Thursday, June 11, 2020

Tretten in Flames - Batrep #2

With the Germans narrowly missing a victory in Game 1, the table was reset to exercise the scenario a second time.  In my post-game notes from the earlier battle, I wondered if changing initial deployments would make a difference.  Also, would playing the Germans more aggressively in the center aid their cause?  Those are two of the tactical changes made in Game 2.

11:00 Both sides deploy their forces with a few changes from Game 1.  The German MMG is placed behind the wall in the center so as to bring under fire much of the British positions.  The rifle sections having the extra LMG firepower are circled (these extra LMG wielding rifle sections I note as heavy).  Note the British place one of these teams in the deep snow on the high point of the battlefield.  This ought to improve this section's LOF to the German positions.  The risk to this position is that in deep snow, this unit may not be able to extract itself if pressed hard. 
Initial dispositions
At the start, the Germans lay down a covering fire from the MMG, infantry gun, and mortar and then step off on the assault of Tretten.  Both British heavy rifle sections are pinned in this initial fire.  On the German left, infantry advances under the cover of smoke toward the unoccupied building.  
Laying down fire before the advance
The British counter by placing the two heavy rifle sections in command.  The section on the heights recovers but the section in the building remains pinned.  This is a dangerous result for heavy rifle section in the building since another pinning blast from the enemy and it will be gone.  As the British advance on their right, covering fire pins the German heavy rifle section. 
British advance
11:10 German sections reach the southern most building unopposed and one of the mountain rifle sections eliminates the British rifle section on the heights.  The extra LMG is left to be picked up by another British rifle section if possible.  The MMG finishes off the pinned rifle section in the building in the center of the British positions.  Ouch!
Action heats up in the south
Destruction of two British heavy rifle sections
The British rifle section holding the building at the base of the hill, moves quickly up the slopes to take up the position vacated by its departed comrades. 
Quick reposition onto the heights
11:13 While fighting is intense all across the battlefield, not much noticeable damage is done.  Both sides have a bout of bad luck in scoring hits.  
A lot of fire but nary a scratch
The Germans use this brief lull to prepare their troops for an assault against British positions on the southern approaches to Tretten.
Preparing for the attack
11:18 In preparation for an assault on the southern buildings, the Germans soften up the defenders holed up in the walled garden.  One British section is pinned from the fire. 
Heating up in the garden
Wanting to concentrate on the northern sector, the British commander puts the pinned section and the heavy rifle section into direct command.
Taking command in the north
In the southern sector, the German defenders suffer casualties having two rifle sections pinned.
Payback!
In the center, the heavy rifle section on the heights pins one of the German infantry sections before it can make much headway across the open ground.
Caught in the open and pinned
11:27 After several minutes of hard fighting, both sides take a breather as the firefight finds no new targets.  The Germans in the south pull back to recover before assaulting the British positions yet again.  It was not so much that the firefight reached a lull by mutual agreement but that the many out of command units failed to pass their initiative command roll.  Fatigue must be setting in.  
Battlefield lull
British outnumbered in the south
11:35 As the German attack presses on, the British give the Germans a bit of a sting.  Both sections in the southern-most building are pinned as is the ski troop in the woods near the northern-most building.  The British on the right are holding firm in the walled garden with support from three rifle sections to their rear.
British holding firm
Close up of the action in the southern sector
British reserve is ready
11:42 Still in a quagmire on the German left, the German command puts its emphasis on the center and right.  While the enemy advances upon the heights, the British heavy rifle section falls back in search of better cover.  
Germans advance in center and right
11:54 With a time advance of 12 minutes, Random Events are triggered.  For the Germans, they roll an Infiltration.  With that result, the Germans push a rifle section into the building at the base of the heights.  For the British, Sniper result is rolled.  The sniper immediately pins the section that just occupied the building.  Take that!
Random Events
With only two of the five objectives in German hands and time low on the clock, the Germans make a last ditch effort to secure two more objectives.  They target the northern-most building and the walled garden.
Heavy fighting in the south
Firepower from multiple sources pins both British rifle sections in the walled garden.  Not yet destroyed, they fall back into the adjoining house.  The Attackers move up to occupy the walled garden.  In the north, the ski troop is repulsed from its attack on the defenders.
The walled garden is unoccupied
Having run out of time on the clock and having taken only three of the five objectives needed, the Germans fall short of victory a second time.
Final tally
Looking at the table, with three objectives in German hands, the Germans really are close to victory.  Having pinned British in two remaining objectives, one more turn may decide the issue.  With attackers in place to assault both remaining objectives, I opted to play one more turn. 

In that final, extra turn, the Germans took both of the remaining objectives in their part of the turn only to lose both southern and central objectives in the British half of the turn.

Another very close battle that went down to the end.  The battle turned into another nail biter.  With a little better shooting and avoiding a twelve minute clock advancement at the end, one more turn could have been squeezed into play.  As my extension demonstrated that extra turn did not bring a German victory but it may have.  Casualties were much lighter in the second game than in the first. British lost three units to the Germans' two units. One facet of Tigers at Minsk, a player cannot do everything with each unit each turn.  The primary effort for the turn must be decided and those three hexes put into command.  Everyone else is on the his own to act or stall at the whims of the initiative command die roll. 

Having a loss for the Germans in both games, is play balance off?  No, I do not think so.  In both games, the German could have reached the five objective count within the 60 minutes on the game clock.  If not for some poor rolls from the MMG in the center, the outcome could have been much different.  Still, the PzII barely got engaged in the action.  Perhaps, its arrival timetable should be advanced so that it can have a chance at participation?  Also, an earlier arrival for the tank provides something for the ATR to focus on.  All in all, a very challenging contest that suits solitaire play well. 

44 comments:

  1. Another close game from the sound of it and an enjoyable test 👍

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another close game, for sure. A very nice two hour distraction that was quite enjoyable. Do I play it again or look for a new challenge?

      Delete
  2. Hi Jonathan - Good to see the Brits and German going at it- Hooray for the British! I'd be interested to know what Brand are your 15mm Figures? Cheers. KEV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the Brits avoided a German victory once again. Most of the figures are from Old Glory's Command Decision range. A few pieces are from Peter Pig notably the IG and ski markers.

      Delete
  3. Very interesting again Jonathan. I like the idea of only being able to put three units in command and leaving the rest to fend for themselves. It really seems to add a high degree of tension and uncertainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ability to only guarantee action for a limited number of units makes for some interesting decision making. There seem to never be enough resources to accomplish all that is needed. In this game, many were the times when important units failed to respond.

      Delete
  4. A great looking replay Jonathon and I echo Kev - yay for the British - pity they had not been so successful in Norway 80 years ago, the war may not have lasted 6 years!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Keith! Norway was an opportunity lost, for sure.

      Delete
  5. Another enjoyable AAR and oh so close for the Germans. I did wonder what had happened to the PzII as it didn't seem to get much chance take part in the action. Maybe an earlier arrival as mentioned would help?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed the after action report, Steve! The Germans have come very close to victory in both games. Close but no cigar. Bringing the PzII on a wee bit earlier may allow it to play role in the action. Movement rates in ASL are much larger than TaM so early arrival makes sense.

      Delete
  6. Nice game Jonathan and I think the scenario is working as long as it plays down to the end with each side still having hope, which this did.

    I agree that more effective fire (dice) mid game and not hitting the 12 minutes on the clock at the end may have moved everything the German way, but of course, the British hoping for double six and the Germans hoping for double 1’s is one of the things that makes the clock work to bring uncertainty and tension.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Norm! All seems to be working from both a scenario and rules perspective. You are exactly right about the time clock. The Germans were hoping for small clock advances while the British wanted the battle over with NOW!

      Delete
  7. Enjoyable report Jonathan and a close game.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If it's a close game it's got to be a good game, either side could have won either game, good scenario, nice game!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm enjoying how you're explaining the tactical decisions in these posts. Nice job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Markus, it is good to see that you enjoy the tactical decision making details. Thank you!

      Delete
  10. Reads like you came up with a nicely balanced solo scenario. Is there a follow up pt 3?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Dai. I am still undecided whether to replay this scenario a third time. The longer it remains set up on the end of my gaming table, though, the greater the probability that it sees a third playing.

      Delete
  11. Seemed a very close game, nice work!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great stuff man, thanks a bunch for playing and posting! They've really been fascinating; I'm always moving too fast to go back and play a scenario a second time, but I very much appreciate when other gamers do it, and the analysis it makes possible.

    But here's where I have to break: out of all the games I've seen you, Norm, and Steve play, I don't think I've ever seen the attacker win. I don't know if it's the rules or the scenario, because probably 80 to 90% of the games I've seen have been the 'Follow the Elefants' scenario, but in all those batreps I've never seen the Germans win.

    So I don't know if it's the rules or the scenario, but I keep reading them and thinking 'okay, the Germans have got them this time," but then the clock runs out and the attackers weren't able to take the/enough objectives.

    I'm just throwing that out based off of reading quite a few batreps, and admitting that I've read but still not played the rules.

    Regarding the rules themselves, I love that you can't do everything you want and that you have to move your commander physically to represent where his focus is for that particular moment in time. I will get the rules on the table at some point!

    V/R,
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your feedback and insights, Jack! I really appreciate seeing your thoughts.

      You bring up a good point about play balance and the dearth of attacker victories. While "Following the Elefants" seems lopsided to me with little chance for the attacker to emerge victorious, this scenario, "Tretten in Flames" is very much in the balance until the end. Perhaps the clock needs a bit more time added to allow the attack to better develop? Perhaps reduce the number of objectives needed for victory? In this last game, casualties were light and the Germans were not battered much at all. The clock needs to remain tight, though, to force urgency upon the attackers. With mortar, IG, PZII, MMG, the Germans could really soften the defenders up before an attack if time was no object. Besides, attacking is hard!

      Your thoughts have convinced me to give this scenario another try. I will begin by adding 15 minutes to the game clock.

      OK, back to the table...

      Delete
    2. One of the things I have found about the system is that you can’t overload the table with units. I did a Stalingrad Scenario and put too much stuff in, the results was too much firepower in a turn, causing too many casualties, causing the force morale of both sides to crash to zero too quickly.

      The clock is quite critical, make the game too short (time wise) and you force the attacker to take ground and expose themselves when the defences are not properly subdued.

      make the game too long and the attacker does not have the incentive to get up and get forward, instead they are happy to put down the firepower and in those situations, without any other dynamic happening, it can go down to lucky dice!

      Delete
    3. Jonathan and Norm,

      Please don't take what I said as any criticism of the rules or scenario(s), I'm simply looking on as an interested fan and thinking, 'man, the attacker hasn't been able to pull one off yet,' despite being right on the cusp a number of times.

      There is no doubt close games beat one-sided games, and everything that's happening on the table seems plausible, and maybe the feeling I have is just down to the fact it has seemed in a number of the fights (from all three of you) that I'm thinking the attacker is making great progress and is surely going to come out victorious unless the defenders do something pretty spectacular, but then the defenders don't do anything spectacular, they just sort of hold on by the skin of their teeth, winning on points (i.e., time runs out and they own 3 of 5 objectives).

      I agree that the clock adds a tremendous amount of tension and is a very cool mechanism, it's just that something is hitting me funny; I'm afraid when I finally see the attacker win it's going to be a slaughter! ;)

      In any case, I'm eagerly awaiting more, and if Jonathan is looking for votes, mine is for moving on to fight number two of the campaign, rather than a reply of the same scenario!

      V/R,
      Jack

      Delete
    4. Hi Jack, I see no criticism from your responses. I enjoy your feedback and insight into what seems to be working satisfactorily and what can be improved.

      In both of the Tretten games, the results were very close. Even one different result on one firing attempt could have swayed the final result. The outcome hung in the balance until the end. The attackers hold the firepower advantage. Even though the Germans could not grab a victory in either game, seeing the battle unfold, I give them the edge overall.

      The clock does put some pressure on the attacker to attack. I enjoy this mechanism and provides the attacker with a sense of urgency of getting the job done when the game duration is properly calibrated.

      I will switch from Tretten and find another suitable Norwegian action for consideration. I will look first at ASL and then move on from there if nothing grabs my interest and ToE.

      Delete
    5. Norm, what guidelines do you set for too many units in a game? I fielded 16 Germans units in this game and did not think the table was overloaded.

      Delete
    6. Gotcha, Jonathan, and just wanted to make sure I wasn't throwing a wet blanket on anything. All the Tigers at Minsk batreps I've read have been very enjoyable, just that one thing sticks out! ;)

      But you guys are absolutely the experts (hell, Norm WROTE them!), I'm coming from a 3rd Person view! ;)

      V/R,
      Jack

      Delete
    7. Jack, I am no expert on TaM. Far from it! I am a relative late comer but my experience is growing. The rules offer very quick resolution and as Norm often says, it provides a reasonable narrative.

      I look forward to seeing your impressions of TaM when it hits your gaming table.

      Delete
    8. For scenarios of attack and defense getting the time/clock element just right is hard. As Norm says above. When I design scenarios Ive always used the soft rule of; you take the amount of turns for the attacker to do its objective if everything goes completely right and then add 2 more turns to allow for bad dice (for example you can’t assault with the infantry until the MG softens the target but the MG wiffs) and dithering of the players.
      There’s usually less dithering in solo play. 😀

      Delete
    9. Stew, I use a similar rule of thumb with respect to timing and number of turns. For Tretten, the Germans begin no further away than four hexes from five objectives. Given that the expected number of turns in an hour long game is between 8 and 9 turns, the Germans have the time to meet their objectives within the game constraints. Meeting fierce resistance and having attacks bog down can throw a wrench into timetables quickly.

      Delete
    10. Gentlemen, I wish i would have come into this conversation earlier! I've played Follow the Elephants RAW 10 times and the Germans won it twice. Norm states in the beginning that his intention for that scenario is to demonstrate the difficulty of advancing in the open.

      Suggestion instead of changing the OOB, I would place another woods hex or two allowing the attacker a "bit" more cover to advance under, or a mortar fire mission or 2. I've played with armor (1 x panzer 3) and the germans won twice as much with armor support.

      Jack I feel like the rules do an outstanding job of representing the challenge of fire and movement and realistically portray what would happen to you if you waltzed out from cover and moved towards an enemy HMG.

      I wonder if in some of the scenarios, there isn't enough cover representing the "micro terrain" present on battlefields? I like the stringent time requirements and I feel the mechanisms are sound.

      The tank rider close combat aspect, in my humble opinion, is the most complicated part of the rules as they are.

      Delete
    11. Thanks for weighing in, Steve! Your opinion is never too late and always welcome. Coordinating fire and movement and maintaining a cohesive attack/defense with limited automatic In Command units is a fine balancing act.

      Delete
  13. Close, bloody and beautiful...👍👍

    ReplyDelete
  14. Great AAR. I could really follow along as the game was played. 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! Comments from all of you make the effort worthwhile!

      Delete
  15. Always enjoyable and interesting to refight close games to see if different tactics work. Your battle reports are great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you like the battle reports, Peter! I enjoy replaying to try different tactics as well as building a bigger sample size to assess the scenario's play balance.

      Delete