RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps

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: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps

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: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/30/2011 3:48:32 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

AGS Start

I see little recourse other than to hit those �Gatekeeper� stacks (19CV, 6CV next to it) to dislodge the defenses and to try to break out. But movement all around there is outstanding, with over 32 on all motorized divisions. I have to break out.

Well, that�s the overview at the start of 8. I�ll post back in the next day or two with the actual results, in the meantime, why is there no discussion of my AAR the last several turns? Is it moving too slow? Is it too wordy? How can I improve the AAR and get readers involved in sharing their view of my decision-making and performance?
Thanks.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 91

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/30/2011 5:59:50 PM

BletchleyGeek

Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Well, that�s the overview at the start of 8. I�ll post back in the next day or two with the actual results, in the meantime, why is there no discussion of my AAR the last several turns? Is it moving too slow? Is it too wordy? How can I improve the AAR and get readers involved in sharing their view of my decision-making and performance?

Hey Helio, I'd have liked to make you some questions, but I've been very busy and I'm having trouble to keep the AAR going and sending turns back to Q-Ball on a regular basis :)

But I do find your AAR to be excellent

I see you went for the Krementschug crossing option, which as James commented, it's certainly the best option. I wouldn't worry too much about those stacks. Soviet CV early in the war is a mirage. Make sure you have the very best commanding the forces in the bridgehead and they'll be gone. I'm not experienced enough as the Axis as to suggest you to hasty attack the 6=6 stack, though. In any case, I wouldn't do anything too spectacular to rile your opponent too much. You actually want him to think he's doing well stopping you. This would be reinforced by "playing it safe". It all depends on how realistic is to expect him to let you get a massive encirclement west of Sumy and Poltava.

I also see - somewhat surprised - that you have part of 3. PzGruppe in the north. I guess it has really made things easy there for you, but as your questions on the images pose, what else can you get? I think you'll be getting little more and having it to pack up and go back to the center might be a good idea.

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 92

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/30/2011 9:07:10 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

North looks good, Leningrad should be yours. Just load up 1 corps with 4 divisions, Model, guns and poineers. This will also give you atleast 100,000 in deaths.

I generally pull one pz corps and head south at this point, then pull the other once your over river.

Center is going nicely.

South looks not so hot, but your about to break him shortly.

Pocket what you can an pick off any armament pts go can.

Your Mps look good, but if you HQed up before you know your going to break out that give you 2 turns of supplys. So once those 30ish unit get in open he have no chance of stopping you for 2 to 3 turns. When you run out of gas.

Also the 3 stacks you have on other side of river if your HQ is close enough, you could do the attacks and then HQ up. Your other units would make the hole, then next turn u have 2 full corps with an HQ build-up. He be toast at that point.

Nice job so far. You bag any armament pts yet?

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 93

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/31/2011 4:17:09 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Turn 9 has rolled in, so I can post Turn 8 (I'm still paranoid about an opponent reading my AAR, is that uncommon?)

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 94

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/31/2011 4:17:32 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Honestly, everything in the AGN area went as well as could be planned. A much higher than average loss ratio for me. 14 attacks, 4 Held. But two of those were 16.Rifle vs. 1.Panzer, with the �third time being the charm� and I got to force a displacement move of Northern Front HQ. Knock, knock Comrade! Ultimately that battle wouldn�t have happened were it not for a rare gem of a �reserve� commitment on OFFENSE in the hex southeast. Here, a deliberate attack was hitting 2 strong rifle divisions (0 fort).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 10/31/2011 4:18:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 95

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/31/2011 4:18:49 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Those same two divisions had held off a 3-SHA by 1.Corps infantry, with good artillery support, and held. Perhaps that did enough damage and disruption, and certainly the aid by 36.Motorized was instrumental in causing the route of a strong Rifle division and cause heavy casualties. I put reserve on just as a whim at the end of last turn. Never thought they would come to the aid in a deliberate!

And with that, as well as the crossing at Novgorod (isolating 2 strong divisions), I think he has reason to panic about the Volkhov front, and now has to decide if he thinks I might go for the fabled �right hook�. I think the right-hook is a fool�s errand because it�s so easy to hold Lodynoe Pole, and this is exactly the wrong terrain for 3 panzer corps. BUT, realistic, credible threats are a weapon unto themselves, and right now, CF has to prepare for me trying anyway, and his front is really thin here.

I think I am obliged to attack toward the Neva next turn with 18.Army, and 39.Panzer has just punched a hole across the Volkhov that will lead it back south. Unfortunately, I don�t think I�ll get to isolate many units with it because an attempt to go east of the Valdai Hills will run into great defensive terrain, bad armor terrain, and poor armor supply. Basically, this is as good as it gets in �isolating� Leningrad. If only I could convince Mannerheim that if he attacks Lodynoe Pole, that small, rustic fishing village, but NO! Mannerheim is a douche! Remember the Winter War! (sorry, ranting about another constraint that Germany has to deal with that neuters great gameplay options�for god�s sake, move the �no-attack line to Lodynoe Pole and make the Soviets honest�). So anyway, 39.Panzer is headed to the Vellikie Luki area, which will likely take till turn 10 or 11 when it�s back helping AGC. In a turn or 2, the bulk of 41.Panzer will head that way as well. I�ll ensure 2 panzer divisions stay here with Mannstein.

I�m very satisfied with how my war for Leningrad has gone. Last game, the air war bug neutered my attacks, and CF definitely benefitted from the original 1.04 fort rules, where there were so many level 3 forts on the Volkhov that I couldn�t even break off the beachhead.

On to AGC�

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 96

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/31/2011 4:19:43 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

From a macro level, there�s something to be considered for the re-alignment of AGN�s panzer asets:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 97

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/31/2011 4:20:21 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

This picture above should be taken in with the picture below of the end-of-turn AGC situation, which I think is highly favorable to me driving on Moscow.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 98

RE: Start of Turn 8 Sitreps - 10/31/2011 4:20:57 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

On the one hand, the weakened divisions I expected to find here (the ones devastated by land bridge battles) were nowhere to be found. All fighting here found hardened, new-arrivals like Moscow PM Rifle division (1 held, 5 retreats, then finally a route). There were quite a few more Held results, but I took more chances on hasty attacks, and even when some failed, I repeated them if it was obvious to me that the loss was primarily due to the die rolls. So nothing held out against me without being forced to retreat at some point.

On the other hand, Vyazma was ungarrisoned (I had to fight the aforementioned retreated Moscow PM Rifle there, but that was it�s final battle leading to route). Then, there were wide open plains east of Vyazma. So I don�t know where he�s trying to rest those beaten units from the land-bridge, and I hope it�s somewhere between me and Moscow, though it�s possible he evacuated them more north/northeast knowing I wouldn�t drive hard into that area.

So now I have a wedge of open space between the Rzhev area and the Bryansk-Kaluga area. There is a huge mass of good-order (less so after this turn) Western Front units that are racing east as fast as I am. Where I have to fight my way through defenses, he must skirt my ZOCs, and cross the rivers, and deal with my growing interdiction threat.

This breakthrough needs to be supported as strongly as I can. 39.Panzer will be heading back next turn, with 41.Panzer coming also, or 1 to 2 turns later, depending on what I see happening around Leningrad. I�m strongly tempted to move both corps on Turn 9, but I can�t yet so no point thinking about my options until I see CF�s next move. I feel pretty happy about how I�ve bypassed Western Front, and it seems very realistic to start considering Moscow as an objective. I think right now, my railroad plans are changing a little bit. Instead of bringing AGN�s FBD down southward, I think I might bring the southern FBD of Army Group Center up to Smolensk. There�s not much operational intensity between Gomel and Bryansk, and my pace of movement, and the small mass of troops I have there, don�t justify using an FBD there. I�m not sure what to do: success can make plans less stable� I never planned to bypass the Dnepr so hard-core!

So that�s AGC and it�s promising future. I set 24.Panzer corps to use HQ buildup (2 panzer, 1 motor, 1 cav). The other panzer corps will not buildup, because I�ll be wanting to use Buildup down south this turn, I think.

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 99

AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 4:22:04 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Speaking of the South, perhaps it�s time I get down there and see what�s shaking with the bridgehead�

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 100

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 4:22:53 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I wouldn�t say these results were bad, but I�m not out of the bridgehead just yet. He can�t stop me from growing, it�s just a matter of the rate my bridgehead expands. I think with about 5 infantry divisions across now, that center stack will run away (else he will be bashed next turn by said infantry), and I should still have good movement allowances in 48.Panzer units due to buildup on T7. As of this writing, I haven�t used buildup again down here; I�m thinking perhaps 3.Panzer might (2 divisions, as the motorized departed to help 11.Army further south). But the railhead is about 3 hexes from Cherkassy next turn, and so I think my supply MPs will be relatively good. /edit: In the end, I did not use Buildup in the South this turn, and saved about 11 AP at turn�s end (which is awesome given my inefficiency with APs), and that was after spending 6 or so pulling artillery assets into corps that overlooked when OKH magic-SU-zug was near enough to push for free. Oh well, that�s my inefficiency, and the magic-SU-zug is overdue for AGS.

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 101

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 4:23:50 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

End of Turn Notes:
The air war did not go my way this turn. It started out good in the north and center, but in the south, I�m outmatched. I�m going to bring forward Romanian fighters and airbases and try to stand stronger against his interceptors. The results of this turn are worse than indicated in the losses because I destroyed probably 50 aircraft on the ground when I broke through Vyazma. I�m going to have to re-arrange air assets to help the south out better, I think.

I�m curious what others think about my idea to move the FBD that is approaching Gomel instead up toward Smolensk and helping further that rail corridor, ever so slightly, headed to Moscow. Since I already have a doubled-up situation near Cherkassy (which will change once I get fully across the river, we�ll pursue separate routes), I�m leery of the added inefficiency. I could end up with a huge supply dead zone from Gomel to Kursk to Bryansk� But right now, AGC is popping, and the support there could make the difference between Moscow on turn 14 and Moscow on turn 17�
54 attacks, 11 Held results, 10 routes. I�m not attacking �enough� yet, and the winning percent dropped this turn as I pushed some limits. I still tend to force a retreat on any unit that gets a Held result, but this turn that wasn�t always possible. And my attack numbers are down also because I have maneuver available.

When I started this AAR, I set Leningrad and 3.5 million casualties as the goals. CF knows enough now to avoid major encirclements, so 3.5 mil is probably unrealistic at this point. Not enough prisoners, not enough dead at the halfway point; I doubt I can get 2 million more without a miraculous collapse. And with zero armament captured to date (because let�s face it, unless you�re playing with the exploding-rocket-trucks-button ON, you�re not getting them, and in future games I might enforce the HR of 4:1 Arm-to-Heavy mandatory rail evacuation). I�ve only used 3 or 4 buildups so far this campaign, and that is in part because I�m probably not good enough to manage that pace of advance without getting my spearheads massively cut off, it�s in part because I don�t LIKE playing that way because an exploding-rocket-truck-corridor seems highly unrealistic to me, and lastly, and not to be overlooked, to show concrete example that unless you�re spamming HQ buildup, or have a bad Soviet opponent, you�re not getting to the armaments OR the casualties, and that�s a problem for 1942, still (if you can�t get the casualties in 1941, how do you expect to get them in 1942?).

I�m probably an above-average organizer, an above-average logistician, and an average tactician. I�m probably just the �average� German player overall. And I think WitE is balanced poorly for the Average German player, and though I haven�t played Soviet since we were in 1.04, I still think the game is too easy for the average Soviet player. I think games should be balanced, at least in PvP, for the average players, not the exceptional ones, and I think there�s some problem with making the German experience compelling. I�m still waiting on more 1944 data, of course, but the idea that 1942 will be dynamic between CF and I, given the losses and armament evacuation, seems a bit unlikely for my long-term motivation.

The war could turn quickly though if I can take Moscow, but how many German players have said that only to reach the outskirts when massive reinforcements arrive in the nick of time�

Finally, can anyone explain why my fighters are generating so much fatigue?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 10/31/2011 4:24:13 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 102

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 5:03:32 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

The red army has dropped in bodies by 114,000, the first turn of down-ward pressure. In addition, the gun count has gone down 3,000. I feel this is the first indication that manpower pools are dry for the Soviet. Now the attacks should start to be more responsive to hasty attacks? Does that sound accurate? I feel this means the artillery SUs in the stronger armies will be less impactful, and damaged units will be staying damaged.

The aircraft totals bother me, but on the other hand, Germany got a good bit stronger. This is giving me early confidence that I now have a stranglehold on the initiative. But is that a false sense of security?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 103

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 5:12:23 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

Dane

I think you have a good AAR here, and I appreciate your sharing the operational thinking in detail. Two of the best Sov. aand German players made IMHO useful comments. Love to see a screen shot of the supply line RR repair progress to this date.

Rich

_____________________________

�History would be a wonderful thing � if it were only true.�

� Leo Tolstoy

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 104

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 5:23:38 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Here are the railheads (except Leningrad, which is extremely close to the city).

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 105

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 6:00:55 PM

Balou

Posts: 841
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

11th Army : Where is FBD5 or does it work in tandem with FBD1 ?

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 106

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 6:05:00 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I have had the 11.Army FBD working in concert with the original AGS FBD since Turn 2 (now both at Cherkassy area)- that's why the supply network is so close to the bridgehead. I'm convinced this is a great idea for AGS. Now I'm going to try to repeat the advantage in the center.

_____________________________

(in reply to Balou)

Post #: 107

T9 Recon Shots & Discussion - 10/31/2011 6:08:09 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

AGN area

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 108

RE: T9 Recon Shots & Discussion - 10/31/2011 6:09:16 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

AGC

PS: the down side to stacking airbases together is that it's difficult to transfer OUT (a lot of air units will obscure what you have access to transfer). It's even worse transferring air IN, since you're not asked to pick a specific airfield.

Also on T9, I had to start moving low-morale bombers to Reserve. I got a lot more air rest on the fighters by setting the most fatigued to Night missions, thus, they didn't fly much in opposition to what CF was doing. Air groups with 60 fatigue dropped to 34 between the end of my last turn and start of this turn.

Using the Night Fighter toggle enables you to rest without wasting 2 turns going back and forth to National Reserve

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 10/31/2011 6:13:27 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 109

RE: T9 Recon Shots & Discussion - 10/31/2011 6:10:16 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

AGS and the stealth-ninja Axis Minors!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 110

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 6:18:39 PM

Balou

Posts: 841
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

AGC: He seems very thin in front of AGC between Rzhew and Kaluga. Or was it sparse recon ?

RR AGS: Very much my style. One more: don't know about your intentions on the Crimea (I just seal it at the chocking points), but I always try to move Antonescu (lots of RR capacity) in the direction of Nikopol. When mud sets in, those "automatic" rail lines were always at least around Nikopol, so no problem anymore "down under".

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 111

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 6:27:01 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I come from the JamIam-school of Recon: since there's no supply block on aviation fuel, and since it's impossible to destroy the 1941 LW recon fleet in any meaningful fashion, I fly recon in the hundreds. I literally recon every other hex from north to south in several lines, and then I go back and check every forest and swamp in a remotely good path in front of my movement.

Thanks for the tip on Antonescu - I will take him there this turn.

_____________________________

(in reply to Balou)

Post #: 112

RE: AGS T8 - 10/31/2011 8:26:47 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

When I started this AAR, I set Leningrad and 3.5 million casualties as the goals. CF knows enough now to avoid major encirclements, so 3.5 mil is probably unrealistic at this point. Not enough prisoners, not enough dead at the halfway point; I doubt I can get 2 million more without a miraculous collapse. And with zero armament captured to date (because let�s face it, unless you�re playing with the exploding-rocket-trucks-button ON, you�re not getting them, and in future games I might enforce the HR of 4:1 Arm-to-Heavy mandatory rail evacuation). I�ve only used 3 or 4 buildups so far this campaign, and that is in part because I�m probably not good enough to manage that pace of advance without getting my spearheads massively cut off, it�s in part because I don�t LIKE playing that way because an exploding-rocket-truck-corridor seems highly unrealistic to me, and lastly, and not to be overlooked, to show concrete example that unless you�re spamming HQ buildup, or have a bad Soviet opponent, you�re not getting to the armaments OR the casualties, and that�s a problem for 1942, still (if you can�t get the casualties in 1941, how do you expect to get them in 1942?).

3 million is the new normal. 3.5 million is amazing or the players are not matched. Because of the need only to evac armament pts most Russian will not defend the south other then a fighting withdrawal. Also most only lightly defend Leningrad and stand fast in front of Moscow.

If as the German you don't capture at least 35ish Armament pts your in big big trouble come 43. The Red player will be able to replase all guns and tanks lost easly. Manpower will not so much, but you will see Red players attacking more with tanks instead of 100% of the time infantry corps.

Getting atleast 30 to 40ish armament pts does not requirer spamming HQ build-ups that is simply a fairtale. vs Flaviusx whos one of the best if not the best Russian I took out 32 armament pts with 8 HQ build-up in 10 turns. I got 74 in another game using only 7 HQ build-ups.

As German you must get atleast 35, 70 is a shoe in for a win and can be done.

As you have stated winning as German is much much harder then as Russian generally speaking.

You dont need much skill as russian to:

1.evac armament pts
2. Retreat east 4 to 6 hexes a turn
3. blob troops in front of Moscow.
4. Once Leningrad falls run east
5. Once armament pts are evaced from south run east.

A monkey can almost do that.

You have to really know your **** as german to get 35+ armament pts( I Still think 50 is min(54 is historical)) 3 million+ KIA and +/- Leningrad. I would say if you don't reach these goals you don't have a snowballs chance in hell. Leningrad is not end of world because you can bag far more manpower pts in the south then Leningrad is worth and almost as many as Moscow and lose next to nothing in troops.

Your just not going to get 3.5 million KIA, **** even vs so so Russians you be lucky to get 3.5 million

1.05 did help, but now with the evac and run tactics Russians are using unless you can blitzkrieg all the charts, logistic, talk and nice AAR's ect will not help come 43/44.

This is a very good AAR but until you get chaining HQ build's down your just not going to have a chance vs and average Russian player. Using on average less then 1 HQ build-up per turn is not spamming.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 10/31/2011 8:29:36 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 113

RE: AGS T8 - 11/1/2011 5:10:02 PM

Balou

Posts: 841
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

What happens to your armaments pool ?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 114

RE: AGS T8 - 11/1/2011 6:08:27 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Balou

What happens to your armaments pool ?

I'm not sure I know the answer, or if the trend is out of the ordinary. These data are not something I've tracked before. Anyone have thoughts?

Turn 9 is done. Just waiting until I get turn 10 from CF to post 9 up.

_____________________________

(in reply to Balou)

Post #: 115

RE: AGS T8 - 11/1/2011 7:17:25 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

If you dont have all AT,AA,eng,con, art, HQ,Corps ect units set to 50% TOE and have allot of units on refit your armament pts will drop like a stone.

Pioneers take allot of deaths and cost allot to repair.

I set support at 50%

All infantry at 80% and have refit turned off.

I can do this because with spearhead tactics there is very little fighting going on, mostly running. I can build up man power pools and armament pts for later in war when they are needed.

WiTe is a massive chess game and you must be thinking many many turns ahaed.

Turn 76

All my units are at 90%+ TOE and I have this in the pool.

Pelton

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 11/1/2011 7:18:18 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 116

Turn 9 Results - 11/2/2011 12:17:32 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Actual results of T9. Random Musings:
For the first part of a turn, I have a very regimented turn-start protocol.
I start by recording casualty numbers and data collection, while at the same time seeing how map positions changed.

Next, I check all air groups for fatigue and damage and decide if any need to be sent to national reserve. Then I set certain air groups, or possibly specific airbases, to Night Missions so I can keep aircraft from accidentally flying a mission and preventing, say, a ground strike or bomber air resupply mission (I like those a lot this game since the air war started going his way early).

Then I tinker in the early part of the turn, I don�t start my major combats until I�ve shored up some movement pathways. So the first combat this turn was west of Vyazma against 278 Rifle Division, which had been hit 3 times for retreats last turn. My records from its last fight show it as being attached to 19 Army, and after its last fight, it was down to 5.5K men, and 76 guns. See the screenshot:

The stats for turn 9 represent 278 Rifle�s men and guns AFTER this first combat, in which I routed it, and caused 2.3K casualties, bringing it from 9.4K men at turn start to the 7.1k after the route. What this indicates to me is that 278 Rifle received almost 4,000 replacements last turn, does that sound right?

If that�s NOT right, then I don�t know what it means: 278 Rifle had not been attacked prior to last turn, and it suffered 3 retreats. Occasionally, this chart double-counts retreats (and helds especially) when I attack a stack and get the retreat (or held) result. It�s more accurate to state my attack record as �number of divisions attacked�. The hardest part to adjusting this tracking sheet are in such circumstances where a stack of units is hit for the first time, with multiple SUs in support. It�s easier if a counter has been tracked before, because then I can do some algebra and get a closer estimate to the likely median of multiple units.

I�m reasonably sure that 278 Rifle was in stack battles last turn, and so perhaps half of that jump from 5.5K to 9.5K is the result of rounding errors in a stack attack. That still means that up to 2K Soviets joined this unit in the last turn. This is particularly remarkable because as you can see from the screenshot, 278 Rifle was in a really bad supply/replacement situation based on the Vyazma partial encirclement. It should have been in a VERY bad situation for receiving replacements�

Even if last turn�s tracking stats of 278 Rifle were off by 3,000, do you think a unit in such a position would draw 1,000 men and 20 guns in such a forward, exposed position?

Last comment on this unit: Do you think CF re-allocated it from 19 Army to 34 Army? Usually that data isn�t wrong, but some turns, including last turn, I received detailed HQ information even when a stack had multiple HQs (including the % combat value lost for being from a differing HQ). I don�t always get those data, but last turn I did.

The reason I bring this up is that we now know that the Soviet manpower pool is probably empty. If units that I�m brow-beating 3 times a turn are receiving 4K replacements at times, I�m going to be doing great soon (presumably) in terms of causing retreats and retreat casualties on units that remain near the front�

Thoughts?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 11/2/2011 12:18:14 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 117

Turn 9 Meta-Strategy Discussion - 11/2/2011 12:20:22 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Following up on that thread, the tracking helps here. The Southern Valdai Hills is where T6�s retreated divisions ran off to, at least some of them. I�m also seeing 1 or 2 new divisions that haven�t been attacked, and, in good defensive terrain are showing CVs of 8 and 9, but they�re soon to be isolated. But one of those damn airborne brigades defeated a 2-SHA (#divisions-Hasty Attack) with arty support, then went on to beat another hasty by 1 of my same divisions. It was die rolls, and apparently 5.Airborne Corps has a good leader. I�m glad that guy wasn�t leading 24.Army the last several turns� So, rather than keep banging my head, that one divisions used its last 6 MPs to deliberate attack, and it retreated. I don�t mind giving airborne brigades wins, because they�re going to be great divisions someday anyway (why fight it; if you can�t isolate them, they�re usually an easy win), but that was too much. End result is 2 of the good Rifle divisions have no hope of escaping the forming pocket.

I have to take it easy between 2.Army and 16.Army, and what elements of 9.Army will be needed around the Valdai. There aren�t going to be any encirclements here. Slowly, deliberately grinding down his defenses with deliberate attacks will get me through the hills over the next 9 turns. Army group north�s job is the siege of Leningrad, and not much else. Leningrad releases the Finns, and I will be happy to hold the Volkhov with Finns over the winter. It is purely a move to shorten the winter lines. All attacks need to be cost-effective (Leningrad notwithstanding) and aimed at making a line for winter. 16.Army will probably devote 2 corps to the siege of Leningrad in hopes of finishing that up more quickly than, say, turn 17. There are a great many pioneers in both armies.

RANDOM STRATEGY THEORY:
Let�s assume I reach 3.0 million dead/captured Soviets. Let�s assume I do little damage to armaments � say 20 or less. Let�s assume that if i do enough manpower center damage to the Soviet, I will be seeing fewer infantry corps, and more tank corps in their place. (Let aside for now the discussion on how much manpower damage constitutes �enough that rifle corps are reduced in number noticeably)

What will be the downstream effect of a Red Army with plenty of tanks, that might have lost more heavy industry than normal (given it�s presumed lack of importance to the production model).? Do tanks require more supply? Certainly more vehicles. I�m taking some time this turn to figure out from Emir Agic�s old manpower model how much manpower damage might be �significant� and the figure is going to have to include Moscow, AND the Donets region cities.

After a few minutes of reviewing Emir�s chart:

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 118

RE: Turn 9 Meta-Strategy Discussion - 11/2/2011 12:22:24 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I remember why the game give Germany some pretty hard-coded hurdles for the German to achieve historical progress on the key choke points in the Soviet Macro game: Armaments and unit counters (not even manpower, so much as counters).

My priorities need to be adjusted this turn. First priority, Leningrad, looks to be �a matter of time and pyrrhic degrees� but it will fall. AGN will return 39. & 41.Panzer (probably weakened 1 panzer division) and they are headed to Velliki Luki and the general rush toward Moscow.

Moscow, for the time being, is not the prize per se. Moscow is only useful if it doesn�t cost too much, and I feel I have a very good chance of keeping the Soviet player off-balance for 4 or 5 more turns, which should be enough to prevent strong Moscow defenses from forming. The goal will be to encircle Moscow by using the Oka river to keep Western front divided south of the Oka River, and by that method, prevent a coordinated defense of Moscow by multiple Fronts. Then, as the 2 panzer corps arrive from the North, a will either reinforce Moscow, or a drive south will move toward Tula and Orel by way of the minor rivers northwest of Orel. I�ve been working AGC to ensure the land bridges between rivers are accessible easily to me, so that future panzer operations can have good jump off points.

But the higher priority has to be the encirclement of multiple divisions, even if, as Pelton said elsewhere, it�s in 2s and 3s for the next 8 turns. Again, an encirclement depends on leverage and speed, and supply path at the rate I�m advancing. And the Moscow race is providing me decent leverage.
I have concluded over the last 2 games as Axis that these fast brigades of the Hungarians and Armor & Cav of the Romanians make a decent blocking force in the exact center of the Russian Front (east of the Pripyet). I think I�m pretty good at using brigades in interesting places. Here, if the Soviet decides he wants to try to generate some morale and some guards units by striking at these Axis Minors, he has to stick his neck out where he can be exposed from north and south. CF�s not dumb enough to do that, or at least I can�t imagine he would try. The remaining Slovakian division , a single Romanian division, and ultimately 3 divisions of 6.Army will fill in this area and press the center at the extreme limit of my supply from the AGS rail line. But I have moved up AG Antonescu in hopes it will re-allign its construction assets in trying to connect the rail from the Cherkassy line in a northward direction. AGS has also moved forward for this purpose.

In the south, high movement allowances (high 20s, low 30s, some high 30s) mean there are many options for breaking out of the bridgehead, but hard fighting to be sure. My 1.Panzer Group panzer divisions are beaten down in places. I have at least 2 panzer divisions that will need a refit turn on the rail line. So the plan will be to fight with my two tired panzer divisions of 48.Panzer, ending them on the west bank, perhaps on next turn�s railhead (not likely to have enough MPs).

/edit: THAT never happened, but read on�

I�m not sure what HQ will be doing Buildup, but they will likely be joining that one. I have 2 divisions with 150 tanks each, so they will try to break out, and probably to the north along the lines of the rivers. I�m hopeful I can occupy a wedge between these rivers, but I�m not sure how damaged, if any, the divisions in this area are.

CF has said he does not have enough APs to dig forts, and if I may credit myself anything, I do think my AGC pace is faster than he has been able to prepare for. I think perhaps he is inefficient with APs as I am.

Also, I�m committing 11.Army to the Crimea, and now. I have 2 motorized divisions attached in the army, to cover terrain and split the defense down to the sea of Azov. Then the rank & file Romanians will hold the Sea of Azov to Z-town, 17.Army will hold D-town and the Dnepr bend, and 6.Army & 1.Panzer will drive to (an unspecified location because I�m still paranoid about being spied upon). For now, my AGS efforts are contingent on how supply flows after the bridgehead breaks out (will it be allowed to go north, or will it be allowed to go east?

In the critical AGC sector, the 2 FBDs have met between Vitebsk and Smolensk. The rate of advance will be about 5 hexes a turn, so that implies about 2 turns that my spearheads are outside of buildup range. But I do have 1 core that can race both this turn and next, given it used Buildup last turn. It seems the key to using them wisely will be to set up a great advance corridor for them so they have a leap-off point for the start of next turn. I�ll have to think about which is more important: driving due east to prevent a solid line from forming, or driving southeast to keep a massive amount of reinforcements from being able to come to bear in the defense of Moscow� I don�t know what�s possible yet.

On to the Turn (remember, I always write these as I play, so you get the �thinking phase of the AAR� then I play the turn and comment on results, but I don�t post the turn until I receive a new turn from CF. I don�t think he�s cheating at all; he�d have done some things differently if he saw any of these maps in a timely manner, let alone reading my macro strategy�

_____________________________

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 119

RE: Turn 9 AGN - 11/2/2011 12:23:32 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Army Group North