My apologies for letting this die. I had not intention of letting that happen. This experiment was more of a fact finding operation than anything else. If you would both permit me, I would like to conduct an After Action Review (AAR). This is an opportunity to write your comments about the conduct of the RP/War Game. Maybe I can improve on the process or change it in anyway.

I must post the ending results of the game. I realize [@CaptainBritton] wanted to send a vehicle  into the woods to see what if any units slid in past his left flank, but I know they would have never made it. But since, those tanks were moving through open or wooded terrain, their movement would have been slowed down. The Americans could have pulled a company (+) out of their positions and moved west along the road network in an attempt to block anything moving along the northern edge of the board. If CaptainBritton had done that, he would have found seven (7) East German T-80s survived the engagement from an original battalion.

The game system employs a point system to determine who wins. For this scenario. The US Player gets one point for every East German (step) eliminated. Since the US eliminated 29 units (steps). That provides the US with 29 Points. The US could have received an additional 10 points for having no East German units exit the west edge of the board. I realize we never ended it, but without some movement west by the US to stop East German movement, I know that based on the game system, they would have exited the map in two to three turns which is less than 12 turns. The East Germans receive 2 points for every US step eliminated which provides the East Germans with 24 points. Also, the East German player receives an additional 2 points per step for any units exiting the west edge of the board. Assuming we finished the scenario, five East German steps would have made it, providing [@Landain] with an additional 10 points. This establishes the final score as US: 29 v. DDR: (24 + 10 = 34)  and Landain Won the game!

Honestly, I find it hard to believe the East Germans won this game. But that is how the rules determined the outcome. Only two platoons plus half of a third survived from the East German side. They lost 75% of their force. But the rules award two points to the Warsaw Pact per step and only one point to the NATO side per step they eliminate. If I did not award the extra 10 points to the Warsaw Pact, the US player would have won 29 to 24. That makes the most sense.

I also noted, the ATGM systems on both sides; TOW & Spiggots had the best effect for Anti-Tank fire. The East Germans could not hit anything at range because all the US vehicles were dug in at Hull defilade. Once they 1500 meters or closer away, they were able to hit the US vehicles. Naturally, the IFVs were easier targets than the tanks.

[u][b]After Actions Review[/b][/u]
[indent]1.	Need a more detailed list of questions to ask the participants in order to gain specific detail on how the commander wants to deploy his forces and what actions to take on contact.[/indent]


[u][b]Warsaw Pact Forces[/b][/u]
[indent]1.	Leaders lead from the front, not from the rear. Usually, they place one subordinate element in front of them and the remainder of their command behind them. They may even travel with the lead subordinate commander. In WWII, LTC Creighton Abrams was always in the lead element as, he traveled with the lead platoon of his battalion. I know the first author who commanded the East Germans chose to place his HQ-1 in the trail of the formation. Landain did not do this. He positioned his HQ-1 behind his A Company for the road march.[/indent]

[indent]2.	The Recce Company can call in artillery on its own and doesn’t require guidance from the BC to deploy, return fire or move in another direction. They can operate independently.[/indent]

[indent]3.	The Observation Post (OP) assigned to the Field Artillery battery will provide the most responsive actions from the FA battery. This unit should be near the front, if not traveling with either the BC or the Recce company.[/indent]

[u][b]NATO Forces[/b][/u]
[indent]1.	Try to keep the platoons of each company together. They at least need to be able to see one another. If the company commander can see his platoons, they are faster at responding to his instructions.[/indent]

[indent]2.	The use of Target Reference Points (TRPs) will help to gain faster response from FA units. You can have more than one if you like. Starting with six to ten is good. Every fire mission after that becomes a TRP.[/indent]

[u][b]Questions[/b][/u]

[indent]1.	Did my attempts at maintaining the fog of war detract from the roleplay?
2.	Were the map images I sent sufficient I depicting the situation as it changed?
3.	Did the battle change too fast, so you did not know where the units moved from to get to where they were in the update?
4.	Did the Private Messages detract or help from the wargaming aspect of the game/RP?
5.	Is this game, appropriate to use as a tool for deciding the outcome of encounters?[/indent]

I recently purchased a new game that I am considering using for an encounter such as this in the future. But I don’t know if I would use it for this. It would work for fictional vehicles used in Nation Roleplay, but not for real world historical vehicles.

Please include any observations you would like to include from your experience with this Roleplay / War Game.