RACE for BASTOGNE

[Phoenix100]

Can't remember who had the query about exiting troops in this scenario (was it Joe D?), but I exited loads of them no problem. Lol. Been playing it since that post, over a week ago....

It's about my third shot at this scenario, as Axis, and the result is below. Given how inept I am I was surprised to be able to pull this off, and then immediately wondered if this scenario was meant to be played form the Allied side only. Anyone know? It's unlike me to win so effortlessly.

Anyway, the 'point' was to see if I could exit troops ok and I could. No delay, no probs. I gave the exit orders at KG level to 2 KGs (can't recall which - but they weren't the really big ones - Kunkel and someone else, I think))just to test things as it looked like I would win without exiting anybody (the result would have been the same if I hadn't, I'm sure).
They all exited through the northernmost exit point (just off pic, in fact) which was unguarded.

The AI didn't really stand a chance, I feel, and this was because I was able to get to Bastogne and all the key points surrounding it before any of his major reinforcements were even on the map!! As did not happen in real life. After that I just dug in, kept a strong reserve, made sure all my arty was in range and plugged the gaps as the AI tried to find ways to squeeze through (which it did try, most sneakily). The AI was outgunned I think. It's only chance would be to get to Bastogne first in some force. It made me think I should alter the VP levels in the scenario, perhaps, to make sure the AI does all it can before day 3 to get back into Bastogne and to hold there, and to make sure that that and certain key surrounding positions were properly prioritised and rewarded in final points. I'll probably try it as Allies, however, before tinkering.

Lovely scenario though, and a pleasure to command a full Corps with such a pleasing mix of units. I had been reading all about the 559 Heavy Panzerjager Abteilung in Autumn Gale, an absolutely superb book (amazon link, but don't buy there as you can get it direct from the authors for a tad less than three thousand quid!!!!!!!{Still not cheap, at £70, but it really is an exceptionally beautifully produced book, a real work of art and obsessive attention to detail, all in full colour, with amazing maps etc - very highly recommended!!} http://www.amazon.co.uk/Autumn-Gale-Her ... utumn+gale )

It was nice to see 559 in the mix and they played a crucial role in securing Assenois. It was nice to know all about them and the personnel involved (from reading the book) as I watched them struggle in Assenois.

Peter

[Phoenix100]

I looked at the Allied VP balance in Scenmaker and I think what stops the Allies getting everything possible back to defend Bastogne is that 3 crucial forward outposts - Hosingen, Mamach and Clervaux (ringed black to the far right of the pic below) give between them 30 VPs - a huge chunk - on an occupation basis, if they're held until 6pm day 2, or even 8am day 3 (in the case of Clervaux). But if the AI is trying to do that with the meagre forces available then the Axis- in the hands of even an incompetent human like myself - will rush through to Bastogne along the yellow axis marked without much opposition. In addition, given the forces available to the Axis, it's completely unrealistic to expect the Allied AI to hold these outposts for so long. I think the AI might be persuaded to get to Bastogne better if
1. up Bastogne to 50VPs from 40
2. reduce the time limit on the above 3 outposts to end of day 1 for the first 2, and to 8am day 2 for Clervaux.
3. reduce a little the massive initial orders delay affecting the Allies
4. delete some of the plethora of AI-only objectives (no VPs attached) surrounding Bastogne, to clarify the importance of Bastogne
5. up VP points for Assenois, Noville and Longvilly to 10 from 5
6. delete the road junction VP points at Antonuischof and Fe'itsch
7. make the VPs for Wiltz expire at end of day 2, not day 6 as at present
8. reduce the 'destroy the enemy' portion of allied VPs down to 40

I think this will lead to a better balance in the scenario when playing as Axis against the Allies, by encouraging the AI to do what it did historically, and ensuring that the hopelessness of the Allied initial position is given due weight in the AI planning - the Axis brings a massive force to bear and the Allies are not going to hold those forward outposts without completely destroying the bulk of the force they must rely on for the first 2 days, and even then not for that long. This might then stop tactically challenged idiots like me from getting a decisive victory on the third run through....which might be to say that it's actually pretty well balanced as it is for your first run through, when you don't have the benefit of all the 'black intel' you have on your third run...[;)]

[Phoenix100]

After all, this is what it ends up like if the AI tries to hang onto those forward outposts. A detail from the end of my game. Note all the little green crosses....without the Axis units visible I counted 30 of them - that's nearly all the Allied starting units visible in the post above this one!

[BletchleyGeek]

Excellent observations, Peter. I have been wondering myself a bit about this scenario (and the shorter version, "Battle of the Roadblocks"). Let me comment on your observations

ORIGINAL: phoenix
1. up Bastogne to 50VPs from 40

I do agree with that.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
2. reduce the time limit on the above 3 outposts to end of day 1 for the first 2, and to 8am day 2 for Clervaux.

That can work. But I'd provide the AI with new objectives replacing those, encoding a sensible plan to fall back in an ordered manner towards Bastogne.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
3. reduce a little the massive initial orders delay affecting the Allies

That orders delay reflects in a simple and accurate way the (sorry) state of the US forces command & control.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
4. delete some of the plethora of AI-only objectives (no VPs attached) surrounding Bastogne, to clarify the importance of Bastogne

Actually, those AI-only objectives are meant to guide the AI to develop a sensible plan to defend the approaches to Bastogne effectively. Nonetheless, I would check that those objectives don't become active until there's enough forces to defend the city (i.e. when the 101st arrives). Activating those before that might have the AI to fallback prematurely, leaving the German forces too much of a free hand.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
5. up VP points for Assenois, Noville and Longvilly to 10 from 5

That makes sense.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
6. delete the road junction VP points at Antonuischof and Fe'itsch

I need to check the map well. In any case, those objectives are meant to cover the best roads into Bastogne. But I do agree that they, alone, are extremely exposed positions easy to bypass and be rendered irrelevant. Maybe adding AI-only objectives within the same timeline those two objectives are active, might help the AI to defend those better.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
7. make the VPs for Wiltz expire at end of day 2, not day 6 as at present

I am not entirely sure what was the intent of that - I don't recall exactly the timeline of the battle, and it could be that those VP's are meant to be a reward for a human player holding the line much further to the east than historically.

ORIGINAL: phoenix
8. reduce the 'destroy the enemy' portion of allied VPs down to 40

I would be far more aggressive that that. In this particular scenario, rather than destroying the US forces, the goal of the German force was to break into the operational depths of the Allied deployment.

Maybe you could try to tweak the scenario along these lines. Community scenarios don't need to feature new maps and forces to be exciting to play [;)]

[Phoenix100]

Thanks Miguel. Good points. I'm never quite sure how the AI works and what exactly to do to try to nudge it in certain directions. In this scenario I think it works pretty good when you first come at it and haven't a clue about reinforcements and positions and routes, but, even then, as Axis human commander, you're going to try to find a quick route to Bastogne in a way the historical commander wouldn't, perhaps, and even on my first run through I was in Bastogne before the US paras were on the map. Historically, I think, that screen of far-flung, out-of-touch defenders, Hurley Fuller's 110th Infantry Regiment, was practically wiped out trying to hang onto Clervaux etc, but in doing so they must have managed to hold up the Axis advance long enough to let the 101st get into blocking positions. I believe that historically the Axis didn't use the more southern slower crossing points over the Clerf to simply flow round the 110th in force and get round behind them into Bastogne. The advance was slowed to destroy the 110th. Given that any human Axis commander knows the history etc then that's what a human is going to do, however (go round the defenders) and in a way this is the beauty of the game, that it allows you to play with a historical set up, use different tactics and achieve a non-historical result thereby. If Von-Luttwitz had known what I know he could have been in Bastogne before the 101st! I think I should play the Allies now (or when I'm finished Epsom, which I've just started looking at again, and Chris's Taganrog scenario)and see how the AI handles the task as Axis.

But to re-balance it to take account of how a human player would usually plan the Axis moves then I guess my feeling would be that you need that screen - the Clervaux-Draufelt line - to hold the Axis, but not at the expense of losing nearly all the 110th, as they are virtually all you have for the first 2 days. Large numbers of reinforcements don't start arriving until well into day 3 (and I assume that's historically accurate). The easiest way to achieve this might be to go into map maker and drop all the Clerf crossings except Clervaux and Draufelt. Then scale up the VPs on Draufelt, and scale down the furthest east VPs - Hosingen etc - to ensure that for the first 2 days the Axis can only cross the Clerf where you can defend it, and that the 110th doesn't hang onto those crossings to the point of death.

I'll think about it!

[MikeJ19]

An interesting discussion. I'm about to start this scenario, I hope to be as successful...

Mike