Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2

Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports

Message

sealclubber -> Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/5/2013 4:26:51 PM)
Mark and I restarted our EA game. The AAR for the old game can be found here. This time around we opted to modify the scenario in the following ways: 1. A supply point was put into Riga for the Baltic States because they wither out of supply once Brest Litovsk is taken. 2. The Paris supply point was moved to Orleans to force the French to defend a larger area if they want to withdraw and just fortify around Paris. 3. We instituted a house rule that basically states that units in "E" and "F" entrenchment status cannot be set on Ignore Losses with the following exceptions: - nation capital city hexes - highly strategic hexes (eg hexes that trigger significant game events - places where defenders cannot retreat (eg islands like Malta, but not like Crete where defenders have space to flee) - any unit with 0 of 0 movement points (eg coastal artillery, Maginot/Siegfried Forts and such) We think these changes will lead to a much more fluid game, so here we go. July 22, 1939 Hitler claims "border provocations" by the Polish Army and invades! The Poles do their best to withdraw towards Warsaw to setup a defence of the city: [image]local://upfiles/44414/EEE1B86C0A274E95A863EBDA1D960BDC.jpg[/image]

governato -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/5/2013 8:39:12 PM)
what are the entrenchment/engineering rates in EA? I find that in large scale, weekly turn scenarios they have to be turned low to keep the action 'fluid' as it was typical in WWII warfare. Basically the times for a unit to go from supply 'red' to 'green' has to be shorter than the time it takes for a unit to go from mobile to Fortified status.

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/5/2013 11:16:08 PM)
80/100. It does probably need to be lowered.

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/5/2013 11:16:42 PM)
July 29, 1939 Britain and France declare war on Germany! Joseph Stalin order the Red Army into Finland during a particularly muddy week. Finnish forces withdraw along all fronts except in the far north at Petsamo and in the far south at the Mannerheim line. [image]local://upfiles/44414/D2A62F7AF225400A9F10B487E724A63C.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/5/2013 11:17:35 PM)
Along the Mannerheim Line, the Finnish Army redeploys to provide coverage along the entire line. The Red Army attempts to exploit this lack of readiness by attacking straight through the center of the Mannerheim Line. A neighboring Finnish half corps in tactical reserve joins combat. The Red Army attacks several times but is unable to dislodge the defenders. However, the prepared Mannerheim Forts in this sector are evaporated. STAVKA totally forgets to order the Red Air force to blow the bridges in Finland. Doh! [image]local://upfiles/44414/4AC24112B40840099F4ED02F48FABDE2.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/5/2013 11:17:58 PM)
Polish Front: With all the reshuffling of British, French and Red Army units, Allied GHQ completely forgets about the Polish front. Doh again! [image]local://upfiles/44414/00E2DEC5C9FD4EC5B33F0B43A55984FE.jpg[/image]

secadegas -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/5/2013 11:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: governato what are the entrenchment/engineering rates in EA? Having some experience with your scenario (20% entrenchment level) and a lot with experience with EA (80% entrenchment) i have been thinking about that same exact question myself lately. As a rule of thumb... Germans are very much alike on both scenarios: most infantry units have around 60% to 70% engineering capacity. Pz or mobile units much more. Early Soviets on EF almost don't have any engineering cap while most Soviets units in EA have 45% to 55%. On EF later Soviets units (with more constrution sqd's) - even with 20% entrechment level - still fortified "too fast" (4/5 week turns). In EA, as it is now, with 80% entrechement level and 50% (or more) unit engineering cap, every time you dig-in you get a new entrenchment degree meaning you'll have most your units fortified in just 3 turns. My experience with EF (even with very low entrechement level) tells me that most of times players prefer not to counter-attack or move and try to dig-in their units in the hope of getting them to the next entrechment level with its obvious advantages. Unfortunately it's a sound option but it's not good for game flow. Sorry to hijack your thread...

governato -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/6/2013 2:36:57 AM)
Sekadegas: you make good points. In my experience with EF (mostly PBEM, mine and from other players) a lot depends on the supply level of the defender. Low supply makes going into D, E or F status much harder) and the artillery of the attacker. Guard armies together with well supplied Red Army artillery in 1943 are able to retreat a German Korp with LL/F status and 150% Supply. The front is really not that static as I would like as the Axis :). Testing later in the game will be very useful as I am now at turn 115. Btw, I will be following this AAR with interest!

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/6/2013 4:37:24 AM)
August 5, 1939 All quiet on the Western Front. Polish Front: The Germans assault Warsaw. Only one battered corps remains in the city, however an early turn end saves the defenders to live to fight another day. A combination of fresh defenders from outside the city and the units that just retreated make their way back into the city for a last stand... [image]local://upfiles/44414/E42CE461E0F94C79960E7D2673E97716.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/6/2013 4:38:07 AM)
Finnish Front: In the north, the Finns continue to withdraw blowing bridges as they go. In the south, the Mannerheim Line has been reinforced by a fresh corps, which will make breaking the line much more difficult. Red Army forces launch attacks on two parts of the line, but the turn ends after one combat resolution. Perhaps another day... [image]local://upfiles/44414/0ED5865FCA844CAEA333EC8D30518153.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 2:51:10 AM)
August 12, 1939 All quiet on the Western Front. Polish Front: The Germans assault Warsaw again, but fail to take the city. The remaining defenders are severely weakened and it's only a matter of time now... [image]local://upfiles/44414/C3648CC288DD45359D5F7349E9A0EA1A.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 2:51:54 AM)
Finnish Front: In the north, the Finns continue to withdraw but appear to be preparing to make a stand outside the city of Kumi behind the blown bridge. In the south, the Red Air force gets to work blowing bridges leading out of Helsinki this week and Red Army forces pounds away at Finland's III corps, holding the far right of the line. It was battered in previous battles but despite taking a beating, the corps stands its ground. [image]local://upfiles/44414/483ED134888E401489E9178AC849502D.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 4:51:55 AM)
August 19, 1939 Polish Front: The Germans assault Warsaw and seize it. Based on what is occupying the hex, my two beat up corps really didn't stand a chance in the counter-attack, but for Polish honour they had to make an attempt: [image]local://upfiles/44414/5CF0742DD8444E0382C2650F6CD3C939.jpg[/image] Western Front: The Luftwaffe transfers west en masse and blows a large number of bridges in France. For operational security reasons, no screen capture is available.

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 4:52:49 AM)
Finnish Front: In the north, the Red Army brings up engineers to repair bridges while forming up its combat forces. In the south, the Red Army continues to pound away hard at Finland's III Corps holding the far right of the Mannerheim Line. The fortifications give the Finns heart as they refuse to retreat. Two reserve brigades (on tactical reserve.. Mark is quite judicious about using this deployment) join the fray, but one reserve brigade is forced to retreat. The Red Army commander in his after action report writes about the "extremely high morale" of this corps. It should be noted that the original offensive against the line was pursued most vigorously against the center, which was held by III Corps. After the corps was relieved in the line by I Corps, it transferred to the far right and it is here the Red Army has shifted the main focus of its attack. The Red Army continues to rotate fresh corps into the line each week to start the assault anew. STAVKA anticipates that Finland must reinforce this sector of the line or it will eventually break. STAVKA believes that there are no uncommitted reserves at this point, therefore some other section of the front must be weakened. Large forces stand ready everywhere to take advantage of any such redeployment... [image]local://upfiles/44414/B25ACDA1466446D6B167DA8CEF396DAD.jpg[/image]

Cfant -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 2:18:09 PM)
I wonder, that you attack the Fins from overstacked hexfields and with ignore losses setting. Doesn't it result in a lot of "continues", which burn your turn, and extremly high casualities?

Ruppich -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 2:32:01 PM)
quote: .. 3. We instituted a house rule that basically states that units in "E" and "F" entrenchment status cannot be set on Ignore Losses with the following exceptions: ... im reading this rule in conjunction with the "E" multiple times in this forum. Its obvious that the IL Bug is appearing with the "F" Status but do "we" have solid data that the "E" status is bugged too??

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 5:59:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cfant2 I wonder, that you attack the Fins from overstacked hexfields and with ignore losses setting. Doesn't it result in a lot of "continues", which burn your turn, and extremly high casualities? From a purely TOAW standpoint, those two things are sort of mutually exclusive. Attackers break off typically due to losses sustained (or a failed morale check), so the higher the density penalties the higher the losses the attackers will sustain which means they will break off earlier. Red Army units will fail many morale checks, especially when they are no longer fresh. You can use this fact to your advantage (hint: assault ratio is king). To answer your question in this particular game, no and no. What you are seeing is a screenshot from the End of Turn. I rotate fresh units in mid-way through the turn and since its off-road movement. Anything that can't attack us set is IL for defensive purposes. At the start of the next turn, exhausted attackers withdraw before I initiate fresh attacks with reserves moved the last turn lowering density penalties. I do sometimes attack with IL, sometimes with LL, sometimes with ML and sometimes with limited attacks - it depends on the situation. I recall three combats in Finland so far that burned 3 tactical rounds and two of those times were when Mark's Tactical Reserve units joined a battle in progress. Busting the Mannerheim line is totally dependent on taking advantage of the initial deployment. If the Finns recover and get back to full readiness/supply/entrenchment, give up trying to break it.

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/7/2013 6:02:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ruppich quote: .. 3. We instituted a house rule that basically states that units in "E" and "F" entrenchment status cannot be set on Ignore Losses with the following exceptions: ... im reading this rule in conjunction with the "E" multiple times in this forum. Its obvious that the IL Bug is appearing with the "F" Status but do "we" have solid data that the "E" status is bugged too?? From a retreat cancellation perspective, a unit in "F" status has an 84% chance of cancelling a failed retreat check. "E" has a 65% chance, which is still high. "D" has a 25% chance. Those percentages only apply to the first tactical round, because that unit may lose its entrenchment status in that tactical round (which is why support assets are so important in 3.4).

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 3:28:05 AM)
August 26, 1939 All quiet on the Western Front. Finnish Front: IV Corps holding the flank of the Mannerheim Line attempts to withdraw but is engaged by the Soviet forces opposing it. This is an opportunity, however Red Army support assets are limited and STAVKA opts to continue pushing against III Corps of attacking IV Corps. [image]local://upfiles/44414/B2E13C6102904ADC8C546C0683AB7135.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 3:28:30 AM)
The Red Army utilizes fresh corps to pound away at III Corps again, which still refuses to retreat. The Mannerheim Fort itself is destroyed leaving an empty shell of III Corps. Red Army intelligence reports that III Corps has no more than 47 rifle squads remaining within its ranks. It seems III Corps will have to be killed to the last man and the last round. [image]local://upfiles/44414/C703520C9871485C82DB0F3E08396E87.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 3:29:09 AM)
Germany launches Operation Weseruebung, the invasion of Denmark and Norway! The Western Allies immediately cut the iron ore supply out of Narvik. Denmark Front: The Danish Army doesn't have any advance warning and is not mobilized. Seaborne landings and land based invasions take over all strategic points in the country without a shot fired. [image]local://upfiles/44414/43405FE68AB6482AB1721F85387EAF54.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 3:29:34 AM)
Norwegian Front: The attack on Norway starts with an air drop involving the 7 Flieger and 22 Airlanding divisions, accompanied by the Brandenburg regiment airdrop in the vicinity of Oslo. The Luftwaffe immediately sends 3 fighter wings to the airfield outside of Oslo. The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine then initiates an attack on the Norwegian Navy blocking seaborne access to Oslo. The attack fails. The Kriegsmarine and its ocean-going assault force return to German ports. The airborne units launch an assault on Oslo and defeat the Norwegian garrison. Allied GHQ had a Norwegian expeditionary force in readiness. While the Germans seized Oslo itself, a nearby port was still held by Norwegian forces. The Norwegian navy still held the approaches to the city. One French division reinforced the vital port of Bergen which controls access to Narvik by sea. Five French divisions land ouside of Oslo and greeted by the local Norwegian commander. The French force assaults the German airborne forces in Oslo supported by the Royal Navy, French Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets and RAF Bomber Command. Air cover is provided by British, French and Danish fighters that take up station in Norwegian airfields. Oslo is recaptured. From anchorage in the port of Oslo, the French navy shells the German held airfield outside the city and severely damages the fighter wings stationed there. [image]local://upfiles/44414/0E719B89D4F04D22ADD8650D4834FEEC.jpg[/image]

Ruppich -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 9:37:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sealclubber From a retreat cancellation perspective, a unit in "F" status has an 84% chance of cancelling a failed retreat check. "E" has a 65% chance, which is still high. "D" has a 25% chance. Those percentages only apply to the first tactical round, because that unit may lose its entrenchment status in that tactical round (which is why support assets are so important in 3.4). Im talking about the ignore losses bug and you answer me with retreat cancelation chances... is my english that bad?

secadegas -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 12:10:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ruppich quote: ORIGINAL: sealclubber From a retreat cancellation perspective, a unit in "F" status has an 84% chance of cancelling a failed retreat check. "E" has a 65% chance, which is still high. "D" has a 25% chance. Those percentages only apply to the first tactical round, because that unit may lose its entrenchment status in that tactical round (which is why support assets are so important in 3.4). Im talking about the ignore losses bug and you answer me with retreat cancelation chances... is my english that bad? There isn't a IL bug. However this is a RFC (retreat from combat) issue. When you refered to IL bug it was understood you were talking about the long and often discussed entrenchement matter. And concerning that Sealclubber answer is very sound. As you can read on Sealclubber post the main problem is with units fortified status and entreched at a lesser scale.

Cfant -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 12:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sealclubber quote: ORIGINAL: Cfant2 I wonder, that you attack the Fins from overstacked hexfields and with ignore losses setting. Doesn't it result in a lot of "continues", which burn your turn, and extremly high casualities? From a purely TOAW standpoint, those two things are sort of mutually exclusive. Attackers break off typically due to losses sustained (or a failed morale check), so the higher the density penalties the higher the losses the attackers will sustain which means they will break off earlier. Red Army units will fail many morale checks, especially when they are no longer fresh. You can use this fact to your advantage (hint: assault ratio is king). To answer your question in this particular game, no and no. What you are seeing is a screenshot from the End of Turn. I rotate fresh units in mid-way through the turn and since its off-road movement. Anything that can't attack us set is IL for defensive purposes. At the start of the next turn, exhausted attackers withdraw before I initiate fresh attacks with reserves moved the last turn lowering density penalties. I do sometimes attack with IL, sometimes with LL, sometimes with ML and sometimes with limited attacks - it depends on the situation. I recall three combats in Finland so far that burned 3 tactical rounds and two of those times were when Mark's Tactical Reserve units joined a battle in progress. Busting the Mannerheim line is totally dependent on taking advantage of the initial deployment. If the Finns recover and get back to full readiness/supply/entrenchment, give up trying to break it. I disagree. [;)] In my EA-games - which were mainly under 3.2 - I had far better results when attacking the Fins with minimize losses, but using flanking bonus. Casualitie-ratio was much better and my Russian counters didn't evaporate so often. On the other hand - here I agree with you - it's not a fast way to knock the Fins down. You need quite some time, so to enforce a Finnish surrender you need many turns and it will only be worth the price, if the French can hold out long enough. Still, I prefer the ml-approach. [:)] @Ruppich: He said "from a retreat cancellation perspective" - and as far as I got it, retreats are a main issue regarding the IL-Bug [:)]

Ruppich -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 2:53:49 PM)
Short: F+IL - bugged E+IL - not so bugged Is that your opinion? if yes then i asked if you have solid data [8D] no offense just looking for pure facts to establish house rules for my ongoing / next games

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 5:02:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cfant2 I disagree. [;)] In my EA-games - which were mainly under 3.2 - I had far better results when attacking the Fins with minimize losses, but using flanking bonus. Casualitie-ratio was much better and my Russian counters didn't evaporate so often. On the other hand - here I agree with you - it's not a fast way to knock the Fins down. You need quite some time, so to enforce a Finnish surrender you need many turns and it will only be worth the price, if the French can hold out long enough. Still, I prefer the ml-approach. [:)] @Ruppich: He said "from a retreat cancellation perspective" - and as far as I got it, retreats are a main issue regarding the IL-Bug [:)] It would have been great if I could get a flanking bonus on the Mannerheim Line, but it's a straight hex line bordered by ocean and a lake and going in from the rear also requires retreating a full strength Finnish corps in "F" status without naval support. But as you'll see in future updates to the AAR, the pounding III Corps took forced him to redeploy, which was the whole idea to begin with (although I was certainly hopeful III Corps would retreat or evaporate, it wasn't meant to be).

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/8/2013 5:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ruppich Short: F+IL - bugged E+IL - not so bugged Is that your opinion? if yes then i asked if you have solid data [8D] no offense just looking for pure facts to establish house rules for my ongoing / next games All the "data" you need is Curtis Lemay's thread where he makes a strong statistical case that Ignore Losses is "literal". After that, you need only look at the Whats New document to look at the retreat cancellation percentages. "F" 84% cancellation and "E" 65% cancellation, multiplied by whatever % chance you have to cause a unit in IL to fail a morale check (because it won't retreat due to losses) and you have your overall chance to retreat that unit in the first tactical round regardless of all other factors. Let's say a high proficiency defender is worn out and has a 20% chance of failing its morale check but is in "F" status. Your overall chance as the attacker to retreat it is 3.2%, even if you drop a nuclear bomb on the defender. You will likely have a higher probability of evaporating that unit than causing it to retreat. Truthfully, Fortified Line/Dense Urban/Badland hexes are actually much worse than "F" or "E" deployment status because you can't dig the defender out of its terrain.

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/9/2013 4:08:32 AM)
September 2, 1939 All quiet on the Western and Norwegian fronts. Well, sort of. In Norway, elements of a German infantry corps advance along the southern coast, trying to knock out the coastal forts. The Allies let them wither out of supply and take losses. Eventually this may be an avenue for a future German attack, but for now the Allies let the Germans have their fun. Finnish Front North: In the North, engineering and bridging units finally catch up and repair the bridge over the super river while establishing a pontoon bridge: [image]local://upfiles/44414/7D50A2E2E12043B49BE856B0BA62B734.jpg[/image]

sealclubber -> RE: Europe Aflame 2012 AAR: Mark Stevens vs sealclubber - Round 2 (8/9/2013 4:08:54 AM)
Finnish Front South : III Corps, an empty shell, finally withdraws. IV Corps also withdraws from its blocking position protecting the rear flank of the Mannerheim line. III Corps and a Finnish Reserve Brigade hold a blocking position on the road and Red Army forces punch their way through. Another attack is launched on a growing stack of Finnish units with the heavy guns of the Baltic Fleet's battleships once again in range. This attack causes some retreats but other Finnish units stand firm [image]local://upfiles/44414/8307E3C8BBA6402E91F987502CF515A0.jpg[/image]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625