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

bwheatley -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 1:58:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

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.



Hah i am trying hard to do the same thing. Walk away when frustrated. :) And as the soviets in the beginning that keeps the turns slower.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:10:25 PM)

Another problem is that in about 6 attacks, half of which only succeeded due to the odds modifier, my mobile units took around a division's worth of losses. Considering that this is 1941 and that my opponent's Rifle divisions are at best mediocre at the moment, that really doesn't bode well for later years, where 6 attacks a turn might be possible.



alfonso -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:14:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian


I agree with Kirk and what I've read including 'Lost Victories' by Manstein. He describes how valuable these SS units were.



June 1941, Manstein on Totenkopf. "Lost Victories", Spanish translation, BOOKS4pocket, page 243: "---la tara irremediable de unas tropas cuyos mandos carecían de la metódica formación normal y de la experiencia de los profesionales"

"the irremediable defects of troops whose commanders lack the normal methodic formation and experience of professionals"

Two years after Poland, months after Balkan campaign...

In 1943 SS Units could be crack formations, not so in 1941



PMCN -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:15:30 PM)

ComradeP, the complaint against the +1 is invalid.

The combat result that you call cheesy in the AAR where 90,000 russians pushed out your panzer and motorized divisions was due to the doubling of final CV.  The +1 bonus was then the cherry on top but without the doubling the attack would have failed.  Your opponent got lucky there.  Without the doubling that attack had no chance to succeed.

The string of combats the forced out the 7th Panzer division was a combination of your fault and divine intervention.  Your fault because they had no ammunition after the first attack.  The remaining attacks are consistent only with the HQ sent support units firing (possibly some minor fire from your panzer division but I am dubious of even that).  Then his CV was tripled-divine intervention-...can someone official comment on how that is possible?  If there had been no odd ball modification of the final CV odds due to leadership rolls the attack may have failed since you would have had to loose a lot of squads and tanks for your CV to go from 120 to below 73 to leave the odds at slightly above 1:1 so the +1 would have kicked in.  I'd open a few cathedrals and light some candles over those results myself if I was the soviet player.

But neither result was due to the +1 both were due to the odd ball CV modification that at least so far as I can figure out is a leader check of some sort.  You may have even got the leader modification since it looks like your CV was 16x in that last battle...consistent with his 3xx or so...and the final odds being 3.3 (2.3:1 pre odds adjustment).  Remove those leader modifications and the final battle would have had CVs of (you)80, (him) 73 and an adjusted final odds of 1:1.1 HOLDES.  If you had had ammunition to shoot for the full turn the first and last attacks would have looked similar.



notenome -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:19:39 PM)

Paul I haven't finished that turn yet, so you're describing an attack ComradeP hasn't even seen yet. I'd ask you (and it's an understandable mistake) to not mention anything you read in an AAR thread until one of the two players approaches the topic first.



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:19:55 PM)

Paul, it's the leadership.

A good general -- in this case, my hero Rokossovsky -- has a disproportionate effect on adjusted final CVs for the Sovs.





ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:27:16 PM)

I don't believe the Panzer division in that hex had attacked often, so running out of ammo seems unlikely.

I also don't know how you can tell they had no ammo, for starters.

There also wouldn't have been any problem if the motorized division and panzer division were not easily pushed from their hex, and my HQ dislocating to a rather illogical location (10 hexes to the south meaning all units were not in HQ range) on Soviet turn 12.

Fact remains that my best units are both easily pushed out of a hex by untrained Soviet forces that would normally not be able to do so, and that they suffer higher losses than they can cause to the Soviets.

I'm still waiting for some of that divine intervention CV modification to happen to me. According to Pavel, both the Axis and the Soviets should have equal chances for CV modification, but the Soviets have a great variability.

I'm just not seeing the kind of CV increases the Soviets often get.

Of course, this pocket could've been established a few turns earlier is Wiking had not been removed from its hex by another attack that succeeded only due to the odds modifier.

As most of my attacks seem to fail at "almost" 2:1 odds, it is just really frustrating that the Soviets can easily push my best units around, whilst an entire Panzer corps barely scratches a Rifle division and a single Panzer division can have serious difficulty with removing a single 1=1 Rifle division.



Jakerson -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 2:46:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I don't believe the Panzer division in that hex had attacked often, so running out of ammo seems unlikely.

I also don't know how you can tell they had no ammo, for starters.


You could learn to estimate from experience if you have played German side before.

You just count how many times they fought last turn, how well unit is located logistically, how deep they are in Soviet union etc.

Having supply, ammo or fuel low have huge impact how much Germans suffer casulties. I learned this when I attacked some Soviet security brigades with 15% supplies and fuel left unit and when I beat them back I lost 3k men every time. This happened when I attemp to encircle Leningrad from very far south and I had problems to get supplies to them. Reason why I attack I wanted so badly to encircle Leningrad before Winter and I knew that Soviet get more and more reinforcements longer it takes. :D



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 3:03:56 PM)

I believe the division fought only 1 or 2 hasty attack battles, otherwise it also wouldn't have had the MP's to move into the hex.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 4:14:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

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


Well, I am trying - I'm just not very good!

Based on Jackerson's sources and my own reference material (particularly Mawdsley's Thunder in the East) I have come up with the following comparison of in-game losses versus the historical ones in my game against Carnage, in both case to December 41. This is killed plus captured.

As you can see, the figures are amazingly close, almost identical. So, the issue isn't the loss statistics when the game is fought along historical linear defence lines. It is either the level of replacements, reinforcements, unit quality or the impact of the blizzard, maybe all four combined. I would argue that the battle results must be incredibly realistic to produce this output and I'm not sure that's where the focus should be...

[image]local://upfiles/27287/A25151012CB64184AC536A8D22B0F3AB.jpg[/image]



Redmarkus5 -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 4:17:22 PM)

of course, players who use other techniques to reduce the losses for the Soviet side are in a different situation and have a much bigger advantage than I do...



JAMiAM -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 4:32:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

Paul I haven't finished that turn yet, so you're describing an attack ComradeP hasn't even seen yet. I'd ask you (and it's an understandable mistake) to not mention anything you read in an AAR thread until one of the two players approaches the topic first.

This touches on a subject that came up when I was intially challenging some of the assumptions, hypotheses, and claims being made about how hosed the Axis are. I was asked to show "proof" how they aren't, and to bolster my counterclaims that many of ComradeP's problems are coming from how (I feel) he is misplaying the Axis, by not utilizing doctrine essential for playing to their early war strengths and advantages vis-a-vis the Soviets.

Much of my analysis was directly influenced by both yours and his excellent AARs. Being able to see both sides, of course, helps immensely. However, it also makes it very difficult for someone to offer concrete examples of where someone has 'failed', here in the open forum, where the discussion has since boiled over. If I show a screenshot from one of ComradeP's posts, then it gives too much information to notenome, and vice versa. Thus, the only way that I could think of to 'prove' my point was to challenge ComradeP to a game - a challenge that he has graciously accepted.

There is another way to show the greater community some examples of what I feel to be 'good' Axis doctrine, versus 'bad' Axis doctrine, and that would be to - with both yours and ComradeP's expressed permission - post a few screenshots taken from both of your AARs along with some of mine from current PBEM games that I have going. That way, I can offer a contrast between the strengths and weaknesses of our various approaches, and throw the subject out for further analysis. I don't know if this particular thread would be the best one for it, or the Axis doctrine thread, or a fresh thread altogether. In any event, such an analysis would, again, hinge on both of you permitting me to show the screenshots. What do you gents think? How should I proceed, in order to more effectively participate in the discussion?



Flaviusx -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 4:34:55 PM)

We've got some significant tweaks in the latest tester build that should impact many of these issues. The manpower reduction for the Sovs, for example, works out to something like a million fewer replacements over 41-2. We're looking at things to stabilize experience and morale levels. Plus other stuff. The restriction on brigades converting to rifle divisions until May of 1942 I think pulls some of the teeth from the blizzard; by February you're running short on fresh divisions, and brigades won't pack the same punch. Etc.




notenome -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 4:48:59 PM)

JAMIAM I'd be ok with screenshots but only after the iniative has passed to my side (aka Blizzard), before that there is too much Abewehr potential, and also with a 'when in doubt: don't' level of discrecion (sp?). My problem with what Paul said was not so much the referencing of the battle, but that he referenced an ongoing battle of a turn I had not yet finished, which I can only imagine would be quite frustrating for ComradeP as he would be hearing about an attack without seeing it first.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 5:08:49 PM)

JAMiAM: the problem with what you say in my opinion is that you don't know how I got into a specific situation. The screenshots I post for the moment are zoomed out and don't display CV or MP's. That's why I asked you for proof that the problem was not due to, say, routing units being combat ready in the Soviet phase, but due to how I'm attacking/what I'm trying.

You don't know how I'm attacking, as you're only shown zoomed out screenshots from the end of the turn.

You can say "I would've done this" and point out where you would've gone based on a screenshot I posted, but you have no idea whether it would've been possible.



Smirfy -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 5:46:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

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.


Love your AAR's but sometimes you can be a little close to the action to see the bigger picture. I get the view from the other side of the hill and without adding spoilers just a couple of obsevations.


Your opponent is using a more flexible defence than Hitler

The push to Moscow was broken off 40 miles from the City in September now that is better than historical. Hitler would have pushed on your opponent wanted use his forces more economically.

Your opponent also captured the Crimea which involved two armies one of them armoured. Your opponent was obviously thinking of his position in 42 rather than Hitler trying to win the war in 41. That dilution of force when time is at a premium is critical. Would Barbarossa have done as well with such a diversion. He took the Crimea but did no materiel damage.

Your opponent did not realiase unitl midway through Barbarossa that your defence was linear so his tactics were based around what he percieved not what was happening on the ground.


You decided on a stop line early in the game something Stalin did not do. In the real Barbarossa when Guderian turned south Stalin expended his reserves attacking the centre

You did not have a Kiev and a Vayzma, 1 million men plus equipment still around for the winter of 41 is a big bonus

Your opponent did not really risk his Roumanians unlike Barbarossa so his German armies were diluted over greater distances

At Lenningrad the result is to all intent Historical.


If you look at the AI game you will find (just like in mine) Russian casaulties are horrendus despite kicking the German AI round the map.

The problem of the game in my opinion lies with CiC, logistics and air (especially interdiction) The player of which ever side can move too freely which leads to no great encirlcements. These mechanics should be tightened up so we might get a Kiev or a Stalingrad. At the end of the day no one is going to play like Hitler or Stalin given the mechanics. That is the fudamental principle reason how the game is panning out.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 5:49:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We've got some significant tweaks in the latest tester build that should impact many of these issues. The manpower reduction for the Sovs, for example, works out to something like a million fewer replacements over 41-2. We're looking at things to stabilize experience and morale levels. Plus other stuff. The restriction on brigades converting to rifle divisions until May of 1942 I think pulls some of the teeth from the blizzard; by February you're running short on fresh divisions, and brigades won't pack the same punch. Etc.



Does this imply that ongoing campaigns should be re-started?



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 5:56:08 PM)

Hmm, yes, I now see why you thought they ran out of ammo.

One of the testers mentioned ammo expenditure seems huge for defensive actions, which might explain this.

I'll ask on the tester forum what causes notenome's CV to become 3 times as high on two occassions, as I have a bad feeling about there being some bug in Soviet modified CV calculations.



Smirfy -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 5:56:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

We've got some significant tweaks in the latest tester build that should impact many of these issues. The manpower reduction for the Sovs, for example, works out to something like a million fewer replacements over 41-2. We're looking at things to stabilize experience and morale levels. Plus other stuff. The restriction on brigades converting to rifle divisions until May of 1942 I think pulls some of the teeth from the blizzard; by February you're running short on fresh divisions, and brigades won't pack the same punch. Etc.




You are adding a big tier of micromanagement there and will most likely be annoying especially with the stacking rules. IMHO you should be looking at command range and other HQ features, retreats and logistics.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 6:03:36 PM)

Hi Smirfy. I'm not sure we are really saying different things, possibly just focusing on different facets of the problem.

Yes, my opponent did divert large forces into the Crimea, but once I spotted his movement I was able to halt it without too much difficulty before the blizzard struck.

He is using a more flexible defence than Hitler, but our losses are on par with history (see my later post) while my gains on the ground are probably about twice what they were historically. His commitment of armour to stop my advance around Lake Ilmen also tells me that he is very stretched, flexible defence or no.

I don't have a million extra men - I have lost almost exactly the historical number, as have the Axis - I just lost them in different ways and in lots and lots of smaller pockets. I do agree that I was able to evade pockets way too easily. When I made this observation 1 day after buying the game I was dismissed in these forums, but every game reconfirms it.

Carnage's result at Leningrad was only historical if you take a snapshot in Nov 41, but it's surely not historical now - he is being pushed steadily away from the city. I don't buy the argument that this is an example of a flexible defence in that sector - Carnage has fought tooth and nail to hold the line there.

Something just doesn't feel right about the balance of forces in Jan '42. I have too many divisions and too many options for manoeuvre, IMO. I don't really mind (it's fun) but unless the Axis turns around and kicks me back to the Volga or Moscow come summer, I will be sorely disappointed.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 6:42:36 PM)

quote:

When I made this observation 1 day after buying the game I was dismissed in these forums


You were dismissed for your delivery of what you were saying, not always for the message. You were drawing conclusions that were not backed up by experience, now you're concluding things based on experience. That's a big difference.



randallw -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 6:43:40 PM)

I've also seen modified Soviet CVs to be larger than the base CV, that 2 or 3 multiplier that Paul mentioned.  I'm very late in my game so the leaders have received some ratings improvements, with a decent amount of 6's for Inf ( maxed out for that ), though armor ratings still lag.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 6:45:38 PM)

What seems fishy is that Von Manstein, one of the best German leaders and better than all Soviet leaders aside from Zhukov, managed to add, at best, 20 CV to the Panzer division. And then some mediocre Soviet leader, or possibly Rokossovsky, effectively quadrupled the Soviet CV? It just doesn't add up.



abulbulian -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 6:52:18 PM)

Yeah, I had posted a while back about the issues with leaders impacts not modeled properly. Not sure how an axis player is suppose to gain the type of ability that Manstein had in some very significant battles in the Crimea. The initial entry to the Crimea, the Kerch battle (which was amazing what it accomplished with forces involved) and the final capture of Sevastopol and with that the entire Crimea. All that with basically 11th Army, several Romanian units, and lots of extra and special siege arty (spr 42).

I don't think the concept of leadership in WitE models anything close to the advantages the Germans had over the Soviets in 41-42. If you take out Hilter's nonsense (which the axis player now represents) many lost battles would have been avoided too.


In my PBEM game vs bwheately, my 11th army and Rom units couldn't even get close to breaking into the Crimea.



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 6:56:05 PM)

I stand by my observation that the Soviets generally seem to get better modified CV's than the Axis when they get positive modified CV's.

I've been saying that for a while on the tester forum, but people dismiss is at false, coincidence or refer to some vague greater variability for Soviet CV's.

I think it's a problem if one of the best German leaders can't really double or in some other way significantly increase the CV of one of his units once in six battles.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 6:59:48 PM)

I can only respond to that by saying that what seemed obvious to me on day one remains obvious today, with all the extra experience... My 'delivery' issues were a reaction to being shot down for not having 'the experience'. Maybe experience isn't everything?



ComradeP -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 7:02:17 PM)

Some of the issues you were seeing were not issues, or were already fixed. Many of your observations that were true were certainly not new, whilst you were acting like you just discovered some horrible secret.

Your feedback was and is appreciated, of course, but not everything you said or say are thing that we're unaware of.



MengJiao -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 7:05:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

What seems fishy is that Von Manstein, one of the best German leaders and better than all Soviet leaders aside from Zhukov, managed to add, at best, 20 CV to the Panzer division. And then some mediocre Soviet leader, or possibly Rokossovsky, effectively quadrupled the Soviet CV? It just doesn't add up.


But how fishy is it really? The Pz divisions are already operating much closer to peak efficiency than the Russians formations. To take a really crude way of looking at it:

1) Manstein makes a few good suggestions to a Panzer formation that is already using its 80 tanks very well and adds 20 CV factors
2) Some reasonable Russian makes some very basic suggestions (like get to the front and use your radios!) to say 400 tanks that are mostly
not getting used well at all (say at 1/10 effectiveness), to quadruple he just has to get 160 out of 400 tanks to operate reasonably, unlike Manstein who has to do something miraculous to get 80 tanks to function as well as 160. The Russian could double it all again to a 320-tank level and still be operating at less than half of Manstein's magic level.



notenome -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 7:06:18 PM)

One could test this in the editor, no? Put one Axis division in clear next to one soviet division and assign Manstein to one side and Rokossovky to the other. Then make a hotseat 'game' and have each side attack 10 times, see how CVs faired.



abulbulian -> RE: 1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc (2/1/2011 7:26:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

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


Well, I am trying - I'm just not very good!

Based on Jackerson's sources and my own reference material (particularly Mawdsley's Thunder in the East) I have come up with the following comparison of in-game losses versus the historical ones in my game against Carnage, in both case to December 41. This is killed plus captured.

As you can see, the figures are amazingly close, almost identical. So, the issue isn't the loss statistics when the game is fought along historical linear defence lines. It is either the level of replacements, reinforcements, unit quality or the impact of the blizzard, maybe all four combined. I would argue that the battle results must be incredibly realistic to produce this output and I'm not sure that's where the focus should be...

[image]local://upfiles/27287/A25151012CB64184AC536A8D22B0F3AB.jpg[/image]



Not sure I agree with your figures on soviet loses in 1941. I have sources for soviet loses KIA + wounded + MIA in the ball park of 6 million.

Here's one source: Stalingrad: the infernal cauldron, 1942-1943. Stephen Walsh P26

"Soviet loses in 1941 were horrific. It is estimated that between 22 June 1941 and 31 December 1941, the Red Army suffered upwards of 6 million causalities. Three million POW and tank loses of 21,391."

So I think you value of 3 million is way off. Is that just POW? Where did you get those crazy numbers for loses?

So in reality your actual soviet loses are about 1/2 what they should be. Which supports exactly the type of issues the game has in play balance. Simply put, the axis are lucky to get anything close to historical for soviet loses in 41. While the axis loses will almost always be as much or more than historical with not much effort from the sov player. I was lucky against my PBEM opponent to just get 4 million in 41. Which we both agreed would not happen again if we played again.

All the extra troops the sov have in spr 42 cause very serious issues in 1942 for the axis. I think the current changes for manpower reduction mods (less 450k in 41 and less 700k in 42) will help, but still will not be enough.

ALSO, just wait until after the 13 turns of blizzard. You will lose about 1 million axis troops and even more if the sov players makes attacks, which a decent sov player will do in all 13 turns of blizzard.

[&:]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.59375