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: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome)

 
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: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 7:04:47 AM   
Dinglir


Posts: 620
Joined: 3/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned.


Personally, I think most Soviet players resign way to soon.

So what if you lose Moscow and/or Leningrad? If the Germans have spent everything on HQBU's they will be poorly prepared for the winter, and you can take the fight to them then. Also remember that the "average" situation at the beginning of the winter would be the Axis having isolated Leningrad, standing at the gates of Moscow and at the Mius river in the south.

The key is to know which production levels of Armaments and Heavy industry you need to evacuate in order to carry on the fight effectively.

Of course, if the game is "Bitter End" just give up if you lose Leningrad and/or Moscow. Either city gives so much VP to the Axis that it seems to be "game over" anyway.

_____________________________

To be is to do -- Socrates
To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Do be do be do -- Frank Sinatra

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 31
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 12:44:35 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline 		The reason Soviet players lose and mise well resign is because if you lose leningrad and Moscow in 1941 the design has been fooled with so much lowering Soviet manpower that you cant recover from the manpower losses that early in the war. Think about if you lose those major cities---how much population did you also lose in the south? As they most likely got Tula, Vorozneh, Stalino, Rostov......Its the population lose you cant recover from in the long game.

Esp if you lose them by like October. As both of those cities in effect give the Soviets a division or so a turn in 1941 in manpower. So if the Germans via HQBU can isolate or take both those cities in October, not to mention all the encirclement losses but they also effectively net another Front of Soviet forces due to lack of replacements.....and thats just the effect of 1941....let alone not having Moscow in 1942......

(in reply to Dinglir)
Post #: 32
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 3:28:46 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		Spot on Dinglir, way too loose as these screenies before my T2 demonstrate. But I still think it doesn't matter much as it puts the question to the Soviet commander; do we send more units to the jaws of the meatgrinder or do we just retreat and be safe? My T2 report later, but for now the seemingly ugly situation at the start of my turn...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Dinglir)
Post #: 33
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 3:30:08 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		Beginning of T2 - Centre




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 34
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 3:31:00 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		And probably the ugliest but also the biggest potential in the South...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 35
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 3:32:14 PM   
Dinglir


Posts: 620
Joined: 3/10/2016
Status: offline 		Well, I did say people tend to surrender if they loose Leningrad and/or Moscow - not that they should play on having lost Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov. :-)

I would certainly argue that you should surrender if you have lost all four. However, I would do so because there is obviously a large gap in player capability - not because you have lost four population centers. In population, Moscow is no greater than the area from Stalino (including the cities) to the Don (some 135 pop points if I recall correctly). With 40 men pr pop point pr turn, that's about 5.000 men pr turn (or half a division) from Moscow.

Assuming relatively competent play, I believe that most players managing to take either Leningrad or Moscow would do so because they have brought resources from other areas, meaning that the German progress should fall short in those areas.

_____________________________

To be is to do -- Socrates
To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Do be do be do -- Frank Sinatra

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 36
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 7:03:31 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		In the north I managed to get across the Velikaya getting ready fro Pskov next week. And a 7 unit Zilupe pocketing. Tight enough, Dinglir?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Dinglir)
Post #: 37
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 7:08:32 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		In the Centre 3 PzG moved significantly north on the way to Vitebsk-Velikie Luki area. Without HQ BU I need to stay closer to railheads to keep good MPs. Those railheads are coming along quickest through the Baltics. The land bridge has to wait a bit. Some small pockets in the process. Also pretty secure pockets I feel.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 38
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 7:28:33 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		Then a bit of a silly move of mine into the Pripyat marshes. But there are so many units (10-15) trying to escape via there that I thought to send 29th Mot from XXXXVII Pz and 3rd Pz from XXIV Pz on a little holiday in the swamp




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 39
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 7:43:36 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		South of the Pripyat quagmire the Sluch river line was decently defended but ultimately smashed by 2PzG to perform the southern pincer of the Pripyat move and pocket another 2 para brigades.

Isolated III Pz was quickly reconnected by XIV Pz which then enabled Von Mackensen's III Pz to punch a hole in the front line at Chudnov. Then the relay stick was handed over to Das Reich and 10th Pz divisions to secure the now HUGE Lvov-Proskurov-Vinnitsa pocket. From the south 11th Pz from XXXXVIII Pz smashed through at Floreshty to complete the 'kessel'. What do you reckon, will it hold? I expect it will. If it won't then I don't see how and with what units!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 40
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 7:45:38 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		Here the southern part of that super kessel




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Psych0 -- 8/13/2017 7:46:45 PM >

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 41
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 7:57:27 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		I lost Moscow and Leningrad in first season. Plus I lost way to many units in my Leningrad debacle

Mind you it was a historical first winter, so I got Moscow back - barely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

Well, I did say people tend to surrender if they loose Leningrad and/or Moscow - not that they should play on having lost Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov. :-)

I would certainly argue that you should surrender if you have lost all four. However, I would do so because there is obviously a large gap in player capability - not because you have lost four population centers. In population, Moscow is no greater than the area from Stalino (including the cities) to the Don (some 135 pop points if I recall correctly). With 40 men pr pop point pr turn, that's about 5.000 men pr turn (or half a division) from Moscow.

Assuming relatively competent play, I believe that most players managing to take either Leningrad or Moscow would do so because they have brought resources from other areas, meaning that the German progress should fall short in those areas.



_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Dinglir)
Post #: 42
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 8:15:05 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		Its not a secret that perhaps the biggest part of the 41 advance is two basic things - capture large groups of Russian units and move fast. Although Russian units rebuild, they do so as new units, requiring many months of rebuilding experience before they are competent. The more units are destroyed, the thinner their MLR. There reaches a breaking point. Be merciless.

Russians cant counterattack into fall unless you make a huge deployment mistake - go fast!




_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 43
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 8:29:28 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		Losses this week: 22k vs 273k (half of which captured) for 26 units destroyed, 70 vs 380 planes.

AP spend:
XXXXII Kuntze replaced by Stemmermann (bit pricey 8 AP but a MUCH better leader)
XIV Pz Von Wietersheim replaced by Von Arnim (6 AP)
IX Geyer replaced by Hell (3 AP)
OKH XXIII to 4PzG (0 AP)
4PzG Tot SS Mot to Von Manstein's LVI Pz (0 AP)
1PzG LAH SS Mot to XXXXVIII Pz (0 AP) and railed to Rumania
17A 4th Mtn to LII (0 AP)
11A 22th FsJ to XI (0 AP)
11A 72th & 73rd to LIV (0 AP)
XXXXIV 9th to XVII (1 AP) + 297th to LV (1 AP) so XXXXIV commanded by fairly useless Koch is now empty
XXXXII 900 Lehr Mot reg to LVII Pz (1 AP)
XII reassigned to 3PzG (14 AP) to eliminate Guderian's CP deficit

The remaining 16 AP spent on SU - construction crews to OKH/AGN/AGC and pioneer/Stug/Hvy Art to 18A for Model's crack assault corps.

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 44
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 9:32:46 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Its not a secret that perhaps the biggest part of the 41 advance is two basic things - capture large groups of Russian units and move fast. Although Russian units rebuild, they do so as new units, requiring many months of rebuilding experience before they are competent. The more units are destroyed, the thinner their MLR. There reaches a breaking point. Be merciless.

Russians cant counterattack into fall unless you make a huge deployment mistake - go fast!





Germans can only go so far so fast even in a game with HQ buildup. Since this game isnt using HQ BU this go fast isn't going to be as fast as a normal game goes. Even if it did the Soviets knowing the supply chain limit could chain the Germans by the balls for a great deal of 41 and weigh him down with it in almost every part of the map except for the drive towards Leningrad.

By the way, Russian "can" counterattack(even without the +1). You just need to understand what to look for and how to set up. It is just sad that the Soviet casualties are crazy high until Sept. I don't really care myself of the casualties taken and attack anyway trading high casualties & fatigue, for experienced units. Normally by Sept 1 1941 I have 6+ Guard Infantry Divisions. (As can be seen I have another 23 other units that are within a win or two to being eligible for guard status too)





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 8/13/2017 9:58:58 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 45
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/13/2017 10:21:35 PM   
tyronec


Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline 		Good kessel down South, though probably only possible because of effectivly the 'free' HQBuildups from the Axis deployment - so very interesting to see how the game develops as you have to try and make pockets without it.
Hope you got some fuel to those Panzers in the swamp as if STAVKA can break their supply line well enough they could be tied up for a few wasted turns.


_____________________________

The lark, signing its chirping hymn,
Soars high above the clouds;
Meanwhile, the nightingale intones
With sweet, mellifluous sounds.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 46
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/14/2017 2:42:19 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
XII reassigned to 3PzG (14 AP) to eliminate Guderian's CP deficit


I am now a happy man

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

Then a bit of a silly move of mine into the Pripyat marshes. But there are so many units (10-15) trying to escape via there that I thought to send 29th Mot from XXXXVII Pz and 3rd Pz from XXIV Pz on a little holiday in the swamp

I do not think this is silly at all. You are sacrificing the mobility of 1 motorised unit to keep many units trapped. Perhaps I would have been satisfied just by cutting the rail line from the North and not bring the panzer from the South. Very often I have seen motorised units sitting out of fuel anyway at this stage on the Berezina - why not have them out of fuel doing something useful!

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 47
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/19/2017 2:22:07 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline 		The big pocket in the South remembers at mktours super super super lvov-pockets, which have been nerfed out. The difference here being that the soviet player here at least had the chance to run.
It will be interesting how far you can get without HQ BUs and whether your opponent can simply outrun you.

< Message edited by EwaldvonKleist -- 8/19/2017 2:44:27 PM >

_____________________________

The Library of Gary Grigsby's War in the East resources.
Do you want total war? Guide for WitE players

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 48
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/19/2017 2:37:21 PM   
ericv

 

Posts: 325
Joined: 1/21/2012
Status: offline 		Hello pelton

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 49
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/19/2017 3:20:00 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ericv

Hello pelton


For what it is worth EwaldvonKleist has been active in the past on the Eight Player Multiplayer game, which I am also involved in, and very active on the forums giving tips and advice and has produced special guides on how supply works. He is a connoisseur of the AARs and other posters, including me, and his knowledge of them does come from reading them as a third party. I think I can safely say EwaldvonKleist is here as a bona fide member of the site.

(in reply to ericv)
Post #: 50
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/19/2017 4:27:18 PM   
ericv

 

Posts: 325
Joined: 1/21/2012
Status: offline 		Obviously i am not talking about ewaldvonkleist

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 51
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/19/2017 5:14:37 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ericv

Obviously i am not talking about ewaldvonkleist



I will bite, who then? Even if it is or is not the forum has been been a much better place with whatever cameo is in place.

_____________________________


(in reply to ericv)
Post #: 52
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/19/2017 6:52:05 PM   
ericv

 

Posts: 325
Joined: 1/21/2012
Status: offline 		Psych0 who else. Why would a first time player EVER play without hq buildup. And perform this well.. Personally i never had problems with pelton. He is just like the ben finegold of this game.

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 53
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/19/2017 7:00:57 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		LOL! Thanks for the compliment ericv... I think. But wrong guess. I'm just a WITE noob, not a Eastern Front noob mate.

(in reply to ericv)
Post #: 54
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/23/2017 2:40:15 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

I don't think it will slow down the tempo so much that it doesn't feel like WW2 anymore. But that's exactly why I'd like to do this experiment. HQ BU is a ridiculous and artificial mechanism to boost the Germans operating far away from their railhead. Is that really needed? Perhaps the speed of rail conversion could be increased a little (RCC of 2 instead of 3 and max 5 hexes instead of 4?). When fighting closer to the railhead the fuel situation is pretty good and sufficient for 'kesselschlacht' warfare. But let's see, talk is cheap. Hopefully I can put it in practice.

Has this NO HQ BU not been tried before? Does anyone know the history of HQ BU? Was it originally there from the start or added later? If the latter, why exactly?

Just for discussion /.. It does give the player an option to deliver resources now at the expense of trucks and supplies to other HQ .. outside of historical arguments .. I look at these rules / features adding to the concept of a game as long as it as a decisional matrix and consequences.
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned. Like spending AP's on HQBU rather than maybe fortified positions .. or replacing leaders, shifting units, etc ..



I think you answered your own discussion point... 'no' consequences but unrealistic advantage for Germans especially in 41. In principle I love hard trade-off decisions but HQ BU is not a trade-off at all. And as Telemecus noted it closes off AP spend in other areas significantly.

With this experiment I'd like to see what the balance is like without BUs.


I think this AAR is really interesting from the point that many, if not all German players, would never consider spending AP's on fixing the OOB or focus on support units as you have documented assuming HQBU is a far more superior value. This little experiment might just change the way the German player looks at the value of AP's. Replacing X number of poor corps commanders might be worth boosting a PzCorps one turn ..but until you are exploring this it would not be considered to this extent in my opinion.


< Message edited by Crackaces -- 8/23/2017 2:46:37 PM >

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 55
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/23/2017 2:45:34 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

LOL! Thanks for the compliment ericv... I think. But wrong guess. I'm just a WITE noob, not a Eastern Front noob mate.


As I have interpreted Pelton's AAR's and his Pdf .. Pelton espoused a more conservative opening making sure of secure pockets on turn #1 ..and then aggression Pz movements on turns 2-7 Your opening did not follow that script .

Besides .. I do not believe Pelton would have submitted to no HQBU as his "right hook" strategy I thought depended on it?

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 56
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/26/2017 4:43:38 AM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		Sil01 seems to be busy so we'll just have to be patient. I could expand this AAR to another game I have going on at the moment which is going along very similar lines and has reached T3 now. Any appetite for that? So the fuel shortages will now start to show. This AAR is not so much about individual matches but about the overall experiment of NO HQ BU between newish players. As I gain experience it would be good to expand this same experiment to more experienced Soviet opponents. I expect that to be a lot tougher without HQ BU...

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 57
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/26/2017 12:33:33 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

Sil01 seems to be busy so we'll just have to be patient. I could expand this AAR to another game I have going on at the moment which is going along very similar lines and has reached T3 now. Any appetite for that? So the fuel shortages will now start to show. This AAR is not so much about individual matches but about the overall experiment of NO HQ BU between newish players. As I gain experience it would be good to expand this same experiment to more experienced Soviet opponents. I expect that to be a lot tougher without HQ BU...


I am very interested to see how this develops after the first winter. One thing to consider is at 50 AP's per turn and no more than 500 AP's saved in any one logistics phase-- can one spend enough on things other than HQBU's to offset the steady use by the Soviets ?

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 58
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/26/2017 1:56:29 PM   
Psych0


Posts: 212
Joined: 8/6/2017
Status: offline 		Good point Crackaces. At least the first 500 AP will be no probkem but after that I'm not sure. Lots of SUs, leaders and command structure to fix before winter but after that indeed probably not enough to spend on without HQ BU.

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 59
RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) - 8/26/2017 2:03:28 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

Good point Crackaces. At least the first 500 AP will be no probkem but after that I'm not sure. Lots of SUs, leaders and command structure to fix before winter but after that indeed probably not enough to spend on without HQ BU.


You can go mad building forts - although I think there is a coded limit on how many you can build.

And optimise supply - reassigning units to leave them always within a given number of hexes of HQ and/or to HQs as close as possible to supply. This is an ongoing process!

You can also do something similar to the airforce as you do to the army, swap old models to the frozen home command bases or to low experience units which will crash them in training, best aircraft to best experience units.

If you are delving into the Rumanian generals pool to get the best leaders there you will need to spend plenty of points.

And there is ongoing "maintenance" - when generals get killed/withdrawn, units arrive/leave etc/

In other words I do not think you can run out of things to spend points on - its just that there may be diminishing returns.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 8/26/2017 2:13:51 PM >

(in reply to Psych0)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.609