From: Francois Charton Subject: Hunters from the Sky Just had a solitaire attempt at Hunters from the Sky, the Gamers (TCS) title about Crete. Here is how it went: I used the historical rules and set up. In these, each Commonwealth battalion is assigned a defense perimeter (10 hexes around a designated point), in which its units have to stay during the first day. The German objectives for the first day are the airfield, and hill 107, south of it, which are both defended by the New Zealand 22nd battalion. Commonwealth woes begin when setting up the game. The 22nd NZ will bear most of the weight of the german assault, and the perimeter it has to defend is rather large. The CW player is forced either to overextend on a very long line, from Maleme and the sea on the North to Vlakheronitissa on the South, or to concentrate on a smaller perimeter (the airport and the hilltop), having increased firepower there, but forfaiting the southern part of the hill to the Germans. I chose the second option, which looked more promising in terms of opportunities for counterattacks. The first german wave landed at 0720, and soon occupied the southern side of hill 107 (Company 4) and (Company 3) a small perimeter in the vineyards around Ay Ioannis (the south western corner of the airfield). My CW setup plan soon showed its advantages and drawbacks. On the South, the 4th Company was soon very close to hill 107. On the north, a first attempt at seizing Maleme terminal was repulsed with heavy losses for the Germans, the river bed (which reinforcements have to cross) was still under constant CW fire, and the German made little progress from their original landing sites. By 0820, german reinforcements had arrived. In the East, the 3rd battalion suffered heavy losses, but managed to concentrate its two surviving companies in Dhaskaliana and Psiioneros. To be slowly reduced by CW fire from the surrounding hills. In the West, hill 107 was finally occupied by the germans, but the 22nd NZ held most of the area around: the hillsides and the villages north of the airfield, which control all the river bed. As a result, the 2nd Sturm battalion, which was supposed to reinforce the first in the assault on the airfield suffered heavily while trying to cross the river bed. The next hour saw each side consolidating its positions. In the East, Commonwealth units eliminated most of the German 3rd Battalion (except for two companies, which held Daskhaliana). In the South, the German cleared all the South and western sides of Hill 107, and could have a large part of the 4th battalion cross the riverbed unscathed. North, the Maleme terminal and Ay Yeoryios were still held by the Commonwealth, and units crossing the riverbed to reinforce the beachhead around Ay Ioannis suffered terrible casualties. However, the number of German units around the airfield slowly increased, and by 1000, the Germans had achieved numerical superiority. At 1020, the Maleme terminal, and the souther side of the airfield fell to the Germans, and Ay Yeoryios (and all the airport) fell around 1100. By 1120, the germans controlled all the territory west of Maleme. Maleme was still held by the last remnants of the 22nd Battalion (two platoons). In the East, the last pockets of german resistance fell. Maleme fell at 1200. At that time, all first day objectives had been secured by the germans, who proceeded to move towards Pirgos, held by three companies of the 23rd NZ. Losses had been heavy on both sides: the 22nd NZ and all miscellaenous units (27th NZ, RAF det.) committed to Maleme had been eliminated. On the german side, the first and third battalion had lost more than three quarters of their men. However, CW prospects were gloomy: to win the game (or at least get a draw) they should retake either the hilltop or the airfield. But they had little forces for a counterattack, against german units which, though reduced, still had considerable firepower. So, I decided to call it a German victory. For a solitaire player, "Hunters" is a great situation to game: you set up a defense plan for the Commonwealth, and conduct an all-out German assault against it. As unit density is low (except during the first game turns) and as only infantry is available, the game plays very fast (15-20 minutes per game turn, as one game turn represents 20 minutes, the game plays about "real time", and a first day scenario will play in a couple of evenings). Now, the results of my game seem to indicate a strong unbalance in favour of the Germans (actually, all objectives fell much more easily than historically). In fact, German troops are superior in numbers, in equipment, in morale and even in mobility. In such a situation, an able German player will easily exploit any hole in the Commonwealth line by pouring units into it. However, the terrain offers excellent defensive possibilities, so I suppose better CW unit placement might prove much harder for the Germans. Has anyone actually won this game (the first day) with the CW, using the historical rules? Francois From: "Patrick R. Collins" Subject: Re: Hunters from the Sky > I used the historical rules and set up. In these, each Commonwealth > battalion is assigned a defense perimeter (10 hexes around a designated > point), in which its units have to stay during the first day. The German > objectives for the first day are the airfield, and hill 107, south of it, > which are both defended by the New Zealand 22nd battalion. Interesting reply snipped. Are the units so spread out that Mortars, ARTY, etc. from other units are not able to bear on either the field, or the areas surrounding them? Frankly, your approach sounds good, and is one that I would have chosen. The only advantage to a more spread out defense, is the possibility of suppressing the odd unit, and making them take more time to get to the field - hopefully they'll force you back to your (game replay)start positions, but have wasted a few hours to do so. A tough nut, it seems. Regards, Pat pcollins@prairienet.org Last Played: Siege of Hong Kong, Race for Space (x2), Safe Return Doubtful (x2) In Progress: Champion Hill (PBEM) http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins From: Francois Charton Subject: Re: Hunters from the Sky Patrick R. Collins wrote: > > Are the units so spread out that Mortars, ARTY, etc. from other units are > not able to bear on either the field, or the areas surrounding them? As the terrain is hilly and spotters are limited by the 10 hexes perimeter rules, I did not find mortars of other companies to have significant effect on the game. There are a couple of infantry guns which can be pretty deadly in the beginning of the game. However, they tend to make choice targets for the first glider wave, and for the many sorties the german player has. The best CW asset is their artillery, very deadly when german battalions try to cross the river bed towards Maleme. Francois From: Markus Stumptner Subject: Re: Hunters from the Sky Very nice replay! Regarding your comments on play balance... >Now, the results of my game seem to indicate a strong unbalance in favour >of the Germans (actually, all objectives fell much more easily than >historically). In fact, German troops are superior in numbers, in >equipment, in morale and even in mobility. [...] Has anyone actually >won this game (the first day) with the CW, using the historical rules? I don't think so. I take it you have played the game as published, without command rules, and your experience mirrors mine and that of all others I know that have played this scenario. The reason appears to lie in the fact that the Germans can work without any command restrictions. The German paratroopers were an elite, but the game gives them completely free reign, which (especially given the confusion and losses caused by the drop) is too much. The game's designer, Wig Graves, has made the originally submitted command rules available on the Gamers' website (http://www.tgamers.com/). These rules do restrain the paras somewhat and might be sufficient to largely rebalance the game (if they're not, try adding the optional Greeks to the setup and put them west of the river). As it happens, I intend to start on my 3D Hunters from the Sky map within a few weeks, and then will return to the game after a hiatus of a couple of years, to try it with Wig's original command rules. (Note that the rules on the website also include the original paradrop rules, which are generally acknowledged to be overwrought - Dean's published rules are much more elegant in this case.) Markus Last 3 games played: Semper Fi, Pacific War, Champs de Bataille ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Bakayaro! Bakayaro!" ("Stupid Bastards! Stupid Bastards!") -- Admiral Aritomo Goto's last words to his staff, October 11, 1942 From: Francois Charton Subject: Re: Hunters from the Sky Markus Stumptner wrote, on the unbalance of the original Hunters version: > > The reason appears to lie in the > fact that the Germans can work without any command restrictions. The > German paratroopers were an elite, but the game gives them completely > free reign, which (especially given the confusion and losses caused by > the drop) is too much. I had a look at the rules available on the Gamers website. A few comments on their effect on play balance. 1- Command rules: I think these are very important for campaign or second/third day scenarios, but I sort of disagree with you about the first day: the German objectives are very straightforward, and can fit into one opsheet: BatI-4 seize hill 107, Bat I-3, Bat II Bat IV attack Maleme airfield, Bat III seize Pirgos (?). If you allow units to have implemented opsheets at landing, then using the command rules will have very similar effects to not using them. I believe that a large part of the unbalance comes from the fact that the First Sturm Battalion can be reinforced very early by the 2nd and 4th. Possible solutions would be a- use of historical orders, which do not allow Bns 2 and 4 to attak Maleme before implementing a new opsheet b- forbid paratroop bns to have implemented orders upon arrival (sounds a little ahistorical at first, but after all it could b a way to account for the absence of experience in this kind of operations, and the heavy leader casualties at landing) c- (simpler) have some sort of release rule for bns 2 and 4, roll a die every turn for each, on a roll of 6 (?) they are allowed to cross the river bed and proceed towards the airfield, else, they must stay on the West bank of the river. 2- Tavronitis river bed: the new rules make it clear terrain instead of billiard table. This helps the germans a lot: to reinforce the 1st Sturm Bn, the Germans have to cross the river bed, suffering very high casualties due to overwatch from the hill and the villages North of the airfield. If this terrain is made clear, then crossing the river becomes fairly easy for the german (I think this is ahistorical), the CW positions on the hills are much weaker (in terms of fields of fire) and the german numerical superiority will just be untenable. 3- reduced firepower value: I believe this one is the main balancing rule of the lot (as the revision comment seem to imply). I am planning to have a second go at this scenario this week. Before, I will have a few experiments with these new rules, I do wonder whether the river bed terrain rule and the halved firepower rules cancel themselves in effect. Stay tuned. Francois From: Markus Stumptner Subject: Re: Hunters from the Sky >I think these are very important for campaign or second/third day >scenarios, but I sort of disagree with you about the first day: the >German objectives are very straightforward, and can fit into one opsheet: >BatI-4 seize hill 107, Bat I-3, Bat II Bat IV attack Maleme airfield, Bat >III seize Pirgos (?). If you allow units to have implemented opsheets at >landing, then using the command rules will have very similar effects to >not using them. Interesting; my impression was different, but your recollection would be fresher and therefore to be trusted more. I recall feeling that heavy losses to a particular battalion in the drop could well result in that battalion not managing its original objectives, which would mean a major delay. >a- use of historical orders, which do not allow Bns 2 and 4 to attak >Maleme before implementing a new opsheet This is what I would have done, especially if the New Zealanders are also working under their historical restrictions. If the New Zealanders have to work under the restrictions of a command that did not realize where the attack would come from, then the Germans can also suffer from the uncertainty of which hill is the right one to land on and hold on to. >b- forbid paratroop bns to have implemented orders upon arrival (sounds a >little ahistorical at first, but after all it could b a way to account >for the absence of experience in this kind of operations, and the heavy >leader casualties at landing) Dean has argued against this quite heatedly, pointing out that historically the elite status of the paras is visible particularly in the fact that they could attack their intended objectives immediately after the paradrop. So he feels an opsheet implementation delay would not be appropriate. >c- (simpler) have some sort of release rule for bns 2 and 4, roll a die >every turn for each, on a roll of 6 (?) they are allowed to cross the >river bed and proceed towards the airfield, else, they must stay on the >West bank of the river. Sounds good too. >2- Tavronitis river bed: the new rules make it clear terrain instead of >billiard table. This helps the germans a lot: to reinforce the 1st Sturm This is true also. Previously it was virtually impossible to cross while the CW held hill 107, now it becomes merely costly. However, that should be not as important if you play with historical orders. >3- reduced firepower value: I believe this one is the main balancing rule >of the lot (as the revision comment seem to imply). Also true, although I wonder if 50% is not too much. There is a reason why this is not in the series or game rules as published - 50% step losses translate neither into 50% personnel losses nor 50% firepower losses in general. Your postings have really whetted my appetite. I have to start on that map... Markus From: Francois Charton Subject: Re: Hunters from the Sky Markus wrote: > > This is true also. Previously it was virtually impossible to cross > while the CW held hill 107, now it becomes merely costly. I will experiment with this tonight. I might have not set up my NZ troops properly last time, but I sort of recall that the "billiard table" terrain did not exactly made the crossing impossible, but that the units which could fire on the river bed had to be suppressed at all costs before reinforcements would cross. So, my strategy was: 1- german units concentrate on the west bank of the river bed, 2- next turn, my sorties, and some paratroops would fire suppressive fire at the CW units defending the crossing, 3- German units would then dash though the river. The first ones crossing would suffer from overwatch fire from the CW not supressed, but as movement based overwatch triggers overwatch return fire, the more the NZ troops fired, the higher the risk they took to be suppressed themselves by OW return fire from German units (and as the NZ units have bad morale ratings, this happened easily). My feeling is that the limited range on movement based overwatch fire in clear terrain (the enemy fires overwatch to movement within three hexes) makes the river crossing pretty easy, even when hill 107 is held (as the riverbed is fairly large). For instance, the "delta" around Maleme could be crossed with no damage as soon as the vineyards West of the airfiel were iunder German control (and this usally happens before 0800) But again, I will try a "dash through the riverbed" miniscenario tonight and let you know. > Also true, although I wonder if 50% is not too much. There is a reason > why this is not in the series or game rules as published - 50% step losses > translate neither into 50% personnel losses nor 50% firepower losses in > general. For losses in "classical" combat, I agree. So long there is someone to fire the MG, the platoon firepower is not reduced. IMHO, this rule sounds a little wrong when applied to losses due to paratroop landing (and maybe amphibious landing as well): paratroops usually are scattered when landing. If the guy carrying the MG is lost due to enemy fire, his equipment will probably be lost for good. In practice, this could be implemented with little difficulty: when a unit takes losses when landing, its fire strength is reduced proportionally to the losses it suffered. The actual strength of the unit could be indicated by a strength chit put under its counter (or written on a piece of paper). Francois From: Francois Charton Subject: Re: Hunters from the Sky Markus Stumptner wrote: > > Far be it from me to secondguess the designer (he was there), but the > photo I have of the riverbed does show wide open stretches that should > make moving troops (at least troops moving at a right angle of the > course of the river) glaringly obvious to an observer on any hill. > Yesterday night, I set up the game historically, and had a brief look at the effect the both "river bed" rules on the opening of the game (0720-0900). The 22nd NZ sets up with about half of its troops on the west edge of the airfield, and on the west side of the hill (the others are in reserve west of the hill, or defending the rest of the airfield). This western line of defense (few mortars and artillery being available, I count them out) is a few hexes (2-4) east of the river bank, and the river bed is 4 to 8 hexes wide. With an INF range of 6 hexes and a MG range of 8, this means that my NZ defense line can fire Suppressive (ie direct) Fires into the river bed, but not on the other bank. If the river bed is billiard terrain, it can also fire Overwatch (ie opportunity fire) at moving targets on the river bed. But if it is "open" terrain, then enemy units can cross the river bed without triggering overwatch, and the river is no more a line of defense. In the original version, reinforcing the german units east of the river proved very costly, so far there were any CW units remaining on the hills. The german would eventually make it, but would pay dearly for it, thus balancing the long term chances for the NZ. With the riverbed in open terrain, if you don't play by historical orders, in which the two german battalions landing west of the river bed have to implement an attack opsheet before they can proceed towards Maleme, you can send the 2nd and 4th battalions to Maleme (split them between Maleme and hill 107?) on pre-start opsheets, and I don't think the NZ stand a chance against such a large enemy forces. Historically, hill 107 and the airfield were still held in the afternoon, but I doubt the system can reproduce this. (I will try to play such a slugfest and let you know). Using historical orders, where bn 2 and 4 have to implement orders before crossing the river to attack, should delay the reinforcement of the 1st and 3d bns east of the river. Would this be enough to balance the game by giving the 22nd NZ enough time to do away with the first wave and consolidate its positions? I doubt it, but it is worth studying. All of this is fascinating. I was planning to move onwards to Leros, but I think I will stay for a while in Maleme. As a means of comparison, are there other tactical games on this battle? Francois, snail and rotten cheese eater,