Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post discussions and advice on TOAW scenario design here.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by ColinWright »

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.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

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.
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.
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..


User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

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.

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?
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

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.
'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.[:D]

However, your approach might not be the worst. Save your armour for the arrival of CCA/1st Arm.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by ColinWright »

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...

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by ColinWright »

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.[:D]

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...
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
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...

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
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.[:D]

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?
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4922
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Oberst_Klink »

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.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
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.[:D]

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.
Attachments
rntrain.jpg
rntrain.jpg (232.64 KiB) Viewed 630 times
I am not Charlie Hebdo
Cfant
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:16 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Cfant »

Hi everyone!

Being new to this forum I admire all the profis here. I already learned a lot by the AAR's and discussions of the members here, thanks for that. [&o]

I test the scenario at the moment, having played the first day for now (4 turns). My first impression: Elmer keeps me quite busy, I really get a show for my money [X(]

To ad my two cents to the discussion above: In my game, Elmer too stacks his units sky high. there also is the good, old density warning, orange, even red. Taking this stacks under fire by artillerie or even attacking them doesn't make so much damage, I don't know if that is wanted, but it has been a bit disappointing. But I don't see a need to combine the units. Maybe that's for my level of play is not so high as that of many of yours, but in a scenario with 1 km per hex it would feel strange, if you had some kind of "small division", containing all kinds of weapons and counterweapons every kilometer. And deciding: "I need my three AT-guns here, and my 20 squads heavy inf there", in other words: building your "own" defense force is part of the fun, I'd say.

I also warn to change too much after so short testing. It's a scenario going over 120 turns - it still has to be proven, that Elmer doesn't run out of steam. He surly is no delayer - the danger is he could bleed out quite soon. Time will tell.

A word to Elmers performance so far: Elmer paradropped 3 km from osterricia in turn two [X(], making me run to stopp him with anythin able to hold a gun. His initial attack took a lot of ground and threw several units of mine. Good: He bombed the hell out of my Luftwaffe, before I could even react.
The main front is still 3 km from osterricia, and the brits too seem to be under control. What I really was curious: How would Elmer handle the Mussolini-Canal with all the bridges destroyed?

On turn 4 US Tanks forced their way over the canal. Elmer has done a good job there. Well, German HQ has underestimated him [;)] but still he crossed the canal in force.
On the other hand he stacked his ships to a tower. Although a first strike lead to desaster due to allied air power, maybe the bombers from the balkan will make a difference.

That's the situation so far - the PO for sure makes a good starting impression.

Image
Attachments
elmer.jpg
elmer.jpg (146.36 KiB) Viewed 622 times
Cfant
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:16 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Cfant »

Maybe one more thing:

The Balkan-Luftwaffe is quite strong. This is a first dawn-raid (when the Luftwaffe still has some numbers and uses the shock-bonus).

Although only one ship was sunk in this attack, I think 10 VP's for 20 turns of Balkan-Aid is a little low, for Elmer will continue to stack his ships. (Of course one could say, the germans too need a chance to collect some VP's [;)])

Image
Attachments
navytest.jpg
navytest.jpg (193.1 KiB) Viewed 621 times
Cfant
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:16 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Cfant »

Yep, just gave it a test. Started a game and used the first chance to just hunt down allied ships in dawn. That's the job of six hours (one turn): 55 VP's. And I have to say, that one surely could make even more prey. [;)]



Image
Attachments
navytest2.jpg
navytest2.jpg (219 KiB) Viewed 621 times
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

Where was the Allied air force in this one? Did it intervene?

I think that Elmer's bad habit of stacking has to do with this. Never saw such a slaughter in a HvH game.

Reduced AA effectiveness in 3.4 does play a role here, too.
User avatar
1_Lzard
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:36 pm
Location: McMinnville, OR

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by 1_Lzard »

Nor have I! That's a very large kill rate! Especially against the 'large' Allied AF.......
 
I'd expect something wrong re:Allied Air, huh Stefan?
"I have the brain of a Genius, and the heart of a Little Child. I keep them in a jar under my bed!"
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by ColinWright »

If the fighters are distant from the ships they're to protect, that could account for it.

Ships are fragile anyway -- and the anti-shipping ratings of specialized aircraft such as the SM-79 too high.

I routinely make 'torpedo' regular 'anti-shipping' and compose units of aircraft such as Stukas of half normal Stukas and half non-antishipping Stukas.

On the other hand, the Ju-88 had a pretty good record against shipping. Under other circumstances, I'd suggest making a third or so of each Ju-88 unit 'anti-shipping' -- but upping German anti-shipping proficiency doesn't seem to be what's called for in the current situation.

Note, incidentally, that a ship that is 'sunk' in TOAW terms is merely out of action -- and half the time will be back as a loss that went into the pool. So the casualties may not be as out of line as it would seem.

For example, while the British lost something like three cruisers and six destroyers sunk off Crete, in TOAW terms their losses were about twice that -- most of the vessels in the Mediterranean Fleet were effectively out of action for the end of any Crete scenario. In other words, they were all 'sunk.'
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



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.

14.Armee's war diary clearly states that a non-trivial amount of Flak was used in a ground combat role and i.e. lists the amount of Flak assigned to the various Kampfgruppen for the attack against the Campoleone salient.

In HvH games all German players that i've seen also used their Flak for protecting their artillery. And in the ground combat role.

If you look in the editor you'll see that most Allied AA is set to garrison orders around the beaches and Anzio harbour. And i think it's also clear that Allied AA Wouldn't have sat idle had German tanks rushed down the Via Anziate.
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: 1_Lzard

Nor have I! That's a very large kill rate! Especially against the 'large' Allied AF.......

I'd expect something wrong re:Allied Air, huh Stefan?

Looks like Elmer hasn't had enough (if any) of his FBs on AS.

I would set a certain amount of them on AS with garrison orders but that has its downsides, too.
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: Telumar

14.Armee's war diary clearly states that a non-trivial amount of Flak was used in a ground combat role and i.e. lists the amount of Flak assigned to the various Kampfgruppen for the attack against the Campoleone salient.

This leaves out the question of whether they then had to go back to their day job, but even aside from that, those figures might give you some idea of what the max assigned to ground combat was, and perhaps which of the flak units were actually considered ready for ground combat. It's a tough call -- but at the end of the day, it's simply unrealistic to have flak always serving in a ground combat role.

In HvH games all German players that i've seen also used their Flak for protecting their artillery.

I could be erring, but it would never occur to me to do that. Can the Allies profitably bomb these units in the first place? In TOAW, that is. Unless I was taught different, I wouldn't waste that lovely 9-4 by having it sit with an artillery unit that might be visible to the Allied player and might get bombed and might suffer serious damage as a result that the flak unit might avert. It'd go help the boys at the front.

From the Allied point of view, I'd be strongly inclined to suspect that my aircraft could be more profitably supporting an actual ground attack than wasting themselves pounding some artillery unit for a problematical return. As I say, it'll be news to me if this would actually be a wise use of airpower in TOAW. In fact, in TOAW, if I really want that flak unit to notch a few P-40's on its belt, the place for it to be is right at the front. That's where the Allied aircraft are going to go -- and then it can serve in both roles at once.

If you look in the editor you'll see that most Allied AA is set to garrison orders around the beaches and Anzio harbour. And i think it's also clear that Allied AA Wouldn't have sat idle had German tanks rushed down the Via Anziate.

Good stuff. However, as to the Allied flak not sitting 'idle' had German tanks rushed down the Via Anziate, I wouldn't bet on it. There were large quantities of flak in Tobruk when Rommel overran it in 1942. A few guns opened fire on the advancing Germans, but they were the exception, not the rule.

Aside from doctrine, the crews also need the shells, the training, and the experience. They also need to be in the right location. Guns that are sited to protect the harbor from air attack probably won't be where they need to be to fire on those German tanks advancing down the Via Anziate, and in the crisis, if moving them isn't in the playbook, it may well not happen.

The system in TOAW mishandles flak, and while Anzio isn't something I'm especially familiar with, I'd vote for critically examining how it was actually used. In general, if it seems that the average German flak unit only spent 25% of its time serving in a ground combat role, there's a strong argument for only giving the German 25% of his flak units to employ in that capacity -- particularly as given Allied air superiority, they really would usually be needed to provide some protection to lines of communication, etc.

Certainly the German has vast quantities of flak at the beginning of the scenario. Was it all really rushing to help hold the front, or was a good deal of it simply deploying to make it possible for other units to get there and receive supplies once they had?
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am

RE: Anzio 1944 Allied PO

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: Cfant2

Yep, just gave it a test. Started a game and used the first chance to just hunt down allied ships in dawn. That's the job of six hours (one turn): 55 VP's. And I have to say, that one surely could make even more prey. [;)]



Image

Ah - i know why you were so successfull. I see it from the Allied deployment, you played hotseat until the arrival of the Balkan bombers. I suppose you haven't set any Allied aircraft to AS.

Nevertheless this is an issue.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”