Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Coordinating airdrops with land assault

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Coordinating airdrops with land assault Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Coordinating airdrops with land assault - 6/20/2011 2:52:06 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		I hope this was addressed in the wishlist. This is especially important when assaulting either forts(Eben Emael comes to mind) or small islands suchas Malta(in the larger scenarios). If Bob wants to chime in that this is 'non-trivial' I'll concede. Perhaps treat paras strength as a bombardment strength while embarked(run away!), only disembarking if the hex is vacated. Just a thought.

Unless someone wanted to consider the idea that opposing forces be allowed to share a hex.

< Message edited by macgregor -- 6/20/2011 2:57:48 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Coordinating airdrops with land assault - 6/20/2011 5:06:06 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I hope this was addressed in the wishlist. This is especially important when assaulting either forts(Eben Emael comes to mind) or small islands suchas Malta(in the larger scenarios). If Bob wants to chime in that this is 'non-trivial' I'll concede. Perhaps treat paras strength as a bombardment strength while embarked(run away!), only disembarking if the hex is vacated. Just a thought.

Unless someone wanted to consider the idea that opposing forces be allowed to share a hex.


But Eben Emael wasn't coordinated with a land assault. The glider troops disabled the fortress on their own. The pertinent passage from the Wikipedia article:

"...Having achieved their primary objectives of disabling the artillery pieces possessed by the fort, the airborne troops then held it against Belgian counter-attacks, which began almost immediately. These counter-attacks were made by Belgian infantry formations without artillery support and were uncoordinated. This allowed the airborne troops to repel them with machine-gun fire.[19][28] Artillery from several smaller Forts nearby and Belgian field artillery units also targeted the airborne troops, but this too was uncoordinated and achieved nothing and often aided the airborne troops in repelling counter-attacks by Belgian infantry units.[29] Patrols were also used to ensure that the garrison stayed in the interior of the fort and did not attempt to emerge and mount an attempt to retake the fort.[28] Any attempt by the garrison to launch a counter-attack would have been stymied by the fact that the only possible route for such an attack was up a single, spiral staircase, and any embrasures looking out onto the Fort had either been captured or disabled.[30] The plan for the assault had called for Group Granite to be relieved by 51st Engineer Battalion within a few hours of seizing the Fort, but the Group was not actually relieved until 7:00 on May 11..."

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/20/2011 5:12:05 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 2
RE: Coordinating airdrops with land assault - 6/21/2011 4:38:54 AM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		Touche. Point well made. My example isn't valid. Hopefully my point still is.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 3
RE: Coordinating airdrops with land assault - 6/21/2011 6:56:39 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Touche. Point well made. My example isn't valid. Hopefully my point still is.


I think the validity depends on what scale you're working at. If the paratroops are landing 5 km behind the front, that's an assault on the same hex at 20 km per hex; a separate movement at 2.5 km per hex.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 4
RE: Coordinating airdrops with land assault - 6/21/2011 3:32:27 PM   
macgregor


Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline 		The point being ...what? Scenarios larger than 5km should be written off as too big to represent?

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 5
RE: Coordinating airdrops with land assault - 6/21/2011 6:09:25 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

The point being ...what? Scenarios larger than 5km should be written off as too big to represent?


Of course not. The point is that your idea would be more appropriate for some scales than for others.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to macgregor)
Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Coordinating airdrops with land assault Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.281