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: 43 GC Soviet side

 
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: 43 GC Soviet side Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/16/2011 10:33:05 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

Good AARs by competent players are always an asset... with their data all those AARs help WitE in further development and balancing...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 61
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/17/2011 11:54:26 AM   
sillyflower


Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Now, esteemed jury of this court, I present Exhibit A, list of IMO most important parameters of this game. It's the Excel table of operational elements of German and Soviet armies during opening 14 turns.

On the Axis side it's only Germans, without minors, because Germans are what matters for the Axis, but feel free to mentally add numbers for minors as well, they work fine as cannon fodder

There are operational elements (numbers in parentheses on the OOB screen). Disabled elements do not matter. Casualties also don't matter as there are many disabled both sides start with, simulating wounded in the previous years of war.






I'm staying well clear of the personal/personality issues here but I think its too early to reach any great conclusions re the mid/late game.

For me the AAR showed the need for the Germans to try different strategies to the one BA used, and I think Oleg played more effectively as the game showed. Helpful for BA to try what he did ( and he played that strategy to a high standard IMHO evidence by frequent pocket breaks) but with hindsight the strategy seems doomed to fail as results above show.

I have some sympathy, too, with his general comment ( ie games other than this) that it's a shame the people are givivng up too early. We will never get the data to do any serious rebalancing ( if it is needed) unless games play to the bitter end. We have had a very few German automatic wins so far (though I hope to get one in mine) and I don't think anyone has taken Berlin yet. I have every confidence my current German opponent will hold to the bitter end.

As I've said before victory should be judged by doing better/worse than historical outcome. Of course Russians should always 'win' against GC VP criteria and that's maybe why some germans are quitting when they may not have lost 'historically'.

@ Oleg: That's a shame as far as I'm concerned but all I can do is to try only to pay descendants of The Black Knight and maybe that's what you should do

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 62
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/20/2011 7:13:29 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Now, esteemed jury of this court, I present Exhibit A, list of IMO most important parameters of this game. It's the Excel table of operational elements of German and Soviet armies during opening 14 turns.

On the Axis side it's only Germans, without minors, because Germans are what matters for the Axis, but feel free to mentally add numbers for minors as well, they work fine as cannon fodder

There are operational elements (numbers in parentheses on the OOB screen). Disabled elements do not matter. Casualties also don't matter as there are many disabled both sides start with, simulating wounded in the previous years of war.






I was playing around with some of the numbers posted in Oleg’s spreadsheet from page 1 of this thread. Specifically the numbers listed for Soviet and German AFVs for the first 14-turns of this particular scenario. I’ve been interested in the fidelity of the combat attritional model employed in WiTE since some folks here made the comment that combat losses are supposedly being “increased” in the upcoming patch. No idea if this is true or not, it’s just something I read in a forum posting on another thread.

Anyway – I am a little fuzzy on some of the details on what precisely the numbers in Oleg’s spreadsheet are supposed to represent. That aside what I at least think I am seeing in the AFV figures looks a little odd – specifically where I end up in my calculations for the loss ratio of German and Soviet AFVs.

My assumptions regarding what I see in the spreadsheet numbers as well as my own extrapolations I used to get to my final AFV loss ratio included.

1) I assumed that the AFV counts per week included influx of replacements AFVs from production.
2) I don’t know what WiTE AFV production figures are for this period of the game so I pulled actual AFV production figures from S. Zaloga’s book: “Red Army Handbook” (see page 181). These are indicated by Zaloga as:
A) Soviet AFV production for 1943 is listed as 19959. Assuming a 52-week year and going off of the production averaging figures discussed on other threads on this forum, this results in about 19959/52 = 383.8 AFVs produced per week – or 383.8 x 14weeks = 5373 AFV produced over the course of the 14-week period shown on Olge’s spread sheet.
B) German AFV production is listed by Zaloga (same source) as 5966 for the year of 1943. This works out to be about 5966/52 x 14weeks = 1606 AFVs produced for the 14-week period shown on Oleg’s spread sheet.
3) Adding the AFVs produced during this period to the total count at the beging of the 14-week period covered in the spread sheet, and subtracting that from the Total AFVs still available on turn 14 of the spread sheet gives me the total AFV loss for the 14-turn period detailed on Olge’s spreadsheet. OR:
For the Soviets:

[14477 AFVs on Turn-1 ] + [5373 AFVs Produced during 14-turns ] - [ 12064 Total AFV count still available on turn 14 ] = 7786 AFVs lost in 14 turns.

For the Germans the same formula results in:

[ 4423 + 1606 ] – [ 2455 ] = 3574 AFVs lost in 14-turns.


That works out to be an AFV loss ratio of only a scoosh over 2:1 – or about : 2.18:1

The historical loss ratio on the Eastern Front for this time period was – again according to Zaloga’s figures from Red Army Handbook are 4:1. That’s actually a rather significant difference in loss ratio between the historical mark and what we are seeing with the in-game combat attritional model. Moreover Soviet AFV losses would have to be pushing something like 14296 AFVs (or approximately double of what I at least think I am seeing in Oleg’s spreadsheet)

Caveats to the above most likely would include some proportion of German AFV Production would likely have been filtered into ongoing Operations in the Mediterranean Theater of War. My hunch would be the lions share of German AFV production would have been channeled toward the Eastern Front in 1943. But for giggles lets assume 85% of total AFV production went toward replacements for the East Front and 15% went toward operations against the Allies in Tunisia, Sicily and Italy.
That would make the German East Front Loss formula look something like this for Oleg’s Game against BA\Mynok:

[ 4423 + (0.85 x 1606) ] – [2455] = 3333

That puts the loss ratio of Soviet AFVs to German AFVs on the order of about 2.33 : 1. Again a very significant difference from the historical target figure of 4:1.

What were the in-game production figures for this period? These would have to known to get a true handle on this aspect of fidelity for the in-game attritional combat model.





< Message edited by marty_01 -- 4/20/2011 7:17:35 PM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 63
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/21/2011 5:52:44 AM   
bevans

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline 		Oleg, I think you significantly underrate the difficulties the Germans face in the '43 scenario. Admittedly I have only played against the AI, but I do so with the difficulty levers heavily slanted in favour of the SU (110 across the board; Axis 90-100). First, the Germans have absolutely no chance of a successful Citadel. Is that historically correct? Don't think so; historians disagree but there is a view out there that Manstein was right and a continuation of the attack would have succeeded. Who knows? Well, the designers of WitE for one apparently. The most annoying part is that there is also no opportunity for any counteroffensive, which I think is historically incorrect given the beating AGS had laid down in the late winter. As you say, the German Pz divs have great CVs. They last one, maybe two turns on the offensive (actually stand up about a turn better on D). Which is where they will be inevitably be sucked in. In '41, the Axis (vs the AI) face carpet defenses up to 100 miles deep, all dug in to Fort 4. True, the SU units all suck, but it is still impossible to break through after about turn 6. In '43, the Axis defensive layer is exactly one hex deep, as are the forts. As the Germans, you are faced with the options of a) standing firm in your only defensive line between Orel and Berlin or b) fall back and hope for the best, knowing you will never see better than Fort 1 for the rest of the game. Do the math: how many hexes can the Axis retreat per turn and be east of Berlin in May 45? Less than 1, staying out of range of deliberate attacks is great advice, the Axis just have to build the Atlantic Wall to face in both directions.

The only reserves you have are the Pzs and PGs. Every new bend in the line, every Inf div reduced to a CV of 2 or made unready must be replaced by those golden reserves, until they are all in the line and there is nothing between the SU and Berlin except that thin grey line. And the manpower reserves are gone so there is no chance for recovery. Finally, even if you hold on through '43, the '44 and '45 TOEs are 'auto-lose'. Maybe this is all historically correct and the German player has no choice but to decide how slow/fast/painful that loss will be. But it isn't much fun and it does engender feelings of hopelessness and despair.

I have 'always' thought the Germans still had a chance at not losing in'43; the designers of WitE apparently disagree and you can hardly blame German players who feel that they should stand some chance of a draw or at least have some fun in losing.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 64
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 2:49:19 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Well it has to be hard for the Germans in 43+.... the question is "how hard" and we can't tell until someone plays well into 44 at least. I intend to be that person (from the Soviet side, obviously). It's hard for the Germans in that they are constantly pushed back, but Soviets have to play, as Juan Yague would laconically say, "contrarreloj" ie against the clock.

I had a **disastrous** last turn. After 5 endless turns of mud, spent watching his numbers grow, and in some cases grow rapidly, I had barely two turns of snow to attack, and now again mud in two sectors. He also retreated pretty much all accross the front, everywhere south of Vitebsk, so he is almost completely behind the Dnepr.

I attacked in the extreme south, the only sector that wasn't covered with mud, and failed on most attacks (and there weren't many, as he retreated just enough to be out of reach.

He made a minor mistake in this turn. Since it's mud, he didn't have to retreat in central sectors of the front, but otherwise, this turn was a disaster.

It's turn 23 now, and I haven't had a good turn since turn 14. His numbers are either growing slowly, or growing rapidly, in any case they are not falling down at the rate I need to win. It's hard to tell definitively because of mud but so far Mynok plays a more cunning game than Bob....

Excel in the next post, since I see there are guys interested in numbers....

(in reply to bevans)
Post #: 65
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 2:53:03 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		So here is the table. You can see very clearly, much better than from the screenshots, how frustrating the last 8 or so turns have been for me. Notice how his AFV numbers rose lately. Mud obviously means mud, and mud2sec means there was mud in two sectors.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 66
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 3:11:42 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bevans

Oleg, I think you significantly underrate the difficulties the Germans face in the '43 scenario. Admittedly I have only played against the AI, but I do so with the difficulty levers heavily slanted in favour of the SU (110 across the board; Axis 90-100). First, the Germans have absolutely no chance of a successful Citadel. Is that historically correct? Don't think so; historians disagree but there is a view out there that Manstein was right and a continuation of the attack would have succeeded. Who knows?

Do the math: how many hexes can the Axis retreat per turn and be east of Berlin in May 45? Less than 1, staying out of range of deliberate attacks is great advice, the Axis just have to build the Atlantic Wall to face in both directions.

I have 'always' thought the Germans still had a chance at not losing in'43; the designers of WitE apparently disagree and you can hardly blame German players who feel that they should stand some chance of a draw or at least have some fun in losing.


I disagree on some points. First Zitadelle.... Soviets knew about German plans in advance and they built defences so deep and elaborated it would take Klingon army to defeat them. Plus, they had the whole FRONT in reserve. The game setup reflects that. A 43 scenario with earlier start and more flexibility would be welcome, but then you'd have Axis players complaining that the Soviets used the early start to simply start pushing Axis back and gaining ground earlier then history, and they would start crying for a historic July 43 frontline to be brought back

Having said that Zitadelle is not entirely impossible, and I experimented with some mini-Zitadelle, biting away only the southern part of the Kursk bulge. It kinda works. Probably better than it should. Is it smart thing to do, I don't know but the option is there.

I am not sure on your hex math too. The scenario has 118 turns, I believe there are more then 120 hexes betwen the frontline and Berlin but am too lazy to count. In any case, there's FREAKING MUD (I hate it) when the frontline won't move. In my game I already had 7 turns of mud in central sector (and no less than 5 in all sectors). 7 out of 22? That's 30%!! So with mud, carefully picked, pre-built lines to stand and fight, and measured retreats.... yes, I do believe Axis have tools at their disposal to "win" by game terms (defend Berlin as long as, or longer than history).

Towards west the frontline shrinks as Europe narrows. From a German standpoint it looks smart to base the first half of the scenario on slow retreats and force preservation, and fight decisive defensive battles closer to home (no partisans, shorter front to defend, better supply...) probably around old eastern Polish border. With 2,5 million Germans and 4000 AFVs manning Polish border it's no joke.... but if you constantly fight (like Bob did) by the time we get to Polish border you'll have less than million men...

(in reply to bevans)
Post #: 67
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 3:15:50 AM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline 		I am not sure how adept at tank warfare the Klingons were, but those disrupter tanks might have turned the tide...

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 68
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 3:19:05 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Loaning some imperial AT-AT walkers in place of those unreliable Panthers might help too.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)
Post #: 69
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 3:19:57 AM   
PeeDeeAitch


Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline 		See, I asked Sabre for those already!

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 70
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 3:20:36 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		5th SS at Prohorovka




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 71
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 3:27:10 AM   
Senno

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		I seem to have lost my walkers on the outskirts of Moscow.

< Message edited by Senno -- 4/22/2011 3:28:44 AM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 72
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 3:29:25 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Walkers would actually be good for mud!

It's probably the only situation that I can imagine where walking machines would be better than wheeled or tracked vehicles. Too bad German engineers didn't think of that.....

(in reply to Senno)
Post #: 73
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 6:37:16 AM   
bevans

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline 		Oleg, sort of crocodile tears on the mud; delta (in thousands for men, art, afvs, aircraft, turns 15-22): German: +18, -1, +1.3, +0.3; SU: +380, +5.8, +1.7, +1.1. Except for AFVs, the Germans are barely treading water while the SU is going from strength to strength. Sure mud sucks for the attacker and provides breathing room for the defender. If the Germans only pick up 18k men in those 7 turns of respite, they are going to be bled white as soon as the SU winter offensive starts. And soon, you will be facing the '44 TOEs where a full strength Pz Div may get a CV in the low teens (if it has good morale and experience).

I do agree that the Germans lot should be very hard if playing the '43-'45 GC. They should almost certainly lose (the SU could have reached Berlin in '44 if Stalin hadn't been more interested in expanding the Soviet Empire). I think my issue is that it is no fun playing as the Germans, even minor tactical victories do not seem to be possible. The occasional 'Held' is about the best one can do. It is a game, it should have some element of enjoyment in it. Otherwise why play? Maybe label playing the Axis in the '43 and '44 scenarios 'for masochists only'.

And I concede the pont on distance: about 110 hexes between Orel and Berlin - so fall back a hex a turn, hold on the last turn or two and voila, a minor victory. Might not feel like one though.

Finally, the Germans did develop an AT Walker; Porsche and Henschel put in competing designs and in the end, Krupp claimed to need more manganese than the Germans had if he was to build a prototype. They also invented the Death Star, but Goering claimed this was Luftwaffe terriority and that was pretty well that.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 74
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 1:28:54 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bevans
I think my issue is that it is no fun playing as the Germans, even minor tactical victories do not seem to be possible. The occasional 'Held' is about the best one can do. It is a game, it should have some element of enjoyment in it. Otherwise why play?


I agree with this, but for sheer frustration/machohist levels nothing beats playing Soviets in 41.... opening the turn and seeing that your skilled opponent encircled 50 divisions out of blue, with absolutely no opportunity for you to react or even just observe how he actually did that. Blammo, units gone, that's it.

That kind of frustration, in my opinion, has more to do with IGO UGO mechanics of this game, than with anything else, as I elaborated in some of my posts. Basically in IGO UGO, only playing the attacker is fun. Defense in IGO UGO is just plain NO fun, period. Well we can't change that.

Playing the full campaign, where both sides have their period of fun and frustration is most fair way to play the IGO UGO game, but currently we have problems finding an opponent that would not quit after 20 turns from either side

(in reply to bevans)
Post #: 75
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 6:42:20 PM   
marty_01

 

Posts: 288
Joined: 2/10/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

So here is the table. You can see very clearly, much better than from the screenshots, how frustrating the last 8 or so turns have been for me. Notice how his AFV numbers rose lately. Mud obviously means mud, and mud2sec means there was mud in two sectors.





Is it possible to include in-game production figures for AFVs as well? I'm curious how much influx of new AFVs are occuring for the Soviets and Germans.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 76
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 9:22:22 PM   
bevans

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 1/27/2011
Status: offline 		The difference with the Soviets in '41 is that you know if you do hang on, better days are coming. For the Germans in '43, if you manage to hang on, well, it is just going to get worse. But yes, the SU in '41 is more (short term) hopeless than the Germans in '43, who actually have a bunch of good divisions and a still viable fighting force. That is why it takes the SU two years to win back what the Germans won in 6 months.

And actually, while it is not exactly fun, it is really challenging to play the Axis in '43, at least for awhile. But after 10 turns or so, the SU is getting stronger every week and you are getting weaker. So the challenge increases every turn because at some point, the SU will break through and you have absolutely nothing left to throw at them. All that said, I must be a masochist because I am having another shot at this. It is SU turn 3 and they have been attacking for 4 hours now (message level 5, very fast computer). Getting a fair number of holds and inflicting major casualties. But taking them as well. The long day's journey into night has started.

(in reply to marty_01)
Post #: 77
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/22/2011 9:29:59 PM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		Will be interested to know how you do. I am playing a 42 PBEM that is in the summer of 43, and it is brutal. I conducted a pretty good 42 summer and winter campaign (albeit limited, shooting mainly for pockets and not territory) that was nothing special. Through the winter and early spring of 43 I maintained some strength but it is now July and my army is disintegrating. Not so much armor, which I try to use sparingly, but infantry. Counter this with the Soviets who seem to not lose any strength or encounter any supply issues as they advance, and it's a real challenge.

I always liked playing "Germans on the defense against odds" scenarios as well, but it does feel like the German army falls apart a bit too quickly here, especially if it hasn't encountered Stalingrad or Kursk type losses along the way.

(in reply to bevans)
Post #: 78
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/23/2011 6:57:52 AM   
molchomor

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline 		Yes the late campaigns have issues and are definitely not "fun" as axis atm. Maybe never will be, if you "read between the lines" in some forum posts, and consider the recent general lack of response to posts containing keywords such as as "masochist", "not motivating" etc., the conclusion is that this is not really a game but a serious historical simulation where axis must suffer and lose because that is what happened historically. I think this has not been well understood yet. Serious stuff is seldom fun, but let's not give up hope just yet 

Edit: ...and keep posting suggestions that YOU feel will increase the fun aspect of this game, maybe we can win by numbers although history is against us


< Message edited by molchomor -- 4/23/2011 7:05:47 AM >

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 79
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/23/2011 11:52:15 AM   
Aditia

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 3/27/2011
Status: offline 		I am having fun in my 43-45 PBEM as axis.

(in reply to molchomor)
Post #: 80
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/23/2011 3:55:43 PM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		I think my concern is that it is going to end up being (a) not fun and (b) not historical. The German army in 43 was able to hold its position relatively well through to Bagration in June of 44, and that is with all of Hitler's lunacy from Stalingrad on forward. I'm no Manstein, but it seems that if you don't have these huge costly engagements you should have a chance at beating historical in terms of delaying the Soviets. I have yet to see an AAR or report where a German faced a competent Soviet player and was able to do this.

Love the game, but would love it a lot more if the 43 and beyond period (regardless of scenario chosen) worked for the Germans.

Aditia - I'm having fun in mine too, just think it could be better. Where are you date / situation wise? Mine was a 42 campaign so probably plays a bit differently than a 43...

(in reply to molchomor)
Post #: 81
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/23/2011 8:34:05 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

I think my concern is that it is going to end up being (a) not fun and (b) not historical. The German army in 43 was able to hold its position relatively well through to Bagration in June of 44,


In less than a year from Zitadelle to Bagration, Germany lost almost whole of the Ukraine! Look at the starting position for 43 GC and compare to 44 GC. They didn't really "hold their position", on the contrary, they sacrificed the area larger than **ANY** country in Europe (except Russia, of course) probably in order to preserve fighting capability of their forces.

Of course, then came Bagration and Normandy and everything went to hell even in Belorussia and Baltics, where they held up pretty well up to then.

However, by the time Bagration started Ukraine was almost completely liberated. That is the monumental task that is in front of me in this game, and it would have to be completed by June 44 in order to "follow history". I am pretty sure my positions, by the time of historic start of Bagration, would be nowehere near historic (ie. they will be worse, from the Soviet perspective).

I am also sure it won't stop many German fanboys from whining anyway

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 82
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/24/2011 12:46:32 AM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		Well, perhaps...I would call myself more of a Soviet fanboy who likes to take the German side on occasion, and I can tell you in my 42 game, with no Stalingrad and no Kursk the German army is in a state of complete disintegration outside of the panzers by August 43. Maybe I'm just the world's worst player, but I doubt that - more likely is that there is something not functioning quite right in the replacement system to keep German divisions in any kind of reasonable fighting shape once combat begins. Also, the reason the Soviet army liberated the Ukraine when it did is that it focused on that region to the exclusion of the North and Center - my armies there have fallen apart under pressure as well. I had a line of forts on the Dnepr all at 3-4 to retreat to, but it's not going to do me any good because I have no units even capable of putting up a minimal defense along that line. It's pretty obvious to me that either (a) the Soviets get way too strong, too fast or (b) the German army does not receive replacements properly. I have hordes of units sitting at 1=1 CVs and a million men in the manpower pool.

I think my opponent (Zort) would even agree - the Soviets should win, and the game should not change the balance of that. That said, as currently structured the Soviet player doesn't even really have to try to do anything special. Just keep building Corps and keep attacking and the German player will crumple. No need to plan a Bagration or any other sophisticated operation, because you can just keep attacking every single turn without pause and the Germans will turn to mush.


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 83
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/24/2011 12:53:45 AM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		Also, I really think you need to give the Germans a whirl during this period to see how totally useless your panzers become - any attack against an infantry, motorized or cavalry unit, even if you have 6:1 odds, will net you an even loss of manpower and barely a few more artillery, plus you get the benefit of losing 60 tanks. The only situation where they can do anything other than plug holes is against tank corps that get a bit ahead of themselves. This is panzers at reasonably close to full strength, and good CVs, not weak ones that have been drained by combat. Once they've been through some combat, forget it...

I'm with you that there is a lot of German whining, some not justified, some (blizzard) justified, but I think in this case it's pretty clear that there are issues. Not "broken" but issues.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 84
RE: 43 GC Soviet side - 4/24/2011 1:13:54 AM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		One other thing...I think there's no question that the artillery system for the Soviets is flawed. It's pretty common knowledge that Soviet artillery was massively inefficient, and the whole "7000 guns" thing was really only useful at the outset of a significant offensive...and never would be useful again until re-set up for the next major offensive. There was no flexibility in terms of targeting or anything else. In the game, artillery divisions can just keep moving behind the infantry and week after week concentrate huge quantities of fire on whatever targets happen to be in their way. I know I'm not the most expert person on this board, but this seems rather ahistorical to me.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 85
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: 43 GC Soviet side Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

1.703