RE: T09

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: T09

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 2 >> After Action Reports >> RE: T09

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 5:25:46 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

That was super rapid advance from an Axis.
What is your thoughts on temp motorization and its contribution to a current result?

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/12/2022 5:26:02 PM >

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 91

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 5:37:34 PM

tyronec

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

That was super rapid advance from an Axis.
What is your thoughts on temp motorization and its contribution to a current result?

I only used 2 units of temp mot on T1, so didn't have much effect on the game. My feeling would be to have a house rule against it for any future game.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 92

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 5:56:30 PM

Rosencrantus

Posts: 318
Joined: 1/9/2021
From: Canada
Status: offline

I agree, but my own spin on temp motorisation is that it can only be used for movement/attacking from friendly held hexes as I remember that someone once said that the intention of temp mot was to represent kampfgruppe style formations. This way temp mot can be used as a quick form of transportation for admin movement without having to use trains AND to represent emergency troops being formed to rapidly respond to a crisis on the front.

My house rule is to limit this to only one unit per turn however.

I would like to hear people's thought on this as allowing temp motorisation completely is broken while banning it completely also leaves out a useful tool both players cannot use anymore.

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 93

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 6:01:48 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

I am playing without temp motorization at all. Infantry, in base case scenario, can move up to 16 hexes without any help.
16 hexes = 160 miles = 257km.
257 km / 7 days (1 turn) = 36.7 km per day
Seems reasonable.

If you want faster transfers use rails.

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/12/2022 6:02:29 PM >

(in reply to Rosencrantus)

Post #: 94

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 6:35:46 PM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus

I agree, but my own spin on temp motorisation is that it can only be used for movement/attacking from friendly held hexes as I remember that someone once said that the intention of temp mot was to represent kampfgruppe style formations. This way temp mot can be used as a quick form of transportation for admin movement without having to use trains AND to represent emergency troops being formed to rapidly respond to a crisis on the front.

My house rule is to limit this to only one unit per turn however.

I would like to hear people's thought on this as allowing temp motorisation completely is broken while banning it completely also leaves out a useful tool both players cannot use anymore.

It's pretty broken for both sides, I think. There's a reason why it got removed for the Soviets in 41. I have never felt the need to use it in 42, but if a Soviet chooses to do so without any houserules on it... That's not pretty.

I houserule it so it can only be used to move into friendly hexes: IE, no flipping hexes. Even then it's extremely strong if an axis player uses it liberally.

A short but good AAR.

(in reply to Rosencrantus)

Post #: 95

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 7:59:59 PM

tyronec

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

I agree, but my own spin on temp motorisation is that it can only be used for movement/attacking from friendly held hexes as I remember that someone once said that the intention of temp mot was to represent kampfgruppe style formations. This way temp mot can be used as a quick form of transportation for admin movement without having to use trains AND to represent emergency troops being formed to rapidly respond to a crisis on the front.

My house rule is to limit this to only one unit per turn however.

I would like to hear people's thought on this as allowing temp motorisation completely is broken while banning it completely also leaves out a useful tool both players cannot use anymore.

Even limiting it to movement within friendly hexes could have a strong effect in '41 for Axis, they could move quite a few infantry divisions up to the front on T2-3 when generally they are very short of units. Restricting to one unit a turn would probably be OK, but is kind of like saying the rule is broken so you can only use it a little bit and that is not going to unbalance the game too much.

I think it is not a great rule, a bit like para drops and long range amphib. invasions. Most players are not going to use them and so the game is going to be balanced around that. Then someone uses it and gains an advantage and it just sort of slightly spoils the game.

(in reply to RedJohn)

Post #: 96

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 8:09:22 PM

Rosencrantus

Posts: 318
Joined: 1/9/2021
From: Canada
Status: offline

The offset is the fact that Axis are usually pretty short on APs in 41, and using 3 APs (20% of the turn allotment) just to move infantry up is a cost that I think balances it out pretty well.

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 97

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 8:15:43 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

"There is no link between the two rail systems which IMO is what works best in �41."

Do you have any games, where you tried to apply such a strategy, that goes into a winter?

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/12/2022 8:16:30 PM >

(in reply to Rosencrantus)

Post #: 98

RE: T09 - 2/12/2022 10:44:32 PM

tyronec

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

Yes, more than one.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 99

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 3:17:33 AM

MSAG

Posts: 50
Joined: 10/7/2021
Status: offline

END OF HOSTILITIES
Tyronec was so kind to offer and I accepted the terms of surrender.
The game undoubtfully moves in the direction of Major Axis Victory on T18.

I would like to thank my Opponent for the game.

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 100

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 6:56:32 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

Obviously it is MSAG's and tyronec's prerogatives to end the game when they want. However, at least personally I am not 100% sure it was really over.

Yes, Leningrad was obviously totally doomed, but I have seen previous games where Germany got a big breakthrough towards Moscow like this but was not able to subsequently follow it up. If MSAG had simply deployed all his reserves to the Moscow area and also railed as many as he could have there, it might have been possible to salvage the situation.

Here is one example from a game Bread played as Soviets.

You might think that Bread would have lost Moscow, and lost the game right? Well, he actually held it and ended up winning the game.

The CVs on tyronec's units in the center in his last set of screenshots are fairly low, suggesting that he was probably a bit overextended on his logistics after that breakthrough and probably would have needed to consolidate before being able to push further, which could have (maybe) given MSAG time to re-establish the defense. Due to all the Panzers/motorized tyronec had in the north and south, he did not have that many in the center actually.

(in reply to MSAG)

Post #: 101

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 7:04:09 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Where I can read that AAR?

Someone posted a good notice some time ago.
That players tend to give up to quickly. And there are almost (at least in terms of AARs) no games where players continue to play when situation is pretty bad for them.

But I agree that tyronec and MSAG can end a game when they want. Thanks for them for this AAR.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 102

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 7:13:41 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Where I can read that AAR?

It is not from an AAR, just one of Bread's games that he did not do an AAR for.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 103

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 7:21:48 PM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Why do you have screenshots from his game? :D
Are you brothers?

P.S
You was an Axis player there?

< Message edited by Stamb -- 2/13/2022 7:22:44 PM >

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 104

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 7:26:24 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Why do you have screenshots from his game? :D
Are you brothers?

P.S
You was an Axis player there?

He sent the screenshots to me before.

I was not the Axis player, but I remembered the screenshots and asked him if he had them handy, and he sent them to me so I could include in this post.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 105

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 8:11:10 PM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Why do you have screenshots from his game? :D
Are you brothers?

P.S
You was an Axis player there?

It's not particularly relevant to this thread and since the AAR is over I'll refrain from posting again, but I have about 1000-1100 screenshots related to WITE2. I have been playing since release, and they've just accumulated.

I don't think Moscow would have fallen if MSAG had decided not to surrender, but who knows what the rest of the front would look like and whether it would be worth continuing.

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 106

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 9:47:38 PM

Sammy5IsAlive

Posts: 514
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

Obviously it is MSAG's and tyronec's prerogatives to end the game when they want. However, at least personally I am not 100% sure it was really over.

Yes, Leningrad was obviously totally doomed, but I have seen previous games where Germany got a big breakthrough towards Moscow like this but was not able to subsequently follow it up. If MSAG had simply deployed all his reserves to the Moscow area and also railed as many as he could have there, it might have been possible to salvage the situation.

Here is one example from a game Bread played as Soviets.

The CVs on tyronec's units in the center in his last set of screenshots are fairly low, suggesting that he was probably a bit overextended on his logistics after that breakthrough and probably would have needed to consolidate before being able to push further, which could have (maybe) given MSAG time to re-establish the defense. Due to all the Panzers/motorized tyronec had in the north and south, he did not have that many in the center actually.

The thing is those screenshots are from T12/T13 rather than T9 where this game was called. I think MSAG could potentially have mounted a successful 'last stand' around Moscow but only at the cost of giving up pretty much everywhere else on the map.

By my calculation for the T16 check the 'historical' 1941 cities get you to base 540VPs. Plus a guaranteed 22 bonus points for Kharkhov/Stalino/Kursk/Rostov takes the score to 562VPs. Voronezh/Ryazan/Leningrad/Tula would bring in 84VPs to take the score to 646. So that leaves 54 bonus points to get from the remaining 1941 VP locations, or just over 4 per location?

I agree with the participant's analysis that a T16 auto victory seems likely. I think if MSAG could avoid that he might also be able to hold past the Jan 42 750VP check. But I can't see it getting much further into 1942 than that.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 107

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 10:27:43 PM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

By my calculation for the T16 check the 'historical' 1941 cities get you to base 540VPs. Plus a guaranteed 22 bonus points for Kharkhov/Stalino/Kursk/Rostov takes the score to 562VPs. Voronezh/Ryazan/Leningrad/Tula would bring in 84VPs to take the score to 646. So that leaves 54 bonus points to get from the remaining 1941 VP locations, or just over 4 per location?

Ryazan for one definitely does not seem like a given. It is further than Moscow!

Tula is certainly very possible, but is normally pretty hard to take, and like with Ryazan defending Tula ggoes naturally with consolidating a Moscow defense.

Axis logistics is really bad at Voronezh in 1941, so I would not take that as a given either necessarily, though since tyronec was already to Kursk I think he could have taken it if he prioritized it. But a lot of tyronec's Panzers/regiments in the screenshots have 2 or even 1 CV, low enough that they could probably be successfully counterattacked even by some individual Soviet infantry divisions. The better question is if tyronec would actually have chosen to take Voronezh. In order for it to be worth taking for Axis, he would have to be sure that either he could hold it in winter, or else be sure that he would in fact actually take enough other cities to get sudden death victory prior to blizzard, otherwise it would be to the Soviet advantage for Axis to take Voronezh.

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)

Post #: 108

RE: T09 - 2/13/2022 11:43:25 PM

Sammy5IsAlive

Posts: 514
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

By my calculation for the T16 check the 'historical' 1941 cities get you to base 540VPs. Plus a guaranteed 22 bonus points for Kharkhov/Stalino/Kursk/Rostov takes the score to 562VPs. Voronezh/Ryazan/Leningrad/Tula would bring in 84VPs to take the score to 646. So that leaves 54 bonus points to get from the remaining 1941 VP locations, or just over 4 per location?

Ryazan for one definitely does not seem like a given. It is further than Moscow!

Tula is certainly very possible, but is normally pretty hard to take, and like with Ryazan defending Tula ggoes naturally with consolidating a Moscow defense.

Axis logistics is really bad at Voronezh in 1941, so I would not take that as a given either necessarily, though since tyronec was already to Kursk I think he could have taken it if he prioritized it. But a lot of tyronec's Panzers/regiments in the screenshots have 2 or even 1 CV, low enough that they could probably be successfully counterattacked even by some individual Soviet infantry divisions. The better question is if tyronec would actually have chosen to take Voronezh. In order for it to be worth taking for Axis, he would have to be sure that either he could hold it in winter, or else be sure that he would in fact actually take enough other cities to get sudden death victory prior to blizzard, otherwise it would be to the Soviet advantage for Axis to take Voronezh.

I'd normally agree with you on Tula/Ryazan but I think in the context of this game that area is going to be pretty hard to defend - whilst Ryazan looks further than Moscow in 'geographical' terms and is probably right at the edge of the Axis supply limits it is the wrong side of the Oka river and has pretty much unbroken terrain approaching it.

On the other hand one thing has occurred to me in terms of 'ahistorical' possibilities for the Soviets. In a game like this where Leningrad appears to be doomed the Soviets can almost completely abandon the north - the next Victory location on that front is Yaroslavl way to the east and the front line against the Finns is now off map.

(in reply to Beethoven1)

Post #: 109

RE: T09 - 2/14/2022 12:45:19 AM

Beethoven1

Posts: 754
Joined: 3/25/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

On the other hand one thing has occurred to me in terms of 'ahistorical' possibilities for the Soviets. In a game like this where Leningrad appears to be doomed the Soviets can almost completely abandon the north - the next Victory location on that front is Yaroslavl way to the east and the front line against the Finns is now off map.

Precisely, if Axis wants to walk in 1941 to Cherepovets, let them lose the trucks doing that. MSAG would have needed to keep a few screening forces blocking the Volkhov/Valdai route towards Moscow in case tyronec wanted to send his AGN Panzers along the Leningrad-Moscow double rail, but everything north of that could have been pulled away and sent to reinforce the Moscow/center area. Axis could likewise have freed up some troops, but the Axis constraint on pushing Moscow is more logistical, so freeing up troops may have helped them less since it would have simply raised supply requirements in the center. Having done that, probably at least some of the troops in the south/south-center would also needed to have gone towards Moscow, but it may even have been possible to scrape together some sort of defense somewhere else - picking one place to defend like e.g. either Voronezh or Rostov (though not both).

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)

Post #: 110