Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Description of your first forum.

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:09 am

Axis South East Front Turn 28
Attachments
Turn 28 South Front.png
Turn 28 South Front.png (2.47 MiB) Viewed 32 times
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:10 am

Axis North West Front Turn 28
Attachments
Turn 28 West Front.png
Turn 28 West Front.png (1.98 MiB) Viewed 32 times
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:11 am

Axis South West Front Turn 28
Attachments
Turn 28 South West Front.png
Turn 28 South West Front.png (2.13 MiB) Viewed 32 times
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:11 am

Axis Central American Front Turn 28
Attachments
Turn 28 Central American Front.png
Turn 28 Central American Front.png (1.22 MiB) Viewed 32 times
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Ben Turner » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:00 pm

xandamere wrote:Turn 25:

Jeremy may have taken a lesson from our last match with me as the Allies as he descends on Albuquerque with what looks like a very large force of Italians. I saw them coming up and had moved some Mexican guerrilla units to each flank in hopes it was a small group and I could surround them, but my southern guerilla units are hit by what looks like 4 Italian divisions, so I don’t think there’s much hope here.


Sort of begs the question, if it requires this much effort to take Albuquerque, why not deploy these divisions on the main front? It would at least have made it more difficult for Matt to pull of his Miracle on the Missouri.
User avatar
Ben Turner
 
Posts: 3065
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:59 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:20 am

Ben Turner wrote:
xandamere wrote:Turn 25:

Jeremy may have taken a lesson from our last match with me as the Allies as he descends on Albuquerque with what looks like a very large force of Italians. I saw them coming up and had moved some Mexican guerrilla units to each flank in hopes it was a small group and I could surround them, but my southern guerilla units are hit by what looks like 4 Italian divisions, so I don’t think there’s much hope here.


Sort of begs the question, if it requires this much effort to take Albuquerque, why not deploy these divisions on the main front? It would at least have made it more difficult for Matt to pull of his Miracle on the Missouri.

I don't think the Italians could have stopped me being tossed back over the Missouri - I just crossed with too little punch and I don't think this Italian force would have added enough punch. Matt tossed me back because he made it into lets go back and forth trading 8 hexs a turn except I could not get the 8 hexs a turn...I was relying on double lines which just did not work. The extra Italians could have stopped Matt from cutting me off but the turn he cut me off just made a bad situation worse - it did not actually change the situation. It meant that the army that retreated back over where even more pale shadows of themselves but they where still going to be forced back over. I needed to wait some more turns until a larger Axis Army had arrived that could go head to head with Matt's rapidly arriving concentration and come out on top.

The other issue is you are kind of forced to put a pretty sizeable force out there for flank guard to stop the Allies from retaking the airfields and sneaking small irregulars through to cut the line so it eventually becomes fairly easy to suddenly pull all the flank forces together and jump Albuquerque and then spread back out to cover the flank. You actually see that in the screen shot - Matt is all over my flank and I am chasng him down now that Albuquerque is secured.

This Italian Army was not the army I needed to make the Missouri crossing work - I needed a German Army that was four or five turns off but I pulled the trigger to quickly. In the end I let the fact that I had failed to deliver any real killing blows to the Allied Army rush me when, in reality, the correct move had to be to wait even longer for for my slow landing Axis to actually have some kind of superiority. One of the things I find hard with the Axis is if the Allies are shrewd enough not to let their army get destroyed it is tough to not get over aggressive with the Axis desperately trying to make things happen.
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Ben Turner » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:38 am

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:Turn 28
Not a great turn for me. In Central America my attempts to land on the coastline are thwarted. The units won't advance. Maybe because it is a mountain hex?


This, anyway, is explicitly forbidden in the house rules; you're not allowed to land anywhere except;
a) an anchorage
b) the Pacific coast of the United States

My situation here is not that bad. More raiders are caught and killed but these irregulars could be replaced forever. The rail line is a problem however. Turns out that Rail Repair units can't repair bridges that have been bombed.


I think that what is happening here is that even if the bridge is blown, the hex retains a distinction between rail/broken rail. So the unit goes in to fix the broken rail, and this also fixes the bridge. If the rail isn't broken, the RR unit can't fix it and so can't fix the bridge either.

Anyway this is all a bit brutal and I am thinking about what mechanisms one could have to allow advanced supply points to be developed for the German player. Possibly a TO which drops supply globally for the Axis by, let's say, two points, but allows supply points to be placed on a time delay in various inland locations.

So clearly Artillery is absolutely the arbitrator of victory here.


As a general principle I'm not too fussed about this as artillery really does make the difference as to whether one can attack or not in modern warfare, but the divisions themselves are loaded with quite a bit of artillery and so the HQs shouldn't be this decisive. I think TOAW IV combat is, to some extent, broken.

This reminds me that I lost one this turn in an unusual way. The Colombian HQ has been heading south into Central America and was very worn out due to attrition. This turn when I went looking for it the unit had been destroyed. Since nothing killed it it is apparently possible for a unit to evaporate from attrition.


Shouldn't be. Does Matt have any air units on interdiction?
User avatar
Ben Turner
 
Posts: 3065
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:59 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Ben Turner » Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:01 am

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:The other issue is you are kind of forced to put a pretty sizeable force out there for flank guard to stop the Allies from retaking the airfields and sneaking small irregulars through to cut the line


I don't think you need a lot of troops to do this, though- and you must have had screens either side of your main force of Italians anyway.
User avatar
Ben Turner
 
Posts: 3065
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:59 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:05 am

Ben Turner wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:Turn 28
Not a great turn for me. In Central America my attempts to land on the coastline are thwarted. The units won't advance. Maybe because it is a mountain hex?


This, anyway, is explicitly forbidden in the house rules; you're not allowed to land anywhere except;
a) an anchorage
b) the Pacific coast of the United States


I was not aware that there was a distinction between the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts ... why is there a distinction?

My situation here is not that bad. More raiders are caught and killed but these irregulars could be replaced forever. The rail line is a problem however. Turns out that Rail Repair units can't repair bridges that have been bombed.


I think that what is happening here is that even if the bridge is blown, the hex retains a distinction between rail/broken rail. So the unit goes in to fix the broken rail, and this also fixes the bridge. If the rail isn't broken, the RR unit can't fix it and so can't fix the bridge either.

Anyway this is all a bit brutal and I am thinking about what mechanisms one could have to allow advanced supply points to be developed for the German player. Possibly a TO which drops supply globally for the Axis by, let's say, two points, but allows supply points to be placed on a time delay in various inland locations.

So clearly Artillery is absolutely the arbitrator of victory here.


As a general principle I'm not too fussed about this as artillery really does make the difference as to whether one can attack or not in modern warfare, but the divisions themselves are loaded with quite a bit of artillery and so the HQs shouldn't be this decisive. I think TOAW IV combat is, to some extent, broken.
Well on this we agree - note that it is only artillery that is 1 hex away. You don't get some kind of bonus from artillery in your ground unit (See fortified Brigades stopping Panzer Divisions routinely). Air power does not count for this - I mean likely it blows shit up more but it does not blow back the defenders. The siege unit that fires 2 hexs does not count (maybe it does if it is beside a hex and not 2 hexs away - needs more testing) The magic is in artillery units with a 1 hex range - they have magic powers.

Where it gets really crazy is what this means for how to defend...remember when you chide Matt for using Armour Defensively on the line...your wrong, Matt to his credit has this all figured out - I'm just really gloming to this about this point in the match but Matt figured it out much quicker. Armour is a defencive weapon at least in these big back and forth fights. The reason is it can hold hexs - not usually but say 40% of the time. Thing is when any number of Infantry is always going to be tossed from the hex (say 95% of the time) holding on 40% of the time is a big deal. Does not seem to matter what kind of armour as big Armour or SS Panzer Divisions actually hold on about as often as those Heavy Brigades both sides have. So you don't want to attack with your Armour - you want to defend with it.

Furthermore since it does not seem to matter what is doing the attacking so long as it has independent artillery support you actually don't want to attack with your best units. You want to attack with your worst most burnt out unit and defend with the best units because the ground unit does not matter but if you attack with your best unit then it gets worn out plus now part of your line has this bad unit defending - it could be thrown back by a non artillery heavy attack and also when it retreats it might be vulnerable to push back attacks - you best units will still mostly be blown out of the hex but when they retreat they are not likely to be vulnerable to push back attacks and of course anywhere they are defending can only reasonably be attacked by a heavy artillery concentration attack.

So yeah - weird stuff. Defend with Armour and you best units, attack with your worst unit.

Of course sometimes you want the armour to be the unit that ends up in the hex so that there is a small but not insignificant chance it will hold off the counter attack for at least one combat phase - but better would be just to follow up with armour to dig in and defend. Axis player also needs to balance how bad the attacking unit is. Matt's Allies did lose a fair number of weak units to evaporation. Since they could be replaced no problem but the Axis can't really afford to sacrifice to many burnt out Infantry Divisions using this tactic - so maybe they should tend to use just orange units that probably live instead of actual cherry red units.

This reminds me that I lost one this turn in an unusual way. The Colombian HQ has been heading south into Central America and was very worn out due to attrition. This turn when I went looking for it the unit had been destroyed. Since nothing killed it it is apparently possible for a unit to evaporate from attrition.


Shouldn't be. Does Matt have any air units on interdiction?

Over the Panama Canal? - no he does not...unit evaped on its own. Pretty sure I saw it again later in the game when I got a unit stuck in a jungle hex and was unable to leave and eventually the unit just died. Being out of supply certainly does it.
Last edited by Jeremy Mac Donald on Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:14 am, edited 5 times in total.
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:01 am

Oh one more thing on the magic artillery because it has rules:

One Artillery unit is not enough. I don't really notice much with 1 artillery unit.

Two Artillery is OK kinda sorta but not really - I deliberately experimented with two and there was an effect but it was very inconsistent.

Three is magic and magical is three. With three pieces of artillery you win - always...unless the hex is defended by Amour and then just most of the time.

Does size matter?

Actually I don't know. I can say that the 3-1 Colombians and the Italians etc. seemed to work pretty well - I don't really recall every being all unhappy with them. the massive 9-3 or whatever it is SS Panzer Corp Artillery certainly worked but I am not sure if it counted as 2 artillery or anything. This needs more testing.

It should be emphasized that this really is extreme. We don't see it so much this match but think back to the last match with my New York Pocket with the burnt out 3-2 Armoured Divisions that threw back stacks of 4 reasonably fresh German Infantry Divisions two hexs on each side of the pocket every single turn without fail for 8 turns running and then Matt got sick of this and attacked my entire perimeter and it all went south? At the time I was not sure why this was working - I was just thinking Heroic American Armoured Division with 28 Shermans left launches its 13th counter attack...blah...blah...blah.

Now however it is clear - 4 full strength German Infantry Divisions dug in stand no chance against a 3-2 Armoured Division...not when it is supported by artillery - I had artillery (including some irreplaceable Canadian Artillery) in that pocket - that is why these attacks always worked...every single time (That said I have occasionally seen an attack fail against Infantry - I think success is maybe only 95% certain...I suspect that sometimes all the artillery way dispraportiantly targets the armour or assault guns in the unit and it flunks but that is just a guess). If Matt had brought some Armour maybe they would have occasionally failed.
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron