RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (Full Version)

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



Message

notenome -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 9:51:00 PM)

This is getting a little off topic, but when speaking of the Waffen-SS one has to distinguish between time period and particular formations, amongst other things. The SS had a few advantages over Heer formations, namely better recruits, a better training system (Paul Hausser had some fairly inovative ideas and he saw in the SS a way to bypass High Command bureacracy) and generally first dibs on new equipment (sometimes a double edged sword, the new Panther tanks were probably more trouble then they were worth during the Kursk offensive). On the other hand the Waffen SS had a growing problem as the war went on with their mid-range oficers, with many being fanatics and/or incompetent and an early war tendency to take higher casualties then the Heer (I believe high command contemplated disbanding SS-VT after Poland, but were blocked).

However, beginning with the invasion of the Balkans the 'original' SS formations (LSSAH, Das Reich, Totenkopf) began to mature and performed much better than their early war counterparts. They earned the title Hitler's firemen and were generally given the toughest assignments. Typically Wiking is added to this list, even though they were distrusted by High Command in the beginning, Wiking distinguished itself in 41 and 42. If you press me too hard on this I won't be able to back this up properly, but I believe Das Reich was/is considered the best performing division of World War II. This sucess led to a massive expansion of the Waffen SS, which was not able to reproduce the 'original' four's performance. The game simulates this by separating between elite and non elite SS units. To say that the SS were supermen is, of course, ridiculous. But one must give credit where credit is due.

However the topic of the Waffen SS often leads to flame wars (for clarification, I don't want to and haven't acused anyone of flaming, my previous comments are an effort to caution people to be more diplomatic so that other users won't harp on them and then this thread will go to hell like others before it), so let's go back to Soviet offensive performance. I believe that nothing within Soviet echelon doctrine deserves the +1 bonus. If the idea is to model human wave doctrine, then Soviet attacks should mass ground elements in groups who gradually reduce range, with each group starting at a smaller range. So if let's say we have an attack featuring 300 rifle elements. The engine would group them in three groups, the first group starting at x distance (let's say 2000 meters) that would attempt to close within range. After that attack stalls (due to casualties or morale or however it is modeled by the engine that an attack stalls) the second group would begin at the last attack's distance plus +500 meters (x+advance-500=y) and continue to attempt to close the distance. After that stalls the third group would attack at +500 (y+advance-500) and attempt to close the distance. If the Soviets reach minimal combat distance, the Axis retreat.

What has me worried is that if the +1 bonus is prooving so contentious now, I fear for 43, 44, 45 when the Soviet have corps with much higher combat values. That would allow the Soviets to basically perform broadfront advances (especially with the artillery advantages they have) without trying to spread the Axis out. Historically the Soviet offensives into the Balkans were aimed at spreading the Axis thin, but the screenshots of the Soviet vs AI games seem to indicate that most players opt to simply go straight for Berlin. This makes sense if your consider game mechanics, 3 corps + arty can stack much more combat power than 3 divisions, which when coupled with the +1 bonus should lead to predictable and continuous success for the Soviets. However Soviet offensives were not unstopable in 42 (as Operation Mars can attest) or even 44 (the First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive).



pompack -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 9:53:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

Your truck mounted infantry isn't that much more mobile once battle is joined as they fight on foot anyway. But yes this is true they should be able to withdraw rather than get over run by the oncoming infantry horde. If you retreated before engaging, otherwise you would have needed to counter attack to get your infantry breathing space to mount up and leave. You have only 7 combat battalions even faced with a purely infantry attack you might not be able to bugger off when you want to, as you want to, if you hang around to do major damage to the enemy. Operationally these battles would play out a lot differently then the game does them. But if you did this, the losses on the russian side would have been minimal mainly long range artillery fire and some tank shots. You got your infantry fire power in the battle so they got engaged.

The 10% bit isn't a rule, its observation. The manual makes it look like the battle plays out and then the odds get calculated. That happens but it is not as often as I would think and seem to be only when an attack fails or the defender holds in the face of the full brunt of the attackers fire power. Most of the time the units stay until about 10% of its men show up as losses then pikes, at that point the game calculates the odds and gives a result is what seems to occur. This is, as I said repeatedly, is what I have seen watching the fight, there seems to be a morale failure situation. In the worst case attacking the 369 Rgt (the number is probably wrong but it seems an independant Rgt in the German OOB) only one shot with a rifle was fired then the battle was over. On many occasions I have not seen anywhere near as much fire as should be before the battle is over, for example: I attacked the 1st Rumanian Armour after I forced it to retreat, got my tank bdes clobbered by a mixed flak battalion then had some infantry fire then the battle was over, my surving 60 tanks never shot at all. There is something else shortening the amount of fire the defender is subjected to before a retreat occurs. From observation it is rare for a unit to stand in place after it takes 10% of its "men" value in losses...with, as I said before, variance in the plus a lot more than in the minus.

Also 10% casaulties to a units total strength in men is a lot higher fraction of their front line infantry losses. A unit with 300 Rifle and 300 Support squads had 9000 men, 900 men losses is 90 rifle squads destroyed (and in reality more like 60 destroyed and another 60 damaged)...that is either 90/300 or 30% front line infantry casaulties or 120/300 or 40% front line infantry casaulties. Nothing to sneaze at.

Modified CV is determined by what you have left over at the end of the battle that isn't disrupted, damaged or destroyed. It is calculated based on the results of the firepower applied. That CV is then compared to render odds, but so far as I can by that point it is more about determining the effect of the retreat then about if there will be a retreat in a large number of cases. Frankly since the fire seems truncated there looks to be something else going on in a lot of the cases I've watched. Again as I said before this is something I can't pin down exactly and the only people who know for sure are the people who wrote the code. I freely admit this could be a misunderstanding of mine, but if it is I quite honestly don't know how to explain a lot of the retreat results I saw. In the case of my attacks I did not see anywhere near enough fire to account for all my units shooting.

2000 losses against a german division in non-blizzard weather seem excessive. I am dubious I see that much routinely. But again it depends on the exact situation so I can't comment blindly. The units may be standing their ground which can push up losses in combat, but even when the 18th Motorized with a CV of 3 blundered into a stack of 3 strong rifle divisions in a good entrenchment it suffered only 1800 men losses on a failed attack while it inflicted about 1000 on the divisons in question. I can only agree it seems a lot more than I would expect.


Paul:

Thank you for all of the posts above[&o]. While I may disagree with some of your conclusions, I also agree with many and I absolutely love [sm=00001746.gif] your detailed analysis.



pompack -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 9:55:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

abulbian, though I understand your frustration I would urge you to reign in on the discourse so as to not start a flame war. Let's keep it civil or all hell breaks loose and nonsense starts to get posted.

bwheatly, you have to remember that the majority of Axis casualties in 41 were NCL (non combat losses) of which over 90% returned to their units within a month. Personally I think that non combat losses are not well enough modelled in game. I would like to see atrition doubled, but the trickleback rate raised to 7% (for the Axis, I have no clue about Soviet NCL losses or the Red Army's medical system).

ComradeP, Indeed the majority of my counterattacks would have suceeded (sp?) without the 1:1 odds bonus. However the sheer necesity of mainting a line in depth means that only a small minority of soviet units will have the luxury of training up in the rear, regardless of circumstance.

Smirfy, though the Wehrmachts performance review of SS units in France and Poland was shocked at the high casualties these units took (relative to their assignments) on the Eastern Front the SS units were more often then not given the harshest assignments, so it is very hard to say they took more casualties then regular Army units precisely because one has to compare casualties relative to the situtation. If not one will reach the same conclusion about the Guards units as well. For example: The 5th Guards Tank Army was horribly maimed at Kursk, though it ultimately suceeded in stopping an Axis breakthrough. Had it been a 'regular' Soviet Tank Army, would the losses have been any lighter?




Totally agree notenome. This is one of the best and most informative threads that I have seen so far. It woul be a shame to clutter it up and lose focus on what you are trying (quite successully I think) to accomplish.

EDIT: There is no intent to hit abulbian here; he just happened to be the person notenome replied to in the message above



bwheatley -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 9:58:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

He had to have inflicted at least 10% losses for you to retreat, and if you are talking panzer divisions it is worth keeping in mind that you have only 4 battalions of infantry in that unit. It is not very strong on the defense for that reason alone.


The attackers had minimal mobility. Historically, it was a rarity for a Panzer division to just hang around and get clobbered by a mob of infantry. Mobility means that mob of infantry won't be able to do much, as when things don't look good, you move out at a speed that the attackers can't match. It also means that retreat losses should be far less severe, but that's not the case.

Considering that the Soviet infantry could never have caught up to my mobile losses as they started to withdraw, what would cause the significant retreat losses?

There is currently hardly any bonus for a mobile unit being mobile, aside from it having higher MP's. It doesn't really seem to matter much at all in battle. Most units seem to fight like it's WWI, and sit in place until they decide to retreat, rout or hold the attack.

I'm not seeing any tactical or operational flexibility effects at all. What I am seeing is the best mobile units the Germans being clobbered by a force primarily composed of untrained conscripts.

quote:

He had to have inflicted at least 10% losses for you to retreat


Where did you see that rule? A defender retreats if the CV result is 2:1, the manual doesn't specify any required casualty percentage.

quote:

You are correct that CV determines the end result of the battle...but you are also wrong about that.


Now I'm not. Modified CV determines the final odds and thus the result (the odds modifier increases the Soviet result if above 1:1).

quote:

Also it is possible your leader failed his retreat check as I rarely see German units suffer significantly in retreats, even when I forced a Panzer division backwards over a river I don't think it took that much in the way of losses.


I believe every good counterattack notenome made against a division or more than one division caused over 2000 losses. It seems statistically highly unlikely that all of my leaders failed their checks, if it influences things.


Comrade going into the blizzard how many casualties did you have?




Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 9:58:54 PM)

Notenome, oddly enough, this entire issue of the +1 becomes irrelevant later on the war. The Soviet simply doesn't rely on marginal attacks at this stage. Once the artillery divisions arrive in a big way, German players will find something new to obsess over. (You can bet this will become an object of contention in due course.)

In the first 5 turns of my latest 43 PBEM there's been probably less than a half dozen attacks that ended up at 2:1 odds. This is just background noise when you're looking at dozens of attacks per turn.

It looms far larger in 41 when the Soviet is making a bare handful of attacks during the summer turns, and said attacks are only barely succeeding when they do succeed.




bwheatley -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:02:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

As Comrade has already mention in his game, I've seen the same thing with my stacks of mobile units in spring 42. I had a stack of 2 Pz Div and an SS Mot Div with a display CV def of 56. Here's some details of the defenders and attackers:


Defender (averages across 3 units)
Moral : 85
Exp (lower cause TOE bug): 75
fatigue: 35
fort level: 0
about 60k men and 350 afv?

Attacker:
4 sov rifle corps w/some art su and sappers
about 120,00 men

*air was about even

My German defenders we're displaced with about 7k loses and the attack had 9k loses. I'm just not buying that would have been realistic. Part of my issues is that large scale operations carried out by the sov in early 42 were always a disaster. The C&C issue with these sov large scale operations were very real and still existed even later in the war.

I think any intrinsic advantages that the German units (especially mobile units) with exp and training and operations planning/execution are negated already in 42. So then if it comes down to just the troop #'s game. Sov will always have the edge in 42. Also, with all the fort levels 3-4 and deep lines are created through the spring mud turns, the axis player is faced with an impossible task to do much of anything as far as a breakthrough.

Only few games (current release) of PBEM human vs human go this far into 42 have shown exactly this fact. So somebody tell me of a HUMAN vs HUMAN game were the axis have had any sort limited success in 42? I think ComradeP and notename's game is getting closer to spring 42. It sounds like he'll be facing the same problems. Does anybody have a game (after release to public) that can show something different? waiting...



yea there is certainly something that needs to be done to make me less potent in 42. :) I don't know for sure if fixing the extra manpower issue they found will help since you get about 1 million extra men then you should. Maybe it will but yea i shouldn't be smacking around panzer corps in may 42.



Klydon -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:11:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Just a note on "elite" units.

Guards are guards units because they actually proved something on the battlefield. IE, they have excellent experience and moral.

Early SS units were long on moral and short on experience/training. Both the SS and Luftwaffe ground formations took a lot of casualties because they had little or no experience/training when it came to fighting since both were outside of the German Army. SS casualties were nasty due to their high moral and poor training/experience (too gungho to not stop attacking or give up a position and too stupid to know when to stop the attack or when to retreat). Over time the SS got better at their craft, but they generally got outfought by Heer units in most cases (Kursk and Battle of the Bulge are two big examples I have seen quoted). Most of the Luftwaffe field formations (not the paratroopers or parachute infantry formations) had no clue and pretty much didn't last real long when fighting despite having good manpower material and equipment.



You are wrong and have to realize that early for axis was in Polish campaign. A lot of you are forgetting that the units or cadres of units gained a lot of experience from the Polish, French, and Balkan campaigns. The SS units as they grew later in the war were probably less experienced.. sure. But the SS units that were used in 41 and 42 on the eastern front were more that just high moral. Most, if not all, had experience from other campaigns. So once agian somebody is posting nonsense or something out of context. My unit in that battle was the 5th SS Wiking. For those that don't know, this unit fought with distinction in Aug 41 holding off several determined Sov attacks along Dniepr river.

So if you want to make vague statements about SS units not distinguishing themselves with more than just moral in 41-42, you'll just be support my view that you know nothing about the battles which were fought in that time period. I'm not any type of Nazi sympathizer, I just care about the facts and how the combat for these units should be considered and modeled in WitE.



Listen up idiot. I am tired of you calling people out on the boards for anything and everything if they don't agree with you. This isn't me saying this just for the heck of it. So I guess I should ignore Von Manstein's observations and just take your word for it, eh? Right.. Von Mellenthin pretty much said the same thing. They both went into the reasons why and that is the SS units at first did not have the NCO's and junior officers that had the training and experience of what to do in combat and in some cases were not that well trained. In their opinion, this led to unnecessary and heavy casualties.

A lot of the SS units were volunteer units from certain areas or had certain restrictions placed upon them. (Wiking with membership from the Nordic countries and the Hitler Youth based on age are two examples). Some were elite (the two I mentioned) and some were crap (30th SS that "fought" in France).

Thanks for your apology in advance and don't be so quick to jack someone up. They just might be right and heaven forbid, you could be wrong once in a while. It happens to all of us.

*Edit* One other thing: it was more of an observation, not something I think should change with the game, etc in regards with the SS units. The SS units are not the only units to have the issue of high moral + low experience = heavy casualties because they don't know what they are doing and are too brave to know when to stop attacks, retreat, etc. This not only applies to WW2, but instances can be pointed to throughout history.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:34:14 PM)

quote:

Comrade going into the blizzard how many casualties did you have?


Not quite there yet, the AAR is up to date so I'm playing turn 13 now.

I'm trying to average a turn every 24 hours, but that's not always possible, both due to other commitments and my refusal to play when frustrated, as that leads to unnecessary mistakes.

I do, however, expect my losses to be fairly heavy, both due to the early fairly high losses for attacks in swamps and the current 30.000-40.000 losses each turn.

Even though my frontline will probably be way too long due to the Kiev salient, I don't expect high losses from the Soviet offensive, but the blizzard will cut my forces down a size.

I'm a "plan for the worst, hope for the best" (in that order) kind of guy, so I'm already not really looking forward at resuming my offensive in 1942 with the losses I'm taking vs the losses I'm causing. I'm not going to do something gamey and dig in for a year, though. I will attack.

quote:

German players will find something new to obsess over. (You can bet this will become an object of contention in due course.)


Certainly, just like the Soviets will suddenly notice things are not quite what they expected when they're attacking. What Bob said about the Soviets ramming into the defence he proposed sounds quite true. I'm just commenting on what I'm seeing now.

I'm perfectly willing to take high losses in 1943 for really successful attacks, but I will question my best units taking more losses, seemingly solely due to retreating, than they can cause with an attack of their own in 1941.



abulbulian -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:34:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Just a note on "elite" units.

Guards are guards units because they actually proved something on the battlefield. IE, they have excellent experience and moral.

Early SS units were long on moral and short on experience/training. Both the SS and Luftwaffe ground formations took a lot of casualties because they had little or no experience/training when it came to fighting since both were outside of the German Army. SS casualties were nasty due to their high moral and poor training/experience (too gungho to not stop attacking or give up a position and too stupid to know when to stop the attack or when to retreat). Over time the SS got better at their craft, but they generally got outfought by Heer units in most cases (Kursk and Battle of the Bulge are two big examples I have seen quoted). Most of the Luftwaffe field formations (not the paratroopers or parachute infantry formations) had no clue and pretty much didn't last real long when fighting despite having good manpower material and equipment.



You are wrong and have to realize that early for axis was in Polish campaign. A lot of you are forgetting that the units or cadres of units gained a lot of experience from the Polish, French, and Balkan campaigns. The SS units as they grew later in the war were probably less experienced.. sure. But the SS units that were used in 41 and 42 on the eastern front were more that just high moral. Most, if not all, had experience from other campaigns. So once agian somebody is posting nonsense or something out of context. My unit in that battle was the 5th SS Wiking. For those that don't know, this unit fought with distinction in Aug 41 holding off several determined Sov attacks along Dniepr river.

So if you want to make vague statements about SS units not distinguishing themselves with more than just moral in 41-42, you'll just be support my view that you know nothing about the battles which were fought in that time period. I'm not any type of Nazi sympathizer, I just care about the facts and how the combat for these units should be considered and modeled in WitE.



Listen up idiot. I am tired of you calling people out on the boards for anything and everything if they don't agree with you. This isn't me saying this just for the heck of it. So I guess I should ignore Von Manstein's observations and just take your word for it, eh? Right.. Von Mellenthin pretty much said the same thing. They both went into the reasons why and that is the SS units at first did not have the NCO's and junior officers that had the training and experience of what to do in combat and in some cases were not that well trained. In their opinion, this led to unnecessary and heavy casualties.

A lot of the SS units were volunteer units from certain areas or had certain restrictions placed upon them. (Wiking with membership from the Nordic countries and the Hitler Youth based on age are two examples). Some were elite (the two I mentioned) and some were crap (30th SS that "fought" in France).

Thanks for your apology in advance and don't be so quick to jack someone up. They just might be right and heaven forbid, you could be wrong once in a while. It happens to all of us.

*Edit* One other thing: it was more of an observation, not something I think should change with the game, etc in regards with the SS units. The SS units are not the only units to have the issue of high moral + low experience = heavy casualties because they don't know what they are doing and are too brave to know when to stop attacks, retreat, etc. This not only applies to WW2, but instances can be pointed to throughout history.



Klydon,

IMO you're the idiot, so don't throw that out stamp on somebody else that understand the history better than you. I agree with Kirk and what I've read including 'Lost Victories' by Manstein. He describes how valuable these SS units were. Have you ever read anything about Manstein's 'backhand blow'? If so, you will realize that the majority of these units involved accomplishing all the amazing feat were from an SS Corps. Countless times the SS units were called upon to make incredible defensive stands. When I get home I'll get some references from Mansteins memoirs and Glantz about the fighting prowess of the SS units and their value to the front. Yes, the did consume the top equipment and have more benefits that some other Wehrmacht units. But those mechanics are included with the game from what I understand. Another other unit that got priority to equipment was the 'GrossDeutschland'. Which also performed amazingly to which WitE treats with almost indifference as Bill had posted .. was easy to force these units to retreat when they were in the line and rested.

Shame on you Klydon. [:-]



TulliusDetritus -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:38:47 PM)

[sm=00000613.gif]



raizer -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:43:05 PM)

SS in backhand blow were in near top form.  In 41 they were average trained troops, esp in their junior leaders and ncos.  Dont forget toten got it ass waxed in france by the brits and the french dlms.  They were raw at this time.  High morale, but poorly led.  It took a long time for their sub par junior leaders to get killed off in France and Russia.  Then a steady stream of junior combat leaders  gradually filtered up the ranks.  40, 41 was a sub par period of SS units when measured against their high water mark around Khar 43 and Kursk 43.  There was a lot of costly growing pains inflicted upon the SS both by the russians and themselves.  In 41 Id take GD or any of the panzer over any SS unit.  In 43, Id still take GD...[:)]

omg and I see tillus has the popcorn lol



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:47:43 PM)

Could we please stop the personal attacks, for "both" sides?

Abulbulian: the backhand blow isn't the best example for relative performance. The SS corps was fresh and had just arrived, the vast majority of the other units involved had been fighting for months. GD (directly in the path of the Soviet advance from Stalingrad to Kharkov) and Wiking (same) had been in heavy fighting prior to the start of the German counteroffensive. The majority of the other German mobile units in the area were depleted, exhausted, both or trying to stop the Soviets north of Kharkov/trying to stop the Soviet breakthrough that would result in the Kursk salient. The majority of the German infantry was also in a not too stellar shape. Obviously, fresh, well trained and properly equipped SS mobile divisions made a significant impact compared to the majority of the other German units in the area.

Edit: to add to what raizer said, my poorly equipped countrymen also stopped SS Der Fuehrer cold for several days at the Grebbelinie, although SS losses were not too high.



abulbulian -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:50:00 PM)

I not going to apologize to people that don't do there research and decide to throw out crap that is out of context or just wrong. Consider me the one that might snap and will get on you if you do. I have no more tolerance for these individuals and their comments which IMO are anti-productive to making WitE better and undermining this forum in general.

In the future I'm going to refrain more as understand that I can't help these people by scolding them. They need to help themselves. The movement to adjust the 41 campaign balance to be less sov bias has already begun, which is deeply satisfying as I had to go through 56 turns to try and get this point across. It's satisfying to see all the other human vs human games coming to the same conclusion.

I'm not going to stop pushing hard for a fun, balanced, and historical WitE game. If my approach to doing this upsets you, well get over it.

[:'(]






Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 10:57:40 PM)

Pieter, I'm not seeing this defensive issue in my latest 43 game. At all. Bob is probably referring to the transition period from 42-3 before the artillery divisions come into play. But I sincerely doubt he sees any offensive problems with the Soviets from summer 43 on. The God of War solves everything.








ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 11:03:35 PM)

Yeah, he was specifically talking about 1942. As I told him: the Axis are supposed to be attacking then. They should not be turtling.



Smirfy -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 11:31:26 PM)


Well not being able to assimilate casaulties with zeal in not the greatest foundation to debunk people so work away. Anyway I brought up morale because I actually dont think good units are behaving like good units. I will repeat that it is an oversight that you cannot define the intesity of your defense especially given Stallin and Hitler are your relative CiC's. I think that if we are micromanaging a whole array of features surely we should be able to order troops to hold at all costs or retreat when under pressure.



Smirfy -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 11:33:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Yeah, he was specifically talking about 1942. As I told him: the Axis are supposed to be attacking then. They should not be turtling.



Does this not go back to avoiding disaster in 41 would have been incredibly helpful for any Russian player



Klydon -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (1/31/2011 11:48:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: raizer

SS in backhand blow were in near top form.  In 41 they were average trained troops, esp in their junior leaders and ncos.  Dont forget toten got it ass waxed in france by the brits and the french dlms.  They were raw at this time.  High morale, but poorly led.  It took a long time for their sub par junior leaders to get killed off in France and Russia.  Then a steady stream of junior combat leaders  gradually filtered up the ranks.  40, 41 was a sub par period of SS units when measured against their high water mark around Khar 43 and Kursk 43.  There was a lot of costly growing pains inflicted upon the SS both by the russians and themselves.  In 41 Id take GD or any of the panzer over any SS unit.  In 43, Id still take GD...[:)]

omg and I see tillus has the popcorn lol


+1

Geeze I never said they did not deserve to be elite. I have Manstein's book and have read it several times. You may wish to review the section when he was in command of 56 Panzer during 1941.

Abulbulian and Kirk, please point out where I was wrong in my statements about the SS and where I said the SS should be changed in game. You both like to play the tough guy on internet boards; grats you. [>:]

My goal is the same as what it is for most here and that is a better overall game regardless of which side needs work because I will spend significant time working with each side. If you don't like someone responding in kind to some of your posts, especially when you or someone you are supporting are wrong, then you can get over it.



MechFO -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 1:18:49 AM)

@mods

Can we maybe make a consolidated historical discussion theread/subforum? While some of the discussions are interesting, they also tend to rapidly clutter up what should be gameplay threads.



notenome -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 1:24:12 AM)

Once again I ask that no matter how strongly we may feel about a topic, please avoid unecessary comments about others. I'm not asking for apologies, just don't feed the flames.

So since this thread has taken a (temporary, I hope) detour into 1941 SS performance, let's analyze them:

LSSAH-
Greece: Cleared Kleidi and Klessura Pass in Greece after fierce fighting and dificult terrain, breaking the main line of the Greek's First Army, which surrendered to Dietrich after the division broke through in Metsovon Pass. After reaching the Gulf of Patras LSSAH was ordered to cross the gulf in order to cut off the retreat of the British. Without transport vessels, the division commandered fishing boats and crossed the gulf without much of their heavy equipment, taking the town of Patras. This was their last major combat action. Their performance was considered outstanding.

USSR: Participated in the Battle of Uman, Battle of Kiev. Partcipated in the assault of the Perekop Ishtmus, took part in the capture of Rostov-on-Don but feel back with Panzergruppe 1 to the defensive line on the Mius, where it held despite Soviet counterattacks.

Das Reich-
Iugoslavia: Captured Belgrade in what would become one of the most highly publicized coups of WWII (The capture of the city with an initial force of six men).

USSR: Participated in the overall battle of Smolensk (more specifically at Yalnya/Yelna). Was one of the divisions to come the closests to Moscow before being pushed back, suffering devastating losses. Though most of the division was sent to rest and refit, a small detachment remained (Kampfgroup Ostendorf).

Totenkopf:
USSR: Saw action in Latvia nd Lithuania, breached the Stalin line, advanced to Demiansk (Demjansk). During the Winter counteroffensives Totenkopf was encircled and suffered great losses in the Demjansk Pocket, but held and would eventually break out.

Wiking:
USSR: First saw action in Tarnopol, held a bridgehead across the Dnepr against Red Army counterattacks. Advanced to Rostov-on-Don, then falling back with the rest of Panzergruppe 1 to the Mius, where it held the line during the winter.

Obviously all of the above is just a bare-bones summary, but it should suffice to show that there was a great leap in performance by the Waffen-SS from 40 to 41. Honestly I think the +5% morale bonus coupled with the unique TOEs suits them just fine.



Jakerson -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:26:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley
I still disagree that there was anything wrong with either of those combats. :) A little more clarity on the combat resolution display of disabled/damaged units would help quell a lot of that. Sometimes things don't work out as planned. I've sure suffered through that playing as both axis and soviets. That's what makes it fun for me. I mean i dislike how the surrender isolation system works. It's silly how you can have 750k guys just surrender without germany expending one life. So why don't those 2 things even themselves out? :)

Thankfully once they fix winter, fix disabled units coming back as green instead of as close to their xp, and hopefully isolation we'll have a little bit of a better flow during the initial offensive.


I feel your pain that Soviet cannot do any offesives at 41 and can only block and checker board german advance. Soviet really need unhistorically high amonth of troops to be counter attack against german stacks. Still I would say that Low German casulties at 41 are only historical.

This game combat system dosent always produce right results on the indivudial battles but on the grand scale it push German casuties towards historical pretty nicely assuming that German dosent make serious mistake or engage prolonged heavy fights against fortified cities that are not isolated.

Here is full list of German casulties (killed only) divided month by month. Percentage behind tell proportion of casuties suffered compared to total count between 1941-44 year so historically Germans suffered only 11% of their whole casulties at eastern campaing 1941.

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=2844

Losses on the Eastern front



The below figures include only those killed, not those taken prisoners or wounded.

June 1941 25.000
July 1941 63.099
Aug 1941 46.066
Sep 1941 51.033
Oct 1941 41.099
Nov 1941 36.000
Dec 1941 40.198
Total 1941 302.495 (11,0%)

Jan 1942 48.165
Feb 1942 44.099
Mar 1942 44.132
Apr 1942 23.066
May 1942 38.099
June 1942 29.033
July 1942 38.066
Aug 1942 62.165
Sep 1942 45.033
Oct 1942 25.000
Nov 1942 31.198
Dec 1942 78.759
Total 1942 506.815 (18,4%)

Jan 1943 180.310
Feb 1943 68.330
Mar 1943 46.066
Apr 1943 16.000
May 1943 19.066
June 1943 13.066
July 1943 71.231
Aug 1943 59.198
Sep 1943 57.429
Oct 1943 53.264
Nov 1943 67.363
Dec 1943 49.330
Total 1943 700.653 (25,6%)

Jan 1944 70.330
Feb 1944 64.429
Mar 1944 93.660
Apr 1944 73.264
May 1944 48.363
June 1944 142.079
July 1944 169.881
Aug 1944 277.465
Sep 1944 70.561
Oct 1944 92.528
Nov 1944 45.363
Dec 1944 85.253
Total 1944 1.232.946 (45,0%)

Total 2.742.909

Source: "Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" by Rüdiger Overmans





gradenko2k -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:40:35 AM)

quote:

Notenome, oddly enough, this entire issue of the +1 becomes irrelevant later on the war. The Soviet simply doesn't rely on marginal attacks at this stage.


I have to agree with this - by the time the Soviet has enough combat power to contemplate historical offensives, he doesn't need the +1 anymore.

As I understand it, the +1 is applied to the final CV ratio, after all the shooting's over and done with. If you can manage to "win" without the +1, then it hardly matters.



notenome -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 4:52:20 AM)

Which is why I don't see the need for the +1 to be applied beyond 41, and for that matter think Soviet doctrine could be better modeled in other ways, as per my many sugestions.



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 5:14:39 AM)

Bob thinks the Sovs need it during the transitional 42-3 period, Notenome. I'm agnostic on this point.

I will say this. Am presently testing a Stalingrad scenario and it would be pretty difficult to do it without this extra little bump as the Sovs. Some of the testers are having problems recreating the pocket. I managed to do it, but it took some work. This mid war Red Army isn't amazing, lacking as it does the sheer mass of artillery that comes along later. The mobile troops are largely green. Rifle corps are fairly rare. So Bob's point isn't without some basis. On the other hand, a player doing a GC can probably contrive to optimize the Red Army and get a better showing from it even during this stage. Then again, you still aren't going to get those big guns until December 1942 (and effectively until virtually 1943, since it takes several turns for freshly raised arty divisions to become combat capable.)

On the whole I tend to agree with Pieter on this issue, but it's not quite the slam dunk he believes when taking the larger view.



Jakerson -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 7:15:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Bob thinks the Sovs need it during the transitional 42-3 period, Notenome. I'm agnostic on this point.

I will say this. Am presently testing a Stalingrad scenario and it would be pretty difficult to do it without this extra little bump as the Sovs. Some of the testers are having problems recreating the pocket. I managed to do it, but it took some work. This mid war Red Army isn't amazing, lacking as it does the sheer mass of artillery that comes along later. The mobile troops are largely green. Rifle corps are fairly rare. So Bob's point isn't without some basis. On the other hand, a player doing a GC can probably contrive to optimize the Red Army and get a better showing from it even during this stage. Then again, you still aren't going to get those big guns until December 1942 (and effectively until virtually 1943, since it takes several turns for freshly raised arty divisions to become combat capable.)

On the whole I tend to agree with Pieter on this issue, but it's not quite the slam dunk he believes when taking the larger view.


Even with this bonus you cannot go on the offensive as much as soviet did historically during that time period I already complained in some other thread ridiculousness how much troops soviet need to mount an assault against German stacks of three panzer divs in the same hex that have CV power of 30-37. Taking away this bonus will only make it worse.

I have assaulted against three German panzer divs with six fully equipped tank corps and nine rifle divisions at same time (that is five full stacks of Soviet troops) without being able to get any other result than hold and I prepared assault by bombarding that same German panzer stack ten times with whole soviet air force witch most of it I had deployed same sector couple turn before and that is thousands of planes.

Those German panzers divs stack had zero forts lvl and no help from reserves other than couple artillery attachments.

Hold hold hold is only result I get and Me loosing 10k-15k troops eatch attack and German 1k troops. Now I see people lobby for chance that makes this even worse. [X(]

This test was run on summer 42 and done with the Soviet bonus. If german stack up their mobile troops in stack of 3 with or without bonus Soviet have nothing or no way to make any type of offensive against those stacks even if Soviet attack from 5 sides same time with full stacks it end up soviet taking 15k German 1k casulties.

Head on Soviet counter attack against German spearhead on 3 panzer divs on same hex simply no possible in 42 no matter how much troops Soviet have around them attacking.




PMCN -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 8:05:38 AM)

The point about the mobile troops getting a bonus cuts both ways.  I had one attack way back when that I felt was poorly modeled by the engine.  3 Sec regiments were hit by 3 Rifle divisions, 1 Cavalry division and a tank Bde.  They took 500 battle damage, 300 retreat damage and inflicted 909 on my attackers.  To my naive way of thinking I had the Cavalry division to "Find'em", 3 Rifle divisions to "Fix'em" and the Cavalry and Tank Bde to "Fork'em."  A few shattered companies should have survived that battle.  They certainly should not have been able to waltz away with my side taking more losses then them.  But the engine doesn't work like this, it does an extremely good job modeling the battles in general but the effect of operational mobility seems lost, but it is lost for both sides so I think it is fair to say that is balanced.  It is annoying when it is your operational mobility that is negated but on the other hand you probably don't make noise when the shoe is on the other foot either.

The other effect  I see that seems off is towed AA guns used offensively.  I won't go so far as to say it would be impossible to do this, but I can't frankly recall ever reading about it being done and it suffers from a lot of practical issues.  But again both sides benefit so probably it is not worth worrying about.

I don't mind if people disagree with me, I freely admit I can be wrong.  It has happened in the past on many occasions, it will happen in the future. 

My observations on the combat results are just observations and I do see events that break the 10% rule (1 each in the last two turns where a unit stood in place to nearly 20%, one soviet one german) but in the battles I've watched a unit rarely holds ground in the face of 10% losses and on any attack I've won I can't think of any where I got what looked like all my shots in.  I'd love to hear something official on this though. 



randallw -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 8:15:22 AM)

The game doesn't have the common feature of recon type equipment providing an attack bonus.





ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 1:22:10 PM)

quote:

On the whole I tend to agree with Pieter on this issue, but it's not quite the slam dunk he believes when taking the larger view.


I can only base it on my own experiences, mostly in my game with notenome. If he makes a handful of attacks each turn, and the only that would more or less cost me a turn of progress succeeds solely due to the odds modifier (such as with the way he bumped Wiking out of its hex), the effect is just disproportionate.

I really don't see why mobs of untrained conscripts should be capable of pushing Germany's best units around with relative ease, inflicting close to 1:1 losses in the process.

Depending on how he bumped the Panzer division at the weakest link of the pocket out of its hex this turn, which I expect was probably only possible due to the odds modifier or weird CV modification, it may have cost me another turn of progress.

If that's the case, I don't feel anyone can honestly say I'm not being stopped by the system more than my opponent's defences.

If the Soviets can just collect 1-2 CV units and force my best units out of a hex, creating pockets just becomes much too difficult.

The Soviets might be a bit weak from time to time on the attack, so maybe their strength could be increased a bit, but an odds modifier isn't the way to go, as it has the potential to effectively double the attacker's CV again.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 1:36:29 PM)

This may come back to haunt me, but I have played through most of a campaign vs. the Axis AI and had them on the borders of Poland by '43. I am now playing Carnage and while I have been told that my defensive tactics are very poor (linear defence, poor level of entrenchments, no use of Forts - don't believe in them - etc.) he never really got close to Moscow in '41 and I am pushing him back all along the front in January of '42. And Carnage is a solid player, IMO.

My conclusion is that the Soviet side (factoring in terrain, weather, CC and everything else) comes out too strong. I don't know the best way to fix that, but I dread the thought of playing as the Axis against a good Soviet player.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 1:44:56 PM)

Yes, that is fairly odd. You're not even trying, and the Axis still get stuck.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875