Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

First Test Game - CW Turn 80

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> First Test Game - CW Turn 80 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
First Test Game - CW Turn 80 - 9/5/2009 10:58:05 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the end of the CW turn 80. This was one of Jeremy’s best turns. He has chosen to launch a surprise counterattack that included bringing his artillery up forward to within bombardment range of my guns. It also included a raid by the fleet, which added greatly to the bombardment strength. As a result, I suffered a permanent loss of 163 pieces of artillery. Up to this point, I had not lost any artillery since the end of O’Connor’s Raid. From that point to this one, Jeremy had been the only one bleeding artillery.

This illustrates the vital importance of being non-passive in the defense. A passive defense may cost the attacker the maximum amount of shock troops, but it will never cost him any artillery. And as his attacks can and will penetrate into the defender’s rear areas, the passive defender will be the only one losing artillery. Due to the penultimate importance of artillery at this scale, this is a trend that will tend to snowball. Artillery support is vital to a defense. Once it becomes in short supply, the attacker not only can expect far less cost in general, but he will no longer need to minimize his exposure of shock troops. He will be able to apply overwhelming force to each attack, giving him much more favorable odds. Few defenses can stand under those circumstances.

The defender is sure to suffer some artillery loss no matter how well structured his defense is. Therefore, he cannot allow the attacker’s artillery to be invulnerable. He must counterattack. An additional benefit of counterattacking is that this increases the chance of evaporating enemy units. Attacking units can often be pulled out of action after excessive losses before evaporating. This allows them to recover replacements and supply/readiness near the front. Evaporated units must be rebuilt and then must traverse the length of the map to get back to the front. This takes an eternity for the Axis foot units, and they arrive supply depleted. This is one of the major strengths of the El Alamein position and it must be exploited.

Note that after sailing in and bombarding, the fleet retreated back to a safe enclave. This is the proper way to safely use the fleet. We’ll cover that in more detail in the naval strategy section.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 31
First Test Game - CW Turn 84 - 9/5/2009 11:00:32 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot is the start of the Commonwealth turn 84. Note the microscreen in the lower right corner. Note that after the inevitable collapse of the Fuka position, Jeremy has fallen back to this defense line, near El Alamein. This line is only 13 hexes long, making it the easiest to defend yet (if only Jeremy had had the forces left to do so). Also note that Jeremy has put most of his armor as well as the strongest infantry units to the south and center. He’s tempting me to direct the main strike at the northern defenses, where the fleet can have the biggest impact on my artillery. A good strategy that I fell for.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 32
First Test Game - Axis Turn 84 - 9/5/2009 11:02:39 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		But first, this shot shows the same turn from the Axis viewpoint. Note the air units circled in red. What happened next was probably as much a surprise to Jeremy as it was to me.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 33
First Test Game - Axis Turn 85 - 9/5/2009 11:04:39 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the start of the Axis turn 85. During his turn 84, Jeremy has sent the fleet on a bombardment sortie against my airfields. Note the absence of air units on four of those fields where there had been twelve squadrons. The fleet has evaporated those squadrons via bombardment. It was so easily done and so much of my airforce was similarly deployed on airfields next to the coast that, had he cared to risk it, he could probably have evaporated my entire airforce. In the actual event, only a total of 32 aircraft were permanently lost. But much more had to cycle through the reconstitution tracks, leaving me dangerously short-handed for a while.

This turn revealed a previously unknown critical problem for the Axis airforce. There are no airfields out of range of the fleet in Egypt, short of Alexandria. This will be covered in detail in the air strategy section, later. Had Jeremy been exploiting it from the start, my task would have been much more difficult. But by the time he had discovered it, I was so close to El Alamein that he had to devote the fleet to my artillery rather than my airforce. He never struck the airforce with the fleet again. He could have, since I tried a strategy of flying my air units into the close airfields, using them in combat, and then flying them back out of ship range again. This didn’t work very well. There was the age old problem of early turn endings, but even worse, combat causes a lot of air unit reorganizations. I don’t know why air units are so more subject to combat reorganizations than ground units, but they are. More often than not, the strategy failed and the air units were still in the exposed airfields after the turn ended.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 34
First Test Game - Axis Turn 85 end - 9/5/2009 11:07:08 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the end of my turn 85. Note that the bulk of my artillery (circled in red) is in the north, within range of the fleet, but I’ve been rewarded with some success there. In Jeremy’s next turn, he hit my artillery hard with the fleet once more. I’ve got to reach El Alamein and get rid of that fleet.

Note that unused, full health units have been advanced into several of the enemy vacated hexes and dug in, in case of enemy counterattacks.

Note the base support unit (circled in blue) on a peak hex. Even with 35% recon, every peak hex helps.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 35
First Test Game - Axis Turn 87 - 9/5/2009 11:09:35 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the end of the Axis turn 87. Jeremy’s position has collapsed and he had no choice but to retreat to the Nile. But I wanted to show the final El Alamein position, marked by the red line, even though Jeremy never got to use it. It is only 12 hexes long, but it puts El Alamein in direct contact with the Axis.

With the fall of El Alamein, Jeremy lost the fleet (in the newest version, the fleet only goes into garrison at that point, not being permanently lost until Alexandria falls). My airforce and artillery situation therefore was saved.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 36
First Test Game - Qattara Depression - 9/5/2009 11:12:05 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		We can’t leave the El Alamein issue without examining the situation south of the Qattara Depression. As shown by the red lines, there are a number of constriction points that make the El Alamein line look positively spacious. But be aware that, while dunes and badlands block motorized movement, they can be traversed by foot units. But they will still block supply communications. That makes the defense a bit more complicated than in the case of the El Alamein one.

Reserves have to be available to block any enemy foot units that dare to cross the dunes etc. Such enemy units will end up out of supply but if not dealt with, could collapse the defense. It is usually best to have your own foot units available for this area, since such units can take a position in the dunes or badlands and motorized enemy units can’t attack them. Supply can be traced into a dune/badland hex, but not through one.

The critical factor is that the Commonwealth player needs to be prepared on this front in case the Axis player makes a major effort here. Reacting after the fact will be too late. The area is too remote. And once the last constriction point is breached there is no other good place to defend short of the Nile.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to the Axis player to go this route. The most obvious advantage is the chance to find the Commonwealth player unprepared here, thereby getting easy open field running. There is no real supply disadvantage, and obviously the fleet will not be a factor. But there is a real danger of finding the Commonwealth player here in force and getting clogged up. Also, there are no airfields at all, so you don’t even have the option to risk your airforce up close. Also, it’s a longer way to Alexandria, and that is the main objective. Finally, there is a risk of a Commonwealth counterattack into the Axis rear from the north that could potentially cutoff any Axis units past the first badland road crossing. That could be disastrous.

I’ve only seen one attempt at a major Axis effort in this area and it got clogged up right at the constriction points shown. In my game with Jeremy, I devoted an Italian infantry division (minus its artillery) to this effort, plus the oasis battalion. I broke into the open and caused Jeremy some trouble. But he eventually devoted some armor to the situation and I found myself in a lot of trouble, being without armor to counter. Had the El Alamein situation not broken, I would have had to try and run for it, and I’m not sure I could have outrun his armor. Ultimately, I have to say that the final verdict on the possibilities of this path has yet to be rendered.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 37
First Test Game - Axis Turn 102 - 9/5/2009 11:16:17 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the start of the Axis turn 102, showing Jeremy’s Nile defense line. Note the microscreen in the lower left corner. Note that I have occupied the Pyramids (peak hexes circled in red), giving me a good look at Jeremy’s deployment. At this point, he’s very short of artillery and there is no place for his airforce to hide. By the end of turn 104, the Commonwealth was wiped off the map.

While Jeremy was not able to recover from the loss of El Alamein at this point in the First Offensive, I do believe that he could have done so had this occurred a bit closer to the Crusader point of the game. The Nile can be a good defensive line. Also, the closer the front gets to the Commonwealth reinforcement hexes, the quicker those reinforcements get to the front, and the longer for Axis forces to get to the front. So it can be a tough problem. Of course the loss of the fleet and the loss of any safe enclave for the airforce can’t be good for the Commonwealth.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 38
First Test Game - Losses Analysis - 9/5/2009 11:18:26 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Now readers should refer to the loss statistics spreadsheet. This shot shows the total losses chart. Y-axis gridlines are every 1000 pieces of equipment. The red line is Commonwealth losses and the blue line is Axis losses. I’ve divided the chart up into nine segments using the red pen.

The first segment is Graziani’s Offensive. The second segment is the cease-fire. The third segment is O’Connor’s Raid. The fourth segment is the Axis approach and investment of Tobruk (it includes the blue circle highlighting the Commonwealth debacle in this period). The fifth segment is the capture of Tobruk. The sixth segment is the Mersa Matruh line. The seventh segment is the Fuka line. The eighth segment is the El Alamein line. Finally, the ninth segment is the Nile.

Two observations are obvious. The big jump in Commonwealth losses relative to the Axis due to the debacle south of Tobruk (circled in blue), and the absence of a high loss ratio favorable to the Commonwealth during O’Connor’s Raid. It should be clear that the three El Alamein defense lines were each broken by attrition.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 39
RE: First Test Game - Losses Analysis - 9/5/2009 11:19:46 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the artillery losses chart. Y-axis gridlines are every 200 guns. The red line is Commonwealth losses and the blue line is Axis losses.

The red circles show the unnecessary artillery losses suffered by the Commonwealth during O’Connor’s Raid and the debacle below Tobruk. The blue circle shows Jeremy’s surprise attack from the Fuka line.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 40
RE: First Test Game - Losses Analysis - 9/5/2009 11:20:47 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the air losses chart. Y-axis gridlines are every 100 planes. The red line is Commonwealth losses and the blue line is Axis losses.

My only comment is that it should be obvious from the air difference chart that the Commonwealth cannot afford to trade plane for plane at this point in the scenario. He has to find a strategy to preserve his airforce. It’s time to consider naval and air strategy.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 41
Naval Strategy - Stukas - 9/5/2009 11:22:30 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Let’s start with naval strategy. The fleet is a powerful source of support, but many players new to the game find their fleet sunk almost as soon as they try to use it. That’s because it is very vulnerable to air attack.

This shot shows the parameters of a Ju-87 (Stuka). It has an anti-shipping capability of 120. No other axis plane has a capability higher than 4, except the SM-79 III at 240, of which only a few are received late in the game. Clearly, your Stukas are your primary weapon against the fleet. Other planes can sink ships, as can artillery, if in large enough quantities. But the Stuka is the main threat.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 42
RE: Naval Strategy - Stukas - 9/5/2009 11:24:28 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows an axis air unit report. Preserve your Stuka resources! Do not use them for air superiority and do not use them for combat support (except against the fleet). In fact, do not use any low altitude bombers for combat support. Note that I have Ba-65s and Ba-88s on air superiority to preserve them. Low altitude bombers on combat support take losses from ground fire. The air war has too small of a margin to allow that. There is one exception, of course, and that is that Stukas can be one of your few methods of killing Matildas. But they should be used sparingly and carefully at that task.

This is also a good place to talk about interdiction. Note that I have placed no air units on interdiction deployment. There are several reasons for this. First, the map is so large relative to the airforce strengths that even if I place the entire airforce on interdiction the rate won’t exceed 1%, unless I control virtually the entire map. But worse, the width of the map exceeds all fighter aircraft ranges. So under normal circumstances level bombers set to interdiction will risk interdicting beyond the range of fighter escort. That tends to be suicidal. Some steps can be taken to mitigate against that by basing the level bomber units far enough in the rear that their range from those bases doesn’t exceed the range of fighter units based nearer the enemy. But doing so reduces their effectiveness in any attacks they participate in. So my choice has always been to forgo interdiction in this scenario. But I do make an effort to convert all the hexes I can, even ones far removed from the action, to reduce the enemy air interdiction number, in case he should try interdiction. Probably by the time of turn 102 I could have switched to interdiction successfully, but by then it didn’t matter much.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 43
Naval Strategy - How disengagement can reveal the RN - 9/5/2009 11:26:26 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This is a shot of the start of the Axis turn 41. At this point, I was attempting to disengage from O’Connor’s Raid and run for it. But I had foot units next to enemy units. Their efforts to disengage were likely to cause a disengagement attack.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 44
RE: Naval Strategy - How disengagement can reveal the RN - 9/5/2009 11:27:47 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		And that’s exactly what happened. Two of the units suffered disengagement attacks and ended up engaged. But, more important, the disengagement attacks revealed the two stacks of ships that were in range (circled in red) because they provided support to the disengagement attacks. This is a very important lesson. At the start, the Axis has 0% recon. Even later, it only rises to 35%. In the first case, the ships are sure to be invisible at the start of the turn and in the second there is a 65% chance that they will be. But the Axis player cannot assume that will be the case at the end of the turn. The ships have “internal support” cooperation, but that still allows them to support formations that have “free support” settings, such as any units assigned to any of the Corps or to the Eighth Army. And, as shown above, they will support all disengagement attacks, regardless of cooperation. This means that if the ships end their turn within range of any hex adjacent to any friendly unit, they are likely to be revealed during the enemy player turn, regardless of theater recon. That’s not good.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 45
RE: Naval Strategy - How disengagement can reveal the RN - 9/5/2009 11:30:17 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shows the start of the Commonwealth turn 55. The group composition display shows that Jeremy has deployed half his fleet in Bardia, stacked with a fortified infantry company. The company provides some protection because there are far more pieces of equipment in the company than ship units. Target selection is random, so odds are reduced that ships will be selected over squads as the target for the Stukas. Jeremy has a similar stack in Tobruk. I don’t want to attack the Tobruk stack just yet because that would trigger the minefield effects (obsoleted in the latest version). My Stukas are in Martuba, 44 hexes away from Bardia. They have a range of 63 hexes. I launch repeated Stuka attacks against the stack, supported by lots of level bombers in the hope they will soak up air defenders and reduce the squads in the company.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 46
RE: First Test Game - CW Turn 73 - 9/5/2009 11:31:33 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay







The screen shot suggests a problem with the scenario -- which may or may not be practical to address.

Did either side ever support forces that large that deep into the desert?


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 9/5/2009 11:32:59 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 47
Naval Strategy - Vulnerability to Stukas - 9/5/2009 11:32:15 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Here is the start of the Commonwealth turn 56. Three destroyers have been sunk and the battleship has been damaged (returned to “on hand”). This shows that if ships are left in range of Stukas, and their hex is observed, they can be sunk even if stacked with a dug in land unit. If stacked at sea with embarked units (as shown in the earlier, turn 41 shot), the only difference will be the destruction of the embarked unit along with the ships. If alone at sea, ships are easy to sink – I won’t even bother with an example.

Conclusion: The only safe places for the fleet to end the turn are either under the umbrella of friendly air superiority or out of the range of the Stukas. That still allows the fleet to be risked in raids, where it sails out of its safe zone, attacks, and then sails back. The risk is that the turn ends before the fleet gets a chance to return. But even to do this it is vital to have a safe rear enclave of your own air superiority. We now need to find an air strategy.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 48
Air Strategy - 9/5/2009 11:34:47 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the start of the Commonwealth turn 26. Note the deployment of the Commonwealth airforce (red circle). It’s about 25 hexes from the front lines and within 50 hexes of the bulk of the Axis fighters. The Axis fighters have typical ranges of 63 hexes. During the previous Axis turn and coming Commonwealth turn they provide support for the Commonwealth attacks and in the following Axis turn they will be bombed by escorted Axis high level bombers. As a result, they are wiped out, except for a few surviving bombers.

Now Jeremy may have felt that this point in O’Connor’s Raid deserved this sort of sacrifice to give it the best chance of success. But he generally followed this pattern to the end of the game. Air units were basically fed into the Axis maw as soon as they arrived. That’s fine for the Axis player, since he has the numbers. But the Commonwealth player faces a significant numerical disparity in planes until late in the game. He needs to be more judicious.

The strategy I recommend is one that avoids Axis fighters. That means Commonwealth fighters should be held out of range of Axis fighters. That prevents them from being bombed by escorted high-level bombers. Furthermore, if Axis fighters are within range of the front, Commonwealth fighters should generally remain out of range of the front, too, to avoid air superiority clashes over the front during Axis combat support. In those cases, Commonwealth bombers should be either kept in rest mode or, if they can be held far enough back to meet the same range standards, held in air superiority mode. Generally, this means Commonwealth fighters should be held in the area of Alexandria and the bombers in the area of Cairo or the off-map areas. As we shall see, unless the Axis tries to use airfields next to the coast, this will provide a safe haven for Commonwealth planes and ships even if the front is at El Alamein. And if the Axis does try to use those airfields, and can’t get back out before the turn ends, we’ve seen what the fleet will do to them.

This strategy will mean the Commonwealth forces will have to go without air cover over much of the map for much of the game. That is the price to be paid in exchange for retaining a viable airforce. But if this policy is followed, the Axis will only be able to engage the Commonwealth airforce with unescorted bombers and will suffer a lopsided loss ratio doing so. And the Commonwealth will be able to retain air superiority over El Alamein, with all that will mean for the security of that vital line, and the freedom to use the fleet in that area.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 49
RE: Air Strategy - 9/5/2009 11:37:31 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the airfields in the El Alamein approaches. Red circles are airfields within range of the fleet. The one yellow circle is an airfield only within range of BBs that are adjacent to the coast. Green circles are airfields safe from the fleet. Blue circles are airfields available to the Commonwealth behind El Alamein. Note that there are other green airfields in Crete, but they are further than the ones shown.

The green airfields are 66, 78, 81, and 85 hexes from El Alamein respectively. Most Axis fighters have ranges of 63 hexes or less. The blue airfields are 8, 11, 14, 15, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 hexes from El Alamein respectively.

So the green airfields are a long way from the El Alamein position, while the blue airfields are very close. And an air unit’s effectiveness is range dependent. The further they are from their target the less effective they are. And, obviously, if the target is beyond their range, they have no effectiveness. Another factor is that those green airfields far inland around Giarabub and Siwa are going to be at a lower supply level than the ones near the coast. Air unit health recovery will suffer as a result.

So if the Commonwealth player has carefully preserved his airforce and fleet in the safe enclave near the blue airfields, when the front reaches the El Alamein area he will enjoy a very favorable air situation.

The Axis player will either have to leave his airforce behind in the green airfields, or risk it in the red airfields. If he risks moving them to the red airfields and the turn ends early or his air units are forced into reorganization by combat (a common result for air units), the fleet can then decimate them on the following Commonwealth player turn. Note that theater recon will not figure into that. Airfield attacks can be planned against an unrevealed hex. If there are no planes in the hex, the attack will not be available in the pop-up. If there are planes in the hex, it will be available. So planes can never hide if they are in range of enemy planes or ships.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 50
Second Test Game - CW Turn 4 start - 9/5/2009 11:40:14 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Now we’ll take a look at the game in progress between Jeremy and me. It will show how we’re applying what we’ve both learned in the first game. Also, Jeremy canceled the cease-fire, so I can illustrate some issues about that. Now I’m the Commonwealth and Jeremy is the Axis. We’ve only played 20 turns so far, so neither has any idea how the game will tumble out.

This is a shot of the start of the Commonwealth turn 4. Note the microscreen in the upper right corner. By canceling the cease-fire, Jeremy has released early my 4th Indian and the 70th Infantry Divisions near Mersa Matruh (circled in red). But also at Mersa Matruh is the 22nd Guards Brigade, and it hasn’t been released. Even the little that is visible of the frontlines should make it obvious that I can’t hang around. I’ve got to run for it. What to do about the 22nd Guards Brigade?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 51
Second Test Game - CW Turn 4 end - 9/5/2009 11:42:56 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Here’s the end of the Commonwealth turn 4. The released divisions have moved east, but where is the 22nd Guards Brigade? Answer: I disbanded it. It will reconstitute and arrive on the eastern map edge. It will still be in reserve (until turn 25). But it will hurt nothing sitting there. This is far better than leaving it to sure destruction in Mersa Matruh.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 52
RE: Second Test Game - CW Strategy - 9/5/2009 11:44:21 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Having extricated the forces at Mersa Matruh, how do you stop the Italian juggernaut? The Italian force consists of what started out as roughly numerical parity in armor, although it’s mostly low quality, but as the armor chart showed, the numbers are shifting to my favor, and I’ll soon have Matildas. It also has a huge numerical superiority in smaller low-quality, foot-bound infantry units, and a dangerous artillery and air force superiority. Their units are denied reconstitution, so if destroyed will not come back. Their logistical situation is horrible. Reinforcements must traverse the length of the map on foot.

The Commonwealth force is small but with powerful, high mobility units, and is supported on the coast by a powerful fleet. I’m falling back on my full-supply net and have two supply units. The rail line gets reinforcements to the front quickly and without expending supply.

The Italians must advance toward the Commonwealth line, paying conversion costs as they do. Although some Italian elements, such as their armor has enough recon to convert hexes cheaply, their most powerful component, their artillery, does not. It will consume most of its turn catching up to the front.

This suggests a possible strategy. If I end my turn just out of the range that the Italians can convert to with artillery support, they will be unable to attack after advancing to that line, or just make minor attacks with perhaps their one last round. I can then launch a sharp, brief series of strikes (including overruns) against the soft Italian units that ended next or near to mine. Then when the turn is about half over, break contact and retreat the same length away from the Italians again. I can repeat this process several times before the El Alamein line is breached.

Critical to this strategy is disengagement. There are four ways to achieve this. The first is to rely on the higher recon, mobility, and strength of the Commonwealth units relative to the slow, weak, and low-recon Italians. But after a bit of combat, with the loss of recon, readiness, and strength, that won’t work anymore. Another technique is to use the HQ disengagement factor. An HQ moving out of an enemy ZOC into a friendly occupied hex gets free disengagement. But in this game, HQs pay full hex conversion costs, unlike units with high recon. Paying these costs to get to each disengagement is just too much for more than a few rare cases. A costly way to disengage is to expend the base support units (best broken down into companies for that purpose). They stay behind to be destroyed while the combat units escape. But I’ve already expended all my base support units in just this fashion. Finally, the best way is through limited attacks. Units assigned to limited attacks will not advance after combat. So if all adjacent defenders are retreated by combat, the attackers have disengagement. Since the Italians are such weaklings, that is a good technique to use against them.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 53
Second Test Game - CW Turn 8 start - 9/5/2009 11:46:47 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the start of the Commonwealth turn 8. Note the microscreen in the upper right corner. In the actual event, Jeremy played into my strategy. He pushed his armor far ahead of the main body a few times and most of it has already been lost by the time of this shot. I’ve already employed the strategy a few times before. The impact of the fleet has been so severe that you can see Jeremy has now started to avoid the area near the coast. In this shot, the units adjacent to mine were only able to launch a couple of rounds of attacks on one Commonwealth infantry battalion before running out of time.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 54
Second Test Game - CW Turn 8 end - 9/5/2009 11:49:34 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		This shot shows the end of the same Commonwealth turn 8. A number of Italian units are missing from the last shot. A few more have been decimated. After about half the turn, I was fully disengaged via limited attacks and I’ve fallen back out of range of the bulk of the Italian threat. Even if they come after me, they will run into a wall of armor. Note that I’ve never made any effort to cover the entire El Alamein front. That’s unnecessary. My plan is to counter-punch, not passively hold ground. And I’m not thinking like prey. I’m thinking like the predator.

At this point Jeremy stopped his offensive and started to retreat.

Could this strategy work against the Afrika Korps? Probably not. The German units are big and strong with lots of recon and mobility. But some form of counter-punching will be necessary. As I’ve shown, a passive defense ensures artillery inferiority.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 55
Second Test Game - CW Air Strategy put in practice - 9/5/2009 11:51:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Just a quick shot to show that I’m following the air strategy suggested above. My air units remain in the blue airfields, out of range of escorted Axis bombers. Also note that all units, including the high altitude bombers are set on air superiority. This maximizes my air superiority strength. Jeremy has left his airforce far away in the green airfields. As a result, I still have an airforce, even at the end of turn 20, and have a good record on air losses. Jeremy has launched several unescorted bomber raids on my airfields at significant cost.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 56
Second Test Game - CW Turn 20 - 9/5/2009 11:54:53 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Finally, this shot shows the situation at the end of the Commonwealth turn 20. Note the microscreen in the upper right corner. This is where the game currently stands. There are still four turns left before O’Connor’s Raid begins and Jeremy’s requirement to hold the three territorial objectives expires. That may be a problem. He has no armor and little infantry left. And he can’t run. I’m only 5 hexes from Sidi Barrani and 13 hexes from Sofafi. If he loses both then the game ends in victory for the Commonwealth. The next four turns may be tough for him.

This shows what a risk canceling the cease-fire can be. The fact is that I added the cease-fire option because of repeated complaints from Italian players that they couldn’t hold the three objectives for 25 turns. The cease-fire provides a safety net. Considering the power of Rommel’s First Offensive, I think it is wiser to take the cease-fire and try to save as much for Rommel as possible. Of course, if the Italians can get to Alexandria during Graziani’s Offensive, the risk will have been worth it. The Commonwealth will lose the fleet and a lot of rail and sea cap. Looking for a game with a high-risk, high-reward decision? Here it is.

Note one other thing, though. As the front has shifted back west, I’m getting closer to the Axis airforce and further from my own. The Axis air situation is therefore getting stronger. And note that he has damaged both of my battleships. I was surprised he could pull this off, since he doesn’t have Stukas yet. I should have run tests rather than just relied on the size of the anti-shipping numbers. Oh well, another lesson learned.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 57
RE: Second Test Game - CW Turn 20 - 9/5/2009 11:56:14 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 7410
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: online 		Note that I'd like this thread to be treated like an Article rather than a discussion. So I'm going to try to get the monitors to lock it. Until then, I'd appreciate that no one post here. If you want to post about the Article, please make a new thread to do so.

Thanks.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 58
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> First Test Game - CW Turn 80 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.102