The Cobra vs the Mongoose

[larryfulkerson]

Here's something I thought was particularly cleaver: he's capturing airfields with his partisans and moving his aircraft there for reaching more of my airfields for airfield strikes.

[larryfulkerson]

When I open my side of the turn here's what I see. The difference between our air shock values tells me to remove all the aircraft I can to safety and the land shock value tells me to avoid any ground combat. So I'm going to employ the "run away" defense, blowing those bridges I can reach on the retreat.

[larryfulkerson]

The executed attacks panel says that there were 272 battles, 33 of which were airfield strikes, almost all of which I lost an aircraft unit. So I'm estimating about 30 aircraft units were lost. I'll show the losses panel below.
EDIT: I discovered that clicking on the "news" column header doesn't exactly sort correctly and that I missed about 90% of the airfield attacks. So in actuallity I lost all but 12 of my aircraft units during the Axis half of T1.

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the losses panel and you can see that there are some aircraft types that have none assigned. I interpret that to mean that all the aircraft units that had those assigned were all eliminated during the Axis half of the turn. I took a peek at the air units panel and it said that I have 12 aircraft units surviving and half of them are in reorg. So there are only 6 aircraft that I can move to safety now. The other six I guess I'll just move to 1-dot settings and hope for the best.

[rhinobones]

Larry

Looks like you’re a victim of the old “killer” first move. Wonder what Barbarossa would have been like if the Wehrmacht had a bunch of practice tries before the real assault. This is what’s expected when playing the same scenario multiple times. Everyone knows what’s coming and that is just the way the game is played. Maybe some random Soviet deployments would make the opening move more challenging.

What does bother me a little bit is the use of units in roles for which they were not designed or intended. In this game, and others before, MP, engineer, bridging and AA units are commonly deployed as deep reconnaissance maneuver units. I realize that this is all within the TOAW rules, but I find it unrealistic when an air defense or engineer unit makes a deep, unsupported, penetration behind enemy lines. Wish there was a way to make these units more valuable in their intended function so they wouldn’t be recklessly used in the deep reconnaissance or encirclement mode. Guess it’s a TOAW/scenario design issue.

Good shooting & best regards

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
Larry

Looks like you’re a victim of the old “killer” first move. Wonder what Barbarossa would have been like if the Wehrmacht had a bunch of practice tries before the real assault. This is what’s expected when playing the same scenario multiple times. Everyone knows what’s coming and that is just the way the game is played. Maybe some random Soviet deployments would make the opening move more challenging.

What does bother me a little bit is the use of units in roles for which they were not designed or intended. In this game, and others before, MP, engineer, bridging and AA units are commonly deployed as deep reconnaissance maneuver units. I realize that this is all within the TOAW rules, but I find it unrealistic when an air defense or engineer unit makes a deep, unsupported, penetration behind enemy lines. Wish there was a way to make these units more valuable in their intended function so they wouldn’t be recklessly used in the deep reconnaissance or encirclement mode. Guess it’s a TOAW/scenario design issue.

Good shooting & best regards

I agree with all that you have said. I'm guilty of doing the things you described myself, and I admit freely that yes, I have more or less memorized where the Soviet units might be and where they aren't and used that information to inform where I move my units and it's really not fair for the Soviet player when that happens. I think random Soviet deployment would go a long way of making it more fair for the Soviet side but would also, sortof, encourage the Axis player to tend to use their units more realistically. That way you wouldn't see AAA units moving 200km forward of supporting forces as an ad hoc recon unit ( probably ) unless the commander was using that unit as bait or trying to get them killed or was a Soviet commander maybe. [You know how Soviet commanders don't have much reguard for the life of their subordinates. Those that do are usually replaced faster than the disappearance of a Soviet journalist.]

As reguards the current game: I'm going to try to build a makeshift front line in the gap between the rivers near Orsha, using whatever units are handy.

I've tried to rail my RR engineers to sites of a successful Axis bridge attack and of the 9 that I attempted to move only 2 of them actually arrived at the site. And those that were stopped in transit via Axis INT attacks suffered severe losses. Half the equipment in the unit in some cases. That's punishing and I obviously need to move something else, almost anything else, first to get the Axis INT attacks down to a managable level, since they tend to taper off after several have occured.

I'm actually in favor of more realistic games, but I DO recognize the fact that some players think outside the box and do things that are perhaps risky but at least unorthodox. I like surprises. Ken is constantly teaching me the tips and tricks used by superior players and I LOVE how he plays. My favorite opponent by far.

[larryfulkerson]

Here's what's going on in the middle. I haven't moved anybody in this image and actually, I have no idea how many of these units CAN move. Most of them are in reorg or are already adjacent to an Axis unit which I don't always try to move but rather just dig them in and set them to a three-dot stance.

Ken has started the game using the "No Borders" switch so I have no idea where the invisible Axis units are and moving my Soviet units that can move to the east are vulnerable to being stopped at almost any spot on the map where Ken has units east of mine.

But having said that, I'm going to try to escape with moving my units generally to the east, blowing bridges along the way.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

I like surprises. Ken is constantly teaching me the tips and tricks used by superior players and I LOVE how he plays. My favorite opponent by far.

That you enjoy the game, this is what's important.

Regards

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
I like surprises. Ken is constantly teaching me the tips and tricks used by superior players and I LOVE how he plays. My favorite opponent by far.

That you enjoy the game, this is what's important.

Regards

I AM enjoying this game. I'm trying to include you guys in the fun too by posting a LOT more than I used to so you guys can keep up with this wonderful happening.

This is an image showing the Expected Reinforcements for T2. I have no idea how many there are but I'd label this a boat-load. But there are only 3 aircraft units in the list. D'oh. But there's plenty of everything else.

The gymnastics at the top in yellow is a demonstration of what I need to do now. I need to find all the hexes where things are scheduled to spawn and prepare some room in the hex for the new units. I'd hate to find out that I missed getting another 9 units in the game because I neglected to move the 9 that are already there and I COULD have moved them if I just would have.

This is going to take some time but it needs to be done.

[larryfulkerson]

I saved my Ken Fortune game and started a new FITE2 game and went to the Soviet side and found out that on T1 there were 226 aircraft units surviving and 6 Axis furballs that shot down 6 more aircraft so that means that there were 232 aircraft at the start of the game. In my game with Ken I have only 12 aircraft left so that means that 220 aircraft were lost in Ken's turn.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Larry

Looks like you’re a victim of the old “killer” first move. Wonder what Barbarossa would have been like if the Wehrmacht had a bunch of practice tries before the real assault. This is what’s expected when playing the same scenario multiple times. Everyone knows what’s coming and that is just the way the game is played. Maybe some random Soviet deployments would make the opening move more challenging.

What does bother me a little bit is the use of units in roles for which they were not designed or intended. In this game, and others before, MP, engineer, bridging and AA units are commonly deployed as deep reconnaissance maneuver units. I realize that this is all within the TOAW rules, but I find it unrealistic when an air defense or engineer unit makes a deep, unsupported, penetration behind enemy lines. Wish there was a way to make these units more valuable in their intended function so they wouldn’t be recklessly used in the deep reconnaissance or encirclement mode. Guess it’s a TOAW/scenario design issue.

Good shooting & best regards

Agreed. Generally I find the solution with the support units is to bundle them, so the MPs and AA go with the HQ. The HQ is going to want to be where most of the troops are anyway so this is more realistic.

In terms of the opening, I've said it before and I'll say it again: what's needed is a scenario that starts after the Wehrmacht was done chewing through the frontier armies. Then we won't be agonising over whether a panzer unit can reach Daugavpils on schedule, or over the perfect first turn, or whether the Soviets running away is realistic. Yes, researching such a scenario would be a lot more work- but it would save a lot of time of players going through the motions.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

. . . what's needed is a scenario that starts after the Wehrmacht was done chewing through the frontier armies.

My observation is that the greatest appeal of scenarios such as Barbarossa is playing the initial onslaught against an inferior force. Second would be playing the inferior force and denying the aggressor his pleasure. After the opening phase the game usually boils down to limited maneuver and brute force. This is true not only with Barbarossa, but others such as Italian Front - Caporetto 1917, Ardennes 1944 and Fulda 55 2.0. Starting the scenario after the initial phase has merit, but I think the designer would need to build in elements of maneuver and unpredictability in order for the scenario to escape the WW I brute force syndrome.

Maybe an alternate solution would be to add a Force 1 Theater Option on turn one to select either a historical scenario (as it is today) or a non-historical randomized scenario. Non-historical might add a few additional formations selected from a large pool, change supply levels, replacement levels, objective track, automatic R/R repair value or shock allocations. I think this would make the killer first turn more difficult and inject a bit of realistic “what-if”. Keep the scenario’s historical fidelity and add a bit of replay value. Just some thoughts.

Regards

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
. . . what's needed is a scenario that starts after the Wehrmacht was done chewing through the frontier armies.

My observation is that the greatest appeal of scenarios such as Barbarossa is playing the initial onslaught against an inferior force. Second would be playing the inferior force and denying the aggressor his pleasure. After the opening phase the game usually boils down to limited maneuver and brute force. This is true not only with Barbarossa, but others such as Italian Front - Caporetto 1917, Ardennes 1944 and Fulda 55 2.0. Starting the scenario after the initial phase has merit, but I think the designer would need to build in elements of maneuver and unpredictability in order for the scenario to escape the WW I brute force syndrome.

Maybe an alternate solution would be to add a Force 1 Theater Option on turn one to select either a historical scenario (as it is today) or a non-historical randomized scenario. Non-historical might add a few additional formations selected from a large pool, change supply levels, replacement levels, objective track, automatic R/R repair value or shock allocations. I think this would make the killer first turn more difficult and inject a bit of realistic “what-if”. Keep the scenario’s historical fidelity and add a bit of replay value. Just some thoughts.

Regards

What a wonderful sparkling conversation. Good ideas from everybody involved. You guys are hitting on all cylinders and everything you say is spot on. May I make a suggestion?
Elmer has 5 tracks for the PO....may I suggest we use all 5 for differing goals? Is there a way to chose which track is used at random? By an event or something?

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

What a wonderful sparkling conversation. Good ideas from everybody involved. You guys are hitting on all cylinders and everything you say is spot on. May I make a suggestion?

Sometimes it’s difficult to determine whether a person is sucking up or genuinely being a good guy. With you Mr. Spooky, I have no doubt that you are one of the good guys.

In the editor I took a look at FITE2. All 5 tracks are used for the Axis side. However, the Allied side is only programed for track #1. This indicates that when the scenario is played in the solitaire mode, the design is for a Soviet (Cheyenne) opponent against the Axis PO. Hence multiple Axis tracks and only one Allied track. The singular Allied track appears to be a diagnostic troubleshooting track.

To answer your question, yes. Objective tracks can be selected using Theater Options or events. They can be triggered by turn, event or Theater Option. The trick for the scenario designer is to ensure that switching objective tracks does not violate the orders of the original objective track. As an example, track #1 directs a formation to go right, track #2 changes the direction to the left. The designer needs to make sure that these orders are congruent and do not cause the formation to make chaotic moves.

Regards

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
...

Agreed. Generally I find the solution with the support units is to bundle them, so the MPs and AA go with the HQ. The HQ is going to want to be where most of the troops are anyway so this is more realistic.
...

That just turns HQs into really powerful front-line units.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: jmlima


That just turns HQs into really powerful front-line units.

Really? With 12 MP squads and 36 AA guns you're going to put the HQ in the frontline going toe-to-toe with infantry regiments?

Add that one normally sticks the artillery in the HQ as well. You're going to want the HQ behind the line doing HQ stuff.

[larryfulkerson]

It's now T2 and Ken is arriving at Minsk already. I'm astonished that he got there so fast.

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the T3 view of Minsk right now. Ken's units arrived last turn and now have managed to surround my valient defenders. I don't expect them to last very long.

[larryfulkerson]

I've started to park my AAA units on those river crossings that are vulnerable to air attack in an effort to encourage Ken to go bomb something else. Ken has dropped over a dozen of my bridges already. This is something I should have been doing since the beginning of the game.

[larryfulkerson]

It's now T4 and Ken's units are now arriving at Pskov already. My roadblocks won't last long.