RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR

RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports

Message

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 2:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Jaeger OK - not a crisis, but maybe a surprise. These attacks knocked back back not just single Rumaninian or Italian units, but stacks, one of which (the most Northerly) included a German inf. division. Another included driving back back one unit, then the stack that was behind this. The Russian units don't seem that numerous, and the minor axis stacks aren't that weak, are they? Havve you seen the combat reports? Do they shed any light on this outcome - my guess is armour attacking with only weak AT defence? S There is a bug with the reporting of those attacks that may have affected the outcome. Will try to reproduce it to get it fixed.

JJKettunen -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 2:48:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: Keke [That doesn't sound right. Quickly glancing through my sources, there were 6 Soviet divisions against 5 Finnish divisions at Karelian Isthmus on 9th of September 1941, when the Finns dug in there, and 4 Soviet divisions and 1 brigade against 4 Finnish and 1 German divisions at Syväri on October-January. The game doesn't cover other Finnish fronts. It is obviously a serious game design issue, if the Soviets can use only 10% of the size of the Finnish forces to tie them down... The Finnish No Attack line allows the Russian to oppose the Finns with a minimum of force. I don't know if it is possible to solve this problem without resorting to something equally onerous but I can refer it to Gary. Yes, something should be done about it. Historically, for example, the Soviets reinforced themselves at Syväri (Svir) and launched a minor offensive on April 1942. Then there were 6 Soviet divisions and 4 Marine Brigades against 4 Finnish and one German division. Edit: I may come up with an idea later...[;)]

B455 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 2:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Keke quote: ORIGINAL: jaw 3) For all intents and purposes the Finnish totals can be ignored. Unless elmo can take Leningrad (and that's looking questionable) the Finns are now of almost no benefit, perhaps tying down at most a Russian force 10% their size. That doesn't sound right. Quickly glancing through my sources, there were 6 Soviet divisions against 5 Finnish divisions at Karelian Isthmus on 9th of September 1941, when the Finns dug in there, and 4 Soviet divisions and 1 brigade against 4 Finnish and 1 German divisions at Syväri on October-January. The game doesn't cover other Finnish fronts. It is obviously a serious game design issue, if the Soviets can use only 10% of the size of the Finnish forces to tie them down... It has been said a number of times that this thread should be related to Elmo's excellent AAR only. However, yet again this issue about the Finnish front pops up. I repeat myself: at this point the battle of Leningrad does not seem to get proper modelling at all because Finnish front can be manned with some odd 1-1 Soviet units. Historically, as Keke pointed out, it tied-up significant number of Soviet divisions and other units. Currently if this issue won't be addressed, it would be better to exclude the Finnish front and have appropriate Soviet divisions excluded as well.

Montbrun -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 4:20:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: B455 quote: ORIGINAL: Keke quote: ORIGINAL: jaw 3) For all intents and purposes the Finnish totals can be ignored. Unless elmo can take Leningrad (and that's looking questionable) the Finns are now of almost no benefit, perhaps tying down at most a Russian force 10% their size. That doesn't sound right. Quickly glancing through my sources, there were 6 Soviet divisions against 5 Finnish divisions at Karelian Isthmus on 9th of September 1941, when the Finns dug in there, and 4 Soviet divisions and 1 brigade against 4 Finnish and 1 German divisions at Syväri on October-January. The game doesn't cover other Finnish fronts. It is obviously a serious game design issue, if the Soviets can use only 10% of the size of the Finnish forces to tie them down... It has been said a number of times that this thread should be related to Elmo's excellent AAR only. However, yet again this issue about the Finnish front pops up. I repeat myself: at this point the battle of Leningrad does not seem to get proper modelling at all because Finnish front can be manned with some odd 1-1 Soviet units. Historically, as Keke pointed out, it tied-up significant number of Soviet divisions and other units. Currently if this issue won't be addressed, it would be better to exclude the Finnish front and have appropriate Soviet divisions excluded as well. Maybe a Soviet Garrison requirement?

Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 5:34:29 PM)
Are you guys sure losses vis a vis production are getting modeled correctly. Comparing against the earlier summer OOB posted, Germany now have more troops and Tanks (@700 more) slightly less guns. The Roumanians seem to have found 100,000 more men 700 more guns and maintained their tank strength. The Russians also look odd. Should both sides not be like Glantz's boxers about now?

jaw -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 6:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Are you guys sure losses vis a vis production are getting modeled correctly. Comparing against the earlier summer OOB posted, Germany now have more troops and Tanks (@700 more) slightly less guns. The Roumanians seem to have found 100,000 more men 700 more guns and maintained their tank strength. The Russians also look odd. Should both sides not be like Glantz's boxers about now? We're still in alpha so I wouldn't bet my paycheck on the accuracy of the numbers but with respect to the Germans they did continue to receive reinforcements throughout the summer and into the Fall including the 40th Panzer corps (2nd & 5th Panzer divisions) so they might not be off as much as you think. The Rumanians also receive reinforcements although I can't say if they amount to 100,000 men and 700 guns. As for the Russians all I can say is that they have suffered far fewer casualties in elmo's game than historic. Hard to say how much that is throwing everything off.

zbig -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 6:52:51 PM)
Questions about the Lennigrad assault: If the rail line into Lennigrad is cut, can the units in Lennigrad be supplied by water through Lake Ladoga before it freezes? I read the Soviets used small boats to supply the city before the lake froze but I do not know how effective it was. Will the need to supply civilians and evacuate them from the city reduce the amount of supplies received by the combat units in the city? Thank you.

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 7:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zbig Questions about the Lennigrad assault: If the rail line into Lennigrad is cut, can the units in Lennigrad be supplied by water through Lake Ladoga before it freezes? I read the Soviets used small boats to supply the city before the lake froze but I do not know how effective it was. Will the need to supply civilians and evacuate them from the city reduce the amount of supplies received by the combat units in the city? Thank you. 1. Yup. 2. No, the two are not related AFAIK.

Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 7:37:27 PM)
quote: We're still in alpha so I wouldn't bet my paycheck on the accuracy of the numbers but with respect to the Germans they did continue to receive reinforcements throughout the summer and into the Fall including the 40th Panzer corps (2nd & 5th Panzer divisions) so they might not be off as much as you think. The Rumanians also receive reinforcements although I can't say if they amount to 100,000 men and 700 guns. As for the Russians all I can say is that they have suffered far fewer casualties in elmo's game than historic. Hard to say how much that is throwing everything off. Understand its Alpha just hoping it will get checked out.[:)] I cant imagine even with the most spectacular success Germany actually increasing in strength during the 41 campaign given that Halder noted a 200,000 man shortfall in September historically. I also cant imagine in the same scenario the release of 2nd and 5th Pz in September bringing the total number of AFV's to a pre Barbarossa total let alone 700 more.

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 7:50:23 PM)
10/23/41 (turn 19) It's Mud in the two northern zones this week so movement is problematic and we did not accomplish a lot. Up north we moved our troops (6 divisions from 4th Pz Grp) into position to assault Leningrad next turn and bombed the defenders with minimal results this turn. My best guess is it will take at least two weeks to dislodge the defenders. It will be interesting to see if the AI is good enough to replace any worn out defenders with fresh troops. Will post the rest of this turn later today. [image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARAGNturn19.jpg[/image]

jaw -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 8:25:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Understand its Alpha just hoping it will get checked out.[:)] I cant imagine even with the most spectacular success Germany actually increasing in strength during the 41 campaign given that Halder noted a 200,000 man shortfall in September historically. I also cant imagine in the same scenario the release of 2nd and 5th Pz in September bringing the total number of AFV's to a pre Barbarossa total let alone 700 more. I looked at the numbers in the data base and actually they tie in a lot closer than I would have thought. Elmo began with roughly around 3,500 AFVs. The Germans are producing about 100 AFVs of all types per week so over 17 turns they would have churned out about 1,700 AFVs giving them roughly 5,200 and elmo shows losing around 1,000 so he should have around 4,200 left which is what the OB screen shows. I think the issue is not whether the game is tabulating losses correctly because it seems to be doing so, but rather whether the Germans should have only lost 1,000 AFVs in 17 weeks of combat. Are these low losses an indication of a problem with the combat resolution system or merely a product of elmo's playing style? I think we cannot make such a determination from a single sample game. I, personally, have lost as many as 300 AFVs in a single turn so I think the numbers have more to do with how elmo is playing the game then that anything is wrong with the game system per se but finding these things out is exactly why we do playtesting.

Montbrun -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 8:54:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Understand its Alpha just hoping it will get checked out.[:)] I cant imagine even with the most spectacular success Germany actually increasing in strength during the 41 campaign given that Halder noted a 200,000 man shortfall in September historically. I also cant imagine in the same scenario the release of 2nd and 5th Pz in September bringing the total number of AFV's to a pre Barbarossa total let alone 700 more. I looked at the numbers in the data base and actually they tie in a lot closer than I would have thought. Elmo began with roughly around 3,500 AFVs. The Germans are producing about 100 AFVs of all types per week so over 17 turns they would have churned out about 1,700 AFVs giving them roughly 5,200 and elmo shows losing around 1,000 so he should have around 4,200 left which is what the OB screen shows. I think the issue is not whether the game is tabulating losses correctly because it seems to be doing so, but rather whether the Germans should have only lost 1,000 AFVs in 17 weeks of combat. Are these low losses an indication of a problem with the combat resolution system or merely a product of elmo's playing style? I think we cannot make such a determination from a single sample game. I, personally, have lost as many as 300 AFVs in a single turn so I think the numbers have more to do with how elmo is playing the game then that anything is wrong with the game system per se but finding these things out is exactly why we do playtesting. Living in the modern era, with the reliability of many things being so high (well - except maybe for Toyota [;)]) we also tend to forget about the impact of non-combat operational losses. Many of these losses are break-downs, etc., and can be repaired, but do have an impact on combat operations.

Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:07:09 PM)
quote: looked at the numbers in the data base and actually they tie in a lot closer than I would have thought. Elmo began with roughly around 3,500 AFVs. The Germans are producing about 100 AFVs of all types per week so over 17 turns they would have churned out about 1,700 AFVs giving them roughly 5,200 and elmo shows losing around 1,000 so he should have around 4,200 left which is what the OB screen shows. I think the issue is not whether the game is tabulating losses correctly because it seems to be doing so, but rather whether the Germans should have only lost 1,000 AFVs in 17 weeks of combat. Are these low losses an indication of a problem with the combat resolution system or merely a product of elmo's playing style? I think we cannot make such a determination from a single sample game. I, personally, have lost as many as 300 AFVs in a single turn so I think the numbers have more to do with how elmo is playing the game then that anything is wrong with the game system per se but finding these things out is exactly why we do playtesting. Thanks for taking time to look into the losses as I am just an interested observer of the AAR and game I can only compare the results with my understanding and speculate why there is a divergence. A loss of 58 AFV's a week along the entire Russian front does seem a bit paltry from my understanding of conditions. A few questions I would have would be for instance would be is the replacement system too efficent Guderian after all did not recieve replacement tanks until late September with half of them being misdirected. Is mechanical attrition taking enough toll? Is combat sufficently violent for instance in July 10th Pz lost 1/3 of its vechicles in a days combat. What effect does the creation of new formations have on production? Is the Production all for the Eastern Front? The system looks great just wondering if it is tweaked to its full potential. Also noticable is the minimal decrease of Russian artillery @ 2k despite huge encirclement battles. Artillery you would think would decrease alot more than that.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:07:59 PM)
There is a lot of truth to that. When I played Andy, he would remark that my tank losses were significantly higher than his own when he played the Germans in Barbarossa. The difference was that I use the Panzer Corps as a hammer to punch holes in the enemy lines. Andy would almost religiously not use his panzers for combat but as more of a maneuver force to encircle. It really is interesting to see how different people have different play styles and strategies. Andy would often refer to me as Guderian and Rick as Kluge (I think). I like to keep my panzers concentrated into shock forces spearheading offensives while Rick liked to spread his around the front. Trey quote: ORIGINAL: jaw quote: ORIGINAL: Smirfy Understand its Alpha just hoping it will get checked out.[:)] I cant imagine even with the most spectacular success Germany actually increasing in strength during the 41 campaign given that Halder noted a 200,000 man shortfall in September historically. I also cant imagine in the same scenario the release of 2nd and 5th Pz in September bringing the total number of AFV's to a pre Barbarossa total let alone 700 more. I looked at the numbers in the data base and actually they tie in a lot closer than I would have thought. Elmo began with roughly around 3,500 AFVs. The Germans are producing about 100 AFVs of all types per week so over 17 turns they would have churned out about 1,700 AFVs giving them roughly 5,200 and elmo shows losing around 1,000 so he should have around 4,200 left which is what the OB screen shows. I think the issue is not whether the game is tabulating losses correctly because it seems to be doing so, but rather whether the Germans should have only lost 1,000 AFVs in 17 weeks of combat. Are these low losses an indication of a problem with the combat resolution system or merely a product of elmo's playing style? I think we cannot make such a determination from a single sample game. I, personally, have lost as many as 300 AFVs in a single turn so I think the numbers have more to do with how elmo is playing the game then that anything is wrong with the game system per se but finding these things out is exactly why we do playtesting.

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:42:17 PM)
10/23/41 (turn 19) Mud definitely hampered AGC operations this turn. However we still managed to pocket 10 Soviet divisions and brigades that will not be breaking out and we are in position to expand northward next turn if the weather clears. Someone commented on Soviet airpower. Take a look at all those airbases to the north. Sheesh. [X(] My panzers would dearly love to tear through them! [image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARAGCturn19.jpg[/image]

wiking62 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:46:52 PM)
AGC's bulge is looking a lot more secure now.

Great_Ajax -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:48:34 PM)
Pain train is coming, Lee. Are you prepared? LOL. I can't wait. Good luck! Trey quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 10/23/41 (turn 19) Mud definitely hampered AGC operations this turn. However we still managed to pocket 10 Soviet divisions and brigades that will not be breaking out and we are in position to expand northward next turn if the weather clears. Someone commented on Soviet airpower. Take a look at all those airbases to the north. Sheesh. [X(] My panzers would dearly love to tear through them! [image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARAGCturn19.jpg[/image]

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:51:05 PM)
10/23/41 (turn 19) AGS spent the week getting reorganized and positioning 1st Pz Grp (red) for a possible breakout to the south to pocket a number of Soviets along the Ingul River line. As you may be able to see the upper part of the screen shot is in the Mud zone so we need good weather here too next week if we are to create the pocket. The Soviet attacks last turn did reveal a bug and I think Gary has a good save file to allow him to see and fix the problem. It was showing the Axis as not having any defenders against the Soviet attacks southeast of Kirovograd so that may be why our troops had to retreat. I'll post losses later along with anything interesting from the Soviet part of the turn. [image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARAGSturn19.jpg[/image]

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe Pain train is coming, Lee. Are you prepared? LOL. I can't wait. Good luck! Trey Our meteorologists have forecast at least another 5 or 6 weeks before the blizzards hit. [8\|]

wiking62 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 9:54:49 PM)
Can you post an update of your Order of Battle screen?

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 10:41:43 PM)
Losses and OOB through turn 19: [image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARturn19groundlosses.jpg[/image] [image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARturn19airlosses.jpg[/image] [image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AAROOBturn20.jpg[/image] The Soviets only made two insignificant attacks in their part of turn 19. And turn 20 is Mud in all four zones. [:(]

Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 10:49:22 PM)
Looking at the results there is definately a problem.

Zorch -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/11/2010 11:02:29 PM)
Looking way ahead, could we see a 'War in the West' sequel to War in the East? WitE is bound to set all kinds of sales records (the Avatar of computer wargames?).

Sabre21 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/12/2010 3:32:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el hefe Pain train is coming, Lee. Are you prepared? LOL. I can't wait. Good luck! Trey and I wish I was driving the train.."Full speed ahead!"..lol. No forts built yet..they take longer to build in bad weather and that's all you have now till doomsday. I foresee the destruction of Army Group Center in 41. Andy PS: BTW Lee..nice AAR..[:)]

Captain B -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/12/2010 5:48:36 AM)
Elmo, Sabre 21 is right...time to prepare for the winter is now....not after it hits.[:-] 5 more weeks of good weather is probably a bit optimitsitc. Remember, your requisitions for winter clothing were denied...you got to go forage now. Glad to see you pocketed those 10 divisions. And that you have a lot more strenght on the southern flank. Could have gone either way. Can't wait...can't wait, must wait[:(] Cpt B> Rock of the Marne

SGHunt -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/12/2010 9:49:04 AM)
Elmo - what happened around Pskov? Tidied up, I'm sure but I would like to know how and with what extra support. I'm pleased to see these much more aggressive, local, spoiling counterattacks arising from Gary's last tweak. And let's be clear, when playing the AI we want it to be adopting a broadly historical operational doctrine, don't we? That is the 'historical' enemy that we are trying to beat when we play as the Germans. It would be great if this doctrine could gradually change over the historical timeline, with Stalin continuing to be sometimes reckless and certainly over-ambitious into early 43 (see Operation Mars and the 2nd and especially 3rd battles of Kharkov - a massive over-extension), to the more patient strategic defence posture followed by the crushing counter-attack of first Uranus and then Kursk, to the superb deception and massive offensive build up to the methodical destruction of AGC that was Bagration. (BTW Andy - I think the destruction of AGC that you forsee is probably a little premature! [;)] Hurt badly, yes, but destroyed?) The reckless (in terms of loss of Russian lives) scramble for Berlin would be impossible to 'return' to as a strategic model, as this was a political decision and would be entirely dependent on the circumstances of both the red Army and the Western Allies. I'm sure Stalin won't mind the 10 unit loss in the 'Vyasma pocket' for the amount of disruption it has caused (although he would want more German losses in blood and iron - there was a man committed to the concept of attrition!) S

SGHunt -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/12/2010 9:54:00 AM)
Further to my last post, and I hope this is still relevant to this AAR (let me know if not), do the characteristics of the Leaders affect the recklessness or caution of the AI when planning and executing these counterattacks? S

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/12/2010 11:18:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch Looking way ahead, could we see a 'War in the West' sequel to War in the East? WitE is bound to set all kinds of sales records (the Avatar of computer wargames?). Well right now the focus is all on WitE. After that, we'll have to wait and see what 2by3 has in mind.

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/12/2010 11:22:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Jaeger Elmo - what happened around Pskov? Tidied up, I'm sure but I would like to know how and with what extra support. ... The Soviets did not follow up their attack toward Pskov so the German unit that retreated reoccupied it's position.

elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/12/2010 11:24:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Jaeger Further to my last post, and I hope this is still relevant to this AAR (let me know if not), do the characteristics of the Leaders affect the recklessness or caution of the AI when planning and executing these counterattacks? S I don't know how the AI decides when and where to attack. Ratings affect a number of things but I have never seen anything to suggest they affect that decision.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875