RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns

RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> After Action Reports

Message

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/15/2009 6:07:23 PM)
I´m not sure George "forgot" to move the fighter group back. I think he simply didn´t expect i would "see" them and be able to break thru the front to destroy them. But when i realized these unguarded airfield i did my best to overrun it. Was like a great offer while shopping [:D] . Some little guards (10-20 rifle) could have safed them. Then, i produced a lot of Bazookas, but more early in the game for defending Smolensk area especially. But to be honest i prefer AT guns. MG, Bazooka are dying too fast. Most of the time i wasn´t able to produce what i wanted since i simply had not the production to produce all i needed. Especially the buildup of the red airforce was a handicap here. Kept a lot of capacities busy. But without my planes i would have lost VERY early that´s sure. But analyzing my mistakes you were right. At Leningrad i wasted forces and planes when George attacked. I started the real fight way too late in the south. Think i could have prevented George from taking Baku at least. But he attacked great here and cutted my N/S connection which made things difficult. Moved my planes too late to the south. Kept them 5-6 turns near Riga just to support that attack. BUT i did not know the area was free of enemy planes.....Not enough recon. Mortars i started to produce when i had the capacities left and when i started to attack myself [;)] George did a great job in keeping his forces strong especially in the south i fought most of the time high XP units with superior equipment. There was not much i was able to do at this time. Imho the mistake which costed George the game was his use of air power. He never aimed for hitting my planes really hard. Never tried to knock my planes out of the fight. Most of the time he had similar air power or he was stronger, but the fighters were too spreaded. I would have used his planes totally different, more concentrated. And more focussed on destroying the red airforce...air superiority. But probably he would have won with his strategy of spreaded planes without losing the 40+ Stalingrad fighters. We both made some mistakes, but only due to these mistakes we were able to deliver the full 60 turns [:)]

Widell -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/16/2009 5:59:17 PM)
And in hindsight, "mistakes" are abundant in real history as well, so I guess these events can be written off as things that could well have occured in a real life war as well. Really enjoy to read the AAR and the analytical discussion afterwards as well. This should be mandatory reading for new AT players [;)]

george1972 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/16/2009 11:10:54 PM)
First of all I would like to thank Seille for this great game. Although I lost the war, at least the scenario gave me a "pat on the back" for "holding out so long" [:D] Grymme's analysis of the game's major turning points are spot-on, so my version of the story will sound pretty similar. In essence, I think a properly handled Wehrmacht can win this scenario, although it isn't easy to do and it will take a certain amount of luck to pull it off. As the Germans I was constantly aware of the huge production deficit in the game. I also have great respect for Seille as a player since he knows this game inside out. This made me a little too careful during the opening phase of the campaign. During the first battle of Smolensk in 1941 I didn't have a clue that he was pouring everything into that battle and the other fronts were hardly covered, especially the Ukraine. I think I had a real possibility to win that battle if I had persevered, diverted troops from AG North sooner or even sent AG South towards Moscow after the fall of Kiev. But the mounting losses on my side scared me into a defensive posture too soon. And after the winter air attack I completely lost confidence in my chances for a complete victory. Sevastopol also was a clear mistake on my side. Although it didn't contribute too much to the Russian war machine, it nevertheless produced for them for 50 turns, where I could probably have taken it after 10 turns. 200,000 production points thus went to the Russians when in my hands they could have made the difference during the later stages of the campaign. The winter of '41-'42 I think I handled pretty well, opting to pull back to avoid losses costing me a lot of territory, but ultimately giving me a strong and experienced army. The only regrettable accident was the near-loss of the Romanian Army Group during the last winter turn, which cost me a lot of troops and not to forget a lot of time to correct, which prevented me from having better starting positions during the subsequent Summer Offensive. Although seemingly a small incident, had I prevented this from happening, I might have gotten into the Caucasus much sooner than I did in the end. The Leningrad offensive which culminated in the capture of the city was a nice "side-show" but essentially a waste of resources. The city itself didn't produce enough to make a real difference and the terrain beyond the city made any further advances of mechanized forces against an abundance of infantry a futile proposition. Although I managed to destroy a lot of Soviet troops and equipment in those battles, strategically I think it was a mistake. The key to winning as the Germans in this game is capturing and securing a major production center BEFORE 1943. As Seille already commented during the game, had I captured Baku a few turns earlier, the outcome of the war may well have been very different. I realized too late the possibilities in the South-East and became embroiled in bitter fighting for Maikop and the approaches to Baku which took precious time and a lot of casualties. It also allowed Seille to exploit his growing numbers near Leningrad and recapture the city, knocking the Finns out of the war and pushing AG North back all the way to Riga. When 1943 arrived, I still had a smaller army and less production then Seille, the only thing he had to do know was to keep losses to a minimum and let his production give him an overwhelming superiority on the ground and the game was over. Lucky for me and you, the reader, he wasted his surplus production in futile attempts to fight the Romanians to a halt in the steppe between Don and Volga. After he overran my airfield in the Don Bend I knew the game was over. Despite this, I managed to trick him once more in believing he was vulnerable by inflicting the greatest casualties since the start of the campaign. But after his "retreat" in the steppe, things started to finally work out for his Russians and the rest is essentially history. My handling of the air war was without a doubt in my mind THE biggest mistake in the game. After the first setback I never again tried to take on the Red Air Force, since I expected Seille to have embarked on a fighter production spree just as ambitious as mine. I was very surprised when making the force overviews that I outnumbered his air force in fighters in mid-1943. It's too bad I was too lazy to make my own "force overviews" during the battle with available intelligence information. It is just too tedious to do, but perhaps I would have noticed the lack of growing Soviet fighter strength in '42 and the reason for it being the abundance of infantry produced on his side. As for Seille's tactics employed during the game, I must say they were very effective. His primary unit was simple infantry but lots of them. He also didn't create any "super-units" just many and many "average" units. Losing one of them was never a problem, where every time I lost a high-valued unit to his concentric "150 infantry and 2 tanks" counter-attacks I threw up my hands in despair and went "It's not fair! This isn't how it happened in the real war!". His tactics prevented me from executing anything like the historical "kessel-schlachten" simply because even a strong unit will still be thrown back when attacked by masses of infantry from 2 opposite sides. The battle of Smolensk in the late summer of '41 taught me these kind of tactics don't work here. You just need to butcher your way through endless lines of troops and hope they don't have enough readiness left to hit you back, because if they do, your "spearhead" will be dead. Due to this my overall tactic in the game changed to Nimitz' tactic of "hit'em where they ain't". Every time I got stuck somewhere, I dug in and started pushing someplace else. I hardly ever decisively defeated any major Russian concentration that way, but Seille was forced to fight me with new recruits without proper support and they suffered terrible losses in consequence. In the fighting towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus in '42 en '43 I took tremendous risks by leaving a practically open flank in the Ukraine. If Seille had sent off a few good units from his Smolensk Front supported by his big air group towards Gomel and Kiev, I would never have come close to Baku. Fortunately, I had gotten a good impression of his overall playing style even during the previous games I lost big-time to him. As he said himself, he doesn't "gamble" and attacking towards the Germans so soon after they beat him back beyond Kursk looked like one. Of course this didn't keep him fooled for long, but long enough to keep the initiative in the South a little longer and take Baku. All in all, Seille's the toughest player I've met playing AT and although "officially" I won (thanks to Tom for putting in that outcome after 60 turns) I still don't have the idea I've ever beaten him.

george1972 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 12:06:23 AM)
Finally I would like to sum up some of the "issues" I encountered with AT's engine when simulating this campaign specifically. Again I would like to say beforehand that no, I'm not saying this is bad game, just that there's a little room for improvement [;)] First and foremost on my mind is of course the often-mentioned concentric bonus for attackers. I agree this keeps the game "fluid" but it also means that the only way to fight defensive battles while preserving your army in the field is to run away in the face of a superior enemy. Fortifications help a little, but they get destroyed way too easily by only a handful of artillery in a very short amount of time. If that was realistic, then World War I would have played out very differently. (The funny thing is, the Great War scenario starts out with exactly the correct "feel" to it until you research Artillery II and Tanks, after which it suddenly becomes a mobile war because the defenders are simply too weak to hold off attacks). As said earlier, in my opinion a bonus should only apply if all pieces of the puzzle fit together for a coordinated attack: high staff experience and enough of them to command their units, high morale, high mobility and lots of firepower. The Russian Front is the place where "mobile defense" was practiced for the first time and the history books are full of occasions where smaller better trained and led German units fought off overwhelming enemy numbers because of the Russian lack of coordination and tactical skill. Unfortunately, the tactical combat simulator doesn't seem to take this into account. This also explains why the Wehrmacht "melts away" during the last few turns of the game. There is no way a smaller force can hold back a larger one, no matter what terrain they are in. Perhaps putting in defensive artillery fire would even the odds a bit (as they had in the good ol' "Panzer General". Attacking a fortified position sickened you in that game because you knew you were gonna take some serious casualties from those damned arty you couldn't bomb because of all the AAA surrounding it...) There are some minor issues compared to the previous one, but still annoying: Destroying an HQ has no effect on the units it commands, they are 100% effective on their turn. Obvious bug in the engine in my opinion. If transferring to a new HQ costs you 50% readiness in peace-time conditions, then having your HQ being overrun by the enemy should have at least the same consequences to the subordinate units if not more. In my opinion it should cause a morale loss as well as not allowing the unit to add to a concentric attack bonus while not attached to a HQ. There seems to be no stacking limit for air forces... (Or I missed it...) Putting it in would prevent the "mega-air-groups" from forming and forcing you to build more airfields and spread out your air power. A little more realistic in my eyes. The stacking limit for ground forces seems to be a bit harsh, again favoring the attacker by penalizing the defender for putting a lot of troops in the front line. In my opinion, cities and fortifications should have the ability to house more troops than other terrain types. After all, they were built to house troops and allow them to fight effectively in limited space and deny this ability to the attacker. Desperate house-to-house or trench-to-trench fighting with high losses for the attackers never happens in AT. The "burn rate" for troops in the field seems a little high, troops melt away rather fast, this is a basic feeling I have, no real empirical evidence. Nevertheless, AT still is the most complete war gaming engine out there, don't get me wrong. The most brilliant "invention" I think are the staff, they are a crucial element of warfare but this is the first game I've seen them being so explicitly a part of game play.

henri51 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 12:07:12 AM)
Very very interesting AAR, and congratulations to both players for a very interesting game and a grand AAR. This game illustrates very well the importance of intelligence in warfare and in this scenario with FOW. It is clear that if either player would have had unlimited intelligence about what the other was doing all the time, he would have easily won, because the "failures" in both cases were due to lack of intelligence or misconceptions about the opponent's strength, dispositions and plans. The AAR also illustrates the importance on knowing the possibilities of the units. Apparently Blitzkrieg tactics don't work as well as they did in real life, since according to George, massed infantry can stop the exploitation of breakthroughs. Maybe this can be corrected to some extent by giving a shorter leash to HQ units, making it more likely that they would be overrun by exploiting units. Or perhaps by increasing the penalty for lack of experience? Or maybe Soviet units should have almost ho HQs at all in 1941 to reflect the combined effect of the 1937 purges and of bad orders. Apparently the game also favors huge concentrations of air power - I don't know how realistic this is, but it is worth noting. This version of the scenario may not give sufficient penalty to the Germans in the first Winter, which really ground the German War machine to a halt. Later versions may have corrected this to some extent.However making this penalty much more severe might unbalance the game in favor of the Soviets, unless some other compensation was added (such as a higher penalty to Soviet units in 1941 to reflect the Stalin "not one step back" orders). A great scenario, and one which is worth the game by itself. Henri

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 9:57:17 AM)
In most points i agree with George looking at the problems especially the high concentric bonus and also the stack point limit for ground units. Sometimes i really won battles against german monster units (for example a huge SS unit close to Sevastopol) just by attacking from 3 directions with often infantry only. I used often green troops in these attacks and i won under high losses the battles. IMHO a very small downtuning to the concentric bonus would be good, but a VERY small. In addition i think it would be good to increase the stack point limit for fortifications and cities to 150. For air war i must also agree with George. There could be a stacking limit, but i fear this could completely screw the air war since if the enemy defends with flak and fighters he´ll wipe out any attackers too easily. At the other hand i just ask myself if the air war wasn´t handled my way in reality. Just read a book about d-day and how thousands of allied bombers broke off small corridor in the german lines by carpets destroying everything. Whole divisions were eliminated this way. Very high concentrations of air attack power against a few kilometers of front line. Looking at the game i think a player using his air force in bigger concentrated attacks already get a "penalty" cause he can hit only a limited amount of targets while the player with more spreaded air units can always hit more targets, kill more tanks/artillery. As long as there are no enemy planes... In air war in this game the players must search for a decision and try to be on the level of the enemy air force or above. You simply should not fall below the enemies level too much. If you do and the other player knows he´ll not stop attacking you. Then it´s time to mass produce planes. @henri51 The winter penalty for Germany in first winter is definitely realistic. Germany can still go back a bit to save the troops. If George wouldn´t have done that he would have lost early. But he handled that very well (except his air attack...) and kept his forces in good shape. COMPENSATION: Germany get the same bonus in 1942 for 3 turns. And this in good weather ! Is this not enough compensation ? The german 1942 bonus can finnish off the russian army. At least Germany will get back any terrain lost in winter 41/42. The chances for the russians are LOW to win against a experienced german player attacking without bigger mistakes. Herman, writer of "Blitzkrieg Staff Academy For Pacifists" kicked my russians out of the game in 1941 when he destroyed my Smolensk HQ and surrounded my complete center defense. I had to surrender in turn 4 or 5.... Just a example how such a game can go. BUT: If Germany can´t win before 1943 things might become difficult due to the increased russian production. Without that additional production i would have lost that´s sure. Btw, most guy´s i played said Germany always wins this scenario. The easier part... That´s why i prefer to play the russians. Imho the scenario setup is balanced except some little things George and i mentioned ("weather start", concentric bonus, stacking point limit and so on) and to win for both players if on the same level. George and I, we´re on a similar level that´s why the game was so close and found no clear winner. One of the best and most challenging games i played so far [:)] I have to thank George for this game and that he never stopped fighting even in difficult periods of the game.

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 10:11:32 AM)
@George Burn rate: Don´t judge this looking at my greenhorns dying to your Romanians. We both know it was a mistake. Not the right armamament, no XP, no support, no entrenchment on my side. A mistake to send them into fire that early. I think the most losses were caused by the artillery. Not in kills, but in preparing the attacks by reducing readiness a lot. That´s why i lost so much infantry most of the time against very low german losses during their own ground attacks. In future game i´ll play with a house rule btw. No strategic movement after combat ! This was a annoying thing for me and completely unrealistic. Imho the game should not allow any strategic movement after fighting. Long time ago i suggested a imho VERY good way to move artillery out after firing. A AP reserve to set for a unit. This way you limit the attack rounds and keep enough AP to move the unit out (normal movement) after fighting. Then the player would pay with limited attack power. Unfortunately Vic did not like the idea so much. I think a little list of house rules could make things more fair for both players.

JJKettunen -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 11:54:17 AM)
quote: Just read a book about d-day and how thousands of allied bombers broke off small corridor in the german lines by carpets destroying everything. Whole divisions were eliminated this way. Very high concentrations of air attack power against a few kilometers of front line. Not true. Only during the start of operation Cobra did the Allies use concentrated carpet bombing against a German division (Lehr). While it must have been a mentally shocking experience (the German commander exaggerating the effects in his post-war memoirs), it didn't wipe out the division, and caused casualties to Allied ground troops too. The method was never used again. During WWII whole divisions were never ever eliminated by air power alone. (Great ARR, btw! [:)])

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 12:29:48 PM)
Panzer Lehr was hit this way, but other divisions, too. It was the case for a limited time only, but it happened. After that kind of bombardment there were survivors left, but the division did not longer exist as a combat unit. Air power was often decisive for the ground operations. During Citadell single german tank divisions lost most of their tanks and armored vehicles during a few hours of attacks. Similar effect. Their strength was gone. I just wanted to point out that there are aspects for and against these very high plane concentrations in AT. And any changes here could easily screw the game balance.

JJKettunen -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 1:27:41 PM)
No, no, no, there are several studies showing how limited the effects of air power actually was for the combat units. For example the tank killing capabilities were often wildly exaggerated by air pilots and commanders for obvious reasons. Limiting movement and supply (soft targets) was their real strength. Anyway, stack limits for air units are the very basics for boardgames/boardgame-related computer games of this sort.

82ndtrooper -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 9:30:46 PM)
while I agree that whole divisions where never destroyed by airpower alone they where crippled however, both in strength and mobility. ESPECIALLY mobility. the german armor columns where mauled so badly that they where reduced to moving only at night. If they had tried to continue moving during daylight hours whole divisions would have been eliminated , it was only this tactic that saved them from destruction by airpower. But this wasnt due to carpet bombing it was due to air patrols and ground support/attack aircraft. Its a mistake to think that you have to destroy the tanks in an armored division to destroy the division. This isnt the case at all, all you have to do is destroy the support for the tanks to destroy the division. The majority of a armored division handles ammo,fuel,food,medical etc.... eliminate this and you destroy the division. so to claim that air power was ineffective because they didnt kill many tanks is false.

BK6583 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 10:01:04 PM)
I would certainly like to strongly chime in regarding some mechanism to allow arty to save enough APs to 'scoot' out of harms way.

BK6583 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/17/2009 10:29:26 PM)
A second strong endorsement for some type of limitation on the advantage of attacking from multiple locations. I've had to institute a house rule that the Soviets can't laubch attacks from multiple locations at least for the first year. David Glanz's books make it clear that the Soviets failed dismally every time they tried any large scale coordinated attacks. Right now as the German player I'm finding myself risk averse as the Soviets are capable of launching these types of attacks and rather effectively at that (particularly with the large number of infantry they can produce).

JJKettunen -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/18/2009 11:22:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper while I agree that whole divisions where never destroyed by airpower alone they where crippled however, both in strength and mobility. ESPECIALLY mobility. the german armor columns where mauled so badly that they where reduced to moving only at night. If they had tried to continue moving during daylight hours whole divisions would have been eliminated , it was only this tactic that saved them from destruction by airpower. But this wasnt due to carpet bombing it was due to air patrols and ground support/attack aircraft. Its a mistake to think that you have to destroy the tanks in an armored division to destroy the division. This isnt the case at all, all you have to do is destroy the support for the tanks to destroy the division. The majority of a armored division handles ammo,fuel,food,medical etc.... eliminate this and you destroy the division. so to claim that air power was ineffective because they didnt kill many tanks is false. I recommend Zetterling's "Normandy 1944" (Chapter "The Effects of Allied Air Power") for starters before moving to heavier stuff (Gooderson etc.) regarding how the effects of air power have been traditionally exaggerated, regarding both tank killing and supply crippling capabilities. Nobody's claiming that air power was ineffective, but its true effects were more indirect in nature.

Widell -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/18/2009 11:03:18 PM)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again (without getting into the historical debate reg. what was/wasn't hit by air attacks): Air attacks kill too many ground units in the vanilla master. Air, and to a large extent also arty, should reduce readiness and prepare for infantry and armour. I have been working on introducing air units with these changes in a few scenarios I'm working on, but it's very slow due to real life based time constraints. For those wanting to have a look, check the sandbox and the "Modified third reich" which has these modded air units in the game. http://www.advancedtactics.org/scenario.php?nr=55 I like the results so far, but has only play tested in very limited settings.

rominet -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/19/2009 6:19:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Widell I've said it before, and I'll say it again (without getting into the historical debate reg. what was/wasn't hit by air attacks): Air attacks kill too many ground units in the vanilla master. Air, and to a large extent also arty, should reduce readiness and prepare for infantry and armour. I have been working on introducing air units with these changes in a few scenarios I'm working on, but it's very slow due to real life based time constraints. For those wanting to have a look, check the sandbox and the "Modified third reich" which has these modded air units in the game. http://www.advancedtactics.org/scenario.php?nr=55 I like the results so far, but has only play tested in very limited settings. Hi i have tested your scenario a couple of turn and i greatly appreciate the work you made about aviation and artillery. This time they don't really destroy SF but rather disrupt them. I completely agree with the fact that with most AT's scenarii, aviation and artillery are too effective. I am at that moment finishing a game on GPW in the south. I am the russian. I made use of 2 technics: * first, the attack/withdraw technic which consists of making normal attack (in fact, counter-attack on german units nearer my front) and after, if my units are exposed, i make strategical withdraw with a great LANDCAP. I have already speaken of that here and i consider it completely unrealistic. But the game allows it. * second, following Grymme's advice, i managed to reach air superiority and i made great use of both aviation and (famous) russian artillery. Indeed, to my opinion, the scenario is not well balanced and the Wehrmacht is too weak but if you want to have an idea what it gives, i suggest you to have a look of our AAR. Balder and i, we are french so ours AAR are in french but there are a lot of maps easily understandable by everyone. (In fact, i supposed it is the case for Balder's one as i don't have the right to read it yet[:D]) Here is Balder's AAR: http://forum.jeux-strategie.com/index.php?showtopic=60483 Here is mine: http://forum.jeux-strategie.com/index.php?showtopic=60750 The conclusion is clear: the results is unrealistic.[;)] So, when i will have enough time, i will take care of your scenario and see if it is possible to adapt it to GPW scenario. When this game will be over (a couple of turn[:'(]), i am going to begin a Russia 41 game but with some HR: the reason is that this scenario is not modifiable [:@] 1) First, i want to balance again the ratio Attack/Defense and to give defense a better chance. And i want a greater dispersion of aviation. So, considering that there are 3 units type: ground units (including combat units and HQ units), air units, naval unit: NO MORE THAN 1 UNIT PER TYPE PER HEX NO MORE THAN 100 SF PER HQ UNIT NO MORE THAN 50 SF PER COMBAT UNIT NO MORE THAN 10 SF PER AIR UNIT NO MORE THAN 5 SF PER NAVAL UNIT 2) Second, to avoid the Attack/withdraw technic, NO STRATEGICAL DEPLACEMENT (of a whole unit or of SF) FOR A COMBAT UNIT WHICH HAS ALREADY MADE TACTICAL MOVEMENT DURING THE TURN I hope this will give better results. Well, to conclude, this post is not a criticism of great "Georges and Seille" game and AAR (which gives me the wish to buy this game and i don't regret it[:)]) but just a try forwards realism.

henri51 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/19/2009 1:33:52 PM)
I am not sure if it unbalances the game or not, but it is well known that artillery killed more soldiers in WW2 than any other arm (I don't know whether or not artillery kills includes mortars).Accounts of Soviet artillery attacks on the late Eastern front make it clear that artillery did a lot more than disrupt enemy units. An interesting idea might be to implement counter-battery fire, that is any artillery unit firing would become visible to the enemy, who could than fire back at it with his own artillery. In scenarios with the 2-hex artillery range, this would not work unless ****er-battery fire was increased to 3 hexes. Another idea could be to let the computer figure out the counter-battery fire, that is when an artillery unit fires, it takes damage depending on how many enemy artillery units are within a certain range. Just an idea to munch.... I do agree that (at least in the WaW scenario), there should be a limit on stacking of air units (armies never put most of their air units in a single air base - even during the Battle of Britain that took place over a relatively small area). This is a manifestation of the famous "killer stack syndrome". However I am not sure that not allowing air units to stack with ground units is a good idea-how would the aircraft be protected? - the weakest unit could waltz in and destroy any air force near the front.If that rule were implemented, then air power should be given some intrinsic protection against ground units, after all, airfields near the front were not left totally unprotected. Anyway if killer stacks are not allowed for ground units, I don't know why they should be allowed for air units. Henri

JJKettunen -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/19/2009 4:17:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 I am not sure if it unbalances the game or not, but it is well known that artillery killed more soldiers in WW2 than any other arm (I don't know whether or not artillery kills includes mortars). True. Artillery (of all types) was responsible for 60-80% of all casualties during WWII. Truly the god of war.

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/19/2009 9:16:11 PM)
@henri When we talk about stacking we talk about having all the planes at a single base. BUT: If i put them at lets say 4 different airfields close to eachother and use all planes together for a concentrated ground attack i should get no penalty. A max number of planes per airfield would have been a good idea. Jesus, why i did not have this idea while alpha testing ? small airfield : max 10 planes medium airfield: max 20 planes Above overstacking penalty in attack and defense. But now it´s too late for things like this (maybe a idea for a new game, Vic ? :-) )

henri51 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/19/2009 10:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seille @henri When we talk about stacking we talk about having all the planes at a single base. BUT: If i put them at lets say 4 different airfields close to eachother and use all planes together for a concentrated ground attack i should get no penalty. I fully agree[:D] Henri

Widell -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/19/2009 11:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keke quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 I am not sure if it unbalances the game or not, but it is well known that artillery killed more soldiers in WW2 than any other arm (I don't know whether or not artillery kills includes mortars). True. Artillery (of all types) was responsible for 60-80% of all casualties during WWII. Truly the god of war. I can of course not disagree with these facts from reality, but the question now becomes one of implementation in a game/simulation. I also want to say I may have been overstating the de-nerfing I did for arty compared to air. I only propose minor reductions in artillery efficiency to avoid seeing complete formations wiped out in single artillery attacks, while I did significant changes to the air efficiency and kind of liked the result from the initial testing. It would also be interesting to see some further details to the 60-80% casualty rates you mention. How many of these were the results of Kesselschlachts on the East front of immensely condensed arty attacks on limited areas in the Pac? How many came from massive preparatory arty strikes on poorly dug in German forces on the collapsing East front etc. Not saying the stats are wrong, only to put them in context of the arty attacks that are possible in different AT scenarios. For example: A large scale East Front scenario needs arty with a high kill ratio while, for example, a Guadalcanal scenario cannot have that as it would make the arty more important that it actually was in that campaign (again, not saying it was not important and did not kill many soldiers, only that it can't wipe out entire formations in sort of an über mode in such a setting). The good news is that the editor allows for this kind of tweaks and optimization of scenarios.

JJKettunen -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/20/2009 12:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Widell I can of course not disagree with these facts from reality, but the question now becomes one of implementation in a game/simulation. I also want to say I may have been overstating the de-nerfing I did for arty compared to air. I only propose minor reductions in artillery efficiency to avoid seeing complete formations wiped out in single artillery attacks, while I did significant changes to the air efficiency and kind of liked the result from the initial testing. It would also be interesting to see some further details to the 60-80% casualty rates you mention. How many of these were the results of Kesselschlachts on the East front of immensely condensed arty attacks on limited areas in the Pac? How many came from massive preparatory arty strikes on poorly dug in German forces on the collapsing East front etc. Not saying the stats are wrong, only to put them in context of the arty attacks that are possible in different AT scenarios. For example: A large scale East Front scenario needs arty with a high kill ratio while, for example, a Guadalcanal scenario cannot have that as it would make the arty more important that it actually was in that campaign (again, not saying it was not important and did not kill many soldiers, only that it can't wipe out entire formations in sort of an über mode in such a setting). The good news is that the editor allows for this kind of tweaks and optimization of scenarios. By the sounds of it, I think you are on the right course with your tweaks. One should keep in mind that against well prepared defences, arty's effectiveness was more indirect (and less deadly) in nature. IIRC, those casualty percentages are an estimation from all the fronts, the highest numbers coming from North Africa (obviously most chances to catch troops out in the open there).

Vic -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/21/2009 2:51:35 PM)
Thanks for all the great feedback overall in this AAR and its conclusion, guys! First of all in the next title (will give some more news in a few months) i am adding options to scenario designers to make defense and delaying tactics feasible in actual gameplay. quote: ORIGINAL: george1972 Destroying an HQ has no effect on the units it commands, they are 100% effective on their turn. Obvious bug in the engine in my opinion. If transferring to a new HQ costs you 50% readiness in peace-time conditions, then having your HQ being overrun by the enemy should have at least the same consequences to the subordinate units if not more. In my opinion it should cause a morale loss as well as not allowing the unit to add to a concentric attack bonus while not attached to a HQ. Destroying a HQ causes the units of the HQ to no longer receive staff bonus in comabt. This can easily weaken them by 50-100% in your scenario. In the next turn if the enemy re-assigns a HQ to the HQ-less units, it will cause a readiness bonus. I made a not of the concentric attack bonus for units not attached to a HQ (it should be half the bonus) quote: There seems to be no stacking limit for air forces... (Or I missed it...) Putting it in would prevent the "mega-air-groups" from forming and forcing you to build more airfields and spread out your air power. A little more realistic in my eyes. I'll consider this quote: The stacking limit for ground forces seems to be a bit harsh, again favoring the attacker by penalizing the defender for putting a lot of troops in the front line. In my opinion, cities and fortifications should have the ability to house more troops than other terrain types. After all, they were built to house troops and allow them to fight effectively in limited space and deny this ability to the attacker. Desperate house-to-house or trench-to-trench fighting with high losses for the attackers never happens in AT. I'll consider this too. quote: The "burn rate" for troops in the field seems a little high, troops melt away rather fast, this is a basic feeling I have, no real empirical evidence. Yeah.. but thats not really an engine issue. You can fix this by for example multiplying all hitpoints of all SFtypes by 2 or 3. kind regards, Vic

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/21/2009 2:52:41 PM)
Any other AAR-related questions/comments ? If not i want to thank George and all the faithful readers of this AAR. You kept me motivated to continue this. But to be honest now i´m happy all the work is over [;)]

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/21/2009 3:28:54 PM)
Sounds good Vic. I think a few basic problems/weakness has been discovered here. If you rework the air overstacking pls allow bigger number of planes in the attacked hex. A impact for overstacking should only be used when the airfield the planes started from was overstacked. Means i can still use bigger number of planes on one hex without penalty when they came from different airfields. To limit the number of attacking planes in general would be no good solution since the defender would have a ultimate advantage in most cases using fighters (with 25% bonus) and flak for air defense. Imho divebomber would start to be useless then. Successful air defense would be too easy.

george1972 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/21/2009 6:37:27 PM)
quote: Destroying a HQ causes the units of the HQ to no longer receive staff bonus in comabt. This can easily weaken them by 50-100% in your scenario. In the next turn if the enemy re-assigns a HQ to the HQ-less units, it will cause a readiness bonus. I made a not of the concentric attack bonus for units not attached to a HQ (it should be half the bonus) Yes, this is true, but the readiness hit happens after you assign them to a new HQ. In this specific case, Seille first attacked with 100% readiness, then assigned them to a new HQ and took a readiness hit to his "post-attack" readiness, which was far smaller. So yes, he suffered a handicap but a far smaller one than originally intended (I think). Maybe putting in a "HQ-changed" check after each player's turn would solve this problem, although... it might cause a dual readiness hit if you're not careful (speaking as a programmer who knows where bugs can come from). But, these are all minor quirks in an already great game which I will be playing even if they are not addressed. I would like to thank Vic for making the game, Seille for this great match and of course our wonderful audience who pushed us on to keep writing this mammoth AAR. And now... let's play!!

Vic -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/21/2009 6:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seille Sounds good Vic. I think a few basic problems/weakness has been discovered here. If you rework the air overstacking pls allow bigger number of planes in the attacked hex. A impact for overstacking should only be used when the airfield the planes started from was overstacked. Means i can still use bigger number of planes on one hex without penalty when they came from different airfields. To limit the number of attacking planes in general would be no good solution since the defender would have a ultimate advantage in most cases using fighters (with 25% bonus) and flak for air defense. Imho divebomber would start to be useless then. Successful air defense would be too easy. I think that would be the best way. It also avoids involuntary overstacks with auto intercepts.

LazyBoy -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/22/2009 8:32:10 AM)
Really interesting comments. I am just adding my Thanks for this game and AAR, well done guys[:)]

george1972 -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/22/2009 5:52:47 PM)
By the way, there's one issue I forgot to mention that might have influenced the campaign a little bit: as far as I can tell, my U-Boats did not sink a single ship from the convoys headed for Russia. Not one. Now of course this is random generated, so I cannot complain or anything, but luck was not on my side in this matter. Had my U-boat captains manage to score a few hits during some of the crucial phases of the campaign, things might have turned out differently... (I just love "what-if" stories...)

seille -> RE: George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns (2/22/2009 6:07:17 PM)
This bad luck was egalized by the more R&D events you got especially in the hot phase of the game. I had no fighter III and i was forced to PRODUCE my PP´s to egalize your rifle III advantage [;)] Usually the sub event happens a few times per game, but i wouldn´t call it decisive. Only little annoying when it happens in VERY early game.

Page: << < prev 19 20 21 [22] 23 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984375