Battle 3# - Day 1 Dawn (South) PhilM
- Thread starter Ithikial
- Start date
- Status
An update on the russian roulette ... some good news and some ... erm ... not so good!
The Sturmovik missed the ISU and the riding squad ... to give it credit, I *think* it was aiming at the (already KO'd) KW scout vehicle that was nearby ... I'll let it off that one.
Then, it had a good looking cannon attack on one of the two ford-protecting foxhole complexes ... Yes!
Sadly, it then let itself down by finding and killing a VERY well hidden truck (empty!) of one of my machine gun platoons ... so it departed on a downer.
On a more serious note, I'm left unsure how the (automatic) targeting now works: does the target area now cover the whole map, irrespective of the force start points? The friendly fire incident was within my setup area, and well away from any enemy activity and from the foxholes which it had just struck.
I get that the targeting is trying to replicate a "if it moves, shoot it" type of "flyboy" attitude, and your own vehicles and men are "at risk" ... but this did seem a bit perverse!
The Sturmovik missed the ISU and the riding squad ... to give it credit, I *think* it was aiming at the (already KO'd) KW scout vehicle that was nearby ... I'll let it off that one.
Then, it had a good looking cannon attack on one of the two ford-protecting foxhole complexes ... Yes!
Sadly, it then let itself down by finding and killing a VERY well hidden truck (empty!) of one of my machine gun platoons ... so it departed on a downer.
On a more serious note, I'm left unsure how the (automatic) targeting now works: does the target area now cover the whole map, irrespective of the force start points? The friendly fire incident was within my setup area, and well away from any enemy activity and from the foxholes which it had just struck.
I get that the targeting is trying to replicate a "if it moves, shoot it" type of "flyboy" attitude, and your own vehicles and men are "at risk" ... but this did seem a bit perverse!
S
Strachwitz
Guest
As I understood from several threads over at Battlefront planes are now free roaming the whole battlefield. They are not weighted towards one setup side ad basically try to find the enemy on the whole map. I have to admit I never experienced a game with planes in CMRT and your personal account and from others makes me think this is not so optimal. I understand the reasons behind the descision to alter the plane behavior. But I think it is a bit "overdone" and planes now seems to be just a pure gamble. Especially in our game where pilots could be guided by the river (east of the river Germans, west Russians) this is a bit of a downer. Bit of course it would be very difficult to program map features as guides for planes....I am curious how the IL-2 behaves in my game. I have to cross lots of open space and I suspect them to get hit by our own planes :-(
I think my overall view can be summed up by my preference that, despite it being "my" close air support, I hope that it has finished its mission and that it doesn't come back ...
Yeah must admit they've got to do something with air support in CMRT, at least for scenarios and campaigns. There's some really odd behavior being reported post CMRT release. I think if they left the option for control or no control in the hands of the scenario designer then it would 'fix' the problem. Most of the scenario designers out there strive hard for realism on there own accord regardless of OOB make up and quirks in game. They would research and know if ground forces in the battle they are trying to recreate had some level of ground control regarding aircraft or not.
Will be interesting with the Bulge game when it's released what they do with the air control issue. Keep consistent and have a natural 'flow on' effect from CMBN so keep control with the player? Or say no control because this is really what we wanted all along. In the latter case that could turn out to be pretty funny and odd since it would essentially mean in the 'CM Universe' the Allies had control of aircraft right up and until October 1944 when they collectively said, nah we'll downgrade our efforts in improving air to ground communication and just wing it.
If it's true that this has been a long running back and forth fight behind the scenes for the beta testers and developers, then I guess that's something.
Will be interesting with the Bulge game when it's released what they do with the air control issue. Keep consistent and have a natural 'flow on' effect from CMBN so keep control with the player? Or say no control because this is really what we wanted all along. In the latter case that could turn out to be pretty funny and odd since it would essentially mean in the 'CM Universe' the Allies had control of aircraft right up and until October 1944 when they collectively said, nah we'll downgrade our efforts in improving air to ground communication and just wing it.
If it's true that this has been a long running back and forth fight behind the scenes for the beta testers and developers, then I guess that's something.
I'm only crystal ball gazing, but after the hoo-haa over the "V3.0" patch for CMBN (which I don't have yet, for Mac) initially taking away the control, like RT, and then BF acknowledging that this was a mistake and the updated 3.0 installer patch/not patch making it back the way it was before for BN, WITH the control, I'd assumed that "Bulge" will maintain the "Northern Europe" (resurrected) status quo and keep FACs ...
But making it more flexible and putting it in the hands of scenario designers sounds neat to me.
But making it more flexible and putting it in the hands of scenario designers sounds neat to me.
Got a CMH chat message (in another game we are playing) from Odin:
Which I guess explains what seems to be the light opposition at the fords: they thought, having started the recce battle, that even if "defeated" they could not lose the ford crossing territory???
I replied that our understanding was that only the side initiating the recce mission was bound by the "no territory gain" rule: once they started the battle, all the map is potentially open to us to win if we capture the territory in the CM game.
"Phil a quick question regarding your battle with Das Tiger in the Radzymin Campaign. Did the Soviets realise they could capture enemy territoy when their opponent is carrying out a reconassaince mission? I've got to say we weren't and the rule has caught us completely unawares!"
"The rules state the side carrying out the recce mission can't take enemy territory, but nothing about the opposition. Given these we assumed the same rules stood for the Soviets. As it turns ou they don't but we were only told about this mid game"
"The rules state the side carrying out the recce mission can't take enemy territory, but nothing about the opposition. Given these we assumed the same rules stood for the Soviets. As it turns ou they don't but we were only told about this mid game
"Which I guess explains what seems to be the light opposition at the fords: they thought, having started the recce battle, that even if "defeated" they could not lose the ford crossing territory???
I replied that our understanding was that only the side initiating the recce mission was bound by the "no territory gain" rule: once they started the battle, all the map is potentially open to us to win if we capture the territory in the CM game.
S
Strachwitz
Guest
Yes, your answer was good and correct. You could even point out to rule 3.3. There is another verification of such a battle outcome:
Surrender
Either party may surrender during a scenario. The surrendering player will automatically lose the
surviving units left on the map. The winning player will claim all of the squares the battlefield was
fought on.
Tactical withdrawal
Either party may choose to make a tactical withdrawal. The retreating party will not suffer any penalty
for the units successfully withdrawn via the exit zones (although casualty figures accrued during the
battle still stand). Once the retreating player is satisfied that he has withdrawn as many units as he can,
he should hit the surrender button. Any surviving units left on the map will be lost. The retreating party
should keep a record of the units withdrawn as the battle plays out.
Ceasefire
If both players call a ceasefire the battle ends with the players retaining the campaign squares where they
hold/occupy terrain objectives or maintain a significant force presence. (Game master discretion).
Campaign squares without a holding force, a held objective or objectives that remain contested are
abandoned by both sides. The attacker cannot be ‘defeated’ by calling a ceasefire, so no Total Defeat
penalty can apply."
So also there is clearly stated when one side is defeated or withdrawn from the battlefield the square belongs to the winner. So I think we are not even bending the rules it is clearly stated. And if you ask we this is the way it should work. Everybody should be able to start a counterattack within a battle and this is what we are doing. If you ask we further I would completely drop the rules where you have to define what kind of mission you are performing. There is no need for a end result screen which side won a battle. Just positions on the battlefield should be transferd into the campaign map. Would make for a much more fluid battle and morale should be based on losses primarily.
But basically the enemy attacked us (even if it was just a recon mission) and now we are counter attacking. Everything fine. I can understand that they are maybe a bit surprised and unhappy with the rule interpretation but we also had 2 major problems (mainly the wrong master map with 3 or 4 missing crossing points) which we agreed to just let it be that way, cope with it and drive on!
Surrender
Either party may surrender during a scenario. The surrendering player will automatically lose the
surviving units left on the map. The winning player will claim all of the squares the battlefield was
fought on.
Tactical withdrawal
Either party may choose to make a tactical withdrawal. The retreating party will not suffer any penalty
for the units successfully withdrawn via the exit zones (although casualty figures accrued during the
battle still stand). Once the retreating player is satisfied that he has withdrawn as many units as he can,
he should hit the surrender button. Any surviving units left on the map will be lost. The retreating party
should keep a record of the units withdrawn as the battle plays out.
Ceasefire
If both players call a ceasefire the battle ends with the players retaining the campaign squares where they
hold/occupy terrain objectives or maintain a significant force presence. (Game master discretion).
Campaign squares without a holding force, a held objective or objectives that remain contested are
abandoned by both sides. The attacker cannot be ‘defeated’ by calling a ceasefire, so no Total Defeat
penalty can apply."
So also there is clearly stated when one side is defeated or withdrawn from the battlefield the square belongs to the winner. So I think we are not even bending the rules it is clearly stated. And if you ask we this is the way it should work. Everybody should be able to start a counterattack within a battle and this is what we are doing. If you ask we further I would completely drop the rules where you have to define what kind of mission you are performing. There is no need for a end result screen which side won a battle. Just positions on the battlefield should be transferd into the campaign map. Would make for a much more fluid battle and morale should be based on losses primarily.
But basically the enemy attacked us (even if it was just a recon mission) and now we are counter attacking. Everything fine. I can understand that they are maybe a bit surprised and unhappy with the rule interpretation but we also had 2 major problems (mainly the wrong master map with 3 or 4 missing crossing points) which we agreed to just let it be that way, cope with it and drive on!
Another map update: position at 51 minutes to go ...
Still not much opposition ... thank goodness! (see further below ...)
Incoming so far has been mortar / arty fire, almost entirely where you can see the smoke etc in the centre of the map. It is not hitting anything (!) and easy to avoid, I assume either a pre planned mission or one being spotted "in hope" on ground that MAY contain something, as there are no units present on which to call fire. His mortars / arty wasted ... so far.
Other fire has been various MG 42 teams, from scattered vantage points across the river. These too, thankfully, have been ineffectual mostly, peppering a few - empty - trucks, killing one, and causing some odd casualties in e.g. the tank rider teams.
But the underlying factor is the - very! - odd LOS on the map, which I guess is affecting DT as well as me. I have caught odd glimpses of the MG42 teams as they move about the map, but from my guys who don't have the weapon range to shoot at them at the time of the spot. As the MG42s have fired at the trucks, tank riders etc, not one single unit has spotted them as they fire: they seem to be able to get LOF without revealing themselves at all.
I have been reduced to the (gamey) tactic of freezing the replays with the last 30 metres or so of incoming tracer showing, and visually trying to trace that back to a likely origin point ... and then moving the ISU 122s to be able to area fire on those locations. I guess the MG42s have often moved on and I miss, but it has been interesting "sniping" with a single shot 122mm gun!!! Did get to see one of them bite the dust in a huge explosion, and the slackening fire over time indicates I am reducing them slowly, I hope!!
But I'm glad there is (seems to be) nothing bigger out there, given the LOS peculiarities ... IF there had been some fixed ATGs / infantry guns set up where the "ghostly" MG42s are, I think I would have been wiped out trying to get across the open space to the river, without even being able to see them.
So, overall very light casualties for me so far: I'm hoping there is not much left across the river to give me a nasty surprise ...
Still not much opposition ... thank goodness! (see further below ...)
Incoming so far has been mortar / arty fire, almost entirely where you can see the smoke etc in the centre of the map. It is not hitting anything (!) and easy to avoid, I assume either a pre planned mission or one being spotted "in hope" on ground that MAY contain something, as there are no units present on which to call fire. His mortars / arty wasted ... so far.
Other fire has been various MG 42 teams, from scattered vantage points across the river. These too, thankfully, have been ineffectual mostly, peppering a few - empty - trucks, killing one, and causing some odd casualties in e.g. the tank rider teams.
But the underlying factor is the - very! - odd LOS on the map, which I guess is affecting DT as well as me. I have caught odd glimpses of the MG42 teams as they move about the map, but from my guys who don't have the weapon range to shoot at them at the time of the spot. As the MG42s have fired at the trucks, tank riders etc, not one single unit has spotted them as they fire: they seem to be able to get LOF without revealing themselves at all.
I have been reduced to the (gamey) tactic of freezing the replays with the last 30 metres or so of incoming tracer showing, and visually trying to trace that back to a likely origin point ... and then moving the ISU 122s to be able to area fire on those locations. I guess the MG42s have often moved on and I miss, but it has been interesting "sniping" with a single shot 122mm gun!!! Did get to see one of them bite the dust in a huge explosion, and the slackening fire over time indicates I am reducing them slowly, I hope!!
But I'm glad there is (seems to be) nothing bigger out there, given the LOS peculiarities ... IF there had been some fixed ATGs / infantry guns set up where the "ghostly" MG42s are, I think I would have been wiped out trying to get across the open space to the river, without even being able to see them.
So, overall very light casualties for me so far: I'm hoping there is not much left across the river to give me a nasty surprise ...
S
Strachwitz
Guest
So this square over the river should be ours! Great!
Yep, hope so ... still opposition left on the far side (including arty now falling on "their own" foxhole positions at the fords, as I use them as a base from which to move forward on the far side). Hope that doesn't get too heavy or accurate, as there aren't a lot of places to run for, and still stay across the river!
Also, some more CAS friendly fire ...!! Now destroyed a couple more of my trucks, and ended the latest fly-by by strafing the fords, just as my guys were crossing over ...
Great news !
I've had good luck so far when it come to aircraft (in RT), I always used veteran pilots.
I've had good luck so far when it come to aircraft (in RT), I always used veteran pilots.
I think I must have ended up with some newbies in mine! And I think their CO told them "Don't land back at base with any ordnance left!", because they seem mighty keen to use it all, regardless ...
You are Soviets. Not like there's a shortage of ammunition before a big offensive.
After braving fire from our own aircraft, the infantry get up close and personal to winkle out the stubborn invaders: one attempts to surrender amongst his fallen kameraden ...
However, having just gunned down several of the Soviet soldiers, their comrades are in no mood to take prisoners! Too late ...
However, having just gunned down several of the Soviet soldiers, their comrades are in no mood to take prisoners! Too late ...
This battle has ended with 33 minutes to go after an Axis surrender!!
Final map view:
And final score screen:
The "draw" result looks a bit odd after the Axis surrender, but I'm presuming that aspect doesn't matter to much to our campaign progress???
A few first thoughts ...
The map appears as far as I can see to have 1 - only! - Axis survivor (wounded) on the map. I assume that the others shown as survivors have been taken off the map via the (invisible) exit zone that I understood Ithikial to say are present on all maps for both sides?
Of my losses, 3 empty trucks were from Axis MG fire (including the one "misplaced" at setup KO'd in the first turn); 3 were from CAS friendly fire ... !! Of the infantry losses, I estimate half were from the almost hand to hand fighting to winkle out the defenders (in long grass, behind short "reverse slope" positions that couldn't be spotted / targeted from any distance ... had to "go in and get them"); the other half were from an accurate arty strike on the fords as I was crossing over, hit several squads very hard, sadly ...
I'm assuming that the Axis meeting of their "ground" objectives means that their "recon by death" KW rushes across the map were to get to - and reached - their "touch" objectives? If I'm allowed a moan, I don't think they actually got very far across the map, nor, crucially, actually discovered very much before they were KO'd ... judging by which of my units saw them, they didn't get to see much else besides the few split squads that got them, and certainly none of the rear area stuff that, at that time, was hidden deep in my setup area ... I don't know how this will be played out into the campaign, but if this had been an "ordinary" (though, of course, totally "unbalanced"!) CMRT game, I'd be pretty upset at a "draw" result ...
Final map view:
And final score screen:
The "draw" result looks a bit odd after the Axis surrender, but I'm presuming that aspect doesn't matter to much to our campaign progress???
A few first thoughts ...
The map appears as far as I can see to have 1 - only! - Axis survivor (wounded) on the map. I assume that the others shown as survivors have been taken off the map via the (invisible) exit zone that I understood Ithikial to say are present on all maps for both sides?
Of my losses, 3 empty trucks were from Axis MG fire (including the one "misplaced" at setup KO'd in the first turn); 3 were from CAS friendly fire ... !! Of the infantry losses, I estimate half were from the almost hand to hand fighting to winkle out the defenders (in long grass, behind short "reverse slope" positions that couldn't be spotted / targeted from any distance ... had to "go in and get them"); the other half were from an accurate arty strike on the fords as I was crossing over, hit several squads very hard, sadly ...
I'm assuming that the Axis meeting of their "ground" objectives means that their "recon by death" KW rushes across the map were to get to - and reached - their "touch" objectives? If I'm allowed a moan, I don't think they actually got very far across the map, nor, crucially, actually discovered very much before they were KO'd ... judging by which of my units saw them, they didn't get to see much else besides the few split squads that got them, and certainly none of the rear area stuff that, at that time, was hidden deep in my setup area ... I don't know how this will be played out into the campaign, but if this had been an "ordinary" (though, of course, totally "unbalanced"!) CMRT game, I'd be pretty upset at a "draw" result ...
The way we're using the Victory point system in this campaign can lead to situations like this. The Axis still completed their objective and then bugged out so got the points. We aren't using parameters surrounding force preservation at this stage which may have mixed things up a bit.
All of my knowledge of what happened is through the veil of CM's FOW, but ...
Of the total of 175 (?) men they had, the only ones that even tried to cross the river to "do" the recon were the 3 KWs and their riding 3-4 men teams ... two of which (KW and team) were KO'd, one returned over the river. (Never "saw" where it got to over my side of the river, but presumably not very far as none of my guys could see it on my side, only briefly as it crossed the ford). Their recon objectives don't seem to have been exactly "stretching" ...
Is it just me ... but does this not seem like the "minimum force" recon, by death if necessary, that we fell out over in planning about doing it ourselves or not ... and ended up not doing as "gamey"; and partly on the basis that *they wouldn't stoop to doing this*; and that it was *unwise* as a mission design; and that there were morale hit consequences from losing the mission??? (And theirs was absolutely "minimum force" in terms of the 3 KWs that were actually used to cross the river and apparently reached their objectives ... their remaining forces *bugged out* to save themselves from being wiped out in the remaining 33 minutes, and didn't abandon voluntarily the fords, the foxholes, and the foothold on the west bank of the river.)
So, what - in principle I mean, not the actual details - do they find out for *completing* their objectives? What is the result for them? And what is the campaign territorial outcome of the battle?
Of the total of 175 (?) men they had, the only ones that even tried to cross the river to "do" the recon were the 3 KWs and their riding 3-4 men teams ... two of which (KW and team) were KO'd, one returned over the river. (Never "saw" where it got to over my side of the river, but presumably not very far as none of my guys could see it on my side, only briefly as it crossed the ford). Their recon objectives don't seem to have been exactly "stretching" ...
Is it just me ... but does this not seem like the "minimum force" recon, by death if necessary, that we fell out over in planning about doing it ourselves or not ... and ended up not doing as "gamey"; and partly on the basis that *they wouldn't stoop to doing this*; and that it was *unwise* as a mission design; and that there were morale hit consequences from losing the mission??? (And theirs was absolutely "minimum force" in terms of the 3 KWs that were actually used to cross the river and apparently reached their objectives ... their remaining forces *bugged out* to save themselves from being wiped out in the remaining 33 minutes, and didn't abandon voluntarily the fords, the foxholes, and the foothold on the west bank of the river.)
So, what - in principle I mean, not the actual details - do they find out for *completing* their objectives? What is the result for them? And what is the campaign territorial outcome of the battle?
- Status