AAR - Wacht Am Rhein

[comsolut]

Any chance of an AAR Wacht Am Rhein against the AI, to show if it can provide a challenge single player?

[gravyhair]

ORIGINAL: Steelers708

I don't know from a German perspective how the U-boats e.g. are modeled but as a German player the last thing I would do is leave units needlessly tied up behind Allied lines, there value on the front line would surely be of more value than the few Allied units left besieging them. Of course if it is somehow hard coded that they have to hold certain locations such as Brest and St Nazaire then it is one more nail in the coffin as regards the German players freedom of action.

Historically, that is exactly what Hitler did in an effort to deny ports - but maybe you knew that.

[RedLancer]

There is no hard coding to hold ports - Bulge to the Rhine has the ports held because that's what the situation was on 16 Dec 44.

[aspqrz02]

What a lot of supposedly Historical gamers don't get is that there are reasons for the restrictions the Germans are forced to operate under. Yes, sometimes it's because Hitler was an incompetent b^^^^^d, but, more often than not, it is because of logistics issues that, unfortunately, vircually all standard histories that historical gamers read simply either ignore or gloss over.

There's a reason you can't take those 8 Divisions from Norway in 1943 ... iron ore. Swedish iron ore. From ice free ports.

If you did withdraw, you'd lose that ... and that would have a quite significant impact on the German War Economy ... minor things [;)] such as fewer tanks, guns, planes, trucks, railway tanker cars etc. etc. ... all things that Germany was desperately short of already.

Similar issues apply to the German divisions in the SE ... as long as you have chosen to take the SE in the first place, of course (and there are good reasons for that, even though the current scenarios do no start till much later). If you evacuate you shorten the Russian lines as well as your own and, almost certainly lose Romania (if not lost already) and its oil, and, IIRC, significant bauxite deposits.

Synthetic oil or no, Romania was a vital resource, you cannot afford to just give it away by abandoning the SE to the allies. The Bauxite is, likewise, vital.

Since most games don't really go into production much, or not very realistically, they wouldn't handle this well - but, yes, I'd like to see a game where you could make such decisions, and have then come back (very very soon, in all likelihood) and bite you in the bum to your detriment [:D] ... fewer tanks, weaker armoured divisions; less tactical mobility with fewer trucks and less fuel overall; less well trained pilots who can, in any case, fly fewer missions due to less fuel ... and fewer aircraft of all sorts because of less aluminium; less ammo of all sorts and less food because the petrochemical industry has less feedstock for explosives and fertiliser.

The German War Economy was operating at the absolute limits of its capacity, which wasn't all that much, relatively to the capacity of its enemies, already ... what you (and many other 'historical' gamers) suggest would have, in reality, made the logistics and production system far, far worse and almost certainly ended the war sooner (though, of course, by how much we can only guess ... I'd say a fair bit, many months, in fact, YMMV).

So, yes, I, too would like to see these options made available - but in a game with either full production options that will be severely hit if such decisions are made or where the consequences of such decisions have hard-wired consequences of a similar nature.

Otherwise you're playing the sorts of wargames the Japs did before and during the war where, for example, when they found that they couldn't perform certain ops at range because of lack of tanker/refuelling capacity, they simply magicked it into existence so the wargame could proceed ... the real operations (and the entire war, of course) based on such fantasy planning went exactly as well as you would expect.

YMMV.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

ISTR that they were at least partly beseiged by newly raised (aka more or less untrained) French Metropolitan Divisions consisting of FFI elements ... perfectly capable of ensuring the Germans, with their finite and limited supplies, couldn't really break out and do any damage, but probably not up to the task of actually taking them.

Phil

[Steelers708]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

What a lot of supposedly Historical gamers don't get is that there are reasons for the restrictions the Germans are forced to operate under. Yes, sometimes it's because Hitler was an incompetent b^^^^^d, but, more often than not, it is because of logistics issues that, unfortunately, vircually all standard histories that historical gamers read simply either ignore or gloss over.

There's a reason you can't take those 8 Divisions from Norway in 1943 ... iron ore. Swedish iron ore. From ice free ports.

If you did withdraw, you'd lose that ... and that would have a quite significant impact on the German War Economy ... minor things [;)] such as fewer tanks, guns, planes, trucks, railway tanker cars etc. etc. ... all things that Germany was desperately short of already.

Similar issues apply to the German divisions in the SE ... as long as you have chosen to take the SE in the first place, of course (and there are good reasons for that, even though the current scenarios do no start till much later). If you evacuate you shorten the Russian lines as well as your own and, almost certainly lose Romania (if not lost already) and its oil, and, IIRC, significant bauxite deposits.

Synthetic oil or no, Romania was a vital resource, you cannot afford to just give it away by abandoning the SE to the allies. The Bauxite is, likewise, vital.

YMMV.

Phil

You would only lose the iron ore if the allies decided to invade Norway, and that is why I said in another post on the forum that the Germans should have the option of reducing troop levels in Norway but at the cost of an economic impact if the allies invade, as to the SE If as the German I chose to abandon e.g. Greece then I should have that option.

The point I'm trying to make is that the game is 'historical' for the Germans but not for the Allies e.g as I said earlier the Allies are not restricted to landing only at Anzio or Normandy, and I suspect that switching Bomber Command and the 8th AF over to supporting the ground offensive is a switch of a button option, whereas in real live both Bomber Command and the 8th AF were extremely reluctant to do so as they were convinced the war could be won from the air by bombing Germany.

[aspqrz02]

Indeed, you SHOULD have the option, as long as the game includes a full production system that represents historical reality.

What you are suggesting would have much the same, or worse, outcome for the German player in pretty much exactly the same way that the German player 'won' this AAR but, actually, bled himself so dry that the war would end months earlier than it did.

Really, it's what the Germans did themselves, to a lesser degree, in early 1945, they basically closed down all the Wehrkreise and the Replacement Army and sent all the training units and the last draft of trainees off to the front ... gave them a short term boost, for some very low values of 'boost', but meant that the war was inevitably and irretrievably lost at that point at the very latest. Even if the reinforcements had somehow created a miraculous short term stop in Russian/Western Allied advances, the Germans had ensured they would have exactly NO follow on forces. Incredible dumb ...

So, sure, abandon (partly or otherwise) Norway and the SE and watch the allies shut down you iron ore imports more easily with even a partial invasion, watch your panzer units become even more shadows of their already understrength selves with their tactical and operational mobility reduced drastically (and, therefore, their ability to act as a 'fire brigade'), watch the Heer Infantry become even more static as the POL dries up for what few trucks remain, and watch ammo and food shortages start to bite much earlier and much deeper, and watch the Luftwaffe being driven from the skies months, perhaps years, earlier as new aircraft production dries up ...

Sure, you SHOULD have that option.

Given that, as other posters have said, the outcome of the war is an inevitable allied victory, the victory conditions have to be drawn to compare how well you do against that metric ... so, for short term gain that might, barely, garner some victory points, you will ensure a quicker defeat ...

But, yes, you should have that option!

Phil

[aspqrz02]

Actually, the Allies should *not* be able to do *more* amphibious operations. They didn't have the sealift ... it had to be shuffled backwards and forwards between the PTO and the ETO.

They should be allowed to choose *different landing places*, sure ... and they should be allowed to take a *big* VP or PP (WitAE term there) hit if they do MORE invasions, representing the slowing of the allied advance across the Pacific and the probable extension of the war there into 1946.

Until we have a 'War in the World' game (hear that GG et al?!?! [:D]) with full production for all sides and the relevant historical limitations we can't really represent that [;)]

Phil

[Duck Doc]

I don't think the game engine can model or simulate the ad hoc combat groups (kampfgruppen or teams) that played such pivotal roles in the later parts of the war. The American teams were successful in delaying the German advance in the Bulge because they were able to confront, blunt and frustrate the spearheads of the German advance around Bastogne and elsewhere. The game does not show the tentacles of the units well and therefore I don't expect the game engine to be able to replicate this phenomenon at all. For this reason I am not sure a Bulge scenario would be one I would pick to show off the game. There are other reasons also relating to peculiarities of terrain and weather which make the Bulge a funky scenario for this game engine. This is not a criticism at all. I would like to an AAR of an amphibious operation and I suspect one will be forthcoming.

Obtw, you could improvise unit fragments like partisan units which could enforce movement penalties on an advance to simulate the teams but I would imagine it is too late to consider something like this.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

For this scenario the fact the German’s are capable of taking Bastogne on turn one before the allies can respond has me worried. Historically lots of roadblock positions were thrown up to slow the Germans drive down and it allowed enough time for US reserves to reach Bastogne. Teams Cherry, O’Hara and Desobry all grabbed up extra allied strength from troops that were streaming west from the breakthroughs and managed to hold on and slow the Germans down and delayed them long enough to give the allies time to reinforce Bastogne.

I see an armor brigade Northeast of Bastogne which I assume is the parent unit for the three teams, can it be broken down into smaller regiments to occupy both hexes east of Bastogne? Not even sure it would solve the issue, but taking out Bastogne on turn one should be out of reach for Germany. So perhaps even consider placing part of the 101’st in Bastogne at setup if you can’t slow them down enough with forces on hand.

Good read covering of the actions by the three teams:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... ast-02.htm

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... ast-07.htm

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... ast-03.htm

Jim

[Erik Rutins]

Unlike WITE, you pay an additional movement cost for hexes that have had battles in them. That helps in both Bulge and Market Garden to model the effects of units that delayed the advance but could not entirely stop it.

It's also worth noting that these shorter scenarios are great fun, but because they are shorter and start at a set point, they are more likely to end up close to the historical script. The full campaign can start as early as the invasion of Sicily, or May of 1944, or June of 1944. With those longer timelines, the German and Allied players have many, many options to explore alternative attack and defense strategies. With the Eastern Front Box option on, it gets even more interesting.

To me, WITE was a bit more operationally focused, WITW is a more strategic game in terms of the choices you can make in the grand campaigns. That to me is why you play WITW, because there is absolutely no guarantee how the Western Front would have unfolded had the Allies and Germans made different decisions.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I have no issue at all with the ability of Bastogne to be captured. My issue is its fall before the allies can do anything to stop it. I think you'll find most players will find issue with this reality. So an axis turn one capture is bad and needs to be prevented in my opinion. It also flips history and forces the allies to go over to an attack posture.

Considering the turns are one week long, taking Bastogne on Turn 1 should be possible, especially if the German player focuses more forces towards that task. In this shorter scenario, it will likely not change the outcome of the Bulge as you are weakening your advance on one front to strengthen it in another, but I don't think it was impossible at all that the Germans could have taken Bastogne before the Allies reinforced it. With that said, I agree it should be difficult and not a guarantee.

Regards,

- Erik

[Joel Billings]

Just want to add that this is not a Bulge scenario, it's a Bulge to the Rhine scenario. It lasts 12 turns and by turn 12 the Allies are expected to be on or across the Rhine river. The Bulge just happens to be the starting point, and the scenario designer choose objectives to incentivize the German player to attack and take Bastogne. Given the historical situation, it's not realistic to expect the Germans will go to Antwerp. This scenario really deals with the end of the German armies ability to put up resistance in the west. Once the Bulge forces are expended (and/or shipped off to Hungary), the Germans are just trying to hang on. Players are free to use the editor to create alternate Bulge scenarios with a greater chance for German success. And as pointed out, this is a weekly turn game, so a 2 week offensive is not really what the game is meant to micro-simulate. It can do a decent job at simulating the action over the 3 months from the Bulge to the Rhine.

[zakblood]

Market Garden, then as i was already buying it anyway, it's now just gone to a number one thank you for this alone, it's my favourite battle and time period, and will only be doing this battle as it's been a bit of a hobby of mine since i first played it many many years ago on the 48k an later 128k spectrum, and i own i think, every version of almost ever type of battle game it's be made on, as i have searched for a better version for a long long time now, did even think a while ago of modding my own, but now it seems it won't be needed, as if this game supports it well, then my prays seemed to have been answered already, merry Christmas, as it seem i already know what I'll be doing over that time and for a long time afterwards

[&o][&o][&o]

thanks and i'm so unworthy [&o][&o][&o]

[henri51]

The debate of simulation vs gameplay or realism vs what-if is not new. Although there is less uncertainty in this time period of WW2 than in others, there is still room for "what-if". For example, if it had taken Patton two weeks instead of 3 days to reorganize 3rd army (as SHAEF expected)it MIGHT have made a significant different in the Battle of the Bulge.Remember that Hitler's aim was not to defeat the Western Allies, but to take Antwerp while giving the Allies such a spanking that they would sign a separate peace (which they would never have done in real life), freeing over 50 divisions for the Eastern Front. Another example is what if the Germans had correctly guessed (through spying or luck) where the D-day invasion would hit and Hitler had not delayed the Panzers for 3 days while expecting the "real" invasion to occur at Calais?

In the latter case, a possibly exciting scenario could have the Germans place all of their Normandy troops where they like, and see what happens; another what-if could have the Allies invade where the Germans expected them to come (but with realistic logistics constraints).

After all, this is a game, not a simulation (IMHO),