Slitherine

Agree, your turnaround time is fantastic, Herr Kommandant.

cavehobbit wrote:Pm battles map pack been sent to Jcb.

I have replied with a minor issue.

jcb989 wrote:

cavehobbit wrote:Pm battles map pack been sent to Jcb.

I have replied with a minor issue.

Fixed…

So are we ready for the PM battles . I'm itching to whip the Allies (and their commander PDaddy in particular) very hard in Caen!

LandMarine47 wrote:So are we ready for the PM battles . I'm itching to whip the Allies (and their commander PDaddy in particular) very hard in Caen!

Not quite yet...

Request for minor edit sent to CH, with regards to Caen PM

Protective Daddy signing in, ready for the second assault on Bois.

ALLIED ASSIGNMENTS FOR JUNE 13TH PM

Guardsman........Caen
Protectivedaddy.........Bois de Bavant

Sorry to others; you will get next dibs starting June 14th AM.
But I figure the above is right, for continuity right now.
(Unless they lose, lol)

Here's the map pack with pm battles in Caen and Bois:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/535 ... UN13PM.LST

German commanders will be:
LandMarine - Caen
Mlazar - Bois

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Caen is up. Password is ucantwin

I posted a couple open practice games for the Allied newbies

Quick question - how exactly do the German start these battles stronger than they started the AM battles.

Not looked at the Caen setup, but the overly strong Germans at Bois are abit of a chuckle aren't they. I thought a PM battle would be the remnants of the AM battle facing a new Opposing BG, that's how I've been playing these battles, seems June 13th was a day for educating.

Well, if contact is broken, both sides can reorganize and reinforce.

protectivedaddy wrote:Quick question - how exactly do the German start these battles stronger than they started the AM battles.

Not looked at the Caen setup, but the overly strong Germans at Bois are abit of a chuckle aren't they. I thought a PM battle would be the remnants of the AM battle facing a new Opposing BG, that's how I've been playing these battles, seems June 13th was a day for educating.

Sorry, I should have explained earlier. 26/12SS have merged with 914/352 between the two battles because 26/12SS had higher order priority than 45/RM, but lower than 48/RM viewtopic.php?f=87&t=38844&start=1960#p430297

1.Allies: 48RM attacks Bois de Bavent -- OK. AFD vs 914/352
1.German: 26/12SS moves to Bois de Bavent and merge with 914/352 -- Pending on AM battle in Bois de Bavent

2.Allies: 45RM attack Bois de Bavent via Escoville -- Pending on AM battle in Bois de Bavent
2.German: 192/21 Brigade Re-org by sending 7 units to II/744/711 in Bayeux, them move to Lingevres (Units transferred: 1x Inf, 1x Eng, 1x Mortar, 1x AA, 2x Marder, 1x 251/1.) -- OK.

914/352 started this day with 22 units. It lost 6 in the first battle and then was reinforced by 8 from 26/12SS, which makes it stronger in the pm battle

Yes, this day has been a day for educating for us all with such a complex situation involving lots of BGs because of the Caen and Bois battles.

From an Allies point of view though and an historical point of view, this is wrong, basically if we send a BG in against a superior force we do so intending to do 2 things either bag a win (in most cases this is already unlikely before the battle as even begun) and secondly to weaken the enemy, but what your saying is the second is completely redundant, so instead of the first BG sacrificing themselves for a cause, they actually are simply wasted for absolutely no reason.

If this is the case it definitely need sorting. On some maps the German forces and starting positions make it impossible for the Allies to win but a second wave of Allies against a weakened and battle weary German force makes a leveller, or are the German side that afraid of us Allies that they must do all they can to keep the balance in their favour.

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.

Bois PM battle created.

Password is: susstheruse (All in lower case)

Awaiting MLazar picking up.

protectivedaddy wrote:From an Allies point of view though and an historical point of view, this is wrong, basically if we send a BG in against a superior force we do so intending to do 2 things either bag a win (in most cases this is already unlikely before the battle as even begun) and secondly to weaken the enemy, but what your saying is the second is completely redundant, so instead of the first BG sacrificing themselves for a cause, they actually are simply wasted for absolutely no reason.

If this is the case it definitely need sorting. On some maps the German forces and starting positions make it impossible for the Allies to win but a second wave of Allies against a weakened and battle weary German force makes a leveller, or are the German side that afraid of us Allies that they must do all they can to keep the balance in their favour.

From a historical standpoint, I'd slightly disagree. There are two other reasons to attack, firstly. 1.) to fix the enemy force to prevent it's movement or utilization in another role (like reinforcing another force later), or 2.) to incur losses on the enemy forces overall. Any forces we are able to reinforce with now, because they were not fixed by enemy attack in the PM, is ithe short term beneficial for us. However it means those forces are *not* available elsewhere or tomorrow or next week or whatever, if eliminated.

Well no, to fix the enemy force means we either face it here or else where, if we could move into a vacated space wouldn't that be better, and secondly we create an attack from the east and from the west - in reality this creates a major headache for the enemy as he has to defend both fronts - thus splitting his power, but in these battles that effect is lost - I attacked from the east in AM Bois but the enemy only had to face me on one front, now I attack from the west and the enemy again only has to face me on one front - from the enemies point of view this is in his favour - especially considering he already has the stronger and better suited force. 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 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.