[SotM] 2012 December - Scenario Selection Voting

[J6A]

I'm just setting this up now, so I'm going to skip your post so it doesn't influence my choices.

Although this mostly looks like a "who runs out of morale first?" kind of scenario.

[Poor Yorek]

I'm just setting this up now, so I'm going to skip your post so it doesn't influence my choices.

Oops, sorry, should have put the obligatory "Spoiler Alert" on my previous post!

So far, in my play, Germany is winning the battle of artillery (with some very strong rolls whilst the Soviets have a case of the 7's). The RKKA have managed to DIS a 2xHMG stack, however: perhaps the SS lost their ammo cases in the snow when ducking for cover when the in-bound arrived?

[campsawyer]

About to start this off. As there are no "Before Action Reports" and some do not like AAR's on-the-fly, I thought to post my initial dispositions here:

Soviet Set-Up:
"LEFT"
0811-6: Cpt 8-0-0 + 2xINF
1010-6: LT 10-0-1 + HMG + INF
1005-6: 81 mm + wagon
1307-6/0107-9: LT: 8-0-0 + 2xINF (reinforcing element)

"CENTRE or CROSS-ROADS"
0409-9: INF+HMG
0510-9: Cpt 10-1-1 + 2xINF
0609-9: INF + HMG
0509-9: LtC: 9-0-1 + KOMM(10) + INF + 45mm

"RIGHT"
1109-9: LT 7-0-0 + 2xINF

GERMAN INITIAL ASSAULT PLAN:
(1) Maj 9-0-1 + LT 7-0-0 +2xINF + 2xHMG north along board edge as an initial "blocking force."
(2) LtC 8-0-1 + LT 8-0-0 with CAV into the southern marshes of Bd 6
(3) Cpt 8-1-0 + LT 8-0-0 + 4xINF + HMG north along column 5, then NE along road.

The Germans hope to use their one and only combat bonus ldr and OBA to attain sufficient DIS/DEM to allow CAV charges into assault some modicum of survival vs OF. That is, use CAV as "shock troops" rather than as flanking harassment (which I doubt would attain much). Group (1) will engage any Soviet relief from the East and/or assist with attacks on the Soviet road outposts on board 6 if the Soviet just bunkers down.

Whatever happens on board 6, the Soviets have a very strong force holding the cross roads, especially having drawn Hero of the Soviet Union Captain Iam Kickassitoff and Kommisar Youvant Leadinzekranium whose favourite aphorism is: "German bullets send you to the Great Collective Farm in the Sky; a Soviet bullet means you work for 100 years in Siberia paying off the debt to the People (as fertilizer)."

With that defense being strung out, I would have the whole lot of Germans go right after the crossroads as that it the key to any German win. Cut that force to pieces and that gets them a minor victory with no Soviets on the northern part of the road. The Soviet left and right are going to have a job to get back to help to defend.

[Poor Yorek]

With that defense being strung out, I would have the whole lot of Germans go right after the crossroads as that it the key to any German win. Cut that force to pieces and that gets them a minor victory with no Soviets on the northern part of the road. The Soviet left and right are going to have a job to get back to help to defend.

Firstly, "cutting that force to pieces" is not as simple a matter of doing as it is writing. Secondly, the Soviet "right" (2xINF) is only a few hexes away (with movement westward along a road); and those 2xINF "reinforcing elements" on the board edge are also quite close. Thirdly, the "Left" would be able then to counter-attack using the road to move at least as quickly eastwards as the Germans could advance northwards (particularly given the northerly advance on Board 9 would be through LOTS of frozen swamp save for the N/S road). I don't believe that the Soviet "left" in my set-up is as isolated as you suggest given observation of an all-out German move north along the road or even via a "right hook" approach. {guess I should articulate for others that right/left are based on north being "up."} In point of fact, the westernmost Soviet units are no farther from the cross-roads than the entering SS units.

One might advocate a hold-the-crossroads with everything, sure. One of the nice things about the SotM is that we get to see what different approaches yield. Still, I don't usually like to button-up the defense completely.

[campsawyer]

With that defense being strung out, I would have the whole lot of Germans go right after the crossroads as that it the key to any German win. Cut that force to pieces and that gets them a minor victory with no Soviets on the northern part of the road. The Soviet left and right are going to have a job to get back to help to defend.

Firstly, "cutting that force to pieces" is not as simple a matter of doing as it is writing. Secondly, the Soviet "right" (2xINF) is only a few hexes away (with movement westward along a road); and those 2xINF "reinforcing elements" on the board edge are also quite close. Thirdly, the "Left" would be able then to counter-attack using the road to move at least as quickly eastwards as the Germans could advance northwards (particularly given the northerly advance on Board 9 would be through LOTS of frozen swamp save for the N/S road). I don't believe that the Soviet "left" in my set-up is as isolated as you suggest given observation of an all-out German move north along the road or even via a "right hook" approach. {guess I should articulate for others that right/left are based on north being "up."} In point of fact, the westernmost Soviet units are no farther from the cross-roads than the entering SS units.

One might advocate a hold-the-crossroads with everything, sure. One of the nice things about the SotM is that we get to see what different approaches yield. Still, I don't usually like to button-up the defense completely.

Agreed, nothing is for sure. But it is easier for the Germans if the Soviet units are dispersed. The Germans can mass up the road, giving them better mobility as well as the possibility of OP fire on the moving Soviets as well as BF fire on them in the open. This just gives the Germans more of a chance. If the Soviets are all grouped together and dugin the swamps they are very hard to dislodge. The crossroads are the key for the Germans so the Soviets will need to defend with the most force. The trickier part for the Soviets is how to get all the German casualties for a win.

As for the swamps, remember they are frozen but still a 1 hex visibility.

[Poor Yorek]

As for the swamps, remember they are frozen but still a 1 hex visibility.

Thank you for the unnecessary reminder, I can read. You might note, however, that the movement factor for those frozen swamps is 2 and that heavy snow reduces movement allowances for all units by 1 (so CAV can only move through those 2 hexes per turn). How exactly do you propose to move that mass of Germans up that single road with any alacrity? I think I've made it demonstrably evident, objectively speaking, that the Soviets in my set-up would be able to reinforce the cross-roads more rapidly than the Germans could advance (in single file) up that N/S road. All one has to do is count. Should the CAV charge up that N/S road ahead of their infantry support, they will be exposed to severe OF given that there are two Soviet HMG's there with a Soviet captain having a combat bonus: the cross roads holds 5xINF + 2xHMGs with 2xINF just two turns to their east and NW respectively. Perhaps had the Soviets not had that ldr with a combat bonus, I might have "moved in" a bit tighter.

Perhaps the best one could do is send the CAV due north along the board seam: it takes them two turns to reach adjacent to the road; the westernmost Soviet INF reach 1209 in two turns: all other Soviet units in two turns would be well onto board 9.

I'm not suggesting that my set-up is perfect, but I think your criticism of it objectively fails. The Germans cannot get close enough in range to interdict the Soviets movement with OF as you suggest (save for my paragraph two stipulation). The German HMGs, snow movement of 1, can only move up the road at one hex a turn, so that firepower will take far longer to arrive at the cross roads than the Soviet reply to the threat axis (well, that's not quite true as one could load the HMG's onto wagons to move 2). Should the CAV move independently of its infantry support, it exposes itself to the CAV col shifts for Soviet OF/BF.

Maybe instead of making verbal criticisms, you should try setting it up and let the Germans make a go at it. Just play the Russians fairly as well.

[campsawyer]

As for the swamps, remember they are frozen but still a 1 hex visibility.

Thank you for the unnecessary reminder, I can read. You might note, however, that the movement factor for those frozen swamps is 2 and that heavy snow reduces movement allowances for all units by 1 (so CAV can only move through those 2 hexes per turn). How exactly do you propose to move that mass of Germans up that single road with any alacrity? I think I've made it demonstrably evident, objectively speaking, that the Soviets in my set-up would be able to reinforce the cross-roads more rapidly than the Germans could advance (in single file) up that N/S road. All one has to do is count. Should the CAV charge up that N/S road ahead of their infantry support, they will be exposed to severe OF given that there are two Soviet HMG's there with a Soviet captain having a combat bonus: the cross roads holds 5xINF + 2xHMGs with 2xINF just two turns to their east and NW respectively. Perhaps had the Soviets not had that ldr with a combat bonus, I might have "moved in" a bit tighter.

Perhaps the best one could do is send the CAV due north along the board seam: it takes them two turns to reach adjacent to the road; the westernmost Soviet INF reach 1209 in two turns: all other Soviet units in two turns would be well onto board 9.

I'm not suggesting that my set-up is perfect, but I think your criticism of it objectively fails. The Germans cannot get close enough in range to interdict the Soviets movement with OF as you suggest (save for my paragraph two stipulation). The German HMGs, snow movement of 1, can only move up the road at one hex a turn, so that firepower will take far longer to arrive at the cross roads than the Soviet reply to the threat axis. Should the CAV move independently of its infantry support, it exposes itself to the CAV col shifts for Soviet OF/BF.

Maybe instead of making verbal criticisms, you should try setting it up and let the Germans make a go at it. Just play the Russians fairly as well.

Poor, I must point out that if you post something that someone can have a counterpoint. I am sorry if you are feeling this is personal, but I am trying to point out is that having the Soviets dispersed is that they can be subjected to unnecessary fire from the Germans as well as not being able to apply maximum firepower to defend the key position. As I said nothing is set in stone and yes the Soviets can move back, but this will deny the Soviets firepower in the advance while the Germans can move in mass.

As for setting up and playing, I am currently halfway through this in a Skype play. I am surprised how quickly the Germans can move through the road and swamp. Within four turns they are able to engage.

As for my comment on the swamp, it looked like you were going to use the Soviets on board 6 to fire or at least spot for BF on the Germans. As long as the Germans hold there fire until they close on the crossroads the units on board 6 look like they would not be engaging. But you may have something else in mind.

[Poor Yorek]

Poor, I must point out that if you post something that someone can have a counterpoint. I am sorry if you are feeling this is personal, but

Camp, there is nothing personal, but you, in effect, publicly say to me: "that will not fly." I try to show you why indeed it should fly based on the laws of physics (in this case, PG physics). You reiterate your objection. I finally say, put it (my design) to the test if you object. By the way, I only offered my set-up since some previous writers had expressed their appreciation that others had done so, not because I was expressing the view that my choice was definitive. I'm beginning to think that Beast013's approach is preferable.

I am constrained to point out that if you or anyone wishes to opine about another set-up, then you should likewise expect a vigorous defense. I notice neither Matt's nor Mike Murphy's set-ups, which were not concentrated totally around the crossroads (as far as I could tell), elicited any comment. You might simply have asked: "what would you do with your board 6 units in response to a mass German move due north along the road?" and not sound so pedant.

I should thank you, though, for reminding me of a couple of classical adages which I concede I am insufficiently virtuous to follow with due diligence.

[campsawyer]

Poor, I must point out that if you post something that someone can have a counterpoint. I am sorry if you are feeling this is personal, but

Camp, there is nothing personal, but you, in effect, publicly say to me: "that will not fly." I try to show you why indeed it should fly based on the laws of physics (in this case, PG physics). You reiterate your objection. I finally say, put it (my design) to the test if you object. By the way, I only offered my set-up since some previous writers had expressed their appreciation that others had done so, not because I was expressing the view that my choice was definitive. I'm beginning to think that Beast013's approach is preferable.

I am constrained to point out that if you or anyone wishes to opine about another set-up, then you should likewise expect a vigorous defense. I notice neither Matt's nor Mike Murphy's set-ups, which were not concentrated totally around the crossroads (as far as I could tell), elicited any comment. You might simply have asked: "what would you do with your board 6 units in response to a mass German move due north along the road?" and not sound so pedant.

I should thank you, though, for reminding me of a couple of classical adages which I concede I am insufficiently virtuous to follow with due diligence.

I am not saying your defense "will not fly", those are your words. I am just providing a point that with the given VC's dispersing the units will make it harder to defend. I never said it would not work. As for Matt's, Mike's and others, if they have written them in their AAR's I have not read them yet, but will after my game is complete. I feel I can comment on this as you have posted the setup on the blog, I assumed that you are eliciting comments on the setup, I seem to overstepped your thoughts on this. Second, my comments on any setup would be from an opponents perspective saying "What would I do to attack/defend against this if playing FtF?". You are also free to counter this with other points, which I will expect or counter. If this is to direct, I am sorry.

[vince hughes]

D'ya know, Hugmenot posted a defensive set-up in a game he played once from First Axis. He then posted here and as his defenders got mauled in his solo game, he asked if anybody else could posit a different set-up. I did and as a result, we got a game on with that very scenario and what a great game it was.

PY, maybe you have mistook Alan's comments as a criticism, but I think he may have been merely answering your post after the time you took to kindly post it all.

What could be more positive and creative than you two fighting these different instructions on the PG table. Not as a vendetta or point to prove, but as a fun wargame. Hugmenot and I turned our discussion into a game (rated 4 btw). Maybe you could PY (I know Alan is already skyped up). Point is, "Make love not ........................ " No not that. I meant "Make games, not war"