Anzio 1944 Allied PO

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I was thinking that if the weapons are omitted or their formations given lower supply parameters, that this would then affect their ability to perform AA missions. Of course, I'm not really sure if an enemy air attack on my airfield that contains planes and AA units actually takes those AA into account, but I like to think it does. I suppose a look at one of those logs would prove it out.

I expect the same when I stack an AA unit with an HQ, or some artillery, and when I place an AA unit on a bridge hex.

AA in TOAW won't perform AA missions -- not unless it slaughters a fantastically ahistorical number of aircraft.

[ogar]

I have seen in TOAWlogs that AAA units (flak or Allied; heavy, light, mixed) participate in defense against air attacks in 2 ways -- 1 is the defender fires, chance to hit..., attackers fire... routine -- and the 2nd is the friction (992nd Fighter Sqdn enters furball..., 1 P40 damaged...) routine. But those details, and sometimes even the summary outcomes, are hidden.

A lot of air-AAA combat happens under the covers -- during movement, as part of the pre-attack calculations, as part of the response to defenders' response -- and often it's just shows as a momentary lighted-up hex on my screen before the cursor jumps to another hex.

Shifting back to Telumar's scenario (from the generic AAA units in TOAW discussion this morphed into),

the Allied side does have a lot of air power -- but Elmer is not a good user of it. (Ask Telumar how much fun it is shifting units around when interdiction is 3% or higher.) Even then, the Allied player has to manage his units -- the replacement limits for all eqp modifies the middle-game and long-term play in this scenario; you can run out of P40s or run out of Shermans. Neither is good -- unless you're playing the German side.

Historically, the Germans responded with tons of flak units because a) Kesselring was ex-LW and he was in charge in Rome, so there was a large LW training setup thereby, b) Schlemme, the local LW commander recognized the scale of the problem and responded by using flak as anti-ground units primarily, c) the shifting of Heer units took time -- even with the planning having been worked out by Kesselring's staff months before. It appears that Allied air, in part, did slow down the early reinforcement.
Later on (Day 6 and following), flak units remained for use in anti-ground roles because there were so damn many of them, and because with the FJ units and HG, there were lots of flak weapons as part of their TOE, and finally because the weather sucked. A lot. Lots of low clouds and rain, so flak could be diverted from anti-air defense of HQ, artillery and/or supply.

In TOAW, in Anzio, I've found players use the flak (and Allied light AAA) as ground units as much as they can -- which is usually until the first lose of 'irreplaceable' Long Toms or K18s -- and then the AAA goes quickly back to anti-air. Except that the Germans have so damn many flak units. Of course, the Allies have so damn many jabos, and B-25s and B-26s, and Wellies. But that's what makes the scenario -- and it is historically correct.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ogar

I have seen in TOAWlogs that AAA units (flak or Allied; heavy, light, mixed) participate in defense against air attacks in 2 ways -- 1 is the defender fires, chance to hit..., attackers fire... routine -- and the 2nd is the friction (992nd Fighter Sqdn enters furball..., 1 P40 damaged...) routine. But those details, and sometimes even the summary outcomes, are hidden.

A lot of air-AAA combat happens under the covers -- during movement, as part of the pre-attack calculations, as part of the response to defenders' response -- and often it's just shows as a momentary lighted-up hex on my screen before the cursor jumps to another hex.

Point is, in TOAW AA can only affect air attacks to the extent that it shoots down aircraft.

This leads to two possible outcomes -- neither of one of which resembles reality.

1. Not many aircraft get shot down, and the air attack occurs largely as if the aircraft were teeing off on an undefended column.

2. Lots of aircraft get shot down -- which was in reality a rare outcome, generally seen only in early war events such as the Sedan bridgehead.

AA, of course, exerts most of its effect by forcing aircraft to modify their tactics. Come in at high speed, weave, stay at high altitude, whatever -- in the end, bomb with far less effect than if they were able to just calmly go about obliterating a defenseless target.

However, not in TOAW. AA exerts no such effect.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ogar

...and then the AAA goes quickly back to anti-air...

At which point, one of two things will happen, depending on what AA value has been selected in the editor.

Either (a), the AA guns won't significantly affect the bombardment,

or (b), they will score a totally ahistorical number of kills.

Probably a combination of both. Without breaking up the bombardment to the extent they historically would have, the guns will shoot down about ten times the number of aircraft that could be expected to be lost in such a situation.

My point is that without playing Anzio extensively, everything I've seen of the effect flak has in TOAW and everything I know about how it functions tells me that as AA, it doesn't function remotely like its historical counterpart.

[ColinWright]

Although it comes from naval warfare, the clearest example I know of what I am saying occurred with the Luftwaffe crossed swords with the Royal Navy north of Crete.

A force of British cruisers and destroyers was caught in daylight without fighter cover.

Now, as long as they were able to keep station, and as long as they still had AA ammunition, the Luftwaffe was unable to score any hits. Not many aircraft seem to have been lost either, but the AA barrage did keep the aircraft from hitting what were small, fast-moving targets.

Eventually, though, the AA ammunition did run low, a hit was scored, and the formation was broken up. Then the slaughter started. The AA had exerted a decisive effect: that was demonstrated by what promptly ensued when it was no longer able to function. However, that effect had little to do with shooting down planes per se.

Naturally, AA shoots down aircraft. That is not, however, how it exerts its primary effect. Since TOAW contains no mechanism for simulating that effect, it can't properly simulate AA.

As a consequence, players naturally tend to use AA in the role in which TOAW does simulate its effect -- in ground combat.

[Cfant]

Your wish is my command [:)]

@Balkan Air Fleet: Can be. I just saw the news and made a screenshot to show, that even outside a "test-situation" the costs for releasing the Balkans are a bit low.

On with the text. My guess proved right, Elmar didn't survive my counteroffensive. In turn 19 SS-Troops entered Anzio, ending the scenario on turn 20.

What had happened? The decision fell on the western part of the front. (sorry again for posting several times, but I'm only allowed to upload one picture per post).

The allied troops there were caught in a cauldorn. After cleaning, the way was free. Not many troops were needed, it would have also worked without the SS-troops joining the fight.

[Cfant]

Now the way was free. Typical for PO it was not able to react to the threat on its left side ( I remember a scenario where PO called back frontline-units 20 or more hexes to fight a single partisan-unit [:)] )
With no resistance left, there was not much more to do.

[Cfant]

Talking about the backland of the allied side. A brave, but small unit nearly had decided the battle on their own. [:'(]

I don't know if it's possible, but PO should keep some reserves in the back. As you can see, it would have had some units guarding one bridge, but ignoring an other one.

[Cfant]

It's some irony, that the PO had its best stand on the part of the front, which I had regarded as... well... save. German HQ denied to take this front serious, getting some real troubles in the east...

Lines are already thinned out and my troops are quite depleted. I'm not sure if I could have prevented Elmer from breaking out after his successful crossing of the mussolini canal. I'd be quite interested in the results of other players here. Of course, on the other hand, it is not sure, that die PO could have made some use of such a "outbreak". (can anyone tell me why the screenshot ist too big suddenly? well, have to cut it, it seems [8|])

[Cfant]

In the middle an attempt to trap some allied units failed. I couldn't bring heavy equipment across the fosso - so the PO was able to throw my offensive back. It's been a temporary setbeck - the allies had already run out of steam. With my masses of artillery a breakthrough would only be a matter of time (as long as the allies would not get large reinforcements here, that is).

[Cfant]

Here the situation at the end of the fight. The allies are lost, no doubt. The PO surrendered, sparing the lives of thousands [:D]

[Cfant]

I think a main problem is the immense masses of artillery, which stalls the advancement of the allied infantry. In difficult ground like this the PO has to press on with large casualities.
If I remeber my "career" against the PO there were very few lost games, but several draws - mainly because I run out of time. Having 120 turns with enough troops to even match a human player - well, I guess this is not a good chance for the PO.

One more thing, regarding TO's. Falling in panik at Elmars inital offensive, I called in all reserves the TO's would give me. And I would do it again [:D] With 120 turns you have so much time, that chances are high, that one side will loose completly. There is not much use of sparing VP's. Either I'm destroyed or the enemy is - so I grab all units I can get.
Same with the TO "withdraw SG4". Why give away troops for only 5 VP's? I guess, that nearly no player would take the TO.

This too would be avoided in a shorter scenario. Here collecting VP's via TO's might be the key to success.

[Cfant]

I know nothing about scenario-design. I think, it would be a lot of work to change it into a "smaller" or shorter scenario. And, even more, the question is, how close you want to stay with reality. So the reinforcements you mentioned didn't come in time. Let's say a shorter scenario (30 turns? 40? 50?) with less german artillery, sooner allied reinforcements and an allied major victory with capture of osterricia and Cisterna might give Elmar some real chance.

In the picture you can see, how close Elmar came this towns in my game.

And maybe the losses show how quick Elmar runs out of power.

Losses Axis: 420 Squads Inf, 26 Panzer (including Nashorns etc.), 68 Aircraft.
Losses Allies: 1.500 Squads Inf, 136 Tanks, 102 Aircraft and 10 ships (I wonder, because not all have been reported as sunk [&:])

However, looking at tanks for example: 84 Shermans were destroyed in this 19 turns. So only 32 Shermans remained, with a rate of 1 per turn. A lot of intantry types is down to 1/3 either. And losses are climbing as the Germans gain momentum... So Elmar will never stand a 120 turn-szenario, I fear. If you want the losses or anything else in detail just tell me, and I will post it here. [:)]

Even without any changes I really have to say it was a scenario that made fun. Especially the first turns made me fear the worst [;)] Thanks for that [&o]

[ogar]

Colin,

Thanks for the more detailed replies and the examples -- now I understand what you mentioned earlier about the AAA effect.

And I agree - at least from a rookie perspective -- that "there oughta be" some effect on attacking aircraft from certain 'densities' of flak - but then there's scale (2.5 km, 15 km, 6 hr turns, half-week turns, terrain, fortification status, etc.) Maybe I'll just stick to my rookie 'why is the sky up there ?' routine vs designing.

[ogar]

Cfant,

Good job on your part -- Elmer does come in beserk; somehow you turned that back on him.

I think the reason your motorized units were stuck on the Fosso is the combination of the escarpment and (I think) badlands terrain. I usually stick with paras or foot movement only types in that region.

And I agree that playing as the German, you can win if you make the PO waste its resources -- it is narrowly focused, and it does tend to think big stacks in high-VP locations are the key to winning.

Did the PO aggressively target your LW airfields in your game ? Just wondering, as I did not see any mention of that earlier.

[Telumar]

Gentlemen, i've been in the test lab. Here's what i changed so far:

- Increased Naval AA Guns AA value by a factor 2.5
- Slight changes in Allied Objective Tracks. Still the "coastal road approach" needs to be tested in regard to Elmer's reaction and possible further finetuning
- German naval bombers' anti-shipping has been reduced to 120 (unchecked the torpedo flag)
- German Flak FSDE is now 50%
- Allied Special Forces and Airborne units cannot split up anymore
- Short Game option: 30 turns, Allied Sudden Death if EEV reaches 60 (Cisterna, Aprilia, Osteriaccia)
- VP hexes on the Mussolini Canal's southern arm bridges moved to the west bank of the canal
- Balkan Naval Air Option costs increased to 30
- Reduced German Ant count: regimental gun companies merged with regimental HQs, platoon sized armored car units and some 4th companies distributed among other units of their battalion

[Telumar]

Re the PO and naval stacking:

I changed the objectives of both taskforces from coastal hexes to the distant hexes and it seems the PO doesn't stack it anymore. Actually everyone seems to stay in place. TF Peter's new objective:

[Telumar]

And TF XRay:

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Cfant2

I know nothing about scenario-design. I think, it would be a lot of work to change it into a "smaller" or shorter scenario. And, even more, the question is, how close you want to stay with reality. So the reinforcements you mentioned didn't come in time. Let's say a shorter scenario (30 turns? 40? 50?) with less german artillery, sooner allied reinforcements and an allied major victory with capture of osterricia and Cisterna might give Elmar some real chance.

Actually it hasn't been a lot of work to change it into a shorter scenario, i just added a TO and a few related events. The short game is now optional, you still can play out the long version.

Earlier Allied reinforcements is out of the question. The turnaround from Naples to Anzio was three days. Allied commanders and 'advocats of Shingle' struggled to get the required transport craft, not so much because these weren't available but because Allied High Command didn't want to risk losses which could influence the projected Normandy landings.

If you as the German Player want to have a tougher going then don't use the von Behr and 4.FJ TOs.

However what could be done is to reduce readiness/supply of arriving German reinforcements. Maybe this even needs to be done if i take a look at the losses you posted..

ORIGINAL: Cfant2
And maybe the losses show how quick Elmar runs out of power.

Losses Axis: 420 Squads Inf, 26 Panzer (including Nashorns etc.), 68 Aircraft.
Losses Allies: 1.500 Squads Inf, 136 Tanks, 102 Aircraft and 10 ships (I wonder, because not all have been reported as sunk [&:])

However, looking at tanks for example: 84 Shermans were destroyed in this 19 turns. So only 32 Shermans remained, with a rate of 1 per turn. A lot of intantry types is down to 1/3 either. And losses are climbing as the Germans gain momentum... So Elmar will never stand a 120 turn-szenario, I fear. If you want the losses or anything else in detail just tell me, and I will post it here. [:)]

Puh.. Elmer is a butcher. However there are disband units which add a few Shermans and Squads every tenth turn. Ship losses - what do you mean with "ships" - units? Or naval guns?

You mean 42 and 150 squads, not 420 and 1500, don't you?[8|]

We will have to look at this with the new version again as i changed some objective tracks which should reduce Elmer's stacking. I hope.

However note that according to Molony and Verney the British combat companies in the Campoleone salient were down to approx 40 - 60% personel strength after their offensive towards Campoleone. The German attack produced more losses and 56th Div's 168th Inf Bde had to be inserted into the line. One British unit - i can't recall which, except that it's been one of 1st Inf Div's battalions - would have ceased to exist if the remaining officers wouldn't have rebuilt it 'ad hoc' from freshly arrived reinforcements (source: Peter Verney).

I suppose that if you hadn't "sneaked in" along the coastal roads, but had fought your way down the Via Anziate your losses would have been significantly higher. These attacks costed the Germans dearly in men (as did Br. 1st Div's attack towards Ostericcia/Campoleone for the Allies).

Defensive artillery support is a factor here, too. Though i have tweaked cooperation levels so that regimental guns only can freely support its regiment, divisional artillery its parent division and only Heeres-Artillery and VI Corps Artillery respectively can freely coperate with everyone. Still there is the artillery support bug, which btw had first been discovered in the strategycon forums.. ( and which will be fixed in 3.5). I wonder if this bug also "works" for defensive fire support.

[sPzAbt653]

There's also a bug that allows all artillery and air units (within range) support a disengagement attack against an enemy unit.