Anzio 1944 Allied PO

[Cfant]

Then I rushed for Anzio, reaching the outskirts without resistance. Maybe I should have attacked the garrison, but I only had sent a small reconaissance-unit. other spearheads reached Aprilia.

So far so well. But this time Elmer reacted and he was not pleased. [:-] He threw troops from the front on my units (without giving ground or opening holes in the front. VERY well played by Elmer. Of course the allies offensive abilities are further reduced by that.) And - I had to wonder - east from Anzio fresh and very strong US troops beamed from spaceship enterprise, including tanks, heavy anti-tank weaponry. My guys were beaten without making too much damage.
Now I'm building a new front there.

Operation three was a failure. Mainly because I lack the troops to hold my ground. Weak units with two or three strong elites crossed the river. But strong Yankee units rushed in. I will try to hold out one more turn to see how the situation develops, but I fear I will have to retreat. [:(]

[Cfant]

Here the main situation. I run out of units. I lost about 490 squads infantry till now (in my first test it had been 470 in 20 turn iirc). Elmers losses I don't know. I hope they are higher [:D]

The outlook is not too good. On turn 21 I have to face a massive withdraw of units. [:(] I have no idea how this will influence the outcome and if my already depleted units can go to the offensive one more time.

Please keep in mind, that the scenario only lasts 30 turns. On the long run, I think one still can wait till Elmer has attacked himself to death. But this "short" version is a test for sure. I'm eager to know, how Ogars game turns out.

[Cfant]

Oh, and where are the 504th PIR ? They do have foot movement, remember, and you have no one guarding the wadis between Ardea and Campo -- 12 companies of paras crossing the badlands and turning your Campo flank will give you a taste of your own medicine.

Other than in your game, Elmer decided to drop the paras on turn 2. So they were partly wiped out in the fightings at osterriccia. Some were also seen sitting at the sea down south. Maybe fishing. Kind of "band of fishing brothers", I guess. [:D] Please let us know, how your match develops. I'm quite interested to compare the outcome.

[Cfant]

Well, I brought it to a quick end. My resume: Quite hard, the scenario now. A minor victory was achieved, the Fuhrer is pleased, the OKH not. [;)]

Elmer broke my defenses and would have been able to exploit his breaktthroughs, if the scenario has lasted longer. Since turn 23, the battle of attrition was won by the allies. From this point, I won nearly no battle an was on retreat the rest of the game.
While the british were under control, the US troops kicked my ass. Cisterna was overrun, I could do nothing [:(] Reserves I rushed in seldom lastet longer than one turn. A suicide divison fought it's way to aprilia, saving the day. One could say this is playing the engine more than playing the enemy, so you can call it a draw, if you want.

[Cfant]

Here the situation at the end of the scenario. I managed to "lead" Elmers spearheads to the "nothing" (in terms of VPs), not caring for them, but holding him away from further VP's. Counterattacks were canceled after a few enemy units were encircled and destroyed. IIRC I made only two or three attacks the last three turns.
Elmer managed to fight his way back to Osterricia and even attacked the city severel times, bringing me to the brink of defeat, but of course that was the best defended Hex in the scenario. The defenses held without much problems.

[Cfant]

In turn 28, the second successful air raid hit the allied fleet. All other raids failed. Cost: 30 VPs. Gain: 55 VPs.

[Cfant]

A minor victory - a bitter one, for my army is down and at the end of its strength. The losses show, how much harder this run has been.

Axis losses:

1000 squads
100 tanks
150 planes

Allies losses:

2000 squads
180 tanks
150 planes

Other than in the first play, the allied forces were still intact and able (and willing) to continue their offensive. While in the first play, about 2/3 of his armored forces were destroyed on turn 20, this time it's only been 50% on turn 30.
@Telumar: What did you change with Elmers forces? Did you reduce my artillery?

As much as I know, you only improved his infantry. This may be. The effect however was, that allied attrition was lighter while mine was stronger. This added throughout the game. While I won the battle of attrition on game one, I lost it on game two.

In other words: The scenario now needs much more planing and careful play. My offensive attempts not only were futil, but costet my a lot of strength. A better strategy would have been to delay the breakthrough on the left flank longer and then rush in with strong and fast forces. Tanks, I mean [:D]. I would have had one chance to attack Anzio. How strong the garrison is I don't know.
An other approach would be to remain defensive and only attack "weak" enemy units and try to win this battle of attrition. But this may be risky either. So you see - several possibilities. To strengthen Elmer was the right decision. The TOs now make much more sense in my opinion. Elmer now is a dangerous opponent. [&o]

Some points I want to mention:

Balkan air force is nearly never useable in strength, because allied air force bombs the hell out of it

reinforcements arriving lately is a lot of artillery, which you absolutley cannot need in this phase of the 30 turns. at least I couldn't [;)]

I think with some planing it could be possible to start a successful rush for anzio (depending on the garrison). So I think the improvement of Elmers reinforcement-rate ist ok for the 30 turn scenario. I don't know how it works if you choose the long run.

to prevent a sneak-in-unit to gather a lot of VPs the last turns I have an idea: what about (weak) garrison-units, who appear on a few important VP-locations when conquered by Elmer (e.g. in aprilia)?

I had murderous problems with enemy tanks, especially shermans. even encircled, worn down and attacked with german tanks, sturmgeschützen and at-squads they not only suffered nearly no losses, but costet me several ETEs. I would be interested in your experience, Oger.

well, that's the way it is. [:)] thanks for a thrilling scenario, Telumar! [&o]

[ogar]

Sorry I am late to the party. I'm only up to turn 8 - and more excuses, I'm still fumbling with loading screen-shots, so this msg. is text only.

Where to start ?
Okay, a big difference is that in my game the 504th just arrived at turn 6 and 7, so that's held back the push toward Osteraccia -- Elmer just cleared Aprilia and the Factory in turn 7.
My rag tag collection of flak, engineers and LW stugs are reinforced by one of vonBehr's bn and one of the FJ bn. It's not enough -- especially as the BR armour has arrived.

Along the coast road, the commandos and the RN destroyers have done a good job at pushing me back -- I just lost the bridge over the Molatta (?) below Ardea; II/71 and KG Kleye have been thrashed, some evaps, along with a bruised FEB 190 bn.

The Allies are pushing up the Via A., and along their right flank have blown a 3 hex hole in my lines -- now threatening the railroad, as well as an encirclement back to Osteraccia.

Against 3 US ID, it's a different game -- 3 PGD is doing well although Padiglione has been lost, and of course, it's flank was torn by the BR breakthrough. For the rest -- the PO seems stalled. This is very weird to anyone who's played an Anzio scenario before -- very weird.

And in Littoria, little happens with the VPs now on the XRay side of the Canal, just some light patrolling.

On the road to Cisterna around turn 5, Elmer side-stepped the broken bridge and threw 3 Sherman co. plus 2 eng plus an a/c troop using the major-ferry capability vs building blown bridges. Very slick. Even better, he moved a stack of Hqs and Supply units onto a major ferry unit onto a super river hex just behind the tanks -- opening a line of supply.
I pounded the tanks and the Hqs with artillery; I threw a heavy attack (without any tanks) against the tanks; I shelled some more. Luckily my losses were light in the attack, (it was a 0% 0% attack) but I think I succeeded in draining enough supply and rattling the units involved.

As turn 7 opened, Elmer withdrew the Hqs and supply units and shifted them I think toward Padiglione. He cut his own throat for the 3 US ID's tank bn. They are quite red, and in turn shelling showed 33 M4's out of 3 companies -- so attrition is working here.

I thought Elmer was going quite well with the side-step, but it failed to follow through. Sad. Just sad.

Okay -- what am I doing next ?

I have to contain the BR breakout; I need to watch out for the commandos, they've nibbled enough. I have to rebuild the 3 PGD front, and extricate KG Ens for use as a reserve. Oh and light patrolling in Littoria.

[ogar]

And some more questions/comments --

@Telumar -- where are these stugs of 3 PGD of which you type ? I'm at turn 8 remember. Only armor is TigerKo and LW Stug.

@Colin -- naval guns along that coast road is brutal; in fact anywhere within the box created by the Canal->Aprilia->along the wadis to the coast is death due to 6in guns UNTIL the fleet is gone.
In H2H games, the Allied human is supposed to withdraw ships at night and during storms. Elmer does not do house rules. Hence the urge we all have to sink the fleet.

Yes, I know only using LW air during night turns is gamey, as Elmer reduces his A/S. Too bleepin' bad. Elmer naval bombards at night; I hunt ships at night.

I do not think restricting the LW air units helps -- either set up house rules, or totally abstract out the air game, or leave as it is.

@Cfant -- did the Allies use any of the B26s against you ? any of the B24s against your distant airfields ? Elmer has not done either against me --- yet. But I'd expect it.

Airfield attacks by the PO are brutal -- but you get used to seeing 195 P-40's plus 38 A-36s attacking 9 FW190s. That's just Elmer, but again the PO will lose 20-plus planes damaged and destroyed to my losing 3.

Bridges -- Elmer did re-build one bridge; that first bridge up the coast from Peter Beach. I think he used the US CE bn to do that, as the BR RE units are all over by Aprilia. I think the major ferry ability with the US 10 Eng makes the PO unlikley to use them to re-build a bridge, even when logical. And as that situation with the Shermans goes, it can really hurt the PO. But then, what's the excuse for all the engineers with the BR ? They have no major ferry ability. Maybe Elmer just does not do bridges.

I am planning to hold off wiping out the fleet although I may try for a cruiser -- I want to see if they do go away during storm turns. They clearly offer naval gun support to the Allies during night turns.

I am planning to do my best to wipe that Sherman stack -- it's a weak point in the Allies resources and will it's tough to do, I think it's worth the risk. Of course, there's the BR Sherman bn., and then another Sherman bn. coming about T10, and then 1 US ARM DIV, but I'll take what I can get.

Oh, and Batterie Genzano can now shell the Allied supply unit off Anzio. It cannot shell XRay's or Peter's supply unit. And even at 1% supply, it causes some damage to the supply unit.
Telumar may want to set up this unit as fortified, as Elmer will not bother to dig it in

Apologies for the lack of pix. Will try again.

[Telumar]

Thanks for the feedback and the dedication, gentlemen. I'll try to answer some of your questions in one single mail:

First, apologies to Cfant, he indeed did his air raid on a afternoon turn, not on a night turn. The news string with the VP bonus event shows up the turn after the according unit has been destroyed.

I did two things two improve Elmer. First i raised its infantry and infantry weapons (MG, PIATS etc) replacement rates, but not dramatically. Good to see that it has an effect, i hope i didn't raise it to much. Just one or two squads more per turn and a litle increase in the auto disband units.
Second i slightly rearranged Elmer's objective tracks. Less dense, more spread out, though i see still orange and red density stacks here and there. But it's better than before i think.
I also weakened the German flak units. Well not directly, but i reduced their FSDE.

I didn't take away any artillery from the German player, i just merged regimental gun companies with regimental HQ units. It's also documented in the scenario .pdf.

Cfant, pity you did chose the short option. This surely would have been an interesting "long run", but you can't know before.


@Ogar: Panzer Abteilung 103 will arrive on turn 9 at Valmontone.

Note that it's useless shelling the supply units as the bridges are no more damaged. You may need to destroy the bridge first which is very hard to achieve. Initially i had left the bridges destroyed as in the HvH setup but Elmer always repaired them with his engineers.

The Navy will go into garrison on storm turns. This means Elmer can't use it offensively and i think they won't support defensively in the German turn as i have set them to internal support (for this purpose). Maybe the navy should go into garrison on PM turns, too. Sorry, i forgot about that. If i do this then the airforces should be subject to negative shock on PM turns. I don't like how players use this stuff... [:-]

Re Cfant's proposal: I think it's necessary to add Garrison units to major victory/EEV hexes. Cisterna, Osteriaccia and Aprilia. The Anzio "garrison" is 18 squad strong with the usual MG, Mortar and Infantry AT weapons and has a proficiency of 65%. The unit starts as D in garrison mode and will have reached the fortified entrenchement level when/if the German player reaches Anzio. Too strong? The VP/EEV hexes garrisons wouldn't be so strong.

[Telumar]

Re the short game option. I am not sure, but it could be declared a German victory or a draw if Elmer doesn't get the required objectives for a Sudden Death (for a draw i have to figure out how exactly, probably adding the required VPs to one side..but then there are the TOs..so an "automatic draw" might not be possible). On the other hand this might be too easy - if i look at Cfant's game, assuming he wouldn't have gone for Anzio he might have had more units for a defence of the critical objectives. Then, there still is the question how short of the objectives Elmer is on turn 30.

EDIT: It will be a draw VP wise, wether the German player uses all options or not and wether the PO uses the airborne option on turn 1 or not. So the scenario could end with the 'End normal' event.
So should Elmer's failure of achieving a Sudden Death in the short game version be regarded a draw? Or a German victory?

[Cfant]

@telumar

Cfant, pity you did chose the short option. This surely would have been an interesting "long run", but you can't know before.

Haven't you seen me loosing often enough, Telumar? [:D] In this situation, Elmer would have kicked me back to Rome in no time, I guess [:'(] on the other hand, as you mentioned, having 120 turns of time, I would never have pressed on so hard. There also would not have been a "Führerbefehl" to hold the ground, so Elmer would have expanded further, but probably been worn down.
If you look at the losses, Elmer still has lost about half of his potential in this 30 turns. The question is, how would my army look like, if I had chosen a fighting retreat?

I did two things two improve Elmer. First i raised its infantry and infantry weapons (MG, PIATS etc) replacement rates, but not dramatically. Good to see that it has an effect, i hope i didn't raise it to much. Just one or two squads more per turn and a litle increase in the auto disband units.

I'm quite surprised by that. The difference is astonishing, changig the scenario from a easy victory to a fight to the death. Can this be only due to this changes? Well, maybe it explains, why my anti-tank-actions failed (at least compared to try one). Maybe Elmers tanks now are better protected, because his infantry is stronger and can protect them better.
His tanks made the difference, I couldn't stop them as I did on the first test.
And his air force made a stronger impact. But still I wonder, why his troops took less damage attacking my ari-backed-up-lines than in test one?

I The Anzio "garrison" is 18 squad strong with the usual MG, Mortar and Infantry AT weapons and has a proficiency of 65%. The unit starts as D in garrison mode and will have reached the fortified entrenchement level when/if the German player reaches Anzio. Too strong? The VP/EEV hexes garrisons wouldn't be so strong.
.

Seems a little strong, but well, so you have the risk to commit quite strong forces to a "rush for anzio" mission. At least it seems to have been the right decision not to attack [:D]

[Cfant]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Re the short game option. I am not sure, but it could be declared a German victory or a draw if Elmer doesn't get the required objectives for a Sudden Death (for a draw i have to figure out how exactly, probably adding the required VPs to one side..but then there are the TOs..so an "automatic draw" might not be possible). On the other hand this might be too easy - if i look at Cfant's game, assuming he wouldn't have gone for Anzio he might have had more units for a defence of the critical objectives. Then, there still is the question how short of the objectives Elmer is on turn 30.

EDIT: It will be a draw VP wise, wether the German player uses all options or not and wether the PO uses the airborne option on turn 1 or not. So the scenario could end with the 'End normal' event.
So should Elmer's failure of achieving a Sudden Death in the short game version be regarded a draw? Or a German victory?

Without my "suicide-attack-on aprilia" the outcome would have been a draw. If Elmer doesn't take his objectives, but Germany doesn't push him back, I would call it a historical outcome and therefore a draw. Even getting offensive I prevented a sudden death. So I think, it would be very likely that a human player would achieve victory with a "simple" defensive strategy. My vote for a draw!
And I think Elmer could make it for the objectives. His problem was, that the worn down British couldn't take the stronhly defended osterricia. On the other hand, he had plenty of US troops to take cities at mussolini canal. sending some US tanks to osterricia and the city might have fallen to the Führers foes. [;)]

@oger: Thanks for your infos. Please let us know, how your game develops. And please post the successes of you air raids against allied fleet. I loved that, was like a minigame [:D] The record are 55 VP's, beat it! [;)]
@Bombers: I don't know [:(] I didn't care much for the battle in the sky, for I couldn't influence it much. Set my fighters on air-superiority and sent my bombers against allied fleet, that it was [;)] But his air force was stronger present on the battle field than in test one. Maybe due to weaker flak, but I cannot say that for sure.
@bridges: I wounder, that Elmer only repaired one. In my game, as you can see in the screens, he repaired all bridges over the mussolini canal (they were all destroyed by my troops on the first turns). So his supply was never a problem. Severel attempts to disturb this ways failed due to Elmer superiority in numbers. [:(]

I'd be interested in your plans. Do you plan offensive operations (exept against frontline-stacks)?

One more thought: There are some TO's costing or gaining VP's. Maybe the VP's could be a little higher, to make it more difficult to decide. Although in this test they really made sense, but didn't really make a difference.

And I really have to say, this run was one of the hardest, Elmer has ever given to me. I really think you did a great job, Telumar. [:)]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Cfant2

If Elmer doesn't take his objectives, but Germany doesn't push him back, I would call it a historical outcome and therefore a draw.

Campaigns where the historical outcome was decidedly not a draw.

France 1940. Guys, that was a team effort. The Germans came up with a good plan, and had good execution, but it never could have worked as well as it did without enthusiastic cooperation from French soldiery at all levels. More to the point, with even moderately decisive and energetic leadership, the French would have done considerably better than they did.

Philippines 1941-42. The outcome was largely the result of incredibly bad decisions on the part of MacArthur -- possibly the most uneven general in military history.

Then of course there are other examples from the past. One thinks of McClellan snatching a draw from what should have been crushing victory at Antietam.

I can't agree with Cfant's logic. Not all historical generals 'played' as well as their opponent, and not all historical outcomes were 'draws.'

Didn't the Allies muff Anzio? Wasn't therefore the historical outcome a 'loss.'? Given an accurate representation of the two forces, and two equally competent players, shouldn't the Allies do better than they in fact did?

In my view, a draw is what should happen between two equally competent players. Whether that replicates the historical outcome is neither here nor there.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Cfant2

If Elmer doesn't take his objectives, but Germany doesn't push him back, I would call it a historical outcome and therefore a draw.

Campaigns where the historical outcome was decidedly not a draw.

France 1940. Guys, that was a team effort. The Germans came up with a good plan, and had good execution, but it never could have worked as well as it did without enthusiastic cooperation from French soldiery at all levels. More to the point, with even moderately decisive and energetic leadership, the French would have done considerably better than they did.

Philippines 1941-42. The outcome was largely the result of incredibly bad decisions on the part of MacArthur -- possibly the most uneven general in military history.

Then of course there are other examples from the past. One thinks of McClellan snatching a draw from what should have been crushing victory at Antietam.

I can't agree with Cfant's logic. Not all historical generals 'played' as well as their opponent, and not all historical outcomes were 'draws.'

Didn't the Allies muff Anzio? Wasn't therefore the historical outcome a 'loss.'? Given an accurate representation of the two forces, and two equally competent players, shouldn't the Allies do better than they in fact did?

In my view, a draw is what should happen between two equally competent players. Whether that replicates the historical outcome is neither here nor there.

In the scenario, the historical outcome is regarded a draw, not an Allied defeat. That is if the frontlines remain roughly between the maximum Allied advance and the end of Operation Fischfang. Historically neither side achieved its objectives. Neither did the Allies force their way onto the Alban Hills or into the Valmontone Gap nor were the Germans able to "erase the abscess".

EDIT:

The question was, if the Allies are able to achieve the three objectives in the short game before turn 30 (January 29th) it could be regarded a draw? Or an Allied Sudden Death as one could assume they achieved an early breakthrough? Historically they didn't get so far. They run out of steam short of Osteriaccia and were never able to reach Cisterna.
Note that considerable German forces were still on their way to the beachhead on that date, so if there would have been a breakout from the beachhead prior to that date, who could have stopped them? Among the forces that are still to arrive after January 29th is the bulk of 26.PzDiv, 114.Jäger Div, considerable Artillery and several full strength Grenadier Regiments from Germany.

EDIT 2: Arguing partially with myself here... it's rather a question of scenario design. In a previous post i thoght loudly about declaring an Allied failure to achieve the three objectives in the short game version a German victory.[8|]
The short game option should also give the German player the possibility of a victory. I would think most players won't make it into Anzio in 30 turns even with Elmer leading VI Corps. This would be too hard, but we also shouldn't make it too easy. We would need another Sudden Death objective for the German player. Maybe a radius? If the Germans get within ten hexes of Anzio or better hold terrain within ten hexes of Anzio until turn 30? Or if they get to the Overpass/Flyover or to La Cogna on the south side of the Mussolini Canal? Something like this..

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar



In the scenario, the historical outcome is regarded a draw, not an Allied defeat. That is if the frontlines remain roughly between the maximum Allied advance and the end of Operation Fischfang. Historically neither side achieved its objectives. Neither did the Allies force their way onto the Alban Hills or into the Valmontone Gap nor were the Germans able to "erase the abscess".

But is that accurate? Isn't it possible that this outcome only becomes probable because the German forces are over-rated and the Allies under-rated?

To put it differently, in an ideal world, if TOAW accurately simulated the military environment and your design accurately simulated the forces, between two equally competent players wouldn't the Allies do better than they did?

Allied leadership was singularly lackluster -- the commander was eventually relieved. Conversely, as far as I know, German leadership was reasonably competent. Therefore, it would follow that the historical result should not be a draw, but a defeat for the Allies.

One has of course, 'the system.' It doesn't matter if there's an Italian Rommel -- he's not leading his division on a dash to Avesnes. It won't work.

At the same time, one does have generalship. Zhukov relieves Voroshilov, and the Russians begin managing to offer a defense in front of Leningrad. As Eisenhower put it when he confronted Dawley at the height of the crisis at Salerno, 'For God's sake, Mike, how did you manage to get your troops so fucked up?'

Of course, generalship involves much that isn't reflected in TOAW, but at the same time, I have often watched my opponents err -- continue to attack when they shouldn't, allow their front to stretch to the breaking point for the sake of worthless real estate, continue with a pre-conceived plan even when the situation as it is developing is making it clear that it won't work. What's more, similar errors occur in reality.

It seems to me that given two players playing at the same level, the Allies should do somewhat better than the historical outcome, not the same. That is what should be a draw. If the historical outcome is what tends to happen, then the implication isn't necessarily that the design is correct. The implication may be just the opposite.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

We would need another Sudden Death objective for the German player. Maybe a radius? If the Germans get within ten hexes of Anzio or better hold terrain within ten hexes of Anzio until turn 30? Or if they get to the Overpass/Flyover or to La Cogna on the south side of the Mussolini Canal? Something like this..

I'm speaking from at least partial ignorance here -- but wasn't the Allies' most egregious error failing to advance at the start? Wouldn't it follow that a sudden death German win would consist of actually managing to contain the beachhead within its historical dimensions?

That might be unappetizing, but it might also be correct. After all, the Germans did win in the sense that they managed to keep the landing from unhinging their front. My understanding is that that outcome, in turn, was a function of the failure of the Allies to exploit their initial superiority.

[ogar]

Getting back to the game --
I did finish thru turn 8, playing as Germans. I have 0 penalty for losses; PO has -35 for losses incurred.

@Cfant -- by my count, Allied losses (damaged & destroyed) among other items :
M4/75 15
M4 105 3
Stuart 5

Spits (var.) 24
P40 42
A36 28

I lost 3 Tigers - but I do not much other armor. I've lost 28 Me109 and 24 FW190, again damaged & destroyed.

@Telumar -- Hey, I been a good boy. I did not go hunting for cruisers at night -- tried a bridge attack at Anzio, failed. Did some directed strikes in support of ground combat.

@Colin, Telumar
I think with this version of the scenario -- the short option for the human is to hold the 3 objectives. Historically, the Germans did better, but the Allies were more cautious. Here we have Elmer vs Human button-mashers -- unlikely to be as cautious.

I think in the H2H version (PBEM), Colin's argument is more valid -- Telumar's hypothesis is just that -- better generalship, more aggressive style, focus on the Val. Gap will lead to the Germans withdrawing out of southern Italy. Myself, I think he's wrong -- unless the Allies get more historical reinforcements earlier; but then we wound up re-playing Verdun along the Musso Canal for umpteen turns as a result.

All that said, it is tough. I have a slight problem with a BR tank breakout in the center - luckily I shelled the hell out of them, and they stayed put. As I lectured Cfant, the paras have arrived and they are doing a left hook into/across the badlands to take Campo.

On the good side, I had minor breakouts near Padiglione which I cleaned up, and have put together a response for the BR armor -- most of KG Ens and just at the top of the pix, who's that riding to my rescue ? Pio's Own Nashorns. It will be an interesting turn 9.
Oh, and I continued to box in the 3 US ID Shermans down on the Cisterna road - pushed them off their hex, and onto a support stack (which is NOT on the Canal, which would have re-built supply lines). All I want to do with them, is wear them down and out of supply -- they are at 33% or less, by count of strength in the sitrep. And when the HG armor arrives, then I'll deal with their reduced strength.

EDIT:
I jumbled my impression of Telumar's thoughts on what the Allied needs to do is this game with my thoughts on the historical campaign, and scrambled them both, and then did not post clearly. Restating the paragraph flagged below -
I think Colin's argument fits the PBEM scenario better than the PO scenario. In the long game, (either version) the Allied player can win by seizing enough VP hexes to trigger the EEV-event for a sudden-death win. The Allied player will achieve that sudden-death victory only with a more aggressive approach than historically and a clearer focus on the Valmontane Gap with all its VP hexes. The Allied player can also outlast the German player in a long game and win without the sudden death or, less likely, without a more than historically aggressive approach. My hunch is that the Allied player may have a better chance (probalistically, but do not ask me to prove it) to win without the more aggressive approach - since that builds on the Allied resource strengths.

***I think in the H2H version (PBEM), Colin's argument is more valid -- Telumar's hypothesis is just that -- better generalship, more aggressive style, focus on the Val. Gap will lead to the Germans withdrawing out of southern Italy. Myself, I think he's wrong -- unless the Allies get more historical reinforcements earlier; but then we wound up re-playing Verdun along the Musso Canal for umpteen turns as a result.***

[ogar]

Ugh.

Apologies for the ugly attachment. Will try to repair that in the future.

Re short game draw/minor victory, I think maybe in the human player holds 2 of the 3 (Aprilia, Cisterna, Anzio) it is a minor victory as that is better than historical (better than Fishfang (I thank) which will happen around turn ?60 ? If the German player takes Anzio, game over, major victory. If the German holds 1 of the 3 cities, it's a draw.

Just my two cents on this.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Telumar



In the scenario, the historical outcome is regarded a draw, not an Allied defeat. That is if the frontlines remain roughly between the maximum Allied advance and the end of Operation Fischfang. Historically neither side achieved its objectives. Neither did the Allies force their way onto the Alban Hills or into the Valmontone Gap nor were the Germans able to "erase the abscess".

But is that accurate? Isn't it possible that this outcome only becomes probable because the German forces are over-rated and the Allies under-rated?

To put it differently, in an ideal world, if TOAW accurately simulated the military environment and your design accurately simulated the forces, between two equally competent players wouldn't the Allies do better than they did?

Allied leadership was singularly lackluster -- the commander was eventually relieved. Conversely, as far as I know, German leadership was reasonably competent. Therefore, it would follow that the historical result should not be a draw, but a defeat for the Allies.

One has of course, 'the system.' It doesn't matter if there's an Italian Rommel -- he's not leading his division on a dash to Avesnes. It won't work.

At the same time, one does have generalship. Zhukov relieves Voroshilov, and the Russians begin managing to offer a defense in front of Leningrad. As Eisenhower put it when he confronted Dawley at the height of the crisis at Salerno, 'For God's sake, Mike, how did you manage to get your troops so ****ed up?'

Of course, generalship involves much that isn't reflected in TOAW, but at the same time, I have often watched my opponents err -- continue to attack when they shouldn't, allow their front to stretch to the breaking point for the sake of worthless real estate, continue with a pre-conceived plan even when the situation as it is developing is making it clear that it won't work. What's more, similar errors occur in reality.

It seems to me that given two players playing at the same level, the Allies should do somewhat better than the historical outcome, not the same. That is what should be a draw. If the historical outcome is what tends to happen, then the implication isn't necessarily that the design is correct. The implication may be just the opposite.

From what i've seen i would say that the scenario (in all incarnations: 2km, HvsH, HvsPO) usually allows for an Allied advance beyond the historical beachhead. They usually do better than historically. If you take Cfant's last run against the PO i would say he got his a** whipped quite nicely. This with von Behr, who didn't participate historically - did he use 4th FJ? If this would have gone on, who knows how far the Americans would have got?

But would an Allied advance beyond the historical one necessarily mean an automatic Allied victory?

Note that such an Allied endeavour, to exploit the initial German weakness, is not without risks. To achieve the historical objectives (Alban Hills, Velletri/Valmontone Gap) the Allied player would need to ever lengthen his front thus weakening his flanks, spearheads would need more time to resupply/recover. Allied commanders were fully aware of that, even regarded the force that landed too weak for the task (that the operation was carried out despite is another story..). Related to this, and if we talk Salerno, famous quote from Clark advising Lucas: "Don't stick your head out Johnny, i did at Salerno and got into trouble." Also note that the German buildup was faster than anticipated by Allied staffs.

It might have been well possible to get to these hills and into the Gap, but to stay there? I don't know. Would Kesselring have ordered a withdrawal from the Gustav line if the Allies had driven out of their initial beachhed early? (His staff urged him to do so, but he decided to stand fast after he convinced himself of Allied inactivity).