Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Anzio 1944 Allied PO

 
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 >> Anzio 1944 Allied PO Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 6/28/2011 11:17:19 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
I have set up a version that can be played as the Germans vs. Elmer controlled US VI Corps.

Anyone interested in playing/testing this? Preferably people who are familiar with the human vs. human version of the scenario though this is not a must.

A bit more information on this is available in this PDF or here: http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/forthcoming-things-anzio-1944-allied-po/

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 6/29/2011 5:53:34 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I have set up a version that can be played as the Germans vs. Elmer controlled US VI Corps.

Anyone interested in playing/testing this? Preferably people who are familiar with the human vs. human version of the scenario though this is not a must.

A bit more information on this is available in this PDF or here: http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/forthcoming-things-anzio-1944-allied-po/


I'm interested. Send it along.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 2
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 6/29/2011 10:29:58 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

I have set up a version that can be played as the Germans vs. Elmer controlled US VI Corps.

Anyone interested in playing/testing this? Preferably people who are familiar with the human vs. human version of the scenario though this is not a must.

A bit more information on this is available in this PDF or here: http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/forthcoming-things-anzio-1944-allied-po/


I'm interested. Send it along.



E-mail sent.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 3
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 6/29/2011 10:30:08 PM   
1_Lzard


Posts: 528
Joined: 8/18/2010
From: McMinnville, OR
Status: offline
I'd like a copy as well, Stefan.....

Might as well keep my volumes up to date, eh?





_____________________________

"I have the brain of a Genius, and the heart of a Little Child. I keep them in a jar under my bed!"

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 4
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 6/29/2011 10:47:35 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

I'd like a copy as well, Stefan.....

Might as well keep my volumes up to date, eh?






It's not so much about keeping things up to date.. rather about adding new things. It's not an update of the latest version. It's a stand-alone version. Based on the latest version, 2.36, certainly.

Anyway, check your mail!

_____________________________


(in reply to 1_Lzard)
Post #: 5
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 6/30/2011 12:25:31 AM   
1_Lzard


Posts: 528
Joined: 8/18/2010
From: McMinnville, OR
Status: offline
done. thanks.....

_____________________________

"I have the brain of a Genius, and the heart of a Little Child. I keep them in a jar under my bed!"

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 6
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/1/2011 6:15:00 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
From the expanded briefing:

"...In the first test runs Elmer always used his
engineers for repairing the damaged bridges in
the beach supply units' hexes first instead of using
them for crossing the Mussolini Canal where the
German player usually would blow all bridges.
Thus these bridges are no more damaged. The
German player however can attempt to destroy
these by air attacks..."


I take it this means that the German may not destroy the bridges over the Mussolini Canal except by air attack.

Is that the case? Can he destroy other bridges? In any event, something so important should be clearly stated.

Other notes (at first glance).

I hate 1 km/hex scenarios. However, that's obviously a matter of choice. I'll skip the objections. Try not to listen to Norwegians named Erik in the future.

Some poor English here and there. Most egregiously, the quote from Churchill is off. 'I had hoped that we are...' has to be wrong. 'Wildcat' was probably also one word.

Presumably you don't want the German to run around digging in everyone he can on turn 1. Perhaps simply have the units appear on turn 2 -- or have them in garrison and add a 'form'n orders' event to have them activated on turn 2?

The house rule about 'five first-line units' needing to guard the southeast map edge could be more clearly stated. Non-subdivided infantry or armor, I take it. How exactly would this edge be defined prior to withdrawing to the road heads? Perhaps specify to the right and below defined rows of hexes?

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/1/2011 6:32:32 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to 1_Lzard)
Post #: 7
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/1/2011 6:20:36 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Here we go. This sounds more like it:

"I had hoped (that) we were hurling a wildcat onto the shore, but all we (had) got was a stranded whale"

'That' and 'had' aren't in all versions, but they sound more Churchillian, and are in the more trustworthy of the hits I scanned.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/1/2011 6:31:56 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 8
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/1/2011 1:27:45 PM   
Cfant

 

Posts: 412
Joined: 12/12/2010
Status: offline
Hi!

I too would like to test your PO (and be tested by Elmer ) So if you still want someone to play it, just send me at c_coriolanathotmaildotcom.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 9
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 12:46:07 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

From the expanded briefing:

"...In the first test runs Elmer always used his
engineers for repairing the damaged bridges in
the beach supply units' hexes first instead of using
them for crossing the Mussolini Canal where the
German player usually would blow all bridges.
Thus these bridges are no more damaged. The
German player however can attempt to destroy
these by air attacks..."


I take it this means that the German may not destroy the bridges over the Mussolini Canal except by air attack.

Is that the case? Can he destroy other bridges? In any event, something so important should be clearly stated.



Uh.. i should have known. Ok, it's misunderstanding. The sentence "Thus these bridges are no more damaged" refers to the previously damaged bridges over which the beach supply units traced supply to the beaches. These bridges at the beaches are no more 'destroyed'. Elmer always tried to repair them instead of using his engineers at the Mussolini Canal. You are allowed to destroy the Mussolini Canal bridges the good old way with demolitions. And you're allowed to destroy the bridges at the beaches by air attacks. I'll have to rephrase this part. Suggestions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Other notes (at first glance).

I hate 1 km/hex scenarios. However, that's obviously a matter of choice. I'll skip the objections. Try not to listen to Norwegians named Erik in the future.


Hey, i didn't force you to play this one. I know about the issues btw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Some poor English here and there. Most egregiously, the quote from Churchill is off. 'I had hoped that we are...' has to be wrong. 'Wildcat' was probably also one word.



Ok, thanks. Feel free to correct all poor english you may encounter. I always asked for someone to correct my english in the scenario documents. If you're interested drop me a mail. Your perfectionistic attitude is welcome here. And needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Presumably you don't want the German to run around digging in everyone he can on turn 1. Perhaps simply have the units appear on turn 2 -- or have them in garrison and add a 'form'n orders' event to have them activated on turn 2?


Given a shortage of event slots and as "fixed" doesn't work anymore turn 2 arrivals would be the choice. Though the effects of digging in on turn 1 should be not too serious with a reduced entrenchment rate of 70 or units digging in at rather remote places.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
The house rule about 'five first-line units' needing to guard the southeast map edge could be more clearly stated. Non-subdivided infantry or armor, I take it. How exactly would this edge be defined prior to withdrawing to the road heads? Perhaps specify to the right and below defined rows of hexes?


The Pontine Marshes.

All hexes east of the north-south arm of the Mussolini Canal and south of a line running from the bridge at 42/37 to 48/37 (Norma), including the hexes on that line.
You could also define the minor river roughly follwing this line in that area as the northern border. Use common sense for defining the northern border, i kept this a bit blurry intentionally.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 10
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 12:47:04 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cfant2

Hi!

I too would like to test your PO (and be tested by Elmer ) So if you still want someone to play it, just send me at c_coriolanathotmaildotcom.


Ihr habt Post.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cfant)
Post #: 11
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 1:17:06 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


You are allowed to destroy the Mussolini Canal bridges the good old way with demolitions. And you're allowed to destroy the bridges at the beaches by air attacks. I'll have to rephrase this part. Suggestions?


Well, what you just said works. How about 'The German player may not destroy the bridges at the beaches except by air attack'? At least, that's what I now understand the situation to be.
quote:


Ok, thanks. Feel free to correct all poor english you may encounter. I always asked for someone to correct my english in the scenario documents. If you're interested drop me a mail. Your perfectionistic attitude is welcome here. And needed.


Good. Sometimes I get the impression that people think I am expecting them to implement everything I suggest. On the contrary -- somewhat unnerving if they do. I'm just throwing it out there. Hopefully, they'll consider what I just said -- but their response is entirely up to them.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 12
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 1:40:46 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


You are allowed to destroy the Mussolini Canal bridges the good old way with demolitions. And you're allowed to destroy the bridges at the beaches by air attacks. I'll have to rephrase this part. Suggestions?


Well, what you just said works. How about 'The German player may not destroy the bridges at the beaches except by air attack'? At least, that's what I now understand the situation to be.


Err. not quite. But yes, you're not allowed to destroy the beach supply bridges with land units. But, if you've pushed that far into the Allied beachhead you might no more be worried about Allied supply anymore.

This whole paragraph is about a change from the human to human version. Not about what the German player is or is not allowed to do. It's about why i didn't implement the trace supply over a superriver/destroyed bridge combination. (see chapter 3.2.3 in the Anzio 1944 v.2.36.pdf)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
Ok, thanks. Feel free to correct all poor english you may encounter. I always asked for someone to correct my english in the scenario documents. If you're interested drop me a mail. Your perfectionistic attitude is welcome here. And needed.


Good. Sometimes I get the impression that people think I am expecting them to implement everything I suggest. On the contrary -- somewhat unnerving if they do. I'm just throwing it out there. Hopefully, they'll consider what I just said -- but their response is entirely up to them.


Is that now a yes i can take a look into this or is this an attempt to slip away from such a lector's/corrector's task..?

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 13
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 6:39:12 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar


You are allowed to destroy the Mussolini Canal bridges the good old way with demolitions. And you're allowed to destroy the bridges at the beaches by air attacks. I'll have to rephrase this part. Suggestions?


Well, what you just said works. How about 'The German player may not destroy the bridges at the beaches except by air attack'? At least, that's what I now understand the situation to be.


Err. not quite. But yes, you're not allowed to destroy the beach supply bridges with land units. But, if you've pushed that far into the Allied beachhead you might no more be worried about Allied supply anymore.


Your 'err not quite' is continuing to confuse me. Are there any bridges other than the beach supply ones that I shouldn't blow up even if it seems like a good idea?


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 14
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 8:52:20 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that there are too many units.  I'd say go with battalion/company rather than company/platoon.

It's a pain to move them all, of course, but that's not what moved me to comment.  What brought it on was that I now have nine units holding 'the factory' -- and there isn't even a density light.  So...AT batteries and such out -- we only take infantry companies in this location.

Equally seriously, what will happen is that I'll be able to execute 'stacking encirclements.'  Jam up the available hexes for retreat with often-subdivided junk -- then smash the stack thus 'cut off.'  Never mind that the nine units 'blocking' its retreat might only total thirty squads, a dozen mortars, and seven trucks -- no room to squeeze in. 

The scenario will be better if some units are combined. 

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/2/2011 9:11:29 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 15
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 9:19:30 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There are definitely too many units.  I'd say go with battalion/company rather than company/platoon.

It's a pain to move them all, of course, but that's not what moved me to comment.  What brought it on was that I now have nine units holding 'the factory' -- and there isn't even a density light.  So...AT batteries and such out -- we only take infantry companies in this location.

Equally seriously, what will happen is that I'll be able to execute 'stacking encirclements.'  Jam up the available hexes for retreat with often-subdivided junk -- then smash the stack thus 'cut off.'  Never mind that the nine units 'blocking' its retreat might only total thirty squads, a dozen mortars, and seven trucks -- no room to squeeze in. 

The scenario will be better if some units are combined.  I promise.



I see. This has not been a problem in human vs human. With battalions i won't go, the map is too big to cover all the ground.

What can be done is to distribute the ATk platoon equipment among the companies of the British battalions. The Br.Brigades' and US regimental supply units could be dissolved. US regimental cannon companies could be merged with Regt HQ. The recon platoons dissolved. But i am hesistant in distributing regimental AT companies' equipment among the infantry companies (1 57mm piece each).

Elmer's artillery could be combined into battalions. At least some of it.

I also observed that Elmer is obsessed with dividing all the commando and airborne units. I will make them section sized with a modded numbers.bmp/.png.

I have set Combat Density Penalty to 200, it seems the engine doesn't reflect that visually with density markers.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 7/2/2011 9:20:55 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 16
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/2/2011 10:54:42 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


Your 'err not quite' is continuing to confuse me. Are there any bridges other than the beach supply ones that I shouldn't blow up even if it seems like a good idea?



You may blow all you can and wish. Except the Beach Supply bridges.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 17
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 5:34:52 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Here are a couple of more comments. These are definitely things I'm throwing out there as opposed to actual recommendations.

The MRPB or whatever it is set to three -- and Allied force proficiency is 80%. This ensures against early turn ending -- and perhaps allows the Allies to stage exactly the kind of swift exploitation they so conspicuously failed to carry out.

There's nothing wrong with early turn ending. It's supposed to happen. Without knowing too much about Anzio, I'd be inclined to set the MRPB to 99 and Allied force proficiency to 40 while leaving German force proficiency high. That should produce Allied attacks that frequently stumble -- and create openings for those sudden, vicious counterattacks the Germans seem to have specialized in.

Road/railroads ala Operation Exporter. This scenario looks like a natural for this. Between the modest rail capacity and the generous supply radius, it's not too important that the only rails be real rails -- and I suspect that while they have trucks in the scenario, all those Fallschirmjager weren't motorized so much as they were able to call up rides when they needed them.

On the other hand, being 'motorized,' they can't operate in the badland hexes. Not many German units can.

To what extent the Allies actually rode while in battle is also something that I'm suspicious about. Therefore, the device of roadrails and a 'rail' capacity could perhaps also be applied to them with profit. That the turn length is only half a day is a further argument, as I doubt if it was usual for units to embuss, move, debuss, and fight, all before lunch. Perhaps Panzergrenadiers, but not, as a rule, ordinary line infantry companies.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/3/2011 6:21:46 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 18
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 7:06:08 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
Gotta admit: the P.O. here is pretty tough. In fact, at the moment it's kicking my butt. I've been playing pretty sloppily, but normally, the P.O. is what's for dinner.

A couple of additional thoughts.

Did the US actually use its flak in an offensive, ground combat role? I noticed some US flak units leading the way in the advance down in the southwest.

On the Mussolini Canal bridges, maybe you could get the Allies to repair them if the relevant units received a new formation track that sent them to those bridges and only those bridges once the Allies had advanced far enough. That'd take some events, but...

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 19
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 9:25:09 PM   
ogar

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 9/6/2009
Status: offline
Colin,

I've only played the earlier versions of Anzio 1KM, but re 'too many units' - I suggest you wait a few turns. By then, paraphrasing Roy Schneider, "you're gonna need a lot more units".

And watch those replacement cycles -- both sides run out of eqp sooner than they would want.

Good to see someone as experienced and detailed as you, digging in on this, and I think your suggestion about motorizing supply ala OPEX is very good. Because supply (in 3.4...) becomes a problem for both sides.

Oh, and if you need any stumbling Allied attacks, let me know -- I have a few hundred failed assaults from earlier games against Telumar available for borrowing.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 20
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 9:49:06 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: ogar

Colin,

I've only played the earlier versions of Anzio 1KM, but re 'too many units' - I suggest you wait a few turns. By then, paraphrasing Roy Schneider, "you're gonna need a lot more units".


Well, as Telumar admits, the Allied commandos do compulsively subdivide into ants. Making those indivisible would help.

Then I'm moving a lot of multiple stacks when one unit would do. Like, with the artillery batteries. No compelling reason those couldn't be single battalions. One almost always combines their fire anyway.

Finally, I have been seeing stacks where the density light isn't even lit and I'm already at nine units. Of course, this keeps the P.O. from forming suicidal densities -- it still tries, but it has a tough time getting past orange.

Anyway, if the unit count does go up, then I persist in thinking that the sort of artificial encirclement I noted will start happening. Then too, another effect is that one starts setting aside smaller supporting units. 'You don't need that silly assault gun battery in on the attack too -- just go with solid masses of infantry.' I saw this in Erik Nygaard's Norway. You do want avoid designing the scenario so that that nine-unit limit starts determining play.

Finally, and as a random note -- I have all these 'alarm companies' and such. Those are fine -- but do they stay in play, and did they in fact remain as distinct units throughout the campaign? One would suspect that the personnel returned to their parent units once the dust settled a bit.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/3/2011 11:08:44 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ogar)
Post #: 21
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 10:35:41 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Here are a couple of more comments. These are definitely things I'm throwing out there as opposed to actual recommendations.

The MRPB or whatever it is set to three -- and Allied force proficiency is 80%. This ensures against early turn ending -- and perhaps allows the Allies to stage exactly the kind of swift exploitation they so conspicuously failed to carry out.

There's nothing wrong with early turn ending. It's supposed to happen. Without knowing too much about Anzio, I'd be inclined to set the MRPB to 99 and Allied force proficiency to 40 while leaving German force proficiency high. That should produce Allied attacks that frequently stumble -- and create openings for those sudden, vicious counterattacks the Germans seem to have specialized in.


Allied force proficiency of 40 would be a bit extreme, don't you think? We could talk about setting it to 70 or 75 maybe.

In earlier incarnations of the scenario i experimented with MRPB and also Attrition Divider. Without going too much into detail, i had reasons to set it up like this. With that Attrition divider setting and quite some pure armour/armoured cars units turn burn occurred too often for my taste. This affected both sides. In my public game against Pionier from the German TOAW forums this was a real issue.

Also, we're not resembling/re-enacting General Lucas here. This would give a poor scenario.

The Allied offensive that produced the Campoleone salient was troublesome for the Germans. They had to commit nearly all their reserves and postponed their own projected counterattack several days. That this counterattack was so effective (was it really? The Brits escaped from the salient decimated, but still as an intact fighting force) laid partially in the poor Allied deployment (the long Salient reaching from the Overpass to Campoleone). Later German counterattacks failed however due to Allied firepower, namely their superior artillery and air force and last but not least ground conditions which prevented them from committing their armour absent the roads. The Rangers failed at Cisterna as they infiltrated right into German assembly areas. Btw, what the Germans really were good at seems to be infiltration tactics, which could be reflected in reducing their ZOC costs. Could. Haven't thought that through yet. ..now i somehow got carried away from the initial topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Road/railroads ala Operation Exporter. This scenario looks like a natural for this. Between the modest rail capacity and the generous supply radius, it's not too important that the only rails be real rails -- and I suspect that while they have trucks in the scenario, all those Fallschirmjager weren't motorized so much as they were able to call up rides when they needed them.


Funny you mention this, i have thought about this after seeing it in action in Exporter. Would definitely add some flavour and help in some issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
On the other hand, being 'motorized,' they can't operate in the badland hexes. Not many German units can.


What turn are you at? Entire 65th and 71st Infanterie can. Later arriving parts of 4.FJ Div can. FJ Lehr Battalion and LW Pionier Bn XXII can. 114.Jäger Division can. 356. Füsilier Bn, 362. Inf Div..




< Message edited by Telumar -- 7/3/2011 11:15:21 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 22
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 10:40:51 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Gotta admit: the P.O. here is pretty tough. In fact, at the moment it's kicking my butt. I've been playing pretty sloppily, but normally, the P.O. is what's for dinner.

A couple of additional thoughts.

Did the US actually use its flak in an offensive, ground combat role? I noticed some US flak units leading the way in the advance down in the southwest.



AFAIK they didn't. But i'm not sure. They used the 90mm AA as artillery, so i can imagine they did all sort of things with the SP AA..

The Allies will receive more AA units, but most of them will be set to garrison around Anzio/Nettuno and near X-Ray Beach.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On the Mussolini Canal bridges, maybe you could get the Allies to repair them if the relevant units received a new formation track that sent them to those bridges and only those bridges once the Allies had advanced far enough. That'd take some events, but...


Maybe a more aggressive setting could do that, too? I will have to experiment to see how it can be done. How did General Elmer do in your game?

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 23
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 11:15:27 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: ogar

Colin,

I've only played the earlier versions of Anzio 1KM, but re 'too many units' - I suggest you wait a few turns. By then, paraphrasing Roy Schneider, "you're gonna need a lot more units".


Well, as Telumar admits, the Allied commandos do compulsively subdivide into ants. Making those indivisible would help.

Then I'm moving a lot of multiple stacks when one unit would do. Like, with the artillery batteries. No compelling reason those couldn't be single battalions. One almost always combines their fire anyway.

Finally, I have been seeing stacks where the density light isn't even lit and I'm already at nine units. Of course, this keeps the P.O. from forming suicidal densities -- it still tries, but it has a tough time getting past orange.

Anyway, if the unit count does go up, then I persist in thinking that the sort of artificial encirclement I noted will start happening. Then too, another effect is that one starts setting aside smaller supporting units. 'You don't need that silly assault gun battery in on the attack too -- just go with solid masses of infantry.' I saw this in Erik Nygaard's Norway. You do want avoid designing the scenario so that that nine-unit limit starts determining play.

Finally, and as a random note -- I have all these 'alarm companies' such. Those are fine -- but do they stay in play, and did they in fact remain as distinct units throughout the campaign? One would suspect that the personnel returned to their parent units once the dust settled a bit.



Stacking has never been a problem in human vs human games. But is here due to two reasons: Elmer. And a certain choke point in the British advance. A lot of formation objective tracks go along the Via Anziate.

And as i wrote earlier, i set combat density penalty to 200 but don't know if the engine reflects this with the density warning dots. Anyone knows more?

You're the first to complain about too many units. Well, it's also a matter of personal taste. But to alleviate the PO's stacking issues there can be done something.

I'm not sure if it would make sense to merge artillery batteries into their Bn. Later in the game you sometimes could use a certain amount of spreaded artillery support. I usually rotated deep red batteries with fresh ones i.e. Some German Artillery battalions also contain long range 10cm batteries which could be usefull in firing at enemy artillery with less range.

The Alarm units. The accounts i've seen list the HG Alarm Bn and the HG Schule (Divisional Combat School) in the OOB and committed as late as February 15th.

KG Schlemmer, the odd agglomeration appearing on the Via Anziate however surely got dissolved rather soon. This has never been an issue in Human vs Human as the formation usually almost completely got annihilated or decimated to such a degree that some (most?) players disbanded these units. At least I did so. This formation doesn't receive replacements btw. But here? I think i'll add in an event that disbands the formation.

LW Pio Bn XXII and FJ Lehr Bn are not alarm units. LW Jäger Bn 7 zbV is a penal battalion.

quote:

'You don't need that silly assault gun battery in on the attack too -- just go with solid masses of infantry.'


You don't see the difference a dozen Semovente or Schwebbach's 8 Tigers can make? Pure infantry attacks in a scenario/battle with this amount of artillery? I don't know. These units are also useful on tactical reserve. Ask Ogar.

However, your approach might not be the worst. Save your armour for the arrival of CCA/1st Arm.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 7/3/2011 11:22:54 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 24
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 11:24:38 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Telumar



Allied force proficiency of 40 would be a bit extreme, do't you think? We could talk about setting it to 70 or 75 maybe.


I don't think so. The number isn't a review of Allied military prowess; it's a factor chosen to produce a desired effect. If you only change that number to 70, there won't be much effect at all.

As far as I know, other than prompting early turn ending, the only effect a radically low force proficiency number is that the proficiency of any reconstitutions will be averaged with this number. So if there are a lot, and you don't want 70% proficiency infantry coming back as 55% proficiency infantry, that's another factor to consider.

Another way to drive up early turn ending is with shock. Like when I'm modeling British forces I often give them generous unit proficiency -- but saddle them with 95% shock. Then they're dogged -- but apt to sit there and look at yawning holes with this blank expression...
quote:



In earlier incarnations of the scenario i experimented with MRPB and also Attrition Divider. Without going too much into detail, i had reasons to set it up like this. With that Attrition divider setting and quite some pure armour/armoured cars units turn burn occurred too often for my taste. This affected both sides. In my public game against Pionier from the German TOAW forums this was a real issue.


You might want to retest under the new system. The old 'indestructible tanks' bugaboo seems to have been scotched. At any rate none of that 'bang bang bang -- turn over' we all shudder to remember.
quote:



Also, we're not resembling/re-enacting General Lucas here. This would give a poor scenario.


That's always a tough call. Lucas was egregious -- but as a rule, wouldn't whoever have led the force ashore been reluctant to stick his neck out? That was the military culture. The idea was to win the war without taking chances. Witness Market Garden and the failure to take full advantage of the German collapse at Normandy. It was a congenital problem for the Allies.
quote:



The Allied offensive that produced the Campoleone salient was troublesome for the Germans. They had to commit nearly all their reserves and postponed their own projected counterattack several days. That this counterattack was so effective (was it really? The Brits escaped from the salient decimated, but still as an intact fighting force) laid partially in the poor Allied deployment (the long Salient reaching from the Overpass to Campoleone). Later German counterattacks failed however due to Allied firepower, namely their superior artillery and air force and last but not least ground conditions which prevented them from committing their armour absent the roads. The Rangers failed at Cisterna as they infiltrated right into German assembly areas. Btw, what the Germans really were good at seems to be infiltration tactics, which could be reflected in reducing their ZOC costs. Could. Haven't thought that through yet. ..now i somehow got carried away from the initial topic.


Here a negative Allied force shock might help. I forget...

Alternatively, just make German infantry and tag the 'recon' box. That'll also make them more effective on the attack, so bear that in mind. I routinely do this with all German armor, but that may or may not be appropriate here.
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Road/railroads ala Operation Exporter. This scenario looks like a natural for this. Between the modest rail capacity and the generous supply radius, it's not too important that the only rails be real rails -- and I suspect that while they have trucks in the scenario, all those Fallschirmjager weren't motorized so much as they were able to call up rides when they needed them.


Funny you mention this, i have thought about this after seeing it in action in Exporter. Would definitely add some flavour and help in some issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
On the other hand, being 'motorized,' they can't operate in the badland hexes. Not many German units can.


What turn are you at? Entire 65th and 71st Infanterie can. Later arriving parts of 4.FJ Div can. FJ Lehr Battalion and LW Pionier Bn XXII can. 114.Jäger Division can. 356. Füsilier Bn, 362. Inf Div..





I'm only on turn six. Can't promise to continue. 112 turns versus the P.O.? Plus, as noted, I don't care for 1 km/hex. That may be my closet, but there it is.

It's certainly one of the better scenarios I've played. No doubt about that. Just not necessarily my cup of tea. It's actually interesting me in designing a 2.5 km/hex Anzio.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/3/2011 11:25:50 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 25
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/3/2011 11:29:35 PM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Telumar
You don't see the difference a dozen Semovente or Schwebbach's 8 Tigers can make? Pure infantry attacks in a scenario/battle with this amount of artillery? I don't know. These units are also useful on tactical reserve. Ask Ogar.

However, your approach might not be the worst. Save your armour for the arrival of CCA/1st Arm.


You misunderstand me.

Inevitably, one has pretty beefy line rifle units and various smaller support forces. Assault Guns, the Memel flamethrower school demonstration platoon, whatever.

That's all fine, and can work well -- unless space in the hex starts to be at a premium. Then one starts doing things like leaving the flamethrower platoon out of that high-density urban assault 'cause there's only room for nine units in the hex. Not very realistic...


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/3/2011 11:36:42 PM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 26
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/4/2011 12:02:01 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar



Allied force proficiency of 40 would be a bit extreme, do't you think? We could talk about setting it to 70 or 75 maybe.


I don't think so. The number isn't a review of Allied military prowess; it's a factor chosen to produce a desired effect. If you only change that number to 70, there won't be much effect at all.

As far as I know, other than prompting early turn ending, the only effect a radically low force proficiency number is that the proficiency of any reconstitutions will be averaged with this number. So if there are a lot, and you don't want 70% proficiency infantry coming back as 55% proficiency infantry, that's another factor to consider.

Another way to drive up early turn ending is with shock. Like when I'm modeling British forces I often give them generous unit proficiency -- but saddle them with 95% shock. Then they're dogged -- but apt to sit there and look at yawning holes with this blank expression...
quote:



In earlier incarnations of the scenario i experimented with MRPB and also Attrition Divider. Without going too much into detail, i had reasons to set it up like this. With that Attrition divider setting and quite some pure armour/armoured cars units turn burn occurred too often for my taste. This affected both sides. In my public game against Pionier from the German TOAW forums this was a real issue.


You might want to retest under the new system. The old 'indestructible tanks' bugaboo seems to have been scotched. At any rate none of that 'bang bang bang -- turn over' we all shudder to remember.
quote:



Also, we're not resembling/re-enacting General Lucas here. This would give a poor scenario.


That's always a tough call. Lucas was egregious -- but as a rule, wouldn't whoever have led the force ashore been reluctant to stick his neck out? That was the military culture. The idea was to win the war without taking chances. Witness Market Garden and the failure to take full advantage of the German collapse at Normandy. It was a congenital problem for the Allies.
quote:



The Allied offensive that produced the Campoleone salient was troublesome for the Germans. They had to commit nearly all their reserves and postponed their own projected counterattack several days. That this counterattack was so effective (was it really? The Brits escaped from the salient decimated, but still as an intact fighting force) laid partially in the poor Allied deployment (the long Salient reaching from the Overpass to Campoleone). Later German counterattacks failed however due to Allied firepower, namely their superior artillery and air force and last but not least ground conditions which prevented them from committing their armour absent the roads. The Rangers failed at Cisterna as they infiltrated right into German assembly areas. Btw, what the Germans really were good at seems to be infiltration tactics, which could be reflected in reducing their ZOC costs. Could. Haven't thought that through yet. ..now i somehow got carried away from the initial topic.


Here a negative Allied force shock might help. I forget...

Alternatively, just make German infantry and tag the 'recon' box. That'll also make them more effective on the attack, so bear that in mind. I routinely do this with all German armor, but that may or may not be appropriate here.
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Road/railroads ala Operation Exporter. This scenario looks like a natural for this. Between the modest rail capacity and the generous supply radius, it's not too important that the only rails be real rails -- and I suspect that while they have trucks in the scenario, all those Fallschirmjager weren't motorized so much as they were able to call up rides when they needed them.


Funny you mention this, i have thought about this after seeing it in action in Exporter. Would definitely add some flavour and help in some issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
On the other hand, being 'motorized,' they can't operate in the badland hexes. Not many German units can.


What turn are you at? Entire 65th and 71st Infanterie can. Later arriving parts of 4.FJ Div can. FJ Lehr Battalion and LW Pionier Bn XXII can. 114.Jäger Division can. 356. Füsilier Bn, 362. Inf Div..





I'm only on turn six. Can't promise to continue. 112 turns versus the P.O.? Plus, as noted, I don't care for 1 km/hex. That may be my closet, but there it is.

It's certainly one of the better scenarios I've played. No doubt about that. Just not necessarily my cup of tea. It's actually interesting me in designing a 2.5 km/hex Anzio.



Qouting party continued..

Interesting approach (or dialectic?) you have on the British Army.

Re The military culture. I see the parallels with Nijmegen, but not with Normandy. Wasn't it overextended lines of communications that finally got the Allies stopped in September? Okay, Antwerp could (should) have been taken and 15th Army cut off, but..

Back to Anzio. Yes it was Clark himself who advised Lucas "don't stick your neck out", but reflecting this in a imho too low force proficiency? Maybe take a look at the briefing for the normal, PBEM/HvH version of Anzio. There the players have the choice wether to use the 504th PRCT or to open historically. This will lead to a series of negative shock events for the Allies which can be removed by TO but can be "reactivated" by TO by the German player. Players are encouraged to discuss the handling of this prior to the start however. The idea was to make the Allied player pay for ahistorical aggression.

quote:

You might want to retest under the new system. The old 'indestructible tanks' bugaboo seems to have been scotched. At any rate none of that 'bang bang bang -- turn over' we all shudder to remember.


IV.3 The number of shots issue. Might be worth a try.

quote:

I'm only on turn six. Can't promise to continue. 112 turns versus the P.O.? Plus, as noted, I don't care for 1 km/hex. That may be my closet, but there it is.

It's certainly one of the better scenarios I've played. No doubt about that. Just not necessarily my cup of tea. It's actually interesting me in designing a 2.5 km/hex Anzio.


It usually doesn't go until the end. Either you erase the abscess, the stranded whale morphs into a wild cat or all gets bogged down in a morass of mud, trenches and artillery shells long before turn 112.

quote:

Just not necessarily my cup of tea. It's actually interesting me in designing a 2.5 km/hex Anzio.


Then maybe Anzio 1944 @2km might be more your cup of tea. Take a look at this one. If you told me earlier we could have exchanged OPEX with A2km.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 27
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/4/2011 12:29:29 AM   
Telumar


Posts: 2210
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
You don't see the difference a dozen Semovente or Schwebbach's 8 Tigers can make? Pure infantry attacks in a scenario/battle with this amount of artillery? I don't know. These units are also useful on tactical reserve. Ask Ogar.

However, your approach might not be the worst. Save your armour for the arrival of CCA/1st Arm.


You misunderstand me.

Inevitably, one has pretty beefy line rifle units and various smaller support forces. Assault Guns, the Memel flamethrower school demonstration platoon, whatever.

That's all fine, and can work well -- unless space in the hex starts to be at a premium. Then one starts doing things like leaving the flamethrower platoon out of that high-density urban assault 'cause there's only room for nine units in the hex. Not very realistic...



Much better.

I see. Partially also an engine issue. Not because of stacking limitations, more due to the static OOB. Otherwise the Memel flame thrower guys could have been subordinated to a rifle company.

It's also not realistic to distribute such support platoons, like say the Br. ATk platoons, equally among the rifle companies. But "one death we have to die" (literal transcription of a German saying). "Stacking encirclements" and "Hex overbooking" seem to be more painful manners of death than equal distribution. I'll look into this, but can't promise anything.

Maybe anyone else wants to give an opinion?

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 28
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/4/2011 12:52:09 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 3900
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: online
Following the thread from the sidelines, but...

I sum it up... the engine is restricted and the scale@1km has it's limitations. It works for quick an nasty battles aka Co. or Btl. size 'small' envounters e.g. Death of Mobile Group 100, various French-Indochine scenarios by that bloke *I forgot his name* and perhaps Vietnam battles a la Ia Drang, Khe Sanh, Hue, etc.
You've done a terrific job *see Nijmwegen*; Anzio@2km shows your skills as well as the engines capabilities to a full extend. Can't wait for Salerno@2km as well as your OPEX PBEM turn. Remember the 100.Geb.Jg.Rgt intervenes options ;)

kLiNk, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 29
RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO - 7/4/2011 3:49:48 AM   
ColinWright

 

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

ORIGINAL: Telumar


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telumar
You don't see the difference a dozen Semovente or Schwebbach's 8 Tigers can make? Pure infantry attacks in a scenario/battle with this amount of artillery? I don't know. These units are also useful on tactical reserve. Ask Ogar.

However, your approach might not be the worst. Save your armour for the arrival of CCA/1st Arm.


You misunderstand me.

Inevitably, one has pretty beefy line rifle units and various smaller support forces. Assault Guns, the Memel flamethrower school demonstration platoon, whatever.

That's all fine, and can work well -- unless space in the hex starts to be at a premium. Then one starts doing things like leaving the flamethrower platoon out of that high-density urban assault 'cause there's only room for nine units in the hex. Not very realistic...



Much better.

I see. Partially also an engine issue. Not because of stacking limitations, more due to the static OOB. Otherwise the Memel flame thrower guys could have been subordinated to a rifle company.

It's also not realistic to distribute such support platoons, like say the Br. ATk platoons, equally among the rifle companies. But "one death we have to die" (literal transcription of a German saying). "Stacking encirclements" and "Hex overbooking" seem to be more painful manners of death than equal distribution. I'll look into this, but can't promise anything.


In my own experience, it's a bit like balancing the budget: one has to make painful cuts.

Seelowe is a similarly 'crowded' scenario to this one (although at a different scale). Inevitably, everyone crowds into southeastern England. What's more, like you, I did enough research to come up with all kinds of units. Necessity is the mother of invention, and in the Summer of 1940, the British invented (my favorite is attached).

But the point is that in such circumstances, one has to choose. Combination, distribution, omission, or death by clutter? There isn't an out: death by clutter is a choice too.

Some units (like the armoured trains in general, although I don't think I included the one pictured) just had to stay as separate units. Others could be combined: units that will function the same as a matter of practice can go together. For example, I frequently merged German assault gun batteries with those self-propelled AA guns the Germans were so fond of. Still others were best distributed among the units they would normally support: MG battalions, for example, which in the case of the British usually were broken up and distributed among their division's brigades.

My perennial favorite for omission is flak. It may have been in the OOB, but in many armies in many eras it was neither prepared for nor did routinely participate in ground combat. Even if it could, it often had another job to do -- one which it can't do in TOAW. Fend off aircraft.

Which brings up a point. How much of the flak you've represented in Anzio actually spent most of its time serving in ground combat? Put the unit in, and it's there full-time -- but is this really accurate for either force? The British and Americans may not have yet gotten around to using their flak this way as a matter of routine, while the Germans may have found it necessary to use the guns to fend off Allied aircraft more often than to use them to support ground units.

Now that's gonna be hard to research -- but I don't think just sticking them in and effectively saying that they were always available for ground combat roles is necessarily the best solution.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/4/2011 4:09:45 AM >


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Telumar)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Anzio 1944 Allied PO Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.172