RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (Full Version)

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



Message

76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/7/2011 7:12:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Not really. I've been reading that "Bloody Triangle" book by V. Kamenir...This caused quite a few operational-level "meeting engagements", which usually ended badly for the RKKA...While this "agility" partly is the result of pre-war plans, it's also true that 5th and 6th Armies got on the move within 24 hours. So the "shock" effect seems to cancel out with the pre-planning.

As chance would have it, I'm reading the same book, although haven't gotten to the actual start of the war yet. That said, I wold say that this "agility" is ENTIRELY the result of pre-war plans, and the fact that they had a better idea what the Germans were doing. From what I've seen so far, the Sovs in this sector were pretty much expecting an attack.

Moreover, this type of meeting engagement is only one of the types of engagements that would occur under your proposed scheme. For instance, it is one thing for Sov units to simply advance straight ahead until they run into the Germans advancing towards them. It is quite another, and much more difficult, to "vector" onto a unit which is moving not toward you, but perhaps parallel or even away from you--you get "there" too early or too late and you simply don't encounter the enemy. So should this reaction only be effective with a units "forward arc"? Or penalties for moving parallel to the front? Way too complicated IMHO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Regarding "gaming" stuff. The German players would really need to be clever. Actually, über-humanly clever. They would have to compute (by hand, or write a computer program for it) all the possible combinations of units which might be in reaction mode or not (this is not visible to the opponent, very much like Reserve mode isn't either) and their paths. One could certainly "guess" or compute with few units, but man, just don't buy any more lottery in a couple months, because it might well be that you just broke your Bank of Luck ;)

I don't understand why you think this. I think it would be child's play for the German to send his weakest units up ahead to attract the reacting units, and only deploy his powerful units once he had seen the reaction moves. From what people have been writing, I assume that people anticipate that this reaction stuff would be most useful in checkerboard type situations, and I think it could easily be gamed in this situation. Sure, you couldn't be 100% whether all eligible unit had already reacted, but you don't have to be 100% correct to gain a major advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Well, the Axis unit has either to move around the unit that just came to hug her or attack it. It can certainly backtrack and try another avenue of approach. Either way, those are MP's - i.e. time - the German would be wasting. Therefore, he'd be slowed down. Did I answer your concern?


You did not answer my concern, but instead are repeating what appears to me to be a common misconception (or I just don't get something)... Imagine two situations, A and B. In A, a Sov unit starts the turn adjacent to a German unit. The German's first action is to hasty attack the Sov unit and rout it, the German is now free to move. In B, a Sov unit starts one hex away, and in front of, the German unit. Before hasty attacking, the German must move into a ZOC, thus costing more MP. The German could avoid attacking and simply drive around it, but the ZOC means that this also forces the expenditure of significant MP. [EDIT: Thus, MP expenditure seems to significantly higher if Sov units start one hex away from German units, rather than adjacent.] I would appreciate it if someone could explain the flaws in this logic?

The calculus changes if you can assume that the Sov unit won't rout (farewell NKVD units!), but this seems fairly rare in 1941 at this point.

[EDIT: As far as I can tell the only downside to not starting adjacent is that you don't inflict fatigue/attrition on the German player, but from what I have read for any given turn this effect is very incremental and I would probably be satisfied to rely on attrition and fatigue from German unit movement.]




76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/7/2011 7:34:26 AM)

If people are really interested in some way of slowing-down/impeding the phasing player, I think it would be easier to create some kind of "small unit strongpoint" scheme, in which a player could remove a unit from the map, and in return the unit's hex and the six surrounding hexes would become more costly for the opposing player to move through. Basically, this would represent a unit being broken up into small contingents and deployed to slow down the enemy as much as possible. The resulting effects could work very simillarly to air interdiction, but it would be in a particular location selected by the player. Morever, the other player would not be able to tell by looking at an empty hex whether it was subject to "small unit strongpoints". But then again, this isn't that different a result from a standard checkboard defense, so I'm not sure if even this is worth it.



janh -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/7/2011 10:47:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Moreover, this type of meeting engagement is only one of the types of engagements that would occur under your proposed scheme. For instance, it is one thing for Sov units to simply advance straight ahead until they run into the Germans advancing towards them.

That would be the ultra-realistic version really giving your units some initiative and way to override your own orders, basically mimicing C-C errors, misunderstanding, a commander with his own mind etc. That's what they did for Scourge of War, where they even have the dispatch bearers present. Nice and logic extension to also simulate that source of friction, but there is other things that would rank much higher on most people's list here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Sure, you couldn't be 100% whether all eligible unit had already reacted, but you don't have to be 100% correct to gain a major advantage.

You have it. There is no way to 100% and reproducibly game it. I would really include above strength ratios in the calculation of chances, and only allow reaction for a threat meaning that is it actually strong enough to do some harm in the rear, not perhaps even including a setting that allows the player to select whether reaction to Inf formations should be performed, or just against faster ones. Perhaps even by design not? (Along these lines you could also change the ZOC rule meaning that you would require a unit to exceed a certain strength and ToE% threshold to be able to have a non-zero ZOC.)

The whole point of the reaction is basically to generate some uncertainty and friction, and, thus, lower op-tempo and give a feel that the opponent also "acts" during his waiting part of the 7-day phase. Besides, if you have good formations and good commanders set up with this, you can maybe delay a breakthru, or encirclement with some luck. Same luck as needed for a good reserve action, which is in a sense identical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
You did not answer my concern, but instead are repeating what appears to me to be a common misconception (or I just don't get something)... Imagine two situations, A and B. In A, a Sov unit starts the turn adjacent to a German unit. The German's first action is to hasty attack the Sov unit and rout it, the German is now free to move. In B, a Sov unit starts one hex away, and in front of, the German unit. Before hasty attacking, the German must move into a ZOC, thus costing more MP. The German could avoid attacking and simply drive around it, but the ZOC means that this also forces the expenditure of significant MP. [EDIT: Thus, MP expenditure seems to significantly higher if Sov units start one hex away from German units, rather than adjacent.] I would appreciate it if someone could explain the flaws in this logic?

I suppose you could only have units react if they move from 1 ZOC hex to the next one, not if they first enter your ZOC. But in fact, just brushing them aside would also be my approach. But this would then mean the reaction rules would have achieved their goal, and introduce fighting instead of organizing your units to sneak a full-7-day marching distance around the gaps until the enemy can respond, be it in 41 or 44.

Regarding you strongpoint idea, that was pretty much how I interpret the ZOC concept: a sufficiently strong unit sending out patrols to adjacent terrain, skirmishing or setting up small ambushes for the enemy passing through there so he has to be on alert all the time, and move slower (at higher MP cost). I didn't get it exactly, but you were thinking to extend this idea? But wouldn't this again be a static thing, and not reduce the non-simultaneous character of the I-go-U-go turns?



76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/7/2011 11:02:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
I didn't get it exactly, but you were thinking to extend this idea? But wouldn't this again be a static thing, and not reduce the non-simultaneous character of the I-go-U-go turns?


As you say, this isn't too much different from how ZOC works, but it would be different in a couple of respects (and frankly, I'm not sure its worth the effort):

1) A player would have to make a sacrifice to get the benefit of the increased MP expsnditure by the other side: bascially he would sacrifice a unit (eliminate it from the map) to represent it being dispersed into a bunch of small detachments. Obviously this is more feasible for the Sovs than the Germans, who could not afford to sacrifice that many units, although maybe it could be possible to "reconstitute" the original unit if the relevant hexes were not occupied by the enemy; and

2) The MP effect on the moving player would be randomized, and probably a bit more severe than existing air interdiction results. But, since the hexes would not contain any unit counter, the Germans would not need to make any hasty attacks, just increased MP cost to enter each covered hex.

3) This kind of thing would be impossible (difficult) to detect via recon , so when a German player conducts recon and sees empty space, he could not be sure if it was truly and completely empty, or if the Sov player had deployed these "small units" in the ares. So Germans would not be quite so sure of their MP costs, and thus how far they could penetrate/advance in a turn.

The effect would be similar to a checkerboard, but more randomized and less gamey for both attacker and defender.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/7/2011 11:06:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

That really nasty air bug has imbalanced all the games started under 1.05 as far as the air war goes.

So judging the air battles from any of the games we are playing is a total waste of time.

Many of the Russian formations have way higher moral then they should at this time.

Its really having an abnormal effect on all the games unless you started after the patch that fixed it.

I would not waste time cheering or putting poeple down because of a nasty bug.


Certainly there's a bug here regarding how the number of kills in Air Combat are being accounted. But most of this happens on Q-Ball's phase, not mine. Hence it seems to me it's all because the intercept missions being generated by the AI. Both you an me are maxing out the Fighter Intercept setting, but it seems to work much better for the VVS because of its huge numbers. I reported this to Helpless a couple weeks ago, and Flavio confirmed it, but from what I gather he's unable to reproduce the problem, which is not the same as saying there's no problem :)

I agree with you that for whatever reason, this is creating a quite wonky situation in the air. I don't think the Luftwaffe will be able to dispute air superiority all across the front, and it would be toughly contested even if it concentrates.

On the other hand, Q-Ball has really put a dent on Soviet aircraft production in this game. It's quite probable that I will dry out the airframe pools well before 1942, if the tempo of operations doesn't decrease (in December certainly it shouldn't).



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/7/2011 8:36:43 PM)

76mm has made me sweat this time [:)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Not really. I've been reading that "Bloody Triangle" book by V. Kamenir...This caused quite a few operational-level "meeting engagements", which usually ended badly for the RKKA...While this "agility" partly is the result of pre-war plans, it's also true that 5th and 6th Armies got on the move within 24 hours. So the "shock" effect seems to cancel out with the pre-planning.

As chance would have it, I'm reading the same book, although haven't gotten to the actual start of the war yet. That said, I wold say that this "agility" is ENTIRELY the result of pre-war plans, and the fact that they had a better idea what the Germans were doing. From what I've seen so far, the Sovs in this sector were pretty much expecting an attack.


I don't want to spoil the book for you, but pre-planned moves were of the essence for getting the units moving. However, the situation was so fluid that you'll see that some of the commanders showed a notable level of initiative and personal courage. You'll see that even relatively "lackeys" such as Feklenko, commander of the 19th Mech Corps showed a certain degree of ability getting his badly depleted units to meet the Germans. Or Rokossovskiy 9th "Mech" Corps which moved all the way from Shepetovka (east of Rovno) to Lutsk in less than two days. In some books one is left under the impression that Red Army officers were a bunch of cowed, stuttering, yes-men.

Not in this one. Indeed there were many officers like these, but there were also many who showed ability and quick thinking in conditions similar to those of the French. And the Red Army reacted much better than the French (I guess it helped that RKKA higher echelons were worried
about "mundane" stuff, and their attention focused less focused on critical issues such as choosing which was the best wine to toast the visiting British officers that looked worried or scolding the Corps HQ chef for not getting the foie perfect the night before).

Regarding that "they were expecting an attack". Well, if they were expecting an attack in the eve of Barbarossa one could easily what they would expect from massed PanzerDivisions grouping just west of Vyazma in late September. Sure as hell those guys weren't mounting on their Sdkfz's doing recon just because some CO wanted to have hare with mushrooms for supper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Moreover, this type of meeting engagement is only one of the types of engagements that would occur under your proposed scheme. For instance, it is one thing for Sov units to simply advance straight ahead until they run into the Germans advancing towards them. It is quite another, and much more difficult, to "vector" onto a unit which is moving not toward you, but perhaps parallel or even away from you--you get "there" too early or too late and you simply don't encounter the enemy. So should this reaction only be effective with a units "forward arc"?
Or penalties for moving parallel to the front? Way too complicated IMHO.


I don't think it's worth to model in a different way those "parallel" moves. WitE isn't modeling air combat, or anything like that. Enemy units move along roads and towards targets of interest - road and rail junctions, bridges, etc. Red Army staff officers might be unexperienced but surely they could read a map as well as anybody else and were mostly smart people and anticipate to enemy moves judging the info they got through the chain of command or other sources. So reaction triggers whenever a hex within the radius flips. The reacting unit moves to block, that is, try to occupy that hex. That's an instant effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Well, the Axis unit has either to move around the unit that just came to hug her or attack it. It can certainly backtrack and try another avenue of approach. Either way, those are MP's - i.e. time - the German would be wasting. Therefore, he'd be slowed down. Did I answer your concern?


You did not answer my concern, but instead are repeating what appears to me to be a common misconception (or I just don't get something)... Imagine two situations, A and B. In A, a Sov unit starts the turn adjacent to a German unit. The German's first action is to hasty attack the Sov unit and rout it, the German is now free to move. In B, a Sov unit starts one hex away, and in front of, the German unit. Before hasty attacking, the German must move into a ZOC, thus costing more MP. The German could avoid attacking and simply drive around it, but the ZOC means that this also forces the expenditure of significant MP. [EDIT: Thus, MP expenditure seems to significantly higher if Sov units start one hex away from German units, rather than adjacent.] I would appreciate it if someone could explain the flaws in this logic?

The calculus changes if you can assume that the Sov unit won't rout (farewell NKVD units!), but this seems fairly rare in 1941 at this point.

[EDIT: As far as I can tell the only downside to not starting adjacent is that you don't inflict fatigue/attrition on the German player, but from what I have read for any given turn this effect is very incremental and I would probably be satisfied to rely on attrition and
fatigue from German unit movement.]


The cost for entering a Clear terrain hex within ZOC of an enemy unit (but the hex being "Pending Friendly", since divisions flip adjacent hexes not in ZOC) would be just 1 MP. Doing the hasty would be 3 MP's. Entering ZOC from a hex which is not on enemy ZOC is free. That's 4 MP's which is certainly less than the 3 MP's needed to attack an adjacent unit with a hasty attack (hexsides not being a minor nor a major river).

Let's say the Panzer division really wants to move the hex right behind the unit that just reacted. But the Axis player is forced to make a choice: either attack and get freedom of maneuver as you say, or sidestep. You seem to deem this decision to be a completely no-brainer, but it really depends a lot on the situation.

The attacking unit has a CV of 120 (displayed as 12), the unit that just reacted has a displayed CV of 2 (which could be 20, 21, ..., 29). A hasty attack would start with initial odds ranging from 40 / 20 (2:1) to 40 / 29 (1:1). In the worst case (leader doesn't double, Luftwaffe is elsewhere) the chances of winning the combat - achieving 2:1 - are 1/10, assuming that all defending CV's between 20 and 29 are equally likely. Routing (i.e. final odds 10:1 or greater) are relatively unlikely with a hasty (I think Q-Ball has got something like 5 such results in the last turn, out of over 30 hasty attacks).

But things can get worse.

If there are other enemy units with displayed CV of 2 not in ZOC, say at about 2 hexes, they might well be in Reserve (or not, you just don't know). A Soviet Rifle Division, with 16 MP's, chance to participate into as a Reserve is Initiative/10 times the chances of Die(2) - the MP cost to reach the hex - being less than or equal than Die(16). With a leader of initiative 5 this becomes:

0.5 x 31/32 = 0.5 x 0.96875 = 0,484

That's one in two, you would say, not bad. But the chances of the hasty attack being successful become much less entertaining (something like 1/20). If there are more than one of such enemy units, then the chances are much lower (since the probability of at least one unit being committed becomes higher).

All of a sudden, hasty doesn't look too viable. The chances of needing 2 hasty attacks (6 MP's) are very high (even if after the second hasty, the defender routs). It might be even be preferable to bring infantry and do a deliberate, or directly, doing a deliberate attack and "burning" that PanzerDivision. Taking a detour around the unit that reacted might be cheaper, expensive or just not an option.

Either way, even simple, zombie-like reaction can complicate breaking through a defense in the style we see these days quite involved. I don't think even Pelton takes into account all these factors when playing [:P]

Let's take a look to the rules I drafted (with some revisions, taking into account some of the feedback I've got). Changes or additions in cursive:

15. 2x. Reaction Rules (v2)

1. The phasing player can set eligible Combat Units into Reaction Mode.

2. The only Combat units eligible for Reaction mode are Ready, unfrozen units which are not in enemy ZOC.

3. Units put into Reaction mode will be able to move to intercept up to a max of 6 hexes.
a) Reaction range can be limited - via a toggle text button on the unit detail display - to 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 hexes.


4. Resolving interception move during opposing player phase:
a) A enemy movement (or combat) flips a hex ownership, a check is done on what (if any) combat units are within 4 hexes range of that hex.
b) For each of the units in reaction mode the following checks are done to determine whether they become active and react:
i) If the Combat Unit is of size Bde(Rgt) will receive a bonus for successive checks
ii) If the Combat Unit is of type Armored, Motorized or Mechanized all successive checks receive bonuses
ii) Die(10) against HHQ leader initiative rating (+1 if condition i) holds, +1 if condition ii) holds)
iii) Die(MP's to hex) <= Die(MP's).

c) The first unit that passes the check becomes "allocated" and no further units are checked.

d) The selected unit attempts to reach the active hex, spending MP's as per normal terrain costs, but ignores additional costs
due to ZOC and/or enemy ownership. NOTE: ignoring them or paying reduced costs, since this is modeling a very fluid situation
so the enemy unit which is marching and hasn't much ability to project much force around it.
e) The above can have either the following results:
i) The reacting unit enters an adjancent hex to the "hotspot" hex. If it has enough MP's to do a hasty attack on the adjacent,
such an attack is performed. This attack will have a high chance of getting a RECONAISSANCE result.
ii) The reacting unit falls short of the hex, but in its general direction.

Changes rationale:

15.2x.2: Getting a ZOC negates Reaction, very much as happens with Reserve mode.
15.2x.3: This is the "magical" constant used for defensive reserves by the designers. I'm sure they had a good reason
to set it to that value.
15.2x.4.a: Flipping ownership rather than entering. Makes more sense. Brigades/Regiments are less likely to trigger reaction moves.
15.2x.4.ii: Similarly as above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Regarding "gaming" stuff. The German players would really need to be clever. Actually, über-humanly clever. They would have to compute (by hand, or write a computer program for it) all the possible combinations of units which might be in reaction mode or not (this is not visible to the opponent, very much like Reserve mode isn't either) and their paths. One could certainly "guess" or compute with few units, but man, just don't buy any more lottery in a couple months, because it might well be that you just broke your Bank of Luck ;)

I don't understand why you think this. I think it would be child's play for the German to send his weakest units up ahead to attract the reacting units, and only deploy his powerful units once he had seen the reaction moves.
From what people have been writing, I assume that people anticipate that this reaction stuff would be most useful in checkerboard type situations, and I think it could easily be gamed in this situation. Sure, you couldn't be 100% whether all eligible unit had already reacted, but you don't have to be 100% correct to gain a major advantage.


See the above.

Ok, but reaction triggering is chance based. Chances of reacting grow as the number of hexes are flipped from Friendly to Pending Enemy. Either he is wishing to sacrifice/put in a dangerous position a unreasonable number of weak units or he's plenty of them with plenty MP's. Let him burn MP's. And as I said before, feinting and baiting are completely fair, non-gamey moves.



76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 11:15:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
That's 4 MP's which is certainly less than the 3 MP's needed to attack an adjacent unit with a hasty attack (hexsides not being a minor nor a major river).


BG, with all due respect, I tried to read your paragraphs with the math several times, and just could not understand what you were trying to say, especially when you say that 4 is less than 3?



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 11:19:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
That's 4 MP's which is certainly less than the 3 MP's needed to attack an adjacent unit with a hasty attack (hexsides not being a minor nor a major river).


BG, with all due respect, I tried to read your paragraphs with the math several times, and just could not understand what you were trying to say, especially when you say that 4 is less than 3?


Hehe, that's obviously wrong: 3 MP's < 4 MP's. That should read "more" rathern than less.

Other than that, can't you follow the reasoning regarding the odds of a Hasty attack? Or the analysis about the chances of a Hasty attack being influenced by reserve units?




Tarhunnas -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 11:25:41 AM)

I think this reaction thing seems like an idea worth exploring. The present Reserves system is a little one dimensional. Reaction seems to be more in line with how German "reserve" units aced in the war.



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 3:41:43 PM)

The reaction stuff, while interesting, is a pretty big change in game mechanics. I don't see something like this happening before WITW, would need extensive testing. I'd certainly hesitate in trying to put this into a mere beta patch. There could be AI issues here as well.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 4:38:02 PM)

Well, I find the comments by both Tarhunnas and Flavio's quite positive. Congratulations to all those involved in discussing this, either "criticizing", "argumenting", or just "suggesting". This means we're certainly going somewhere [:)]

We can only "operate" at the ruleset level: it's written in English, and we've got direct access to the text. The code level is something, as I already mentioned, we can only make educated guesses. Both about from a coder or the business perspective. I would lie if I said I wouldn't be delighted to see this on WitE 1.06 or 1.07, but I agree with that being "wishful thinking" than a "realistic, informed expectation". Having this feature in WitW would be superb, as well. And the option of retrofit it into WitE once WitW is out, would be marvelous.

Possible AI issues are a completely mystery, which is a "bad" thing, indeed. At a purely conceptual level, the question is how the AI would manage that enemy units appeared "out of nowhere" and interdicted its PIM. My guess is that the answer to that lies at knowing how it does already deal with interdiction attacks, or failed attacks. That is, unexpected stuff in general.

I'd really love to hear the opinion of players with more experience playing the Axis, especially in the later war, about this proposed mechanics.

Going back On topic: the AAR will be updated tonight. Believe or not, yesterday evening I found out about this very fine game:

[image]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7353/ilovethehighground.png[/image]


couldn't help going through the Brigade combat [:'(] That Alabama people is not going to enjoy this July morning, sorry.

And today I couldn't help opening V. Zamulin's "Demolishing the Myth. The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: an Operational Narrative" [:D]



janh -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 5:33:45 PM)

You are going to run out of "real life" soon... [;)]  Somebody should develop a 36h day...



Ketza -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 5:41:25 PM)

I was just there a few months ago:

haha hold on while I try to shrink it from the size of Texas.

The view from little round top towards Devils Den pretty much the same as your game view.







[image]local://upfiles/23687/7F8F09350D8C412A9A4B099D9AA80017.jpg[/image]



M60A3TTS -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 5:43:50 PM)

Don't get me started on the whole Dan Sickles thing. [:)]



Ketza -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 5:56:01 PM)

And the reverse view! BTW sorry for the hijack [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/23687/C0E1BBAC83584488AE9AB4A2FD5DBB2A.jpg[/image]



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 6:37:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

And the reverse view! BTW sorry for the hijack [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/23687/C0E1BBAC83584488AE9AB4A2FD5DBB2A.jpg[/image]


No Ketza, very nice pictures, really [:)] These NorbSoftDev guys really got right the lay of the land. Actually that little battle got very funny when I got word from the Division CO - via mounted courier - to proceed northwest and deploy to the left flank of 1st Brigade. I wondered what kind of indian snake oil was that guy smoking, since there was something like a whole Confederate Division between me and First Brigade. The realities - sad realities - of middle 19th century C3I dawned on me all of a sudden.



CarnageINC -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 6:39:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The reaction stuff, while interesting, is a pretty big change in game mechanics. I don't see something like this happening before WITW, would need extensive testing. I'd certainly hesitate in trying to put this into a mere beta patch. There could be AI issues here as well.


Perhaps it might be looked at for a WitE or a War in Europe 'Field Marshal' edition [:'(]



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 11:40:00 PM)

Turn 15 – 25 september 1941

Three turns for the rasputitsa, and it does indeed look like some dark clouds are gathering over RKKA fortunes. Q-Ball hasn't pressed as hard as I expected, but that's not a sign of weakness. I'd rather say it's a sign he's planning some major operations to cripple the RKKA before Winter hits.

Combat intensity has gone down all across the front, there have been just 49 battles, 73% of them Axis victories. Comparing with Turn 13, where there was a similar number of battles, Held results have increase by a 50% (proportionally). That's a good sign: the RKKA is regaining some balance. But I need to keep this strength and not let it be easily destroyed by the Axis armies.

Definitely, Axis AFV losses are well under control. Now it has occured to me that this is just a sign of most reliable AFV types “surviving”, that is, becoming the bulk of PanzerDivision TOE's. Trends in air losses have also changed, though I don't know how significantly. Let's take a look at the air battles during the Axis phase ordered by the number of fighters

[image]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7237/t15axisturnaircombats.png[/image]


and sorted by number of bombers involved

[image]http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3606/t15axisaircombatsbmb.png[/image]


The AI is doing a more than decent job designing Luftwaffe strike packages: escorts seem to me adequate. Unfortunately, “adequate” depends on what the mission is going against. Three air battles went really bad for the Luftwaffe, in all cases, a reasonable number of fighter escorts were overwhelmed by a mass of VVS CAP. Looks like I can put up in the air enough CAP to dispute air superiority.

Continuing with the air model angle, I've checked how many Interdiction attacks were launched this turn: 2. That with 60% settings on the Air Doctrines. Checking the manual I see that DL is the major factor determining chances of interdiction. Since there's no recon being conducted during the non-phasing player, DL must be low, really low. The chances of a unit with DL = 5 are of 5/10. Hence the very little interdiction we see conducted either by the Luftwaffe and the VVS, in general, and why it makes sense to have low Interdiction settings – and generate a lot of “possible” interdiction missions – sooner or later, some of them will get lucky and strike on moving enemy forces.

Operational Situation Report

I think it's the first time in this game one of my predictions is 100% right

[image]http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6928/t15leningradsitrep.png[/image]


Q-Ball hasn't managed to isolate Leningrad and link up with the Finns in one turn. But he'll next turn, almost for sure. I'll distribute the units along the fortified hexes, just to make their surrender “interesting”. This also means it's time to think how to pull back from the Svir, before the Finns burst through it.

The plans for Moscow of my opponent are quite obvious:

[image]http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7269/t15moscowsitrep.png[/image]


I'm not sure of the identity of the two motorized units concentrations east of Rzhev and Kaluga, I think Q-Ball OOB has been thoroughly reformed several times now. Looks to me he brought the XL. PzKorps – which should have already arrived – to pair with 3. PzArmee Motorized divisions in the south. This is going to be dificult. If I pull from the center to the flanks, he can just walk into the city, if I don't, I make the Moscow encirclement to be a parade.

German forces in front of Voronezh have been this turn relatively quiet, a whole PzArmee seems to sit waiting for something in the Krastornoe region and on the eastern bank of the Oskol

[image]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9591/t15voronezhsitrep.png[/image]


all of these units are out of build up range, according to the UI. I'm not sure what's going on. The infantry has clearly got into position to force a crossing north and south of Voronezh, which can only mean that he's onto trying to encircle Voronezh and the 33th Army defending it.

The situation in the Don bend isn't very good. 1. PzArmee is out of build up range, at least for three turns more:

[image]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6686/t15donbendsitrep.png[/image]


I'm pretty sure Q-Ball is carefully considering his future supply situation before striking towards Rostov, which I think is the last major target within reach of the German Army before rasputitsa. I need to reinforce – but also Moscow and Voronezh – and I don't see many divisions available for that.

Industry Evacuation

I have only 7 ARM points waiting for evacuation in the Danger Zone I defined at the start of the campaign, 3 at Moscow, 1 at Kalinin and 3 at Lipetsk, time to move them out. Besides I need to move out the vehicle factories left in Moscow as well as the IL-2 production. I move 6 of the IL-2 factories and leave the vehicles for another turn. That gobbles 60,000 railcap points out of the 82,913 generated this turn by the Railyards I still have.

Logistics & Organization

This turn the Armaments pool dried. The doom of the Soviet Union? Well, perhaps not right now, but it's not a good sign. I've checking the numbers and there's something that doesn't add up at all here. I've still have 316 Armament factories, 53 of them damaged (not taking into account factories moved this turn, next turn there'll be 60 damaged factories). Checking the Logistics Report, I find that 197 factories have produced 49,250 armament points this turn. First, the production multiplier seems to be 250, which is wrong. Second, the number of factories reported as producing is too low, it should be, in the case that all the factories below 50% didn't produce anything, 256. Either the logistics report is reporting the wrong numbers, or I just overlooked something.

Has that been bad for the health of the RKKA? Looking at the TOE statistics I'm tracking, they say that situation of Rifle units and Tank units has improved, but worsened that of artillery, which is not that surprising, since I lowered the TOE's to 50%. The pools look very similar to what they looked like last turn:

[image]http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/1661/t15pools.png[/image]


Too similar, actually. Comparing built numbers between this turn and the previous one, I see that quite some stuff is being produced – basically Rifle Division equipment. Interestingly enough, no Cavalry squads.

The data is inconclusive, I need to look at this so close for a longer time. Now I'm damning myself about not tracking this since Turn 1.

Operations

This is the turn I've to say goodbye to Leningrad. I think I have done a reasonable job defending it, but now I can't stop thinking about that turn I could have gained at the very beginning of the game by isolating 4. PzArmee. Too bad:

[image]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2461/t15leningradops.png[/image]


The red dashed line is the stop line for my retreat. There's nothing worth fighting here, I just want to have the shortest frontline I can afford.

The goal in Moscow is to make as difficult as possible encirclement, even if this means abandoning some level 3 forts achieved with the relentless effort of Moscow citizens:

[image]http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/1722/t15moscowops.png[/image]


I also abandon Tula: it was becoming a bulge which I don't have the means to fight for. I'm pretty happy about northern flank defense: I brought here 55th Army from Tikhvin. Now I need to find somewhere another spare army to deploy it on the southern flank.

I retreat slightly towards the Don:

[image]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/458/t15voronezhops.png[/image]


moving most of Southwestern Front along the Don would have been perhaps a better move, but I can't just retreat like that. I am much more to the east that I ever really imagined, and I'm not comfortable with the idea that Q-Ball might get away holding the line on the Oskol, well to the west of Belgorod and Kharkov.

Another reason for not retreating too “aggressively” south of Voronezh is the situation of the Southern Front:

[image]http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9657/t15donbendops.png[/image]


I need to cover this Front flank. The defense of Rostov is almost ready...



M60A3TTS -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/8/2011 11:52:04 PM)

Consider drawing off about a dozen divisions from Leningrad and Northwest Fronts to assist in the Moscow defense, particularly in the south. You have nothing worth him taking up north at this stage.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/9/2011 11:58:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
Consider drawing off about a dozen divisions from Leningrad and Northwest Fronts to assist in the Moscow defense, particularly in the south. You have nothing worth him taking up north at this stage.


Yes, that's the plan indeed. I think I'll take Eremenko's 31st Army south next turn.



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/9/2011 3:54:13 PM)

Here's my Moscow defense.



[image]local://upfiles/32811/6BF3D9C7EFE24A069E32885C78974741.jpg[/image]



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 10:16:54 AM)

Looks to me that James southern pincer is going to be very uncomfortable at the end of your turn. He'll need a lot of infantry to cover the railroad feeding those forces, as well. I suppose next turn he'll strike eastwards from Tula, to secure it and prepare for a final push during the Snow turns. Looks like a difficult position but actually I think it's pretty good. That bulge you hold around Rzhev is a knife on the neck of AGC.



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 1:23:38 PM)

Well, I personally think it's a bit over the top that the Axis can get this far while taking out Leningrad and making historical advances in the south.

I've been fighting non stop in front of Moscow for almost 10 turns now. The entire summer, with no pause. Once he brought up his infantry to the landbridge more or less. I really doubt this was logistically possible in real life. And the Wehrmacht is at 3.2 million going into October, further solidifying my strong suspicion that manpower in this patch is grossly inflated for the Germans. It simply doesn't go down much, or at all. (Even the blizzard only has a temporary effect. By the end of February all the disableds recover, more or less, at least in my AI testing.)

I'm really not sure how you put a dent into this manpower.

Casualty ratios continue to be very high, 4-5:1. I'm not sure where people are getting this 2.6:1 business from. With these kinds of loss ratios, you hardly need to pocket: just pound the Soviet and wait for his stuff to lapse into unreadiness. (The average Soviet unit will not stand up to this kind of attrition very long before needing to be pulled out of the line. I'm spending a quite ridiculous amount of AP on reassignments thanks to this remorseless attrition.)






BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 1:55:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Well, I personally think it's a bit over the top that the Axis can get this far while taking out Leningrad and making historical advances in the south.


Not being able to hold up the German Army in the Northern theater, really derails the historical course of things. I think that the reasons because Leningrad seems to be doomed to fall are two fold. First, there's the Axis-only Fort Level reduction rule when results are Held. With decent Engineer support, even Hasty or Deliberate with 1:1 odds have many chances of bringing down forts. Thus we can see them doubling the assaults and collapsing the whole defense, even if the best defensive terrain. This rule I think should be revised (I'm not sure exactly what is it modeling, and why the Soviet engineer values can't achieve a similar result). Since German experience and morale is so high, and Soviet is so low, even if combats go badly for the Germans they get away relatively unscathed. The second is that I've yet to see - well, Pelton actually did it - anybody removing 4. PzGruppe altogether from the Northern Theater as soon as Turn 10 or so for getting it in position in time for Operation Typhoon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I've been fighting non stop in front of Moscow for almost 10 turns now. The entire summer, with no pause. Once he brought up his infantry to the landbridge more or less. I really doubt this was logistically possible in real life. And the Wehrmacht is at 3.2 million going into October, further solidifying my strong suspicion that manpower in this patch is grossly inflated for the Germans. It simply doesn't go down much, or at all. (Even the blizzard only has a temporary effect. By the end of February all the disableds recover, more or less, at least in my AI testing.)


I'm seeing something similar in a GC started with 1.04 (and patched all the way) which is currently in March 1942. 1.05 came in just in January '42, and I'm seeing that the Wehrmacht is rapidly growing. However, in this game Soviet units have much better morale and experience than one would get in a "normal" 1.05 game. So when the German attacks, he suffers and Soviet counterattacks are something to reckon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'm really not sure how you put a dent into this manpower.


We need to start a thread on the War Room using sock puppets with "Axis fanboy" nicknames elaborating on how necessary and game winning is to launch an attack into the Caucasus in 1942, so Axis player just overextend and one can get something similar to Stalingrad [Just joking]

Really, I've no idea, other than actually pretend you're weaker than you actually are, and seize any opportunity that presents itself if your opponent decides to actually go for Auto Victory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Casualty ratios continue to be very high, 4-5:1. I'm not sure where people are getting this 2.6:1 business from. With these kinds of loss ratios, you hardly need to pocket: just pound the Soviet and wait for his stuff to lapse into unreadiness. (The average Soviet unit will not stand up to this kind of attrition very long before needing to be pulled out of the line. I'm spending a quite ridiculous amount of AP on reassignments thanks to this remorseless attrition.)


That 2.6:1 figure was certainly true for the Axis in late 1942 under 1.03 and early 1.04. Now we're talking about something else completely different. Axis losses are mostly determined by entrenchment, which is capped by 1.05 rules, and Soviet ground element experience that has been alway capped by morale, but in 1.05 this level in 1942 especially is very worrying. I think it will be all the way into 1943 until we don't see anymore German high experience, high morale units eat for breakfast the average Red Army units. Which "feels" quite historical, btw.

This I think will require an unprecedented level of finesse managing the Red Army human resources. Nurturing high morale units, kept in strategic reserve, seems the way to go. This obviously opens up the frontlines for many reasons, which is, I think, a good thing.



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 2:17:18 PM)

For myself, I'm thinking we need to ditch the new fort rules around urban conurbations. Leningrad in particular is just stupidly easy to take now.

Next time I play a GC I'm actually planning to do something very different up north with this in mind: get out the factories ASAP, and abandon Leningrad altogether before it gets pocketed and fall back behind the Volkhov. Once Leningrad is pocketed it is dead meat. It will fall every time to a backdoor assault across the Neva if the German knows his business. You can't stop this.

At the same time put at least two strong armies in Karelia to hold the bottleneck position at the northern edge of the map. The effect of this will be to straighten out the line. Since the Finns are going to come into the thing, there's no point in falling back to the Svir. Just plan on Leningrad falling and keep them well away from the Svir and hold a static line at the Volkhov.

Let the defender build up to level 5s within a certain radius of Leningrad/Moscow and possibly Stalingrad.

I like the idea of limiting these fort soak off attacks so that the only way to clear forts is to actually win the combat.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 2:34:52 PM)

Hi Flavius,

In my testing so far with 1.05, Leningrad can be held against the historical AGN force, but not if the German player reinforces it. That's the same as it was in 1.04 and I would argue historically.

I think we need a few more games to get through the blizzard and into 1942 to get a good sense of the balance. There's a tipping point where the Soviets can't conduct a decent winter offensive if the Axis does too well in 1941. As long as most games with players of similar skill don't cross that line, we're likely close on balance.

I can tell you from playing James before in other wargames, he is an outstanding player, not average at all (as are you, but you may have met your match ;-).

Regards,

- Erik



Flaviusx -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 2:40:27 PM)

James is very good indeed. He is the best Axis player I have met. He has also vastly improved since our first game.

But for all of that I remain disatisfied with certain aspects of this patch and think there's room for improvement.

I disagree that the German needs to greatly reinforce AGN to take Leningrad. (I had thought this was the case, but it's not.)

It's mostly a matter of organization, having the right leaders and SUs. PG4 can actually do the job. So long as Leningrad gets pocketed, it will fall if you've set up things correctly, period. You cannot prevent crossing the Neva -- and once across the Neva, then it is over, basically. Even a level 3 fort with a good army and reserves won't hold the Germans off forever at the backdoor.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 2:50:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
For myself, I'm thinking we need to ditch the new fort rules around urban conurbations. Leningrad in particular is just stupidly easy to take now.


Could be. Right now Fort level 4 requires the hex to be urban, perhaps this could be extended to hexes adjacent to urban. But in any case I don't think there's enough time to build up enough the zone unless a major investment in AP's is done in building a LOT of RR brigades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Next time I play a GC I'm actually planning to do something very different up north with this in mind: get out the factories ASAP, and abandon Leningrad altogether before it gets pocketed and fall back behind the Volkhov. Once Leningrad is pocketed it is dead meat. It will fall every time to a backdoor assault across the Neva if the German knows his business. You can't stop this.


You're right. There's no way that guarantees you to stop that move. Actually, that was a hard-fought position, Nevsky Pyatachok falls roughly on the southern edge of that hex. I don't know why it's deemed as a clear hex, there seems to me to be there a healthy dose of woods and hills. And perhaps another item to revise are assaults across major rivers when there's significant fortification on the other side. The Neva is there about 500m wide... I wouldn't like to be wearing the boots of Pioneers trying to establish a bridghead across that, with bunkers and trenches on the other side./

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
At the same time put at least two strong armies in Karelia to hold the bottleneck position at the northern edge of the map. The effect of this will be to straighten out the line. Since the Finns are going to come into the thing, there's no point in falling back to the Svir. Just plan on Leningrad falling and keep them well away from the Svir and hold a static line at the Volkhov.


That looks as a sound plan. Four armies - 2 on the Volkhov and 2 on Karelia - is much less than force I usually devote to defend Leningrad and the Svir (in this game I have used something like 6 armies, 23rd, 28th, 7th, 31st, 48th and 27th, almost 1M men). The only problem I see is that would free up 18. Armee and 4. PzGruppe really soon. The pressure on Moscow would be terrible.



76mm -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 2:54:59 PM)

Speaking of losses, I assumed that when the devs got rid of the 1:1 rule, they would also get rid of the punishing Sov casualties when they lose. This does not seem to be the case, however, and i regularly see losses of 10x or more if my attacks fail. I think if the 1:1 rule is gone, the Sovs should suffer the same casualties as the Germans.

I am also frustrated with the German ability to reduce forts, and the Sov inability to do so. I have lots and lots of practice attacking German fortifications in my game, and if I don't win, the fort level is reduced only very rarely, despite participation of many engineer units, thousands of tubes of artillery, hundreds of bombers, etc. It is rather ridiculous, maybe in 1 of 3 or 4 failed Sov attacks is the fort level reduced, while the Germans go through Sov forts like a hot knife through butter.



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek (10/10/2011 3:08:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Speaking of losses, I assumed that when the devs got rid of the 1:1 rule, they would also get rid of the punishing Sov casualties when they lose. This does not seem to be the case, however, and i regularly see losses of 10x or more if my attacks fail. I think if the 1:1 rule is gone, the Sovs should suffer the same casualties as the Germans.


Interesting. Pavel confirmed that the Axis defense bonus would go away in hand with the 1:1 rule. In that GC - late March 1942 - I mention this turn I conducted quite a few assaults and I don't see those silly casualty ratios. The only battle where I got a Held result, most of the casualties were damaged ground elements because of attacking across a river line (extra damage if the attack fails due to the Attacker Retreat phase). My estimate of the actual permanent loss ratio was close to 1.5:1 favoring the Axis.

Now we can check this elusive "Attacker Retreat" phase on the combat report details. What I recall from the manual is that high morale (or experience, or both) are really critical determining Retreat losses in general, both in the defense and the attack. Do your combat reports show very high numbers in the Retreat category, 76mm?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I am also frustrated with the German ability to reduce forts, and the Sov inability to do so. I have lots and lots of practice attacking German fortifications in my game, and if I don't win, the fort level is reduced only very rarely, despite participation of many engineer units, thousands of tubes of artillery, hundreds of bombers, etc. It is rather ridiculous, maybe in 1 of 3 or 4 failed Sov attacks is the fort level reduced, while the Germans go through Sov forts like a hot knife through butter.


What I refer is this Axis 1:1 rule regarding forts:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ammended WitE manual
Fort levels can be reduced during combat if the attacking force contains engineer ground elements (e.g. German Pioneer, Soviet Sapper; any type Engineer or Mech-Engineer ground elements) participating in the battle. This reduction can be fractional, i.e. it doesn‟t have to reduce a
fort by one entire level, and it can just reduce a part of one level. Fractional reductions in fort levels take place in two percent increments. The more engineer ground elements participating, the better the chance for fort level reduction. Engineer values are divided by the fort level when
calculating their ability to reduce fort levels in combat. Fort level reduction caused by engineers can result in the reduction of the final defending modified combat value (15.8).

In addition, if the Axis attacking force is unable to force a retreat on the Soviet defender, but has at least a one to one combat value ratio, there is a chance that the Soviet fort level will be reduced up to one additional level, with fractional reductions once again possible. This additional one fort level reduction does not require engineer ground elements to occur, but the presence of engineers will increase the chances.

If all defending units are forced to retreat, then any fort levels in the hex are reduced to zero.


If the Axis gets a 1:1 fort reduction can happen without engineering support whatsoever. With substantial Eng support - and Axis players who know what they're doing really do pile Pioneers on 18. Armee commands - it's almost guaranteed. I was referring to this sub-rule. I wonder why the Soviets don't get this right from the start, or from some date on. I think the RKKA became really adept at the art of Combat Engineering, both with Sappers and shtraf battalions.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75