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

Joel Billings -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 12:15:02 AM)

Just to be clear, a fortified zone is not a fort. It is a unit, that contains around 2000k, of which 270 are labor. The rest are about 2 companies of men and support troops. That's when they are up to full strength. They will help increase the fortification level of the hex (because like all troops they will dig), but not by a bunch. Units adjacent to the enemy dig less than those in the rear (since they can't spend all their time digging but have to worry about the enemy).



Joel Billings -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 12:22:22 AM)

By the way, Lee's doing a great job given it's his first game and considering all the posting he's doing. Thank you for the AAR.

Lee was mistaken about attrition. All units take attrition each turn. Attrition is greatly increased for units that are adjacent to enemy units. Lee, didn't we tell you about that rule? Actually, the difference in the level of attrition taken was added months ago, but it's easy to miss all the changes made during development (not sure if Lee was even testing when we made that change).



elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 12:51:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

By the way, Lee's doing a great job given it's his first game and considering all the posting he's doing. Thank you for the AAR.

Lee was mistaken about attrition. ...


Thanks. Didn't know about the attrition so it's good you caught that. It's probably in the manual already but there is a lot to remember.



wmcalpine -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 1:04:15 AM)

Lee,

Thank you for posting the OOB from the beginning of Barbarossa. The increase in strength of the Russian army from June is scary. Winter will be interesting to be sure. I am looking forward to it.

By the way, is there a level of detail in the OOB totals by equipment type (i.e. AFVs by specific equipment type)? It would be interesting to see the quantative and qualitative changes in each force over time.

Bill



stevekten -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 2:31:51 AM)

Keep up the good work! reading this post is a daily ritual with my coffee :)



PyleDriver -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 2:36:26 AM)

Winter is scary. If you havn't spent the time to stop (mid Oct.) and dig in, it gets outright ugly for the Axis. Its 12 weeks of pure hell, and seems to never end...I know Gary worked a good AI for it a long time back. I would like to see what it does now...



elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 2:42:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wmcalpine

...

By the way, is there a level of detail in the OOB totals by equipment type (i.e. AFVs by specific equipment type)? It would be interesting to see the quantative and qualitative changes in each force over time.

Bill


Dunno. Don't recall seeing that but I'll defer to one of the OOB guys on that one.



kfmiller41 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 2:44:43 AM)

I guess like smurfy I am just confused by the number, and don't get me wrong, I could imagine lower losses in a more conservative play style. That would also probably mean a front that didn't go as far east as historically and with less wear and tear, which seems like what is happening. But just judging from the numbers being posted (which is what we have to go by) it seems like the German army has increased it's tank numbers by 400. Based on what I have read on the 41 campaign (Glantz, Erickson, Carell etc) the Germans lost many more tanks than they could replace from enemy action and attrition/wear and tear from the distances involved. Are we just not seeing all the losses?

Also thank you Elmo for posting this great AAR, and matrix for getting it made. I can hardly wait till it is ready and look forward to seeing it evolve some more.



PyleDriver -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 5:48:55 AM)

Miller, enjoy that Lee loves the game, If Andy or I had jumped on this AAR, well things would have different. Buts those are things that lead us on...Or job is to get it as close to historic we can...An the challenge is set before us...



Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 8:13:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Only look at the total losses on the reports I post.  Current turn and recent battle losses are meaningless due to the point at which  I take the screen shot.


If you look at your total losses and divide them by 20 that gives you an average of 56 AFV's per turn. AFV in this game I assume means Tanks, AG/SPA, Armoured Cars and Armoured troop carriers.



Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 8:37:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

By the way, Lee's doing a great job given it's his first game and considering all the posting he's doing. Thank you for the AAR.



Yup first rate AAR

quote:

Lee was mistaken about attrition. All units take attrition each turn. Attrition is greatly increased for units that are adjacent to enemy units. Lee, didn't we tell you about that rule? Actually, the difference in the level of attrition taken was added months ago, but it's easy to miss all the changes made during development (not sure if Lee was even testing when we made that change).


Glad to hear this feature is included



Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 8:54:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Miller, enjoy that Lee loves the game, If Andy or I had jumped on this AAR, well things would have different. Buts those are things that lead us on...Or job is to get it as close to historic we can...An the challenge is set before us...

quote:

I guess like smurfy I am just confused by the number, and don't get me wrong, I could imagine lower losses in a more conservative play style. That would also probably mean a front that didn't go as far east as historically and with less wear and tear, which seems like what is happening. But just judging from the numbers being posted (which is what we have to go by) it seems like the German army has increased it's tank numbers by 400. Based on what I have read on the 41 campaign (Glantz, Erickson, Carell etc) the Germans lost many more tanks than they could replace from enemy action and attrition/wear and tear from the distances involved. Are we just not seeing all the losses?

Also thank you Elmo for posting this great AAR, and matrix for getting it made. I can hardly wait till it is ready and look forward to seeing it evolve some more.


Nope I dont believe we are. German Tank engines were worn out before the Kiev operation that is to say before truly deep penetration had begun. They were sent 300 replacement engines for the whole Russian Front which was descrided as "totally inadequate". They were also denied replacement tanks as they were being sent to set up new formations. Somebody mentioned the repair shops at Kursk which did a magnificent job. During Barbarossa the repair shops were not near the front but located in Germany so all serious breakdowns had to be returned. No matter how conservatively anyone is playing you would not expect to see those increases.



Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 9:05:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I tried to explain this in an earlier post. You are not seeing casualties. You are seeing Killed, and Captured numbers. You are also seeing a "disabled" number which are not all casualites. 2% of these are sent back to the manpower pool each turn. There are many many more casualties going on in the units. They are the damaged units that are not destroyed. Some amount of these elements remain with their unit as damaged (they don't fight), and some amount are repaired within the unit and put back into action, and some are disbanded and sent back to the manpower pool to be used as general replacements.

IIRC, someone posted that Axis losses were around 300k (actually killed) up through November. So the game is not as far off as you think, although as I was saying it does look like lighter losses than history, and I think a big part of that is Lee's play. The fact that he's stopped attacking in October instead of December will reduce losses as well.


The men Killed figure would be what you would expect but men injured is far too low. I'm not sure the recovery time (and in some cases if at all) for the various wounds but I would expect that the incapcitated pool would be large compared to the killed.



elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 1:27:34 PM)

11/6/41 (turn 21)  We called off the assault on Leningrad for the winter after seeing that we were facing fresh Soviet troops following our assaults last turn.  That is a meat grinder right now so we'll need to push the defenders out of Pavlovo in the Spring to get better odds on Leningrad.  We made one minor attack on the Rumanian front and will continue trying to reach Nikolaev if it looks practical this month.  Other than that it was an uneventful turn where we mostly cleaned up or lines and positioned reserves behind the line.  I don't expect much to happen for a few turns so I'll just show big picture shots until something breaks.

Edit - Forgot to mention I took Joel's advice and did not build any more fortified zones.

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARAGNturn21.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARAGCturn21.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARAGSturn21.jpg[/image]



elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 1:46:38 PM)

Losses through turn 21.  There were no Soviet attacks in their part of turn 21.  Weather zones 1 thru 3 are Snow (Ice 1) and zone 4 is Mud for turn 22.

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARturn21groundlosses.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AARturn21airlosses.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/AAROOBturn22.jpg[/image]



ComradeP -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 2:03:19 PM)

If I were the AI, I'd try to break through in the Pskov area and race to the coast, trapping most of AGN or at the least forcing it to withdraw.

I'd also try to pocket the quality units of AGC by advancing to Smolensk from both Velikiye Luki and the area between the "V" and the "I" in the words Soviet stamped on the map.

AGS has plenty of reserves, it doesn't look like it will be in trouble in the winter. You might want to relocate some of those Panzer forces to the north, Elmo.



Banzan -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 3:59:44 PM)

Well, i think that would be a quite large target for the sovjet army in late '41. And it would also adding a very high risk for a large pocket to get all your assault divisions caught in. Not sure how strong mobile german forces are in blizzard, but in WiR they could still fight quite good with enough supply. :)

But i agree on the AGC :)

Well, i mainly registered to tell you how i like this AAR (and the game at all). [:D]
Having a long list of games i already played from Gary Grigsby (started with Panzer Strike on the C64) i am pretty sure this one will be great, too. :)


Edit: For some reason i missed your comment on AGC, must have been blind. :)



ComradeP -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 4:16:16 PM)

Welcome to the forums Banzan.

The "Pskov to the sea" drive would be likely to fail, but it would require AGN to engage it instead of helping out AGC. As soon as the railroad at Pskov is cut, German supplies and rail transported forces will have to take a detour through the Baltic states. Pouring expendable Rifle formations into the area could achieve the desired result for minimal long-term costs to the Soviets.

The Soviets on either flank of AGC at Smolensk only have to move 5 hexes to meet up at Smolensk and cut off most of the fighting power of AGC. That should be possible, especially with masses of armoured formations.

Instead of Stalin's rather loopy plan to try and encircle all AG's at once, more limited offensives could yield good results.



Zorch -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 4:23:36 PM)

Anyone here remember Chris Crawford's Eastern Front? That had great playability.



Great_Ajax -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 4:59:53 PM)

Smirfy, what Joel is saying is that in the casualties list you are only seeing equipment that are total writeoffs and killed soldiers. The units deployed in the game consist of certain quantities of equipment and manpower squads. These quantities can become damaged and do not participate in combat. These represent your tanks that need an overhaul and soldiers that are wounded but will eventually be RTD (Return to Duty). You will not see these "losses" portrayed on the end of turn casualty screen but directly within your units.

Trey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I tried to explain this in an earlier post. You are not seeing casualties. You are seeing Killed, and Captured numbers. You are also seeing a "disabled" number which are not all casualites. 2% of these are sent back to the manpower pool each turn. There are many many more casualties going on in the units. They are the damaged units that are not destroyed. Some amount of these elements remain with their unit as damaged (they don't fight), and some amount are repaired within the unit and put back into action, and some are disbanded and sent back to the manpower pool to be used as general replacements.

IIRC, someone posted that Axis losses were around 300k (actually killed) up through November. So the game is not as far off as you think, although as I was saying it does look like lighter losses than history, and I think a big part of that is Lee's play. The fact that he's stopped attacking in October instead of December will reduce losses as well.


The men Killed figure would be what you would expect but men injured is far too low. I'm not sure the recovery time (and in some cases if at all) for the various wounds but I would expect that the incapcitated pool would be large compared to the killed.




critter -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 11:24:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just to be clear, a fortified zone is not a fort. It is a unit, that contains around 2000k, of which 270 are labor. The rest are about 2 companies of men and support troops. That's when they are up to full strength. They will help increase the fortification level of the hex (because like all troops they will dig), but not by a bunch. Units adjacent to the enemy dig less than those in the rear (since they can't spend all their time digging but have to worry about the enemy).


What happens to the FZ's when they're no longer needed? Do they get absorbed by the units or dumped back in the repl pool?



PyleDriver -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/13/2010 11:38:44 PM)

I think Joel ment 2k, and when units disband they go back into the pool...Now the fort zone stays, but if units arn't there, they go down in level over time...



The SNAFU -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 1:02:14 AM)

Great idea to post a panorama of the entire front. It gives us a clear picture of the overall situation.

While the game is in Alpha, I think it is safe to assume that casualties and everything else will be as close to historical as a game can be by release.

Hope you brought your longjohns along. You will soon be needing them.



elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 1:14:14 PM)

11/13/41 (turn 22)  Another turn where we were primarily repositioning units into reserve status and digging in.  We made a couple of attacks along the Rumanian front to stabilize the line.  The Soviets countered with a couple of attacks up north, one of which pushed back a regiment of the 9th Army near Smolensk and caused the fortified zone unit to surrender.  Other than that there was nothing to report.  So since some people asked to see the Soviet side of the lines, here are three shots showing what we are up against.  [X(] Not all German forces are shown due to fog of war.

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/Sovietnorth.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/Sovietcenter.jpg[/image]

[image]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll55/Andru_Hammerskjold/Sovietsouth.jpg[/image]



JJKettunen -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 1:34:50 PM)

Bloody hell, that middle picture is frightening! [X(]



Jim D Burns -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 1:39:02 PM)

Wow, the importance of creating and then reducing huge pockets of Soviet units in the summer of 1941, rather than simply pushing through them, is made starkly clear with this last set of screenshots.

I expect you are in for one tough winter.

Jim



ComradeP -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 3:10:51 PM)

That second picture's pretty scary indeed, although there are also a lot of brigades in there, it's not all divisions, and many divisions are Rifle divisions which in 1941 are not that scary.

Any idea why the AI places its units like a carpet across Russia, instead of concentrating them? It seems the AI would get much better results by concentrating units in stacks, as even though the total amount of units is high, there don't seem to be a lot of placed the Axis could not slice through if they wanted (of course they don't, but the Soviets don't know that).



elmo3 -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 3:53:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

...

Any idea why the AI places its units like a carpet across Russia, instead of concentrating them? ...


I think the AI is trying for defense in depth which is a good idea to keep the Axis from punching through a thin line and being free to make pockets. However they may be overdoing it a bit. It will be looked at I'm sure.



Capitaine -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 3:53:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

That second picture's pretty scary indeed, although there are also a lot of brigades in there, it's not all divisions, and many divisions are Rifle divisions which in 1941 are not that scary.

Any idea why the AI places its units like a carpet across Russia, instead of concentrating them? It seems the AI would get much better results by concentrating units in stacks, as even though the total amount of units is high, there don't seem to be a lot of placed the Axis could not slice through if they wanted (of course they don't, but the Soviets don't know that).


I tend to agree. The Soviet unit placement doesn't look very realistic, and possibly also makes it seem like they have too strong a force. I've played a lot of Eastern Front board games in my time and I don't recall seeing so many Soviet units all along the front in 41-42. Maybe concentrated around Moscow, but definitely more sparse than what we're seeing here.

Of course, maybe this is totally historical, IDK...



Smirfy -> RE: Operation Barbarossa - Alpha AAR (3/14/2010 4:28:19 PM)


According to Glantz the Russians raised 821 divisions (or equivalant) and 266 Brigades through to December 41 losing 229 division equivalents. Russian divisions had a smaller establishment than their German counterparts I believe. Perhaps Corps would be a better unit size for the Russians



Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.59375