Patience -it's all in the Game

[Aetius]

I had hoped that a community of like-minded history buffs would be a good place for me to relax and burn off some negative emotions, but in fact it has had the opposite result. Now that I have thoroughly and probably irrevocably destroyed my own credibility, all I can do is apologize for wasting everyone's time.

No hard feelings on this, Jamie. I mean it.
The idea of using these games to burn off negative emotions may really not work, IMHO. I have got out of work after an hectic day more than once to arrive home and find out that my opponent had broken my carefully planned attacked with heavy casualties or that a defensive line I thought was near perfect was completely shattered. Situations like these add to everyday's stress, not the other way around.

I won't trouble you again.

I don't think this is really necessary, even though you may have a hard time finding opponents in the near future. Didn't Foch say that it took 15000 casualties to train a Major-General?

But let me build up on the patience theme. This is the situation down south in the second night:

So, KG Walther is in a tough position but some elements may still save themselves.
More importantly, the allies are, in the second night, still fixed in the Eindhoven area and negotiating the congestioned hexes. Further north there are two bridges that must be built to get to Nijmegen, as all the bridges over the Meuse and the Meuse-Waal canal have blown.
After that, the allies will have to force the Waal, a 1km water obstacle, behind which the 10th SS and all its artillery are furiously entrenching themselves. And the unblocked Arnhem bridge means that the germans can disengage some forces from the fight around Oosterbeeck and send them south if needed.
And this is the historical campaign game: bad weather will set in and it will take some 30 turns for the paratroopers a Arnhem to receive aditional reinforcements from the air.

I think anyone who has played this campaign can tell that the germans are the ones in a stronger position here. Simply put, they are winning.
The irony of it all is that had he kept at the game some time more instead of being so upset because two D quality battalions from KG von Tettau lost half their strength in an assault he might easily have won, particularly with the battlefield skills he has shown, which are considerable.

Bottom line: be patient. Play these games through. Don't expect to win or to lose a 100-turn campaign in the first 10-15 turns. Even if you do, you are learning after all.

Rui

[Dog Soldier]

The idea behind the loss of half strength is documented as prisoners being taken in the design notes and elsewhere. In the situation described in this thread, the losses seem credible to the community, not because half the men or vehicles will just give up when faced with over stacking. I would look on this situation as the unit losing cohesion in an uncontrolled retreat while in contact with the enemy. Many in fact would be take prisoner, and losses do mount exponentially when an assault fails since the attackers have little covering fire as they retreat. The defenders naturally know this is an excellent opportunity to inflict losses. In game terms the unit simply will not collect back the strength it previously had.

Historically the 4th para rgt of the 1st AB took terrible losses when they tried to break through to Frost on Arnhem bridge only a short way from the disaster in the game documented here. In that case it was 20mm AAA guns which had moved up prior to the attack to support the defense that ripped the 4th para rgt to shreds as it tried to disengage. Think abourt trying to get out of range or in a dead angle from those guns when they are on the only high ground in the area. Small trees and bushes would not provide enough cover.

To be sure this is a gray area mechanic of the game. The idea is to discourage huge killer stacks from roaming the battlefield at will. That happens in games, but really not in this level of a simulation of history. I think it is a fair risk when a player forms a stack with either many units or with very large units that a retreat route should be planned, just in case success is not achieved.
That is the details a good commander and player should sweat. The game mechanic imposes this quite well, IMHO.

Aiteus is quite right if the facts are as he states. In MG44, the Allies will have a hard time winning if the Waal crossings are held in force by the Axis and Arnhem bridge is unobstructed. While the Allies have the capability to cross the Waal River without the Nijmegan bridges, it is my experience they will be hard pressed to rescue the 1st AB.

The Axis receives enough reinforcements to isolate and crush the 1st AB. It does take a lot of time for the Axis to methodically wear down the excellent morale ratings of the 1st AB. These ad hoc Axis units from KG von Tettau were of less quality mainly because they were ad hoc and had not worked as units before. Others were made up of men with no real infantry training. These units suffered heavy losses in the historical battle. They did not prevent some of the 1st AB from escaping at the end across the Rhine. They were too worn down by that time. To expect more than that in the game is asking for trouble.

The time required is has to be bought by holding the Waal River line. Axis losses below the Waal can be managed by the Axis player regardless of what the Allies do there so enough VP will not exist for an Allied win without crossing the Waal River.

Dog Soldier