Thanks Bletch. There were no losses shown for the Axis, which doesn't mean there weren't any, sure. I would have thought it made a difference that mine were required to assault when demoralised, tired and a shambles. BUt I didn't expect that much difference. I wonder if Yakstock posted anything about this battle? (You would know, I don't.) Next time we play I'll ask what his losses were, if any.
You certianly attend more when playing a human (well, I do, at any rate), as it seems to 'mean' more, what happens.
Thanks for the (late) suggestions, Agema. Not sure I agree, but, I am also playing this sceanario against Sharper at the moment (no AAR plans), where I have experimented with keeping holding units in place. No real difference to report, save the expected loss of those units. It would be worth it, I agree, if you could guarantee that it would actually hold him up substantially, or if you had enough reinforcements in the pipeline soon enough to stage a relief (to keep the ground, even if you're not worried about the units). But as Axis you would be mad (surely?) not to flank these outpost units instead of tackling head on? And then, in a 14 day scenario, you really can afford to just let them starve uselessly, then attack when they're really very weak, with very few of your own units. For me, playing Axis, the ground at Baraque and sth of Oster has been very much secondary to Manhay and Grandmenil, and I've always just gone round the outposts there. (I've only ever played Axis against the AI, which is, of course, easier). I certainly don't think that keeping holding units in place (and sacrificing them) is a panacea in this classic situation where you have a force much weaker than the enemy, a lot of ground to cover, rich possibilities for movement, and hence vulnerable supply lines. Not saying I've got it right, any of it, but there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Holding units at Baraque would not have prevented his armour from marching up the east, bothering my supply lines and getting into a nice defensive postion from which my Shermans are finding it hard to oust him - he was already committed to that course (and I could see it clearly happening) and half way up there before my first orders even got through to my units. Remember he has no orders delay at the beginning, whilst I do. In the game I'm playing against Sharper he has been even more aggressive and has cut my main supply route within the first hour and a half. It's at least an hour before my units start acting on my first orders (about 45 mins before they even get them), so with all that space up the east, there's not much I can do to prevent movement up there.
I think if I've made errors it's in being too cautious with putting together units - as Bletch has suggested - that could disrupt his plans, threaten his supply routes etc, at a price to me. But I'm still trying to work out how that could have been done, safely (in terms of not getting overrun - it's possible to lose this battle, I think, as Axis, right at the beginning, within 6 or so days, by letting the Axis get right behind you, so you have no supply - this was, after all, an Axis speciality - so that as the reinforcements come through you can only fight for the ground around your SEPs with everythign else lost, because there is so much space and the Axis has such an advantage at the beginning)
I used a 'delay' retreat, Wodin, a little later, as you may have seen. It worked, but it doesn't always, especially if you really wish to control the speed of withdrawal. Then a Move or Withdraw has in my experience been the fastest to get acted upon.
< Message edited by phoenix -- 3/27/2013 11:56:29 PM >