Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> After Action Reports >> RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/13/2016 5:37:29 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Btw, I found some of your groups (ex. I/NJG 2) with no planes and full of pilots. Probably due to the restricted replacement setting.


You see, this is why I was right to join the army rather than the air force :)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 31
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 2:06:31 AM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Turn 6 - 14 Aug '43

First things first - the defense of the Reich

Targets this week are the Ruhr & Cologne (47 raids by Bomber command!), while 8th AF hits Schweinfurt & Stuttgart with 600 bombers each, we guessed right on Schweinfurt and hurt the stream, while Stuttgart raid gets lucky as we refitted the fighter gruppe there last turn. Bombing VPs up at 14, with a negative 1 for U-boats. QBall on email is confident he will hit 20 VP per turn before the end of '43 and I've no reason to doubt him and not much power to thwart his plans. Permenant losses reported at about 200 B17 & B24s & 160 Lancs & Halifaxes. I don't feel like he is going to run out any time soon... :) As Japan in WITP you have a bit more control over your destiny in what you produce. Germany has to work with what we are given, and it isn't much. Oh, sorry and Italy/Romania/Bulgaria. Sorry guys, I forgot you were still in it. You complete us, and we value your support at this difficult time.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 32
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 2:55:56 AM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Sicily

Some interesting tactics at Palermo. 23 Arm Bde launches a series of probing attacks, each supported by 2 task forces, and each stops short fairly promptly as a reconnaissance in force. I guess trying to burn off the defenders ammo or cause fatigue. Actually looks like the base CV actually rises, maybe from experience gains. When the 4th attack comes in its a biggie. Best part of 80,000 men; 2 Infantry divisions, 1 airborne division, 1 US Arm division, 3 Br Armoured brigades, 15 artillery btlns & 2 independent engineers (7 inc. div troops) with a few fliers for good measure. We are proud to announce another epic victory, although losses not that heavy on either side. The forts are damaged though so while supplies still hold out, the end will no doubt not be far off. We console ourselves that its turn 7, if this was the Husky scenario things would be going quite well. QBall is clearly careful to avoid VP losses and so far to date has not attacked a German unit on either island.

The Garibaldi line in Sardinia is relatively secure, no attacks even though looks like he has overwhelming strength available. Its the whole 7th Army there, although the armour is off the front line, possibly pulling back to N.Africa for phase 2 as its clearly redundant here. He has taken to launching considerable naval patrols off our final port, we counterattack but it seems clear that isolation rather than direct attacks will be the end of the Sardinia expeditionary force. We have reasonable supply levels though so might take time. We'll see... So far its playing out as expected to be honest, these troops are all but written off when I pulled the trigger on re-inforcing Sardinia. But I'd rather be losing troops here than fighting on the open plains NE of Rome while getting buzzed by Spitfires as I rush to try to evacuate the whole Italian peninsula before the end of '43... We had a vision and it was more horrible than the few regiments we might lose here. Of course this might still happen even if Sardinia holds for a few weeks, but not for want of trying on my side and while plenty will argue the rational textbook thing is to evacuate then how dull is that? Lets see how long this defense can play out.

But as a backup we are making plans elsewhere. Reggio is defended by HG PZ Div, clearly redundant on Sicily as he is not going to attack in the NW for at least a couple more turns, if ever. HG Pz more useful there though for sure. His lack of urgency here suggests to me eventually he will rely on me evacuating in response to a landing elsewhere. On which note, LXXVi Pz Korps is covering against this in the south. Best guess being 2 turns time or then onwards when the first released TFs are prepped. We also have payed out a few APs to build the Gothic line. We'll need it at some point anyway and at least a few Italian divs are helping dig while they are still around. Also II SS Pz Korps (1, 12 & 16 SS Pz Gn, 26 Pz and 4 Fallshirmjager) is assembled there within striking distance of the Roman riveria should he get impetuous... So far this seems out of character, but if they were targeted there from the start it might be tempting to pull the trigger anyway might en it...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 33
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 4:52:42 AM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Don't know if you'll buy it, but still, WA player doesn't run single raids, they come in series. Since game doesn't allow to hit multiple sites (cities) in single raid it could be considered as parts of single complex raid.



But, as Harrybanana demonstrated in his thread "Strategic bombing for dummies" (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4074541), you can set up an air directive for a geographic area bounded by 9 hexes (90 miles) on each side, with "14 strikes of 100 bomber each" or "25 strikes of 50 bombers each" (depending upon how many bombers you have available in any one turn). He demonstrates how that many strikes in such a large area can generate a large number of bombing points each turn. How many negative casualty points would be generated by the loss of @600 crewman (real-life Schweinfurt raid, which caused the 8th AF to halt unescorted raids in the Autumn of 1943 and ultimately change commanders)?

Again, I am not trying to upset the cart (I'm actually a convert from WITP:AE because of the air system), but just provide some food for thought if the VP system is ever examined for renovation.

< Message edited by bomccarthy -- 12/14/2016 8:23:23 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 34
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 5:30:21 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

"14 strikes of 100 bomber each" or "25 strikes of 50 bombers each"


In most cases it is possible to merge them logically into large complex raids. In any case, I'm just trying to say that this kind of missions wouldn't be too off from historical raids.

quote:

How many negative casualty points would be generated by the loss of @600 crewman (real-life Schweinfurt raid, which caused the 8th AF to halt unescorted raids in the Autumn of 1943 and ultimately change commanders)?


Afaik, none, unless this is air campaign game.

It is always possible to make it more strict and add some. Currently I see plenty of WA groups with morale in 10's, which is extremely low. It could be used as basis for extra rolls (ex. leader dismissal, mission activity, etc).

quote:

but just provide some food for thought if the VP system is ever examined for renovation.


Sure, I'm very open to VP system feedback. In fact, it has been changed two times quite radically since release, allowing various options.



_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 35
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 9:38:35 AM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Currently the crew losses for aircraft don't feed into the negative VPs for the allies do they? Perhaps they should be factored in. Crew number lost x by a multiplier to have a sightly higher impact than an infantryman. Clearly there is not too much of a disincentive to ride your bomber crews hard, you are unlikely to run out. Whereas as we see, there is such a thing in reality as unacceptable losses. They were bad for morale. I remember grandma telling how she lived near the base and would count the sounds of the bombers going out and back again. But here its seems like the allies are incentivised to be very careful not to lose VPs for troops and QBall making no attempt yet try to attack on the ground, which is entirely rational, but equally bombers are encouraged to go hard and take risks going deep into the Reich because you are always going to gain more than you stand lose. This may make for more interesting choices at times for the allies. Maybe even might encourage to switch to softer French targets at times.

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 36
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 10:57:15 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, WA probably would never run out of planes and crews, but by design morale hit should have operational impact decreasing efficiency. Adding it to VP count to make it more visible is very possible, but it might require a lot of balancing work.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 37
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 11:51:44 AM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		No doubt, but if anybody can do it, I'm sure you can! ;)
Just throwing it into the mix. It's a great model, but certainly seems like potential for tweaks, no doubt some applicable to WITE2.

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 38
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/14/2016 8:52:19 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Yes, WA probably would never run out of planes and crews, but by design morale hit should have operational impact decreasing efficiency. Adding it to VP count to make it more visible is very possible, but it might require a lot of balancing work.


I agree that adding it to the VP count would require a lot of balancing work, since the WA are already penalized rather heavily for ground losses.

I like the idea of extra rolls for very low morale - this would realistically reflect how local commanders and crews would react to being pushed too far. In fact, this sort of process would be ideal for addressing the U-Boat and V-Weapon threats - I'm sure it's not feasible even in WITW 2.0 (if envisioned), but instead of negative VPs for undamaged U-Boat and V-Weapon industry, the number of air directives available to 8th AF and Bomber Command could be increasingly restricted as U-Boat and V-Weapon targets remain undamaged. This would reflect mounting national political pressure on Eaker/Doolittle and Harris to do something about these targets. There then could be a point of no-return - an additional roll each turn, failure of which would result in the sacking the 8th AF and Bomber Command leaders, who would then be replaced by "suitable" commanders with the highest political rating.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 39
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/15/2016 9:38:59 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		How it is going? As I could see you are on turn 8 already.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 40
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/15/2016 11:10:02 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Quick update, yes it's turn 8, Palermo has just fallen to an assault by half the 8th army and the med fleet. Big attacks on the Garibaldi line and lots of bombing going on. 109 raids going on partly as pretty much every railyard in south Italy gets a share. As we suspected the next invasion is imminent...
However I'm just back from my team lunch in London, and it was quite boozy, and the I have a 7am flight to Amsterdam for our company Christmas do. I've told myself not to press any buttons, or I'm liable to try to invade Scotland. It's moments like this when all my carriers would vanish in WITP... Proper update soon :)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gunnulf -- 12/18/2016 7:34:52 PM >

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 41
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/18/2016 8:13:03 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		The bookies stop taking odds on when the next invasion is happening. Still not clear quite where yet. of course no recon to tip off where he might be looking at, when he comes he will come in blind. Whats also no clear is quite who is left in N.Africa to invade. We have ID'd 5 x armoured divisions in Sicily & Sardinia including 4 Canadian Armoured on Sardinia, plus 6 Br Armoured, 29 US Inf, 56 Br Inf Divs here recently too. So clearly lots of forces from 5th US Army here, plus plenty from 21st Army Group.
This leaves maybe units such as 1st & 6th Br Airborne, the Indians & Polish Armoured and a handful of British Infantry. He could be going all in with the rest of the Canadian Corps and 15th Scottish & 52nd Air Landing I guess. So now I think about it, despite having positively IDing just about every unit from 8th, 7th and 5th Armies in phase 1, and neither island yet taken I can clearly expect another Army sized invasion very soon. Herein is another element of the game that as always confused me a bit. You have to pay APs to shift AA about, commanders etc... but to commit about 50% more allied forces to the Med theatre than historical you can do at the drop of the hat without any consequences or costs (unless I am missing something?). In fact its entirely irrational not to or you risk slow progress or higher casualties. I'm not sure why it doesnt take a couple of weeks of APs at least to switch a unit from the Atlantic box to the Med transport box. Air units too can rebase between theatres and in theory leave the UK pretty much completely empty of TAc-air if desired (lock some units to 2nd Air forces until XX date?). Seems to me the Allies are always swimming in APs, and while its great in any game to have the flexibility of choice, this is not really a choice, there is no scarcity constraining you. Why would you not go all-in?

I think it would make for much more interesting decision making if the Allies faced more constraints here. The German high command system has been very well thought out and its very difficult to commit more than historically without consequences, ether with or without the EF box I think, but the allied system? Not so much which seems a shame. I tend to self constrain myself as Allies but that probably means I'm an idiot really.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 42
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/18/2016 8:24:28 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		In other news its been a bit scrappy over the sea off north-east Sardinia. We keep Olbia from being isolated but he's started throwing enough air superiority up there to intercept each mission with 150 fighters so clearly his air bases in the south of the island are well established now. Looking at the wider picture you can see he is covering Sicily on a shoe-string naval-patrol wise, 2 invasions still being covered and a 3rd brewing is stretching things a bit but everything covered. As the Japanese in WITP the old adage I think is you can do pretty much whatever you want in '41 & '42 but not everything you want. The Allies here can already do everything they want, where they want. I guess that depends on where he lands exactly, and with what. Can he still then continue to cover everywhere else? One things clear to me though - I'd love to be able to put some U-boats the the air gap he's left off the south coast of Sicily... :)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gunnulf -- 12/18/2016 8:27:20 PM >

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 43
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/18/2016 9:49:00 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

.... Herein is another element of the game that as always confused me a bit. You have to pay APs to shift AA about, commanders etc... but to commit about 50% more allied forces to the Med theatre than historical you can do at the drop of the hat without any consequences or costs (unless I am missing something?). In fact its entirely irrational not to or you risk slow progress or higher casualties. I'm not sure why it doesnt take a couple of weeks of APs at least to switch a unit from the Atlantic box to the Med transport box. Air units too can rebase between theatres and in theory leave the UK pretty much completely empty of TAc-air if desired (lock some units to 2nd Air forces until XX date?). Seems to me the Allies are always swimming in APs, and while its great in any game to have the flexibility of choice, this is not really a choice, there is no scarcity constraining you. Why would you not go all-in?

...


you are right, in the same way there is no practical cost to bringing almost all the tactical air down into the Med for this phase as well. If you don't leave some naval patrols along N Africa you can take some transit costs but they are not serious and easy to avoid.

edit - the only real cost is putting too much into the med will strain your supply system and transport ship usage, but as long as you have it all back under control by early 1944 I'm not too sure even that matters?

on the other side, there is less pressure on an axis player to hold back some of the Pzr reserve in 1943, but I think it would be handy to lock some of the allied units into the UK for 1943?


< Message edited by loki100 -- 12/18/2016 9:50:14 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 44
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/18/2016 10:15:23 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		I'm not sure I've seen the Allies suffer from supply problems due to over-committing to the Med, but I've not pushed it hard to be honest. I can't see the other side of the hill but QBall does't seem to be having problems with supply on either island, but the tempo of ground fighting is fairly limited which is maybe helping. Once Trapani falls next week he'll no doubt switch to trench warfare until i pull back to Messina, which of course is when not if. The most I allowed myself was to send down units that were historically in theatre plus at most a couple of extra divisions and a few FB squadrons so really not got a point of reference. The temptation is clearly there though and I can't see any really impediment to doing so. As Sid Meier said a good game is a set of interesting choices, but its doesn't seem like its much of a choice here if you are playing competitively. If you don't commit them they are't any less trained for Overlord, if anything they are better, you don't miss out on any APs that prevent you from building airfields etc... The decision tree would seem to be:
Do you want to send 21st Army Group to the med? Yes/No.
- Yes > good choice, ships away!
- No > are you sure? Its absolutely free troops, you can bring them back anytime free too
- Ok, Yes > great, issue the tropical shorts!
- No > Really?? What bit of guilt-free no strings attached extra troops didn't you understand?

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 45
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 10:44:02 AM   
Dobey455

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

.... Herein is another element of the game that as always confused me a bit. You have to pay APs to shift AA about, commanders etc... but to commit about 50% more allied forces to the Med theatre than historical you can do at the drop of the hat without any consequences or costs (unless I am missing something?). In fact its entirely irrational not to or you risk slow progress or higher casualties. I'm not sure why it doesnt take a couple of weeks of APs at least to switch a unit from the Atlantic box to the Med transport box. Air units too can rebase between theatres and in theory leave the UK pretty much completely empty of TAc-air if desired (lock some units to 2nd Air forces until XX date?). Seems to me the Allies are always swimming in APs, and while its great in any game to have the flexibility of choice, this is not really a choice, there is no scarcity constraining you. Why would you not go all-in?

...


you are right, in the same way there is no practical cost to bringing almost all the tactical air down into the Med for this phase as well. If you don't leave some naval patrols along N Africa you can take some transit costs but they are not serious and easy to avoid.

edit - the only real cost is putting too much into the med will strain your supply system and transport ship usage, but as long as you have it all back under control by early 1944 I'm not too sure even that matters?

on the other side, there is less pressure on an axis player to hold back some of the Pzr reserve in 1943, but I think it would be handy to lock some of the allied units into the UK for 1943?




How about:

1) Something similar to the German garrison rule - the allied player must keep a certain combat value in Britian before a set date. He has the freedom to "shuffle" some units but must maintain a certain portion of his power in the UK

OR

2) A limit to the number of forces that can be transferred between theaters per turn (ie 1 or 2 division(s), or however much, can be transferred between theaters per turn).

IMHO the current system, which limits movements by available shipping tonnage, doesn't fully reflect the great difference between moving an army across 60 miles of channel as opposed to moving it a thousand miles under threat of u-boat and air attack.

Sorry, not trying to derail a very interesting AAR, but you've brought up a point that I also agree with.

< Message edited by Dobey -- 12/19/2016 10:46:36 AM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 46
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 11:22:07 AM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		That first option kinda the first thing that occurred to me that would have made sense. I think its great that the game gives the options to explore the options to sent different troops south, but as stated above there should be costs and consequences. Some further angles to consider; the political implications of reducing the defenses in the UK, but also balanced against the Asian theatre which was also crying out for troops. If the Med gets more from the strategic reserve in the UK why shouldn't India? This is why the heavy use of APs to ship divisions south seems like the easy and fairly satisfactory answer, with the APs balanced to only allow a limited number without severesly curtailing the Allied players ability to use them for anything else.
Also it reality the allies succeeded with what they had (obviously). If the Allies in game can only succeed with massive re-inforcements then its seems likely that this influx of troops is covering up some other inbalance that might need addressing. Actually I think if well handled (and QBall certainly handles them well) the Allies can get a historical result with what they are given without committing the extra divisions, but of course they can do much better and faster by using everything.

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Dobey455)
Post #: 47
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 11:44:13 AM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Turn 9 - 28 Aug '43

Lets start with Sicily first this time. Headline news is Trapani falls finally having held out against 3 previous assaults this month. In the end 3 Armoured divisions plus one armoured brigade attack, with 953 AFVs (Operation Goodwood on Sicily maybe? That was only just over 1000 tanks :) ). 14 attacking casualties, presumably the Italians surrended pretty much immediately this time once Palermo went, although Corps HQ and Army HQ C2 links still intact. In fact the defeat was so complete that we suffer nearly 900 causulties more than troops we had, probably hiding in cellars or something... :)

In the NW, emboldened by our forces retiring 1 hex an attack goes in against the Schmalz PzGn Bde, supported by 54 IT Div which holds. I will continue to shift back I think, but I don't want to shorten the line too much or clearly he will just pull more divisions back to Africa for phase 2. Trying to keep him a little tied down at least.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 48
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 12:35:32 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Over the Reich

Its raining but this doesn't appear to lessen the bombing accuracy (although I might be just suffering PTSD from previous weeks at not a reliable witness...), however its pretty clear that less Bombers get shot down. Compared to previous PBEM the losses continue to be well below the hundreds of losses I've been able to inflict but this turn is particularly bad it seems. Bomber command still focused on the Ruhr, but hits the nearest U-Boat factories on the North Sea too. Meanwhile QBall continues to alternate 8th Air force between micro & macro raids. This turn despite the rain its micro and as you can see despite a flurry of intercepts on the stream heading to the Leipzig area only 17 B17s are lost. I just have to keep trying to make it tough with the limited resources I have. But if August 43 was the month that the Luftwaffe caused such losses that 8th AF switched to France... this is not happening here. Clearly '44 is going to be a nightmare of biblical proportions.

Just to ballpark this a bit. There were 111 city bombing raids last phase, this included 2E & 4E bombers obviously. Some raids 25 bombers, some up to 50. So probably if we take an average of 37 bombers per raid that 4100 bomber sorties all week. At a rough tally I put losses at well under 2%, although intel could be bad and could be more operational losses. Very rough maths but certainly seems sustainable despite our efforts. It is what it is, but it certainly seems much much lower losses than other games where my opponents run big raids. As a tactic its certainly the way to go, and brings in big VP gains (currently +16 bombing points versus -1 for U-Boats).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gunnulf -- 12/19/2016 12:52:52 PM >

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 49
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 1:44:28 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Finally in Sardinia

One attack on the Garibaldi line but its a biggie; 90k troops from 29 US Inf, 56 BR Inf, 82 US ABN, 4 CAN Arm & 3 US Inf Divisions plus 9 artillery btlns in support. QBall doesn't mess around :) to hit one German Mtn regiment with a ragtag regiment of Italians in support. Allied losses only a rifle company, apprently half of those were from a bad batch of sausages at breakfast.

We expected not to be able to stand up to the Army he has brought to the party, by default nobody is getting out of here, and our only objective is to slow him down as much as possible. At a rate of 1 hex per turn we have about a month of resistance ahead I guess before he is out of the rough terrain. Will it be worth it? Probably not, for the reasons above he is not short of troops, he is not suffering supply resistrictions, he is not much slowed down. If we were just facing 1st wave troops of 7th Army here we might be ok, but the juggernaught is just too strong.

Another postive (and I am a natural optimist believe it or not!) the port of Olbia remains unisolated. No railyard hits on the mainland... However every port in Corsica is hit. A bait and switch? But why bother? Its not like I would be switching units between Corsica and the mainland at short notice. Will he really hit Corsica and end up fighting for all 3 islands at the same time, with none of them completely controlled, rather than landing on the mainland? That would be a potentially be a minimum Corps level endevour, a significant chunks of the troops un-accounted for then committed and not much in reserve for the mainland, unless he quickly pulls back units for Sicily. This would take a little a few weeks though surely? Either way if he hits Corica, so be it, doesn't change too much for me in the grand scheme of things. At best he will complete that at the same time as Sardinia, probably slightly later. On balance my money is still on a mainland invasion next week, latest week after. If Corsica happens it may just be a 1 TF invasion using the orignal spare we expected from the start, then the mainland straight after.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 50
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 10:04:57 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Turn 10 - 4 Sep '43

The Mediterranean theatre

Firstly, no new invasion yet. Mixed emotions obviously. Its the not knowing thats the worst. Rather strange activity though, note from the map that all routine naval patrols halted, some focus on SW & NE Sardinia, & E of Sicily otherwise the seas are uncontested. Are they resting ahead of a period of intense activity? Certainly nobody will be sailing this turn. Otherwise he is now hitting the Corsican ports and the railyards SE of Rome. I guess this is as far as he can possibly reach with longer range fighters from his existing bases and try to circumvent having to fight the Casino line. But its still quite a stretch I would think, despite knowing the Luftwaffe has taken a bit of a battering. My latest guess is he has had to change his plans a bit from original due to slower progress on both islands, but that he wil risk a simultaneous small landing on Corsica, with a landing as far up the Italian boot as he dares. But of course if I throw out enough guesses here one will be right :) But it will take more that that to look like some wise soothsayer, clearly this has not been a textbook example of how to play the Axis so far. More a salutary warning of what happens if you try this crazy stand and fight stuff against a savvy opponent like QBall.

Otherwise while we are down here, on Sardinia no forward movement but 4 attacks cause retreats which are not followed up. New formations identified on the center of the line are 3 more UK based divisions; 3 Br Inf div, 59 Br Inf div & 2 Can Inf div. I think we saw some Home Guard units & the Womens Auxilary balloon corps overhead. This is definately an all-in attack on on the Med and we clearly are just buying a little time in the face of overwhelming odds. With this information its clear than nothing is happening in northern France anytime soon. The Fuhrer is tempted to dust off plans for Sealion but we manage to distract him a nice salad. It does make it difficult to justify all the divisions uselessly facing an empty UK though. Despite all we have seen I re-estimate we can expect phase 2 invasions to be 1 Polish Arm, 1 & 6 Br ABN, 52 Airlanding, probably 5-6 Infantry Divs, but very soon followed by a flurry of divisions jockeyed across from Sicily now he is winding down there. We pulled back to the corner but that just means he can hold that line with 4 Divisions and I fully expect him to exploit that. However, if i could just pull back 15th Army from France I might be in a position to mount a counter-attack here... Maybe a few hundred partisan VPs but might be worth it... :)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 51
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 10:21:51 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		The Reich

Rain stops and casualties go up slightly, we take down about 39 B17s & B24s as they stream towards the Hannover and Leipzig areas hitting multiple targets. Bomber command largely remains over the Ruhr where they lose 20 or so Lancasters and Halifaxes. But in other news a series of daylight raids using Wellingtons supported by fighters hits oil target in Holland, this does lead to the loss of 39 Wellingtons and its nice to get the upper hand for once. I'm not sure he'll repeat this for a little while but clearly shows he's not been much scared by the Luftwaffe resistance so far that he feels he can try raids like this.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 52
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/19/2016 11:23:35 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		And finally...

Given the fairly clear window in enemy air activity, we decide to launch a few nuisance raids off his Sardinian ports in the form of 3 naval patrol directives. Very light losses (11 aircraft lost, he only put up a dozen fighters, even they probably just happened to be flying back from leave) so should have gone harder really. Anyway Caligalari is isolated for a turn at least, the other ports contested seas. Should I have bothered? Will QBall even notice? Probably no to either question but offensive action, however small lifts my morale, keeps me busy, and maybe even keeps a few allied fighter squadrons held back in future.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 53
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/20/2016 9:06:32 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Turn 11 - 11 Sep ' 43

The Reich Campaign

I'm not going to lie to you, it 'aint pretty. QBall hits 19VPs this turn, with only -1 negative. If he just flatlined there and ran that out for the next 99 turns he'd pick up 1782 points from this, but I think its clear it will only get worse. Losses to him were slightly higher than normal with about 50 commonweath 4Es and slightly less US 4Es, but German fighter losses have been heavy throughout. Compared to my 2 previous PBEMs he has suffered much much less, and my losses here higher, and the key has to be the micro-raid strategy. It makes life busy for the defender I think, and intercepts are weaker. We should be hurting the day bombers but its just not happening. Part of it has to be that so many of his raids are 50 B17s covered with 50 P38 lightnings. I can only think that the lightnings are running out and back multiple times per week but I'm no doubt clutching at straws. When the odd raid is caught without cover then we cause the loses we expect. Couple of random examples attached. It doesn't bode well for Mustang season. In summary though this turn BC hits the ruhr again and 8th focuses north on Hamburg and Bremen. Losses maybe marginally higher as hes not been here for a while and the local JGs are in slightly better shape.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 54
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/20/2016 9:19:42 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Stalemate in Sicily

He's not even pretending to garrison the front line properly with 231 Bde manning one section while clearly he pulls everything back for the next invasion. Its tempting to hammer it with a counter-attack for his impertinence. Its not like he hasn't got enough divisions in theatre. If I get a vote for a counterattack in the next hour I'll do it :)
Seriously though there must be a way to give an incentive to the Allies to finish the job in Sicily rather than sit back and wait. Its certainly a negative by-product of the VPs for losses system. On balance its a good thing obviously but its frustrating that it leads to a-historical reluctance to attack like this. Patton would be turning in his grave at the lack of aggressive spirit.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 55
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/20/2016 9:34:09 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		I'd attack, its one way to turn the VP for losses mechanism against him. Obv its more efficient it you can defend but an attack with Italian units is a fair trade off?

_____________________________


(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 56
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/20/2016 9:49:20 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline 		Surrenders in Sardinia

The cumulative effects of isolation, Italians being rubbish, and the huge numbers of allied armoured and infantry divisions emboldens the attackers. The last attack suffers a single allied casualty versus 1266 Italians lost. As before I think if we faced one army we'd be a couple of hexes south still but there is no hope against this which is frustrating of course, if not entirely unpredictable. Faced with the initial forces we saw deploy I think the decision to fight it out was quite rational, but I'm sure plenty would disagree and I can see their point entirely. However I think its good to explore this avenue, and more interesting than running away. We might just about push it to the end of September which will be a minor consolation in slightly disrupting his flow. QBall admits on email that he's had to adjust his original plan. Of course he doesn't say what that was (I suspect I was right) or what the new one is (no idea really, but no doubt its even more evil than the first...!). I still guess he will try for just below Rome as he has shown an aversion to fighting in Sicily and I guess he will be anything to avoid having to fight through the Gustav line. At least my raids look like they forced him to pay more attention to his supply lines. The reports say he has lost 345 Cargo ships and about 30 troop ships so far. I must admit right now without checking I've not idea if thats good or a pathetic drop in the ocean.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 57
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/20/2016 9:53:22 PM   
Gunnulf


Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I'd attack, its one way to turn the VP for losses mechanism against him. Obv its more efficient it you can defend but an attack with Italian units is a fair trade off?


Yeah, I am tending to agree, I like your true Jock aggressive spirit! I think can bring together a decent force without risking too much. Just finishing the air phase and will scope out the odds properly...

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 58
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/20/2016 10:34:16 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		Have you tried to employ JG 300 group to "Wilde Sau" night interception? They have bonuses to intercept over urban/heavy urban targets.


_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Gunnulf)
Post #: 59
RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) - 12/20/2016 10:35:08 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		What is current VP status?

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> After Action Reports >> RE: Panzers, rückwärts! Gunnulf (GHC) vs QBall (WA) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.687