game is superb, and I could drone on about the great points all day, but I thought it worthwhile bringing these things up in hope of getting other opinions and whether I'm alone in seeing some of this behaviour.



JudgeDredd -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/8/2006 10:51:36 AM)

Point 2 I noticed also in my Malta campaign...I was attacking a flak unit with a battalion (3 companies, HQ and AT) and time and again my companies were forced to retreat. I noticed no reduction in flak unit size (iirc). I had also bombarded them AND directed several airstrikes to it!!

This was in the Malta campaign with me as Axis. The flak unit was a fixed unit - but still - the intense pressure it was coming under, it would've disintegrated...surely?



JudgeDredd -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/8/2006 10:58:58 AM)

I tend to agree with the AI passivity as well. I'm on my fourth game and have yet to be beaten (always as Germans with realistic orders delay always). When the AI makes an attack, they do seem to retreat quickly which made me think they were attacking on low aggression or probing...

As far as decision making goes, I think the AI seems very capable (I haven't noticed (yet) what was mentioned above about defending rather than mounting an effective offensive because I haven't been in the situation where the AI had that advantage)...so the AI, for me, seems to make the right calls...however, it does seem to take attacking a "bit" lightly.

Still a challenging game, although I have yet to be beaten.



sapper_astro -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/8/2006 1:13:13 PM)

Im glad that someone has been playing as the axis....all my games have been as the allies, so being at a disadvantage has been staple for me.

I can assure you that every game I have played, the germans have been quite aggressive....though sometimes a little reckless. I will try out the Greek scenario's with the Italian attackers and see how that goes....



mefi -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/8/2006 5:51:51 PM)

Just to say that I've been encountering the same minor glitches as Dinsdale.

1) With the order delay, mopping up stragglers is often an exercise in futility. It becomes very frustrating when they hone in victory locations with the timed point allocation. Not sure what the solution is, but the large infantry formations are especially problematic (ie the artillery units acting as foot) with 200 men holding out for a couple of days against a couple of thousand until eventually they disband or surrender (usually when the 200 has finally been whittled down to a couple of dozen).

2) One such flak battery held out for nearly two days against a full battallion attack by fresh and fully supplied paratroopers. From behind. It seems that their large infantry content and inability to move make for little fortresses.

3) I've noticed this occasionally. It seems to happen when the foremost unit takes a pounding. The AI shuffles unit about ad infinitum until it can get a unit in exactly the right position. This is fine but it is possible to disrupt the AI by just targetting that unit. Order delay mitigates that to an extent but it does mean you can buy lots of time if you can learn to spot that unit when the AI is forming up.

4) Agreed about this. At the very lowest levels, the AI is superb - I'm very impressed by its performance in setting up at up to battallion level. However, its ability to 'read' the wider situation can be a little flawed. It advances well enough against no opposition but put a few units in its way and it will stall before eventually retreating. I'm noticing this especially in the Italy vs Greece scenarios where, playing as the Greeks, the AI just bounces off any delaying force and can easily be channelled into the worst possible advance routes.

I fully appreciate the difficulties in scripting an AI to perform competently but as this game requires online MP (something I do not have the time to do), the AI becomes even more critical in the absence of a human opponent. One other little niggle is that unit histories and commander names often appear in one scenario and not in another. I wish there was a way to batch export such information from one scenario to another or to have it centrally allocated to the unit in etabs but alterable if desired.

Hope this is taken as constructive criticism, as this is a super game and I've had hours of fun already. It's a major achievement to make me set aside every other game to play this one.



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 1:04:31 AM)

Thanks guys for the feedback.

Re Stragglers. Yes this was raised on the war-historical newsgroup as well. As I pointed out there, we could provide a pursue order that continually targeting a specified enemy intel report. This has been on the wish list for a long time. However, this would not be a trivial task. My estimate is a months work to get it behaving realistically in most circumstances. So it's been put on the backburner so far as there have been other more important issues top address.

A couple of points to add here. First, remember that each side has a different perspective on how the battle is progressing and where the enemy is and what strength he is in the various areas of the map. So don't assume that an enemy company operating behind what you assume to be your lines is in fact a straggler. They may in fact be trying to probe or take an objective.

Secondly, the problem posed by these units to supply lines in the release build will have been diminished by the changes/tweaks I have made to the resupply code for the patch. So I would be interested to review your comments after you have the patch.



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 1:07:53 AM)

Re Flak Batteries. Are you referring to Flak in general or specifically to those fortified static flak units in the Malta scenarios. The latter are tough to take out and rightly so. History is replete with examples of units holding out in forts for many days. If you have examples from elsewhere and have a saved game of the situation, then please send it to me and I'll check it out and see if there is anything untoward going on.



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 1:14:50 AM)

Re Large Scale Manouvers. I am not surprised that a Regiment was held up by half a battalion if it were defending good defensive terrain. Again the official histories are litered with examples and cases of Bde/Regts beinmg held up by smaller forces, having to call off attacks, bypass to get a better approach and yes it all takes time.

However, it's often a balancing act between making the force react reasonably, not too early and not too late or not at all. Perhaps we need to tweak things at the reaction and reassessment levels.



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 1:19:26 AM)

Re AI Passivity on the Defensive. Good comments about the need for more counter-attacks to disrupt the attacking enemy. This is easier said than done though, from an AI's perspective. I'll take this one on notice and ponder how best to achieve that. Thanks.



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 1:20:30 AM)

Re Unit Histories - copying to other scenarios. Yes this one is on the list already. It just didn't get up the list in time for COTA.



mefi -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 1:32:09 AM)

Thanks for the replies Arjuna. For me, I've found the static flak batteries in the Malta scenario particularly irksome. I can accept those in solid fortifications being tough to beat but I don't think (although I could be very wrong :) ) that it applies to my favorite candidates for cursing as they are the ones which are out in the 'open'. I have their locations but I guess that would be bad manners to post as it amounts to a spoiler. The common factor is that they are 'static flak'.

I'll certainly run some more games on Malta to get a decent save which replicates the problem with good reliability. Should I wait until after the patch is released to ensure it isn't related to another issue already fixed?

re. Stragglers. The ones I've noticed have been those I repeatedly beat up. They aren't the AI trying to attack but most definitely units who I eventually have to pin down in the corner of the map and beat up until they vanish otherwise they tend to be the ball in a tennis match between the units guarding the victory locations they tend to gravitate towards when out of rout/retreat status. Great news to hear that you are considering implementing a way to reduce the micromanagement although I did wince when I saw how much work it would take to implement and I appreciate that it's quite far down the 'would be nice' list because of that.

re. copying units. [&o]



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 1:45:26 AM)

mefi,

No please send your saved game now re static flak units. Thanks.



Joe 98 -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 2:57:24 AM)

Regarding stragglers. Another solution is that their morale ought to be very low at which time they ought to surrender or else easy to defeat.




dinsdale -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 4:12:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Re Stragglers. Yes this was raised on the war-historical newsgroup as well. As I pointed out there, we could provide a pursue order that continually targeting a specified enemy intel report. This has been on the wish list for a long time. However, this would not be a trivial task. My estimate is a months work to get it behaving realistically in most circumstances. So it's been put on the backburner so far as there have been other more important issues top address.

I understand it's not an easy thing to fix, especially if you consider what pursue really means. Does it mean one unit, all units, how far, how long, etc etc etc.

quote:

A couple of points to add here. First, remember that each side has a different perspective on how the battle is progressing and where the enemy is and what strength he is in the various areas of the map. So don't assume that an enemy company operating behind what you assume to be your lines is in fact a straggler. They may in fact be trying to probe or take an objective.

Generally it's after a major assault where a number of other units in the enemy formation have surrendered or run. I think this is seperate from a detached unit with cohesion, as most of these stragglers rout instantly they are engaged again, then recover as they make it outside the attack area, rinse and repeat.

quote:

e Flak Batteries. Are you referring to Flak in general or specifically to those fortified static flak units in the Malta scenarios. The latter are tough to take out and rightly so. History is replete with examples of units holding out in forts for many days. If you have examples from elsewhere and have a saved game of the situation, then please send it to me and I'll check it out and see if there is anything untoward going on.

They weren't in any structure but they were listed as static and their estab didn't have transport assets. I didn't notice a fortified position, but I will say that they perform about 100 times tougher than British units dug in on village or fort/church terrain.

quote:


Re Large Scale Manouvers. I am not surprised that a Regiment was held up by half a battalion if it were defending good defensive terrain. Again the official histories are litered with examples and cases of Bde/Regts beinmg held up by smaller forces, having to call off attacks, bypass to get a better approach and yes it all takes time.

However, it's often a balancing act between making the force react reasonably, not too early and not too late or not at all. Perhaps we need to tweak things at the reaction and reassessment levels.

Yes, this is something I was curious with, just to know it's a more general thing and not my hideous orders :) The only thing is, the problem can be circumvented somewhat by maneuvering battalions instead of regiments. For example, I seperated a battalion and moved it in the same general direction as a 1 battalion regiment. The former was there about 3x faster.

quote:

Re AI Passivity on the Defensive. Good comments about the need for more counter-attacks to disrupt the attacking enemy. This is easier said than done though, from an AI's perspective. I'll take this one on notice and ponder how best to achieve that. Thanks.

Again I imagine the difficulty in balancing between timid, normal, suicidal. IMHO at the moment the defense is a bit too timid, particularly in a scenario where the opposition starts off weakly. In that particular game the British did prepare and launch well positioned attacks (for instance on the flank of a FUP, on a badly defended area west of Qrendi, and they even got behind an attack) but in all cases broke off when encountering minimal resistance from companies positioned as security for a main attack.

Another difficulty with such a decisions is that if I were playing the opposition, I would have seen more units than were defending, for example a counter attack which only faced an Mg and Pioneer unit would have seen the left flank of a regiment forming up and wouldn't necessarily know that those units were headed off in another direction.

So I can't imagine that being an easy situation to improve :)



mefi -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 8:07:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

mefi,

No please send your saved game now re static flak units. Thanks.


Well, I think I owe you a public apology for this one. I have been unable to replicate the situation consistently outside of the fortified and town area based static flak.

I believe what I was witnessing was a combination of the resupply bug for the supporting artillery (something which I wasn't paying attention to until I discovered the basics ran out in my second game without realising it was also hitting their ammunition supplies as well) and British units disbanding into the static flak providing it with 'reinforcements'. Combined with your fiendishly complex combat engine, that gave me a couple of games where it seemed that the static were super-tough units rather than the odd isolated example of a unit holding out for longer than I would have expected.

Apologies Arjuna. 'Mefi the clueless n00b raises a false alarm' shocker, I'm afraid.



High Krausen -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 9:40:51 PM)

I'm not so sure this is a false alarm...I've seen it too...will try and replicate, and send on to Arjuna

Well Crap, I can't replicate it either...Wolf! Wolf!...Did somebody cry Wolf?



JudgeDredd -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/9/2006 11:15:02 PM)

LMAO.

Strange - because I see the same static unit in the Malta campaign and I attacked it with a regiment and it sat there and time and again my boys retreated...this was with air assault, ground assault and arty...in the end, they did surrender...but all during the attack, I didn't notice ANY movement + or - in their numbers.

So there. Dave - I will have a look (it's at work...OOOPS!!) and I will send it (unless I see a wolf along the wat also!!)



dinsdale -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/10/2006 12:22:43 AM)

It seems to be the British AA more than anything else. Did the opening of the Aussie invasion and the commandos knock out fortified emplacements very quickly.

Will try the other way around again after the patch.



HansBolter -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/10/2006 10:27:21 PM)

I have played Maleme several times now and I can attest that the mobile flak in the airfield area are definitely not evidencing the same characteristics you described here for the staic flak in the Malta scenario. The flak on the airfield at Maleme gets overrun pretty quickly.


Oh, and I definitely concur on the need for a "target enemy force" capability as the "target a map reference" order is not dynamic enough to keep pace with a moving enemy target.



BMD -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/17/2006 2:41:19 AM)

One thing I've found useful is to issue the chasing units defend orders with several waypoints. As long as you don't move the last waypoint, you can adjust the intermediate waypoints to follow the straggler without any orders delay. Takes a bit of micromanaging though.

Is there really noone else who's done this?



JeF -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/17/2006 8:09:44 AM)

I've never tried the "waypoint" technique you described. Sounds interresting.
For unit chasing, I usually use a move order with a vee formation and high aggro : that way the forces keep their formation between waypoints. Otherwise, they move in columns to the defend point, with an avoidance path by default IIRC, where they finally deploy.

JeF.



dinsdale -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/30/2006 10:12:33 PM)

I know it's a little late, with the patch imminent, but I wanted to illustrate a couple of the issues, particularly the AA problem.

Started Malta again, but modified the scenario to make German supply sources road ones, so Basics will arrive. Early on day 3, and the pattern has been that Allied units are driven back, with the exception of AA units.

Some have surrendered, taking entire battalions >24 hours to remove them.

A couple of examples:

[image]http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2286/ex11br1.jpg[/image]

Above is the current result of two seperate attacks. The first is a battalion attack which has scattered the British units, except for the AA battery. The second is a battalion under Regimental command with additional units which has now stopped to engage the AA, instead of continuing north. The red arrow is the path of retreat for other British units.

That would be fine, a unit slowing down the attack while others retreat, but here's the continuing result of an attack started 48 hours ago with a battalion and some independent units added to try and finish it off

[image]http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3148/ex12lf7.jpg[/image]

As you can see, despite two days under fire and surrounded, the British unit doesn't appear to be even dented. Somehow, it's prescence appears to be disrupting supply; these are three messages relating to the units in the area, and a road to the base.

[image]http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/5111/ex13gc5.jpg[/image]

It's also the only allied unit I suspect which is directing artillery on a bunch of units resting just east of Luqa airfield. They don't appear to be in LOS of any other allied units.

Elsewhere, it's pretty much the same story. Some have surrendered, others have been fighting for days:

[image]http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/8271/ex14gl8.jpg[/image]

Above, the fortified version in the SE of the screen surrendered quickly, the other one has been holding out for >36 hours of this battalion's attention.

[image]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/6702/ex15ts3.jpg[/image]

Above, this area contained about 20 allied units. They've all run, but the AA has been fighting for >12 hours, it has been flanking my attacks to the north and I presume if I advance on Valetta to the west it will do the same, and so ties up two battlalions which don't appear to be denting it.

The difference between AA and the rest of the allied units is stark. The others retreat, or take losses and surrender when overwhelmed by multiple battalions overruning them, the AA units simply bed down and become mini-forts wherever they remain after an assault.

Is there something I'm doing wrong, are there other techniques for dealing with these units?



Jakerson -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/30/2006 11:58:25 PM)

I used Finnish encirclement and infiltration assault tactics. I approached those AA units at night deploying all around the enemy and then committed assaulted at first light of morning from all direction at same time. These way AA guns can't take advantage of its guns long range firepower while you approach it and cause huge losses to assaulter. You have to be innovative when fighting with smaller firepower and you don’t have everything tanks, planes, guns and ammo just like Finns had to when they met whole firepower of Soviet Union alone during winter war.

I think you have wasted your men and loosed ability to take those AA out in this game. Frontal assault is not good tactic when you don’t have lots of firepower like heavy artillery and tanks. Paratroopers are way too weakly armed for frontal assault.

I also softened AA at day by using air strikes, mortars and my weak artillery but I think you can take them out even without softening up.

At Raate Road battle Finns destroyed totally two Russian divisions total strenght of 25 000 men by using about 4-5 timer smaller and a lot weaker armed force than what Soviet had. Finns had about 6000 men and suffered 100 casulties while Russians suffered 17 500 casulties at Raate Road. This is something that no other army in the world has never done in modern warfare.

Generally if you find yourself locked in to fair fight you haven’t planned it right. When using superior tactics and strategy you are never locked in the fair fight you mostly locked most unfair fight witch could be called massacre. :D



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/31/2006 1:15:40 AM)

dinsdale,

If you open up the scenario in the ScenMaker and double-click on the AA units, you will see that the scenario designer, Ray Wolfe, has set their stubbornness very high. That accounts for their reluctance to retreat. As to killing them off, well they do have 84 APerFP each and most German Geb and Fj battalions are unlikely to have 84 points amongst all their units. So if you work on the usual 3:1 rule, then you really need more to attack them than just one of these light inf type battalions. But as Jackerson says you need to maximise your chances by advancing under cover of darkness and softening them up.

I will ask Ray to review the stubbornness levels. But you have to understand he's an ex gunner and so he's a tad biased towards any gun unit. [;)]

TT3072 - Scenarios - Battle of the Maltese Cross - Ask Ray to review values for AA units



dinsdale -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/31/2006 6:40:14 AM)

Cheers for the replies guys.

Jakerson

I'm not really taking high casualties from these encounters, so it's not so much damage being done as it is being soaked up. The second screenshot shows Zebbuj and an almost intact AA long after the main assault has moved off. The units attacking converged from 3 directions and have hardly been scratched, but somehow there are about 1000 men re-enacting the Stalingrad tractor factory in a tiny area of the village :)

Elsewhere, there are positions which can only be attacked from one direction. Again, it's not a question of taking casualties, it's that battalions blaze away at the defenders without anything at all happening.

While the Winter War is interesting, I'm not sure it's that relevant to the situation in this scenario. Cutting off Valetta on day 2, then mopping up sections of the island in detail, with vastly superior numbers is hardly a fair fight, but there are situations where one must assault regardless of casualties in order to seize areas at opportune times.

The rest of the allied army is gone, but there are several enclaves of solely AA units holding up the proceedings.

Arjuna
quote:

That accounts for their reluctance to retreat. As to killing them off, well they do have 84 APerFP each and most German Geb and Fj battalions are unlikely to have 84 points amongst all their units.


That has me puzzled, the AA units seem to be 4 guns, some MGs and 200 rifles. Is that really a force strong enough to be almost untouchable by a battalion? Not to mention air strikes and supporting artillery? What you're suggesting is a regimental sized assault each time one of these units survives an attack which has scattered regiments and moved on.

What's weird is that some of them have fallen exceedingly quickly. I'll have to look at the scenario file to see if there's a difference between units, because the way things seem to work, either they fall within an hour or two, or they last in perpetuity.

The stubborness, IMHO, works well. For the cost of one unit (in the first screenshot) the allies have successfully extracated ~8 units (according to intelligence reports) and slowed down an undersized regiment from completing their task. But my units may be stuck there for 2 days finishing it off. Now I know there are isolated examples of such occurrences, and I'm reminded of Panzer Battles where Von Mellinthin recounts what they thought was a regiment and turned out to be 200 Russians in a trench holding up an advance for almost a week, but such stories appear to be rare and striking. The way the scenario is set up, the Allies need no more than the AA units on the map, because everything else is possible to be swept aside, but these units just don't appear to want to die.

The unit in Zebbuj is almost intact, though appears not to have been supplied for a couple of days as it's down to 50 Anti Personnel and 0 AArmour (according to intelligence.) The combined weight of my units is 244/84, but neither side has done anything, except disrupt supply to each other for about a day.

I continued playing this current game, and isolated and trapped in the Calcara area (extreme NE) about 20 Allied units were either destroyed or surrendered, but one AA continues to fight on. It just seems so bizarre that I've been able to have a good deal of success against all but one type of unit.

I appreciate you taking a look at this.



Arjuna -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/31/2006 7:07:03 AM)

Send me a saved game where you have an AA that can't be shifted and I'll step through and see if I can discern what it is.



RayWolfe -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/31/2006 11:50:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I will ask Ray to review the stubbornness levels. But you have to understand he's an ex gunner and so he's a tad biased towards any gun unit. [;)]

TT3072 - Scenarios - Battle of the Maltese Cross - Ask Ray to review values for AA units


As there may be a problem with these units, I must declare that I didn't design it, only modified the objective points after Dave corrupted the original. Had everything been fine with the scenario I would have been pleased to take the credit! [;)]
I will look at these units but I think Steve "Golf 33" Long" the real designer's OOBs/TO&Es are without parallel so I'm a bit reluctant to alter his work. Are others finding these units an ahistorical problem (as opposed to something stopping your total victory [:'(] )
Steve, any thoughts?
Ray



Jakerson -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/31/2006 1:31:53 PM)

I scored a marginal victory in this scenario and very near decisive victory I don’t hassle. Only thing that eluded decisive victory was that I made some mistakes at first two days by frontal assaulting couple objectives when I could have spend some time to outflank during night and take them with more finer manoeuvre.

Nobody cannot say what is historical in Maltese battle as it is never happened historically. I think that conquering malta would have been too hard historically becouse of strong fortications and small space and thats why paratrooper assault never happened. Defenders could have been bombard supply planes with coastal guns and artillery relative easily cut off paratroopers from reinforcement and supplies.

I love this scenario because it is one of only ones where mindless all out berserk’s assault approach won’t work and there is time frame for finer manoeuvres. Another thing is that these lightly armed paratroopers are like Finnish troops from winter war that’s thing why I like playing them and I’m a Finn myself. Finns had no tanks or artillery just like these paratroopers don’t have tanks or artillery.



HansBolter -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/31/2006 2:52:38 PM)

I'm curious which objectives you may have frontally assaulted. I had similar results the first time I played this scenario. I tried rushing Luqa Airfield as it is a second day objective and was resoundingly repulsed.

I am in the middle of my second go at this scenario now. I waited until the third day to assault Luqa after outflanking it on both east and west sides. I tool Takali on day two and expanded east to get Safi and Halfar all on the second day and then finally assaulted Luqa with the better part of three regiments from three sides. The allies had abandoned most of their western defense and stationed almost half their entire defense force at Luqa. I trapped them in a cauldron and destroyed almost all of them. The rest of the push into Valetta appears as though it will be a bit anticlimactic now.

I wonder though if I will be penalized victory poit wise by waiting until day three to secure the day two objective.



sterckxe -> RE: First Impressions and Observations (8/31/2006 4:11:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
The allies had abandoned most of their western defense and stationed almost half their entire defense force at Luqa. I trapped them in a cauldron and destroyed almost all of them.


That's mighty fine maneuver warfare on your part. I've tried this a couple of times in the past and the result I get is that the Allied AI pulls these forces back before I can close the lid on that cauldron [:D]

hm, maybe some carefully timed nightime marches could be the key ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.25