Just saying Hi and that you have done a good job on the site, very nice.

Thanks Ken.. apart from Roger you seem to be the only visitor atm :) But Im sure that will pick up when the game is released. For the time being take advantage of the loneliness :)

Seriously though.. thanks for the feedback about the site.. and let us know if you have any suggestions.. etc..

I have been following the development of Korsun Pocket and the new XP version of TAO. I downloaded Tao2.40 when I bought my first computer. It is quite an incredible game. I am a wargammer from back in the board/ paper maps era. I stumbled on Tao by accident in an internet search. Needless to say it became my favorite game. (My favorite paper map game was Wacht am Rhein by SPI) I plan on testing myself against the new AI as soon as I can purchase a copy of Korsun Pocket. I will then be looking for some PBEM competition. I have read many of the discussion threads from other gammers at this site, so hopefully I can find a game! Don't be lonely because I am sure That once Korsun Pocket comes out this will get to be a busy site. Keep up the good work!

There will be plenty of people available for PBEM games I suspect..

Oh THAT's where the AAR went ;P. Nice job guys, and great news - lookign forward to some online PBEM clashes with you VERY soon.

Cheers

Space§man

I'm not sure if this is the right Forum for this question, but I will ask away. In "artillery explained", it was stated that losses in a stack would aplied against the unit with the most steps. In a mixed stack of ARM & INF all of equal steps, how would 1,2 or more losses be applied to the units?

Hey Nickel - welcome aboard!

Here are some notes explaining loses..

"If a stack is required to take losses, the first loss is suffered by the unit with the greatest number of steps, the second loss by the unit with the second greatest number of steps etc. If two or more units have equal numbers of steps then the unit with the lowest attack value (in the case of an attacking stack) or defence value (in the case of a defending stack) loses the first step, second lowest loses the second step etc. If all units have taken one step loss and the number of step losses required by the combat result has not been met then the above process is repeated until the required number of steps have been removed."

Matrix site is down it seems. Someone posted on Wargamer.com that they are transfering to a new server. Don't know if this is the case of not though. Just an fyi if anyone was wondering.

About the "double dice" that sometimes occur in large attacks: It makes sense that big combats cause more casualties than small combats, but it does not make sense that there's a better chance for a defender retreat in a big combat.

The double dice can have silly consequences: it can mean that placing an additional defender increases the odds of a retreat, even with no additional attackers! Indeed, we have seen this perverse incentive not to bolster defenses in the current AAR. I think it's without much sense or historical precedent - can anyone come up with an example where increased numbers of defenders undermined the defense?

Here's the proposed solution: in "double dice" combat, the first die has all effects as usual. The second die is for additional casualties only - any retreats for the second die are not applied. This would fix things so that all battles (no matter what size) at any given odds have the same chance for a retreat, but big battles will still result in more casualties.

What do y'all think?

As to the reasoning behind the double dice system, perhaps someone from SSG might care to comment.

My take on this is a little different.

Firstly, a turn lasts 12 hours. You would generally expect a battle involving larger numbers of troops to last longer than small skirmishes and hence the propensity for more varied combat results might increase.

Secondly, if I defend with low numbers of steps I will most certainly attract high odds attacks which means there will be a high percentage of a retreat result (of course, depends on the terrain). I would rather defend with multiple units and force the attacker to expend all his energies on getting massive stacks organised to get decent odds.

Also, along this vein, there are some superb allied single step artillery units that add some excellent defensive capabilities to a hex without blowing out the step count. Perhaps the system designer is telling us that combined arms defense is the way to go..

Finally, note that retreat resuls in TAO are only higher in terrain such as forest and clear. Heavy forest and urban are much more difficult to get retreats from, and only at very high odds, which will be difficult to obtain if the defender has lots of steps in the hex...so it is up to the defender to choose his chosen defence location carefully, and be prepared to roll with the punches should things go awry.

Anyway, just some thoughts, the point that Berger has raised is a good one and should be discussed further.

Cheers Chris

I guess I would take the spin that double dice does tend to accurately represent what could go on in massed combat. Large unit engagements where one side is taking heavy losses can have a significant effect on the 'elan/ morale of the affected units, thereby influencing whether units will hold their ground. The breaking of morale of a small number of units can influence other units in the immediate area. If I were to suggest a change it might be to find a way to add a morale rating to units and then allow losses in combat to affect morale, resulting in changing ability of units to withstand retreats.

Hey thats a logical way of looking at it Nickel, and a sound approach too.. I wonder if that was the approach SSG had in terms of the breaking of moral etc..

But the morale factor could work both ways - a small number of elite units can bolster the morale of an otherwise shaky defense (eg, NKVD). There's no intrinsic reason more defenders = more likely to retreat!

Chris, your point is valid, and in most cases it's probably correct that the advantage in adding strength points is greater than the disadvantage of adding steps. But it's not necessarily so, especially if the additional defender is not particularly strong.

Imagine an Allied Corps commander asking: "Should I throw that tank battalion in to support that regimental combat team that's being attacked by a German panzer division?" Lots of factors will play into his decision, but "Gosh, I don't want to have too many defenders" isn't one of them!

Now that I'm thinking about it - a separate "big battle" CRT would be cool. Instead of a percentage chance of rolling two die, there would be a percentage chance of using the "big" CRT, which would have a more nuanced set of results taking into account the size of the forces involved.

Hey Berger, I didn't mean to start a battle before we even get our copies of KP.:) I agree with you that " more defenders=more likely to retreat is not realistic. I guess the point that I was trying to make is that historically in battles, unit effectiveness goes down with losses. Often times unit cohesiveness can disappear with a 30%-40% casuaties, especially when they occur in a short time. One turn = 12 hours, long time to be continuosly in a firefight. However there are many instances of incredible effort on the part of some units i.e. 101ABN at Bastongne and the fighting prowess of the SS Panzer divisions are well known. I am assuming that SSG accounted for the effects of morale and it is integrated into the combat algorithyms. I do think that it would be nice to see a morale adjusted CRT for each combat, but I don't have to do the programming! I also think that dug in armor, with no infantry support, is a lot more likely to retreat with 30-40% loss. Tankers don't fight good when they have to bail out!!:-)

Ok, I promise to save my rants until Nickel starts running panzer divisions through my lines and into Liege! ;-)

This is a good topic that I have thought about on many games. You all make great points and I have no clear cut vision either of what is best. However I look at it very simply. If three units attack one unit and cause 1 step loss that is 33% or so of the units strenght on 3 step units. All things being equal larger stacks on proportionate size 30 units attack 10 units would you expect 33% casualties and would those units be more or less likley to break and retreat or some of them compared to the one unit scenario? I also agree that more units involved would cause larger but proportionate losses and should be accounted for. 3 attack 1 gives one unit one step loss verses 30 attack 10 should give 10 units one step loss or about that? I do not think, if I remember correctly, that the CRT accounts for that to well.

On a second way I looked at, I always looked at the second die as a second push by the attackers, the first die was the inital assualt and the second die was a follow on attack due to the game scale and that many units attacking at once in a single hex would be very congested, so I assumed the designers were simply accounting for the effect of such large number of units cannot all attack at once into the scale hex they are representing. Don't know if that makes sense but that is the way I attributed to that.

Hey there
I'm just curious, does anybody play or used to play chess? The reason why I'm asking is because I got to strategic wargames over chess.
(esp. the roundbased one, I like to play in a smooth and calm way and not like an adrenalin junkee, sorry guys for this prejudice :-)

Hey rob, chris, ken... Can anybody tell us how many days (hours?) we still have to wait for Korsun-DDay (esp. for us in good old Europe)? Really guys, I'm like a kiddo who can't wait till the morning of christmass. Pleaaaaaaaaaase.... :-)

I think we have all probably played Chess at some point.. isnt it the ultimate strategy game?

Really dont know what the release details for KP is.. as far as I know its soon.. like 2 weeks or so (although that probably seems so far away). Its all up to Matrix.. SSG have done their part.

Korsun-DDay? Korsun Pocket is an eastern front battle, that includes the Ardennes Scenario.

SSG's next game will be called Battles in Normandy.. which of course is DDay.. thats a while off release though.. tell your spouses you want it for Xmas :) We will give you more news on this later on.. the immediate focus is Korun Pocket! :)

It's maybe the german sense of houmor to compare the DDay with the release date of Korsun Pocket...

Arhh yes ok.. I see.. The DDay launch of KP.. ok I didnt have my thinking cap on :) It was a good opportunity for a quick plug of SSG's next game anyway :)

I look forward to some kreigspiele with you Herr Berger. Hopefully after my obstinate persistence in having my point of view, you will find it in your heart to take it a little easy on a war game neophyte like me?! ;-)
PS Remember-"never in driblets, but in mass"

Glad to hear that Operation Overlord is going to come out next, my second most favorite battle. Look forward to releases as they come out. Will there be a new web site or integration in this one?

I have played chess, but currently don't have any computer software. I agree, I like the thinking type of battle games. I have played a few FPS and the stress during play can get to be a little much.

No no, Battles in Normandy will be integrated into this website. This website is in aid of the Decisive Battles Series that SSG plan to release.. so if you are a fan of the SSG style of wargames, then I suggest you book mark this site.. Chris and I are often in touch with the SSG guys and I can assure you that you will get all of the info here :)

Already book marked. OOPs on the last posting. :(

First I would like to applaud your initiative to make TAO2 available free of charge to encourage people to try the turn based war gaming genre. I had in fact purchased the original TAO some years ago and only found TAO2 because I was checking the web to find the most recent update.

Unfortunately I have to note that the one area of the game that you have not updated is the inaccurate, and to knowledgeable British readers, gratuitously offensive “Battle History” section of the manual. I would have thought that the British would have been a useful market segment for you but I for one would not be able to recommend the game with the manual as it stands.

The major inaccuracies are as follows:

1) Ike did not pass command North of the Bulge to Monty on 20th Dec to obtain the commitment of British reserves. These were already committed – on 17th Dec, on his own initiative, Monty alerted XXX Corps (the largest reserve force available to the Allies) to be available at 6 hours notice to move to the Meuse. Bradley had not even decided what to do with the Airborne Divisions at this stage and was still refusing his own junior commanders’ requests to discontinue the offensive against the Roer. By the 19th Dec, without having had any orders or requests from Ike, British Special Forces were already augmenting the US defences of the Meuse crossings and 50,000 men of XXX Corps were on the move. By the time Monty got command from Ike, 150 British tanks were already East of the Meuse ready to confront the German spearheads.

2) Ike made the command switch because the German advance made it impossible for Bradley, who had unfortunately refused to move his HQ back from Luxembourg, to keep in touch with his own units.

3) You say that Monty succeeded in offending Hodges HQ. The main reason why they might have been disconcerted was because he raised the possibility of withdrawals to straighter lines and more defensible positions to free up units for a counter attack. In doing this he was following specific directives to review this approach from Ike. Bradley, Hodges, Ridgeway and others had been following a positively Hitlerian strategy of refusing to retreat from “ground that had been bought with American (or in Hitler’s case German) blood”. The consequence of this mistaken policy to hold onto every piece of ground was the largest mass surrender of US forces in the European theatre. Fortunately Monty eventually ordered the evacuation of the “Goose Egg” at St Vith, despite Ridgeway’s objections, otherwise a further 20,000 US soldiers would have gone the same way.

4) It is understandable, I suppose, that you write up Patton’s role but in truth his action was relatively unimportant in stopping the major German thrusts that were actually to the North. In the event on the 19th Dec he told Ike he could be in Bastogne within three days – it actually took him seven days, fighting against four under strength German infantry Divisions equipped in the main with horse drawn artillery and no tanks. The siege of Bastogne was rather a strange one since the 18,000 US defenders with 40 tanks were actually “surrounded” by a somewhat smaller force of Germans - the under strength 26th Volks Grenadier Division plus one Panzer Grenadier Rgt. from Panzer Lehr and 15 tanks. Compare this with the 2 infantry and 2 Panzer Divisions attacking St Vith. The German surrender ultimatum was in fact a bluff, as they knew they did not have enough strength to take the place.

5) You fail to mention that 2nd Panzer was actually blocked in front of the Meuse by the British forces that Monty had positioned there and this facilitated the attack on their flank by Lightning Joe Collins (LJC). You also suggest that Monty expected LJC’s Corps to adopt a defensive role. This is a complete travesty – he actually told LJC that he wanted his Corps kept OUT of the defensive battles, as he wanted to use him to attack the Germans once they had over extended themselves. His strategy was to force the Germans further to the South West (their objective Antwerp was to the North West) and he positioned LJC’s forces in that area ready to mount the counter attack. You are correct in saying that LJC attacked without consulting Monty because he and, more specifically, Hodges had not fully comprehended Monty’s strategy. As it was Monty’s intentions were fully realised and a great success achieved.

6) You also criticise Monty for not attempting to cut off the Bulge nearer its base. In fact all the senior commanders (Bradley, Hodges, Ike) agreed that the North South road net in that area (South of Malmedy) was very poor and unsuitable for significant tank operations so the only real option was to push the Bulge back from the West.

7) Finally I doubt if you will offend too many people by describing Hitler’s actions as “petulant” in subsequently attacking Bastogne but in the interests of historical accuracy you might have recognised that his real purpose was to pull more US forces to that area to improve the chances of his Nordwind offensive which was to take place in Alsace to the South East. Fortunately on this occasion the Allied commanders did take note of the Ultra warnings and that attack was contained.

The Battle of the Bulge was won largely as a result of the heroism displayed by the individual US forces involved. Montgomery played a significant part in getting a proper strategy in place in the North for defence and then counter-attack, in which British troops played a small but useful part. Patton also played a small but useful part in the initial battles with a much larger contribution later, but by then the key battles had already been lost by the Germans.

It is unfortunate that a lot of US writing about the subject has been coloured by the accounts of Gen Bradley and those around him who sought to denigrate the British role in order to draw attention away from their decisions which had led to the initial disasters suffered by US forces.

You might like to add another Charles Whiting book, “The Battle of the Bulge Britain’s Untold Story” to your bibliography in an attempt to set the record straight.

Regards

Mike Fox

Hey Mike, thanks for your post. Your comments in relation to the battle are freshing for me to read - particuarly given that I dont necessarily have a firm understanding of all of the historical aspects of the battle.. I should listen more attentively to my brother who is studying Military History @ Leeds Uni..

So I appreciate it your comments. As Im sure other readers will also. Also good to get another point of view.

Im sure your feedback will reach SSG as they often browse the site here.

This thread has now been closed off due to the introdcution of a local BBS discussion forum which can be found from the Discussion link on the menu.

Thank you.