Hi all,
I have a question for all the community.
I'm recently playing the tutorial (korean war) in pbem mode, my opponent after 4 turns landed with a recon unit at Namp'o (near Pyongyang), that was uncovered, main bridge blowned up.
My question is: is that an acceptable attack? What's your feeling for that?
Screen attached...just want to hear some ideas from you all. My opinion is that some unrealistic attacks are not allowed to be done, yes the harbor was unprotected but is quite impossible for a recon unit to land in any case.
Andrea, I have been playing that scenario extensively and as far as I know there are no honor nor house rules that don't allow that. The game engine allows for certain abuses of military common sense ( if that is not an antithesis itself ... ), but it's not that every maneuver that we don't like is illegitimate - unfortunatelly ( for our plans) and forunatelly for the sake of gameplay and our own enjoyment.
Now, let's remember that lots of folks, incuding military top leaders deemed the Inchon landing an unthinkabkle and insane stunt yet it worked and changed the course of the war dramatically. A similar Wonsan amphibious operation a bit later was a logistical and operational disaster. Regimental combat teams were paradropped into North Korea. was it realistic or not? Well, it did take place, that's for sure.
I had an opponent of mine who proposed that the seaborne landings should be restricted to anchorage locations. I objected reasoning that that would narrow the use of marine assets in an unrealistic manner. The guy then toured the South Korean coastline with an embarked AT arty unit, gathering all the intelligence he could and / or searching for weak spots; I raised a question if that is realistic, a rethoric one as it is absolutely not, but carried on, that was a minor issue and a small nuisance. One needs to be flexible and each player is himself responsible for his rear area security - if that is weakening Your maximum effort drive south - well, that's operational warfare, one rarely gets an ideal situation at any given point, place or moment of war. I guess You shouldn't be moaning and groaning, make it a challenge, enjoy it, then destroy the bastards, make their commander pay and now You know he's up to something, probing. It's his flank exposed alike Yours. Reinforce and carry on, commander.
I'm inclined to agree with Burroughs; if the game engine allows something and there are no house rules annotated in the scenario description or prenegotiated between the players ... then anything goes. Its certainly true that this will allow certain maneuvers and tactics which aren't strictly realistic, such as ad hoc amphibious assault on a port by a throwaway "floating scout" unit. But in a broader sense, this IS realistic, because it forces players to pay attention to rear area security.
When playing any historical scenario, especially a popular scenario that we've played before, players begin with a great deal of foreknowledge about the strengths and locations of enemy forces, reinforcements, and the general scheme of maneuver that will take place during the game. This is all very unrealistic and often allows us to keep fewer reserves, ignore our flanks, and disregard rear area security in ways that the historical commanders wouldn't have dreamed of. The ability of an opponent to launch small conventional units on suicidal rear area raids, etc. is a good counterbalance to this imho. At the tactical level it may be highly unrealistic, but at the operational level it makes a lot of sense.
Indeed, this is what often happens in TOAW games...
Historically speaking, e.g. in WW2, there were numerous cases where units were combined or recombined in various ways, their roles being changed temporarily or permanently. For example, in WW2, Germans were known for creating ad-hoc "Kampfgruppen," often consisting of elements of various smaller units combined and fighting together as one unit--Germans often threw in anything that they had at hand, including recon units...
As far as TOAW is concerned, TOAW does not allow changing OOB, so the type of units and the make-up of formations is frozen. So, the player is not flexible as far as his/her units are concerned. This is probably why we sometimes (or maybe often) get situations like the one above. The player simply uses what they have at their hands, not being able to change it, reassign it, or whatever. And so we get these "unrealistic" situations...
However, considering situations like the one you mentioned above, I wouldn't look at the type of unit so much as at its make-up. The point is the term "Recon" is just a label, nothing more. It is a kind of generalisation, pointing the general or typical use of the unit, but surely, it does not mean that in case of emergency the unit couldn't be used in a bit different way. In my view, what matters in situations like that is the kind of equipment that the unit consists of. For example, if the unit was a motorcycle recon unit, then to me it would be rather unrealistic for it to invade in a port--I don't think anybody would ever send motorcyclists to do beach landings... Otherwise, why not... Of course, units usually consist of mixed equipment, so it's generally hard to say whether the move/attack was realistic or unrealistic. Besides, what does "unrealistic" mean? As history can teach us, there were many "unrealistic attacks" that actually succeeded and numerous "realistic" ones that actually failed... And as for checking the unit equipment, players normally don't have access to the list of equipment that the enemy unit consists of. So, in order to check it, we would have to load the scenario in the two-player mode and then check the detailed make-up of the enemy unit. This is obviously not a practical solution.
So the best way in situations like these, I guess, is to clench your teeth, zap the recon unit, launch a full-scale offensive, and beat the enemy bastard!
Hi,
thanks everyone to answer.
You all are right as I never intended the game in a free way, but always looking at the historical details (slightly different if it's not a historical scenario) so I never watch at my rearway and so on. But, altought I agree with Burroughs and Sgt Rice, that's actually not what I was asking, freyr partially answer this.
Everything would be different if it was an infantry invasion for example, I would have understood that my rear way was uncovered and it was a good advanced maneuver....totally different if it's made by a recon unit (but as freyr answered, recon is just a label here).
Is that so different by using trucks in JTCS as recon/spotters? And that's not quite accepted as far as I know, altought it could be possible and realistic to do it in the realities of war, the same as a recon unit landing in harbor behind enemy lines and destroy a bridge.
I was just looking to understand if there are some not written rules for units use, like this one. But obviously is well accepted :) I'm in peace now...I accept the suggest of make it a challenge, enjoy and have a bloody revenge! :)