Matrix Games Forums

Axis Planning T3...The Ariete attacks south of Bir Hachiem...

Execution Phase T3... The results of the mass artillery

First, a great AAR. Second, I can't imagine many Matrix customers saying "no" to this game. Reminds me of SSG, which is a very good thing (imo). I hope that they follow through on the promise of the scenario editor. Not that I doubt their word, but things can change.

Thanks for this

ORIGINAL: Rosseau

First, a great AAR. Second, I can't imagine many Matrix customers saying "no" to this game. Reminds me of SSG, which is a very good thing (imo). I hope that they follow through on the promise of the scenario editor. Not that I doubt their word, but things can change.

Thanks for this

Rest assured, full scenario editor included!
It's exactly the same Editor as used to create all the scenarios in the game.
Also included are the base big North Africa maps that contain the cover the entire 1940-42 theatre of operations from Libya to Egypt, so you can "cut" out a piece of the map and make a smaller scenario on that subsection of the map (or you just create a map from scratch).

Axis Planning Phase T4...In the north, The Sabratha's breaching success comes with a price, they are in a kill sack. The 15th Riffle Bde moves forward to recon the positions to their front and to give the Allies other targets other then the Sabratha...Combat supply is allocated to the 15th Inf Bde, the 85th and 86th Regt Hq's to increase the artillery firepower.

Note...seems the Allies have an over stacked hex (but the Intel may be incorrect

Ok...the "Allied Overstacked" hex has 15 stacking points in it according to the "K" Hex info Hotkey...time for a reboot of this scenario to see what happens next time.

That overstacked hex is an error in the scenario.
The released version of the game will have this fixed!
Thanks,
Brian

ORIGINAL: Saint Ruth

That overstacked hex is an error in the scenario.
The released version of the game will have this fixed!
Thanks,
Brian

I feel better now...lol Thought the AI was trying to get over!

.

ORIGINAL: bootlegger267

Thanks for the AAR, it's great to see something about this game.

Looking through the details of the picture, it looks to me that the concept is very similar to that of Atomic Games' V4V/WAW games. All the concepts seem to be there (odds shift, intensity, percentage based casualties). Is this just how it looks and you have just borrowed the names? Or you are trying to recreate that (excellent) system?

I have played to death both SSG, and TOAW (systems from a similar vintage), and I still find Atomic Games' system to be the superior one, tbh.

ORIGINAL: BletchleyGeek
Looking through the details of the picture, it looks to me that the concept is very similar to that of Atomic Games' V4V/WAW games. All the concepts seem to be there (odds shift, intensity, percentage based casualties). Is this just how it looks and you have just borrowed the names? Or you are trying to recreate that (excellent) system?

I have played to death both SSG, and TOAW (systems from a similar vintage), and I still find Atomic Games' system to be the superior one, tbh.

Hi, yep, V4V was my inspiration [:)] -- it is after all a WEGO game, though it differs in a lot of ways, unlike V4V there's meeting engagement (in V4V you can only Overrun when you've moving). Also the supply is different. And in Desert War, there's Counter-Air and Interdiction missions which weren't in V4V.
The armour shifts (called Shock in the game) are a bit different too. The amount of shifts you get for armour depend on the units you attack with, so armour attacking with leg infantry aren't as effective as when they attack with motorized infantry etc...
So while it's not just a "copy" of V4V games, it's not a million miles away from it either!
Thanks,
Brian

Very interesting Saint Ruth. Wargame rulesets are not sacred texts, but tools to construct alternate histories [:)]

Very interesting to read about having a notion of meeting engagement. It was very unsatisfying in Atomic's system. Also curious about shock rules, do units have AT ratings? Does that - and terrain - affect the shifts?

ORIGINAL: BletchleyGeek

Very interesting Saint Ruth. Wargame rulesets are not sacred texts, but tools to construct alternate histories [:)]

Very interesting to read about having a notion of meeting engagement. It was very unsatisfying in Atomic's system. Also curious about shock rules, do units have AT ratings? Does that - and terrain - affect the shifts?

Yep, terrain affects Shock. No shock if attacking hex with defensive terrain (or attacking across a gully/river etc hexside ).
In a straight armour vs infantry, the armour gets a 4 column shift. Note that if the attacking armour attacks with leg infantry (that has no shock) then the shock is reduced. So if half the attackers have no shock then the armour Shock is reduced by half. If the armour attacks with motorized infantry then it attacks with its full Shock. This is to simulate the negative effects of distributing armour in (leg) infantry divisions compared to the benefits of combined arms like in German Panzer Divisions...
Defending AT guns can reduce attacking Shock of course. Normal AT guns only have defensive shock, not attacking shock.
Heavy AT guns (German 88s) however have attacking shock too, because they have such a long range that the Germans used them offensively with their armour.
[;)]

Yep, terrain affects Shock. No shock if attacking hex with defensive terrain (or attacking across a gully/river etc hexside ).

That's very straightforward.

In a straight armour vs infantry, the armour gets a 4 column shift. Note that if the attacking armour attacks with leg infantry (that has no shock) then the shock is reduced. So if half the attackers have no shock then the armour Shock is reduced by half. If the armour attacks with motorized infantry then it attacks with its full Shock. This is to simulate the negative effects of distributing armour in (leg) infantry divisions compared to the benefits of combined arms like in German Panzer Divisions...

I quite like that rule, it is something the player can directly act on and it is is simple enough to account for the time and place. For later periods and other theaters, I would be less keen on this rule. But I guess shock rules are actually modelling dislocation, rather than firepower. Is that a correct interpretation?

Defending AT guns can reduce attacking Shock of course. Normal AT guns only have defensive shock, not attacking shock.

I see, AT ratings are then locked onto the type of unit, rather than being a stat.

Heavy AT guns (German 88s) however have attacking shock too, because they have such a long range that the Germans used them offensively with their armour

Interesting special rule for the 88s: if shock rules are modelling dislocation rather than firepower, what is the point of this? Why couldn't you use any artillery unit on a set piece attack over open sights? In the early stages of the Tunisian campaign there's plenty of episodes of field artillery engaging enemies over open sights (usually defensively, though).

ORIGINAL: BletchleyGeek
I quite like that rule, it is something the player can directly act on and it is is simple enough to account for the time and place. For later periods and other theaters, I would be less keen on this rule. But I guess shock rules are actually modelling dislocation, rather than firepower. Is that a correct interpretation?

Exactly! The firepower is the Attack value. So in Desert War, Panzer IIs and Tigers would have the same Shock (+4), but obviously radically different Attacks values.

I see, AT ratings are then locked onto the type of unit, rather than being a stat.

Like the Attacker Shock, the individual AT units might have different Defense Values, but Shock is related to type.

Interesting special rule for the 88s: if shock rules are modelling dislocation rather than firepower, what is the point of this? Why couldn't you use any artillery unit on a set piece attack over open sights? In the early stages of the Tunisian campaign there's plenty of episodes of field artillery engaging enemies over open sights (usually defensively, though).

Ah, well, it's not a special rule as such. It's more a extra Type (a differenciation between AT units and Heavy AT units). [;)]
Artillery can of course assist attacks, but the difference here is that the Heavy ATs were used offensively against enemy armour over long range - indeed, its range exceeded the range allied tank guns (never mind that many like the early Cruiser / Crusaders etc only fired AP rounds so couldn't fire back at AT guns at all), so while artillery might fire over open sights at short range, they couldn't engage enemy armour at long range offensively.

Hope this is clear! We're going to post a longer explaination of Shock before release so that hopefully make it clearer!
Thanks,
Brian

Hope this is clear! We're going to post a longer explaination of Shock before release so that hopefully make it clearer!

Thanks for the answers, I appreciate them very much.

Looking forward to get my hands on the game, so godspeed!

This all sounds excellent and DW seems likely to dethrone Operation Crusader as my favorite WWII operational game. Counting the days till release!

T4 Axis Planning Phase...In the north....

Massed artillery and air attacks on the "Overstacked" Allied position to protect the 1st Bn of the 15th Rifle Bde (The overstacked hex is a scenario issue, not a game issue/bug)

Harassing artillery against known Allied positions...

Heavy Axis Artillery against Allied positions west of the Asiagh Ridge...