Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

After Action Reports
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

I disagree. This is the offensive into the endless desert situation - you don't do it unless there is a reasonable objective. There is nothing there except one good defensive chunk of terrain after another.

But you noted above that your offensive in the southeast was intended to keep me tied down while you exploited the west. You were attacking in Virginia for about ten turns after the last industrial city (Norfolk) was secured.
Here I agree - Though I think the real problem was that the idea on a drive that clears out the south and then shifts to the West is actually flawed. It creates dead periods that allow the Allies to more effectively recover. Balance this with the fact that the drive to the North West was just inherently unworkable and there is a real problem. In reality a better strategy would have been to be weaker in the South but also starting on persecuting the West from very early on - back that with a drive that cuts the rail line through Canada but focuses on attacks in the North East and the Allies never get a respite.

Yeah, I'm thinking something like a landing at Quebec or Boston plus one each at New Orleans and Norfolk or Wilmington. Then you've got the Allies sweating three ways:
1) A link up west of New York
2) A link up north of Atlanta/Birmingham
3) The big link up on the Great Lakes

One is a push with the current version but so deadly the Allied player has to keep his eye on it. Two is kind of a gimme with this landing but will prevent the Allies from holding the lower South in any strength. This then allows you to focus on getting 3.

I'm not sure when or if I'll play the scenario again otherwise I'd be keeping this one to myself.
So with this plan if one was anticipating getting to Lake Michigan and clearing the south by turn 55 or so then one could start withdrawing the Panzers to coincide with the offensive ending in the South, Northeast or the West.

I think this is late. I'd say if the Axis player hasn't really screwed the Allies already earlier than this then there's a problem- and anyway the first TO for withdrawing the panzers comes in about ten turns earlier and (especially if you have a low sealift option) you'll want to take it ASAP so you can spread out your withdrawals and not find yourself either in a position where you simply have no panzers on the board, or you wind up with Panthers cooling their heels in Europe waiting for enough sealift.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
Jeremy Mac Donald
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by Jeremy Mac Donald »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

I disagree. This is the offensive into the endless desert situation - you don't do it unless there is a reasonable objective. There is nothing there except one good defensive chunk of terrain after another.

But you noted above that your offensive in the southeast was intended to keep me tied down while you exploited the west. You were attacking in Virginia for about ten turns after the last industrial city (Norfolk) was secured.
That is a reasonable if limited objective.
Here I agree - Though I think the real problem was that the idea on a drive that clears out the south and then shifts to the West is actually flawed. It creates dead periods that allow the Allies to more effectively recover. Balance this with the fact that the drive to the North West was just inherently unworkable and there is a real problem. In reality a better strategy would have been to be weaker in the South but also starting on persecuting the West from very early on - back that with a drive that cuts the rail line through Canada but focuses on attacks in the North East and the Allies never get a respite.

Yeah, I'm thinking something like a landing at Quebec or Boston plus one each at New Orleans and Norfolk or Wilmington. Then you've got the Allies sweating three ways:
1) A link up west of New York
2) A link up north of Atlanta/Birmingham
3) The big link up on the Great Lakes

One is a push with the current version but so deadly the Allied player has to keep his eye on it. Two is kind of a gimme with this landing but will prevent the Allies from holding the lower South in any strength. This then allows you to focus on getting 3.

I'm not sure when or if I'll play the scenario again otherwise I'd be keeping this one to myself.
I dunno - this sort of sounds like an Eastern Landing. That depends a bit on if you do Boston or Quebec. Getting from Boston to the north side of Lake Superior is no easy feat and pretty much requires defeating the Allies in the east... which makes me wonder why go to Lake Superior in the first place. Obviously from Quebec getting to Lake Superior is a given.

Not at all sure about New Orleans either. I sort of think the place borders on being a death trap. Hard to exploit out of due to marshes and Super Rivers while offering all the benefits of having all the Allies in Texas and the South being close enough to block you in and even providing them with great defensive terrain to help them out.
So with this plan if one was anticipating getting to Lake Michigan and clearing the south by turn 55 or so then one could start withdrawing the Panzers to coincide with the offensive ending in the South, Northeast or the West.

I think this is late. I'd say if the Axis player hasn't really screwed the Allies already earlier than this then there's a problem- and anyway the first TO for withdrawing the panzers comes in about ten turns earlier and (especially if you have a low sealift option) you'll want to take it ASAP so you can spread out your withdrawals and not find yourself either in a position where you simply have no panzers on the board, or you wind up with Panthers cooling their heels in Europe waiting for enough sealift.
quite Possibly.

I suppose part of the point of this strategy is you flank around Chicago so the Allies are not defending as strongly. That said Axis supply up this far must by abysmal and you can't really go west until you more or less contain the Allies. I'd sort of be surprised if you can get this whole thing sorted before turn 55 though you probably could start withdrawing the first of the Panzer Corps earlier.

All that said this almost feels like a plan that comes with a built in Plan B. Plan A - if the Allies are badly defeated on the Plains then take Chicago and fall back to this if that is not going to be all that easy.

In any case I know your deep in a game with Pierre and I currently have a project I need to work on. However whenever you finish that game with Pierre consider looking me up for another match of this. Your Axis as I think I learned something from my games with Matt - a better way of thinking about the Allied armies and how to use them so I might be able to provide you a better challenge in this scenario.
Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

I dunno - this sort of sounds like an Eastern Landing. That depends a bit on if you do Boston or Quebec. Getting from Boston to the north side of Lake Superior is no easy feat and pretty much requires defeating the Allies in the east... which makes me wonder why go to Lake Superior in the first place. Obviously from Quebec getting to Lake Superior is a given.

You're probably right- this would need a Quebec landing.
Not at all sure about New Orleans either. I sort of think the place borders on being a death trap. Hard to exploit out of due to marshes and Super Rivers while offering all the benefits of having all the Allies in Texas and the South being close enough to block you in and even providing them with great defensive terrain to help them out.

I think this is a double-edged sword. The Allies engaging the Axis closely is always a risky strategy. With all these super rivers in the area there's a risk of the kind of trap you sprung on me in the middle of this match, where I wound up losing multiple armoured divisions trapped between the Red, Arkansas and Mississippi rivers.
In any case I know your deep in a game with Pierre and I currently have a project I need to work on. However whenever you finish that game with Pierre consider looking me up for another match of this. Your Axis as I think I learned something from my games with Matt - a better way of thinking about the Allied armies and how to use them so I might be able to provide you a better challenge in this scenario.

Oh boy. Well I will need a little bit of a break because the match with Pierre is at turn 150 or something and we still have 80 more turns to go, which will take most of the rest of 2021 as the pace is a bit variable. I'm going to be burnt out by the end of it.

On top of that I'm working on another new scenario which I'd like you to take a look at when I get it to a stage where it's a bit more stable.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
Jeremy Mac Donald
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by Jeremy Mac Donald »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

I dunno - this sort of sounds like an Eastern Landing. That depends a bit on if you do Boston or Quebec. Getting from Boston to the north side of Lake Superior is no easy feat and pretty much requires defeating the Allies in the east... which makes me wonder why go to Lake Superior in the first place. Obviously from Quebec getting to Lake Superior is a given.

You're probably right- this would need a Quebec landing.
Not at all sure about New Orleans either. I sort of think the place borders on being a death trap. Hard to exploit out of due to marshes and Super Rivers while offering all the benefits of having all the Allies in Texas and the South being close enough to block you in and even providing them with great defensive terrain to help them out.

I think this is a double-edged sword. The Allies engaging the Axis closely is always a risky strategy. With all these super rivers in the area there's a risk of the kind of trap you sprung on me in the middle of this match, where I wound up losing multiple armoured divisions trapped between the Red, Arkansas and Mississippi rivers.
In any case I know your deep in a game with Pierre and I currently have a project I need to work on. However whenever you finish that game with Pierre consider looking me up for another match of this. Your Axis as I think I learned something from my games with Matt - a better way of thinking about the Allied armies and how to use them so I might be able to provide you a better challenge in this scenario.

Oh boy. Well I will need a little bit of a break because the match with Pierre is at turn 150 or something and we still have 80 more turns to go, which will take most of the rest of 2021 as the pace is a bit variable. I'm going to be burnt out by the end of it.

On top of that I'm working on another new scenario which I'd like you to take a look at when I get it to a stage where it's a bit more stable.
Fair enough.
Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

Fair enough.

Just stay alive a couple more years- I'm pretty sure we'll play this scenario again.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
Jeremy Mac Donald
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by Jeremy Mac Donald »

Well that is certainly incentive to keep doing that living thing.
Necesse est multos timeat quem multi timent

"He whom many fear, fears many"
StuccoFresco
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:56 am
Location: Italy

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by StuccoFresco »

It's always interesting to see how the different players approach the scenarios' challenges. Good AAR.
User avatar
Hellen_slith
Posts: 2009
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:46 pm

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by Hellen_slith »

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

This concludes the AAR- Happy to post any additional screenshots, though I'm not convinced anyone is still reading.

Ain't nobody here but us chickens!

Oh yes, still reading L:) and great AAR, love it! Looking forward to the next one :)
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4121
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Fall Grau 2.13 Jeremy vs. Ben

Post by golden delicious »

ORIGINAL: Hellen_slith

Looking forward to the next one :)

Thanks- I have a couple of AARs which I might repost here at some point.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”