THE BLITZ MOVE

What do you want to see in an advanced A&A game?
Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.

Can you dig this Blitz move ???

Yes, I just love it.
7
70%
no, I am afraid to anything new
3
30%
I must wait and see what my friends thinks about this.
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:01 am

HUH ?? Did You vote ??

Jolly good, GROGgy-man, Thanks for that

Here is my Leader proposals
Click on me and get enhanced

Image

Rules
1) When Rommel is present, he can conduct an Combined Arms effect.

User avatar
Sabre Von Manteuffel
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:22 pm
Location: Rusafa-(East) Baghdad, Iraq

One LARGE map, or are the "blow up boxes" making a

Post by Sabre Von Manteuffel » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:56 am

IL,

Like I said, haven't had time to read the 100+ posts for AAA, although very interested to get in there and read through it--BUT, double the amount of territories? That must make for a very large map, or very small territories that will be hard to keep pieces from spilling over from one to the next.

Ok, let's say the designer(s) make it a normal "wall-sized" poster size, with double the territories. I am sorry, but I still don't see a "breakthrough" or exploiting your initial success as historically accurate. The issue here again being the way in which they did fight. Germany and later USSR were the only ones that just massed combined arms (and USSR more infantry and Arm numbers that Germany at that point could NOT begin to counter) to "blitz" through a country or mass territory in this manner.

Blitzkrieg, "lightningwar," was NOT how the Western Allies conducted any portion of WW2 offensives. They were all very Monty-like---slow and methodical. Yes, we (America) bombed the Germans into the stone-age, and yes we had broad fronts that literally built off the German and established even modern day "combined arms" doctrine---but it was not "lightning" quick.

Obviously there were many other factors involved other than just the military machines' capabilities: politics, civilians, etc.... BUT, another example: Italy. Western Allies landed on the toe in Sep 43 (if I'm correct) when Italy in fact surrendered, yet the Germans kept them below Rome for almost 10 months, and held the Gothic line until '45---pretty much until the war ended. D-Day: June '44. VE Europe...May 45!! From Normandy to outside Berlin (which we GAVE to the Russians) in 12 months.

I would have to see the proposed new map, but with what I know from history and the previous A&A maps (Classic, Europe, Revised, etc) I would have to caution against this very powerful tool. Maybe limited it to a German NA (?).

'NADS: I have begun deciphering your posts with "MAGIC" and I can TELL you that HQ units should be considered a NO-BRAINER, as all type of UNITS and FORCES require a HQ type unit to FACILITATE their movement, logistics, and actions.....SO, to ADD your ELFIN-ARMY ARCHER GENERAL to the A&A world doesn't "DO IT FOR ME."

---War-yurs....come out to Play-ay!.......

Adler: I would hate to venture that IL is just some "non-history major" college guy. Although in disagreement here, I agree with many of the posts from him I've read---and his USSR "stands alone" ideals I feel are 95% dead-on accurate that should be incorporated in to all versions of A&A.

-well, back to the REAL training meeting here at work, lunch is over.
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English, thank an American Veteran!

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:50 am

Nice posts, Sabre Von Manteuffel. I agree completely. :D
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:40 pm

to "blitz" through a country or mass territory in this manner.
For example: France is now 2-3 territories, while say Belgium is included but only is one territory. The fact that in a single turn you can only take "part" of France seems incorrect. IN 1940 France was overrun in what would comprise a simgle turn, while June-September 1941 saw large tracts of eastern poland, ukraine, white russia and Crimea overrun with germans also in a single turn. IN Both cases they could only be accomplished by either some kind of Breakthru combat phase or "Mechanized movement and combat phase" that is seperate to normal move/ attack phase. To only allow some nations to perform this throws the game out of balance, while in other parts of the world the terrain restrictions in some areas would undoubtedly not allow such manuevers (asia for example). only in open country in good weather could this work. The game would presumably have such mechanics in the rules (both weather and terrain).

BTW operation Cobra was a classic breakout maneuver featuring the same "BlitzKreig" tactics by Pattons 3rd Army. So thats 3 nations that employed it. The other 3 (Italy UK and Japan ) didnt use this because the fighting for them was in Jungles, Desert or they lacked the spirit to conduct daring attacks (the british in particuliar were fond of "set piece battles" where every detail was planned out and the result was never in doubt).
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Sabre Von Manteuffel
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:22 pm
Location: Rusafa-(East) Baghdad, Iraq

Operation Cobra?

Post by Sabre Von Manteuffel » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:32 am

IL,

I am disagreeing with you on this point as of now. I started reading some of the AAA posts last night (maybe one of the gurus can type up a synopsis of where we currently stand, so I'm not reading 7000 posts on topics dead or already decided), but I'd still like to see the layout of this new map before I think that allowing a exploitation attack should be incorporated.

Germany is the only country to REALLY do a Blitzkrieg....The Russians were able only because they outnumbered the Germans in INF and ARM so grotesquely---and I would call that MASS, not BLITZ.

Please let's not get into a historical debate, but Operation Cobra, as defined in Michael Green's Patton Operation Cobra and Beyond was
from the beginning, was designed only as a limited attack. Its main purpose was to drive a hole in the German defenses west of Saint-Lo. If that breakthrough worked, a deeper penetration into enemy territory by a large armored force would follow, thrusting deep into the German's rear, toward Coutances
....

This was the name of the Operation to "breakthrough" (or more realistically BREAKOUT) the beachheads established at Normandy. Cobra began on 25 JUL and did in fact allow the French 2nd Arm Div to enter Paris on month later. But, do not forget that the Russians were hammering the Germans in the East, Operation Dragoon was begnining in Southern France (Dragoon and Overlord forces meeting near Dijon only on 10 SEP), and the Italian campaign had already taken Rome and was pushing into the Gothic Line, causing more "crack" German troops to be diverted to the South. But, COBRA in itself only lasted from 25 JUL-25 AUG, and was the "breakout" from Normandy.

Now of course the success from Cobra allowed the Brits to re-take Antwerp and the US to enter Holland in early SEP, and even allowed US forces to touch German soil via Luxembourg on 11 SEP 44, but COBRA was launched to break the deadlocked that followed the initial success of D-Day. Yes, it was also impressive and often times referred to as the "most decisive 30 days of WW2" (although by Western perspective to be sure!), but St. Lo (which was carpet-bombed by 7000 (!!!) bombers as the signal to commence COBRA and Paris is a 200 mile push, and the British had launched GOODWOOD that ceased Caen by late July. Not to mention the "offical" U.S. Army AAR, The Center of Military History's European Theater of Operations: Breakout and Pursuit lists Cobra from 25 JUL (St.Lo) to the fall of Avranches as the month ended--this "Breakout" and "Explotiation of the Breach" which was 50 miles!!

Yes, but libering France from 2 directions with an enemy outnumbered and outgunned tied up in 3 fronts over a span of over 60 days is still not breakthrough, nor Blitzkrieg. It is simply MASS w/ great MANUVERABILTY. If you split France I can see how you would want to utilize this B&E concept...but I think that it still allows to much combat at one time; unless of course, the "only one round" of combat argument I read up on has actually managed to win-out (I don't care for that either--but that will be a different post).
The fact that in a single turn you can only take "part" of France seems incorrect. IN 1940 France was overrun in what would comprise a simgle turn, while June-September 1941 saw large tracts of eastern poland, ukraine, white russia and Crimea overrun with germans also in a single turn.
-IL

On your point here IL, again running over France and Eastern Europe in the 40s was as you said, Germany's Blitzkrieg. France outnumbered the Germans, and their tanks were much higher quality, but the TACTICAL employment of the German forces into the combined arms and the speed of movement is what crushed the French and BEF. Same with USSR in '41...the Germans NEVER outnumbered any of their opponents, it was their TACTICS and training that allowed them to blitz through larger forces with superior results. Give this to them as "built-in" NA if you deisre, but make the USSR and Western Allies breathrough and conquer the way they in fact did. MASS MASS MASS, time it right, bomb bomb bomb, attack, move forward, repeat. It gives the illusion of "blitzkrieg" or "breakthrough" because of how depleted the Germans were at the time the 2nd front FINALLY opened.

uh....sorry about that ranting. I just cam from a heated meeting arguing with a MAJ about something (historical) that he knew nothing about. But, I hope my page long post sheds some more light to my "nay-saying."

Krieghund and I will now be the "Knights that say 'nay'" :twisted:
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English, thank an American Veteran!

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:30 am

Ok, Sabre, I'm with you. IL had me fooled, but you opened my eyes.

I'll finish this poll and start a new.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2666
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:11 am

adlertag wrote:Ok, Sabre, I'm with you. IL had me fooled, but you opened my eyes.

I'll finish this poll and start a new.
Great, a new Knight! Welcome, Adlertag! :D
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:56 pm

It is simply MASS w/ great MANUVERABILTY.
I am advocating not Blitzkreig but breakthru and exploitation which is a more abstracted form of combat tactic that was employed as you have alluded too. Nobody can deny that in a case by case basis : Germany, UK, USA, and Soviets fought in terrain at times that allowed such tactics to be employed. The advanced game should allow some kind of seperate mechanized movement and attack phase to follow normal combat phase. This would give the game more flavor than simple rolling back and forth untill the territory is cleared of the enemy. Again, i am not specifically saying that the allied partners employed "blitzkreig" their offensives achieved some sucess that was due to mass mechanized armor breakthru with control of the air. ON this level they should have a say in the game. I does not matter that they had overwhelming forces. In the German example the schwerpunkt of the breakthru point always featured the highest concentration of forces anyway.
I do favor the one round combat idea, but only if it equates to a defined turn structure (3 month turns). If it goes to 6 months then multiple rounds would have to take place. Also, I favor the "pay to play" approach to offensive operations. I dont like the idea of constant offensive operations not costing a nation anything and this historical inacurracy is simply pushed under a rug. I think it should cost ONE IP to activate a offensive campaign in each territory and ONE IP for each round of combat in each territory.
Now the value of your offensive loses steam as you are spending money of sustaining your campaign, but at the cost of additional reinforcements. So now there will be breaks in combat while your forces regroup for another try. That is also where the weather must serve to facilitate this combat idea. Perhaps an offensive in the winter costs one extra IP?
Come on you guys you dont see any value in a mechanized combat phase? You really want stacks of junk fighting forever with no purpose to their life>?
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest