RE: T61-T63: 13 August – 2 September 1942 (Full Version)

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



Message

jwolf -> RE: T61-T63: 13 August – 2 September 1942 (12/12/2014 1:10:01 PM)

Great update as usual, Loki.  What is that animal in that one pic "Soviet forces running out of manpower?"  I think you should win a Pulitzer literature prize for your screenshots and pictures alone.

For the weather, isn't it possible, but unlikely, to have snow instead of mud during the fall mud season?  It seems to me just as likely for the weather to break in SigUp's favor as to yours.

The one thing that definitely holds in your favor is that crossing the Oka is really, really hard.  I think he will need two whole turns (if that is what he wants to do) just to get a stable bridgehead.



morvael -> RE: T61-T63: 13 August – 2 September 1942 (12/12/2014 1:17:11 PM)

To me it looks like a cat.



loki100 -> RE: T61-T63: 13 August – 2 September 1942 (12/17/2014 8:02:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Main trouble with morale growth is your supply situation. When units eat less than they really require there is little chance their morale will go up. As for mech corps the problem is -20 exp drop, in my case I opted for a "merge first then grow" rather than "grow, merge, and grow again". But it took some time and many wins (attached to two good tank corps in a tank army) to get those mechs from CV 2 to CV 20... In any case you have to make sure your supply and truck situation improves before you will be able to grow some real muscle.


I'm going to try both strategies to building Mech Corps (ie convert from pre built mot brigades and start as mech brigades) to see which pays off. The small advantage to building as mot brigades is a few of them have 2 victories already so a small down payment on reaching Gds status.

About supply/morale – my intention is to try and pull the formations that really matter to the rear over the autumn so that they hopefully get more supply and can rebuild their morale more quickly. Other than that, am just trying impose as few supply demands as I can manage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Great update as usual, Loki. What is that animal in that one pic "Soviet forces running out of manpower?" I think you should win a Pulitzer literature prize for your screenshots and pictures alone.

For the weather, isn't it possible, but unlikely, to have snow instead of mud during the fall mud season? It seems to me just as likely for the weather to break in SigUp's favor as to yours.

The one thing that definitely holds in your favor is that crossing the Oka is really, really hard. I think he will need two whole turns (if that is what he wants to do) just to get a stable bridgehead.


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

To me it looks like a cat.


It is indeed a cat. Apparently the Soviets used them to take messages during the Stalingrad battles. Now I personally, and from a lot of cat experience, happen to find this claim rather implausible as I can't get any of ours to do anything I want them to do. What I like is it looks like the cat is preparing to lead an assault.

You are right about the weather, but I'm assuming that mud is the last thing that SigUp can risk if he wants to push over the Oka as it will make his supply position even worse as well as give me more time to create new defences.

At the moment, strategically this has a feeling of being a game of rock-paper-scissors. By that I mean we each have options (including do nothing) and if we pick the right response to our opponents choice then it should be easy to smoother any offensive and if we pick wrong then things could escalate.

I still think he has the initiative but its less clear cut than earlier. So my prudent choice is to sit with large reserves in the Moscow area and just react. But I feel the urge to strike back somewhere, but I can't strip down the Moscow defences too much and most of my other fronts are currently too weak to sustain very much on their own.

I have three different offensive plans in my mind, one is fairly safe, if it works it offers some nice rewards if it is stalled then there is no real risk. One really depends on the Panzers being elsewhere, but at least doesn't draw off my reserves to the flanks. The final one is very attractive in terms of the rewards but it does mean a real commitment and thus taking a large risk.



loki100 -> T65: 10 – 17 September 1942 (12/17/2014 8:07:24 AM)

T65: 10 – 17 September 1942 “Before the ice is in the pools”

Mid-September saw yet another operational pause in the intensity of the campaign. Stavka was content to feed in fresh replacements and re-organise its main offensive units for the planned Winter campaign. The Germans made no attempt to force the Oka but at the same time did not redeploy the bulk of their armour from the Ryazan-Tula sector.

With the autumn rains not far, Stavka was unsure from the German deployments as to their longer term intentions.

The only areas of active operations were a massive partisan attack around Stalino [1]

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img538/2199/WHdvn2.jpg[/image]

However, the German 40 and 48 Panzer Corps struck at the Soviet positions around Vyshny Volochek, The weak 8 Army was brushed aside but 11 Army was able to stall their offensive south of the city. Stavka stopped the withdrawal of 4 Shock and 55 Armies and committed them to shoring up the Soviet defensive lines.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img674/3146/nixx6K.jpg[/image]
(shows positions before any Soviet moves)

With their breakthrough screened off, elements of both armies struck the overextended 25 Motorised Division driving it back to the Tveritsa [2].

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img673/8909/I3Gi4r.jpg[/image]

OOB

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img633/6907/R1anwI.jpg[/image]

This was the first turn run under 1.081 and its changed a few things. The most notable is that refit works very dramatically, I've had units adding 5 or so percentage points per turn suddenly fill up to 100% of their TOE.

The main change in consequence is my army is back up to 8 million but my manpower reserves are down 200,000 to just under 150,000. My armaments have taken a similar hit dropping 120,000 to just under 60,000.

I really do not want the army to grow any more at the moment. On the assumption of no more large encirclements, I do not need many (any) more rifle brigades (I have enough to fill out 15 rifle divisions) and may even start disbanding some of the naval infantry brigades as these cannot be converted. If I need to, I'll disband some of the worst rifle divisions (those with more than 10 losses).

Supply remains problematic. The situation for units is 15,000/85,000 but for stores is 275,000/285,000. Demand from the stores is static since last turn but unit demand has increased from 68,000 while in-unit stocks has dropped from 21,000.

This is one reason why I'm not looking to make any major moves, I'd like to see how this settles down. Have moved a number of aircraft factories to reduce industrial demand for supply and only sending supply to the partisans on a single sector.

Obviously the supply shortage is not helping my low morale in the rifle divisions.

Replacements and Command Limits

More generally I have 24 rifle divisions and 41 rifle brigades attached to various MD formations. Once I am more confident that the period of massive encirclements is over, then I'll start to place these into armies.

I currently have 58 Armies (4 Tank and 4 Shock), will receive 5 Shock Army in December and plan to raise 2 more Tank Armies over the autumn. In addition, I think I need 2 more conventional combined arms armies to organise my remaining reserves. That will give me 63 Armies and 12 Fronts (once the new SW Front arrives in late October) which should allow me to detach the few armies still linked to a MD and also avoid any front overloads.

In terms of builds, I'm trying to minimise the demand on my supply both for production and to supply the units once built, so am moving Support Units around to fill out the new formations. I also want to prioritise artillery once those division start to become available.

[1] the only sector I am still supplying the partisans is around Voronezh, hoping to manage a lucky or well timed rail break in one of the few sectors where the German communication net is vulnerable.
[2] I'm not sure if SigUp believed I'd withdrawn more of these formations than I'd managed last turn but around 70% of the two armies were deployed on the rail line. One major change is that a single rifle corps in light woods (even without forts) now gives me around 20-24 defensive cvs.



morvael -> RE: T65: 10 – 17 September 1942 (12/17/2014 8:25:55 AM)

I dare to say this improvement is because of easing vehicle needs in the new patch, and airbases returning some. Too bad you didn't include that information on the screen shot. Though it might be considered revealing information of strategic importance :)

Supplies in units should stay at about 40% of need, so there is no need to worry if you get above that number. But you're very short of supplies, which can be seen by low ammo on hand (this one should match up with need number) as ammo also comes from generic supply, and you're missing some 45k tons. High number of supply dumps in HQs is interesting, this should only happen when the HQs don't get what they wanted during 1st supply phase (and they probably don't due to global supply shortage preventing them from getting what they want). At least your city stocks should be soon replenished and then units will get what they need. Just in time for mud break :)

edit: I don't think it's because of refit that your units jumped up in strengh, but the fact of units on the frontlines finally being able to replenish over 60%. This also gives the impression of supply shortages, as replacements come after supplies, so if you have significant change in strength supply will only follow with a 1-turn delay.



loki100 -> RE: T65: 10 – 17 September 1942 (12/17/2014 6:46:23 PM)

as ever, thanks for the information, very useful and somewhat re-assuring.

Not been including trucks because that has been mostly ok. I think I'm around 90% of need - both in unit and in the pool. That is down from >100% before the summer battles but I've raised a number of tank corps and recently some mech, plus making a lot of use of the VVS so I'm relatively relaxed about that situation. It'll clearly become worse over the mud/snow turns but then I gain the large increase in LL numbers by the start of 1943.

for supply, checked a few cities and they all have what they need, so hopefully its a case of letting things settle down over a few turns.




M60A3TTS -> RE: T65: 10 – 17 September 1942 (12/17/2014 8:54:35 PM)

You are best to keep your army at 8 mil given your supply situation. The truck situation will deteriorate as winter kicks in, and then recover in summer.



loki100 -> RE: T65: 10 – 17 September 1942 (12/18/2014 11:38:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

You are best to keep your army at 8 mil given your supply situation. The truck situation will deteriorate as winter kicks in, and then recover in summer.


aye agree, I've actually got a list of units for disbanding if I need to - basically those brigades that can't be converted to divisions and a list of the rifle divisions with > 10 defeats and relatively low TOEs.

We've now had two turns with the new patch and actually the supply situation is becoming worse. This chart shows the shifts as we applied 1.08 (between 55 and 56) and 1.08.1 (between 64 and 65).

To me, and I claim no depth of understanding, something is going very wrong. Back in T54 I had 65% of all the supplies I needed and the units had 80%. By T64, I had 80% of all the supplies I needed, the depots are full to bursting (95% of their needs) and the front line units are starving (30% of need). By T66, the overall supply position has settled at 80%, the depots remain a place full (95%) and the units are now down to under 20%.

I've units, in the rear, on a rail, next to their HQ with 1%.

Its not just the adverse consequence of no supply, it means that the 38 NM baseline is not acting as a safety net and I have units in the mid/low 30s as supply shortages cost me more morale. And of course, any notional recovery once the NM is restored to 45 (or 42/43 with our settings) is not really going to happen.

I don't see how this is just a product of the lower HI multiplier? I realise that global supply is going up as I am not able to consume it, but why are the depots not allocating supply to my combat units?



[image]local://upfiles/43256/5758D5EFC0AA4157836805A42F27BC38.jpg[/image]



loki100 -> T66: 17-23 September 1942 (12/20/2014 3:19:42 PM)

T66: 17-23 September 1942 "The thoughtful grave encloses"

Set against the major defeats of the last 3 months and the loss of so much territory the loss of Vyshny Volochek in mid-September was of little importance.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img908/6230/1hzH0i.jpg[/image]

The Soviet lines in this sector had been weakly held and disrupted by the German offensive across the Tveritsa in the previous weeks. Added to which, both 8 and 11 Armies were short of both supply and ammunition.

In this context, that the concentrated might of 48 Panzer Corps was able to clear out the Soviet defenders was of no surprise.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img673/927/doDP3C.jpg[/image]

However, the battle was notable for the first deployment of the German Tiger Tanks.

The two most common Soviet AT weapons, the 14.5mm AT rifle and the 45mm AT gun had made no impact at all. Using testimony from those who had fought, Stavka quickly prepared a guide for how to deal with this new threat.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img661/9259/Mx2Pgv.jpg[/image]

Elsewhere, fighting was intermittent as both sides sought to build up for the expected winter offensives.

OOB and Commentary

Main changes I think are patch related, so German numbers have gone up by 150,000 (which is really good news) and some increases for their allies (predictable as they are almost never anywhere near Soviet forces).

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img538/97/S4AW5G.jpg[/image]

Supply problem has been extensively discussed and my plan now is to try and reduce demand to the start of 1943 when a few things will help. More domestic production, more lend lease and the late 42/early 43 generation of TOEs should demand less supply.

Till then there is not much I can do, its better to run the army size down (even if it means I can scarcely defend never mind attack) and rebuild morale than carry on with average morale stuck in the low 40s.



loki100 -> T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/22/2014 9:58:30 AM)

T67: 24-30 September 1942 “Some, too fragile for winter winds”

The final week of September saw little fighting. The Germans extended their gains around Vyshny Volochek. In the centre and south, elements of Stalingrad, South Eastern and North Caucasus Fronts probed towards positions that had been abandoned at the start of August. Here and there they clashed with German patrols setting off localised actions.

It seemed clear that the German summer offensive was over. However, they retained the potential to resume their offensive once the autumn rains were over. In three months of fighting the Red Army had lost nearly 1.3 million men (750,000 prisoners), 3,000 tanks and 3,300 aircraft. Axis losses (mostly German) were 190,000 men, 850 tanks and 1,000 aircraft.

At the start, the Don had either formed the effective frontline or was well to the rear of Soviet positions. Now apart from at the bend near the Volga, it lay well behind the German front lines. Moscow was threatened from the south and west, and the Volga from Penza to Stalingrad was at the mercy of a renewed German offensive. Only the Caucasus and the far north had remained quiet.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img673/5765/oXoKGN.jpg[/image]

However, despite the losses of cities and manpower, the Red Army was actually stronger than it had been on 24 June. Overall manpower was much the same, but it had added almost 3,000 tanks, 400 aircraft and 12,000 guns. The German army had grown by 60,000 men, l,000 guns, lost 200 AFVs and gained 200 aircraft.

The weakness was that Soviet industry had failed to keep up with the demands of replacing losses and allowing a build up of the armoured and artillery forces.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img908/7817/yx6eOO.jpg[/image]
[1]

However, with the apparent cessation of the German offensive, Stavka started to lay plans for a renewed winter offensive;

While Stavka's planning was at an early stage, the estimate was that although the Germans could renew their offensive they were unlikely to commit to a major operation (though localised attacks were to be expected) unless Soviet reserves were already committed.

Stavka had identified four potential Soviet attack lines. The central two had the advantage of not pulling Soviet reserves away from Moscow and the Volga cities but equally were where the Germans were concentrated. The two flank options had the potential to make more gains but were vulnerable in that either the ground had little value or to being cut off by a German counterstroke.

[image]local://upfiles/43256/F766781B0084448DB926DE3C0B159286.jpg[/image]

[1] – all of a sudden this part of the turn update has become of considerable interest to me. More generally, it is slowly coming under control and in 1943 I gain an increase in domestic industry as well as more lend-lease supplies.



obssesednuker -> RE: T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/25/2014 12:00:46 AM)

I appear to be suffering a similar problem to you in my current game against the AI (I mainly play this for fun and am too intimidated to go online): it is mid-1942 and I am successfully holding a line running Riga-Minsk-Zhitomir-Odessa (pretty predictable against the AI). But my troops only ever have 40% of their supplies! Ammo and fuel reaches them just fine, but they never seem to manage to go over 40% supplies. I think there might be a bug here...



loki100 -> RE: T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/25/2014 10:34:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obssesednuker

I appear to be suffering a similar problem to you in my current game against the AI (I mainly play this for fun and am too intimidated to go online): it is mid-1942 and I am successfully holding a line running Riga-Minsk-Zhitomir-Odessa (pretty predictable against the AI). But my troops only ever have 40% of their supplies! Ammo and fuel reaches them just fine, but they never seem to manage to go over 40% supplies. I think there might be a bug here...


Hi (& welcome)

if you are seeing 40% in the units then you are ok. In effect supply distribution and consumption occurs before the turn begins so if they have 40% left then they had enough. Thing to check is a HQ, open the supply details and look for the information 'global supply', if that is around 100% (pref over) then you are in control of the situation, if its less then start to reduce your usage.

Tricks for this include less level bombers at airbases, move a few factories that you may not need, don't build new units (these 2 will reduce the supply allocation to production) and think about some disbands. I've been getting rid of those brigades that can't convert to divisions (the naval infantry ones for example) and some of my worst rifle divisions (those with a lot of losses, low TOE, and low experience).



obssesednuker -> RE: T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/25/2014 3:53:17 PM)

Ah, thanks. That is a big help. Checking the HQ windows show I am actually okay on supply intake. I was concerned because the figure on the divisions was showing only ~40% so I thought I was having the same problem you were despite the fact my Red Army is suffering less pressure. I knew my overall supply production vs consumption was okay (I pretty much managed to evac all of the heavy factories and armament points that needed evacing) but I was puzzled because I the production screen was showing that I had close to four million supplies in the store but the supplies in units was only 40% of the demand.



jwolf -> RE: T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/26/2014 9:30:29 PM)

Loki, very interesting to see your thoughts on possible moves for either side during the next few weeks. Looks great for the spectators -- just about anything could happen -- but it must be nervewracking for the two of you. Good luck as you fight through this.



loki100 -> RE: T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/26/2014 10:42:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obssesednuker

Ah, thanks. That is a big help. Checking the HQ windows show I am actually okay on supply intake. I was concerned because the figure on the divisions was showing only ~40% so I thought I was having the same problem you were despite the fact my Red Army is suffering less pressure. I knew my overall supply production vs consumption was okay (I pretty much managed to evac all of the heavy factories and armament points that needed evacing) but I was puzzled because I the production screen was showing that I had close to four million supplies in the store but the supplies in units was only 40% of the demand.


I think there are two ways to try and work all this out.

It seems as if roughly 50% of your supplies are consumed in production - with some juggling I've driven my production usage down to about 42,000. I produce 80k out of 164 centres. I then lose another 4500 to ammunition production and 7500 to fort digging. At the moment all this is fixed, I believe Morvael is planning in 1.08.2 to allow you to make a general allocation (so say only 90% of fortifications - so you prioritise your front line).

Crudely that is 80k-42k (prod)-12k (ammo + forts) = 26k for the army.

A single 1942a rifle division at full TOE takes 114, the 42b drops this to 96 and 42c to 84. The main reason for these drops is that slowly the Soviets got better at tailoring their OOBs, the standard practice in the 39-41 period was if something was useful, more of it was better (which is why Soviet tank divisions had far too many tanks). The 42b tank corps takes 70.

Now few units are at 100% TOE but if we use the 42b rifle division, I'd say the average demand is about 90 supply. So my 26k in theory could supply around 280 rifle divisions - but that is with no SUs and no real air commitment.

So in my case I have to slim down the army to the point where regular demand < regular supply to build up stocks. Fortunately 1943 brings a lot of relief, better TOEs, more lend lease and more production.

The other way is to plan your HI. Looking at the June 1942 scenario, the Soviets have 217 HI, the equivalent of 420 rifle divisions, 51 tank corps (I'm aggregating here). So if you want to emulate the historical 1942 army you need to get out around 200 HI, if so I'm 20% short and that has an impact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Loki, very interesting to see your thoughts on possible moves for either side during the next few weeks. Looks great for the spectators -- just about anything could happen -- but it must be nervewracking for the two of you. Good luck as you fight through this.


It is rather interesting - its this sort of situation that makes PBEM so much fun. Its not about exploitation of the game engine, its about out-thinking your opponent (or blundering straight into a trap). Equally you know you are not facing a (good) AI following its internal rules.

The key is that SigUp needs to do damn all. If the front line doesn't move from now to May 45 he wins. Now as time goes on, its going to become harder for him to hold any front line, but at this stage that is not true.

Now if I overreach myself, the riposte could be deadly, if I don't retake some vital ground then he's in a dominant position for the rest of the game - ie its always me who has to take risks and try and find a break, he can absorb and respond.

My feeling at the moment, is it is the moment the Oka freezes that things get interesting. Till then we can both gamble on a weak screen, at that stage an awful lot of options open up.

Add to which, I'm nursing my supply problem ...



VigaBrand -> RE: T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/27/2014 6:59:13 AM)

For your army size you need 80 HI more.
Because, you used 43k for production and your units need 80k supplies, that is your actual production.
The main problem is, that wasn't your fault. With the old HI Modifier from 1.3 you get 100k from your factories.



loki100 -> RE: T67: 24-30 September 1942 (12/27/2014 5:48:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand

For your army size you need 80 HI more.
Because, you used 43k for production and your units need 80k supplies, that is your actual production.
The main problem is, that wasn't your fault. With the old HI Modifier from 1.3 you get 100k from your factories.



aye, thats a good summary. I actually suspect I extracted too little HI even for 1.07 but that was lack of experience and listening too much to the advice that the only thing that matters was arm pts.

its really a case now of nurse the problem till 1943 and then just be careful about how often and where I attack



loki100 -> T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (12/27/2014 5:55:25 PM)

T68-69 1-14 October 1942 "And just the meanest Tunes"

The start of October saw a continuation of the recent lull in major operations. The limited clashes all occurred in the lower Don and along the Khopyer where Soviet forces probed and occupied positions abandoned in August.

The air war remained more active. The Germans reverted to their tactics of late 1941 seeking to engage the VVS while Soviet planning was focused on air reconnaissance and harassment raids by the U2s.

The result was the loss of 45 German and almost 200 Soviet planes. The new German FW-190s and the Bf-109Gs appeared to dominate even the Yak-1s, never mind older Soviet fighters. In response, Stavka gradually pulled more squadrons back into reserve to recover their morale and to train on the new Yak-9s.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img908/2701/YuMvpz.jpg[/image]
(air units with the new Yak-9 in training in the Urals)

However, the main focus in Soviet planning was the ongoing supply and ammunition shortages. Even before the operational preparations for a winter counter-attack it was critical to ensure the main sectors were properly supplied.

The global supply stock was slowly improving to 62% (T68) and 74% (T69) as non-essential usage was reduced. Usage by industry was stabilised at around 42,000 per turn.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img661/9206/3k3gbi.jpg[/image]

Equally a number of formations were scrapped to concentrate resources on key sectors;

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img537/7054/vMDG5W.jpg[/image]

[1]

The net result [2] was that the Soviet forces slowly reduced in size but the numbers of both men and equipment in reserve increased.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img673/6669/wdzLw8.jpg[/image]

I've managed to remove 200,000 men from the frontlines since T67 (when the overall numbers were at 8.08m). Seems strange to be trying to reduce my combat force but in the circumstances I either kept it as it was (and suffered low efficiency and too slow morale recovery) or did this. The impact on morale is noticeable as a lot of rifle divisions are moving back from 38-39 to 41-42 (I guess most will stick at 42/43 till the 1943 morale gain occurs).

I've also substantially reduced the number of VVS squadrons allocated to the main airbases. I'll bring these back by late October but try to concentrate on key sectors rather than cover the entire front.


[1] – this is slowly removing those brigades that cannot convert to divisions, rifle divisions with low morale, low experience and > 10 losses (very unlikely to ever be much use), specialist AT regiments using 45mm guns (these are part of the divisional TOEs so this reduces production/demand and they are increasingly useless in any case) and other units deemed to be surplus to need.

Related to this I am stripping a lot of SUs from the regular armies to Stavka. This will make it easier to re-allocate where needed and to identify what can be scrapped (again so they can be recycled into the divisional TOEs).

[2] – also put a lot of the secondary units on lower TOEs



cohimbra -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (12/29/2014 11:43:33 AM)

Hi loki100, like Pride of Nation in the AGEOD forum you're the aar king. Very interesting to read and to 'see'. I'm started to play WitE (GC, Axis side) vs AI and I'm enjoying it, turn after turn I'm going to love it...and I'm not a fanboy of the land warfare operations. Keep it up.



loki100 -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/7/2015 8:29:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cohimbra

Hi loki100, like Pride of Nation in the AGEOD forum you're the aar king. Very interesting to read and to 'see'. I'm started to play WitE (GC, Axis side) vs AI and I'm enjoying it, turn after turn I'm going to love it...and I'm not a fanboy of the land warfare operations. Keep it up.


thank you ... this does have the same epic qualities as a game as Pride of Nations.

Just a short update, we had a festive break, and are wading in the autumn muds so no point trying to do anything detailed, but I do seem to be solving the supply crisis. My overall supply (ie in unit+in pool/unit demand+store demand) is now up to 84%. While I have some units still showing 0 supply after the distribution phase, the general supply store has now reached 100% (as shown below). Most units are showing 20-30% after the supply allocation and usage routine, so at least I am rebuilding my morale as well.

Now this is with almost all the VVS tucked up snugly in the Urals, apart from the U2s who are defending the skies of the Soviet Motherland, and no offensive actions, but it does indicate my recent radical surgery has had the desired effect. Now to see what happens if I risk a return to being at all warlike.



[image]local://upfiles/43256/9A3E09555F7E4DD4ACB7DB068749B9C0.jpg[/image]



jwolf -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/7/2015 9:58:12 PM)

quote:

Now to see what happens if I risk a return to being at all warlike.


Good question. I would suppose there is a lot of difference between adequate defensive supply vs adequate supply for a serious offensive or even a really sustained counterattack.

Can you tell how much of your supply troubles are due to the change to 1.08 as opposed to how much from losing or rebuilding a lot of factories? Or, for that matter, how much is really intrinsic to the Soviet economy no matter what?



loki100 -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/8/2015 7:03:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

quote:

Now to see what happens if I risk a return to being at all warlike.


...

Can you tell how much of your supply troubles are due to the change to 1.08 as opposed to how much from losing or rebuilding a lot of factories? Or, for that matter, how much is really intrinsic to the Soviet economy no matter what?


In truth it all is due to the changes in 1.08 ... and I say that from a perspective of applauding the overall thrust of those chances both for realism and their impact on gameplay.

My immediate response to SigUp's renewed offensive was twofold. One was to block off access to decent supply lines and the other was a massive deployment of the VVS. Under 1.07 both were sustainable, under 1.08 both fed into a problem that was inherent in the patch, and related to gameplay that had become standard (& in my case unreflective) in 1941.

The shift of the HI multiplier in 1942 from 1.2 to 1 sounds trivial, but has profound effects on supply generation. The consensus was for Soviet players to be prepared to lose HI but save arms pts. I'll happily confess I had no master plan as to what number of HI I could cope with, I just got out as much as I could (including some 'inefficient' batches of 1-3 where I had spare rail pts), but always with the mindset that HI was the lowest priority - there is a warning in here about trusting received wisdom without thinking about it yourself.

To anyone starting out, I'd say carefully study the Soviet OOB and industrial position in the June 1942 start scenario. In the absence of any better information, that has to be the base line to plan for. If you can't match the industrial position then you'll struggle to match the OOB - as I test and without any moves on either side I just ran that forward 6 turns and overall it leaves the Soviets in the sort of comfortable supply position that most players experienced in the 1.07 iterations - in other words you have supply problems in some places for reasons of distribution not of global production.

There are then some wrinkles in 1.08 that Morvael is revising, and has revised, the biggest I think wil be the ability to tinker at the level of global choices - do I fully fund the supply demand of equipment production, or of fort building? This sounds far better than the current lunacy of moving bits of factories so as to remove them from production for a period.

Overall if 1.08 works as intended, what should be normal is a trade off. Extracting sufficient HI will cost a lot of rail pts and demand more time. That should reduce Soviet rail capacity for unit moves in 1941 (so both the traditional, gamey, stunt of stripping the Ukraine and bringing up the new arrivals/returns from the Urals). It should also mean a more committed defence of key factory groups to buy the time needed. Again I think this has implications for standard Soviet play in the Ukraine, you'll have to hold the axis away from Kharkov and the Dombas much longer, and lose more arms pts from Dnepropetrovsk and the lower Dneipr as you pull out some HI.

Whether the final outcome will be a more realistic Soviet supply position in 1942 I don't know - ie a global shortage forcing some pretty radical prioritisation. There was a reason why the Soviets took no advantage of the full commitment of the Pzrs in the south ... compare that to late 42 and throughout 43 when inept but regular attacks in the Moscow region were a regular part of Soviet operations. But if you want a full industry in 1942 you are going to have to lose more units in 1941, in turn weakening the winter offensive, in turn leaving the Germans more dangerous for the summer of 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Good question. I would suppose there is a lot of difference between adequate defensive supply vs adequate supply for a serious offensive or even a really sustained counterattack.



truth be told, I don't really know. My supply allocation to ammunition production has been low for some time, I've managed to squeeze down the usage for replacements etc. Both will rise if I go over to offensive operations and that is before more direct supply consumption due to renewed operations.

My feeling is, if I can, I'd like to have the global supply line, as shown on HQs > 200% before the November snows. I'll then just have to test it out. I lack the capacity to attack from Cherepovets to Rostov in any case (all those level #3 forts are too depressing to even look at), not least till some of the major rivers freeze, SigUp's lines are too well anchored (as, of course, are mine). So I think I can start with a 2 Front operation, backed by tactical not level bombers and see what the impact is. Odds on of course this will repeat the problem I've struggled with all summer which is that localised, even if powerful, offensive are all too easy to seal off.



morvael -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/8/2015 7:18:06 AM)

HI multiplier will be higher in next patch. Consumption will be lower. Still, there could be shortages in 1941 and 1942 but it will be possible to slightly reduce production or fort building to get more for the units. As tested on the 1942 GC (with 217 HI), there is a surplus of 12k for the Soviets with the front passive at full production. Anyway, for anyone starting a long campaign I suggest to save as many HI factories as possible.

And I applaud loki100 for remaining so adamant in face of adversities not of his own making, yet being flexible enough to adjust his style of play to circumvent problems with the beta patch.



M60A3TTS -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/8/2015 11:29:44 AM)

The idea of making the Soviet fight forward by making HI relevant is well intended but provides a rather one-sided result.

Among the historical issues facing the OstHeer by the end of 1941, one was their casualty count that had reached 830,403 or 25.96% of the force according to Franz Halder's diary. General Keitel reported by that time that most 1st Lieutenants and Captains were commanding battalions. They were looking at the prospect of disbanding divisions in order to fill others with sufficient number of infantry. Now in terms of game play if the Soviets are made to fight forward, sure, their casualty count goes up, but the Germans are not going to lose 800k men as a result. The combat engine and pocket process just isn't going to support that. So the Soviets take the hit and the Germans do not and this change becomes a simple play balancer.

Loki, you can forget the whole notion of operating the Soviet side with 217 HI in the Grand Campaign against a competent Axis player. Ain't happening. There isn't anywhere near sufficient rail capacity in 1941 to move troops and industry and only lose 19 HI (Soviet starts the game with 236) without crippling your arms count or wiping the Red Army from the map. You are best to plan for retaining between 170-190 HI and keeping the Red Army around 8 million through most of 1943 at least. In terms of air forces, by end of 1943 most LBs should be out of the picture, replaced by tac bombers to save supply which it appears you have largely done already.






loki100 -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/8/2015 1:47:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

... . Now in terms of game play if the Soviets are made to fight forward, sure, their casualty count goes up, but the Germans are not going to lose 800k men as a result. The combat engine and pocket process just isn't going to support that. So the Soviets take the hit and the Germans do not and this change becomes a simple play balancer.

Loki, you can forget the whole notion of operating the Soviet side with 217 HI in the Grand Campaign against a competent Axis player. Ain't happening. There isn't anywhere near sufficient rail capacity in 1941 to move troops and industry and only lose 19 HI (Soviet starts the game with 236) without crippling your arms count or wiping the Red Army from the map. You are best to plan for retaining between 170-190 HI and keeping the Red Army around 8 million through most of 1943 at least. In terms of air forces, by end of 1943 most LBs should be out of the picture, replaced by tac bombers to save supply which it appears you have largely done already.



I think there are two related issues but its best not to get them mixed up. One is realism and the other is play balance. Given the massive bug hunt that Morvael et al have been on since the later 1.07 patches, its inevitable that some balance issues emerge. I think it was MichaelT who was bemoaning the patching process as at some stage in 1.06, by his somewhat skewed criteria, the game was balanced.

Now there is a huge legacy of past experience around this game. Even coming to it relatively late in its development cycle, you quickly pick up on some concepts that have been developed and cherished over the game's iteration. One that might be relevant here is Pelton's 'AP crunch concept' where if the Soviet player fails to retain enough arms pts factories they cannot cope with the various 1942 upgrade cycle. If I understand properly, that is probably the core to the logic of not worrying too much about HI as arms pts are so vital.

Now I think 1.08 has cured a lot of that arms pt demand. Before the patch I had 400,000 in the pool (ok this reflected that in 1.07 a lot of swapping did not happen as it should), it was down to 80,000 by the end of July (but I was raising an awful lot of fresh units), by the time we got to 1.081 I was back up to 180,000, it then took another tumble (as the units in contact were able to go > 60% TOE) back down to 75,000, since then, despite a lot of upgrades, its back up at 350,000 (& going up net 60,000 a turn).

So it *may*, and lets be cautious here, that the solution is let more arms pts go, you can cope with less than past experience dictates to save the HI.

In other words, we have to understand the systems and the way they interact before trying to achieve balance. I suspect imposing balance by means of an arbitrary fix (like the Soviet +1 odds shift) has been a regular feature of WiTE's development. The problem is after each round of patching, those fixes run the risk of sending the game off the rails one way or another.

We know that some core systems are not right and can't be changed. HQBU, too low attacker losses, frictionless rails are 3 that come easily to mind. So once its clear how 1.08 is working, and once it is working as envisaged, that is the time to look for fixes, I do think there is a lot of playing by numbers going on, as opposed to rethinking of strategies.

and ... for all I know, you could well be utterly correct [:)]




M60A3TTS -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/8/2015 3:52:53 PM)

All of the fixes over the years have been largely driven to draw the confluence of the battle lines to what people see as appropriate in a battle among equals. What has been left by the wayside was any attempt to reflect the true brutality of the conflict of those 4 years. By the end of 1941, both sides were exhausted, save for the reserves the Soviets brought up to launch the winter campaign. But the result in game is, again among equals, the lines are roughly where they were historically although it seems Leningrad again is easier pickings.

The end result of the long arms point discussion has seen Soviet multipliers consistently reduced, which has been fine because the Soviets often end up with substantial surpluses anyways. But let's for the sake of discussion, look at what you might end up with from a production standpoint if you set your HI target goal at an even 220. I will set my target goal at 170 HI. You will need 500k rail points (50*10,000) more than I to meet your goal. That rounds out to a cost to you of 83 arms points (500k/6k-cost of an arms factory evacuation), so under your floor of 220 HI, you will have 83 less arms than me with my HI floor of 170. Those 83 arms reflect about 22% of the starting arms capacity of 370. And finally we have to take into account what both of us would lose in arms in 1941, and a reasonable # if you manage it well enough would be let's say 50.

Our respective models then look like this: you have 220 HI and 237 arms while I have 170 HI and 320 arms before multipliers are considered. Now we can discuss the net effect for the entire game, but I submit to you the effects in the summer of 42 the results would be telling. That is when, on top of the lovely 40 national morale, you are needing to replace divisions and are falling back on your own rail net, meaning less impact on supply but needing arms to flesh out the rifle divisions. It's not a pretty picture where you could be running a dearth of arms points from November 41 to some period of the summer of 42. And that's going to help decide whether you survive long enough to turn the tide. In both HI scenarios if we both survive, one would think you will advance faster with your better supplied army. But I think there are enough things I can still do to keep up a sufficient rate of advance by not attacking everywhere, moving everything, keeping a healthy # of RR construction brigades, and keeping the RR repair corps tucked up behind the key fronts on the offensive.



morvael -> RE: T68-69 1-14 October 1942 (1/8/2015 4:00:47 PM)

Less HI and more ARM means even more drain on supplies. This is historical. Soviet soldiers went hungry in 41-42 but had a lot of ammo to fire from their guns. I think a reasonable balance will be between 190 and 200 HI evacuated and on occasion production will have to be slowed down to keep the armies supplied in next patch.



loki100 -> T70-T73 15 October – 12 November 1942 (1/11/2015 1:11:30 PM)

T70-T73 15 October – 12 November 1942: “To Gibbets, and the Dead”

With the return of the autumn rains the potential for any offensive action ceased. South of Rostov some clashes took place in the rare periods when the ground dried out but even here it was a matter of Soviet advance guards pressing too far and being caught by local axis counter-strokes. Losses mirrored this relative cessation of active combat and totalled 33,000 for the axis and 130,000 for the Soviets.

However, the apparent inactivity masked three critical shifts in the war.

Offensive Preparations

On the ground, both sides redeployed for the winter battles. Facing roughly even numbers of men (but with a huge advantage in terms of number of guns and tanks) Stavka gambled. The front lines (apart from immediately at Moscow) were stripped of manpower and the equivalent of four complete Fronts were drawn into reserve (the newly formed South Western, Bryansk, Voronezh and the elite formations of Leningrad and North Western Fronts) and the rest were starved of replacements and stripped of specialist support units.

Stavka's plan was to gamble that the reduced forces of Volkhov, Don, Stalingrad, North Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus Fronts could hold their respective sectors. Western and Kalinin Fronts were to defend Moscow and despite not being expected to undertake independent offensive actions, were equally reinforced so as to protect the still vulnerable capital.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img908/2908/D4HeOx.jpg[/image]

Critically almost 50% of the Soviet tank force was allocated to the three reserve fronts to the south of Moscow (Bryansk, Voronezh and South Western). However, North Western and Leningrad Fronts had over 19,000 guns (around 18% of the total) of Soviet artillery between them, with this representing the bulk of the heavier guns and katyushas. This simple distinction reflected the major differences in Stavka's estimate of the likely nature of any offensive on the two sectors.

A key preparation for the planned winter offensives had been Don, Stalingrad and the two Caucasus Front re-establishing contact with the Axis forces in positions abandoned in August. The other fronts occupied some of their old defensive positions but primarily deployed where Stavka planned to launch a sequence of counter-attacks.

The Air War

If the Germans had ceased major ground operations, they made up for this by a renewal of their onslaught on the VVS. The week 15-21 October set the template, when they effectively seized control of the skies south of Moscow destroying 134 Soviet aircraft for only 21 of their own. Their new FW-190s proved too much for most Soviet fighters and the substantial numbers of Bf-109Gs added to the pressure. The following week saw a similar pattern and it became painfully clear that the Yak-1 was now effectively obsolete.

Strangely, the VVS' most effective weapon remained the U2 biplane. Able to evade most German fighters, and ignore most AA, these continued to extract a regular toll from German units around Ryazan, north of Moscow and the Rumanian units at Rostov. By 29 October, the VVS had withdrawn many fighter squadrons to rest and refit and Luftwaffe sought to take revenge on the U2s. For the first time since June 1941 substantial numbers of Soviet aircraft were bombed on the ground leading to 500 Soviet losses up to 12 November for only 50 Axis planes. Most of the Soviet losses were U2s. In response, the night harassment raids were stepped up as the VVS refused to accept defeat.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img538/2553/QI2CFw.jpg[/image]
(not shown is that overall I lost about 300 planes on the ground, almost all U2-VS. This reduces my stockpile to less than 2,500).

The German fighters now had complete control of the skies around Ryazan. Attempts at reconnaissance flights met with significant losses and it proved impossible to conduct any offensive missions on this sector at all.

In response, by 12 November, Stavka started to bring back the re-equipped fighter squadrons. At Moscow, most were now Yak-9/7B/1B or La-5. If the VVS could not manage control of the skies it was still going to have to fend off the German fighters to ensure that Soviet bombers managed to support the Red Army.

The Industrial War

The final aspect of the war took place well to the rear. The German summer offensive had exposed numerous weaknesses in Soviet industry and its capacity to supply combat operations.

In response, Stavka had disbanded a significant number of formations [1] and reduced the flow of replacements to major sectors of the front. In addition, the VVS' active commitment was drastically reduced and most 2 and 4 engine bombers held back in the Urals. This had saw a steady improvement in the supply position till many VVS fighter and Il-2 squadrons were assigned to forward airbases on 12 November [2].

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img661/7742/l4Rzhb.jpg[/image]

As noted that presents three views on what is going on. The graph is from the production report and shows % of supply in units (although not clear this has shifted from 26.7% to 30.5% and back down to 29.1%). The table shows production and varying usage.

I can understand the shifts in usage, as I've moved some factories and a few turns most the army stood still (so little new fortification efforts). I'm not sure why supply production is shifting as there is no resource shortage and no HI factories are damaged.

Even the limited return of the VVS between T72 and T73 seems to have had an adverse effect as I increased the number deployed from 3,200 to 4,200 (I've added another 600 during T73). I'm in a problem here as I don't have any other combat arm that can really help offset the relative numerical balance between the two armies.

Preparation for a renewed offensive

With these constraints, the Red Army had 300,000 less men in the front line units on 12 November than it had on 30 September. On the other hand, reserve manpower was up from 250,000 to over 1 million and armaments were 500,000.

Despite these problems, after long debates Soviet forces were taking up positions for the opening blow of their Winter 1942-3 offensive [3]. Stavka's overall goal was clear, the Germans had to be forced back from Moscow and dislodged from their positions threatening the Volga.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img673/8186/IEPAKo.jpg[/image]

Overall, German numbers have remained static as have their allies. This gives them 5.7 million men, 55,000 guns, 6,400 AFVs and 4,500 planes.

My numbers are down due to the programme of disbanding formations and reducing the TOE of others. I have an advantage of 7.7:5.7 in raw manpower, 2:1 in artillery, 4:3 in AFVs and 2:1 in planes (but as is clear I can't make full use of this particular advantage).

In detail, the VVS had 3200 fighter bombers (2250 at the front), 2601 tactical bombers (2000 at the front), 2200 level bombers (200 at the front), 650 transports (60 at the front), 300 reconnaissance (200 at the front). Of the level bombers, the front line squadrons consisted purely of lend lease A-20s or B-25s or the new Tu-2.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img661/4711/3Knarx.jpg[/image]
(Tu-2s in training in the Urals)

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img540/9381/RVSGMd.jpg[/image]

In particular the fighter arm was hastily being re-equipped following recent defeats by the Germans with most of the better squadrons already using Yak-9/7B/1B or the La-5. The new lend lease P-40s were also being incorporated [4]

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img538/4826/RFRXb0.jpg[/image]

In terms of available artillery, 35% of all guns were in fact medium mortars but following recent re-organisations, heavier guns and katyushas were now concentrated in the formations designated to lead the various planned winter offensive operations. The AT stock had been re-organised and all the specialist formations using the 45mm had been scrapped and were slowly being replaced by units using the heavy 107mm. The 45mm remained the main AT gun, but was now only used as part of divisional assets.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img673/7282/q2yzMs.jpg[/image]

The 7,100 tanks were divided between 3,200 light tanks (still mostly T-60s) and 3,700 medium tanks. Given their disappointing combat performance, only a few formations still deployed the KVs [5]. The flame tanks were allocated to a single Shock Army being trained and equipped to overcome the strongest German fortification belt.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img537/3980/w6Q3me.jpg[/image]

Substantial reserves of the main types existed to replace losses.

[image]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/img538/4395/V34PI3.jpg[/image]

[image]local://upfiles/43256/A47C0464715E4BAFB88D7AC9DC314AF8.jpg[/image]

[1] – basically the brigades that can't convert to divisions, divisions with low morale and many losses, support units that effectively duplicate the equipment in divisional TOEs or are expensive to replace.
[2] – I'm going to keep a close eye on this, I've tried not to exceed the basic supply level of any airbase, but I need to concentrate.
[3] – I've changed my mind about where to start at least three times, and have finally decided how where the secondary offensives will fall, as well as deployments to raise some doubts as to quite what is the real target,
[4] – I'm juggling re-equipment with an eye on the implication of the shift to 32 plane squadrons in December. Ideally I want enough in the pool that the key squadrons can increase their strength without having to scrap units. If I need, I'll swap out some of the less competent formations to obsolete planes so as to free up their aircraft for re-allocation.
[5] – they are only part of the mech corps TOE. I need to think about raising some specialist heavy tank regiments, less for their value with KV1/42 and more so that when first the KV/85 and then the IS-2 arrives I have formations with decent experience levels to absorb them.



M60A3TTS -> RE: T70-T73 15 October – 12 November 1942 (1/11/2015 3:54:41 PM)

You can scrap 80-90% of the Pe-2 and IL-4 LB regiments in the reserve. Fact is, you'll be hard pressed to properly supply your troops with more than 20 or so of those regiments in the field. Tac bombers will of course eat much less supply.



gingerbread -> RE: T70-T73 15 October – 12 November 1942 (1/11/2015 5:32:13 PM)

All very nice, but where are your artillery divisions? Moscow and Volga can each hold two full Artillery Armies, but I don't think you have the AP to build quite that many. But some, like 9 div for one Army, is necessary to stay in colour when playing the Russians in WWII. Surely, you're not saving up AP to have a 30 or 40 Rifle Corps splash when the cost hit 10 AP in '43? That would be an example of putting the wagon in front of the horse.

I've never seen nor used a large number of 107mm AT units. They have a short span of availability so a couple of extra to get replacement guns could be warranted. They do have the capability to punch through the front of Panthers, the trick is to get them in a position to fire and hit.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.186523