RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised

RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports

Message

Petey -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/1/2014 4:46:31 PM)
PBEM yes I'm interested quote: ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson quote: ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson Turn 144 and you're finished ALREADY. That's amazing. Way to go dude. What are you going to play now? quote: ORIGINAL: Petey Actually I'm going on a trip for a week+/- so I probably won't get a chance to play for a short while. After that I don't know what I'll play next. I will still be following your postings on a daily basis however. Hey Petey....you might want to get into a PBEM game.....it's a lot more fun than fighting Elmer. Just a thought.

Petey -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/2/2014 12:49:57 AM)
Ok, I was able to get in a few more turns before I hit the road. I was able to capture the Brenner Pass objective on turn 174. Those last 15 or so turns up the valley were tough. The Axis put up a real spirited fight. It went one hex per turn. Capture a hex, build a rail line, rest the units, repeat next turn. Employed more artillery than ground troops. The US 10th Mountain Div came in handy. Steve asked for a picture of my victory results; it's attached below. If there is something else let me know. I think as it is it's a great scenario. I realize it's tough to get Elmer to cooperate. It is missing the "slog up the boot". The problem of course it that frequently elmer allows himself to be surrounded and defeated in detail. This deprives him of troops to establish defensive positions later. Perhaps you (Steve) could quickly reconstitute destroyed Axis units or even bring into the Axis OB duplicate units to replace destroyed ones (as this is a solitaire scenario). The poor Allied supply really helps slow down the advance; perhaps this can be made worse for the Allies. I mentioned before penalizing the Allies for losses. If this is not practical perhaps reducing the Allied replacement rate. Elmer seems to do a lot of bombardment; I think a better use of his artillery assets would be CS, as this would impact the Allies in there attacks. On a negative note there are a LOT of Allied units. Divisional units, Corp and Army assets, Allied contingents, air force units, etc. While this certainly is a MAJOR source of the charm of this scenario it get to be a significant unit management chore after a while. Perhaps you could fold some of these assets (particularly the anti-tank units) into the maneuver units. They'd be task organized that way any way. Hard to be in the role of Army Group commander Gen Clark and worry about where a divisional recon company should go. Perhaps that would be too much work. Overall a fun scenario and history lesson. Many thanks Steve! [image]local://upfiles/45526/A5F4842F4B6C4BD9B62A4A1083C45552.gif[/image]

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/2/2014 2:46:14 AM)
Excellent review Mr. Petey. [&o] quote: ... frequently elmer allows himself to be surrounded and defeated in detail. This deprives him of troops to establish defensive positions later. Perhaps you (Steve) could quickly reconstitute destroyed Axis units or even bring into the Axis OB duplicate units to replace destroyed ones ... I can't reconstitute them quicker, but there are mirror formations. Currently, when Elmer retreats to another position he leaves some units behind. Those get surrounded and destroyed, never to return, while the mirror formation takes up the new positions. So far this hasn't worked very well due to the Partisans interfering and Anzio always being open, but the latest versions have changed those so hopefully we will get better results. quote: The poor Allied supply really helps slow down the advance; perhaps this can be made worse for the Allies. This was done with v2.5 by way of reducing the Allies Sea Transport from 25,000 to 10,000. That reduces the Transport Asset Sharing that influences supply. quote: I mentioned before penalizing the Allies for losses. If this is not practical perhaps reducing the Allied replacement rate. I've played the Loss Penalty game in another scenario and don't see where it has much effect. Reducing Allied Replacements is always a possibility but takes a bit of reasonable review. I can do this with your example if you feel like sending me the .sal file from the end. quote: Elmer seems to do a lot of bombardment; I think a better use of his artillery assets would be CS, as this would impact the Allies in there attacks. I agree but I don't think there is much I can do about it. Elmer throws shells most every round in other scenarios. It's wasteful, generally doesn't affect his enemy, and greatly lengthens his turns. On the other hand, I don't think we can come up with a reasonable solution for Ralph to implement. I mean, we can't tell Elmer not to ever shell. On the Task Organised units, even though I heavily modded this scenario, I left most of the unit organizations the same. But I am a big fan of less units. RCT's and KG's will definately be done in the larger version.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/2/2014 3:45:48 AM)
It's really interesting to read about Petey's experience and the synopsis that followed. Good stuff all around. Klaus has suggested that I separate out the PBEM game from this AAR into it's own thread. That thread is here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3560733&mpage=1&key=� I'm continuing the game in that AAR. This AAR is for development of the scenario in solo play.

Petey -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/3/2014 12:48:21 AM)
Steve: Do you have any other scenarios you would like me to play test? quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 Excellent review Mr. Petey. [&o] quote: ... frequently elmer allows himself to be surrounded and defeated in detail. This deprives him of troops to establish defensive positions later. Perhaps you (Steve) could quickly reconstitute destroyed Axis units or even bring into the Axis OB duplicate units to replace destroyed ones ... I can't reconstitute them quicker, but there are mirror formations. Currently, when Elmer retreats to another position he leaves some units behind. Those get surrounded and destroyed, never to return, while the mirror formation takes up the new positions. So far this hasn't worked very well due to the Partisans interfering and Anzio always being open, but the latest versions have changed those so hopefully we will get better results. quote: The poor Allied supply really helps slow down the advance; perhaps this can be made worse for the Allies. This was done with v2.5 by way of reducing the Allies Sea Transport from 25,000 to 10,000. That reduces the Transport Asset Sharing that influences supply. quote: I mentioned before penalizing the Allies for losses. If this is not practical perhaps reducing the Allied replacement rate. I've played the Loss Penalty game in another scenario and don't see where it has much effect. Reducing Allied Replacements is always a possibility but takes a bit of reasonable review. I can do this with your example if you feel like sending me the .sal file from the end. quote: Elmer seems to do a lot of bombardment; I think a better use of his artillery assets would be CS, as this would impact the Allies in there attacks. I agree but I don't think there is much I can do about it. Elmer throws shells most every round in other scenarios. It's wasteful, generally doesn't affect his enemy, and greatly lengthens his turns. On the other hand, I don't think we can come up with a reasonable solution for Ralph to implement. I mean, we can't tell Elmer not to ever shell. On the Task Organised units, even though I heavily modded this scenario, I left most of the unit organizations the same. But I am a big fan of less units. RCT's and KG's will definately be done in the larger version.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/3/2014 1:25:46 AM)
Now that you mention it Petey there IS a scenario that I would like to reccommend. It's War in the Pacific v2.9 and I'm in communication with the origijnal author and he said go for it so I've been modding it by adding a lot more supply points. That's all, so far, that's been changed. Thomas Harvey, the original arthor says he's going to spend some time this summer modifying it to make it more "accurate" and I wish him well. I've been playing against the Jap AI and it's been a blast so far. I'm attaching it to this post so you can download it if you'd like to take a look around and maybe push some units around a little.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/3/2014 9:56:43 PM)
quote: Steve: Do you have any other scenarios you would like me to play test? I don't think I have anything right now. Shortly there will be a German player version of StoBP. Because of the different versions, I've renamed the one we've been using, it now has an (A) in the name to denote it is the Allied Human version. The start up screen now looks like this : [image]local://upfiles/24850/FE1D37F531B24BFD940628B733DD15F6.jpg[/image]

Petey -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/5/2014 1:03:59 AM)
Steve: I've downloaded your StoBP 2.7(A). Thanks. I am always confused as to which supply settings, new rules, etc. I am supposed to be using for each scenario. Which are they for this? As a suggestion it would be very helpful if you included this information on these settings in the text file you include in the scenario folder in the zip download. Again, thanks.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Sicily to Brenner Pass Revised (3/5/2014 1:28:41 AM)
This is an old scenario so it doesn't use any of the newer rules. Obviously, none of the older scenarios were designed with the newer features, so no reason to ever play with any of them. For the newer scenarios I like to think designers would specify that they designed a scenario for a certain rule or option, but that may not always be the case.

Page: << < prev 30 31 32 33 [34]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.453125