Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
I think throwing away a unit for such a purpose is wasteful and gamey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

BG I must say that the more I read your AAR that this is the best in-depth AAR out there. If my AAR's are the cheap gossip tabloids, this is the NY Times in comparison. You have put a lot of effort and thought into this one I think all who follow this one appreciate the effort you put into it.

I'm not a big fan of the 'suicide' raids, Q-Ball's was a good one but IMO, and this is just me, I think throwing away a unit for such a purpose is wasteful and gamey. Of course I'm looking at this from a more realistic reasoning and not a 'game' one. I guess its how some people want to play the game, to each their own I guess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I realize that these divisions are really light on AFVs, almost to the point that these are PzDivision just in name:

Kind of early for this to happen, but he has pushed them hard, so perhaps what one should expect. Historically the Germans of course pushed hard as well, especially in Typhoon towards Moscow, and by then many German divisions were divisions only by name indeed -- not only due to lack of Panzers and AGs, but also men-material wise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
The latter is not obvious, here, as in other AARs, though. Probably that Flavius sensed that correctly, but future will show. Also, Q-Balls INF has spend much time trailing behind, not participating much in combat, so losses might be lower -- but on the other hand, wasn't that also exactly what the INF did historically, and still got bled? Or were the Germans Panzers in fact not as fast and far ahead at their time as in this AAR? Something is clearly different, but what? Would be worth a very close look at the books to understand that correctly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I still agree with the need for some reaction orders (blocking and counterattack) for idle units. Sort of a certain chance based on leader values of the units and higher HQ, its remaining MP and combat readiness, as well as the enemy detection or speed or so, to either move into the advance path of the unit entering its ZOC, or alternatively, order it to counterattack there. That way the issue with the long statc 7-day turns would be mitigated, the ZOC rule would gain more sense by that (I believe Lava also has some good points there), the openings like Lvov or Minsk might be slowed a bit to more realistic pace and appear more plausible (without having to neuter the former entirely, and with some tough fighting as historically seen there, a tiny chance to keep open communications for the Soviets for another turn, though unlikely if another Panzerkorps would be dispatched south), and ultimately the German defense will also strongly profit from them in 1944/45.
The lack of such reaction order presently seems in stark contrast to the neat "Reserve Commitment" in battles. Ironically, it kind of seems like the higher Commands think "Yeah, battle, let's send the division to assist!" but "ah, there is a Russian Cavalry division (or German Mech, whatever) sneaking around in our rear -- ah, who cares, get the BBQ table ready for the boys and have them feast for a week!".

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I also want to disagree on this whole reaction phase proposal...while it is appealing in a purely theoretical sense, I don't see why people think it will make the slightest practical difference, at least in 1941. For instance, are we to expect that a weak, entrenched rifle division will leave its position to do a reactive hasty attack on a nearby panzer division? I sure hope not, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
Regarding Q-Balls raid... very bold, and perhaps even brilliant game terms! And as long as you consider it just a game, equally valid as everything else the game allows. But of course that would have been very unlikely to have happened intentionally in reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
I think throwing away a unit for such a purpose is wasteful and gamey.

Dunno, I think that risking a single divistion for the chance of taking out all of Moscow's production is probably worth it. Even now I don't think it is clear that he will lose that division, and meanwhile all of the industry is stuck. But I agree that is is very gamey, it is difficult to imagine panzers tearing into Moscow and zooming around town blowing up factories, which is what this amounts to...Panzer raiding par excellence!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I also want to disagree on this whole reaction phase proposal...while it is appealing in a purely theoretical sense, I don't see why people think it will make the slightest practical difference, at least in 1941. For instance, are we to expect that a weak, entrenched rifle division will leave its position to do a reactive hasty attack on a nearby panzer division? I sure hope not, and if it did I don't see that it would accomplish anything other than mass slaughter of the attacking Russians. Moroever, think about it--it seems that a smart German player would simply figure out a way to attract the reacting units and then crush them. I really can't figure out why people think this would be a good idea?

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
Curious as to what the loses are at now? OOB?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I am always very careful about deeming anything "gamey" (or as an "exploit") because both terms are extremely subjective. The reason for not doing these moves shouldn't be "a gentlemanly agreement" but because they're anti-economic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
First, the Axis player will have to "guess" if units are in reaction mode or not. He might guess well, or not. No guarantees on that. Feinting to attract reserves seems to me as a completely fair thing to do. And this is what would make the feature to be far from "overpowered" or making defense "too easy". One would have to strike a balance between mobile and static reserves.

Second, just putting into ZOC an enemy units makes it to spend many more MP's. Enough to avoid the kind of excursions - and more importantly the ability to return to a covered position - we now see behind the lines. They would probably achieve something similar, but those units would be badly exposed to encirclement or flanking attacks. The hasty attack makes the defender to be careful about what forces are put into reaction mode, raises attackers fatigue, and make them spend supply, fuel and ammo. They might cause losses which might affect the enemy unit mobility.

Third, any Soviet attack in 1941 entails to some degree the "mass slaughter of the attacking Russians". Hasty attacks result in "lower losses", especially when attackers have good morale and experience. And will entail even less losses when the 1:1 rule derived Axis defenders bonuses are gone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
BG, I enjoy reading your well-reasoned, adult responses, but I don't always agree, so I thought I'd respond.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I am always very careful about deeming anything "gamey" (or as an "exploit") because both terms are extremely subjective. The reason for not doing these moves shouldn't be "a gentlemanly agreement" but because they're anti-economic.

Sorry, but I consider sending a panzer division on a suicide mission to take out some factories to be completely gamey and unrealistic. You can start with the fact that the Germans in fact couldn't even be sure whether the factories were still there, or with the fact that even if the panzers made it to Moscow, it would not result in the automatic and instaneous destruction of all factories, or whatever, but the point is that this kind of panzer raid is completely unrealistic and ahistorical. I don't really think it is subjective at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I just can't see how this would help the Sov player at all in 1941. I would keep my ants in fortified positions, thank you very much, rather than sending them into the open, adjacent to a panzer division, where they could be routed without the PD even having to expend the MP to move adjacent.

And I don't think it is realistic at all to expect 1941 Sov rifle divisions to "react" to fast-moving panzer divisions.

And the difference between current Sov 1941 hasty attacks and this kind of reaction attack is that currently all hasty attacks are conducted by players, which can pick and choose when such attacks are necessary and/or useful. The AI would certainly be incapable of such distinctions and would launch any number of suicide attacks by 1-8 rifle divisions vs panzer divisions.

Maybe maybe maybe such a feature would be useful in 1942, but in 1941 I don't see this whole reaction idea as being very useful or realistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
4. Resolving interception move during opposing player phase:
a) An enemy units entering a hex, a check is done on what (if any) combat units are within 4 hexes range of that hex.
b) For each of the units in reaction mode the following checks are done to determine whether they become active and react:
i) If the Combat Unit is of size Bde(Rgt) will receive a bonus for successive checks
ii) If the Combat Unit is of type Armored, Motorized or Mechanized all successive checks receive bonuses
ii) Die(10) against HHQ leader initiative rating (+1 if condition i) holds, +1 if condition ii) holds)
iii) Die(100) against average experience and morale (+25 if condition i) holds or Cavalry division, +10 if ii) holds).
c) The first unit that passes the check becomes "allocated" and no further units are checked.
d) The selected unit attempts to reach the active hex, spending MP's as per normal terrain costs, but ignores additional costs due to ZOC and/or enemy ownership. NOTE: ignoring them or paying reduced costs, since this is modeling a very fluid situation so the enemy unit which is marching and hasn't much ability to project much force around it.
e) The above can have either the following results:
i) The reacting unit enters an adjancent hex to the "hotspot" hex. If it has enough MP's to do a hasty attack on the adjacent , such an attack is performed. This attack will have a high chance of getting a RECONAISSANCE result.
ii) The reacting unit falls short of the hex, but in its general direction.

What do you think now? Still useless? Making examples with screenshots would take me too much time ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
First, regarding the reaction range: I think that 40 miles is awfully far for a rifle div in 1941. The question is not only how far the unit could move, but what C3 capabilities it has that will allow it to determine where an enemy is, and then react quickly in a proper "intercept" location. At least in 1941, I just don't see that as being realistic. Maybe one hex, or more likely, none...

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Second, if you allow that reaction is realistic and useful, the fact that only one unit could react per hex is also kind of odd--presumably any commander that could figure out where the enemy would be would send all available combat power to that location, not a lone rifle division, tank brigade, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Third, the sistem would inevitably be "gamed", in that German players would figure out how to bait the reaction forces to uncover the true avenue of attack. This would be realistic enough if the player were determining how to react, but having the AI do so would almost certainly result in clever German players taking advantage of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Fourth, I still don't see the benefit of a 1-8 rifle division conducting a hasty attack on an advancing panzer division. What purpose would it serve other than incremental fatigue and supply costs for the Germans? Now if they could react and then dig in to level 1 right in front of the Panzers, that might be helpful, but again it doesn't seem particularly realistic.

In general, I think I would rather decide where to put my ants, dig them in as deeply as possible, and hope for the best.

All of this being said, some kind of reaction would be more realistic and helpful for the Sovs later in the war, although even then I would probably restrict its use to tank or cav corps with morale/experience over x/y and with good leaders. But by this point in the war, a reaction phase would generally be of more benefit to the Germans than the Sovs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
This last turn I also applied Flavio's advice to max out Interdiction starving Ground Support missions with the hopes of generating many aerial interdictions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't disagree that ground attacks on HQs are preferable to airbase strikes.

But the numbers of such ground attacks you can make are extremely limited. Very quickly they refuse to fly any further missions.

Once you've exhausted them, you're left with a lot of airframes with plenty of mileage that can squeeze in a substantial number of airstrikes. And the heavy air losses in my game with James is also encouraging me to do such strikes. I really want to get his annoying recon planes on the ground in particular.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I think B-G's suggestion are a good starting point, but you have some points there that surely must be considered to make this feature useful, as well as hard to misuse against AI and other players -- both is surely possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Just for the record: in WitP AE the land units CANNOT react. Only the naval units can (up to six hexes). The submarines only one hex though. Don't forget there are daily turns and hexes are supposed to represent 40 miles.

Now you can put a land unit in "reserve" mode. In defence they might reinforce your fighting units, if attacking and the enemy is forced to retreat they will PURSUE them.

And of course not a lot of highways, roads in the Solomons, New Guinea or any other place for that matter Welcome to the Logistical Nightmare, wonderfully simulated by the way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
First, regarding the reaction range: I think that 40 miles is awfully far for a rifle div in 1941. The question is not only how far the unit could move, but what C3 capabilities it has that will allow it to determine where an enemy is, and then react quickly in a proper "intercept" location. At least in 1941, I just don't see that as being realistic. Maybe one hex, or more likely, none...

Was my first thought as well. In reality it would depend strongly on situation awareness of the commanding element, i.e. what "recon value" of the approaching unit is available. For an infantry formation I would think it would already be a quantum leap to have 1 hex reaction range, i.e. direct spotting. If considering Cavalry, Mech or Amored, one could think along the lines taken in WiTP with the reaction range (0-6) setting for naval formations. But also here I would set a much shorter cutoff, perhaps 2 hex if sufficient MP are left, and for the 2nd hex have a lower probability to react? Linearly or exponentially lower, whatever the exact mechanics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Second, if you allow that reaction is realistic and useful, the fact that only one unit could react per hex is also kind of odd--presumably any
commander that could figure out where the enemy would be would send all available combat power to that location, not a lone rifle division,
tank brigade, etc.

That is a tough question. Any unit with a ZOC hex being equal to the hex to be entered by the unit should react to that, with a certain probability calculated from the rules and factor discussed above. Why have one react and not the other? Hmmh, should there be a fixed rule, basically implying that all units would coordinate perfectly and only move together when the detected enemy CV is much higher than that of a single reacting unit? I would suggest that this be one factor, and another that again there be a dice roll depending on the unit readiness, moral and leader qualities whether they will coordinate successfully, or wastefully move together on a weak enemy, or failing to coordinate on a strong one. Some friction again...

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Third, the sistem would inevitably be "gamed", in that German players would figure out how to bait the reaction forces to uncover the true avenue of attack. This would be realistic enough if the player were determining how to react, but having the AI do so would almost certainly result in clever German players taking advantage of it.

That indeed is a big problem. With the reaction setting I would used a different design, i.e. not just Hasty attacks on a unit that has entered a ZOC. I would allow for 3 different order settings (besides the competing attachment as a reserve for a higher HQ): "Hold tight", "Blocking" and "Countermoving". This would introduce some uncertainty as the player would have to use it carefully, and the opponent never could be 100% sure what might happen although he of course could guesstimate a bit from what he knows about the unit and leader qualities.
(i) Blocking: Once an OPFOR unit is selected to enter a hex in the ZOC, the unit exerting this control of that hex could get a dice roll to enter that hex first IF the entering unit was sighted or well reconned in the last turn ("sort of assuming its axis of approach was tracked by air recon or so"). The advancing OPFOR unit could get a special dice role, depending on whether the reacting unit was identified before, and its known relative strength, whether it will perform the targeted move. If both forces enter, then there should be a special type of engagement, not one following standard rules of deliberate or hasty engagements, but a Meeting engagement with represents that both sides come up piecemeal/unordered/in marching formation and, thus, a like light, sometimes heavy fight ensues in which no side has some initial benefit.
(ii) Countermoving: as described by B-G above, making a Hasty attack into a moving opponent formation, thus also representing a bit that the opponent unit is in march and not prepared to defend, and losses will be a little worse than in case that unit would be waiting in a defensive posture. Perhaps the Countermoving could also get a dice roll making it a meeting engagement instead.

This is harder to game (and since it is based on probabilities, can only gamed with a certain chance, else the gaming fails), but as always with anything in a game, it probably can also be broken by some inventive players...

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Fourth, I still don't see the benefit of a 1-8 rifle division conducting a hasty attack on an advancing panzer division. What purpose would it serve other than incremental fatigue and supply costs for the Germans? Now if they could react and then dig in to level 1 right in front of the Panzers, that might be helpful, but again it doesn't seem particularly realistic.

In general, I think I would rather decide where to put my ants, dig them in as deeply as possible, and hope for the best.

All of this being said, some kind of reaction would be more realistic and helpful for the Sovs later in the war, although even then I would probably restrict its use to tank or cav corps with morale/experience over x/y and with good leaders. But by this point in the war, a reaction phase would generally be of more benefit to the Germans than the Sovs.

I think it is already a very sensible concept B-Gs presented -- especially if I think of why German or Allied lower echelon leaders where so much ahead of the Russians in the early, why the concepts of Kampfgruppen or ad hoc combat groups, and the blitzkrieg tactics worked so well, or at all. In a good part because the subordinates were trained to exert initiative and react to unforeseen circumstances, rather than continuing to follow strict orders or calling a halt. So clearly the unit quality (i.e. the abstracted moral) and the leader values of the unit must play a critical role when determining whether the unit reacts to a sudden threat.

This would be more beneficial the better the training gets, and the leader are, so the Germans will always benefit from it by being able to counter encircling or breaking-in units. The Soviets would benefit from it 43 onwards more and more, but have poorer chances to gain much from it in 41 and 42, which is exactly what it should (i.e. make Minsk- and Lvov-like pockets possible, but not without at least a minimal chance of throwing some speed-bumbers into the avenues of approach and thus perhaps delaying the closing of the pockets by a turn, and also costing both side some battle losses). /IF/ it could be made work like this without screwing anything else including AI up, I think it would be a worthy advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
One other point I forgot to mention: it seems to me that the main objective of the Sovs in 1941 should be to simply slow down the Germans. In my view, this is better accomplished by forcing a German unit to move into the ZOC of a Sov unit THEN attack; using this reaction stuff, the Sov player loses because he himself is putting his unit next to the German unit, so the German unit only has to expend MPs for attacking, not moving into a ZOC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
My comments have been focused on the usefulness/realism for Sov players; I think it would be much more useful and realistic for German players.

But in general the whole reaction idea sounds enormously complicated and probably not worth it to me; I would certainly rather have the devs spend their time fixing the air war and tweaking various balance issues which arise with every patch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't disagree that ground attacks on HQs are preferable to airbase strikes.

But the numbers of such ground attacks you can make are extremely limited. Very quickly they refuse to fly any further missions.

Once you've exhausted them, you're left with a lot of airframes with plenty of mileage that can squeeze in a substantial number of airstrikes. And the heavy air losses in my game with James is also encouraging me to do such strikes. I really want to get his annoying recon planes on the ground in particular.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I just little sorry for highjacking this great AAR with this brainstorming... I probably should delete the above posts sometime!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I run as many ground attack missions as the game allows. This isn't a lot. Maybe 2-3 strikes per front, if that. The game severely limits these. Then, airfield strikes. And that is limited only by mileage flown.