GJS'44 Campaign Main Thread - Final June 16th 1944 Tournamen

[Navaronegun]

Whereas a combine east and west attack at the same time with what would have been 40+ units against the enemies 30+ units as it should have been - I think to do it like this will do 3 things.

1. Make the turnover of battles quicker, not having to wait for AM and PM battles to conclude

2. Make the battles a lot more balanced and the strategic approach would also be altered

3. Add a lot more juice to the battles.

Now, that I will give you. But is the Theater Commander prohibited from essentially merging 2 Task Forces into one?

[protectivedaddy]

He wouldn't actually be merging the 2 forces into one, during that days battle the player would be controlling 2 BGs but if defeated these would retreat seperately to the squares they came from and if victorious the 2 seperate BGs would occupy the same square but could then move in seperate directions the next day.

What this would require is a third column in the forces lost screen - one for each BG so the forces can be adjusted correctly after battle.

[Navaronegun]

Now Nava maybe I take a more Hilteritarian approach, I would rather my men die if they severely weaken the enemy than have a force that has been severely weakened retreat - as yes they could possibly reinforce another BG but on the other hand they could also be easy pickings against a full force enemy BG the next day depending on where they retreat to.

Well, that was my second point. Sure, they reinforced, but you attrited the enemy in the AM on the attack. Actually more of an Eisenhowerian approach than Hitlerian. Fighting to the last man wile defending would be Hitlerian (though the Wehrmact never listened to him about that...).

[protectivedaddy]

On the point of one player controlling the 2 BGs, I have asked a question of whether there could be multi players controlling together - now that really would be interesting.

And no when defending, I take a more conservative approach and that is preserve troops as much as possible to keep the strategic position on the battle map, but when attacking its basically throw it all at them, down to the last.

[cavehobbit]

Can I just ask a silly question - when 2 Allied BGs are attacking why aren't they on the same map combined - can it not handle that many units as wouldn't that be a better way of doing it instead of splitting into 2 seperate battles.

I will give you a boring answer to this and your other question: This campaign is just a game, not a realistic simulation of the actual battles that took place in June 1944. The rules we are using are far from perfect in many ways (I understand that's not just me thinking so), but I for my part have no intention to make any changes at this point as it would take to much time and energy. I rather play this campaign to its end by the current rules. Then I will be part in changing the rules, but not in the middle of the campaign.
This campaign is two games is one, a classic strategic board game and BA to resolve the battles. One of the key features in the strategic game is in which order the different BGs are moved. Personally I find this a very fun feature as I like the strategic planning very much.
If you think a battle is not worth fighting you have the rule option to negotiate a ceasefire, but you should discuss this with your senior commander (Jcb) first.
I'd like to recommend all to read the rules and try to use them to your advantage. viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844#p363656

Sorry giving you such a boring answer, but I think that's the best I can give you right now…

[Navaronegun]

On the point of one player controlling the 2 BGs, I have asked a question of whether there could be multi players controlling together - now that really would be interesting.

And no when defending, I take a more conservative approach and that is preserve troops as much as possible to keep the strategic position on the battle map, but when attacking its basically throw it all at them, down to the last.

That's what I mean. That's actually how the US approached the Campaign in Normandy. All in. Kill as many as you can. They won't fight you tomorrow if you kill'em today. Don't sweat losses. Eisenhowerian.

[protectivedaddy]

I guess Nava, though it cringes me to admit, there may be some yank in me afterall.

And P-A I would never say a battle is not worth fighting, in fact the more the odds are stacked against you the better the fight - you have to put more thought into your 'planning' to try to outwit your opponent, that why is most circumstances when they allies are faced with a 'not worth it' scenario we set ourselves different objectives by which we gauge success..........take the AM battle against the Tiger BG, this was a definite 'not worth it' scenario but in taking out a single tiger we came away with a victory of sorts, by this I mean if we have 1,2 even 10 battles like that eventually that BG is weakened enough for us to put up a matching force, and so from that point of view every battle is worth it.

[Navaronegun]

I guess Nava, though it cringes me to admit, there may be some yank in me afterall.

. As a good Brit, you actually should be mindful that there isn't an unlimited supply of UK, Dominion and Imperial bodies, and be cautious. You know. Like, what's his name. The little guy who won one stinking battle in Egypt and becomes a Nob even though he couldn't chase down his Grandma in a pursuit...

[protectivedaddy]

Your right, you Americans have gotten behind us Brits many times....... ........but in doing so isn't like we're selling our soul to the devil.

Afterall there is a nice piece in the Mail today regarding the 'defeat of communism' and what have we the west done since 1989. Now for us true Brits are identity and might have slowly eroded, and this in part is due to 'pulling you yanks' out the shit on more than one occasion, but at a cost of our own international relations. Our government now believes it must do as its American paymasters insist, our policies mirror or suit those of America, our trade agreements again suit those of America, instead of embracing the old communist countries since the fall of the Berlin Wall and embracing Islam we have turned more against these entities due to American pressure, so even though you yanks believe you are all almighty and we are your simple lapdog, the fact that you assess our historical figureheads as simply 'little men' summarises exactly the relationship between Britain and America, a complete misconception.

From getting your ass kicked by the Vietcong, beheaded by the Somalians or whipped by the Afghans, I'm not quite sure where your belief that you have superior military personnel comes from, whereas could you name one of our embarrassing military failures of the modern era because I can definitely name quite a few successes. Afterall if you subtract our losses in the battlefield that have been contributed by the yanks friendly fire, our military losses in the field are actually quite low.

[Navaronegun]

Your right, you Americans have gotten behind us Brits many times....... ........but in doing so isn't like we're selling our soul to the devil.

Afterall there is a nice piece in the Mail today regarding the 'defeat of communism' and what have we the west done since 1989. Now for us true Brits are identity and might have slowly eroded, and this in part is due to 'pulling you yanks' out the shit on more than one occasion, but at a cost of our own international relations. Our government now believes it must do as its American paymasters insist, our policies mirror or suit those of America, our trade agreements again suit those of America, instead of embracing the old communist countries since the fall of the Berlin Wall and embracing Islam we have turned more against these entities due to American pressure, so even though you yanks believe you are all almighty and we are your simple lapdog, the fact that you assess our historical figureheads as simply 'little men' summarises exactly the relationship between Britain and America, a complete misconception.

From getting your ass kicked by the Vietcong, beheaded by the Somalians or whipped by the Afghans, I'm not quite sure where your belief that you have superior military personnel comes from, whereas could you name one of our embarrassing military failures of the modern era because I can definitely name quite a few successes. Afterall if you subtract our losses in the battlefield that have been contributed by the yanks friendly fire, our military losses in the field are actually quite low.

LOL. Nothing like a Monty quip to get a rise. My caveat to the above is that my Irish forebears really did all the bleeding in those wars. Once there were no Paddy's to take the King's Shilling, it was hard to keep the Thin Red Line awash in fresh bodies!

You and I will get along, because you are aMail reader.

[protectivedaddy]

Well what else where those potato pickers any good for.

I myself am a true Scot and so derive from Viking ancestry so even though I regard myself as Pro-Brit I definitely follow the Scottish trend and so am definitely not Pro-Government.

On your side of the pond Americans associate themselves a lot with their governments image, whereas on this side of the pond, unless your a pompous toff we couldn't be any more different than the image our government would have us portrayed. I initially lived in the land of Coronation Street and grew up around the streets of Salford, come from what is regarded as doleite roots, with an upbringing by a destitute English woman and a drunken jobless Glaswegian father and so any association with the forefathers of the 'British Empire' are very wide of the mark, the imperialist who sent those Irish inbreds to their deaths are definitely represented in our government of today, but the people have more in common with William Wallace. We hate our government, we hate what they have and are continuing to do to our homelands, though we don't hate the Americans we definitely have a complex with the influence the Americans have had on our policies over the last 40 years.

Now if you are a Mail reader similar to myself we probably will get along as their are quite a few of you Americans who feel the same about your government. May I ask do you also follow Infowars or similar 'conspiracy' sites.

[Navaronegun]

Well what else where those potato pickers any good for.

I myself am a true Scot and so derive from Viking ancestry so even though I regard myself as Pro-Brit I definitely follow the Scottish trend and so am definitely not Pro-Government.

On your side of the pond Americans associate themselves a lot with their governments image, whereas on this side of the pond, unless your a pompous toff we couldn't be any more different than the image our government would have us portrayed. I initially lived in the land of Coronation Street and grew up around the streets of Salford, come from what is regarded as doleite roots, with an upbringing by a destitute English woman and a drunken jobless Glaswegian father and so any association with the forefathers of the 'British Empire' are very wide of the mark, the imperialist who sent those Irish inbreds to their deaths are definitely represented in our government of today, but the people have more in common with William Wallace. We hate our government, we hate what they have and are continuing to do to our homelands, though we don't hate the Americans we definitely have a complex with the influence the Americans have had on our policies over the last 40 years.

Now if you are a Mail reader similar to myself we probably will get along as their are quite a few of you Americans who feel the same about your government. May I ask do you also follow Infowars or similar 'conspiracy' sites.

No. And we may not see totally eye to eye, as I am actually a "Great Britain" guy, and to devolution I say "West Lothian". But we'll get along. . You're not a Guardian reader or a Mirror reader...

[Honour79]

I think you two have gone off topic!

[Navaronegun]

I think you two have gone of topic!

True, back on track now....

[protectivedaddy]

I tend to get into abit of a waffling state when its past my bedtime, but I'm still waiting for MLazar to pick up.

Nava not a avid Mirror reader but I do flick through the Guardian every once in a while, not really a good read but it sure does make a lot of shit paper when the missus forgets to top up on the Andrex.

Now Nava are you on our side or are you one of those dastardly Gerries.

[Navaronegun]

I tend to get into abit of a waffling state when its past my bedtime, but I'm still waiting for MLazar to pick up.

Nava not a avid Mirror reader but I do flick through the Guardian every once in a while, not really a good read but it sure does make a lot of shit paper when the missus forgets to top up on the Andrex.

Now Nava are you on our side or are you one of those dastardly Gerries.

I march with Kampfgruppen Kommandant Cavehobbit.

[protectivedaddy]

That's good to hear, we Brits are always receptive to any spare intel that your high command may leave laying around regarding possible bug exploits etc.

[LandMarine47]

I tend to get into abit of a waffling state when its past my bedtime, but I'm still waiting for MLazar to pick up.

Nava not a avid Mirror reader but I do flick through the Guardian every once in a while, not really a good read but it sure does make a lot of shit paper when the missus forgets to top up on the Andrex.

Now Nava are you on our side or are you one of those dastardly Gerries.

I march with Kampfgruppen Kommandant Cavehobbit.

Get your marching boots on then! Without Caen, the Allies lose whatever advantages they have left then we can end this once and for all!

[Honour79]

A very quiet and boring Sunday... What happened to all the fighting?

[Navaronegun]

GHQ is down.