Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Turn 9

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turn 9 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 1:14:30 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Turn 9 was fairly successful.

AGN area: Pskov and Velikie Luki were captured.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/16/2011 1:15:14 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 121
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 1:16:37 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Decent progress was made in the AGC area, I don't think he expected me to go south. I've outflanked part of his defensive line. This time, the threat to his flank is genuine rather than just psychological.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 122
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 1:18:16 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		My attempt to get across the Dnepr between Kiev and Cherkassy failed, fairly predictably. I didn't use enough men.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 123
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 1:20:58 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Good progress again in the far south. I don't think he expected me to turn south here either. There was nothing in the swamps south of Nikolaev. I'm not going to try and capture the Crimea probably, but there are no natural defences between where the SS is and the Soviet concentration a bit further north along the Dnepr. I expected Odessa's garrison to retreat when attacked, so instead of routing it to safety I pushed them back and isolated them.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 124
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 1:24:07 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		I disbanded the RHG HQ's, the Italian air command and some other units.

I got two held results. One Soviet unit got its usual heavily inflated CV when facing a hasty attack by two mobile divisions, so it held, and the second held result was for the aforementioned attack across the Dnepr that failed.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/16/2011 3:21:39 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 125
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 6:09:34 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		notenome made a single counterattack against an SS motorized brigade in the AGC area (a counterattack I was expecting, but was also expecting to fail), which failed at 1:1.3 (48 vs 35).

Model, who took over XXXXVI Panzer corps after Von Vietinghoff died, has been promoted to General.

The war will turn into a grind in the center soon, probably. I'm still considering what I'll try to do in the south, whether I'll try to capture Stalino and the other nearby cities.

I'm in no hurry to take Kiev, as long as it will happen at some point in 1941. My screen is pinning down far more of his divisions than mine thus far.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/16/2011 6:13:08 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 126
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 6:13:38 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Just curious, I see you disbanding HQ's, what benefit are you getting? I find that I am hurting bad for HQ's in my games. So I use the RHG HQ's for my garrison's and digging in troops etc.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 127
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 6:40:05 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		My security units are all assigned to OKH. The RHG HQ's have about 500 support squads and 500 vehicles assigned to them. That's 10000 manpower and about 1/4 of a Panzer division worth of vehicles assigned to each RHG HQ, HQ's I'm not using. The logical choice in that situation is to disband them. Similarly, I don't need an Italian air HQ, or more than 1 Italian air base at the moment.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 128
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 6:44:08 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Okay, might have to try that then. I just seem to be scrambling just to keep my HQ's from being over loaded all the time. Did you re-assign the other Italian air base somewhere, if so, where?

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 129
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 6:46:13 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		After disbanding the Italian air HQ, it was automatically assigned to the Expeditionary Italian corps/CSIR corps HQ.

RHG HQ's can only contain security units, so disbanding them won't harm your C&C. It might actually improve it, as they're all assigned to an army group and the security units just overload the army groups further, which is why I assign them to OKH.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/16/2011 6:47:07 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 130
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 6:56:39 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Cool, I knew they only commanded security troops. Thank you, always pick up something new. Do you strip out the Romanians from German Corps too? Hard to train up the Romanians, but have gotten a couple into the 70 morale clearing pockets and they become quite reliable then. Still not going to trust them in the winter though.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 131
RE: Turn 9 - 1/16/2011 8:25:15 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		I'm trying to train the Romanians at the moment. The cavalry units are generally around 60 morale, the armoured division's approaching 70. It will be tricky to train most of the infantry pre-winter 1941, but I'm hoping I can train them some more in 1942.

I don't have a shortage of HQ's for German units thus far, so the Romanian infantry that starts as part of a German army stays in it. I've reassigned some of the Romanian cavalry units back to the Romanian cavalry corps for the moment, but they might end up in a Panzer corps HQ again in the future. Command capacity improves a bit each year.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 132
RE: Turn 9 - 1/18/2011 12:16:23 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		The server either lost my save or never got it.

In any case, I have to do turn 10 over again after nearly finishing it, so the update will be delayed a bit.

In the game I had saved, 1.5 Panzer corps got across the Dnepr near Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporizhye, but this time there are fewer on the eastern bank so the replay is beneficial to notenome thus far.

I did get a low damage roll for Krivoi Rog's resource production (didn't check it last time), and both the resource production at Kirovograd and Krivoi Rog is below 50% damage (damage is randomized as 25+d75, so I got less than the average for both cities) and should thus be operational as soon as the rail line gets there (I'm not entirely sure whether that's necessary, but I think it is, even though the production shows up in the production screen).

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/18/2011 12:19:22 AM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 133
RE: Turn 9 - 1/21/2011 4:16:38 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		My turn 10 losses were fairly high and I still can't really hurt the Soviets.

AGS has two further bridgeheads across the Dnepr, and I've made some reasonable progress towards my goals in the AGN and AGC areas.

I'll start with the losses this time.

If I exclude the losses from the surrendering divisions, Soviets losses are only about two or three times higher than mine. I really can't put the hurt on the Soviets. At best, they rout, taking some 3000-4000 losses (or 400-500 a day considering the scale), end up conveniently next to their HQ and will be back in action next turn. That's just not good enough.

I've started a thread about this on the tester forum. Some post-battle sequence might be a good idea for good attacks, where the attackers can give chase with their mobile units, who can all engage the defender again, possibly at maximum range. Routing could also possibly be more random, it's much too easy for the Soviets to maintain cohesion currently.

Now that I'm fighting mostly fortified units, the average attack starts with me taking about 700 losses, the Soviets then taking a similar amount of losses and the Soviets retreating in good order. I can't really touch most of the units afterwards as they generally retreat to another hex with friendly units, or I run out of MP's. That's also what makes the "carpet" of units so good: units rarely lose cohesion, and you know where they'll end up even when they rout. The Axis are essentially powerless to stop that, as they have little to no force multipliers to limit defensive fire or to inflict serious losses (and no, I don't think losing 3000-4000 men in a week for some divisions can be described as serious losses).

I believe I lost 3 battles, one deliberate attack across the Dnepr (the second one succeeded) and two hasty attacks, maybe I lost three hasty attacks.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/21/2011 4:25:36 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 134
RE: Turn 9 - 1/21/2011 4:26:48 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		AGN.

The unit in the swamps between the lakes is encircled. I'll start digging in soon.

Progress is bloody even against the most mediocre units.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 135
RE: Turn 9 - 1/21/2011 4:28:54 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		In the AGC area, a breakthrough was made north of Smolensk and a nice pocket was formed near Gomel.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 136
RE: Turn 9 - 1/21/2011 4:30:26 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		In the AGS area, 6th Army made it across the Dnepr and another defending stack was pushed back, but I didn't have the MP's to cross, so that will have to wait until next turn.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 137
RE: Turn 10 - 1/21/2011 4:32:44 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		In the southermost area, a new bridgehead was created, the existing bridgehead was widened and the cavalry units should soon be in trouble. In my first try of the turn which was lost on the Slitherine server somehow or never reached it, the new bridgehead in this area was better as the deliberate attack against the Rifle division east of the Dnepr that failed this time succeeded that time, so a second attack was needed this time. Other things went better this time, so it evens eachother out.

I'm at a loss why some people, notenome included, are defending the Perekop peninsula in the hex next to my air landing division instead of one hex to the south. Maybe he has forts there too. This hex can be attacked from two hexsides, the other from just one.

Depending on the cavalry's MP's, the two Panzer corps might be isolated, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/21/2011 4:36:18 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 138
RE: Turn 10 - 1/21/2011 4:38:44 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Are you playing conservatively, or is your opponent pretty solid, or both? It looks like he is forming nice defensive lines, but I wonder if you are pushing it enough. I think Comrade you decided to forego a deep push this year, is that still your plan?

_____________________________


(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 139
RE: Turn 10 - 1/21/2011 4:50:16 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		My opponent Sir Robin'ed to the Dnepr with most of his army, which meant he could build fairly solid lines along a large part of the Dnepr, but not everywhere, and that his losses are minimal. There was no real way I could've countered this. Even with more units in AGC, breaching the Dnepr defenses prior to around turn 4-5/prior to the infantry showing up is tricky. I'd say my advance in the AGS area was quite rapid, and it's nearly impossible to get to the Dnepr in strength prior to turn 7-8 with just the normal AGS mobile units as long as your opponent stages a remotely competent phased withdrawal.

My main problem is that no matter how good my attacks are, Soviet losses are fairly low, and that the only way I can inflict serious losses is through pocketing units, but pockets are pretty much a rarity in my game with notenome. I'm playing somewhat conservatively, but the limited progress in the AGC area is mostly due to how easy it is for the Soviets to establish a fairly solid defensive line. Next turn, with my infantry across the Dnepr, I should be able to make some good attacks, but it will still be costly.

I'm trying to figure out what the best idea is currently: widen the Soviet flank in the south or just punch more or less straight north. It would be amusing if Kiev didn't fall in 1941, but it's a possibility.

I have about 25 hexes to capture and the Desna to cross before Kiev is isolated. Of course, as soon as I tear open his flank in the south, his static defence along the Dnepr should become much more difficult to sustain.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 140
RE: Turn 10 - 1/22/2011 12:29:53 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		As more or less predicted, two Panzer corps were encircled in the AGS area, but that's just a minor inconvenience at the moment. In some ways, it actually makes my job quite a bit easier as the cavalry is now in the open, instead of in their fortified swamp hexes on the Dnepr. Two of the pocketed divisions have normal MP's due to being in a hex with a Panzer corps HQ with plenty of fuel dumps.

notenome attacked twice, both attacks were held and resulted in brutal losses to the Soviets. 10 men of 11th Panzer were lost for a cost of 1227 cavalrymen and 15 artillery pieces. Odds 1:160 in my favour. I have absolutely no idea why notenome made that attack. The other attack was a bit more close, but still a slaughter 60th Motorized and the 1st Hungarian motorized brigade lost 291 men, 3 artillery pieces and an AFV for a cost of 7038 men, 82 artillery pieces and 13 AFV's. Odds 1:1.8, so that might've worked.

The most peculiar thing is that a hasty attack by 3 mobile divisions, which routed a cavalry division across a major river caused only 514 casualties to it, but a single failed hasty attack caused over twice the losses. This reaffirms my belief that successful mobile unit attacks need to cause more casualties. I've started a thread about that on the tester forum.

Von Mackensen, III Panzer corps commander, is now a Generaloberst and Von Briesen, LII corps commander, now has an initiative of 6.

The only really bad news after the Soviet turn is that I've lost 22.000 men to attrition alone.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 141
RE: Turn 10 - 1/22/2011 1:43:25 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline 		Not really sure why he exposed all that cav. IMO, I think the Soviets should save their cav and not just throw it away unless something significant can take place. Cav is the first thing that can be turned into corps and that helps a lot during the winter offensive. To waste that many cav units simply to delay some panzers for a turn when they are not really going anyplace anyway does not seem like a good idea to me. 

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 142
RE: Turn 10 - 1/22/2011 5:42:57 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The most peculiar thing is that a hasty attack by 3 mobile divisions, which routed a cavalry division across a major river caused only 514 casualties to it, but a single failed hasty attack caused over twice the losses. This reaffirms my belief that successful mobile unit attacks need to cause more casualties. I've started a thread about that on the tester forum.

In and of itself, those results aren't too out of place. The routing division may have failed some morale check and has lost unit cohesiveness temporarily, even though it has only sustained relatively light casualties. Meanwhile, the failed hasty attack met with a unit that fought in place longer, causing the attack to halt (again temporarily) and suffered more casualties over the course of the battle. I don't see anything wrong with these results.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 143
RE: Turn 10 - 1/22/2011 6:10:42 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		The problem is that with such fairly low retreat/rout losses, where retreating or routing often means you can't attack the unit again, you just can't really damage the Soviets, they have to do it themselves by attacking you. Even in the best case, you'll inflict 3000-4000 losses on a single division, but that's about it. Average casualties are lower.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 144
RE: Turn 10 - 1/26/2011 3:24:03 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Barbarossa might turn into a complete dud. Whether Kiev can be captured is doubtful. The Soviet mass/carpet defence is just too good and the losses I inflict are just way too low. My best hasty attacks with mobile units this turn inflicted about 1000 casualties, or about 300 per division involved, which doesn't make much sense.

The Axis situation can be so bad that in a game with a tester, my Axis opponent is considering whether to quit the game on turn 3 due to the defence formed in the first two turns.

I'm now taking risks as otherwise I won't get anywhere.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 145
RE: Turn 11 - 1/26/2011 3:25:04 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		AGN got going again, to create more of a perimeter for the blizzard. Considering the more or less complete lack of Soviet forces in the area north of Velikie Luki, this seems to have surprised notenome.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/26/2011 3:37:15 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 146
RE: Turn 11 - 1/26/2011 3:26:44 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		AGC's progress is slow, but there are some pocket chances. The units south of Smolensk are a bit overstretched, but it's a risk I have to take now. The Smolensk area can still be evacuated/reinforced through the remaining operational rail lines to the east.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/26/2011 3:27:13 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 147
RE: Turn 11 - 1/26/2011 3:28:29 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Quiet AGC/AGS sector:




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/26/2011 3:29:04 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 148
RE: Turn 11 - 1/26/2011 3:29:47 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		AGS is slowly moving across the Dnepr or preparing for doing so.

I've moved another Panzer corps southwards as the terrain's better there. I hope to finally make some progress next turn.

I've taken Cherkassy with a big assault, I didn't want to wait until it was encircled.

Slightly below the lower edge of the screenshot: the more logical Perekop peninsula hex has also been partially fortified, I'm not sure yet whether I'll attack or dig in.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/26/2011 3:36:32 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 149
RE: Turn 11 - 1/26/2011 3:31:51 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline 		Losses were pretty high, I'm losing 700-1000 KIA for some deliberate attacks. Soviet losses still remain fairly low, 3000-4000 for the best of attacks, which is low considering the 1 week turn timeframe and that usually there's more than 1 unit in the hex.

I've lost around 33.000 men, notenome around 160.000.

I got 4 held results, one usual tough CV modifier in the swamps near Gomel, and a few failing hasty attacks.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 1/26/2011 3:35:13 PM >

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Turn 9 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.000