RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (Full Version)

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



Message

Peltonx -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 4:50:48 PM)

The best Tarhunnas can hope for is a draw there are still 34 turns left 8 are mud, but he has to hold 39 VP's and Berlin on October 1st 1945.

Big A is right in the fact that the majority of Russian players have no idea what to build come 42-45. The biggest reason why is most games end for Russian players by early 42 as there are so few good German players for them to play. Most guys I play have played 4 to 6 games as russian and most ended for them in 41 or early 42(with them winning), so they lack the knowledge of what to build. they think the games a cake walk until they play an exp German player.

And your also right about winning yourself to defeat as German from 43 to end of war. The combat ratio is basicly 1 to 1.5 even when you get a retreat or route as a German from 43 on. So it is only helping to weaken your OOB if you counter attck, unless it is done with 100% panzer/mech units and still then only in cases to open pockets or possibly hold a river line during summer.

After November 1942 as German your forced to go almost 100% static, unless you can get an easy pocket of course.

Pelton




Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 5:48:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

And your also right about winning yourself to defeat as German from 43 to end of war. The combat ratio is basicly 1 to 1.5 even when you get a retreat or route as a German from 43 on. So it is only helping to weaken your OOB if you counter attck, unless it is done with 100% panzer/mech units and still then only in cases to open pockets or possibly hold a river line during summer.

After November 1942 as German your forced to go almost 100% static, unless you can get an easy pocket of course.



I think you have a point there Pelton. There simply is no point in attacking for the Germans after 1942, as the cost/rewards of a successful attack are simply not worth it for the Axis. This is a problem in the game mechanics IMHO. Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?



alfonso -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 6:08:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

..., but he has to hold 39 VP's and Berlin on October 1st 1945.



I thought it was to hold 39 VP's or Berlin on October 1st 1945 (to get the draw)



Peltonx -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 6:17:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

And your also right about winning yourself to defeat as German from 43 to end of war. The combat ratio is basicly 1 to 1.5 even when you get a retreat or route as a German from 43 on. So it is only helping to weaken your OOB if you counter attck, unless it is done with 100% panzer/mech units and still then only in cases to open pockets or possibly hold a river line during summer.

After November 1942 as German your forced to go almost 100% static, unless you can get an easy pocket of course.



I think you have a point there Pelton. There simply is no point in attacking for the Germans after 1942, as the cost/rewards of a successful attack are simply not worth it for the Axis. This is a problem in the game mechanics IMHO. Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?


I like to say it was a morale issue, but I think Flaviusx might be right it is that the retreat loses for russians is to low. The combat ratio was changed after 1v1=2v1 was removed, I think that the increased lose ratio is snow balling later in war.

Just my 2 cents, proably dev's alrdy know the answer. Germans even late war with right troops were able to hand out crushing backhand blows.

There is a problem and it should be addressed.

Hopefully Flaviusx can get them to atleast look into it.

Not much fun being the bunching bag for 175 odd turns out of 225..

Pelton



Peltonx -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 6:22:21 PM)

I guess that if you tweaked German morale higher would be the morale answer, but I dont know for sure.

I just like to see game based on in game results and not a time line. The taking of citys could hold German morale constant for an example.

That way the VP system would stay same, but if German takes citys xyz German morale holds.




Flaviusx -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 6:31:56 PM)

I think retreat losses are too high, Pelton, not too low. For both sides. But the Soviets are in a much better position to absorb them thanks to their replacements. The Germans, on the other hand, can be grinded down to a nub with lots of retreats. It is part of the reason, I believe, that late war Germans are having such difficulties with armaments, too. All these retreats are seriously stressing the armament pool, more so than even manpower.

I think German morale is fine. (I'm beginning to hate this word morale. It's proficiency, goddamit. This evil word is causing no end of troubles and confusing players. It needs to go away. I hope it does so in WitW.) Soviet "morale" is both too low and too high. It is too low in 42, and too high in 44. The base NM of 60 in 1944 isn't that high in of itself, but in practice that figure is nominal at best. A huge chunk of the Red Army, perhaps a majority of it, will be getting bonuses of one kind or another, so the actual proficiency is much higher than the nominal one, even on average, and in certain cases much higher. You can stack certain bonuses and get very high values indeed.

In 42, OTOH, those bonuses aren't quite so widespread, and the vast majority of the Red Army will be operating at the NM norm, which at 40 is ridiculously low. It's a struggle to keep units from lapsing into unready status at that level on static fronts, due to attrition losses. That's how bad it is.



karonagames -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 6:34:26 PM)

quote:

Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?


Relative morale levels are certainly an issue, but the Red Army's Artillery and Air Force also are causing a lot more Axis casualties in 1943-45 than they were in 1941/42, which is historically correct, but as usual, whether the game engine currently reflects this with reasonable/acceptable accuracy is open to debate - many of the testers (and ex-testers) continue to raise the retreat issue in the dev. forums but as yet no formal response has been given.



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 6:39:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Soviet "morale" is both too low and too high. It is too low in 42, and too high in 44. The base NM of 60 in 1944 isn't that high in of itself, but in practice that figure is nominal at best. A huge chunk of the Red Army, perhaps a majority of it, will be getting bonuses of one kind or another, so the actual proficiency is much higher than the nominal one, even on average, and in certain cases much higher. You can stack certain bonuses and get very high values indeed.

In 42, OTOH, those bonuses aren't quite so widespread, and the vast majority of the Red Army will be operating at the NM norm, which at 40 is ridiculously low. It's a struggle to keep units from lapsing into unready status at that level on static fronts, due to attrition losses. That's how bad it is.



I think that sounds reasonable Flavius! I am not sure Soviet proficiency (I agree with you, that is what it should have been called, let's use this word from now on) is too high in 1942, but I am sure it is in 1944-45. In 1944 certainly, and probably even in 1945 I think German proficiency was way over Soviet, even if they were closer than earlier in the war.



Peltonx -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 6:49:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Soviet "morale" is both too low and too high. It is too low in 42, and too high in 44. The base NM of 60 in 1944 isn't that high in of itself, but in practice that figure is nominal at best. A huge chunk of the Red Army, perhaps a majority of it, will be getting bonuses of one kind or another, so the actual proficiency is much higher than the nominal one, even on average, and in certain cases much higher. You can stack certain bonuses and get very high values indeed.

In 42, OTOH, those bonuses aren't quite so widespread, and the vast majority of the Red Army will be operating at the NM norm, which at 40 is ridiculously low. It's a struggle to keep units from lapsing into unready status at that level on static fronts, due to attrition losses. That's how bad it is.



I think that sounds reasonable Flavius! I am not sure Soviet proficiency (I agree with you, that is what it should have been called, let's use this word from now on) is too high in 1942, but I am sure it is in 1944-45. In 1944 certainly, and probably even in 1945 I think German proficiency was way over Soviet, even if they were closer than earlier in the war.


Russian "fill in the blank" +5 1942
Russian "fill in the blank" -5 1944

Hmm I guess what me and Tarhunnas are saying is German loses for winning battles 1943 is way way to high.

I think retreat loses are fine from 1941 to 1945. The German army would never lose if retreat loses were turned down any more all things being equal

The game is far from historical as far as losses goes in most games.



Pelton



Peltonx -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 7:04:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

quote:

Might this be an effect of the relative morale values? Perhaps late war Soviet morale should be a notch lower?


Relative morale levels are certainly an issue, but the Red Army's Artillery and Air Force also are causing a lot more Axis casualties in 1943-45 than they were in 1941/42, which is historically correct, but as usual, whether the game engine currently reflects this with reasonable/acceptable accuracy is open to debate - many of the testers (and ex-testers) continue to raise the retreat issue in the dev. forums but as yet no formal response has been given.


I think German air forse should be causing far higher ground loses then they are.

WITW (1940)will really need to turn this up as the Franch and English has far better tanks and artillary over all, plus more men and equipement. Morale was not an issue or logistics.

The Western allies lost France because of one thing, tactical air support from the LW.

Germany did the right thing by building an airforse based on tactical air support and not wasting limited resoures on an air forse based on strategic bombing.The technology was just not there for strategic bombing to work until the 1970's.

The western allies (1944) were able to go keep loses at a 1v1 ratio because they had control over the air space. They them selfs were not ever effective at tactical air support, but were great at blowing up things behind the front. My grandfather did not like hearing the sound of any planes when he was at the front because many times the allies bombs landed on their own troops. Germans just had a great command and control system, that we basicly copied after the war and made better with time and technology.

The Stuka could drop as bomb 100 feet from friendly troops, kinda like a modern day laser guided bomb. I beleive it was only plane to be a true dive bomber. Vertical dive bomber.

Pelton



Q-Ball -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 7:33:58 PM)

I agree the Luftwaffe is too weak right now, but I think the 1940 defeats, that was not the primary factor.

In game terms, I would model the French Army with a low national morale (mabye 50), and absolutely terrible leadership. The French Army had a relatively poor military proficiency, the French themselves were still recovering from a really poisonous political climate in the 30s, the byproduct of which is that not all Frenchmen had their hearts in the war. And the leadership was absolutely criminally bad at almost all levels. They squandered whatever advantages they had (like AFVs)

The Third Republic was rotten and dysfunctional.

I think the BEF was fairly solid; they performed pretty well, but were overwhelmed by events. I would give the Brits a higher national morale in 1940, maybe 65 or so.



Flaviusx -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 7:43:37 PM)

The Third Republic's problems have been somewhat exaggerated, and probably no worse in 1939 than in 1914. (Civil-military relations immediately prior to WWI in France were awful, among other things.)

The real issue was the allied plan sucked, their mobility sucked, and the Germans surprised them utterly with their panzer concentration by the Ardennes. Once they raced to the channel and pocketed everything north of there, it was game over, with no chance of recovery for metropolitan France. France didn't have room for errors of this sort. (Unlike the Soviet Union.)

But for the English Channel, the British would have gone under as well, and no doubt we'd be reading about how rotten Great Britain was, etc. Churchillian heroism couldn't have flourished without the cooperation of geography, and we'd be stuck with a tale of British timidity a la Neville Chamberlain.

(Yes, I have a soft spot for the French. People rag on them way too much.)



Schmart -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 9:15:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's like Bob says. The historical artillery parks as shown in the 43 and 44 scenarios are a good basis to work from. Which means, roughly, two dozen tube artillery divisions and a half dozen rocket artillery divisions. I would consider even building more than that, but that's the basic blueprint.

Near as I can tell, nobody is building anywhere near that much artillery. They've been forgotten in the rush to pump out rifle and mobile corps. But the Red Army is a stool that cannot stand on two legs alone. True combined arms operations will include all three elements in generous amounts.


According to my research, by 1945 the Soviets were fielding 37 Artillery Divisions, 7 Rocket Divisions, and 47 Artillery Brigades. About 2/3rds of that was built before Kursk. I doubt any Russians players are building anything near to that.



randallw -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/7/2012 10:12:08 PM)

Oh great now we get some of this Stuka Uber Alles stuff.



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/8/2012 6:47:40 AM)

And the third republic is the longest lasting French republic to date. A little OT maybe...

The important thing is that German combat efficiency was better than everyone elses during the entire war. See for example books like Crevelds "Fighting power" or Dupuy. Dupuy has the Germans consistently causing 50% higher casualties than they took against the US and British. I am not a German or Nazi fanboy, but it simply seems to have been that way. And I have e feeling this is not reflected in the way combat casualties is inflicted in WITE post 1941 or so.



janh -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/8/2012 9:59:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The real issue was the allied plan sucked, their mobility sucked, and the Germans surprised them utterly with their panzer concentration by the Ardennes. Once they raced to the channel and pocketed everything north of there, it was game over, with no chance of recovery for metropolitan France. France didn't have room for errors of this sort. (Unlike the Soviet Union.)


Hindsight could be at least equally advantageous for playing the French as it is for playing Russian in WiTE. There are much bigger errors to be corrected on these sides, while Axis has in both cases performing very impressive feats that might be hard to improve on. Yes, it is contradicted by how easy Moscow and Leningrad are to catch nowadays, but I still think Wehrmacht's historical performance was impressive in itself; it could have gotten stuck in Belgian plains if the French had proper leadership and had realized that static trench-warfare was a phenomenon of the past.

I guess we might see MP limitations for the French, either through poor leadership rolls, or by mimicking an extended "surprise effect" over the new blitz tactics? It might be hard to find a concept for preventing the French to switch in an instant from huddling behind the Maginot line to mobile warfare.


As for the Luftwaffe, I believe someone posted this link earlier: "Great Myths of WWII: Combat Aircraft Versus Armour in WWII"
http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/Mythbusters4.html
I am not sure where the mistake lies, my feel would also be that Luftwaffe should be more destructive in terms of squads and vehicles. But perhaps this expectation is based more on skewed books or Hollywood movies than it bears and relation to reality. The numbers in the analysis above would certainly suggest so. Maybe the major factor the Luftwaffe contributed to air-land doctrine and blitzkrieg was indeed disruption of forces, C&C and infrastructure; i.e. close to the way it is modeled presently? Perhaps the effects on disruption should be worse?

If you set up a thought experiment on Kursk, assuming the claims of Luftwaffe reports to be real (Rudel claimed to have destroyed 12 tanks o July 5; his squadron reported something like 40-50 tanks destroyed and a similar number damaged per day; and numerous Stuka and He 129 squadrons were deployed), and consider that the Luftwaffe there had for the last time true air superiority, why didn't they keep pounding the Russian Armor for another week or two into obliteration?



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/8/2012 11:00:45 AM)

What air power will do is primarily put a great dampener on all operations and especially the movement of supplies, as if one side has air superiority and a great advantage in ground attack capability, essentially half of each calendar day (the daytime part) is closed down to movement for the other side. Supply services and truck columns will be much more severly hit than AFVs, but that in turn will impact the AFVs ability to operate, as fuel, amo and spare parts will not reach them. More tanks were lost in WW2 through being captured when broken down or out of fuel than those destroyed by direct weapon effects!



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/8/2012 2:50:41 PM)

Turn 187. January 11 1945.

Nothing dramatic this turn. Red Army attacks are picking up, so I pull back a hex or two and hope supply difficulties will dampen their ardor. A shot from Rumania, where a delaying action is taking place on the Rumanian plain. The Rumanians are apparently too stupid to change sides. I do have two German divisions in Bucarest (the most I can cram in, as the Rumanian High Command is there and cannot be moved), but I didn't expect that would make all that much of a difference.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/5F2128C9A20C4CB8A149BC5D7AA82B5A.jpg[/image]



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/8/2012 2:55:01 PM)

A picture showing the final defense lines being prepared east of Berlin. The Fuhrer has assured us they will not be necessary, but one never knows...

[image]local://upfiles/37384/A56FFAE2991B4CB6A80AC1FE535A3295.jpg[/image]



TulliusDetritus -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/8/2012 3:29:37 PM)

Make sure the Führerbunker is reinforced, just in case [8D]



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/10/2012 10:43:45 PM)

Turn 188. January 18 1945. Not much interesting happening. A sample of the defensive lines in the Ukraine. A motley collection of wrecked units..

[image]local://upfiles/37384/8EBC10B0254449A1A12E7EABBA83AA62.jpg[/image]



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/11/2012 9:14:37 PM)

Turn 189. January 25 1945.

A Soviet assult manages to cross the Neva at Leningrad.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/ABCBAE34C34D46C490D25DD1AE147595.jpg[/image]



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/11/2012 9:15:35 PM)

Meanwhile, German forces have withdrawn from all of Estonia.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/8E6C5A6511BF4C99A4F5D383FDF83AF7.jpg[/image]



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/11/2012 9:19:14 PM)

In the South the Red hordes are approaching Lvov, but intelligence reports that the Soviets have severe supply difficulties. The Rumanians have finally changed sides, but we were well prepared for that, and there were very few Rumanian units left anyway. On the plus side, that sure energized the Hungarians, so several CV 5 Hungarian infantry divisions became released for the front. Those are now among the strongest units on the Axis side.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/59783E5EBAC14BD28E084E104FD1CF82.jpg[/image]



Baelfiin -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/11/2012 9:38:49 PM)

ARM still empty Tarhunnas?



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/11/2012 9:48:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

ARM still empty Tarhunnas?



Yep. Last time I looked I had over 200k men in the manpower pool. I will post a screenshot of production next turn.



Q-Ball -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/11/2012 10:09:59 PM)

That is an interesting side-benefit of Romanian Surrender. The Hungarian units must have activated, because of Soviet-controlled hex along Hungarian border.

After 3+ years of playing cards and guarding the homeland, they should be maxed-out on everything



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/11/2012 10:38:19 PM)

There are no Soviet controlled hexes in Hungary, though a lot of hexes on the Rumanian side of the border switched control, but that shouldn't trigger the Hungarians AFAIK. But I think it is ok that the Rumanins defecting will activate the Hungarians, they hated each other.



Baelfiin -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/12/2012 2:02:57 AM)

when any of the trigger cities go to russian control, rumania, hungary and frozen italians activate.

At this point only the hungarians are left it looks like.



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1.04 The Wolf and the Bear (no Gids) (1/12/2012 6:42:10 PM)

Turn 190. February 2 1945.

I made a mistake in my preparations for Rumanian side switch. I missed that the railroad to southestern Hungary goes through Rumania for a couple of hexes, so all that part of the railnet is unusable. Well, not a disaster, but annoying! Otherwise, the Soviet advance has stalled on the mountains, and on the Rumanian plains the steamroller has petered out due to supply difficulties.

[image]local://upfiles/37384/E2237311EA5C424F9F78920C2D321BB2.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.78125