Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T20

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T20 Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T20 - 9/5/2011 10:15:45 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline 		Wow big improvement Larry

This the same guy that was kicking you around last game?

Me thinks you have got the hang of the game now.

Great Job.

Pelton

(in reply to cpt flam)
Post #: 361
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T7 - 9/5/2011 11:31:18 PM   
JKLilly

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 8/24/2010
Status: offline 		Hello all:

So this game isn't like the last one, is it? On the positive side, my mobile forces are in great shape. However, I captured nothing in Barbarossa. As soon as I recognized this, I called off the offensive with a view toward force preservation.

So the big choice for 42 is whether or not to go over to the offensive. In my last game, I took a decent position and turned it into a quick loss (vs. Farfarer) by attacking badly and aggressively just prior to the last mud turn (don't ask). Now I've got a much improved Fulkerson with a massive army.

Looking forward to spring.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 362
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T7 - 9/6/2011 2:07:40 AM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		JK was awesome and trapped two Front HQs and 50 good Divs in a Leningard isolation move that I thought I was proof against. Hubris will get you every time! It only went to sh*t for him when he accidentally attacked spring 42 one turn too early, so my exposed counter_attacking units were defended by Mud. That event fatally changed the initiative cycle in the early summer 42 campaign to Axis-reactive, vice Soviet reactive. We played about 6 turns where I had a pocket of 24 originally uber_divs isolated, unisolated, repeat so multiple Guards Divs are down to CV1 and Russian LB_cum_supply transports litter the ground. Guards Tank Corps are surrendering to his attacks.
I made a lucky thrust and connected those two cheesy Rumanian towns (Husi? Vlasi?) to the grid and poof Rumanian surrender. I began a long term unsupportable attack with the Kalinnin Front to take off the pressure in the south. Casualties were about 5M Sov to 2M Axis. JK resigned and I totally understood. All the turn after turn nail biting was over, my industry was off map etc., Red Army re-organized.

P.S. JK managed to keep an entire front at a Division per hex, none unready, for the whole blizzard. I could only broadfront push him back, no holes. As Axis, I have never made it without regiments on the front, rotating units, lowering TOEs etc.

PPS. Hope this isnt considered a thread hijack :)

< Message edited by Farfarer -- 9/6/2011 2:20:51 AM >

(in reply to JKLilly)
Post #: 363
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T20 - 9/6/2011 3:36:06 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Wow big improvement Larry
This the same guy that was kicking you around last game?
Me thinks you have got the hang of the game now.
Great Job.
Pelton

Yep, same guy. I got lucky this time and somehow always had units in front of his spearheads during the June '41 -> Dec. '41 push. Now I'm probably getting into trouble just before the spring Axis offensive by continuing to gain ground in the SW of Leningrad area. He's got Panzers nearby but I'm not sure they are fueled up ready to go. Probably.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 364
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T7 - 9/6/2011 3:36:51 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer
PPS. Hope this isnt considered a thread hijack :)

No, by all means post interesting stuff. This AAR needs interesting stuff posted in it.

(in reply to Farfarer61)
Post #: 365
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 4:12:51 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the turn 42 front lines before any Soviet movement has ensued:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 366
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 4:29:57 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I made a big effort to rail some people into this area and made big plans for a east-west front line just south of Talinin and KLilly just makes his own front line before I can make mine. It seems like a waste unless I make a big deal out of this. The people are there and the Axis fortifications aren't all that great toward the north end.......maybe I can get some traction here.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 367
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 4:48:27 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline 		If I was playing the Axis now, I would consider hurling 3 Panzer Armies against your forces southeast of Kiev that at least from this vantage point seems thinly defended.  A breakthrough and drive along the eastern bank of the Dnepr towards D-town would be posssible here and could threaten to unhinge your entire southern front. 

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 368
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 5:37:00 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I took a look at the Commanders Report under the units tab and sorted for kills highest at the top and it looks like most of the kills were made by the bombers and not the fighters. Does that mean that I have my fighters too far away from the Axis airfields?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 369
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 5:44:01 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's a Commanders Report listing all the Army and Corps HQ's and it looks like all the Airborne Corps have a 'CP' problem that I need to look at.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 370
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 5:56:37 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The 5th Airborne Corps is one of those above who had a 'CP' problem and as you can see below the 5th Airborne Corps has just 24 points of CP assigned just like I like it. I don't know why it shows up in the CR as having a problem. Anybody have an idea?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 371
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 6:19:40 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's my moves with an overlay showing my attacks:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 372
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 6:25:07 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the oob, losses, destroyed units, and production for T42:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 373
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 6:36:32 AM   
cpt flam


Posts: 2352
Joined: 1/16/2011
From: caen - France
Status: offline 		hi Larry
army have CP
but corps have 8 only
better remember that

_____________________________


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 374
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T42 - 9/6/2011 1:21:51 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cpt flam
army have [24] CP
but corps have 8 only
better remember that

Oh. I did not know that. Thanks. No wonder they are way over their CP allowance.

(in reply to cpt flam)
Post #: 375
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T43 - 9/6/2011 1:29:04 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the T43 front lines before any Soviet movement has happened:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 376
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T43 - 9/6/2011 2:26:22 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I did some Axis airbase attacks and some 1/2 hearted attacks that didn't go anywhere but nothing much changed on the map. Here's the oob, losses, destroyed units, and production:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 377
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T43 - 9/6/2011 6:01:00 PM   
Flapdrol

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline 		In the last two turns I count:
142K Soviet v 11K Axis
1500 Guns vs 400 Axis
100 AFV vs 0 Axis

What are you trying to achieve with the attacks? Am I missing something?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 378
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T43 - 9/6/2011 7:40:23 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flapdrol
In the last two turns I count:
142K Soviet v 11K Axis
1500 Guns vs 400 Axis
100 AFV vs 0 Axis

What are you trying to achieve with the attacks? Am I missing something?

Yeah, I noticed that as well. I thought the goal was to wear down the Axis through attacks even though they are costly. The last two turns the attacks are a bit more costly than usual. I guess I'm hoping to forstall any Axis attacks because the Axis units are a little too "worn down" to do any attacks. I'm leaning toward the notion that I need the better loss ratio ( at least 1:2 or better Axis:Soviet loss ratio ) before this technique can be considered successful. Otherwise I'm just losing people needlessly.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/6/2011 7:56:56 PM >

(in reply to Flapdrol)
Post #: 379
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T43 - 9/6/2011 8:27:25 PM   
Flapdrol

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline
I think that you don't quite need 1:2, you have most of your Armament Factories, since you hold most of the Motherland you must receive a lot of manpower every turn, and you have a pool full of tanks. But 13:1 definitely is not good enough.

BTW: Is there a way to get those 2500 armored cars in the line somehow? Or will they languish in the pool forever?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 380
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T43 - 9/6/2011 11:06:14 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		There is a very good chance that your figures Larry include YOUR attrition, but not the AXIS attrition. It's inflating your battle casualties.

I think the way losses are reported can be improved. Open the losses right when you open your turn, and it seems to "clear" the attrition losses.

It's tough to see the other guy's attrition losses

_____________________________


(in reply to Flapdrol)
Post #: 381
RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T43 - 9/14/2011 1:57:24 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
There is a very good chance that your figures Larry include YOUR attrition, but not the AXIS attrition. It's inflating your battle casualties.

I think the way losses are reported can be improved. Open the losses right when you open your turn, and it seems to "clear" the attrition losses.

It's tough to see the other guy's attrition losses

Yeah, I thought so too. I wish there was some way to have the losses broken out by type so you could tell at a glance what the attrition losses are. There must be a place where just that thing is done for us. Maybe at the end of the logistical report?

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 382
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T51 - 9/14/2011 2:03:50 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the T51 front lines before any Soviet movement. Notice the close similarity with the T43 front lines. KLilly and I aren't doing
much more than probing each others lines and maybe an air strike or two each turn. We're waiting for the mud season to really clear
away first.

EDIT: I've changed to the 1.05.18 beta version but I have no idea what KLilly is running. I hope that doesn't mess up anybody's data
taking. I'm pretty sure that KLilly went to the 1.05.18beta version too but I really don't remember what he said in his email. Let me
interrogate him again and get back to you.

EDIT 2: Yep, KLilly says he's on the beta too.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/14/2011 7:47:18 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 383
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T51 - 9/14/2011 7:41:50 AM   
Flapdrol

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/18/2011
Status: offline 		If I were you I'd start building a better defensive line with strategic reserves:
- I still see many stacks of 2 and 3 divisions in your front line. Shouldn't you be unstacking your front lines in order to create a deeper line? At this point, the Germans will not be stopped by a three stack, but he will be able to pocket more divisions.
- The divisions to the west of Lake Peipus seem very overextended to me: a simple drive to the northwest point of the lake (just to the east of the HQ) will cut off about 10 units. If he adds more panzers and also cuts north east from there, another 12 units get pocketed.  A tactical retreat to a three hex front above Lake Peipus would be much easier to defend.
- I would start building forts in Leningrad: it seems to be the only strategic objective that is in a reasonable range of a Spring/Summer offensive. Everywhere else you can give ground easily.
- Finally, you seem to have way to much troops above Lake Ladoga. Unless you are planning a spring offensive here, you can withdraw one hex, so you have a three hex front, leave three divisions and withdraw everything else to the main front. You have crippled the Finnish by killing four of their divisions: they are in no shape for an offensive. If they attack in the north simply withdraw...he cannot afford to lengthen the front.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 384
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T51 - 9/14/2011 7:45:17 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		oops.......double post


< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/14/2011 7:46:56 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 385
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T51 - 9/14/2011 7:59:16 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flapdrol
If I were you I'd start building a better defensive line with strategic reserves:
- I still see many stacks of 2 and 3 divisions in your front line. Shouldn't you be unstacking your front lines in order to create a deeper line? At this point, the Germans will not be stopped by a three stack, but he will be able to pocket more divisions.

Strategic Reserves: I bought a bunch of Rifle Divisions ( about 12 ) for the start of a strategic reserve so in a couple of turns they will be ready to deploy somewhere. Um........the stacks of 2 and 3 divisions........I've got a feeling in the back of my head that says that if I make my front line "crusty" or "brittle" it'll be harder to make the initial first break in the line. I'm thinking that if it's harder to get a breakthrough started I'm better off. But his CV's are climbing and I'm thinking my initial thought is full of crap. I don't think it's possible to prevent a breakthrough and it'd be better to try to mitigate the effects of his offensive thrusting by the use of a carpet defense. Thanks for noticing my follly and applying some verbage to it. I'll change up asap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flapdrol
- The divisions to the west of Lake Peipus seem very overextended to me: a simple drive to the northwest point of the lake (just to the east of the HQ) will cut off about 10 units. If he adds more panzers and also cuts north east from there, another 12 units get pocketed.  A tactical retreat to a three hex front above Lake Peipus would be much easier to defend.

You're absolutely right. Changes will be made as soon as it's my turn again.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flapdrol
- I would start building forts in Leningrad: it seems to be the only strategic objective that is in a reasonable range of a Spring/Summer offensive. Everywhere else you can give ground easily.

Sounds good to me my friend. I can use some of those guys around Lake Peipus to garrison the Leningrad area really well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flapdrol
- Finally, you seem to have way to much troops above Lake Ladoga. Unless you are planning a spring offensive here, you can withdraw one hex, so you have a three hex front, leave three divisions and withdraw everything else to the main front. You have crippled the Finnish by killing four of their divisions: they are in no shape for an offensive. If they attack in the north simply withdraw...he cannot afford to lengthen the front.

I had hopes to get around to the north side of Leningrad and destroy the rest of the Finn Divisions but their CV is too high to budge them. And you're correct I could use those troops better somewhere else. There's three Armies up there above Lake Ladoga and none of them is strong enough to do much good there. Changes are called for. Good catch.

(in reply to Flapdrol)
Post #: 386
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T53 - 9/17/2011 5:11:30 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've started a pull-back in the Lapland area




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 387
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T53 - 9/17/2011 5:15:01 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've also started a pull-back in the NorthWest Front. Most of those folks are going to the strategic reserve. I'm planning on having to rail them south to help plug a breakthrough in progress.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 388
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T53 - 9/17/2011 5:26:44 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Down near Kiev is where the breakthrough is occuring. I've done some pull-back but his tanks are wading through my troops faster
than they can retreat. You can see the presence of a substantial number of tanks in the horde that are going to Stalino I'm thinking.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 389
RE: 1.05.18 beta KLilly vs Fulkerson T53 - 9/17/2011 5:30:37 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the OOB, losses, and production for T53:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: 1.04.36 KLilly vs Fulkerson T20 Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.422