RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> After Action Reports



Message

Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/19/2022 8:36:26 PM)

That -10 and -12 planes losses for interdiction are huge, considering no enemy airplanes. Almost 50% in first case and 50% in a second one. Did you fly in a blizzard or what happened there?



loki100 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/19/2022 8:41:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

That -10 and -12 planes losses for interdiction are huge, considering no enemy airplanes. Almost 50% in first case and 50% in a second one. Did you fly in a blizzard or what happened there?


why?

no no blizzard, its a mild winter

and yes, a number of Soviet HQs were in the target area, presumably with AA SU attached. so yes I took losses.

its not a 'I win' trick, its more another way to make the logistics system hit the Soviets, maybe works maybe doesn't.

I realise there is a lot of nonsense going around about Soviet logistics, well when they return to the offensive they have all the problems the axis had in 1941 and, just for the fun of it, an army of 6.5m+ compared to one of around 3.4m to supply



Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/19/2022 8:51:29 PM)

50% flak losses are pretty big. I assume it is flak losses as you did not fly in blizzard and there was no enemy air planes. Also I think that you was not using tactical bombers for the interdiction. So low AA was not a threat for your level bombers. That is why I think that it is huge losses. But maybe there are a lot of high altitude AA that shredded your planes in that two cases.

No to start a discussion about Soviet supply here, just to mention that the thing is that people believe (and I also do so) that in `41 and `42 Soviets logistics is overpowered, which allows them to set supply priority 4 at the start of the game and forget about it for the next two/three years. Which leads to a situations that they can store > 100% of supplies and ammo. Which is from alternative fantasy universe, and not from a history of ww2.

I do not say that their supply system is overpowered later on. Maybe it is working fine when they get far away from a NSS. But we clearly see that in `41 and `42 it is a non factor at all. And it has to be tuned.



Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/19/2022 10:52:17 PM)

Can Comrade Steve share his logistic report with freight received/needed when Soviets are on offensive action? Unless it is classified :)



loki100 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/20/2022 6:48:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

50% flak losses are pretty big. I assume it is flak losses as you did not fly in blizzard and there was no enemy air planes. Also I think that you was not using tactical bombers for the interdiction. So low AA was not a threat for your level bombers. That is why I think that it is huge losses. But maybe there are a lot of high altitude AA that shredded your planes in that two cases.

...


well, don't make assumptions, I created 2 AOGs (one in L1 one in L4) particularly set up if I wanted to run these interdiction missions, they are a mix of tactical bombers and FBs, under 9k. If I don't do the interdiction they return to their default GS function



Speedysteve -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/20/2022 12:12:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Can Comrade Steve share his logistic report with freight received/needed when Soviets are on offensive action? Unless it is classified :)


Afraid I can't right now. It's at such a sensitive phase of the game I don't want Herr Loki seeing any challenges or strengths that I currently have. When it doesn't matter anymore, to the outcome of the game, I'll report on it.

It's also frustrating for me since I want to post about plans and what's happening on the turns but we're only 1 turn ahead of each of Loki's (excellent) reports so I can't risk posting anything showing the map/units etc. I can provide details of any losses/pools though but I know that's hardly exciting[;)]

I guess in the future I can provide my thoughts of previous operations 1-2 months after they've happened.



Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/20/2022 12:18:43 PM)

I understand. Can you also take some notes about effect of that railyards bombing, so you can share it later on?

Thanks.



Speedysteve -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/20/2022 12:20:07 PM)

Will do [:)]



Beethoven1 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/20/2022 12:32:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I realise there is a lot of nonsense going around about Soviet logistics, well when they return to the offensive they have all the problems the axis had in 1941 and, just for the fun of it, an army of 6.5m+ compared to one of around 3.4m to supply


The discussion about Soviet logistics being very simple is regarding 1941 up to maybe 1943, not the later war period when Soviets are advancing into Poland and Germany.

Are you saying that you think Soviets do actually have significant logistical challenges in 1941-43 that can't be solved by simply setting supply priority 4? So far I have not really seen them in my games using the 1941 scenario and StB.

If you only mean logistical problems that come into play when Soviets advance further, that is one thing, but it is another matter to say Soviets have logistical issues when the front line is further back. I haven't seen any real evidence of that, so if you have any it would be interesting to see.


Also I am curious - what supply priorities are you using for the German troops?



loki100 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/20/2022 2:39:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I realise there is a lot of nonsense going around about Soviet logistics, well when they return to the offensive they have all the problems the axis had in 1941 and, just for the fun of it, an army of 6.5m+ compared to one of around 3.4m to supply


The discussion about Soviet logistics being very simple is regarding 1941 up to maybe 1943, not the later war period when Soviets are advancing into Poland and Germany.

Are you saying that you think Soviets do actually have significant logistical challenges in 1941-43 that can't be solved by simply setting supply priority 4? So far I have not really seen them in my games using the 1941 scenario and StB.

If you only mean logistical problems that come into play when Soviets advance further, that is one thing, but it is another matter to say Soviets have logistical issues when the front line is further back. I haven't seen any real evidence of that, so if you have any it would be interesting to see.


Also I am curious - what supply priorities are you using for the German troops?


generally, as maybe clear, I've stopped reading the main forum, just fed up with the general tone. Criticism/suggestions fine but the unending game broken posts, that there are at least 2 sock puppet accounts for people with bans stirring up issues, that a whole load of the claims are often based on misunderstanding the game systems, just not worth it.

So I'm sticking to the AARs where I can engage with those that interest me and the beta forum.

Which is a long, and grumpy way [;)], of saying not aware of the latest discussion. As with so much else, it no doubt utterly focuses on T1-15 with little account of how that sets up feedback loops for a game designed to be played into late 1942, early 1945 or T210+.

So does #4 solve the early problems, maybe, does it dump the Soviets into a truck shortage that will really hurt in 1942, possibly, are Soviet logistics easy when they return to the strategic offensive - nope.

All my Pzr armies are on #4, the rest #3 - no need for subtlety now, I had every rail link repaired by the end of the summer of 1942, so the only real delivery constraint is how much the NSS can pump out - also its now me falling back on pre-existing depots that I can fill up in anticipation and collapse as I want.

I'll try and give one way that I think this is a game of choices and consequences that the t15 focus misses. At one level my Summer-Autumn 1942 was a disaster, I never made progress, I was constantly bogged down in ZoC and reserve reactions. Frankly it was boring to play (this phase is far more fun). But it generated opportunities that I am now cashing in. I clearly never got over-extended, Steven fought me where I had first rate supply, he actually lost an awful lot of men, despite no big gains I was taking out the equivalent of 3-5 divisions a turn. So the feedback loop is we are now at a 3-2 manpower ratio and if I'm prepared to gamble, I can actually overmatch him on a critical sector, hence the Poltava battles in the last post.

I've been meaning to do something like this for a while, trying to some produce some metrics by phase. So I've split this up into 6 periods, first 2 are obvious, then the summer 42 offensive, the relative stalemate that followed and the slowly shifting fighting that has followed. Losses are a bit hard to state given the dynamic of damaged men returning but its still informative.

Mainly due to the Stalingrad bonus (& of course I didn't have the related losses), my army is now the biggest its ever been (I've just sent T128 back) but I've not just stopped the Red Army growing, its shrunk down (& has relatively limited unallocated manpower reserves) - note the loss/turn ratio in the 'stalemate' period.

[image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/8329/pv8450.jpg[/image]

so, I'm not convinced that for the game as a whole there is any discernable bias, as opposed to patches that have had unintended effects. There is a huge amount of player agency and the tools to turn a situation around - and note the ratios over the last 8 turns as Steven has adjusted his tactics. But if the discussion is purely about German players winning early (or giving up - as is the depressing norm), well that overall balance gets lost in the noise.

edit: just to clarify, I've excluded my allies from the numbers but clearly they are in the losses, so a fair amount of my recent escalation in losses have been the Rumanians as I increasingly use them to absorb MP and CPP

Roger



carlkay58 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/20/2022 11:54:38 PM)

Beethoven1 -

My experience with the Soviets is limited BUT I do have concerns with setting Supply Priority 4 for everything does a few things that later on down the road could really cost the Soviets. The first is trucks and the wear and tear on the truck pool when the Lend Lease pools are small and the Soviets REALY need those trucks later in the war. The second is that infantry armies just don't really need that much supply. The Soviet artillery is not really working that well for them in 41 and not expending the amount of ammo that it could at full capacity. Very little fuel use and the common heavy and small arms that are available to the late 41 Rifle divisions just don't eat up that much ammo. Setting supply priority to 4 is overkill that will just drive a lot of truck breakdowns without any real benefits. The Soviets won't notice this until they try to start building those Mech and Tank Corps. Oh and the other motorized heavy units such as the rocket launchers, etc. Early 41 sees the Soviets with a truck surplus as the tank and mech divisions are essentially disbanded/downsized or set to the Reserves and their trucks stripped out. But this surplus will be eaten up quickly once the bad weather hits.



Beethoven1 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 12:36:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

My experience with the Soviets is limited BUT I do have concerns with setting Supply Priority 4 for everything does a few things that later on down the road could really cost the Soviets. The first is trucks and the wear and tear on the truck pool when the Lend Lease pools are small and the Soviets REALY need those trucks later in the war...

Setting supply priority to 4 is overkill that will just drive a lot of truck breakdowns without any real benefits. The Soviets won't notice this until they try to start building those Mech and Tank Corps. Oh and the other motorized heavy units such as the rocket launchers, etc.


I am not sure this is really true, based at least on the StB scenario.

Here are truck losses from 20 turns in the middle of winter of an StB game, where the entire Red Army was on supply priority 4 for the entire time, and the main Soviet offensive was also in relatively bad supply areas also with rough terrain (the north near Leningrad and the Toropets salient near Velikie Luki):

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/944578662622199861/945299422110158918/unknown.png[/image]

1021 trucks lost... You can easily lose more trucks than that from just a single tank corps (or division in 1941) being encircled and destroyed, something which can happen pretty commonly, and which the Soviets can certainly withstand. This is not to mention the fact that even if you are using supply priority 2 or 3, you will still lose some trucks, maybe not quite as many as 1021, but nevertheless some. So the true cost of supply priority 4 was actually less than 1021, since it should be compared to the number of trucks that would have been lost if hypothetically supply priority 2/3 had been used instead.

Either that number of 1021 trucks lost displayed in the logistics report is wrong or misleading somehow as to the true truck cost, or else the truck cost of supply priority 4 is really pretty negligible even later in the game and in winter.

It looks to me like, at most, the truck loss from using supply priority 4 for the bulk of the game might amount to meaning the Soviets can have maybe 1-3 fewer tank corps. That is not really a big deal, because you can just use the tank brigades as attachments to Guards Rifle Corps instead, and then you just have some very powerful Rifle Corps as an alternative.

Tank corps don't really seem that great, because they can't hold ground very well and Soviets have a hard time holding encirclements (as speedysteve has found). If you try to exploit too much with them, they will just get routed, which means Soviets take... a lot of truck losses. I understand that they become more resilient in 1944/45, but still it seems less than clear that having a couple less tank corps potentially is something that actually hurts the Soviets.


A final point to consider is, even if all of the above is wrong, does it matter if you have more of a truck problem as Soviets in 1943-45 if you have already won the game in 1941-42?



Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 12:51:18 PM)

Not to mention that priority > 2 allows to store more supply/ammo/fuel than 100% and units get more CV as a result.
More info in a main forum, where I gave a link that describes that there were problems with ammo and armaments like machine guns and etc.
Right now Soviets in 41 do not have any deficit of armaments and ammo, they have actually surplus of ammo in a units because of > 2 supply priority. It is reversed history.

Sorry for offtop Herr Loki and Comrade Steve .



Beethoven1 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 1:00:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

All my Pzr armies are on #4, the rest #3 - no need for subtlety now, I had every rail link repaired by the end of the summer of 1942, so the only real delivery constraint is how much the NSS can pump out - also its now me falling back on pre-existing depots that I can fill up in anticipation and collapse as I want.


This is interesting. In Bread's game where he was having trouble holding on as Axis in 1943, he was using supply priority 2 mostly with some 3. I wonder if that difference might have something to do with it.

Also, what are the Soviet supply priorities? If Soviets are not using supply priority 4, that means they will have lower CVs. Especially if Germany is using 3 & 4, that may be part of what is making it difficult for speedysteve to attack.

This is undoubtedly not the entire explanation even if it is true, but nevertheless may be more significant than one might think. I would guess that another significant factor may be that the front is pretty straight is also helping Germany, relative to StB, where the front line is very circuitous with a lot of salients. The fact that the front is straighter and shorter is presumably what allows Loki to keep Luftwaffe formations off the front and also to stack multiple units on key hexes, while also having Panzers in reserve rather than on the front line.

In StB I have found that Soviets can attack and win battles pretty easily (however it is a challenge to not lose too many men, because the Soviet manpower modifier is a lot lower in 1943, which is something that a lot of players might not appreciate fully). However, that is with the ability to pick on weak points when the front line is long, which is not the case in this game.



Beethoven1 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 1:01:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

[image]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/944578662622199861/945299422110158918/unknown.png[/image]


I also wonder what this looks like in the logistics report under the freight section for Soviets. How many trucks have been lost in the whole war so far from moving freight, and how does that compare to overall truck losses from the losses screen?



carlkay58 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 1:21:25 PM)

Beethoven1 -

That area of the Event Log is misleading you. I think it is the number of Trucks lost in Freight for that turn - not since the start of the game. It is also important to see how many vehicles you have in your Vehicle Repair Pool. Many times trucks go into the Repair Pool and then you lose some of them later as repair checks have them scrapped rather than repaired. It matters on how it affects the total number of Trucks available in the pool, how many are in units, and how many have been sent to the Repair Pool. This information is in the Production screen on the right hand side.



carlkay58 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 1:24:58 PM)

After some checking on previous game data it does appear that the Trucks Lost in Freight DOES go back to the start of the game. But in the reporting I was looking at that number would increase by 50 and yet the Vehicles Repair Pool would increase by over 4K for the same turn.



Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 1:26:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
...
I think it is the number of Trucks lost in Freight for that turn - not since the start of the game.
...

Agree, it is per turn. I don't think it is possible to know how many trucks were lost due to a freight delivery only from the start of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
After some checking on previous game data it does appear that the Trucks Lost in Freight DOES go back to the start of the game. But in the reporting I was looking at that number would increase by 50 and yet the Vehicles Repair Pool would increase by over 4K for the same turn.

Edit. My bad. I confused it with a units trucks used. Looks like indeed it is a history of truck losses.



Beethoven1 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 1:36:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

After some checking on previous game data it does appear that the Trucks Lost in Freight DOES go back to the start of the game. But in the reporting I was looking at that number would increase by 50 and yet the Vehicles Repair Pool would increase by over 4K for the same turn.


Yeah, I wondered about that too, and since this game is PBEM I went back and checked previous saves, and found that "Trucks Lost in Freight" increases each turn, and never seems to decrease. So it seems cumulative:

Turn 1 - 0
Turn 3 - 81
Turn 6 - 309
Turn 9 - 450
Turn 12 - 531
Turn 15 - 577
Turn 18 - 772
Turn 21 - 1021

It seems like either the trucks actually lost as a result of delivering freight are quite negligible (at least for Soviets), or else that something is missing/bugged about the display, or this is not showing what we presumed it shows.

As for the vehicle repair pool, I would think it makes sense that could increase by more than the trucks lost in freight, because some vehicles will need to be repaired even if they were not used in delivering supplies but were used for other things, and in addition a lot of the trucks that go to the repair pool are repaired and don't end up being lost.



loki100 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 2:47:29 PM)

there are 2 relevant numbers, truck losses in the freight line I believe are those connected to depot/depot deliveries, there is a much higher number which is truck losses in the logistics phase.

So T127 my logistics report was

[image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/1637/gaZ8c6.jpg[/image]

T128~:

[image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/274/ZeqPqu.jpg[/image]

So that is 21 trucks - as you'd expect low as that part of my logistics model is working fine and is really functioning just off the rails

but my truck losses in the 127/8 logistics phase was much higher

[image]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/3584/MFW4FC.jpg[/image]

Now that captures the minimal truck involvement in depot-depot and the much wider depot-unit usage, to the extent that the first number is irrelevant.

the ratio may well be closer for a Soviet player in 1941 as you probably are substituting a lot more but with your #4s you have a lot of trucks driving around.

So yes, the Tank/Mech corps are vulnerable in 42/43 (in 43 its less a TOE issue and more that is always the bad year for the Soviet medium tanks), but they are a lot more vulnerable if you destroyed the truck stock in 1941.

The Rifle Corps are a key asset to the Red Army but they are not going to reach Berlin that way. Look at my vs AI Axis game were by late 1943 I'd pretty much destroyed the Soviet mobile forces, even at 120 and tactical nukes, it all defaulted to losing a hex (2 at most) a turn = easy win vs the 1944 HWM test.



Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 2:55:07 PM)

does that vehicle counter includes losses from divisions retreat/surrender? If it does, then is it possible to check how many trucks were lost, not damaged, due to units grabbing supplies from a > 3 hexes range from a depot with enough freight?



loki100 -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 3:01:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

does that vehicle counter includes losses from divisions retreat/surrender? If it does, then is it possible to check how many trucks were lost, not damaged, due to units grabbing supplies from a > 3 hexes range from a depot with enough freight?


No, it is exactly as I said - my losses in the logistics phase, so nothing to do with combat, so its depot-unit transfers, some depot-depot stuff, depot-airfield



Stamb -> RE: T127 - counter-attacking can be fun (2/21/2022 3:06:58 PM)

aha, got it, forgot that there are different filters, and logistics phase is among them
thanks!



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 15 [16]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625