Crete Scenario #6: The Second Day

[saracv3]

Like some other Crete scenarios, this scenario has a fundamental play flaw in the instructions. Units on both sides are not to move for the First 3 turns. Three German reduced PARA units are instructed to setup “in a cover hex(es)” [Not stacked together] on two boards that New Zealand units are setup.

My interpretation of this is that the Germans are to set up out of sight of the enemy. Thus they can’t spot the enemy if they can’t move. And the enemy can’t move, either.

But the Germans get 4, yes 4, aircraft on the 1st two turns! Problem is, there are no spotters for these planes if the Germans can’t move and are set up out of sight from the New Zealanders.

I do have a simple idea: Allow all units to move beginning on turn 1. Or allow the Germans to move . They all have leaders with them. The intent here appears to be that they are advanced scouts. In fact, all other German units enter the game on turn 3. If no one gets to move until turn 3, the game really begins on turn 3, which makes it turn 1 in reality! (Who’s on first)


Questions? Answers? Confused like me?{Which is the title of my next book)

[plloyd1010]

It doesn't seem that difficult. The Germans setup on limiting terrain out of LOS or 4 hexes from the New Zealanders. Only one unit and leader per hex. Aircraft do not need a spotters to attack, unless they are attacking targets in limiting terrain. The New Zealanders (those in the open)  are going to be subject to 2 waves of air attacks and have recovery opportunities.

[saracv3]

All the NZ units are set up either in towns, villages, or olive groves/vineyards. The question here is are the grove/vineyards, which I’ve always played as light forest per Matt’s interpretation, a limiting terrain to aircraft? I’ve always thought it was.

[saracv3]

It doesn't seem that difficult. The Germans setup on limiting terrain out of LOS or 4 hexes from the New Zealanders. Only one unit and leader per hex. Aircraft do not need a spotters to attack, unless they are attacking targets in limiting terrain. The New Zealanders (those in the open)  are going to be subject to 2 waves of air attacks and have recovery opportunities.

Peter, you say 4 hexes for LOS to see someone in limiting terrain? I see what you are saying for light forest. 3 hexes for woods But the Kiwis can see the Germans too, and the Germans are supposed to be set up out of sight. Or maybe the idea of being “in cover”is not necessarily to be totally out of sight.(?)Hmmm....

[plloyd1010]

I see:

1. Set up first, on Board 99 on or south of the road including town hexes 0309, 0605, 0706 and 0707.
   
2. Set up first, on Board 96 east of the river.
   
3. Set up first, on Boards 96 and/or 99 north of the road including town hexes 0604, 0704, 0705, 0804 and 0805 on Board 99.
   
4. The Cretans in a town hex.
   

Units in orchards & vineyards are spotted at 5 hexes, and the first hex does not block LOS.

It looks like it should work to me.

[pixelgeek]

My interpretation of this is that the Germans are to set up out of sight of the enemy.

Why interpret? I am sure if that was the intent that it would have been made explicit

[saracv3]

Ok, if I leave all Allied units where they are setup right now, in other words, being ignorant of the 5 hex LOS, I think the scenario will work as is.

In most of the set up, the NZ units must be in certain locations; they don’t have a choice. If the Germans scout the town, I can arrange for them to be in cover of some sort, although it appears that the enemy would still have LOS. This follows the maxim in the rules that “if you can see him, he can see you.

Another small edit error I see in this scenario, other than it obviously does not take place in 1940, is that part of the 23rd Infantry Battalion sets up in the village in 99:0308, not 99:0309. This would seem more in accordance w the intent of occupying the dwellings for cover.

[saracv3]

My interpretation of this is that the Germans are to set up out of sight of the enemy.

Why interpret? I am sure if that was the intent that it would have been made explicit

Because I am not the God of the English language. That is why lawyers exist.

[plloyd1010]

Maybe what we need here is a definition from Mike P as what constitutes "cover". At this point I think we are assuming limiting terrain.

[saracv3]

Maybe what we need here is a definition from Mike P as what constitutes "cover". At this point I think we are assuming limiting terrain.

Sounds like a good idea.