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

[GottaLove88s]

Ps. Justin, thanks for the screenshot... I can see some odd ghosting in the label names. Does this hapoen in game? Or only in screenshot?

[jcb989]

Yes, a hard-fought struggle to be sure. I mentioned to Al, there were many worried moments as things swung back and forth in the balance.
There is a nice Sit Rep thread I was posting in Allies Forum the whole way, for my comrades. I supposed its classified information but it would be good propaganda for some folks to see the events as they unfolded on the beach. Ah well, maybe in my memoires in another 50 years...

[jcb989]

Ps. Justin, thanks for the screenshot... I can see some odd ghosting in the label names. Does this hapoen in game? Or only in screenshot?

Those were there the whole time I'm afraid.

[k9mike]

Damn thats some serious scorched earth there in the middle...
Good job both on tough fight.
Oh...I am having the flag name scripts are doubled...looks like double vision.

[Brummbar44]

Sword is in hand...I say again, Sword is in hand.

(pun intended)

[GottaLove88s]

Ps. Justin, thanks for the screenshot... I can see some odd ghosting in the label names. Does this hapoen in game? Or only in screenshot?

Those were there the whole time I'm afraid.

Hmmm... Thanks J, Sorry about that. How annoying!! Are you iPad or PC when you get the doubled up labels in play? Which version of BA are you using? Does anyone else get this? I'll report it to Pip...

[kingt]

Gents, I'm going to add the following rule on Relief Movements...

4.33 Relief Movements. A friendly BG can relieve a defending force by moving into a defended sector and then permitting the defender to exit. For a relief to be successful, both the entry and the exit movements must be completed before an enemy attacks. If the relief is successful, subsequent attacks will take place as an Attack vs a Fortified Defence (AFD), as if the defender had already been in position. However, if an enemy attacks before the relieving force can enter, the current defender will face an Attack vs Surprised Defence (ASD). If an enemy attacks after the relieving force has entered but before the current defender has departed, the new defender will face a Meeting Engagement (ME).

It's a logical addition that should help both sides over the length of the campaign... However, I'm aware that it could help the Germans more immediately than the Allies, so if anyone finds this contentious, please shout up... If necessary, I'm happy to put it on the Rulebook, but suspend it until June 9th, so that nobody benefits unfairly...

Interesting rule if orders come in in the right (lucky?) order. I say adding it from June 9 would be better though because knowing such a rule exists can affect the whole tactical phase and the strategy adopted by each BG when fighting.

[kingt]

Ps. Justin, thanks for the screenshot... I can see some odd ghosting in the label names. Does this hapoen in game? Or only in screenshot?

Those were there the whole time I'm afraid.

Hmmm... Thanks J, Sorry about that. How annoying!! Are you iPad or PC when you get the doubled up labels in play? Which version of BA are you using? Does anyone else get this? I'll report it to Pip...

Yeah it's there on the iPad as well.

[leci]

Al was also providing really good sit-reps into the German forum

[leci]

From the rules, am I correct in that VG/I/736/716 will now need to withdraw i.e. the BG has not been dissolved? If so, I assume that this an 'automatic' move via the GMs?

[GottaLove88s]

Gents, I'm going to add the following rule on Relief Movements...

4.33 Relief Movements. A friendly BG can relieve a defending force by moving into a defended sector and then permitting the defender to exit. For a relief to be successful, both the entry and the exit movements must be completed before an enemy attacks. If the relief is successful, subsequent attacks will take place as an Attack vs a Fortified Defence (AFD), as if the defender had already been in position. However, if an enemy attacks before the relieving force can enter, the current defender will face an Attack vs Surprised Defence (ASD). If an enemy attacks after the relieving force has entered but before the current defender has departed, the new defender will face a Meeting Engagement (ME).

It's a logical addition that should help both sides over the length of the campaign... However, I'm aware that it could help the Germans more immediately than the Allies, so if anyone finds this contentious, please shout up... If necessary, I'm happy to put it on the Rulebook, but suspend it until June 9th, so that nobody benefits unfairly...

Interesting rule if orders come in in the right (lucky?) order. I say adding it from June 9 would be better though because knowing such a rule exists can affect the whole tactical phase and the strategy adopted by each BG when fighting.

OK GENTS, I NEED YOUR VOTES ON TWO FACTORS... RESPONSES BY 12H GMT NOV 17th TO COUNT.

RESULTS (so far)
Rule 4.33: June 7th (3) v June 9th (2)
Tougher infantry: Yes (6) v No (0)
Voted: Leci, KingT, Random, Morge4, K9mike, Brummbar

1. Rule 4.33: Start Rule 4.33 (see above) for June 7th? Reply 7th. Or start Rule 4.33 for June 9th? Reply 9th. So far, KingT is one vote for the 9th.
2. Tougher infantry: Yes or No? You'll remember that we kept infantry as regular BA infantry for June 6th, so everyone could see how they play out in the campaign. Now that we're a turn in, would you like to make the little guys more durable? I would do this by adding +50 to the base morale of every type of infantry unit (technically, mortars are artillery units and would not benefit). Reply Yes for the +50. Reply No for no change to core BA morale.

Bear in mind, a small error crept into GJS'44... Apparently, mortar teams were reduced from 3-men to 2-men on the last day of the original GJS campaign... This was accidentally copied into our June 6th files for GJS'44... We will be returning to 3-men mortar teams from June 7th... This will have an impact on the effects of mortars on infantry...

[leci]

1) 9th
2) Yes

[GottaLove88s]

From the rules, am I correct in that VG/I/736/716 will now need to withdraw i.e. the BG has not been dissolved? If so, I assume that this an 'automatic' move via the GMs?

I/736/716 lost Sword but held at least one VP flag so it withdraws without dissolution. The withdrawal movement could be to Perriers Ridge or to Bénouville, randomly weighted 6 for Perriers, 2 for Bénouville (see 7.74 below). I will let you know where later today (when I get time to play with Excel).

Withdrawals are executed in the order that battles end (this matters because if there's only one available sector for two losing BGs to withdraw into, the loser of the first battle that ends will get it).

7.73 Withdrawing BGs are moved to an empty neighbouring sector already controlled by their side.
7.74 The direction of withdrawal is determined randomly by dice throw and will be reported by the GM. The chances are weighted as follows: Withdrawal directly opposite the approach of the attacking unit, 6 chances, Withdrawal diagonally away from the approach of the attacking unit, 2x 2 chances; Withdrawal to the side of the approach of the attacking unit, 2x 1 chance. Units are not permitted to withdraw towards the attacking unit, even diagonally.
7.75 If there are no empty neighbouring sectors already controlled by the loser's side, for that BG to withdraw into, or if the loser's forces are annihilated during the battle (ie. zero units remain), then that BG is dissolved.

[kingt]

Since I voted for 1) already, I say yes for 2).

[random27]

1)7th
2)yes

[GottaLove88s]

Jcb989's capture of Sword wins Allies 1x 25pdr Arty per turn from June 7th (so long as Sword remains under Allied control)

6.51 Allies will receive +1 Artillery bonus for each of Gold, Juno, Sword and Ouistreham held.

[GottaLove88s]

I/736/716 withdraws to Perriers Ridge (from Sword beach)

[kingt]

Since I voted for 1) already, I say yes for 2).

But I think that 2) should also be applied starting with June 9. Otherwise our whole June 7 advantage will be annuled by the bump in morale for infantry. Instead of having to attack German units starting at 75, we'd be attacking them at 125. It's not the same thing even if we'd be at 150. Supressing at 75 becomes a lot easier hence changes tactics on both sides, especially in those tough battles where our Paras are defending.

Maybe all new rules should be applied starting with the second day after it's settled.

[GottaLove88s]

Since I voted for 1) already, I say yes for 2).

But I think that 2) should also be applied starting with June 9. Otherwise our whole June 7 advantage will be annuled by the bump in morale for infantry. Instead of having to attack German units starting at 75, we'd be attacking them at 125. It's not the same thing even if we'd be at 150. Supressing at 75 becomes a lot easier hence changes tactics on both sides, especially in those tough battles where our Paras are defending.

Maybe all new rules should be applied starting with the second day after it's settled.

That's a reasonable request KT. If "Yes" wins for stronger infantry, I'll implement that the same date as the vote sets for implementing Rule 4.33 (June 9th is leading at present).

However, for clarity, if we add +50 to infantry morale, I will also update the "out of supply" penalty from minus 25 for all units, to minus 50 for infantry and minus 25 for all other units... Losing a supply line should be a significant problem which requires urgent correction...

[morge4]

Ps. Justin, thanks for the screenshot... I can see some odd ghosting in the label names. Does this hapoen in game? Or only in screenshot?

Those were there the whole time I'm afraid.

Yep, whole game they showed up like that (I'm on PC)