The NO HQ BU experiment (opponents welcome) (Full Version)

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



Message

Psych0 -> The NO HQ BU experiment (opponents welcome) (8/7/2017 9:51:31 PM)

Hi, very late comer to WITE, but finally took the plunge a month ago. Steep learning curve reading the various helpful posts from the generous souls on the forum, bingeing on a couple of AARs and some AI butt kicking which quickly became boring once the Soviets run out of units to pocket. I'd like to continue that learning through doing this AAR, so please don't lurk, just spit it out when you see me doing something silly. Challenge my actions and plans, please!

It's my first game vs a flesh and blood human opponent so perhaps not too interesting for most. However, of interest might be that it will be an experiment. You will not see any HQ BU in this game. Suicidal? Likely, but I feel I need to try it. And sil01 has kindly taken up the challenge against my now perhaps feeble Germans. Let's see.

Settings and house rules:
- Full FoW (I don't like the movement FoW much but sil01 insisted)
- Fixed weather
- No Soviet combat bonus
- Mild blizzard
- Locked HQs
- Better CV math
- No sea invasions before '42 and not beyond Odessa or Sevastopol unless Soviets hold those cities respectively
- No para drops before '42 and never to break pockets

Sil01 won't have the time to write his AAR side of the story, so you'll have to make do with my German propaganda. We're about to start T1 so I hope to post my first report in a week or 2. I'm not going to ask sil01 not to read this AAR, so I'll post with a delay of about 5 turns. Better yet, sil01 is most welcome to actively participate and comment in this thread.

Looking forward to an interactive AAR gents. I'll do my best to make it somewhat entertaining, but please participate. Nobody is waiting for a monologue from me.



Telemecus -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/8/2017 7:25:39 PM)

+1 subscriber here.

Yes it will be interesting - no HQBUs, but mild blizzard and no Soviet combat bonus.

To some extent it is a 1941 experiment as HQBUs are most useful then, the bonus expires anyway and the first blizzard is the big one.

One special request - you mentioned you might be playing two games, 1 with HQBUs and 1 without. Even if no AAR would it be possible in that case just for a screenshot of the other on turn 18 or so? It is almost the most perfect controlled experiment, two players of similar abilities (infact identical as in fact the same person) more or less on the same point of the learning curve with or without HQBUS. It would be the definitive "this is what HQBU" means statement.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/9/2017 11:46:27 AM)

Great suggestion for this experiment Telemecus! The 2nd game was a 'mistake' as I created a server game and didn't add PW. Then a mysterious stranger accepted and I thought 'why not?!' so we started. Still have no reply to my PM to him but he's on T2 now.

That said I'll suggest to sil01 for us to start a 2nd game WITH HQ BU as comparison.



Telemecus -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/9/2017 2:04:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
That said I'll suggest to sil01 for us to start a 2nd game WITH HQ BU as comparison.


Even better, same two players! It may be a big ask - but if sil01 is crazy enough to try this experiment they may be on for it!



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/10/2017 6:41:47 AM)

We won't be playing the 'control' game. I have to agree with sil01 it'd be rather academic. To quote sil01; "I think that HQ BU version with reduced blizzard and no bonus is deadly for Soviet. Its clear without game."

Doing T1 tonight so I might post something without delay to kick things off.



Telemecus -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/10/2017 3:27:20 PM)

Yes that it is true. I suppose the nearest comparison fair to play would be with HQBU and full blizzard, at least to see how it affects the 1941 pre-Blizzard advance. But already then you are changing the controls of the experiment.

One thought I had that perhaps a Soviet concession should be no factory evacuation (or at least none in 1941). There is a certain symmetry that reducing the Axis ability to advance should be reflected in reducing the soviet ability to withdraw. Probably it would mean about the same industry lost as in a normal HQBU game. As you have started probably too late to change. But I thought worth mentioning for future such experiments!

We'll see how it goes in the AAR but it strikes me as going back to a world war one style where the fastest pace was foot or maybe mounted. And rail then was if anything more important because of the sheer volume of supplies needed for the head on infantry clashes. Later in 1941 the Axis may have to decide whether to use Panzers in the same way as StuGs, sort of mobile pillboxes/infantry support for tough fights? Or send them to garrisons/ rear to keep them for the following summer? Late I cannot see them being used at all in the classic blitzkrieg role.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/10/2017 5:44:41 PM)

I don't think it will slow down the tempo so much that it doesn't feel like WW2 anymore. But that's exactly why I'd like to do this experiment. HQ BU is a ridiculous and artificial mechanism to boost the Germans operating far away from their railhead. Is that really needed? Perhaps the speed of rail conversion could be increased a little (RCC of 2 instead of 3 and max 5 hexes instead of 4?). When fighting closer to the railhead the fuel situation is pretty good and sufficient for 'kesselschlacht' warfare. But let's see, talk is cheap. Hopefully I can put it in practice.

Has this NO HQ BU not been tried before? Does anyone know the history of HQ BU? Was it originally there from the start or added later? If the latter, why exactly?



Telemecus -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/10/2017 6:05:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
Has this NO HQ BU not been tried before? Does anyone know the history of HQ BU? Was it originally there from the start or added later? If the latter, why exactly?


Partly it has been tried before. I saw one AAR on it - but it was from someone who admitted they had not read the manual fully and only discovered it later. So it would be fair to say it was more of an extreme beginner learning the game AAR than someone who knew enough to use all facets of the game if they chose to.

And yes HQBU was there from the start and always part of the concept of the game

BUT

It has changed radically. For instance originally to do an HQBU the HQ could not have moved at all that turn. And of course Axis used to start of with a fifth FBD. So my rough feeling is through the versions HQBU have been powered up while rail repair has been powered down (though others may have a much better sense on that).

Rail repair per se has not changed at all - and I think could have been changed. Personally I would get rid of the onmap rail repair units and just have some screen where you set your rail repair strategy/priority routes and see it happen automatically. On curved stretches I have sometimes repaired 7 hexes in sequence etc.

It is worth remembering that world war I was always very mobile on the eastern front, and indeed mobile on the western front at the beginning and at the end. And at a tempo not too dissimilar from the Eastern front from 1942 onwards. The unusual period was the 50 hex type encirclements that the game can produce in 1941 - I guess this is what you are getting at. Perhaps more localised encirclements, as was historical, is all that we want after the first two week period.

There is a historical sense in which there were buildups of supplies/ stockpiling prior to offensives. So it may be worth modelling some how. But they were of a more general nature (ammunition etc.) and were not about getting vehicles to drive their maximum mileage in a week.



swkuh -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/10/2017 6:08:18 PM)

Playing Axis vs.AI and never use it. FWIW

As to Rail Repair, agree your thoughts. (Again fwiw.)



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 3:41:11 PM)

OK, we started and I decided to report the situation, my actions, plans, considerations and intentions without delay. Perhaps it's giving sil01 another advantage on top of me not playing with HQ BU, but it'll keep me on my toes to execute as best I can.

Let's start with AP spend. I haven't seen much on this in other AARs. The German OOB is a mess at the get go to be honest so I like to address that mostly the first few turns. And I won't need to spend any APs on HQ BU so that's already a benefit [;)]

- I corps Von Both replaced by Model (at cost of 6 AP) to make this the crack assault corps as it has 3 ID with 90 morale already.
- II corps 12th infantry division (ID) also with 90 mrl reassigned to I corps (2 AP) making it the full attachment of 4 divisions (8 CP)
- OKH Halder replaced by Von Kluge obviously (4 AP) caused Kirchner to take over 4A (normally it's fairly crappy Jodl so not unhappy).
- LVII panzercorps Kuntzen replaced by Von Knobelsdorff (7 AP)
- XVII Kienitz replaced by Hollidt (3 AP)
- 16A 253th to X (0 AP)
- XXIV starts with 6 ID attached! So 255th to XXXXVI Pz (1 AP) and 267th to XII (1 AP)
- XXXXII 129th to VIII (1 AP)
- VI 6th and 26th to V (2x1 AP) as VI has useless leader Foerster which would cost AP to replace anyway
- XXXXIV 297th to XVII (2 AP) due to useless leader Koch, I plan to empty XXXXIV as well
- IV 296th to XXIX (2 AP) due to 5 divs attached to IV
- AGS 99th to XXXXIX Mtn (0 AP)
- 17A 97th to LII (0 AP)
- XXXXVIII 58th to XXVI (1 AP) as it's the only div in XXXXVI with a fairly poor leader Von Chappuis

Screenies below of before and after impact on CP. The total negative CP went from -113 to -106. More in following turns, especially AGS and to lesser extent AGC need addressing but I start by reducing the corps CP deficits.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 3:44:36 PM)

Before reorg...

[image]local://upfiles/57515/92BBC8A22B8B4E4E970DDB5ACDFC2B5A.jpg[/image]



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 3:49:18 PM)

After reorg...

[image]local://upfiles/57515/1C863B8593C34274AF2F29FBC165D531.jpg[/image]



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 3:53:32 PM)

T1 thoughts tonight after kids are in bed...



Telemecus -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 4:12:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

T1 thoughts tonight after kids are in bed...


The kids being "North", "Centre" and "South"? [:)]



Crackaces -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 5:56:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

I don't think it will slow down the tempo so much that it doesn't feel like WW2 anymore. But that's exactly why I'd like to do this experiment. HQ BU is a ridiculous and artificial mechanism to boost the Germans operating far away from their railhead. Is that really needed? Perhaps the speed of rail conversion could be increased a little (RCC of 2 instead of 3 and max 5 hexes instead of 4?). When fighting closer to the railhead the fuel situation is pretty good and sufficient for 'kesselschlacht' warfare. But let's see, talk is cheap. Hopefully I can put it in practice.

Has this NO HQ BU not been tried before? Does anyone know the history of HQ BU? Was it originally there from the start or added later? If the latter, why exactly?

Just for discussion /.. It does give the player an option to deliver resources now at the expense of trucks and supplies to other HQ .. outside of historical arguments .. I look at these rules / features adding to the concept of a game as long as it as a decisional matrix and consequences.
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned. Like spending AP's on HQBU rather than maybe fortified positions .. or replacing leaders, shifting units, etc ..



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 6:58:31 PM)

Righto, kids bathed, fed, read to and asleep. Now indeed time for my other 3 kids; North, Centre and South!

Pretty standard T1 objectives;
- Luftwaffe: destroy 5000+ planes
- North: take Riga, get across Dvina, pocket Courland
- Centre: send 2PzG south of Pripyat (only XXXXVII Pz north of Pripyat), Bialystock pocket naturally (OK if need to re-pocket next week)
- South: activate Rumania, loose Lvov pocket, tight Kovel-Lutsk and Dubno pockets, make it hard for Shepetovka formations to escape

Report card;
- Luftwaffe: fell slightly short at 4900, just about acceptable. I usually get to 5200-ish, no idea how to get much more than that.

- North: Riga big success (routed) but only 8th Pz got across the Dvina, Courland pocketed. I decided to send Tot SS Mot to take out Ventspils port but I also like this div near the Dvina so 3rd Mot can get across as well. No big push to take Pskov next week I guess, but I presume that only really works against AI anyway.

- Centre: bog standard, no surprises, Bialystock pocket might not hold, too many gaps, but Von Bock can surely fix that next week if needed. I like to bypass Vilnius so the routed units don't get bumped out of the pocket, could have done the same with Kaunas but FBD3 needs to convert the rail there next week, so must take it this week. And a little further north I probably should have bumped Radviliskis-Panevezys so FBD2 can convert the full 60 miles towards Daugavpils next week. FBD4 has a clear path to convert 60 miles closer to Riga at least. FBD1 on the train to Rumania, no point starting to convert east of Lublin, that would take forever to get to the Donets basin.

- South: 11th Pz and HQ (XXXXVIII Pz) reach Rumanian border, Von Mackensen's III Pz leaves too many gaps for my liking but let's see. I've only played Germans so I don't really know how many MP isolated Soviet units have after a pocket is broken into from outside. The AI is rather apathetic when pocketed. III Pz could be in trouble but I reckon the Shepetovka formations won't get far and we'll have plenty of fully tanked panzers nearby next week to secure the situation and make even bigger pockets.

Ground losses of 11k vs 211k and 30 units destroyed (mostly fort garrisons but more than normal shattered units too). I feel fairly happy about how the opening went with good morale increases (# divs with >80 mrl went from 43 to 51). Bit apprehensive about what a human opponent can do to reopen the pockets though and god forbid isolate some of my spearheads. I'll live and learn. Anyhow, no need to spend more time on the opening blitz as you've seen it many many times before. Constructive feedback welcome of course.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 7:03:46 PM)

The situation in the north

[image]local://upfiles/57515/89D137C3354A444AA3D5DF490A24EBCD.jpg[/image]



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 7:06:01 PM)

In the middle

[image]local://upfiles/57515/825EDEBA77284AF08BAF61C1CA347ECD.jpg[/image]



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 7:08:46 PM)

And down south

What is this non-sense message I keep getting?
"You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post."


[image]local://upfiles/57515/8533DDCA238A45DD8004ABB493B1FE1E.jpg[/image]



Telemecus -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 7:16:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

And down south

What is this non-sense message I keep getting?"You are not allowed to post links, emails or phone numbers for 7 days from the date of your tenth post."



When that happened to me in the beginning I found just logging out and in got rid of it. But we could download the image (before the edit) if not see it embedded at the moment.

edit: and now seeing it embedded fine!



Crackaces -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/11/2017 7:48:45 PM)

quote:

No big push to take Pskov next week I guess, but I presume that only really works against AI anyway.


Hardluckagain has posted a pretty interesting strategy of picking select units for the Psov defense and optimizing a brick wall so to speak .. something the AI will never do ..




Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/12/2017 5:04:06 AM)

Oh by the way, what is the option "Art1, Sup1, Better CV math"?



Telemecus -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/12/2017 1:34:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
Let's start with AP spend... The German OOB is a mess at the get go to be honest so I like to address that mostly the first few turns. And I won't need to spend any APs on HQ BU so that's already a benefit [;)]


In my first games I used to follow this path, but then stopped to save every point I could for future HQBUs. So it is refreshing to see the full panoply of options being used in this game again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- XXIV starts with 6 ID attached! So 255th to XXXXVI Pz (1 AP) and 267th to XII (1 AP)

The downside of this is you are not taking advantage of the opportunity to remove the command penalty on 2PzGrp at the same time - and Guderian has good ratings. And you might find assigning infantry to another panzer corps only means they have to be reassigned in a future turn again. I usually start turn 1 doing any combats with these two first and then reassign them to OKH - usually they are covering marshes/pockets and not in any combats for a couple of turns so that is OK. You can assign them to XXXIV corps, or in two turns to 2nd army, or if it is just to get rid of the command penalty direct to 3rd panzer group or to a minor allied HQ.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- XXXXII 129th to VIII (1 AP)

Similarly, although probably for more APs I would have gone the whole hog and transfered them to an AGN army (which has spare capacity) and start getting to the point where your 9th army commander ratings become effective?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- IV 296th to XXIX (2 AP) due to 5 divs attached to IV
- AGS 99th to XXXXIX Mtn (0 AP)

Similarly to XXXIV would have meant the overload on 17th goes down at same time. XXXIV could be reassigned from OKH to AGS (0 AP) to keep the transfer of 99th at no points.

It does mean a few more points up front and fewer corps command penalties removed in turn 1. But it will mean fewer points overall spent getting rid of command penalties and the army commands become effective sooner. However these are thoughts without seeing the screenshots of turn 1. So you may have had other good immediate reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- XXXXVIII 58th to XXVI (1 AP) as it's the only div in XXXXVI with a fairly poor leader Von Chappuis

Often it can be worth waiting a few turns for this. Although in an idealised order of battle von Chappuis is out - you might find in the next couple of turns you need a division to do a few things different from everyone else (reduce a courland pocket, get to the gulf of Finland, defending against units coming from west Estonia, go for Talinn) which means it will be beyond 5 hexes of the other 18th army corps that might be heading to Pskow. So for these purposes it can be useful to have a 4th corps just to supply that extra division.

Your opening looks very good - certainly better than my first one not against an AI! If this is absolutely your first game against someone else you will have a few surprises from your opponent, but you'll get used to it quick.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/12/2017 3:26:26 PM)

Thanks for the good comments and kind words Telemecus. Re XXXIV... it'll go to 2A and 2A to AGN as soon as 2A is unfrozen.



topeverest -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/12/2017 3:39:06 PM)

While painful, No HQ Buildup for Germany in the first several combat seasons has impact, the mild first winter is a huuuugggeee German advantage.

I think you gained far more than you lost as German player.



topeverest -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/12/2017 3:40:58 PM)

You could get to a VP victory level with these options.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/12/2017 3:44:32 PM)

Good to hear Andy, gives me some confidence. I'd also be interested to try it with severe winter/no bonus or mild winter/+1 bonus, but let's see how this turns out first.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/13/2017 6:25:44 AM)

And yup, III Pz south of Shepetovka and 3 PzG near Minsk plus north-of-Pripyat Pz corps (XXXXVII) of 2PzG isolated. Doesn't seem to be an issue on T2 due to plenty of juice in the panzers. Big bonus that it drew in more Russian PoWs-to-be [:D]

I'll post screenies and T2 report tonight.



Psych0 -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/13/2017 6:40:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

I don't think it will slow down the tempo so much that it doesn't feel like WW2 anymore. But that's exactly why I'd like to do this experiment. HQ BU is a ridiculous and artificial mechanism to boost the Germans operating far away from their railhead. Is that really needed? Perhaps the speed of rail conversion could be increased a little (RCC of 2 instead of 3 and max 5 hexes instead of 4?). When fighting closer to the railhead the fuel situation is pretty good and sufficient for 'kesselschlacht' warfare. But let's see, talk is cheap. Hopefully I can put it in practice.

Has this NO HQ BU not been tried before? Does anyone know the history of HQ BU? Was it originally there from the start or added later? If the latter, why exactly?

Just for discussion /.. It does give the player an option to deliver resources now at the expense of trucks and supplies to other HQ .. outside of historical arguments .. I look at these rules / features adding to the concept of a game as long as it as a decisional matrix and consequences.
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned. Like spending AP's on HQBU rather than maybe fortified positions .. or replacing leaders, shifting units, etc ..



I think you answered your own discussion point... 'no' consequences but unrealistic advantage for Germans especially in 41. In principle I love hard trade-off decisions but HQ BU is not a trade-off at all. And as Telemecus noted it closes off AP spend in other areas significantly.

With this experiment I'd like to see what the balance is like without BUs.



Dinglir -> RE: The NO HQ BU experiment (sil01 welcome) (8/13/2017 6:53:16 AM)

Having recently started to play the Axis myself, I find that the biggest initial challenge is how to make your pockets stick (especially with the +1 Soviet modifier). This will soon be followed by a need to have a clear understanding of the supply system and how to place your own Panzers to optimize fuel support.

To me your initial pockets seem to be to loose.

In the north, the Soviets can push north from Panevezys, south from the Riga pocket and east at Ukmerge. If they have two rallied units in the stack east of Ukmerge (or sufficient MP), your entire Panzer Group in the north will find itself encircled come next turn.

In the center, the Soviet Tank division in Novogrudok needs only push two hexes southwest in order to break the Bialystock pocket. If they also push north from Voronovo any rallied units in Vilnius may cut off your Panzers in the center (your image does not show the situation north of Vilnius, so I cannot be sure).

In the south the Kovel pocket can probably be broken in the swamps, at Yampol the Soviets can reconnect the three "bulges" and the Lvov pocket can be broken at Brody by pushing simultaneously northeast and southwest.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6445313