"Lessons Learnt" Topic

One of the things about long games played over days is they present many more credible scenarios that would not be satisfactory in a single game. It also teaches the art of thinking big. The star of the big game is a good illustration of my bad generalship. Start of the game FEBZ single road through a sizable wood that is difficult to pas with even 8 wheel AFV'S. I have a watch platoon to observe (and I hoped) to delay any enemy approaching. To this end I deployed widely scattered positions watching the fron with individual team trenches inside the limit of visibility in the wood. The opposition chose to advance at night for just a probe with a Decent BTR platoon up as part of a company. Me being a poor watch platoon do not have very good Night Vision. Badly dispersed and poor quality I got flushed out of the wood losing troops and causing little delay. He even got the road. What I should have done is built a strong point close to the road but not so close as to allow the BT R'S to engage it without risking the wood. I should have legged it back to the strong point as soon as enemy was sigted. If he wanted the road he would need a formal assult to take the strong point or bypass it safely but slowly. But he would have to do the same coming back. Either option would have cost him more time.

Lesson learnt, have a p K an at the top and give the lower level a key understanding of what is needed.

It also interesting to see how a big game adds scenarios which are not convincing in isolation.

And yes I made the mistake again but learnt soon enough to make it less of a disaster. Howeve some bits of the p l an did work. The probe by the BTR's has been halted part by me and part voluntarily. But as it was down two roads I have less observation and some very roughed up grunts and are no wiser as to his next move.

Good luck UshCha I also can suffer from defeat by deployment.

Sounds like an interesting game Brian. We also try to set up multi day scenarios or linked scenarios, being able to keep the terrain set up for several days helps!

How long was your game?

You probably already know this …

Use terrain to your advantage i.e. use cover & concealment. To increase survivability, etc., …

Some doctrine has the Grunts too "wedded" to their carriers at times. Don't always go with that concept. Infantry can go places carrier can't.

Know when to dismount and when not to.

Use the carriers' firepower from a covered & concealed position to support the Grunts if at all possible.

Make sure you learn the right lessons from failure/defeat.

An Army saying goes something like – " Don't get in the way of an enemy making a mistake."

Like I said I you all know all this …

Wait a minute … that may be not be an old saying ? But I've heard it somewhere before … It should be a Military saying regardless …

The game is still ongoing. We are at about bound 25. Using Hexon 2 and a tablet with camera we can keep clear accurate records of troop positions and set up quickly the bit of the virtual board we need for the next session.

Then a bit of paper work to say who started when and how long before requested troops are available for final deployment and you have a real battle.

As you point out there is a long way from the simple statements to turning it into practical and efficient strategies at the higher levels.

And again we have the conundrum of what the rules say/do/work vs. the "real world". But we all know that can only be accomplished to a point. And a Game vs. a Simulation, etc., etc.. As we have discussed before, etc.

Maybe a delaying withdraw by successive ambushes with prepared positions to fall back on would have been more effective.

Wolfhag

That is one way the Germans in WWII did it in Russia, and Italy, at times. Trading space for time or time for space based on the terrain and situation.

Wolfhag, Legion4,
That was what I was trying for but against more capable troops and being an unconstrained bit of terrain, a large forest (for the troops available)' it did not work.

Legion 4,
It to me was interesting that this was not about the rules. I failed simply because my plan was inadequate and to be honest, ill thought out. To me this was simulation at is best, showing up fundamental errors in my ability to command ( would have prefered it to show how brilliant I was but Hey, second best is still fun)!

We are now on bound 35 (there was an agreed 5 bound lull where the enemy regrouped and so did I). Fortunately now not all the errors are mine. The Russians appear to have driven by my mortar position withot seeing it, mainly because they are all looking in the wrong direction with their limited night vision. Again the "big" table allows errors of command to creep in without any extra rules. Chaos without extra rules, to us its perfect. You could add more chaos but it would not make the game any better. We are already making enough command errors without the need for even more dice invoked chaos. We have had barrages lifting to early and failure to press on regardless. Both od which has actually cost the enemy quite a lot. It has also shown just how much you need on the attack. Enough to overun the defences. but then leave them to another force to mop up. Literally we are beggining to understand the "waves" of attackers a few hundred yards in depth appart.

Well Ushcha, in 20/20 you can see what you did wrong. But it is not rare in a games or even in the real world. That a bad or poorly executed plan fails.

The important thing is to not only learn from mistakes. But learn the "right" "things".

It is not rare that both sides make errors. I think the saying goes something like. "It's not the Cdr who the most things right, but the least things wrong".

And rarely on the board of even in the real world is a Cdr, who can do anything considered "brilliant".

Believe me, with studying history most of my life, since started war gaming in the '60s. Then 1 to 1 scale war gaming for over a decade on active duty. Just getting to the right place at the right time with all/most of your command may be as good as it gets ! Let alone all the other things the mission entails.

And as you know, in the attack you'd like at least a 3-1. Attacker vs. Defender. Add combat multipliers like, FA support, CAS, gunships etc. And even with all that, a "bad" plan could still not insure "victory/success".

But the idea is as you said to have fun. You are not getting evaluated by anyone but you and your gaming pals.