Maneuver, stalemate, fuel and bridges

[Adam Parker]

Well done Panther on getting this game closer to release. Funnily I really wanted this game before COTA and believed that COTA was to be a "nice to have" sideshow to the real release called "Bulge"all those years ago. Wasn't that the plan?

Anyway, I promised a personal order for this game way back then and still plan to come through. But in those years that have passed and seeing the Airborne system develop I'm wondering if indeed, this series is best suited to a static situation such as the Bulge especially when scenarios wont be able to span action at anything greater than the brigade level?

From the look of the "bulge" itself, we know that the extreme of maneuver occured with the Fifth Pz Armee sector towards Bastogne and with Pieper's rag tag under-resourced Kampfgruppe which died around Stoumont and Trois Ponts in the north.

Mud, snow, impassable terrain, inadequate roads and a lack of fuel turned this campaign into a snail's pace for the bulk of the so called "attacking" Army Gruppe B. It led to days to week-long stalemates in the Losheim Gap, at St Vith and in the south (or German left flank where nothing could progress without bridges). It led to the death of any offensive hopes of the Sixth Panzer Armee, ridiculously placed at the rugged north (or German right flank) where total confusion and a breakdown in logistics saw it largely still.

So how will this all translate into BFTB gameplay? What would a typical BFTB senario encompass? How will deception and logistics be modelled?

Thanks,
Adam.

[simovitch]

Adam, I think you will pleasantly suprised at the choices for maneuverability available at the company level, given the size of some of the scenarios. Suprise and supply limitations are on the task list.

More on the scope of the scenarios when the time is right (or when dave says it's OK).

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Well done Panther on getting this game closer to release. Funnily I really wanted this game before COTA and believed that COTA was to be a "nice to have" sideshow to the real release called "Bulge"all those years ago. Wasn't that the plan?

As in war, few plans survive contact with reality.[:)]

Anyway, I promised a personal order for this game way back then and still plan to come through. But in those years that have passed and seeing the Airborne system develop I'm wondering if indeed, this series is best suited to a static situation such as the Bulge especially when scenarios wont be able to span action at anything greater than the brigade level?

First off, the AA engine already caters for scenarios involving more than a Bde per side. The current unit limit ( which is a self imposed so the game runs ata reasonable speed ) is 400 units. Working on an average of 100 units per Division, this means we can run scenarios with up to a small Corps per side - ie 2 Divs v 2 Divs or 3 Divs v 1 Div. Many of the new BFTB scenarios will be at the Div/Corps level.

From the look of the "bulge" itself, we know that the extreme of maneuver occured with the Fifth Pz Armee sector towards Bastogne and with Pieper's rag tag under-resourced Kampfgruppe which died around Stoumont and Trois Ponts in the north.

Mud, snow, impassable terrain, inadequate roads and a lack of fuel turned this campaign into a snail's pace for the bulk of the so called "attacking" Army Gruppe B. It led to days to week-long stalemates in the Losheim Gap, at St Vith and in the south (or German left flank where nothing could progress without bridges). It led to the death of any offensive hopes of the Sixth Panzer Armee, ridiculously placed at the rugged north (or German right flank) where total confusion and a breakdown in logistics saw it largely still.

So how will this all translate into BFTB gameplay? What would a typical BFTB senario encompass? How will deception and logistics be modelled?

Well the new resupply system introduced in COTA will handle the German supply shortages once the scenario designers decide on the resupply schedule. Remember though that we are doing a series of battles from the Bulge not the whole Bulge. So we don't have to run a scenario for the full length and include weeks of time where there were limited scope for manouvre due to supply shortages. We can start the German drive for the Meuse in the South, for instance, at the time the Germans got resupplied and move from there.

I agree with you, Adam, that the 6th SS Pz Army was largely wasted attacking an enemy dug-in in good defensive terrain and backed by a prodigous amount of artillery. We will providing an historical scenario which covers this. However, we are also providing a number of "what-if" scenarios. Two of these - The Final Jump and Peiper Crosses the Meuse - are based on the premis that the 6th SS Pz Army did not persist in battering its head against Eslenborne Ridge.

For a list of the current scenarios see:

tm.asp?m=1352041

We will probably expand these as time permits.

Re Deception and Surprise Effects. The major deception affected in the Bulge was at the strategic level and occured before the opening shot - ie the amassing of three assault armies in the Ardenne. The Americans were by and large caught with their pance down. Few units reacted quickly for a whole host of reasons - fatigue, undermanning, inexperience, poor leadership etc. But most recovered after the first day and fought well thereafter. There was a general command paralysis on Day 1. This manifested with more effect the higher up the command chain.

To reflect this we propose providing the scenario designer the ability to set a modifier that will apply to the orders delay of selected units. First the scenario designer will specify the modifiers for up to three time periods - eg 0 to 6 hours = 300%, 7 to 12 hours = 200%, 13 to 24 hours = 150%. This will be the orders delay mods for the side. Each unit will have a flag specifing whether or not the modifiers apply to it. The scenario designer then selects the desired units and selects the Apply Modifier item from the Unit menu. Those units will then have their orders delay periods increased by the specified modifier whenever it processes orders during the first day.

This should simulate pretty effectively the command paralysis that affected US forces on Day 1. Even though a player may issue an order it will just take a lot longer for the force to respond. Accordingly the Germans will be able to infiltrate through the US lines as they did.

[Deathtreader]

To reflect this we propose providing the scenario designer the ability to set a modifier that will apply to the orders delay of selected units. First the scenario designer will specify the modifiers for up to three time periods - eg 0 to 6 hours = 300%, 7 to 12 hours = 200%, 13 to 24 hours = 150%. This will be the orders delay mods for the side. Each unit will have a flag specifing whether or not the modifiers apply to it. The scenario designer then selects the desired units and selects the Apply Modifier item from the Unit menu. Those units will then have their orders delay periods increased by the specified modifier whenever it processes orders during the first day.

This should simulate pretty effectively the command paralysis that affected US forces on Day 1. Even though a player may issue an order it will just take a lot longer for the force to respond. Accordingly the Germans will be able to infiltrate through the US lines as they did.

Nice feature!!

Rob. [:)]

[Tactics]

Go easy on the "what-if" thing, please. Just my personal pref, but I prefer historical, longer scenarios vs. 38 two-day "what if" scenarios. Sorry for the OT.

[simovitch]

Tactics,

We are trying to get all the major historical battles covered first; those which requires the most R&D. After that, creating the what-if scenarios will be like being on holiday. So I'm with ya.

[KNac007]

ORIGINAL: Tactics
I prefer historical, longer scenarios vs. 38 two-day "what if" scenarios.

And I prefer 10 long what-if scenarios than 38 two-day what if scenarios too